Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: mrwayne on April 10, 2011, 10:07:24 AM

Title: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 10, 2011, 10:07:24 AM
Well, I have not been to secret, and so I do not confuse myself, I need to explain a few things about my invention.

It uses multiple channels of water to transfer energy to the same number of air pockets, each air pocket is sandwiched between two pistons, the layered pistons apply a direct upward force on a hydraulic cylinder.

Each channel of water increases the "Head" and thus increases the pressure in the air pocket - to be clear each air pocket has a different amount of air pressure increasing in succession.

Since the greater pressure is in the lowest, each piston has a greater force than the one above it.

Now, this upward action of this set up is not much different than the same action you would get from a pneumatic cylinder.

10 psi on a 1000 inch (squared) piston will roughly lift 10,000 pounds - so will my design.

The main difference between my system and that cylinder is the down stroke, after the load is removed, the input is allowed to vent, my design keeps that exaust  pressure at exactly half of the input.

In our photo's you will see two Z.E.D.s that is because we use the exhaust pressure from on side to supply half the fuel for the other.

You can guess the net gain...

More tommorrow, it is late.

mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

www.mrwaynesbrain.com (http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 10, 2011, 03:54:36 PM
If I let the next part go unsaid - it would save a lot of trouble explaining......

As I said before - my machine physically acts like a pneumatic cylinder on the up stroke - that is only in outward measurement and repeatability.

The internal driving force of the machine is buoyancy.

Most people I meet think that Buoyancy is caused by discplacment - it seems to make sense - like saying walking makes a foot print.

It is pressure differential - acting upon a surface that makes buoyancy.

It is repeatable and true to expect roughly 62 pounds of upward force from a 12 inch cube of discplacement, the error that is often made is assuming the discplacement "causes" the upward force.

Yes a cube lifts 62 pounds that is because 12 inches of "differential" pressure is .43 pounds or 12 x .43 = 61.92

My machine layers the differential pressures so that 144 cubic inches of discplacement lifts 682 pounds.

The design makes "buoyancy" operate at values nearly exactly like a pneumatic cylinder.

What my design on the up stroke does - is important - it creates buoyancy - equal to the pressure times surface area -

"instantly upon adding energy" Normally - when dealing with buoyancy - you have a major set back on HP because of the fill and dump time add so much time to the process - it eats any gain you could hope for -

infact - I would say that straight buoyancy is under 30% efficient - just due to the fill and dump time.

I do not have that loss of time.

Oops - got to go to church.

More later.
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: protein_man on April 10, 2011, 04:21:25 PM
Look forward to a video or schematic. Good work.
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: e2matrix on April 10, 2011, 05:49:34 PM
Congratulations on your device and concept.  In looking at your device on the web site I see one thing that would be a concern unless this can be scaled up affordably.  It would appear from the size of the units (and I would expect considerable cost to construct units that large) that this may be a working overunity device but for only getting 500 watts it would be very expensive.  Comments?
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 10, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
I will think of what i can send - the internal of the tank is pretty ingenious ..Maybe I will send an AVI.

Very scale-able but this is not a small system - you could use it to produce hydrogen fuel for free, but not fit this thing in a car.

It could replace a cruise ship motor, tanker ect.

The only way to make this thing affordable is to use it for large loads, or large demands.

That is why we call it a "base power" free like wind and solar - just running all the time.

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on April 10, 2011, 08:16:53 PM
On the website http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/demonstration-model it is claimed that the demonstration model generates 500 Watts. But how much power is put in to make the "hydraulic fluid" flow? There seems to be at least one pump (photo 3/7) which needs electricity? In a contraption in which several Kilowatts float around easily some 500 Watts show up somewhere.

What I see is an idea which needs a lot of money to be built and no substantial proof so far that it will work, just words or concepts.

Whatever it is, the strange thing is, that the inventor posts in an open forum, dedicated to disclosing how a machine works, but does not give any details.

I never understand why inventors enjoy talking in riddles. Does the inventor think he can get money from this forum by making bald claims? Does he want to satisfy a strange urge to be in the center of attention?

So, what does the inventor want? If he had a working machine, he would not need to hang around here. People would beg him to take their money or he would be taken away by men in black (depending on what you believe will happen in case OU is really found).

Nobody has to give away his ideas for free, but why boast, when it has to stay secret. What sense does it make to say "I have something but I am not going to tell what it is"? This is the worst advertising an inventor can do. This is how you loose all credibility. What idiot invests because of a web site that says nothing?

It is very clear which companies, universities or government institutions would look into credible claims, no website necessary. Even for very modest "innovations" you can easily get funding (of course you have to show something). I know some people who got money for new sensors, even training equipment or ways of drilling holes in a mountain. If there is something, money flows in. And these people just filed their "innovation" with the local "chamber of industry and commerce (innovation section)". Specially "renewable energy ideas" easily find funding if credible. And if you believe in a conspiracy, go to the "green party", they would love to present a "new energy source" in case it really worked (because they would get a lot of political bonus out of it, but they are of course not prepared to believe in words or concepts).

Any technology that really worked was immediately believed and funding was never a problem. It sometimes took decades till a technology was useful and profitable (some never were), but proof was always available. But in the so called "OU field", every now and then someone comes and wants to sell secrets instead of proof.

And a new "secret" appears in this forum every few months and always disappears rapidly because it turns out to be an illusion at best or a scam at worst. No men in black necessary.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 10, 2011, 08:16:57 PM
I hope I do not get lost - jumping around.

The next thing that must be understood is that when you are "creating buoyancy" you are discplacing a fluid - usually with air.

Yes, the pressure differential acts on the horizontal surface unequally to cause an upward lift, but that is not the only thing going on - the fluid is moving out of the way, and the air pressure is equalizing to the "Head".

In my design, when we are filling the Buoyant part, we are moving the water level higher - that increases the internal pressure because it increases the head.

Head is the depth of the fluid, do not confuse that with the "height" of the fluid....

You can have depth without much height - an example take a 50 foot water hose and coil (three foot diameter) it onto a wall rack  - both ends up - now imagine the water level "transparent hose" fills the lower half of every ring, and air is present in the upper half of every ring.

The pressure in the bottom most of the hose would be 1.5' head  x .43 psi = .645
The pressure at both ends of the hose is 0 psi, the pressure is in the air pocket is 0.

Since you would have about 10 wraps of hose - how much pressure would it take to move the water down one side and near crest the other?

And what would the pressure changes be?

Each hose ring would have the potential to resist 3 feet worth of head, 10 wraps = 30 feet of head 30 x .43 = 12.9 psi at the end closest to you - and the pressure would drop the same each layer.

You measure 30 feet of head pressure at three feet high.

more later
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 10, 2011, 11:07:46 PM
Thank you Conrad for you analysis........you left out a little,  Greetings anyway, I do not think you are trying to hide anything.

I always have a hard time waiting until Christmas to open presents....... Sounds like you and I have something in common.

Be patient, I have had to explain this to 18 engineers, and they always ask the same questions - which is what I am covering first.

To sum up what I have said so far:

Creating buoyancy is not locked in design by the volume of discplacement. Instead :having a pressure Differential acting upon a horizontal surface translates into a upward force in water.

Water and air behave differently when a force is applied - water transfers the force and will compress air, Air stores energy and can pressurize water.

Head pressure can create pressure, and the head can be separated by air and retain its pressure building property.

The machine is big - not for cars, not for single homes, not for airplanes

The machine is powerful, one could power an apartment complex, be used to generate hydrogen fuel, power a cruise boat, or hooked in series to power a city.

The 500watt model is not for sale - unless someone wants to buy the company.

I have also said - just having the idea is not enough, even building it is not enough, you need a support network and a team willing to verify and spread the word.


My motivation to share this with all of you - is purely to validate what each of you have dreamed is possible, and just maybe - you will direct me to the like minded  people who will join the company.

I am nobody, But I am sincerely concerned for the worlds need of energy, and the impact supporting unsustainable and unsafe energy production.

Lastly - I am not concerned about what other people think about my efforts, no disrespect - but if I were to listen to all the nay Sayers -I would have never tried.

I have tried and succeeded, and It took a year to get all of my ducks in a row, legal protection, business plan, web page, share certificates, LLC and I am building the business team now.

You may not of realized it, but you are the first group of people I have shared this with - outside of my respected community.

I am not surprised by the way I am treated - even here - everyone thinks money will just fall from tree's when the O/U discovery is made. To use the need of money to deny a claim is unexperianced reasoning.

Have any of you offered to help, not yet, most everyone is looking for the fault.

Skepticism is a sign of intellect, but facts are little more reliable -and more important.

Finally - I will show you - in between meetings, I chose this group from many to release the discovery too.

More later.

Mr Wayne

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 10, 2011, 11:45:48 PM
Dear Mr Wayne ,
many thanks for sharing it here.

But I have not yet understood your principle.

A video or a few more graphics would really help.

You must know, that many of us are skeptical at your
principle cause there were many ideas before your own,
which turned out not to work, although they were very
ingenious.
So the skepticism is of course very high and
only a good video or pictures that show exactly
the working principle could get you many more followers and helpers.

As you already have a patent, it would really help
to see a video with some spoken explanations.

Many thanks in advance and looking forward to see more.

I still have the hope that somebody can crack the trick or law
of buoyancy.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 03:14:21 AM
I agree, but what about internationally?

Do you see the same protection?
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: baroutologos on April 11, 2011, 08:42:01 AM
@ inventor,

Very liked your last reasoning. please, go on..
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on April 11, 2011, 10:07:10 AM
Dear inventor:

You say: "- even here - everyone thinks money will just fall from tree's when the O/U discovery is made. To use the need of money to deny a claim is unexperianced reasoning."

What we get over an over again is:

- It would work if I put in more money.

- It just has to be made bigger to work which needs money.

- The principle is clear, I just need money to build it.

- It only needs one more thing to work which I can not get or build without money.

- This shows how it should work in principle, but I can not build the real thing without money.

And so on, you probably understand what I want to say: It is difficult to get money for a principle which yet has to be shown to work.

Money comes in easily if there is substance. And the substance has to be pretty tangible in case of an OU claim because the OU-world is full of misguided individuals. Yes, we all want a new clean reliable and affordable energy. But a mere wish or intention will not be funded.

A working machine will make its way. But I doubt that one single individual will get the credit and the financial benefit. Like with all "discoveries" (in contrast to an "invention"), it needs many thinkers to bring it from concept to a useful technology.

Who "invented" electricity? Who "invented" atomic energy? Who "invented" the hydroelectric power station? Who "invented" the wind mill? Who invented photo voltaic? Who invented the steam engine, the combustion engine? There might be individuals who mad a big contribution, but they were never alone. A "new technology" is not "invented", it is "developed" over time by many people and in many ways.

The biggest idiocy in our time is "I invent something and then I will be rich". This can be true for a gadget (based on well known technology), but never for a "new technology".

Yes, financial rewards seldom fall in the right place. But this is a political issue and has nothing to do with "technology". Only the little guy has to follow the rules. The powerful ones just take what they want. You can never beat that with "ducks in a row".

So, what should a "inventor of an OU-device" do? I do not know, I have never seen one who did it right! First of all, I have never seen a working OU-device. And once we really see one, I am sure that  it can not be hidden. Who then reaps the benefits? I am sure it will not be us the people! And there will be hundreds of inventors and patent holders.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: baroutologos on April 11, 2011, 10:21:19 AM
@ Condra,

you certtainly express a point based on what the man said, but i think lets give him a chance to explain the principle shall we?]

it maybe require large sums of money (lets assume for now) to run this machine cost efficiently, but a prototype i suppose could be constructed with a minimal amount of money and some tinkering right?

If that is not the case, even the inventor bears some real allien technology, since it cannot be easily replicated it would fall to the theory zone anyway.

ps: I suppose you have heard Kapanadze's last Hydro Ou alleged machine. perhaps it works on same technology? (how many could be there?)
Is that technology (fluid based) could be also sought at the electrical equivalence for easy replication or just try for an experiment (since electricity has astonishing resemblence to fluid mechanics)

ps2: this site by default goes to twilight zone. Everything said here should be treated with some tolerance. Otherwise, by default OU is out of the question so no need to talk about it, right?
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on April 11, 2011, 10:57:21 AM
@ Condra,

you certtainly express a point based on what the man said, but i think lets give him a chance to explain the principle shall we?]

Sorry, if I sound like a denier. I state what I need to see to make me believe. A investor has to see even more than me (a very tolerant searcher for OU).

The inventor wants to be believed. This is a lot to ask in case of an OU-claim.

If someone wants to explain his "invention", I am more than ready to listen. But I do not listen to "secrets" or "things that have to be protected". If you have a secret, keep it. If you have something to protect, hide it. But then, do not talk in riddles. Disclose it or seek investment (by help of nondisclosure agreements). There is no middle ground. The middle ground is gibberish and make believe. There are thousands of books and web sites talking about OU, they just can not deliver. I do not need more of that.

I am not making any rules, I state my unimportant opinion. Everybody can do as he pleases. For me there is no explanation without disclosure. But I do not demand disclosure, I demand consistency when something is said. "I have OU, but I can not tell you" is nonsense, that makes me sad. I have seen and heard it too often.

If people like to talk in riddles, fine, I will not take part in such a discussion. But many seem to like that. Fine, no problem. I will not interfere. If I have said to much, my apologies.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 11:12:34 AM
Conrad, very well said.

If you would like to see my working device - you are welcome to come on over, I love sharing the discovery, No one has gone away disappointed.

As far as experience of so many come and goes........ is that not with every attempt at innovation.

The process of discovery if full of failures, measurement errors, misguided at temps, and over optimistic claims.

When someone does hit it just right, like the "intermittent windshield wiper" .....no one worries anymore about the effort it took, the diligence it required, the tenacity to not give up. And yes, a big company comes and gobbles them up.

I wonder how many truly great ideas have went away from a need to fund, or to get people to listen.

I do not claim to have all the answers to the problem, but I do have a very over unity device.

A very good point you made: "Bigger"

When I built my first attempt - it was a "full scale bucket brigade" with modern improvements - that was before I truly understood how buoyancy worked - I have Photos. I learned a great deal with hands on and practical application.

(I am on design number seven - and it is works very well) I would say that I am an expert on what does not work, as well  :)

One thing I heard from critics, and have confirmed with my physical research is that if it does not work on the small, it will not work on the big - (with a little disclaimer - your drag in a over all system does not reduce at the same rate as you can reduce the design).

And in functionality - if drag is going to be an issue - your machine is not worth the effort to build.

My models 5 and 6 were also over unity, (125) those designs each had four energy conversions, at the end of the day - the only thing I had to "sell" was $300 worth of electrons (a year) from a $35,000 dollar machine.

Very much a waste of time, my goal has not been to disprove the laws of physics, but to build a system that produces in an abundance.

I am going to post this chat, and go back to explaining my system.

Thank all of you for the interest. It is en courageing.

Mr Wayne





Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 12:18:34 PM
The principle of operation.

The water hose example I gave earlier is critical to understanding my process. Please review it if you did not already consider it.

I am going to use real numbers from the Z.E.D. in the photo's on my web site.

The Inner chamber(where all externally applied force is applied -{input}), has a horizontal surface area of 707 square inches. and is 20 inches tall.

It is the open end of the hose where force is applied (hose example).

When that Z.E.D. is at rest (fully down), the internal pressure is 1.8 psi Due to head pressure this pressure cannot be removed - unless the system is drained or reversed (vacuum applied).

1.8 psi is not sufficient to overcome the weight of the upward mobile parts - so in Essence, it is sunk (an absence of buoyancy).

In this position, as in the water hose, we are at rest - with no real work potentail, other than the natural head.

When air/or water is injected into that chamber - the displacement moves the first body of water and results in a transfer of the the "applied force" to the next pocket of air, that air is pressurized and the energy is transfered to the next body of water, that water transfers the force to the next pocket of air, that air stores the energy and so on through the system.

Each pocket of air has stored energy, each body of water does two things, transfers the energy and adds back pressure (head) to the internal chamber.

Successively, as in the water hose example. The greatest pressure is in the center and has a pressure drop equal to the additional head - until atmosphere is reached - the end of the hose.

This process is called precharge, it requires an input volume up to the volume of the second body of water from the center chamber - if this volume is exceeded, water will be transfered to the air pocket - and blow the operation. Since pressure must be overcome to blow over, limits on the input pressure solve this problem.

Each successive body and air had to be sized to match the different circumference, and match that volume to the different pressures successively.

Water volume is a constant controlled by clearance, air volume changes with pressure (roughing it worked) but our modeling of our large system was much more precise (higher efficiency).

Prior to this point - the only work that has occurred has been input - we are completely buoyant at this point, held in place by resistance to the "float" by hydraulic pressure - until our upward force exceeds the minimum.

Opps, you do not know where the buoyancy cam from, two places - first we raised the water around the system - twice its original depth, and secondly, we applied the air pockets (pressure) - individually to horizontal surfaces.

The forces combine and are centered at the shaft to the hydraulic cylinder.

That covers our precharge - work prior to stroke.

The volume required to create the lift is determined by how much you want to lift - my little Z.E.D can lift 7000 pounds, or 500 pounds -  the resistance at the hydraulic cylinder limits the force that can be created, it also regulates the input.

If addition effort (pressure and voluem is input) and the required force is exceeded - the hydraulic cylinder captures the force and transfers it it to the accumulator.

The accumulator is where you set the system pressure - and you must match the diameter of the hydraulic cylinder to to force applied and the pressure needed.

The little Z.E.D. has a cylinder with a piston surface area of 4.9 square inches, so if we wanted to operate at 7000psi, we would produce  7000/4.9 =  1400 psi hydraulic.

That number is ideal, and leaves no room for error in chamber sizing, our little model was tested in four ranges, 1,100, 900, 700, 500 psi.

We changed the accumulator pressure set point to control the system pressure.

In conclusion of the recharge status,

Couple of notes:

On our demo model, the volume of input required to reach fully charged is 1/11 of the total requirement to stroke.
(and yes the bigger models are more accurately sized - thus have an even better ratio).

The pressure required is directly related to the newly created head, which also translates to the output force.

4 psi in the precharge translates to over 3200 pound force in actual measurement - if you do the math my inner chamber has only 707 square inches, and we are lifting a series of layers, so the 4 psi x the 707 square inch's does not match = 2828 - load, this is because each successive layer is larger in diameter than the next - so the upward force has a larger surface area than the downward force between layers.

Most of the extra lift is eaten up in the process of lifting layers and overcoming static pressure on the hydraulics.

Yes, the increasing large surfaces areas do create overunity by themself - but as I said about my last two models, nothing to sell.

The real gain comes later,

This may seem like a lot of work to do slight better than a pneumatic cylinder - well that is because - it is not the lift that I had to overcome in my design:

The second hurdle in using buoyancy to generate energy - HOW DO YOU SINK AN OBJECT THAT IS NORMALLY BOUYANT - WHILE MAINTAINING THE FIRST HURDLE - HOW DO YOU REDUCE THE VOLUME REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OBJECT BOUYANT?

I bold these, not to yell - but they are the right questions that had to be answered to make my overunity device work.

I stumbled (during my early models - how to overcome the volume issue - lots of applications to that design. It took down right hard effort and lots of real MONEY to answer the second.

Thank God the first discovery was enough to convince people to help.

More later.

Mr. Wayne







Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: gyulasun on April 11, 2011, 12:57:59 PM
....
The Inner chamber (where all externally applied force is applied -{input}), has a horizontal surface area of 707 cubic inches. and is 20 inches tall.
...

Dear MrWayne,

English is my second language and I am a 'metric, SI' guy so I wonder whether "Imperial" guys use cubic inch for quantifying surface area instead of square inch?

And later in your description, you use that cubic inch data for further calculations like this:

Quote
...
The little Z.E.D. has a cylinder with a piston surface area of 4.9 cubic inches, so if we wanted to operate at 7000psi, we would produce  7000/4.9 =  1400 psi hydraulic.

That number is ideal, and leaves no room for error in chamber sizing, our little model was tested in four ranges, 1,100, 900, 700, 500 psi.

and

Quote
...
4 psi in the recharge translates to over 3200 pound force - if you do the math my inner chamber has only 707 cubic inches, and we are lifting a series of layers, so the 4 psi x the 707 cubic inch's does not match = 2828 this is because each successive layer is larger in diameter than the next - so the upward force has a larger surface area than the downward force -
...

so I wonder if these calculations are still ok?  I ask this because in metric system it is not at all the same if I use cubic centimeter for measuring Volume instead of square centimeter for measuring Area.

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 01:05:55 PM
Dear Conrad,

I do not think I was talking in riddles? Maybe I talk too much, I have been accused of being long winded ;)

But you make a very good point, it has made me pause, should I disclose this or keep it secret?

I have no reason to disclose my discovery, I do not need you to validate my working proto type?

My intentions are obvious and stated:  To Bring Free Energy to its proper Revolution, my plan is marketing, licensing, and manufacturing the machines.

It appears that your advice is - if I truly have "over unity" I should keep it a secret to protects the rights.

You could be right.....it does make sense - in a self preservation mindset.

Little personal note:

I struggle with the wisdom of sharing/secrecy.

If you share, you risk loosing your control of the substance, if you do not share, you risk loosing the benefit to the world.

My motivation for this invention is not for my personal gain, but I also invested five years of my life and nearly my entire portfolio to get the point I am at, with the expectation of using it to provide for my family.

I do not think it is wrong to hope for an income from the discovery, and if I can do that and disclose - I will.

I thought solving the sink issue was hard, now I am darned if I share, darned if I don't?


From your advice, I will discuss the operation - but not share the inner design.

I will remain glad to share with anyone that comes to see and signs a NDA, and I have never charged a person.

I do expect the right person to show up that has the same vision, and the ability to execute it, or help me execute it.

I have made many copies of everything and distributed it, for protection.


Thanks for your input.

I think i will still do a video -everyone already can figure out what free energy would mean to the world, we don't need a bunch of hype, just get it done, manufacturing - and the right people.



Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 01:10:20 PM
Yeah, thanks on the cubic inch correction, I meant "Square" I was thinking surface area not diameter of the cylinder and it just came out Wong.

Thanks I will fix it.

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on April 11, 2011, 02:38:05 PM
mrWayne
Yes ,You need to decide If you're Open Source,That's the theme here.
The amount of people that come here and do what you are doing is unbelievable,And we never see a device in public [not once]!

People work their life away for a meager paycheck ,and if their lucky a watch after 25-30 years.........
Your work of the last few years Can change the whole world forever!

Comes down to a Choice.
Wisdom?? [you already Know the right thing to do!]
It will take Courage
Courage Springs Forth from Love!

Chet

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 02:58:18 PM
Thanks Chet,

Can anyone answer - legally ...

Does "open source" mean giving up your rights of inventorship?

Such as implying you are giving it away freely?

Can you share your discovery without giving up the rights to it?

I understand it can be copied as soon as the first production model is out of my protection?

what are the limitations of this forum, in protecting an inventor, who wants to share, but not throw it away?

I am in the process of mutually signing a non disclosure for a green company in Australia, does that lose all value here?

Wayne

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on April 11, 2011, 03:12:38 PM
Buddy,
Unfortunately you need to see a lawyer,And in the long run.. The lawyer will be the Guy that makes the Money on this!
Par for the Course!

Good luck!

Chet
PS
Tell you what,There is a Guy Up in Canada "Thane Heinz",From Ottawa University
He also has a "Tidal" device ,Look him up .
Several people here have gotten Patent info /offers of help from him.
We thought he was Open Source also?
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: core on April 11, 2011, 04:25:21 PM
Thanks Chet,

Can anyone answer - legally ...

Does "open source" mean giving up your rights of inventorship?

Such as implying you are giving it away freely?

Can you share your discovery without giving up the rights to it?

I understand it can be copied as soon as the first production model is out of my protection?

what are the limitations of this forum, in protecting an inventor, who wants to share, but not throw it away?

I am in the process of mutually signing a non disclosure for a green company in Australia, does that lose all value here?

Wayne

Since the explosion of the internet the patent protection/ inventors protection is a bit murky. If you write about your idea on a forum or web page it is considered 'Published'. If published you must wait one year prior to patenting.

Regardless, I had a family member who worked for a patent company and there is a seldom spoken process that most company's don't want you to know. It is called 'Poor man's Patent' and this is something anyone can do for cheap. Also it puts the Government on YOUR side.

The 'Poor Man's Patent' is legal in the USA I'm not sure about other countries. It goes like this.

Step 1:
Define your invention in complete detail on paper. Include print-outs of this forum and pictures. Do not be lazy here, it must be in DETAIL as it would be used in a court of law. You must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the idea is yours.

Step 2:
Place all data in a US postal office envelope, you will be mailing this to yourself. The post office will 'stamp' your envelope with a 'Date' (very important) Note: When this happens it becomes Government certified.

Step 3:
When you receive the package in the mail 'DO NOT OPEN IT....NEVER!!!!!' This is a sealed Government certified package.

The purpose If someone takes your idea, even a company, you have a SEALED document Government and TIME stamped that contains enough information to prove 'Who' is the inventor. This package must only be open in a court of law by a judge Only a judge can open the sealed document. If you tamper with it 'You lose' keep it in a safe spot until that day comes.

Above is 100% legal but not known by many.

Regards and good luck.

Core

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 04:31:49 PM
You are right, I will ask my lawyer.

To date, my attorney has charged me some where over $24,000 on this one patent.

He is expensive, but at least he is honest - he originally refused to "waste my money" by patenting another "over unity device"

After he and his engineer team (NDA) studied my machine, performed the patent search and they did come to the house (demo), they insisted on being the patent lawyers - but not for free.

I pray I am the exception to the rule.

All I know for sure- it wont be the design that stops me. 

Thanks and greetings.

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 04:57:58 PM
OK, the real over unity device is going off line.

If and when I am sure it is safe, I will release all IP here, you all deserve to know.

Concerning the Z.E.D. it requires seven square feet of air at atmosphere (prior to compression) to complete a stroke.

The compressed PSI is of course set by the resistance to the travel, the travel stroke length is also determined by the pressure.

So my internal design converts 7cf of air into Buoyancy - that lifts equates to 4 psi = 3200 pounds and travels eleven inches, 7 psi = 5500 pounds at 8 inches.

Those are the real world numbers - and the weight of moving parts has already been subtracted.

That is not much more than a standard air cylinder - the difference is - the exhaust.

When the system is topped out -(the hydraulic system has stored the upward force), the system doe not reverse itself.

in fact the inner most chamber is forced downward when its pressure drops - by the head pressure in the layers above it.

This causes the layers to separate and continue to push down during entire exhaust.

It is like a loaded spring releasing.

We use that air to assist in the operation of the other Z.E.D

In short the Exhaust supplies over half of the power needed to raise the other side.

And then we switch directions.

Less than half of the energy captured in a single side going up is used to supply the input energy.

All of our input is performed hydraulically, and all of the energy the generator (ran by the excess) produces is free.

No compressor, no noise, and the only wear parts - besides the electrical generation - is the seals in the four hydraulic cylinders.

I have four cylinders, two larger, and two half that size, the larger captures the energy, the smaller assist in pushing the air to the other side.

pretty simple to verify. one stroke for one stroke.

I think I will leave the rest as Conrad said - Secret for the protection.

But I am willing to share with most anyone with a non disclosure.

mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

You will see the old rule of thumbs going away, and those of you that just knew it in your hearts - are right.

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 11, 2011, 05:22:51 PM
Thank you Core,

I believe the patent laws were just changed to - "first to file" is awarded the patent.

This was just a month ago, they took out the "moment of inspiration".

Which is why the poor mans method worked.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on April 11, 2011, 08:51:11 PM
Dear Conrad,

I do not think I was talking in riddles? Maybe I talk too much, I have been accused of being long winded ;)

But you make a very good point, it has made me pause, should I disclose this or keep it secret?

I have no reason to disclose my discovery, I do not need you to validate my working proto type?

My intentions are obvious and stated:  To Bring Free Energy to its proper Revolution, my plan is marketing, licensing, and manufacturing the machines.

It appears that your advice is - if I truly have "over unity" I should keep it a secret to protects the rights.

You could be right.....it does make sense - in a self preservation mindset.

My advice: Disclose fully or stop saying anything in public!

You say: "my plan is marketing, licensing, and manufacturing the machines."

If this is your plan, you should not say anything in public before you have patented (in multiple ways) and manufactured many useful machines.

It just does not make sense to talk about something which one is not prepared to explain and proof in all details. Doing this just angers people because you want their consent or admiration without making it possible to check your claims. "Sharing" and "trying to make money" are two pairs of shoes, if you want to wear both you look funny.

If you want or need money, stay with the money makers and stop showing off in public. First of all, erase your silly website. It scares away all serious investors. And people who think about OU hate it even more, because it is a tease.

If you want to share (which means giving up all claims and all control) prepare comprehensible documentation of all necessary details and hand it out for free so that people can make their own experiments. You will want as many independent replications as possible (in order to be believed) and you will want as many people as possible to try to make money from it (which will make the device reasonably priced). Many people do not realize, once truly and fully disclosed, nobody can patent it any more. And of course, nobody has any hold over it any more. There can always be patents on new details, but who needs them, there are always alternatives.

From your rumblings, insinuations and riddles, I gather, that you seem to believe in a new principle of using buoyancy to generate excess energy. If this principle is valid, there will be endless ways to take advantage of it. You will only be able to patent a few ways of using this principle, never all possible implementations. So, eventually it will be out of your hands.

If I had invented an OU machine I would go for publicity, handing out all information for free in order to stay credible. But I am an old man who has enough to live comfortably.

My opinion: if you want to make money, buy something for 1000 Dollars and sell it for 10.000 Dollars, you will live comfortably with this 10% gain. (The point of this silly advice: in order to make money, you do not even have to understand how to calculate percentages, you just have to be prepared to take advantage of somebody.) In other words, either make money or try to be a good guy, you can not be both. The money maker who wants to be liked is a sorry sight. And the good guy who wants to do good for money is even worse.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on April 12, 2011, 11:52:34 AM
The contradiction or the wish that can not be fulfilled:

The inventor of an OU device wants to be believed, but he does not want to give away the details. But without knowing the details nobody can check his claim and therefore nobody will believe him.

Remarks:

The inventor of an OU device says "I do not have to proof anything to you". Yes, you have to proof everything for free if you want me to believe. The way out: the inventor has to give up the silly wish that I should believe him without irrefutable proof.

So, if you have invented an OU device and you do not want to give away every tiny little detail or secret, stop asking people to believe you. Stop wanting to be admired. Stop rambling, stop insinuating, stop seeking the consent of people who can not form an opinion, because they can not check what you claim.

So, if you have invented an OU device and you want to make money from it, stop the silly wish to present yourself as a "savior". Stop playing the guy who wants to save the world. Stop playing the guy who does it for my good. Be a good business man and make money if you can. I can deal with any business man if he can sell me something I can use or something I think I need. If this something is not yet ready for practical use, well, keep it, I wont buy it. A business transaction has its own rules, which have to work out if you want to succeed.

If you want to sell something, "believe" is not an option. The device must work, it must deliver what you promise, there has to be a warranty in case it does not work, the life span of the device has to be reasonable, repair service and guaranty period has to be offered, and so on.

Ahh, your device needs further development, it is not ready to be manufactured and sold.

Well, why do you need me to believe you? Why do you need my admiration, I (and the general public) will never invest. You only have to convince an investor (and not me or the general public).

And according to my experience with investors, they have their own personal likes and dislikes. Some even are prepared to believe tall stories, because they have too much money and like to play a risky game every now and then (like gambling). There, with the investors, you play your "make believe game", your "energy revolution tale", your "I have found a secret" story. Money makers are suckers for secrecy, they will like it, they believe in "lets protect this secret first".

If you want fame, you have to give away the reasons for your fame for free. If you want money, keep your secrets and talk to people who believe in money.

My opinion, why OU is the worst possible choice for money making:

If ever we find OU, it will be a new source of energy or a new way of transforming one kind of energy into an other kind of energy. In other words, it will be a new law of nature not yet discovered.

Once this is discovered, there will be millions of ways to use that principle and it will take decades till something really useful comes out of it. The "discoverer" (who may see himself as an "inventor") will not be believed for a long time. Mainstream science and public opinion have a high inertia which needs first of all "time" to be overcome.

You can not patent a law of nature (or a principle), only a way of using that law by help of a contraption. And there will be endless ways of implementing a principle. There will be thousands of patents.

It is by no means assured that the discoverer of a new law of nature will get credit for his discovery. Clever business men will come out with it with a new name and a new spin. Mainstream scientists will present it in their own words and claim fame. Hundreds of people will claim that they have found it before you. Many will sell books about it.

Well, I think I have made myself more than clear.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: baroutologos on April 13, 2011, 08:15:54 PM
unfortunately, Conrad speaks the ultimate truth.

My bet is you never going to make big money out of any OU device. Not the amounts you though anyway.
your best business bet is to sell custom based devices locally or with small and agile businesses.

Seeking large corporations to sign multi-million dollar deals is a dead-end i am afraid. On the other hand if you share it, you may risk to lose rights and large sums of "potential" money, but certainly be my hero. (especially if i can replicate that :P )
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on April 13, 2011, 09:27:41 PM
Thank all of you for your help!

I have been contacted by open minded people - looking for the anomaly - proof of the impossible.

Dear Conrad,

I did not join this furum for philosophy, or for self - engrandment - but to share the joy of my hard research.

I recognize "small pie" thinking, and most of the time it is right, logical, pessimistic, and seemingly wise.

We need to encourage others, at your age you understand a great deal, be careful, no man plants a tree that he expects to climb, but instead he thinks of future generations.

I choose to be "Naive" because at heart, I am an adventurer, explorer, motivated by discovery of the unknown.

It is sad when Experience suppresses others, you may think you are helping, you can never know, one day someone will succeed, - but how much wiser it would have been to help those willing to try, rather than dash dreams.

What was the cost to you, nothing.

What was the real cost of failure - nothing,

and the real cost of giving up - everything.

I can not imagine that this forum was created, and joined by a group of people to watch, proclaim, and ensure that others fail.

I love trouble shooting, solving problems, - I find no room for impossible.

Even if I had failed myself. I would choose to believe it was eventually possible myself.

Live long and strong!

Wayne





Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on April 14, 2011, 02:16:33 AM
Wayne
Thanks!

Keep us in the loop!

Chetkremens@gmail.com
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on April 14, 2011, 11:38:50 AM
Wayne says: "I can not imagine that this forum was created, and joined by a group of people to watch, proclaim, and ensure that others fail."

Wayne says: "but to share the joy of my hard research"

Wayne says: "one day someone will succeed, - but how much wiser it would have been to help those willing to try, rather than dash dreams."

The only thing I say (over and over again): As a mentally sane person one can not believe in something that is not disclosed in every detail.

Since you do not want to disclose every detail, what is there to discuss besides "philosophy", "insinuations" or "metaphors"?

I do not want you to fail, in the contrary, I tell you what is possible and what is not possible (so that you can succeed):

-------------------------------
It is not possible to make people believe in something they can not understand and check in every detail.

It might be possible to convince someone to give you money (but this most probably needs keeping the secret).
-------------------------------

In order to make people believe in the unknowable (in a secret that is not disclosed), founding a religion is much better.

I do not want to interfere in this thread, because some might enjoy to talk "philosophy", "possibilities" and "I tell you it works". Therefore, over and out!

Conrad
Title: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: MileHigh on May 23, 2012, 06:06:52 AM
Links and text from Stefan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkxrLzcp0Z8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUj42h6j7Y

<<<
Z.E.D. Zydro Energy Device.principle video 1

This is the principle used by the Wayne Travis ZED device built at:
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)

As you can see it needs less air to be pumped under the plastic-bucket
and has  the same lift energy capability and thus you get an energy gain, as you don´t need
much pump energy to bring the air down there...

THE ZED device uses this principle to self-run self-looped.

Well done Wayne and team !

Regards, Stefan
>>>

Wayne Travis seems like a really nice guy but he should be investing his time and effort somewhere else because his theory is not correct from what I can see!  Others may disagree with me.

Perhaps someone can explain where the mistake is and then pass the explanation back to him.  I would hate to see him spend serious money on this project!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: Ghost on May 23, 2012, 06:18:01 AM
Links and text from Stefan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkxrLzcp0Z8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUj42h6j7Y

<<<
Z.E.D. Zydro Energy Device.principle video 1

This is the principle used by the Wayne Travis ZED device built at:
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)

As you can see it needs less air to be pumped under the plastic-bucket
and has  the same lift energy capability and thus you get an energy gain, as you don´t need
much pump energy to bring the air down there...

THE ZED device uses this principle to self-run self-looped.

Well done Wayne and team !

Regards, Stefan
>>>

Wayne Travis seems like a really nice guy but he should be investing his time and effort somewhere else because his theory is not correct from what I can see!  Others may disagree with me.

Perhaps someone can explain where the mistake is and then pass the explanation back to him.  I would hate to see him spend serious money on this project!

MileHigh

why can't you explain and pass it on to us.
Also it looks like they already have a working machine.
He needs to Open Source his machine.
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 23, 2012, 12:21:06 PM
I posted with permission from Wayne the 2 principle videos to my youtube account at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkxrLzcp0Z8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUj42h6j7Y

Also the hard skeptic Mark Dansie says that this device works.



 The main effect is that only the height of the air in the plastic cup counts !
Not the volume ! So you only need to pump a very low amount of air under the plastic cups
which needs very low amount of energy. Then you can gain the massive lift energy by buoyancy which is much more than the used pump energy to get the air inside the platic cup.!
So you have a big energy gain there !
Hope this helps...
Also have a look at their website for more informations.

 

http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
Thank you for your concern.
We completed the closed looped system in November last year.
We just finished our Data collection/Alpha Model.
It was the best use of our money ;-)
Buoyancy is caused by pressure diffirentials x surface area - not by volume
Archimede's describes the "least amount of lift from a volume of air" much overlooked, which is what the "Travis Effect" demonstrates.
Wayne
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: neptune on May 23, 2012, 03:10:31 PM
Either I am thick, or I am missing something here. There are two inverted vessels in a tank of water. Both contain air, one is about three quarters full of air, the other contains only about one twentieth as much air . Both are prevented from floating to the surface by a two pound weight. You could have a third vessel with no air in it at all, that is,full of water. It too could be held in position by a two pound weight. What would that prove?
        Please will someone help me to understand what is being claimed here.
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 03:47:35 PM
Not thick, just missed the key point.
Look closely at the begining of Tom's second Video, be careful to notice the Repulsive force he describes.
That force is proportional to the total lift in the container with 24 oz of air.
In your example 'the weight on a cup filled with only water' does not have the repulsion.
 
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: MileHigh on May 23, 2012, 04:30:42 PM
Wayne:

The problem with your system is that the repulsive (or buoyancy) force in the inverted glass with the very small amount of air in it is not the same as the repulsive force in the glass that is filled with air.

The glass that is filled with air provides this repulsive force for the full travel of the glass from the bottom of the aquarium to the top of the aquarium.

The glass that has the small amount of air in it provides the large repulsive force as long as it does not move upwards.  The moment it starts to move upwards the repulsive  force starts to decrease rapidly.  After the glass has moved upwards about one centimeter, then the "extra" repulsive force is all gone.

So the glass with the small about of air in it can only do a small fraction of the buoyancy-related work (upwards force x displacement) as compared to the glass that is filled with air.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: johnny874 on May 23, 2012, 04:43:31 PM
Wayne:

The problem with your system is that the repulsive (or buoyancy) force in the inverted glass with the very small amount of air in it is not the same as the repulsive force in the glass that is filled with air.

The glass that is filled with air provides this repulsive force for the full travel of the glass from the bottom of the aquarium to the top of the aquarium.

The glass that has the small amount of air in it provides the large repulsive force as long as it does not move upwards.  The moment it starts to move upwards the repulsive  force starts to decrease rapidly.  After the glass has moved upwards about one centimeter, then the "extra" repulsive force is all gone.

So the glass with the small about of air in it can only do a small fraction of the buoyancy-related work (upwards force x displacement) as compared to the glass that is filled with air.

MileHigh

  MileHigh,
 Am willing to bet you that if a colored liquid were poured into the bottom of his containers that it would show there is a depression around them. This depression would ensure that the there is a flat bottom for them to stand on. You know, other wise they might tip over if filled with your favorite refreshment. You can tell this by the curvature at the bottom.
 But pushing air downwards is not trick. While he mentions ounces, it would actually be if he were using a liquid of that volume.
""many air-density tables state the density of dry air to be 1.25 kg/m3. That's equal to 0.000 722 546 ounce/cubic inch.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_volume_of_air_that_weighs_one_ounce#ixzz1vhiYNqNh
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 04:47:47 PM
"The glass that has the small amount of air in it provides the large repulsive force as long as it does not move upwards.  The moment it starts to move upwards the repulsive  force starts to decrease rapidly.  After the glass has moved upwards about one centimeter, then the "extra" repulsive force is all gone."
You are right, very wise, My invention solved this, as well as a few you have not yet commented on  ;)

Wayne
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: johnny874 on May 23, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
"The glass that has the small amount of air in it provides the large repulsive force as long as it does not move upwards.  The moment it starts to move upwards the repulsive  force starts to decrease rapidly.  After the glass has moved upwards about one centimeter, then the "extra" repulsive force is all gone."
You are right, very wise, My invention solved this, as well as a few you have not yet commented on  ;)

Wayne

  Correct me if I'm wrong but you're relying on hydraulic theory. ie., if a tube has a surface area of 10^2" and has 10 lbs. of force applied to it, then it has a lift potential of 1lb. per ^2 inch. And if the surface area is reduced to 5^2", then it has the potential of 2lb. per ^2 inch, right ?
 With your demo, once lift has started, the surface area changes because the insert does not rise with the vessel being lifted.
It's funny though. With what I am working on, I can pump 2 lbs. of water over 20" high with a 1 lb. weight dropping 4 inches.
 Still, I am after a working device (Bessler's Wheel) and not merely a demonstration of known theory. After all, hyraulics is used in many fields to multiply force well above what most people would think is achieveable. Even pneumatics is used which is merely air or an inert gas replacing a liquid which is not compressible.
 @All, a pic of how containers are designed for mass production to ensure they are stable.
 
edited to add; almost missed it myself, oops  :o 
 Since the air is being compressed by the water in the tank, by decreasing the surface area of the water acting on it, it decreases on a proportionate scale the work it can do.
 This simply means the insert reduces the work the compressed air can do so it has no advantage over not using the insert. Why it can't possibly work.
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 23, 2012, 06:03:33 PM
Here is now the video of the Wayne Travis ZED device in action:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSy_33t86gc


It was first shown in the last Smartscarecrow show last Thursday night.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 06:24:43 PM
MrWayne: I have a few questions. First, is there a video of your device in operation for a reasonable amount of time, powered or unpowered?

Next, some particulars:

Does your device require an external source of power? For example, do you need to run a compressor to store some compressed air, are there water pumps running, is there a big battery or a mains connection?

For how long does it "run" when it is not attached to an external power supply, including a tank of compressed air?

When it stops, why (or how) does it stop? Is a reservoir depleted, has the friction become too great, or like that. Or does it simply keep on running when it's disconnected from its power source? If the latter, PM me and I will start piling money into the armored car to bring to you.

These are questions concerning the current operation of a real device, not the theoretical predictions of how it will perform once you've got the kinks worked out. Do you have a "self runner" now, that requires no continuing source of external power, yet it continues to operate, producing useful work?



Now I also have some "theoretical" type questions about the demonstration of the cups in the aquarium and the operation of the system.

You do realise that whenever you do the work to submerge a volume of air, you also are _lifting_ an equal quantity of water an equivalent height, right? In fact it is raising this water that causes the "repulsion" you feel when you are pushing the air-filled cup down in the water: you are lifting a cup "full of water" to the top of the aquarium.

Now, imagine a spherical glass ball with a large hole in the bottom, like your cup but only spherical. Fill it with water and submerge, placing the weight on top. Now bubble air into it from underneath until it is neutrally buoyant. You now have "lift" that is equal to the weight. Right?
What happened to the water you displaced with your bubbles? If you carefully note the water level of the external container, you will find that it has risen, from its low point when the sphere was full of water, to a higher point now that the sphere is full of the air you pumped into it. In other words, when you pumped the air into your chamber, you pumped an equal quantity of water OUT, all the way up to the top of the external container. This represents stored energy. It is in the water that you lifted, NOT so much in the air.
Now.... introduce a balloon into your neutrally buoyant sphere of air. Start pumping WATER into the balloon, displacing the air in the sphere. Does the sphere become more buoyant during this process? What happens to the water level in the external container when you do this?
Or.... don't use an inner balloon or a pump at all, just make a little leak in the top of the sphere. As the air runs out and water runs in....  does the sphere become more buoyant during the process? What happens to the water level in the external container when you do this?

Thanks in advance--
--TK

(Yes, that's right, the disinformation campaign that has been trying to keep me distracted and confined to a single thread is breaking down and I am escaping once in a while to check activity in the "real world" of PM motors, buoyancy drives, gravity wheels and functionless electronic circuits.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 23, 2012, 08:23:16 PM
Yes Wayne, would be interesting to know if the shown ZED device in the posted video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSy_33t86gc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSy_33t86gc)

is still having external valves control via external batteries or grid power and
what is the total input energy this way and what is the total output energy.

Many thanks.

Regards. Stefan.

P.S: I have merged the 2 threads about it now into this one.

Title: Re: Travis Effect Videos - Alleged over unity buoyancy effect
Post by: johnny874 on May 23, 2012, 08:29:44 PM
MrWayne: I have a few questions. First, is there a video of your device in operation for a reasonable amount of time, powered or unpowered?

Next, some particulars:

Does your device require an external source of power? For example, do you need to run a compressor to store some compressed air, are there water pumps running, is there a big battery or a mains connection?

For how long does it "run" when it is not attached to an external power supply, including a tank of compressed air?

When it stops, why (or how) does it stop? Is a reservoir depleted, has the friction become too great, or like that. Or does it simply keep on running when it's disconnected from its power source? If the latter, PM me and I will start piling money into the armored car to bring to you.

These are questions concerning the current operation of a real device, not the theoretical predictions of how it will perform once you've got the kinks worked out. Do you have a "self runner" now, that requires no continuing source of external power, yet it continues to operate, producing useful work?



Now I also have some "theoretical" type questions about the demonstration of the cups in the aquarium and the operation of the system.

You do realise that whenever you do the work to submerge a volume of air, you also are _lifting_ an equal quantity of water an equivalent height, right? In fact it is raising this water that causes the "repulsion" you feel when you are pushing the air-filled cup down in the water: you are lifting a cup "full of water" to the top of the aquarium.

Now, imagine a spherical glass ball with a large hole in the bottom, like your cup but only spherical. Fill it with water and submerge, placing the weight on top. Now bubble air into it from underneath until it is neutrally buoyant. You now have "lift" that is equal to the weight. Right?
What happened to the water you displaced with your bubbles? If you carefully note the water level of the external container, you will find that it has risen, from its low point when the sphere was full of water, to a higher point now that the sphere is full of the air you pumped into it. In other words, when you pumped the air into your chamber, you pumped an equal quantity of water OUT, all the way up to the top of the external container. This represents stored energy. It is in the water that you lifted, NOT so much in the air.
Now.... introduce a balloon into your neutrally buoyant sphere of air. Start pumping WATER into the balloon, displacing the air in the sphere. Does the sphere become more buoyant during this process? What happens to the water level in the external container when you do this?
Or.... don't use an inner balloon or a pump at all, just make a little leak in the top of the sphere. As the air runs out and water runs in....  does the sphere become more buoyant during the process? What happens to the water level in the external container when you do this?

Thanks in advance--
--TK

(Yes, that's right, the disinformation campaign that has been trying to keep me distracted and confined to a single thread is breaking down and I am escaping once in a while to check activity in the "real world" of PM motors, buoyancy drives, gravity wheels and functionless electronic circuits.)

>>  You do realise that whenever you do the work to submerge a volume of air, you also are _lifting_ an equal quantity of water an equivalent height, right?  <<
 This is wrong. He is displacing an equivalent amount of water. Height is relative to the surface area which helps to determine the volume in the tank.
 An example is if there are 2 tanks and one has the surface area of 1 square foot and the other 10 square feet, the tank with 10 square feet of surface area would have it's water level lifted 1/10th that of the tank with 1 square foot of surface area.
 Also, the surface area of the tank, is it more or less than the surface area of air in the cup ? This would give a ratio as to any rise in height of the water in the tank being displaced.
 
                                                                                                                                          Jim
p.s. In theory, what Wayne has proposed is theorhetically possible. I would think though that using purely mechanical means to demonstrate the system is 100% isolated would be helpful.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 23, 2012, 08:41:22 PM
Wayne just emailed me about the sound his machine did in the video:

Stefan,
 
 My only problem with that video - we had dry bushings on the new cylinders -
 that one is embarrassing to me.

==========

Well I told him, it is better to hear the machine in operatiom than to mute the sound...

With oil or graphite in the bushings this moining sound would probably be gone.

Anyway, I hope he will answer a few questions about the total input and output power.


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 08:42:17 PM
A video will not show anything but the external functions. Inside the ZED the Travis effect is used to act as a pressure increaser - not in the simple form shown in Tom's demo -instead we have a much inhanced version.
We were in the middle of a DOE when we filmed this video, so I am a bit emberrassed that it is being shown.
The "Travis Effect" is what made it possible.
Yes, we do maintain all pressures, and build excess pressure - no external inputs, and no emmissions.
I know this is an Open source site, I am not open sourceing, I am keeping a promise to Stefan 9allowing his group to see our O/U machine.
Those parties who wish to get involved can contact Mark Dansie, or myself in regards to joining our team.
With proper NDA, and constructive valid intentions, we will disclose to process.
Otherwise I have to protect our current interests and so I can not disclose our process completly to this or any other site.
Please do not ask, and do not profane me for being professional.
Each Engineer that has reviewed our process states that we are ten years ahead of the competition, I would like to keep it that way for a while.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 08:55:08 PM
Well, you are right. Maybe they are pulling my chain.
But they put their money where their mouth is..... and they are extremely respected individuals in the technology field.
Another point - who is my comptetion in the free energy field - do you have one currently being Alpha tested..... makes a difference.
Now that you make the point - it is kind of a silly statement, unless you realize they just confirmed/with their "credentials on the line" to their peers that we have a fully functional O/U device.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 09:05:21 PM
Stefan asked me about input and output,
Now this will make sense to all of you, no input.....
Back in May/June of last when Mark flew over the first time, we had a demo model which had the sole purpose of testing the input and the out put.
By that standard we were good then, but the barr was raised - as I see very often - If it is really exceeding the input - then it should be able to run itself - and then some.
So from June till November we installed HMI and controls to enable a self running system - it was crude and I can share the video of that model running out side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)
This was a competly self runner - the video man is Mark Dansie.
Then the bar was raised again - clean it up, secure it, and add data collection - we finished this week.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 09:14:41 PM
"Well i don't care about  their "credentials or what they say or confirm, untill i see it with my own eye's, and since you are not into sharing the principles it's not worth my time and money to get involved.
Like you said a video proves nothing."
Nobody is asking you to believe, and we are keeping a promise here to Stefan, not trying to convince you.
We are not the tooth fairy - do your due dillgense, ignore, or watch from a distance. But slander what you do not know or can not find out from your comfort zone is poor manners, and is illogical.
Good day.
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 09:53:04 PM
 My Desire, and my companies vision, is to bring Energy Independence, through our clean technology to those that are wise enough to seek it.
It has not changed since the first discovery, nor through the many hard trails and discoveries that came along the way.
Please do not compare us to those that did not invite - openly - the pure peer review of skepticism.
We were vetted - before we allowed others to help.
I am sorry for the example that others set: And I would warn to be even more cautious in coming months - Our discovery was fraught with obstacles to overcome - and our own engineer argued feverishly over ever solution I invented - until he saw it work.
If someone thinks they have free energy and tries to ride on our success - Make sure they are vetted.
We have proven that O/U can be mechanically accomplished  - that should open minds once again - but not at the expense of proper and due diligence.
 (not to you - I understand, but to those involved)
Peace and blesssings
 
Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 23, 2012, 11:02:11 PM
Yes Wayne, would be interesting to know if the shown ZED device in the posted video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSy_33t86gc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSy_33t86gc)

is still having external valves control via external batteries or grid power and
what is the total input energy this way and what is the total output energy.

Many thanks.

Regards. Stefan.

P.S: I have merged the 2 threads about it now into this one.

From Wayne
No, neither of the systems are connected to an external source - the system does have a small battery to run the computer and valves, the internal battery is recharged by the generator and also runs a load.

Many Question keep returning to a gride connected system - those are not closed looped.

ZED is a Close looped system - no externals - with excess production.
That model is only Demo, meant only for testing - not engineered for longevity.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: sidneo on May 24, 2012, 01:15:41 AM
Hi mrwayne,

Very nice work here from what i have observed in your video explanation i can already see theoretically 3 mechanical ways to exploit this effect to build selfrunners in a small scale and maybe more efficiently (water pomp, water turbine , and depression turbine in the last case no water involved) . I am sure many other engineers out there will come up with many other ways to use it. So what i suggest you is to open source your project allow replication and spreading and benefit from your platform  you can still make as much money or even more with this project open sourced by building a strong community around you then a patent license because people will easily exploit this effect anyway just follow the examples of the computer industry you will succeed. someone says here an effect can't be patented and he is right .In your case the great achievement seems to be the discovery not the invention.


tnx Sid
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 24, 2012, 03:15:06 AM
Wayne:

Quote
"The glass that has the small amount of air in it provides the large repulsive force as long as it does not move upwards.  The moment it starts to move upwards the repulsive  force starts to decrease rapidly.  After the glass has moved upwards about one centimeter, then the "extra" repulsive force is all gone."
You are right, very wise, My invention solved this, as well as a few you have not yet commented on

How did you solve it?

Please don't be offended but I can tell you what the pattern is.  You will not reveal how the system allegedly works and before too long we will never hear from you again.  Eventually your web site will disappear.

James Kwok and his alleged "Hidro" system and I think there was a guy Simon Wu that was convinced that he invented "pendulum power."  They are both out of the picture now, presumably because nothing ever worked.

If you want to be real you have to provide credible evidence that you have something.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on May 24, 2012, 03:15:28 AM
I note the presence of the one item that no free energy overunity machine seems to be without: a battery.
 :-\

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 24, 2012, 03:18:43 AM
Wayne:

How did you solve it?

Please don't be offended but I can tell you what the pattern is.  You will not reveal how the system allegedly works and before too long we will never hear from you again.  Eventually your web site will disappear.

James Kwok and his alleged "Hidro" system and I think there was a guy Simon Wu that was convinced that he invented "pendulum power."  They are both out of the picture now, presumably because nothing ever worked.

If you want to be real you have to provide credible evidence that you have something.

MileHigh
I note the presence of the one item that no free energy overunity machine seems to be without: a battery.
 :-\
and cue the trolls...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: sidneo on May 24, 2012, 03:32:34 AM
the Travis effect is = expand air on a larger surface you create a depression and increase buoyancy physic 101.
just like a hot air balloon. many other people have used this principle for their devices some of them are even discussed here on this forum sadly there is more theory here than experiment .to build a device all you have to do is to displace the air from a low surface area to a bigger surface area vice versa the increased  buoyancy will provide the required energy to displace . the energy is in the air it self .

Good day.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 24, 2012, 05:26:21 AM
Wow,
My system does have a small 12v battery, to run the HMI, that runs the valves and track the data.

Something most people realize - that we are running a hydraulic motor - Self powered, a Generator - self powered, - a dual pumping system with a surface area of 525 inches - self powered, a HMI with to valves 25 sensors and self powered - hydraulics self powered, and burning two light bulbs self powered .....while creating a force of 5500 pounds and capturing it - self powered.....

And someone takes the time to complain of a batterythat can not possible do all of that.....you have witnessed an impossible machine.

When I was young an old man told me the boat left shore and both the people on the boat and the shore thought the other was shrinking.

Nice to smile
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 24, 2012, 05:28:23 AM
the Travis effect is = expand air on a larger surface you create a depression and increase buoyancy physic 101.
just like a hot air balloon. many other people have used this principle for their devices some of them are even discussed here on this forum sadly there is more theory here than experiment .to build a device all you have to do is to displace the air from a low surface area to a bigger surface area vice versa the increased  buoyancy will provide the required energy to displace . the energy is in the air it self .

Good day.

Thanks for the comment.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 24, 2012, 07:19:44 AM
Wayne:

Quote
My system does have a small 12v battery, to run the HMI, that runs the valves and track the data.

Something most people realize - that we are running a hydraulic motor - Self powered, a Generator - self powered, - a dual pumping system with a surface area of 525 inches - self powered, a HMI with to valves 25 sensors and self powered - hydraulics self powered, and burning two light bulbs self powered .....while creating a force of 5500 pounds and capturing it - self powered.....

Is "HMI" human-machine interface?  If the valves are solenoid valves don't they consume a moderate amount of power when they are energized?  Do you know what your average battery power consumption is?

Reading your quote above I can speculate something like this:

<unknown energy source> -> dual pumping system -> hydraulic motor -> generator -> two light bulbs

So is the "unknown energy source" your special effect in action?  Honestly, it looks like a really tempting place to put a tank of pressurized air.

Note you say the HMI and the valves and sensors are powered by the battery, and then you say the HMI and valves and sensors are "self powered."  So which is it?

Quote
while creating a force of 5500 pounds and capturing it - self powered.....

The above statement doesn't make any sense.  Just mentioning force alone has no meaning.

Do you have any preliminary specifications for your device?  As you can see from above, there are several issues with your quoted text.

Thanks,

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on May 24, 2012, 11:26:34 AM
Gen charges the battery to drive the control system?

Video cam + Ustream to show 24/7 working?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 24, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
Hello Milehigh,
 
You missed the point, so I must be very poor at explaining things.
here is what I was trying to point out - The ZED has no input and we have at least five clear energy conversions (losses), or power drains in the system, we are performing an enormous amount of work (more than a 3 inch by 4 inch 12volt battery can provide). 

Each of the components have ineffiecient systems in themselves - the sum total of losses through well known equipment - is more that the battery could handle - unless as you pointed out - hidden power - or excess energy from somehwere - in our case - The Travis Effect - fully understood and utilized.

Even in the video Mark Dansie made of the last model, back in november, Mark laughed in the video about our weights - (which were a successful attempt to capture the ramp of the power curve at long strokes - they are gone because I invented a better solution with our new one ZED).

To the observed and unnoticed point:
You see - we were moving 900 pounds of weight back and forth - continuosly - self sustained - free energy and all the things (losses) I mentioned above about this unit.

If the only thing you knew was that we were moving the weight (just the weight) completley free - you would realize you were seeing the potential source for abundant free energy that this world needs.
Some people see a water fall, wind, Solar, volcanic heat, all have potential - all have one common attribute - work is being done - with no input from us.

I saw the potential in a the Travis Effect, caused by gravity - we just had to think of a way to capture it - and after much expense (nearly a half million dollars) and hard work - thousands of experiments - we succedded. (I have had nearly 100 people volunteer, and help through the process).

The best part is - the resiliance of the design - we do not have a system that barely runs and slowly runs down - what good is that? We have one that we are scalling to meet the power demand.
We overcome obvious losses in the system and then do extra work.

I am glad if you can see it, it is for the world,  what is right before our eyes - is the future of energy production  - one day - believer or not - you will at least be able to tell your grandkids - I was there.

Pressurized tank - Ok - you got me - did not think anyone would notice that lol
But seriously I do get your point, and I respect it - to be clear - We have had complete and unimpeded full and thorough inspection of our systems. If you were under NDA, you could check for yourself.

I understand first - you have not had complete access - uninhibited access.
He who has nothing to hide - behaves accordingly - but professionally with due dillignese NDA.

Do not forget - We prove it on paper using simple and also complex physics. (note to future free energy inventors - if it does not work in the simple math - it will not get better in the complex).

We have fully modeled the scalability of the system of 25kw, 50kw, and 100kw systems.
It take about 45 minutes to explain the succesful use of the Travis effect - most of that time is explaining the progression of the machine how we overcome the inherint obsticles to it use.

At the end of the disclosure - a common statement is - "It is amazing it (free energy) is that simple" followed by "How did you think of it?"

Which I answer with lots and lots of trial, failure, persistance, and a big dose of God's blessing.

I am not going to dissapear and loose the web site like some else claimed, but I have taken two days out of my time while the crew performed DOE's without me - if you want to be kept up to date with our progress and partnerships

Write me at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
Ask Sandy to add you to our private update list.

Otherwise - God bless you all, I have enjoyed our time together.
Thank you Stefan for your part of all this.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: sano on May 24, 2012, 03:14:07 PM
In childhood, we had a toy. Bottle, the bottleneck (from wine) are filled with water. In it, we put a small bottle closed with an elastic surface. We have a small bottle filled with water with a little air. The bottle had to float in water. If we push the stopper in a large bottle (we have created pressure), a small bottle went down like a stone. If we allowed the stopper (we created a vacuum) competed bottle quickly to the surface. I think it is the principle of work ZED.
Sorry for my imperfect English.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on May 24, 2012, 03:39:10 PM
What Sano is describing is a toy "diver". We used to use the globe of a torch bulb with the brass bit removed . You placed it in a bottle full of water . As you tightened the stopper, the diver would sink. Water was being forced into the bulb through a small hole in the glass at the bottom . Slackening the stopper caused the diver to rise.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 24, 2012, 06:31:53 PM
Hello Milehigh,
 
You missed the point, so I must be very poor at explaining things.
here is what I was trying to point out - The ZED has no input and we have at least five clear energy conversions (losses), or power drains in the system, we are performing an enormous amount of work (more than a 3 inch by 4 inch 12volt battery can provide). 

Each of the components have ineffiecient systems in themselves - the sum total of losses through well known equipment - is more that the battery could handle - unless as you pointed out - hidden power - or excess energy from somehwere - in our case - The Travis Effect - fully understood and utilized.

Even in the video Mark Dansie made of the last model, back in november, Mark laughed in the video about our weights - (which were a successful attempt to capture the ramp of the power curve at long strokes - they are gone because I invented a better solution with our new one ZED).

To the observed and unnoticed point:
You see - we were moving 900 pounds of weight back and forth - continuosly - self sustained - free energy and all the things (losses) I mentioned above about this unit.

If the only thing you knew was that we were moving the weight (just the weight) completley free - you would realize you were seeing the potential source for abundant free energy that this world needs.
Some people see a water fall, wind, Solar, volcanic heat, all have potential - all have one common attribute - work is being done - with no input from us.

I saw the potential in a the Travis Effect, caused by gravity - we just had to think of a way to capture it - and after much expense (nearly a half million dollars) and hard work - thousands of experiments - we succedded. (I have had nearly 100 people volunteer, and help through the process).

The best part is - the resiliance of the design - we do not have a system that barely runs and slowly runs down - what good is that? We have one that we are scalling to meet the power demand.
We overcome obvious losses in the system and then do extra work.

I am glad if you can see it, it is for the world,  what is right before our eyes - is the future of energy production  - one day - believer or not - you will at least be able to tell your grandkids - I was there.

Pressurized tank - Ok - you got me - did not think anyone would notice that lol
But seriously I do get your point, and I respect it - to be clear - We have had complete and unimpeded full and thorough inspection of our systems. If you were under NDA, you could check for yourself.

I understand first - you have not had complete access - uninhibited access.
He who has nothing to hide - behaves accordingly - but professionally with due dillignese NDA.

Do not forget - We prove it on paper using simple and also complex physics. (note to future free energy inventors - if it does not work in the simple math - it will not get better in the complex).

We have fully modeled the scalability of the system of 25kw, 50kw, and 100kw systems.
It take about 45 minutes to explain the succesful use of the Travis effect - most of that time is explaining the progression of the machine how we overcome the inherint obsticles to it use.

At the end of the disclosure - a common statement is - "It is amazing it (free energy) is that simple" followed by "How did you think of it?"

Which I answer with lots and lots of trial, failure, persistance, and a big dose of God's blessing.

I am not going to dissapear and loose the web site like some else claimed, but I have taken two days out of my time while the crew performed DOE's without me - if you want to be kept up to date with our progress and partnerships

Write me at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
Ask Sandy to add you to our private update list.

Otherwise - God bless you all, I have enjoyed our time together.
Thank you Stefan for your part of all this.
Wayne

  Not sure if it's sad to say, but Bessler realized 300 years ago that bellows could pump. It's in his drawings. He did show using a lever to increase the potential of work a bellows could do. Nothing new with what you are saying.
What I am working on is ahead of you easily. What I think is that your device is missing something. One thing that you can point to that shows clear energy potential increase. Like using leverage as Bessler did to have useable energy. With you, it's not clearly visible.
As with Bessler, when his wheel rotated, the weighted levers were reset. Generators require torque to operate as they do rotate (today's goal).
 My experience has taught me the more elaborate the explanation, the more likely it is not to be genuine.
 
                                                                                                                                      Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 24, 2012, 07:10:16 PM
Hello Jim,
Good luck with your 'better' project, you must be 20 years ahead.
Food for thought:
Do you know how much volume it would take to lift 5,500 pounds using buoyancy? Even just six inches, and be able to repeat it again all in under 6 seconds? That means fill - rise - vent and then sink.
If you do, take that volume - divide it by 40, and you are half way to matching the reduced input required in the "Travis Effect".
What does the term "troll" refer too?
Wayne
 
The Bellows cost $900, a 30 inch dia cylinder cost $19,800 - simply a choice of movers.
 
Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on May 24, 2012, 08:18:31 PM
I would describe a "Troll" as someone whose posts are always negative and argumentative, whose sole purpose is to disrupt and deny.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 24, 2012, 09:10:59 PM
Hi Wayne,
many thanks for posting the video from
Mark Dansie !

To all the skeptics here on the thread, if the "over-skeptic" Mark Dansie says, that it works, I just believe him
and he has seen and measured it at least 2 times how much I have heard !

I have grabbed 2 pictures from the recent video and enhanced them  where one can now better
see the Wattmeter being shown, showing 29.1 Watts.

Wayne is this the power lighting up the 2 red bulbs above the Wattmeter ?

So this is the current power output from the generator above it ?

Is the generator driven by the water going through it  ?
Does it have a gearbox to speedup the RPM, cause it is running pretty slow ?

Also if this is not open source it is the first device I finally see, that works contineously on
buoyancy and does not spill the used water...

Maybe it has really to do with the air pressure changing in the Travis effect and thus
extracting its energy more on a calorimetrical process by cooling the water and thus converting
the heat of the water to mechanical energy via the Travis effect.
Just cooling so much water down by 1 degree Celsius should give you a few KWatts of output.
And the heat will always flow back to the water from the outside environment...

Well done !


Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 24, 2012, 09:33:40 PM
Hello Jim,
Good luck with your 'better' project, you must be 20 years ahead.
Food for thought:
Do you know how much volume it would take to lift 5,500 pounds using buoyancy? Even just six inches, and be able to repeat it again all in under 6 seconds? That means fill - rise - vent and then sink.
If you do, take that volume - divide it by 40, and you are half way to matching the reduced input required in the "Travis Effect".
What does the term "troll" refer too?
Wayne
 
The Bellows cost $900, a 30 inch dia cylinder cost $19,800 - simply a choice of movers.
 
Wayne

   Considering I had surgery interupt my build, troll is what peole do when they go fishing. My father did it for many years as well as work at Boeing in their R & D department. I also worked at Boeing and do know something of what it takes to develop an idea.
 As far as what it takes to lift, as I have mentioned on here is that water can be displaced. For some reason, your aquarium did more for the people in here to consider that.
 What Bessler realised is quite simple ( I have spent a few years on it, so it is to me  :D ), but using leverage allows someone to actually pump up water to a height greater than the weight dropping drops. You're a diver, you should know that water's pressure doubles at 33 feet in depth. This means a column of water 33 feet high has twice the pressure at the bottom as at the top. Basic math. What this means is that to pump water to that a height equalling 1 second of gravity is a weight with twice the mass as the water has.
 In this example, a water column holding a pound of water would require 2 pounds of pressure to have equilibrium, right ?
Then if 1/2 pound of water drops from 16.5 feet, how much work can that perform ? That is a lot of potential and something I see missing in your invention. Specifically, that a static head is not created that creates an opposing force greater than the potential that created it.
 Just talking engineering Wayne, don't see a need for name calling, but since you do have a patent, am not sure why people have a difficult time understanding the specific discovery you made that allows for overunity. By the way, sorry to say but the money you spent only lets us know you have deep pockets.
 
edited to correct mass
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 24, 2012, 09:47:08 PM
Hello Stefan, Hello Stefan,

Yes those are the bulbs, and that is the power being generated from the Data Collection model during that DOE, 40 watts Excess was the amount we were "challenged with" for our Extraordinary Proof - that challenge dictated the size and power of the system.

You are making the system harder than it is, no high level engineering here - just unique application
Or Unique energy conversion system - hence the name Zydro Energy Device

Boiler plate technology - that is what our Skeptic said about it.

The water in the Bags is pressed into the Travis effect - That effect creates buoyancy,
the Buoyancy pressurizes the Hydraulic fluid,
The Hydraulic fluid powers the Pump that spins the generator and presses the water into the Travis Effect again.
The excess energy is bled off into lights.
 
The Point is this; Archimedes' principal has long been assumed to say volume and buoyancy are intrinsically locked - they are not.

We have proved it, and have ongoing testing.

We have also proved that in this certain limited realm of physics - the laws of entropy, thermal dynamics and the philosophy of 'Trolls' are wrong.I had to review a stack of buoyancy patents my attorneys pulled during the Patent search, two main themes - water from a higher source - water fall, river, damn, all work.

OR Volume based systems like bucket brigades or sealed ropes, tubes Accordians, all relying on Volume.

Not one used the understanding of  Pressure diffirentials and surfaces - that excited the patent engineers like nothing else!
You would not believe how many peoples life dreams have been realized by this discovery - and those are just the ones involved.
 
Mark Dansie, is a dead honest man, protecting investors, Grandma's, and uninformed people - He is a man I am glad to call a friend.

I am honored he speaks highly of our project, I checked his reputation before I allowed him to come - and unlike what I have seen many other inventors do - I asked him to come - If I was wrong, dellusional, poor theory, I wanted to know before I wasted anymore of my time or that of my family's.

He has a good nose for smelling rats...... Must have cat in him ;-)
 
Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 24, 2012, 10:42:53 PM
Hi Wayne, many thanks for your informations.

What means DOE ?

Is your patent application already online available, so can we already look at some drawings
or is that still under NDA ?

So this Data collection ZED machine model currently outputs around 30 to 40 Watts of contineous free electrical power
for the bulbs, right ?

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 24, 2012, 11:11:17 PM
DOE
Design Of Experiment's
Not professionally of course - but at the inventors level
We test our understanding of the system and its interacting reactions by applying changes to the system and then measure the reaction to see if it reacted properly.
We only have one input, but it causes a chain reaction within the system that has nine seperate measurements, it is how we identify the sweet spot in variable conditions.
This Data allows us to predict the similar outcomes in the larger systems.
The Patent Numbe on the ZED 7 Stickers were patent pending - provisional numbers - we rolled over into a full patent last year and recieved new numbers. Now, my attorneys set up a plan to manage the release of drawings - so no - you can not find them. Unless you are under NDA ;-)
Sorry for that, parts of this world are not honest - Conrad was right about protecting the invention.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 24, 2012, 11:47:45 PM
  Wayne,
 I think it's funny that you refer to me as a troll. You have shown me were I am wrong.
I have always worked open source. It seems that credible people are above this. My mistake.
 
                                                                                                       Jim
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on May 25, 2012, 12:07:34 AM
Well done Wayne,
the ultimate test will be successful replications, I look forward to the day when this is possible.
Until then the speculation is likely to continue.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 25, 2012, 01:35:52 AM
Wayne,

I notice that you haven't answered my questions but I don't really care.

Quote
If the only thing you knew was that we were moving the weight (just the weight) completley free - you would realize you were seeing the potential source for abundant free energy that this world needs.

Sorry but I have to correct you here.  Seeing a weight move up and down in a repeating cycle on a machine means nothing.  It does not demonstrate the production of energy at all.

Here is what I care about:  When do you plan on doing a bona fide real working demo of your system?  You mention a model with a 25 kilowatt output?  Will you being doing a demo of that?  If not, how much power output?  With whatever power output you do plan on demoing, how are you going to demo that?

What do you envision for a demo?  I mean the location, what you will show, how it will be shown, who will verify it, what will it entail, etc, etc?

If you can answer those questions with substance, and give a date, that will give the readers here something to look forward to.

Thanks,

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 25, 2012, 01:50:35 AM
Just a little reality check for everyone:

The demo clips with the inverted cups where one has a small amount of trapped air and the other has a large amount of trapped air prove absolutely nothing.  It's the water pressure at the lower extremity of the air volume that creates air pressure in the trapped volume of air.  The air pressure pushing on the top inside surface of the inverted cups is what creates the buoyancy.  In both cases the air pressure is the same as long as the cup with the smaller amount of trapped air is pushed down so it is very close to the mold.  So nothing at all is proved in those clips, it's all normal and expected behaviour.

Then in the third clip you see a big machine that appears to have air bellows and it moves and makes sounds and there is a little control panel and there are some lights on it.  That proves nothing at all.

In my opinion anybody that believes this system is real right now based on the information made available is making a mistake.

So as far as I am concerned, the ball is in Wayne's court.  The burden of proof rests on his shoulders and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 25, 2012, 02:32:40 AM
MileHigh.
it is producing contineously 30 Watts on the 2 red bulbs above the Wattmeter...

So these 30 Watts are the free energy output .

Have again a look at the videos I posted on my youtube channel or
go to the overunity.com homepage and let them all play in a row...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: polln8r on May 25, 2012, 03:10:32 AM
Is that 30w output enough to power the HMI and valves?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 25, 2012, 04:41:42 AM
Stefan,

Unfortunately all gravity and buoyancy based free energy propositions have been unsuccessful as far as I am aware.  If you want to accept seeing two lit light bulbs and some numbers on an LCD display as constituting proof that the system is working as claimed that is your prerogative.  I don't share your opinion.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on May 25, 2012, 09:14:49 AM
Wayne,

This system needs to be Open Sourced.
We need to see schematics, diagrams, and videos showing inside and out.
Other than that forget about it, this forum is not the place for your system.

Please take a look at http://peswiki.com/energy/OS this link should help in your decision.
And also http://www.overunity.com/1821/open-source-vs-patenting

Peace.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 25, 2012, 11:50:51 AM
Stefan,

Unfortunately all gravity and buoyancy based free energy propositions have been unsuccessful as far as I am aware.  If you want to accept seeing two lit light bulbs and some numbers on an LCD display as constituting proof that the system is working as claimed that is your prerogative.  I don't share your opinion.

MileHigh

Yes, but you also did not see it yet in person,
so your opinion is also prerogative.

As hard skeptic Mark Dansie and his associates claim that it fully
works, I just tend to believe them !

Also the device seems not to be so simple as the 2 Travis effect videos
with the pichers under water
show it...

If you look at the video from Mark Dansie you can see, that he has a "Valve-tree"
and that there are probably many partial cycles involved, otherwise he would not need so many valves..

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 25, 2012, 11:51:33 AM

Other than that forget about it, this forum is not the place for your system.


Are you deciding this ?  I guess not ! ;) ;D
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on May 25, 2012, 12:13:47 PM
Are you deciding this ?  I guess not ! ;) ;D

No, it’s a suggestion since this forum supposedly is suppose to be Open Source?
Maybe you should refine the theme here for overunity.com because you're confusing me now.
But then again I think you're just pulling my chain considering the smiley faces? :-)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 25, 2012, 12:18:25 PM
I agree that it would be better to open source this, if this is the first
real design that uses buoyance to get free energy out of using
water and gravity.

But I also understand the inventor who has put all
his money and the funds of his associates for the last several years into
such a "Rude Goldberg" type machine
and now they want some return out of their money and work or some more for it...


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 25, 2012, 12:33:04 PM
Here is a collage of some pictures of the ZED device which was posted at Peswiki.com

I hope it is okay to put this here as a mirror.

Many thanks.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on May 25, 2012, 01:22:37 PM
He can still make money as Open Source.
Look at the Linux operating system and how they did it. google "copyright vs copyleft".
Also check out the Linux movie "Revolution OS". just google it.
I suggest doing it the way Linux did it.

He can still have all rights to his system and still make money as Open Source. I don't think this necessarily only apply to software, should also work for mechanical systems.
Not everyone can build his system, this creates jobs, kits to sell, maintenance jobs, etc.
Everyone benefits including him and mother earth.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on May 25, 2012, 03:23:51 PM
Wayne
You have to open source and you need successful replications to prove that your Technology Works
No one can steal your design............. if I make your device it would be illegal for me to sell it without your permission.

And as for other companies trying to claim your idea, I don't see an argument there, you have invented something so unique that has never been seen before, the choice is yours but as we have seen before many times on this forum if you don't Open source the likelihood is that nothing will ever become of your device,  we have all seen it time and time again over many years, so again it's up to you to really change history
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 25, 2012, 03:31:26 PM
Yes, but you also did not see it yet in person,
so your opinion is also prerogative.

As hard skeptic Mark Dansie and his associates claim that it fully
works, I just tend to believe them !

Also the device seems not to be so simple as the 2 Travis effect videos
with the pichers under water
show it...

If you look at the video from Mark Dansie you can see, that he has a "Valve-tree"
and that there are probably many partial cycles involved, otherwise he would not need so many valves..

Regards, Stefan.

  Stefan,
 The valve tree is possibly to control vacuum. This could explain the deep tone the device emits. It's basically making a speaker out of the bellows they are using. And such tones are made by motion, not the movement of air.
 All this would mean is that he is using air operated actuators under vacuum. In engineering as in science, the inverse is always true.
 What is missing though is the discharge from the battery. This would show if it's continuous or if it has spikes when the valves are being operated. It would help to convince us skeptics.
 
                                                                                 Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
 A quick couple of notes:
The system you see is three complete and separate systems:
(1)The ZED operates with four valves - it is quite simple.
(2)The hoses and wires are for measuring pressures and collecting Data.
(3)The rest of the valves are for an "initialization" process - When we were reviewed - I was required to
to completely empty the system of all air (pressure) water, and hydraulic fluid (pressure)
and then re- set the system up from scratch - this was expected - but a pain in the tail.

So my team designed an automated process - to both empty the system and then refill it, and then one button turns the whole thing on. and after Initialization - it is physically disconnected from the source.

Now a key point - initialization only happens once, it is just to show the skeptic. The system can be stopped and restarted as many times as desired - with no additional inputs.

Other than pushing the start button LOL -

This ZED is a three layer system- and we monitor two aspects of each layer and track the data - it produces a pretty clear picture of what is going on inside.

We are further along in our research than anyone on this forum understands yet.
 
OPEN SOURCE comments:
I do have a reason for posting here - and not disclosing:
 
Yes we have all labored hard - and we do expect to fund our business, and if the Beta process is not funded - no one will work on a project that will be legally taken from them.

To be clear Our hearts are as like those who want open sourcing - with many of the frontiers this process has revealed - we are in a unique position to effect the world.

Our License agreement is nearly an open source, it definitely meets the intention of open sourcing - getting the power out to the people - eliminated emissions and bringing energy independence.

It empowers those who have prepared, and have the desire and ability to make this happen in short fashion.

While many people have been arguing, other have been setting up meetings, for such an end.

A NEW FRONTIER:
We will not go by the waist side, we will never surrender, never give up.

Do not think for one moment that this has been an easy journey - but certainly an adventure!

I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

My apologie to Jim for the Troll comment.

We are in this together, and some questions will not be answered except to those that need to know.

Wayne Travis 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on May 25, 2012, 04:27:49 PM
 Wayne, I wish you well and hope you succeed in what ever you want to achieve. It is great that you built this impressive machine.


But I want to repeat what I said (over and over again): As a mentally sane person one can not believe in something that is not disclosed in every detail.
 
Since you do not want to disclose every detail, what is there to discuss besides "philosophy", "insinuations" or "metaphors"?

I do not want to be rude, but one can say it in short: "If you want to disclose, speak up! If you want to keep a secret, shut up!"


I also want to state again my opinion, why OU is the worst possible choice for money making:
 
 If ever we find OU, it will be a new source of energy or a new way of transforming one kind of energy into an other kind of energy. In other words, it will be a new law of nature not yet discovered.
 
 Once this is discovered, there will be millions of ways to use that principle and it will take decades till something really useful comes out of it. The "discoverer" (who may see himself as an "inventor") will not be believed for a long time. Mainstream science and public opinion have a high inertia which needs first of all "time" to be overcome.
 
 You can not patent a law of nature (or a principle), only a way of using that law by help of a contraption. And there will be endless ways of implementing a principle. There will be thousands of patents.
 
 It is by no means assured that the discoverer of a new law of nature will get credit for his discovery. Clever business men will come out with it with a new name and a new spin. Mainstream scientists will present it in their own words and claim fame. Hundreds of people will claim that they have found it before you. Many will sell books about it.


So, for me nothing has changed, nothing remains to be said. Once you are prepared to disclose, I will be back. Till then, good luck.

Greetings, Conrad
(One can read in detail what I said on pages 1 to 3 of this thread.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: vrstud on May 25, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
Hello Wayne:

I believe that you are taking advantage of the change in surface area which in turn is using surface tension to your advantage.  Clever idea.  Doing so causes the water to expand energy to create more surface tension in order to do work.

Are you taking water temperature measurements?  If so, do you see a cooling effect on the water over time?  This could be the source of your energy.

Regards

Chris
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 25, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
Hi Wayne ,
it would be great if you could do another video explaining just your start process
and explaining in detail your power output and how you measure it and how the generator
is connected to the system.

You could do it this way, that you don´t give away the secret inside the machine, but show to everyone,
how you get the power out there and what kind of bulbs you power there above the power meter...etc.,..

Just do a good narration in the video so the whole machine gets more clearer also to people who are no
engineers and have zero technical knowledge.


Just imagine tell somebody, who never heard about this yet the facts about this machine and what it can do and
how you want to scale it up...


By the way, scaling it up into the KiloWatts range will be probably pretty hard with the current design,
as this is only outputting about 30 Watts for this size ?
So how big do you have to do it for to get at least 1000 Watts out ?

Or does this scale up with the used air pressure inside ?
Can you get still more power out of it with the same size, if you build the
components more robust, so it can withstand higher pressures ?

Can you please also show in a next video the 2 red bulbs you are using there ?
Are they really rated at 15 Watts each ?

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: sidneo on May 26, 2012, 02:48:55 AM
Hi Wayne ,
I have one question if i may .what happen when if you replace the molded cement in the youtube video with another recipient full of water ? does it have the same buoyancy as the simple recipient full of air all the way up?

I am asking this question because as silly as it sound its what seems to be implied in the video other wise the
"travis effect" will be hardly mechanically usefull unless there is somethink else than what as been showed in the video.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: markdansie on May 26, 2012, 04:00:53 AM
I wanted to clarify some things.
I think this is a good exercise for Wayne being reviewed and this is just a taste of what he will have to go through when third party validation takes place. (the money people are a tough crowd) It is however hard to have a sensible argument or a full review when a lot of the information is missing, and while the technology is under development that has to be the way it is.
I have seen the device run in person in what I call manual mode. Over the last few months Wayne and his team have been working to fully automate it and gather data to assist in the new design.
I have not signed off on it and publicly stated this many times until I can see it run non stop for at least two days with no inputs.
However I am optimistic about this being achieved, especially seeing some of the data and discussions with his engineers.
The next hurdle once this is achieved it increasing the power outputs.
I am very happy you all asked the questions and many are valid, but on the other hand its difficult for Wayne to answer with his hands tied behind his back by not being able to disclose too much.
Once I have seen it run for two days non stop I will report back (with Wayne s permission)
Kind Regards to you all
Mark
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 26, 2012, 04:39:17 AM
Mark is right,
The education I have gained from this group is well appreciated.

And I share in your frustration - which stems from not being able to share completly.

Many of you have asked Questions that make me say "YES! they are begining to get it."

I wish you were here - because right now, right here in the lab, touching and feeling the discoveries, overcoming new barriers, is the joy of inventing.

Not  money, not fame, but the that thrill and accomplishment of discovery, and of creating a way to overcome - that is a job well done for an inventor.

I am done here, those who requested will be added to my update list.

God Bless you all.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on May 26, 2012, 09:35:16 PM
Just a couple of points regarding the "Travis effect". A better illustration would have been as follows. Have a see-saw [teeter-totter] mounted above the water tank. Now have a vertical rod from each end of  this seesaw descending to and attached to the two cups. This would better show that the bouyancy of the two cups were equal , in spite of the different amounts of air.
       It has been said that the up thrust on the right cup will diminish as it rises away from the concrete block, and the shape of the enclosed air changes . Suppose that we replace that concrete block with another inverted cup that is full of water, and is exactly the same size and shape as the concrete . And we fix it to the outer cup, so that it rises with it. Does this cure the diminishing up thrust problem?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 26, 2012, 10:18:37 PM
Your described demo is the one I use in my lab,
When the two equal contianers have the same diffirential pressure (not volume)- they will balance.
Volume does not matter on the Travis side unless you don't have enough to equal the diffirential.
Now what you can observe - is this add weight to the Archimedes' side and it will sink.
Add weight to the Travis Effect side - and the pressure diffirential increases to match the weight.
 
Sinks a little and then bounces back (repulsion)
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on May 26, 2012, 10:28:22 PM
So adding weight to the Travis side, and it sinks a little and bounces back . That is very intersting, I will have to try this for myself .
  Could you please comment on my second paragraph , about replacing the concrete block with another cup, and attaching that cup to the original Travis cup?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 26, 2012, 10:47:19 PM
If you attach the displacement to the cup "brick or water" the Travis effect is nuetralized because the water becomes a weight when surrounded by air (in simple terms).
The buoyancy with that design is exactly equal to Archimedes'
The "Travis effect" will not work with a submarine -
 
key to the design of the invention is opposite forces not connected - connected leads to nothing.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 26, 2012, 11:01:17 PM
If you attach the displacement to the cup "brick or water" the Travis effect is nuetralized because the water becomes a weight when surrounded by air (in simple terms).
The buoyancy with that design is exactly equal to Archimedes'
The "Travis effect" will not work with a submarine -
 
key to the design of the invention is opposite forces not connected - connected leads to nothing.

 Yeah, but what would work better is what water districts use, a water tower. Call me Mr. Obvious if you like. But it does take less energy to pump water to an elevation of 128 feet than the work it creates. That would supply a hydro geneerator.
 After all, using something as old as a bellwos, if it moves 6 inches to close, it could as an example use 2 pounds of force to have 1 pound of water at an elevation of 33 feet.
 In Newton's term's, if it free falls, it will have the same force. The trick is that the water at the base would have the same force. This would mean that the 2 pounds of force would be a part of a staic head which means that for 33 feet of movement, 2 pounds of force would be generated.
 If every inch in the static head represented 1 pound of water, then where is the overunity ? it's in the leverage. Leverage (torque) amplifies force, even in a hydrogenerator. It could generate 4 times the force doubling it's power requirement.
 And entirely environmentally friendly. I just have to wonder why someone doesn't try something like that.
 Still, best of luck on your discovery and wish you all the success you deserve.
 
                                                                                   Jim
 
edited to correct the math and errors in concept  ;D :o
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: norman6538 on May 26, 2012, 11:26:04 PM


I took a 1 qt container and taped some lawn trimmer string on the sides
so that a second matching container could not go down all the way
leaving a small air space at the top and sides.

And then I filled that 1st container with water and a lid so it
had no boyancy and inverted it into a bucket of water.

Then I pushed a second matching container down over the first container
squeezing most of the air out till only a little was at the top and
 sides and it had very little lifting pressure. - disappointing....

Then I took the same 2nd container and pushed it down in the water
and it had much more lifting pressure.

Its easy to try.

I'm curious if others get similar or better results on this basic experiment.

Norman

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 26, 2012, 11:52:35 PM
Hello Norman,
I am a little confused by what you wrote - i just mean I do not understand what you did.
But - your experiment sounds very familiar - I had both cups in my hands - in the tub, both inverted one completly full of water, one completly full of air.
Carefully feel how much the water filled cup weighs - not much at all (under water)
Carefully feel how much the buoyancy in the air filled cup (full submerged)
Now, in that same condition - both cups fully submerged - slowly lower the air cup over the water cup,
What you will notice is this -
the water filled cup will "increase" in downwad force (like a weight)
The air will begin escaping the air filled cup, (should see a loss in buoyancy right ;-)?
But the buyancy of the air filed cup does not change - even as the air escapes - because the diffirential pressure acting upon the surface area has not changed
If you reach bottom, the water cup will now weigh the same as the lift in the cup.
The weight in the water filled cup increased a lot of air was lost in the air filled cup, and the buoyant force is the same as you started.
Now begin to lift the partially filled air cup - almost instantly the weight of the water cup dissapears, and the buoyancy of the air cup is reduced to nill.
NOW - think a little diffiretly then my critics - if you reverse the process - you can turn both of those forces on (the weight and the buoyancy very quickly with little very little dicplacement -
Now - do you know why Buoyancy has never been succesfully utilized - it takes too long to get the conatiner to fill and to sink - oops solved that
You now know how to nearly skip that fill and drain time -
p.s this is only the begining of our process - so don't try to jump to the end with conlcusions
 
Good Job all of you who look!
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: norman6538 on May 27, 2012, 02:22:21 AM
OK Wayne I'll try this again.

experiment 1
I took a 1 qt container and taped some lawn trimmer string vertically on the outer sides
(  simple spacers evened out and simetrical )
so that a second matching container could not fit down on top of it all the way
leaving a small air space at the top and sides.

And then I filled that 1st container with water and put a lid on it and turned
it upside down and put it into a bucket of water. - result - it has neutral buoyancy.

Then I pushed a second matching upside down container into the water and down over the first container squeezing most of the air out till just like the video only a little air was at the top and  sides and when it was in position with a little air on top and some on the sides
where the spacers were it disappointingly it had very little lifting pressure.

experiment 2

Then I removed that 2nd container from the bucket of water which filled it with air and then I pushed it down in the water and it had much more lifting pressure than experiment 1.

I expected experiment 1 to have nearly equal lifting pressure to experiment 2.

Its easy to try this. I hope this makes it clearer.

I'm curious if others get similar or better results on this basic experiment.

Norman
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on May 27, 2012, 09:45:59 PM
When it comes to grasping new concepts, even simple ones, they can be very hard to grasp, or maybe people, including me, are just lazy. I have previously criticised the Travis Effect video. I have suggested that the use of a see-saw, or if you like an inverted beam balance be used to compare the upthrust on the two cups. 
   My point is this. If the Travis effect, on its own is  capable of overunity, Then it should be possible to build a self running machine based on this principle alone. It does not have to show a fantastic COP, and it does not need to be fully self acting . By that I mean that it would be acceptable to manually operate valves, etc, as long as no energy is added by hand to the device.
     If this is not the case, then there are other undisclosed principles involved. It would be useful to know, either way. Are we for instance saying , that if we pump a small amount of air into the travis device , that the energy we can harvest from the resultant bouyancy is greater than the energy necessary to pump the air?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 27, 2012, 11:18:54 PM
Correct, by itself - as presented "is not" super effecient, which I why I authorized that part of the machine to be released.
Even last year I was trying to explain that - yet the desire from all was to jump to the end.
You see how hard it was to understand at first - and the rest of the system is mind boggling - if you do not understand the "Travis effect" I do not wish to present gibberish - which is what I would sound like with that effect misunderstood.
It is the key that had to be understood to build a device to harvest net energy from buoyancy.
And you see how such a simple thing can be overlooked.
Peace and blessings
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 28, 2012, 04:19:18 AM
neptune
in a closed system a staic head will 2psi of force, tne same static head open to tne atmosphere will have 14psi,
 tnis is somethinb engineers know.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: bolt on May 28, 2012, 08:51:15 AM
Regardless if the system can be made OU is not the point. Fact remains the COST per WATT is extremely expensive, not for DIY solution and therefore cannot even compete with a 100w solar panel or small windmill.


This project is probably only ever going to make a museum item regardless if it works or not. There are far better alternatives.




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 01:39:57 PM
Really?
Is this just a bait comment - question, come on....... you conclude that how?
Ok, I will bite -
We initally come in costing the same as Solar PV for a comparable wattage - unless you remember that solar works 6 hours a day at its peak ability.......
We are partnering with Solar PV manufacturers - for obvious mutual benifits.
"This is why the "Third Party" evalaution has stated - this will replace both Solar PV and Wind alternative energy".
It will aslo increase the Demand for Alternatives since the Return On the Investment is better than Fossil Fuel - a first for alternative energy.
Hope that helps,
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 28, 2012, 02:19:20 PM
Wayne:

Quote
It will aslo increase the Demand for Alternatives since the Return On the Investment is better than Fossil Fuel

I am pretty sure that all of us would like to see your ROI calculations.  Can you share them with us?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:11:51 PM
Milehigh,
You mad bro?
No, I am not sharing our business plan with you, sorry, you know better than to expect that.
But, a little thinking will go a long way.
What is your electricity worth?
My bill is .10kwh, actually one of the lower prices in the world.
How many kwh can a 100kw system provide depends on the system;
Those costs are pretty well documented - as well as the asset utilization.
Our system has two major advantages - boiler plate manufacturing, Solar is a little more complex
And at least 4X the asset utilization - regardless of the weather.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
Bull Shit.
I know exactly what you are doing.

Come on guy's don't be fooled by this man.
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts.
I try to be respectful, even to those who don't return the courtesy.
You do not knwo what you speak, but you do have passion.
And "Time will tell" regardless of your passionate disbelief.
I gave a training class to a group that will be acting as representatives -
The vision was clear - Get this to the world, at personal financial sacrafice.
Your comments, if they could - work to be counter productive to that mission.
Have patience, Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: norman6538 on May 28, 2012, 04:34:21 PM
Wayne, I have to commend you for the way you respond to the naysayers and name callers.
It shows the real character of a man.

With me - name callers and bad mouthers get crossed off real fast and I don't even bother
to read what they type.

If  I don't understand something I will ask a question rather than condem the person or
the idea.

Norman
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 28, 2012, 05:40:46 PM
Stefan,
I was wondering if this is the right part of the forum for MrWaynes work.
      Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 28, 2012, 08:06:43 PM
Wayne,

I don't think that your ROI model would be revealing your business plan at all.  I find it very strange that you would state that.  Showing the ROI says practically nothing about your system.  So what if you say what the approximate cost is, what's that going to change?

Quote
How many kwh can a 100kw system provide depends on the system

You have made a good half-dozen or so statements like this that erode your credibility.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 28, 2012, 09:19:24 PM
  @All,
When a hydraulic cylinder extends into a bellows, it changes the air pressure.
 This would make it easier to lift the other bellow using vacuum.
 What I dont unfrstand is how the potential that created the work is reversed. This where many good ideas fail.
 
   Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 29, 2012, 12:17:01 AM
I think what you have exposed is more than what you are demonstrating.  The amount or volume of water displaced for a buoyant condition is NOT dependent on the volume of air used, that is one part of what you are showing with the corresponding piece being that a buoyant vessel within the water column losses that value when surrounded by a pocket of air.

You are on the right path, well done -
I can not reveal anymore than I have in this group, so please correspond privately - if you wish to know more
I am tired of the pettyness and distraction of some of the members here - my work goes on.
As always you may contact me through my web site.
or at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
God Bless you all
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 29, 2012, 12:22:46 AM
  @All,
When a hydraulic cylinder extends into a bellows, it changes the air pressure.
 This would make it easier to lift the other bellow using vacuum.
 What I dont unfrstand is how the potential that created the work is reversed. This where many good ideas fail.
 
   Jim
Hello Jim,
The Bellows simply act to transfer the equalization between columns, nothing new here -
Since we always have head in both columns - no vacuum
We move water not air - and we do not expand or compress the air that is no our system.
Thanks
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 29, 2012, 12:30:47 AM
Wayne,

I don't think that your ROI model would be revealing your business plan at all.  I find it very strange that you would state that.  Showing the ROI says practically nothing about your system.  So what if you say what the approximate cost is, what's that going to change?

You have made a good half-dozen or so statements like this that erode your credibility.

MileHigh
Milehigh,
You make it clear what you understand and don't - and you make it clear what your opinions are - God Bless them - you waste my valuable time and my energy.
Nearly everyone of your notes are character attacks and disinformation.
Happy Memorial Day, time for a hot dog and some fishing!
Good day.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 29, 2012, 01:19:04 AM
Wayne:

They are not character attacks and disinformation, you are just trying to spin it that way.  Between this forum and the article on pesn dot com you are simply getting feedback from people with differing opinions.  You are promoting buoyancy as a way to get free energy and the problem is that buoyancy as a mechanism for free energy has never worked.  So the burden of proof is on you and realistically, we have no verifiable proof that you have something.

Sure, the story sounds great.  You have engaged with engineers and the people in your home town have helped you out.  It all sounds pretty cool but we have only got your words to go on.

When do you plan on offering the world definitive proof and how do you plan on going about to accomplish that?  Is there something wrong with that question?

Don't try to spin plain talk as something else.

MileHigh


PS:

This comment from you:

Quote
How many kwh can a 100kw system provide depends on the system

The answer is that it doesn't depend on the "system" and quite honestly I don't know what "system" you are referring to.  A 100 kW system can produce 100 kWh of energy in one hour, or 2400 kWh of energy in 24 hours.  There is no dependence on anything like you are trying to imply.  Your choice of words indicates that you are not familiar with the terminology relating to electrical power and energy.  If you are developing these kinds of alleged free energy systems based on buoyancy you should be familiar with all of this terminology and how to use it properly.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 29, 2012, 01:36:03 AM
Thanks Milehigh,
Proper comparison of energy producing devices include asset utlilization.
Wind and Solar do not run all the time, roughly 25% asset utilization.
We do not have the issue.
So in costing a system - you must consider that, nothing new.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 29, 2012, 01:52:18 AM
Here is an interesting diagram compliments of Mark Euthanasius:


 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 29, 2012, 05:06:46 AM
Here is a picture of what we are doing - which your drawing does not represent.
I will disregard your comments until you do understand.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: JEJEHO on May 29, 2012, 08:46:59 AM
Milehigh

"Portion of displace volume occupied by the shot glass does not change displaced water volume and does not change cup mass"

But from your drawing it change the volume of air in the big cup under W2. So the air pressure in the big cup under W2 will be more than the air pressure under W1.

So the upward force of big cup under W2 will be more than the upward force of big cup under W1.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 29, 2012, 01:21:37 PM
Oops,
On my drawing
The word "difference" is misspelled twice. Also I the unit "CFM" should just be "CF"
(Thanks Tom)
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: vince on May 29, 2012, 05:46:25 PM
Just a test reply to see why I can't post a reply with an attachment to this thread.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on May 29, 2012, 06:39:09 PM
Just a test reply to see why I can't post a reply with an attachment to this thread.

Attachment type, perhaps? There is a list of allowed file types; .bmp for example isn't one of them.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 29, 2012, 07:05:41 PM
Jejeho:

The upward force is the same in both cases.

Quote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
 
Archimedes (287 BC - 212 BC), the discoverer of this principle 
 
Archimedes' principle is a law of physics stating that the upward force (buoyancy) exerted on a body immersed in a fluid is equal to the weight of the amount of fluid the body displaces.  In other words, an immersed object is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. This principle is named after its discoverer, Archimedes of Syracuse.[1]" 

In both cases, the amount of displaced water is the same.

Wayne:

It appears that you have tricked yourself into thinking that you are getting the same lifting power with a smaller volume of air.  Your fixed solid cylinder inside the flotation cylinder is just displacing some of the air inside the flotation cylinder that allegedly demonstrates the "Travis Effect."

The work that you have to expend to fill the flotation cylinder with the smaller amount of air vs. the amount of work that you can get back from the buoyancy x displacement of the flotation cylinder is the real issue.  The work that you put in will be equal or greater than the work that you get out.  This is what you are failing to look at.  You are deluding yourself when you look at your diagram and thinking that you are getting a gain.

Repeat, you are simply failing to examine how much work it takes to fill the cylinder with air in the first place and instead you are comparing the two cylinders and seeing a difference there.

It makes me wonder if you used a tank of compressed air to power the prototype because you were so convinced that you had energy gains that you thought it would "just be a technicality" to remove the tank of compressed air and switch over to a self-powering setup.

People that are interested can check out the discussion on pesn dot com.

Better luck next time but that's the way it really is.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 29, 2012, 07:57:41 PM
Hi MileHigh,
Wayne  said already that no air is going in or out, so it is a closed cycle.

Maybe you should call hard Skeptic Mark Dansie and let it explain to you or
you are going also to visit Wayne ?


The only 2 things that are different is the air volume to have the same lift force !

So in the Travis effect case you need less energy to pump the air under the bucket from below.

How his complete cycle and his machine really works is still a mystery to me.
Only one cylinder at the time is pushing, but what is the other cylinder then doing at this instance ?
Where is its air stored for later reuse ?

As this works somehow like a see-saw the lift must be switchable on and off...

When it is off, where does the air go ??


Maybe if someone has an idea we can try to reverse engineer it over here ! ;)

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 29, 2012, 08:07:55 PM
Milehigh,
You speak that which you do not know as fact, and you have ignored much of what we have said.

You can wait until our third party validation resumes, and until then -

You are wasting your time, and mine. We have the working models, and have been collecting Data.

So you are makeing a show for yourself at my expense. 

You might consider the tone at which you deny our process, it is going to emberass you.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 29, 2012, 08:27:08 PM

The only 2 things that are different is the air volume to have the same lift force !

So in the Travis effect case you need less energy to pump the air under the bucket from below.

As this works somehow like a see-saw the lift must be switchable on and off...


Hello Stefan,
We do not move air in our system, just water through the bellows.
The air valves in the cabinet are for the original set up - they are disconnected and do not ever run again.
You won't need to reverse engineer - we are designing the agreements in such a manner that it makes it a no brianer to work with us.
This is good for the world.
We have very good additional third party representatives lined up my Mark Dansie, Mike Raymond and some I can not name yet under "CDA", they are respected professionals.
Thanks for your web site, since I can not disclose the Inventive portion of the ZED machine, I see that I will just fall under continued Character attack.
I have been advised by some of those professionals to stop responding.
My website will still be available, and you are welcome to contact me in the future.
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: vince on May 29, 2012, 09:28:47 PM
Here is my take on the Z.E.P. based on the very first post by mrwayne and pictures from his website.
 
  I believe there are three cylinders that are clustered together in the belows. Each of the cyl. has an intermediate piston or diaphram that traps air in the uppermost chamber. the lower portion of each cylinder has a feed opening of some sort to supply water to it with appropriate valving.  the cylinders get smaller as they stack on each other. Only a small amount of water injection is needed to cause the intermediate pistons to rise and the travis effect will cause each of  outer cylinders to rise a limited amount with a force that is proportional to the surface area that the air chamber is acting upon. As each cylinder reaches its limit the next one above it is fed with water and so on until all three have reached their limit. That limit would be full extension of the belows. The belows are  filled with water from the each of the main tanks which are pressurized and maintain head pressure on the system. Because the travis effect acts thru a very short distance the total stroke is relatively short while the force is proportional to the surface area of each piston. The advantage of his system is that you do not need to inject a large amount of air to achieve the bouancy force but rather a small amount of water to cause the trapped air pocket to do the same work via the travis effect as the the conventional way of using the bouancy.
 
 I'm guessing that a cylinder is attached to both sides of the pendulum arm and as it swings it creates a pressure in each cyl. which is fed to either a hydraulic accumulater or an apropriate sized hydraulic motor. The narrator states the end result in the video. That why that hydraulic motor you see turning in the video is turning slowly and at a varied speed.
 
 Very clever indeed!
 
 
 I'm trying to post a jpeg diagram with this  but for some reason I cannot get it to work.
 
 Vince
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 30, 2012, 12:36:05 AM
Stefan:

Different air volumes have the same lifting force with one major difference.  The smaller air volume can not sustain the same amount of force x displacement as compared to the larger air volume.

Wayne:

I'm not attacking your character and I wish that you would stop saying that.  You have no substance to back up that claim.  Sometimes I talk plain talk and you should not try to spin that as a character attack.  I don't remember the details about your system in part because you play word and riddle games to drop hints.  I tune out.

All that I can tell you is that the diagram you posted with the "Travis Effect" is unremarkable and doesn't show anything special.  You appear to believe that it does.

You have stated that the system works so I will wait for news of a definitive demo that is going to be verified by independent third parties.  Mother Nature is not on your side however.

I can't explain the conflict between your claim and what we know about buoyancy and gravity:

Quote
The Model pictured is our Data collection model

We use a special method to activate and deactivate

Buoyancy in such a system to allow

that "Buoyancy" to be used in conjunction with

gravity to be able to provide excess energy.

 

The extra Energy is currently converted

into Electricity for the purpose of

Demonstrating our systems ability to exceed

its own operating cost and provide Net Energy

Can you tell us when you plan some kind of demo that will be verified by independent third-party testers?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: tibor.gats on May 30, 2012, 10:17:04 AM
Vince,
can you please send me the drawing?: tibor.gats at gmail dot com
I'd like to understand Z.E.P., but from your description I don't see how these cylinders are arranged.
Thanks,
Tibor
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 31, 2012, 12:05:41 AM
Hi MileHigh,
Wayne  said already that no air is going in or out, so it is a closed cycle.

Maybe you should call hard Skeptic Mark Dansie and let it explain to you or
you are going also to visit Wayne ?


The only 2 things that are different is the air volume to have the same lift force !

So in the Travis effect case you need less energy to pump the air under the bucket from below.

How his complete cycle and his machine really works is still a mystery to me.
Only one cylinder at the time is pushing, but what is the other cylinder then doing at this instance ?
Where is its air stored for later reuse ?

As this works somehow like a see-saw the lift must be switchable on and off...

When it is off, where does the air go ??


Maybe if someone has an idea we can try to reverse engineer it over here ! ;)

Regards, Stefan.

   Stefan,
  What might be happening is that when one weight drops, it lifts another. D@mn, I just quoted Bessler.  :o  I think it would be easier to work with vacuum than with compressed air. It is possible he is using compressed air. What could be happening is that as the bellows opens, it loses pressure.
 This would still require a vacuum side to lift the other bellow inverting the Travis Effect. This effect mirrors hydraulics which I am using in bessler's wheel. That does not reverse direction and resets because of rotation and continuous flow.
 With what Mr. Wayne has, he would need a diaphram that can change the potential of the 2 sides. this would require a lot of movement. This would most likley be used in conjunction with heavy weights to store momentum and carry past the failure point to where it has a chance to work. After all, f = ma. A heavy enough weight would have stored energy from being on the side with the highest air pressure.
 A vacuum would lift the opposing side operating the hydraulics that powers the generator. Outside of this, not sure what would have a chance of working. This is because if pressurized air is working to cause one effect, then a vacuum would be needed to compliment it in it's opposing behavior.
 Reversing directions when dealing with a high energy potential (even slow movement) requires a significant change in pressure and/or force.
 And considering patents do protect the inventor and others in here have posted their patent numbers, do need to be suspicious of why being here with a working idea worth money.
 
                                                                                                 Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 31, 2012, 02:14:03 AM
  @All,
 Go open the hood or trunk of your car. Opens easily, Travis Effect.

                    Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 31, 2012, 02:54:13 AM
Here is my take on the Z.E.P. based on the very first post by mrwayne and pictures from his website.
 
  I believe there are three cylinders that are clustered together in the belows. Each of the cyl. has an intermediate piston or diaphram that traps air in the uppermost chamber. the lower portion of each cylinder has a feed opening of some sort to supply water to it with appropriate valving.  the cylinders get smaller as they stack on each other. Only a small amount of water injection is needed to cause the intermediate pistons to rise and the travis effect will cause each of  outer cylinders to rise a limited amount with a force that is proportional to the surface area that the air chamber is acting upon. As each cylinder reaches its limit the next one above it is fed with water and so on until all three have reached their limit. That limit would be full extension of the belows. The belows are  filled with water from the each of the main tanks which are pressurized and maintain head pressure on the system. Because the travis effect acts thru a very short distance the total stroke is relatively short while the force is proportional to the surface area of each piston. The advantage of his system is that you do not need to inject a large amount of air to achieve the bouancy force but rather a small amount of water to cause the trapped air pocket to do the same work via the travis effect as the the conventional way of using the bouancy.
 
 I'm guessing that a cylinder is attached to both sides of the pendulum arm and as it swings it creates a pressure in each cyl. which is fed to either a hydraulic accumulater or an apropriate sized hydraulic motor. The narrator states the end result in the video. That why that hydraulic motor you see turning in the video is turning slowly and at a varied speed.
 
 Very clever indeed!
 
 
 I'm trying to post a jpeg diagram with this  but for some reason I cannot get it to work.
 
 Vince

Vince sounds good, but hard to understand.
Just send me the pictuire by email and I will post it.
hartiberlin@gmail.com

How is he then doing one side pumping the other side and how
does he reverse this ?

P.S. By reverse engineer I meant not to "steal" the invention, but to ponder about
its function principle without the need to sign an NDA.

If the function principle is known a few independant replications will really help
to make the claims more valid....and can prove its validity.

But I think this technology is also too complex to be pirated on the small scale and is only good for
large cooperations or  for larger communities generating their own energy.

As it seems upscaling into the KiloWatts or MegaWatts range will require very large building blocks, if the shown
protoype can only deliver around 30 Watts at its already pretty big size....

So I will rather play with JouleThief or Joule Ringer circuits and a solar panel to charge
up a battery bank and generate this way my own power, much easier and much smaller
ti build...
but to know the principle of the Travis effect is intriguing...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on May 31, 2012, 03:08:08 AM
MileHigh,
With all due respect, you are a dick.  You have (with help from a few others) now run off an individual who had something new for me (and possibly others?) to study and learn from.
I am pleased with the fact that you now are being less rude.  But being a polite dick vs. a rude dick does not detract from the fact that you are still being a dick.
Please allow for the inventor to be questioned and allow for their answers to be presented and questioned in a more "Gyula" like way?
Thanks,
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ResinRat2 on May 31, 2012, 04:14:53 AM
You know, I was looking at James Kwok's Hidro (the latest design here);



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oV5wFTfsTSs


and it seems to be using the same type of system as the one shown in this thread.


Kwok's Hidro has changed for the latest design. There are no longer air cylinders that move up and down by buoyancy. Check out the videos and new design.





http://pesn.com/2012/03/12/9602055_Hidro_Reveals_1_MW_Plant_Design/


eerily similar to this thread.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 31, 2012, 06:15:43 AM
Mondrasek:

Wayne played the professional victim instead of trying to answer some simple questions that anybody interested in the proposition would want to ask.

How can you say that there was something to study and learn?  He gave no details, and instead took the "philosophical route" and also played the "dropping big hints" game.  If the guy was real he would have had something to say.  Gravity and buoyancy are not sources of free energy and Wayne's "trick" as shown in his diagram was meaningless.

Don't expect to ever see something working.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 31, 2012, 02:28:30 PM
I agree with Mondrasek,

You chose to ignore that we have already been through third party testing, and you have added ingnorant insults, slanders, and hopes for my demise - to most every post.

I do not play the victim, you attack.

You have slandered me repeatedly on two other web/blog sites.

I have tried very hard to be respectful -

My patience for you comes from my respect, and understanding of the responsibility I have for the gift I have been trusted to bring to the world.

I have the truth, you have misunderstanding and disrespect -

You do not just accuse me;

You spit on the 88 members, engineers, scientists, and skeptics that have already comfirmed our work.

Good people have embraced our work, our research, and we are moving on with thier friendship.

Your disposition to attack that which you do not understand will leave you holding a cold empty plate.

Yes, more philosophy - I am a man not a machine.

May God bring peace to your heart.

Yes, more faith -

Wisdom and belief in something greater than yourself - is my character - not a spin.

My focus - Bringing clean, sustainable, and free energy to the world, and thanking God with every breath of clean air.

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 31, 2012, 03:13:58 PM
I agree with Mondrasek,

You chose to ignore that we have already been through third party testing, and you have added ingnorant insults, slanders, and hopes for my demise - to most every post.

I do not play the victim, you attack.

You have slandered me repeatedly on two other web/blog sites.

I have tried very hard to be respectful -

My patience for you comes from my respect, and understanding of the responsibility I have for the gift I have been trusted to bring to the world.

I have the truth, you have misunderstanding and disrespect -

You do not just accuse me;

You spit on the 88 members, engineers, scientists, and skeptics that have already comfirmed our work.

Good people have embraced our work, our research, and we are moving on with thier friendship.

Your disposition to attack that which you do not understand will leave you holding a cold empty plate.

Yes, more philosophy - I am a man not a machine.

May God bring peace to your heart.

Yes, more faith -

Wisdom and belief in something greater than yourself - is my character - not a spin.

My focus - Bringing clean, sustainable, and free energy to the world, and thanking God with every breath of clean air.

Wayne Travis

  Wayne,
 Considering with me, 5 surgeries in 3 years and fresh off my last one and twice you refered to me as a troll.
I should be saying what you are. Yet I am building something 99.999999999% of German's don't believe is possible.
 after all, pressure is pressure and it pumps. I do know one thing about machines, reversing direction is an expensive
propostition. This is because motion has to be stopped in one direction and restarted in another. How much energy is
lost due to accelerating something ? It requires more energy than something in continuous motion in one direction.
 Myself though, believe you believed you had discovered something and put out a good effort. But for 3rd party
verification, I think when it is achnowledged as being in daily use will work for me.
 Conradelektro sent me a link about the Casimir Effect. That is one thing odd about scientists, they like publishing
their work and having it peer reviewed. Of course, if you have a working prototype as you claim, you should have
no problem attracting investors. If not, then I would have to wonder why people wouldn't be trusting you with their
money.
 
                                                                                                                                           Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on May 31, 2012, 04:17:33 PM
This guy is obviously NOT going to Open Source his machine.
Just like many others we’ve seen in the past, there is no future for non-open sourced free energy machines. Do you really think the Feds/Government wants clean free energy machines openly available to the general public? No! Why? Because Revolution (energy independence) is only a step away from clean free energy machines and the Feds/Government knows this. And if you take that away from the Feds/Government then they lose control of the general public of the world, which that would mean bad news for the Feds/government. No matter how much you patent or copyright the invention, the Feds/Government will do whatever it can to put a stop to it. If anything they will use your discovery to their benefit and most likely make you disappear at worst. The general public will never have access to free and clean energy machines as long as the Feds/Government is concerned. So when people try to take their free energy discovery non-open sourced route for commercial business, they will only go so far (not far at all), and the people of the world will continue as is, slaves of the corrupt Feds/Government who runs the energy monopoly of the world for their own benefit and not everyone else.
Mark my words!

Peace.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on May 31, 2012, 04:55:01 PM

  Wayne,
 Considering with me, 5 surgeries in 3 years and fresh off my last one and twice you refered to me as a troll.
 
I do not remember calling you a troll, I do remember you saying I did, and I am remember apologizing because you took it that way - Regardless of my intent - if you took it that way - I take responsibility and sincerely apologize.
I will pray for your healing.
Wayne

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on May 31, 2012, 07:17:43 PM
Wayne,

You show me where I am "attacking" and "slandering" you.  Go ahead, quote what you think is relevant and I will respond.

You claim you have third-party verification.  Do you have some links?   If you are just making this claim yourself then it is meaningless.  The test report has to come from the third party themselves.

Quote
My focus - Bringing clean, sustainable, and free energy to the world, and thanking God with every breath of clean air.

Thank the sun and photosynthesis for your breath of clean air because that's where it's coming from.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 31, 2012, 07:29:02 PM
Wow,
My system does have a small 12v battery, to run the HMI, that runs the valves and track the data.

Something most people realize - that we are running a hydraulic motor - Self powered, a Generator - self powered, - a dual pumping system with a surface area of 525 inches - self powered, a HMI with to valves 25 sensors and self powered - hydraulics self powered, and burning two light bulbs self powered .....while creating a force of 5500 pounds and capturing it - self powered.....

And someone takes the time to complain of a batterythat can not possible do all of that.....you have witnessed an impossible machine.

When I was young an old man told me the boat left shore and both the people on the boat and the shore thought the other was shrinking.

Nice to smile

  @Stefan,
 I think this is the info needed to reverse engineer it or to tell him how to make it work.
After all, haven't seen the patent. So any patent after this date with this information, well...
 
 His pumps have 10 psi and lift a bar (1 r MrWayne, just paying attention to detail here :D ).
As the bellows expands, the hydraulic unit comes down with it maintaining the 10 psi of pressure.
 At the same time, if converted at a 1:10 ratio, then of the 250 square inches of surface area, pumps with a surface area of 25 square inches would have theorhetically 100 psi to have a greater push downward operating the hydraulics being lifted in the opposing bellows.
 This would mean there are 2 parts in the bellows and one dropping faster than the other.
 The one thing I still don't understand is how they would change the potential from one side to the other. Changing air volume/pressure in something like this I would think would be critical to it's operational ability. It's what would give one side an advantage.
 About the only way that I know of to try something like this would be the cylinders with 100 psi would need to use a part of their potential to move the air/gas of the opposing system depressurizing it. If that's where the gain comes from (the 100 psi cylinders), then it would need to use a part of it to change the air pressure/volume in the opposing bellow assembly. Then it would be this difference in potential that would be realized in the functioning of this type of machine.
 
                                                                        Jim
 
 
                                                                       
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on May 31, 2012, 07:35:19 PM
MileHigh,
 
Wayne played the professional victim instead of trying to answer some simple questions that anybody interested in the proposition would want to ask.

I agree that you asked some very good questions that I too would like to have heard answered.  However, those questions were either directly after or part of messages that were just dripping with thinly veiled passive aggressive statements.  You then hid behind statements of feigned innocence such that you were only speaking plainly and were not intending to be offensive.  Passive aggression is exactly how many of your statements were intended and received.
 
Also, completely ignoring statements from the inventor and instead telling your impression of what he really did or thinks is more behavior befitting RA than I would expect from you.

How can you say that there was something to study and learn?

A first example:  The "Travis effect" showed a behavior unknown to me.  I understand that it is nothing new and fully explained by known physics.  But it was new to me and therefor something I would study and learn.  That is why I read this forum.
 
I am pleased to see that Mr. Wayne has returned.  And I hope he is allowed and does offer more details and some answers to yours and others questions.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wings on May 31, 2012, 09:43:37 PM
in this way?

.....
for experiment you can use small glasses , you can feel the difference in your hand.


added a more clear drawing
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on May 31, 2012, 10:17:27 PM
in this way?

  I think it's done something like this. It would be a cylinder inside of another cylinder.
 The inner cylinder as an example would have 20 psi, the cylinder or space beneath it would have 10 psi. Because of this difference, the cylinder with 20 psi would expand downward.
 Because it has the hydraulic assembly in it occupying space, the pressure remains constant.
 While this is happening, the space beneath the cylinder which has 10 psi is being compressed. Because the riser tubes total 1/10th the surface area, their pressure would be 100 psi. This would increase the push downward opening the bellowing lifting the opposing one and generating hydraulic pressure.
 Why the system doesn't seem to work for Mr Wayne is his team never figured out a way to change the air pressure in the opposing inner air cylinder. This can be resolved by having a line feed a small pump that opens an expansion chamber attached to the opposing inner air chamber. When this happens, the air pressure is reduced allowing the other air chamber to become the greater force. Directionality is important.
 And when the bellows are going to change direction, a spring which has more force than the air pressure in the cylinder empties the expansion chamber and is held in a locked position.
 If something like this is possible, it can be demonstrated mechanically. otherwise how would anyone know where potential is failing to be realized ?
 
                                                                        Jim
 
edited to add;
 the reason I show one bellows lower than the other which is not necessary is to convey the direction in which the work is being performed.
 
p.s., Mr Wayne, if your team of engineers haven't thought of this, then I'm not sure you are 10 years ahead of anyone. Just my humble opinion.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 01, 2012, 12:22:01 AM
 
".s., Mr Wayne, if your team of engineers haven't thought of this, then I'm not sure you are 10 years ahead of anyone. Just my humble opinion."
Hello Jim,
I like your thinking, you continually show a full grasp of what you are talking about -
Every now and then you hit on something good.
You are Sherlock Holmes of Over unity ;-)
Keep up the good work.
Wayne

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: gsmsslsb on June 01, 2012, 12:31:42 AM
I tried this experiment this morning and didnt see any ting unusual.
I may be missing the point but  ???
Anyway
1. two containers in a water bath with a mug of water on top. The inside pink container is filled with water. The white container is filled with air and the black fuzzy line is the water line inside and outside the container. Filled the mug on top with just enough water to ofset the bouyancy of the white container.
2. Removed the inner pink container without lifting the white one out of the water so that all of the air in the white container stayed in it. Replaced the mug on top with the same amount of water in it. Still just the right amount of water to ofset the bouyancy ???????
maybe I am thick but I dont get it.???
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on June 01, 2012, 01:23:33 AM
Cannot say for sure yet, but I think I may have met someone who knows the inventor. Local.

She was telling me of a machine her customer invented, along with other inventions, successful, that operates like what we see here in the vid. I had shown it to her off of the home page, and she believes it is it. 

She said his name is Juan, but I wont tell the last name here for now. She noticed the JR on one of the fins or weights above the fluid pumps has the letters painted on one of them, and she said that must be him, as R is J's Partner.  ;]

She is going to get in touch with him to see if we can meet.. ;]

A seemingly small world. We will see.

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 01, 2012, 02:07:33 AM
I tried this experiment this morning and didnt see any ting unusual.
I may be missing the point but  ???
Anyway
1. two containers in a water bath with a mug of water on top. The inside pink container is filled with water. The white container is filled with air and the black fuzzy line is the water line inside and outside the container. Filled the mug on top with just enough water to ofset the bouyancy of the white container.
2. Removed the inner pink container without lifting the white one out of the water so that all of the air in the white container stayed in it. Replaced the mug on top with the same amount of water in it. Still just the right amount of water to ofset the bouyancy ??? ??? ?
maybe I am thick but I dont get it. ???

In your experiment the top white container should have been slightly higher up out of the water while in the equilibrium position in case #1 vs. case #2.  You would have to mark/measure that height vs. the surface of the water to see clearly.  This is how the effect should manifest in your experiment.

Having less air in the white container (or more water in the cup to produce same) should increase the difference in height of the two cases.  Also, a smaller gap between the outer white and inner pink container should likewise show the difference in the two heights more dramatically.

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on June 01, 2012, 04:17:58 AM
Mondrasek:

The tone of my posts was not unreasonable and challenging people that just might be doing these things for untoward reasons is not an unreasonable thing to do.  For example, if just one person demanded that RomeroUK show the voltage waveform after the FWBR outputs he would have been busted right then and there.  It was so obvious that this should have been done and even people that have been playing with pulse motors for years never asked for that.  So it's healthy to be inquisitive and it's actually necessary.  If you are suspicious of something you have a right to express yourself and state your suspicions.

If you did serious research spanning the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries for people pitching free energy from buoyancy I would not be surprised if you found that there were hundreds of charlatans that promoted this concept for their own financial gain.

This clip will make you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on June 01, 2012, 05:14:43 AM
Just went to the beginning of the thread, as I had not taken a close look at this device yet. I see it is Mr Wayne Travis that is the inventor claiming this device. And He is apparently in Oklahoma and I am in FL. Sooo, maybe my friends friend has something different or similar.

The JR thing is odd. ???   Small alternate worlds? ;]

We had been talking about me meeting this guy since last week. Today she was explaining more of what he had shown her of the device and this vid on the home page clicked for me. I thought I made a connection and had shown her the vid. By her reaction to the vid, I thought they were the same. She also said she didnt recognize the man in the vid though, but she said she has not met R yet of JR. Oh well.
There is always room for 1 more device out there.

Maybe these guys should meet. From my friends description, it seems they have somewhat the same idea. 2 pumps similar to what is shown here, slow pendulum action and uses presure via pump actions. Also from her description, Waynes vid device is somewhat faster than what she has seen. My perception initially was that Waynes device seemed awful slow. But there is apparently one that is slower. ;] Just cracking a joke there. ;]

Hi Wayne. Are you associated with anyone in FL that is working on this type of device also? From what I understand Juan has patents on portions of his device, so it might be of interest to see if there are similarities between the devices.

Will try to have more info soon.

Mags


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 01, 2012, 09:51:35 PM
   @All,
  Just watched a show on the Science channel called How Do They Do It ?
 They had hovercratfs on it. And on this one hovercraft which could hover 3 feet above the ground, could have a man working under it with a hatch open because the air pressure was so low. How low was it ? One claim was it could run over a land mine. To demonstrate this,
they had it run over an egg. The egg didn't crack.
 By now, you're probably wondering, how much does this hovercraft weigh ? It comes in at
a light 20 tons. It's also 65 feet long and, hmmm, maybe you'd prefer to read a little something about it for yourself ?
 ttp://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/fdr-littoral-2/ (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/fdr-littoral-2/)
 I guess it's about air compression.
 
                                                                          Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 01, 2012, 11:05:55 PM
   @Wayne,
 I think this is the answer you came here to find.
Myself, I like posting with people like MoRo, Webby1 and Raphael Ti, they are my kind of people.
 With the picture, the cap can be lifted by the opposing cyclinder dropping. It does not use the Travis Effect but uses principles in hydraulic Theory. Since you are a religious sort, my gift if God gave me one is not engineering. i have worked hard to elarn it and understand it. A gift is something that comes easily.
 With the picture, the 20 psi area can move away from the cap. If so, even the 10 psi area can do so as well but more slowly. In a fixed concept, as the 20 psi area expands, it will seek equilibrium with the 10 psi area. Even Jesus said there must be balance in all things but doubt he was refering to engineering.
 As the 2 areas seek equilibrium, the piston in the floor of the assembly is moved downward with 10 psi acting upon it's surface. If the primary (large) piston has 3 times the surface area of the piston in the cyclinder beneath it, that would result in 30 psi of hydraulic not pneumatic pressure. Hydraulics is not compressible and would lift the opposing cap a height equal to it's movement. It would be this lift that would reduce it's 20 psi area to something lower, even 10 psi which would allow for a greater chance of operation.
 If it can not be demonstrated mechanically in one direction, it would not be worth pursuing further. The components are all capable of being tested independently and as an assembly.
 Something any engineer should be knowledgeable of and understand.
 The basic reason it could work ? The hydraulic pressure which helps to change the primary motive pressures comes as a result of waste energy.
 And if this works Wayne, don't thank me.
 
                                                                              Jim
 
p.s. the Travis Effect would only help in moving the low pressure (10 psi) chamber lower. It's the hydraulic cap at the bottom which everyone has ignored  :o
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 12:26:08 AM
" @Wayne,
 I think this is the answer you came here to find.
Myself, I like posting with people like MoRo, Webby1 and Raphael Ti, they are my kind of people."

                                                                              Jim
Hello Jim,
I like'm also.
Sorry, lost in translation, I can not tell what you are showing, what are the functions of the picture - cap - 20 psi, 10 psi? It looks like the assembly moves as one piece - down.
Thanks Wayne
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on June 02, 2012, 12:33:14 AM
Wayne:

I challenged you with this:

>>>
You show me where I am "attacking" and "slandering" you.  Go ahead, quote what you think is relevant and I will respond.

You claim you have third-party verification.  Do you have some links?   If you are just making this claim yourself then it is meaningless.  The test report has to come from the third party themselves.
>>>

You ignored what I said.  So please no more whining.

Looking forward to something substantive showing that you have something.

Also, if you really have something, why don't you simply open-source it right now for the benefit of all mankind?  Surely that's more important than your pocketbook.

How come whenever an inventor claims that he or she has something that will completely transform the world and end wars and hunger and usher in the Age of Aquarius....  It's always a "big secret?"

Why is that?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 12:43:12 AM
"I challenged you with this:"
Milehigh,
You double down.....
I wait for an apology.
Until then - Good day.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on June 02, 2012, 01:07:28 AM
Wayne,

I am sorry.

I can tell you one thing.  If I had discovered Fire 2.0 I sure as hell would open source it.  Why try to become the "Bill Gates of Buoyancy?"  Why?  Do you really want a mansion with 20 bathrooms?  Wouldn't you prefer to start spreading the word so all of the starving people in the world would have easier access to energy so they could feed themselves and better their lives?

If you open sourced a free energy buoyancy device that ultimately saves millions and millions of people from starvation, you would be set for life anyways.  You could make a fortune on speaking tours.

Wayne, when do you plan on delivering the goods?  When will we get to see definitive proof from independent third party testers that what you claim is true?  When will you give a demo of your system, something like the system running for a full month driving a generator that powers two kilowatts worth of oven heating elements inside a protective metal cage.  We want to see the red glow 24/7 on a webcam monitoring system.  We want to have volunteers taking shifts so they can observe the system in person and monitor the voltages across the oven heating elements and feel the heat with their hands.  Can you do something like that?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
Thank you for the question,
We are currently being assisted by friends of Mark to set up the extended testing and degradation analysis (with the Data collection model).
We are upgrading the processor to be able to track real time  and continous Data.
We have raised our own personal "Bar" to exceed the proof beyond speculation.
At the same time, our engineers are arranging the manufacture of the next scaled up model the first Beta model, we have meetings Tuesday with the manufacture bidding for the job.
Regards to open sourcing - I have seen the notes from others here where Open sourcing - is assumed to be a way to avert supressions, and greed. We have seen no supression - beyound what was felt here and or casued by unbelief - and I am dedicated to make sure that the benifits of this machine reach the world.
I love the business model we are currently entertaining, but we have a couple more professional strategic planing presentations to review - we will see.
"Deliver the goods"
I see the question is regarding the Proof of concept - third party testing.
Some assumptions on this site are that we are here to seek approval, I came here to share the excitement, and answer questions within limits. 
The third party testing is being done for the people and groups that are helping to provide the resources that will "actually make these available" - that is more important than the hope that if it was let go - any one would spend the money to try in something they do not believe in.
 
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new plc equipment and software.
Thank You
Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on June 02, 2012, 07:08:21 AM
Wayne:

I wish you the best of luck.  Please note that when results are shared publicly that you are going get feedback from all sides.

If I can make a suggestion, you should to show the device driving a load.  Just seeing it "self running" is not enough.  Will the device have an output shaft?  Assuming it does there is no reason not to show the output shaft driving a generator that is clearly driving a big electrical load with live measurements and all wires exposed.

As an example, you could set it up on an asphalt surface, and you should clearly show that there is not an electrical outlet box embedded in the asphalt before you set up.   A setup on regular ground will not cut it.  Then just drive a big electrical load continuously for a month.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on June 02, 2012, 11:23:04 AM
The only thing he is going to share is overunity excitement  ;D LOL

Place your bets please.

Our current corrupt Government will never let clean self running free energy machines be accessible to the general public of the world. Especially commercially. NEVER! Why? It will destroy the Government’s general control of the world population. Look at others who have achieved free energy and tried to make it commercial, never happened and never will as long as this corrupt Government is concerned.

I bet all the money I possess microcontroller  :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 02, 2012, 03:26:08 PM
  @All,
 This is for a watts calculator. With what I am working on, I would be generating about 6 watts of power
by using a wheel with 1/2 Nm of force. That would be 1 kg at 1/2 meter.
 To generate 25 watts takes 4 kg's @ 1 meter from it's axis of rotation. And it would need to rotate @ 60 rpm.
 Sorry folks but can't accept that Wayne's invention is developing that amount of power. If so, I would have
to think it would be easily demonstrated that it is a working prototype.
 To Wayne, I like engineering and have worked with complex systems, one's more complex than yours. Myself,
I know a 12 volt battery could allow your system to work while causing a sufficient pressure differential to give
it the appearance of it actually working. But 25 watts requires something that would be self sustaining in an
obvious way.
 @All, here's a watts calculator. .
 
                                                                                                         Jim
http://www.magtrol.com/support/motorpower_calc.html (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F12223%2Fhow-to-build-a-bessler-type-wheel%2Fnew%2F%23new&v=1&libid=1338643046622&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.magtrol.com%2Fsupport%2Fmotorpower_calc.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F12223%2Fhow-to-build-a-bessler-type-wheel%2F30%2Fpost%2Flast_msg%2F324591%2F&title=How%20To%20Build%20A%20Bessler%20Type%20Wheel%23new%23new&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.magtrol.com%2Fsupport%2Fmotorpower_calc.html&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13386431303751)
 
edited to add;
 @All, pressure sensors don't need plumbing. With a tree that is connected with tubing to other components
is something not needed unless air pressure is being converted into hydraulic pressure. And for this, a large
piston in the bottom or top of the bellows would be the best location. Hydraulic lines tend to be rigid as a
result of being under high pressure. But this would require only one line per bellow.
 And for changing the primary air pressure for work would require only changing the area of that bellow by
using either a diaphram or an expansion chamber like the cap I mentioned. And neither is visible in the videos.
 If some how Wayne's invention works (which I doubt), it is poorly engineered.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 04:11:08 PM
Thanks Johnny,

Our system has three seperate and comlete systems
and I see this has added to the confusion of our operation and system.

System one -
The simple over unity portion - its capture and operating system - very basic.

System Two -
The Data collection system 25 transducers and hoses and wires to connect them all.
(yes they could belocated next to the source - we located them together so they could be isolated - good planning when you have to go through peer review)

System Three -
The initialization process.
Exist for only one reason - to allow the peer group to measure the initail filling of the system.
It is locked out after that operation and is no longer needed.

I am glad you are a better engineer - We need them.

What you infere in your statement is both confusion of our process, I understand - who could have ever understood the stages of "Extra Ordinary Proof" and "Complete analysis of an Actual OU device.

A black box running a load - as many assume would be enough - only adds extreme questions - and funding an operation on that leads to nothing.

Scientific anaylsis is the only responsible direction to take, for both the Inventor, the investor, and the world - or else it gets now where.

Now trust me - If you had engineered a mechanical free energy device - you would be going to the same extreme efforts to put it togther - not for the best engineering - but the best function and isolation for our purpose of analysis.

This has been a learning curve for me also.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mikestocks2006 on June 02, 2012, 05:20:24 PM
  @All,
 This is for a watts calculator. With what I am working on, I would be generating about 6 watts of power
by using a wheel with 1/2 Nm of force. That would be 1 kg at 1/2 meter.
 To generate 25 watts takes 4 kg's @ 1 meter from it's axis of rotation. And it would need to rotate @ 60 rpm.
  @All, here's a watts calculator. .
 http://www.magtrol.com/support/motorpower_calc.html (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F12223%2Fhow-to-build-a-bessler-type-wheel%2Fnew%2F%23new&v=1&libid=1338643046622&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.magtrol.com%2Fsupport%2Fmotorpower_calc.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F12223%2Fhow-to-build-a-bessler-type-wheel%2F30%2Fpost%2Flast_msg%2F324591%2F&title=How%20To%20Build%20A%20Bessler%20Type%20Wheel%23new%23new&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.magtrol.com%2Fsupport%2Fmotorpower_calc.html&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13386431303751)

Hi johnny874,
It appears there is a misprint on the quote above, the 4Kg (mass) should be 4 Newtons (force), and that is the weight about 0.16kg or 160grams, in order to get 25 Watts, from 1 m arm (radious of rotaion) at 60 rpm.
Thanks for the link/analysis
Mike
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 02, 2012, 06:46:29 PM
Hi johnny874,
It appears there is a misprint on the quote above, the 4Kg (mass) should be 4 Newtons (force), and that is the weight about 0.16kg or 160grams, in order to get 25 Watts, from 1 m arm (radious of rotaion) at 60 rpm.
Thanks for the link/analysis
Mike

  Just a misunderstanding. Still, for 1kg with 1/2 meter from it's axis needs to rotate at 60 rpm for 25 watts of power. Doubt your device generates that much energy.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 07:29:44 PM
Thank you Johnny,
 "Doubt your device generates that much energy."
Well, after the converting the Buoyancy into hydraulic production, then splitting that production to run the Internal operating system, and then using the left over production to runa hydraulic motor - which then turns the Generator - thats about what we have ..
Now jumping ahead on the logic - if you have looked at the machine and calculater the size of the tanks and realized that there is not enough mass discplacment to cause enough buoyancy to generate that much energy - You are right - in your logic Because you impose the limitation of buoyancy to mass.
To be clear - using  the external mass to predict the Buoyant field - will agree with your conclusion - it is counter intuitive to assume we are gaining on the mass discplacement - under those limitations.
We have been clear - our layering system concentrates the physical effects of Mass displacement - and is the key to our process - and our IP.
Thank you.
Wayne
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 03, 2012, 01:46:01 AM
Hello Microcontroller,
We all get that you do not understand our process,
You speak as though you have "all understanding" by denying what you do not know - and then accuse us of playing god...
My only request for you;
May you have Peace.
Wayne
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 03, 2012, 01:55:28 AM
errr i neeed to rrrrespond i need to hit that reply button it makes me feel goood let's make some shit up about converting the Buoyancy into hydraulic production and add some more bull about our layering system and they will give me some more attention it makes me feel like a god and i'm not going to show anything har har har

Here is what I don't understand:  A guy comes to OVERUNITY.COM forums to tell us about his (supposed) OVERUNITY device.  There are videos of obviously very expensive machines.  There is a know de-bunker who has visited, witnessed, and not been able to rule out the possibility that there is something to his claim.

Why are you mocking him?

Anyone who claims to believe in OU is usually labeled as a nutter believing in pseudoscience, right?  But isn't this the website where we listen to them and try to help them find the error in their idea or help them move forward with their idea?

Please don't take me as some sort of zealot who believes that Mr. Wayne has found "the Holy Grail."

I believe we need to show him the respect he has repeatedly showed us.

I also agree with MileHigh that serious questions should be presented to him.  We can only learn more from his answers.

Thanks,

M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 03, 2012, 04:13:49 PM
Here is a simple study of the effect of adding a "Travis effect" type fixed displacement member inside of a buoyancy device.  The device is designed to have the water (not air) introduced from the bottom.  So we start with everything only in air at one atmosphere.  As the water is pumped in and rises it will cause the air trapped inside the "piston" chamber to compress slightly.  Assuming a simple isothermic case where P1*V1=P2*V2 the reduced air volume and resultant head pressure available for buoyancy is calculated.  In order to allow for both cases to still have 12 inches of possible stroke I found that I could only block 33.4" of the inside of the piston air chamber with the selected 22" diameter cylinder.

The results show that, due to the reduced amount of air and subsequent reduced volume reduction due to compression, a higher head pressure and resultant buoyancy force can be achieved in case #2.  But I was unable to find any other significant results.

Please note that this is just a simple ideal case study where all members are 100% ridged, massless, and have no material thickness.

Thanks,

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 03, 2012, 06:08:11 PM
  M.,
 I think where he lost me was when he started thanking God for the great things he is going to do.
 With me, I like working out in the open. I have no need to keep secrets.
 Then again everyone knows I believe Bessler war succesful and was highly intelligent.
 Could be where I am different, I don,t mind doing what,s already been accomplished.
 I still find Bessler and what it takes to replicating his work worth while.

         Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 03, 2012, 06:39:10 PM
Jim,
 
I too have chased after the Bessler wheel.  I've done dozens of simulations, all that I can get close to unity!  But unfortunately no success.
 
If you are a fan of Bessler you then know that he also gave all credit for his wheel to God.  He was holding out for the sum he required to "sell" his invention for the purpose of funding some religious academy I recall?  Others can correct the details.
 
I am fine with anyone not believing Mr. Wayne's claims for any reason.  I just want a mature and respectful exchange since, so far, I have seen no requests for funds, replication, or other resource wasting items.  So I cannot label this a scam that is hurting anyone.  Instead, it has inspired me to study and learn several new things.  For that I am indebted.
 
I appreciate everyone who helps to expose and drive off scammers.  As well as those who help to educate the misguided and misled.  I don't believe we have any hard evidence of any of those malign intentions so far.  All evidence for those conclusions is so far circumstantial, I believe.  So I say, ask questions.  And listen carefully to the responses.  Study, and learn.  At least until something more solid than "I've seen this pattern of behavior before and it never ends up satisfying me"! is evident.
 
I appreciate that everyone's threshold for calling something a scam is different.  But just because some individual's tolerance has already been breached, it should not be taken as the reason to be disrespectful to an individual that may still have valuable input to the rest of the community. 
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on June 03, 2012, 09:16:43 PM
Wayne:

I am going to share a few thoughts with you.

For starters, for your demo I would disconnect your entire monitoring apparatus for the first run.  In your outdoor clip you can see what looks like an oilfield Christmas tree of high pressure hydraulic and/or pneumatic hoses.  Your monitoring system could easily be powering your device and nobody would know any better.  Plus, seeing 25 or so digital strip-chart recordings of your sensor information is just going to make people glaze over.

Repeat, strip off your entire sensor array and just do a bare-bones demonstration of your system for your first demo.  Run it for a month continuously and show it outputting power in an absolutely unambiguous way.   Seeing a set of lights mounted on a panel with a digital watt meter is NOT a way to demonstrate the alleged output power of your device.

What about what you plan to demo?  In my opinion you can sketch out what you plan to do without revealing anything.   So what do you have?  It looks like your buoyancy system will be used to run a hydraulic pump.  Will the pressurized hydraulic oil power some kind of oil turbine (not sure of the correct nomenclature) that then runs a generator?   I am sure that we are all curious to know how you take the power supplied by the buoyancy system and turn it into something useful.  What will the form of the output power be in?  How much power?  How will you measure it?  What will the load be?  Are you using a COTS electrical generator?  If yes, who is the manufacturer and what is the model number?

In your groaning clip, we see what appears to be an electric motor that is driving a hydraulic pump.  Is this true?  Where does the electrical power to drive the motor come from?  What is the pressurized hydraulic oil being used for?

What is going on in both the groaning clip and the outdoor clip in terms of what you are doing with your alleged free power from your buoyancy system?  It appears that there are hydraulics and pneumatics running and you already stated that there is a battery running some stuff.  Both the pneumatics and the hydraulics require a power source, and your slow oscillating alleged free energy buoyancy systems seen in both clips makes you wonder how you convert that into pneumatic and hydraulic power.

I could go on for a long time with questions.  I don't feel any of these questions are invasive and infringe on your alleged core IP built around the buoyancy system.  All that I see in those clips appears to be two contraptions that are powered by compressed air or hydraulic oil or a battery setup.  I don't get any sense that those two setups have a core power source that is driving the system.  To me it looks like both setups are being driven from some sort of power source.  That is my honest opinion.

You say that you have to pressurize the system when you start it up.  Well, you are putting energy into the system in the form of compressed air when you start it up.  How much compressed air energy do you put into the setup at the start?   How large is the compressed air volume and what is the PSI or kilopascals?

If you say that none of the compressed air provided to the system at startup ever loses pressure, then how come you have to repressurize it every time you start it up?

So Wayne, I doubt that you will answer my questions.  Right now your proposition has very little meat on the bone.  It's up to you to decide to answer or not before your demo for your investors.

If you have learned anything from this posting perhaps it is that your clips just generate a long list of questions for some people, they don't prove anything.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 03, 2012, 11:11:45 PM
MH,
 
Great post.  I just want to disclose a thought I had that differed from your "take away" from viewing the groaning video.  I had assumed that the "electric motor that is driving a hydraulic pump" that you described below was actually the reverse:  A hydraulic motor (powered by the output of the system) running a generator to power the electronics by keeping the battery charged.  Excess electrical output was then being put into the lights.  I had not considered what you wrote.  I look forward to a clarification by Mr. Wayne.

In your groaning clip, we see what appears to be an electric motor that is driving a hydraulic pump.  Is this true?  Where does the electrical power to drive the motor come from?  What is the pressurized hydraulic oil being used for?

Also, we should give a link to the "groaning video".  Is that here?  I personally saw it on PESN and don't know if it is local.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on June 04, 2012, 12:02:11 AM
Maybe user Microcontroller and Milehigh will stop posting here as wild speculations without having seen the actual
device does not bring us any further...!

Many thanks for your understanding..
Any further attacks of the inventor will be punished by me.


Maybe  johnny874
can still draw a few better pictures when he has some time as the ones posted are hard to understand
and he seems to be the only one who has understood the full principle.

Please also use color in your biger drawings and let us know where the
water level is located in your drawings.
Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on June 04, 2012, 12:06:52 AM
  I had assumed that the "electric motor that is driving a hydraulic pump" that you described below was actually the reverse:  A hydraulic motor (powered by the output of the system) running a generator to power the electronics by keeping the battery charged.  Excess electrical output was then being put into the lights.  I had not considered what you wrote.  I look forward to a clarification by Mr. Wayne.
 


Yes, it was already stated by the inventor, that it is a generator powering the light bulbs from the internal hydraulic
fluids flowiing in the system and it outputs around 30 Watts what the Power meter shows !

You all should read before speculating wrongly especially user Milehigh who seems  not to  read or
seems to mix up things on purpose... !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on June 04, 2012, 01:40:13 AM
Stefan:

No I am not mixing up any things on purpose.  I can't remember all the details partly because the presentation is not very good.

I will respect your wishes and I am done with this thread.  I am not 'attacking' anybody with my postings.  There is a good implicit message in my postings about asking questions.  I don't know why people seem shy or afraid to ask questions.  There are probably 20 good questions that I asked about this proposition and they may never be answered.  Just look at the example of the RomeroUK fiasco.  If just one person had insisted that Romero showed the output voltage from the FWBR bus he would have been busted right there.  Instead, nobody asked him that question and hundreds of people spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars for nothing.  Wattsup busted Romero when he analyzed his video clips.  He found what I predicted that he would find.  There is nothing wrong with asking questions, and even what would be considered tough questions are sometimes appropriate.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 04, 2012, 03:06:57 AM
Yes, it was already stated by the inventor, that it is a generator powering the light bulbs from the internal hydraulic
fluids flowiing in the system and it outputs around 30 Watts what the Power meter shows !

You all should read before speculating wrongly especially user Milehigh who seems  not to  read or
seems to mix up things on purpose... !
Sorry, but it looks like a big electric motor and a hydraulic pump to me, too. It's also not turning very fast, apparently.  A slow, high-torque motor, controlled by a PWM controller, driving a hydraulic pump, can do a lot of useful work at low RPM. But a hydraulic motor driving a generator to make useful electric power --- will have to turn the generator shaft at a faster and relatively steady speed.

And there is more than thirty watts just in the _audio_ output power of that groaning monster!!

It would be trivial for the inventor to permanently put this issue to rest by a simple demonstration or a closeup with meters attached to the right wires. Will he do so? I certainly would.... if I could.

MileHigh's point about the compressed air is also very important. It is a stored power source, and if it has to be replenished for the device to keep running..... well, that's not good. Why can't it power its own air compressor?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 04, 2012, 03:07:02 AM
I do not mean this rudley - but ask questions individually and not in a long list,
and please - not ones that have not already been answered by me or by the critics.

If you do not like the answer - asking again does not mean I am going to change them to fit into your parameters.

It was expalined to me the Heroic work done to uncover a fraud, and you have referanced that several times.

I am glad people were protected - my approach was to be completley open and honest to those who honored us enough to come and investigsate - last year when I released my work on this site.

That was a long and year ago, we have been reviewed.

What you look for now - that moment of discovery like where  "insisted that Romero showed the output voltage from the FWBR" is long past.

We have been vetted, it was for our benifit - not yours - and one of the vetters - has spoken five times on the hope he has for our mechanical free energy and what it means to the world.

The only sin we have committed was denying this site the hero moment - well - it won't happen - because - we have been speaking the truth - period.

I said before:

We have been busting it to get our system converted to a Data collection model to "Verify and confirm the engineering models and expectations" and to "Provide the Data for the Scientific team preparing for our white sheets and journals."

I do not expect to even ask for an "investors" - without due dilligense - who would expect an investor to support an unsubstantiated claim - I do not. What investor is going to go to this site or any other to get approval?

Since The Travis effect made the first sustainable free energy machine possible - or at least at the moment:

Let me share with you the process and efforts required - notice that getting approval for an overuntiy web site is missing.

Let me share the process again: - no skipping, no cheating, all due dilligenses have to be done - (remember this when you say things like "if he had something - he would be running his house off of it" - those that call that logic - don't really have any experiance)

Genisis (Travis Effect) Years to discover.
Eureka (how the Travis effect works - according to physics)
Design (turn the discovery into a machine on paper)
Research and Develop system (engineering and certification)
Build working Input /out put system (table top simple system)
Build operational system (perpetual motion)
Feasibility (build Closed looped system)
Build Data collection model (scientific review and verification)
(We are here)
Alpha Model (scale ablility to demonstrate range of anomoly)
Beta Models (durability and sustainability)
Production models, manuals, expertise, and so on.

(all of this is very expensive - so the next time you bash an inventor for needing funding - think a little omg)

In closing:
We have a solid team of professionals - you have been reminded of that.
Some of them have spoken here, and you ignored them.

I understand you want to analyze the system - but you are too late, should have helped last year when I asked.

I tried hard to tell this web site my success last year - and I left politely.

I promised Stefan to return when we were beyound that level of ....bunk.

I have been insulted for my faith, my engineering, called a fraud, had improper drawings labled "Hydroenergy fallacy" accused of being greedy, accused of many things.

I pray that "the good intentions", meant to protect others from fraud - will be matured.

Opinons and slanders have nothing to do with good investigation - stick with the facts.

Ask facts - not slime laden comments with preassumed conclusions in the wording, and posistions of denial.

The fact is, you were all given private access to a real Overunity Machine..some of you got it, well done.

Good night. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 04, 2012, 03:23:42 AM
@Wayne - great discovery.

Since there is much dissention here, hope you don't mind, but I've added some notes to your drawing to hopefully help clear up some of the issues.

This explanation assumes that there is 1 Ft of water above the cylinder tops, thus they can only move up 1 Ft with 185 pounds of force. The Travis insert is 2 Ft in length. It is in a precharge state, but after lift as shown in the bottom picture, the air is at the bottom of the Simple Travis Effect will be at the top and Travis insert bottom will be even with the bottom of the lift cylinder.

The notes I added show that Simple Archimedes required that 1 Cu Ft of air be forced down a total of 9 Ft (2 + 3 + 4)  in water.
Simple Travis effect required that 1 Cu Ft of air be forced down 4 Ft in water.
Travis effect only requires .44 of the total force that Archimedes does but has the same lift. Also, the Travis side when using the same PSI, would pressures with air in less time then the Archimedes side, important as Horsepower is directly releated to time.

This is a good start, but it can be improved by increasing the Travis insert length to 2 1/2 feet. Now it only requires that .5 Cu Ft of air be forced down 4 Ft. So now, the Travis effect only requires .22 of the total force that Archimedes does, but still has the same lift.

The challenge now is that it can only move up 6 inches.
 
But by correctly adding another Travis Effect layer the lift height would go back to 1 Ft as each would lift 6 inches, but now with 370 pounds of lift.

If it was further adjusted so that the lift height of each is 3 inches, it would require 4 layers to lift 1 Ft with 740 pounds of lift. The Travis effect now only requires .11 of the total force required by Archimedes.
The other upside to multiple layers is that it make his buoyancy machine incredibly fast to pressurize and unpressurize while providing an ever greater lift.

This is with 144 square inches surface area, his current at 707 square inches is a monster.

Bottom line: It would help greatly, if more here would just try to understand the unlimited potential of the Travis effect and less on the working of the current system. None of us here, can hope to equal the combined engineering capabilities of the current team.

Regards,
Larry 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 04, 2012, 03:27:22 AM
Sorry, but it looks like a big electric motor and a hydraulic pump to me, too.
Hello Tinsel,
It is just a very poorly matched Hydraulic motor turning a windy nation generator yes - slowly
We have enough excess to use it -mismatched -for our data collection - yes - major losses.

"And there is more than thirty watts just in the _audio_ output power of that
groaning monster!!"

That is so smart lol - I did not think of that! - actually the sound was turned way up..

"MileHigh's point about the compressed air is also very important."
A little bit misleading - we do not have to add water or air a second time - as I have said - stop or start as many times a s you like - run as long as you like -unless you drain the system for repair or leak.
Air input is like this:
1/2 cf 2 psi
1/2 cf 4 psi
1/2 cf 6 psi
Thats it, once per side - never more.
No one swims in an empty pool - well - we do not have buoyancy without water and air.
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 04, 2012, 03:47:24 AM
@mrwaye: Thanks for your prompt answer! Yes, nobody swims in an empty pool, that's for sure, and thanks for clearing up the point about the compressed air. A single charge that isn't depleted is OK with me, certainly !

I wish you luck and I await a full explanation of the workings. I admit that the explanations given so far don't make a lot of sense to me yet. I'm glad to see Mondrasek lending his analytic skills to the thread.

Can you point out, in the photos on the website slideshow, just where the power pistons are that convert the motion to hydraulic pressure? Are they the horizontal double-acting cylinders at the bottom of the big trusswork?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 04, 2012, 04:15:33 AM
No, they are the ones up top of the ZED tanks, in the outside video - they are white (single rod)
And on the inside system - they are the Grey and black ones (double rod).
Very simple conversion of Lateral force into Hydraulic fluid under pressure.
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 04, 2012, 03:11:24 PM
Well I just received my first update from the mailing list Mr. Wayne said we could all request to join.  It came out late last night, 11:37 PM EST.  In it he states that the patent is now online.  Anyone able to locate it?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 04, 2012, 04:03:28 PM
   Stefan,
 This is what I think Wayne is attempting. The left side would use comprssed air to expand. When this happens,
the right side is lifted. This is when the "Travis Effect" would pump water/fluid tp power the hydraulic motor.
 One thing I have come to understand about the Travis Effect is that it is a poor idea. By increasing the motion
or movement of a shaft, it's inefficient design is made to appear more effecient by placing an object in the
cylinder. Any engineer I know would use a hydraulic cylinder that has less depth.
 Since air is compressible, this is what has the only potential to be taken advantage of. This is because air/gas can
be compressed or allowed to expand. There is nothing I have seen in the design that has something that attempts
to manipulate the air pressure by changing the physical volume of the cylinder. This would be about the only
opportunity to do so.
 With Bessler's wheel, it uses compression to pump/move water/fluid in one direction. Overunity is achieved
because a lever can increase the potential of a mass. And since the weight/lever assembly would need to be reset,
the rotation of the wheel does this. With the basic example, a 2.2lb. or 1 kg weight 1/2 meter or 20 inches from
axis of rotation can be lifted/pumped or moved by a 1.1 or 1/2kg weight. And the 1kg weight can be lifted 37.5 cm's
while the weight performing the work (the lighter weight) only moves/drops 15 cm's.
 It's interesting in a way but I don't think most people have worked with pressurized systems.
 
                                                                                                                              Jim
 
edited to change pics
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 04, 2012, 06:26:53 PM
Patent:  http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957 (http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 05, 2012, 02:20:06 PM
Hello All,  .
 
The key to understanding the system - or even the patent - is to understand the Buoyancy utilization of the "Travis Effect" 
 
We spent five days trying to wade thru the claims by some that it was impossible to defeat the "volume" requirement of Buouyancy and that it was impossible to have the ability to capture more buoyancy than the mass of the object could float. 
With those under our belt for most - you can then realize how the design of our machine operates.
 
The layering system as designed, has been tested and patented, it is a unique arrangment of the Travis Effect - Each Layer has the ability to capture the mass of the Buoyancy as if it were stand alone - that is why the effeciency increases with the number of layers. 
 
The theory of decay has competition.... and this..... is a good thing.

Thank you for the questions. 
 
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on June 05, 2012, 02:44:19 PM
I hope, everybody understands:  A patent application (not even a granted patent) is no proof that it works. The patent office only checks whether something similar "was published" before. The patent office does not check the correct functioning of the claimed machine or process.

Nevertheless the patent publication gives us something to talk about.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?NUM=US20120117957

It still may be that crucial concepts are not included in the patent. Is this the case?

If everything is in the patent we can start a meaningful discussion. And Wayne could start to disclose meaningful data.

But as I know the world, he is bound by some money matters to keep secrets.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on June 05, 2012, 03:09:30 PM
I hope, everybody understands:  A patent application (not even a granted patent) is no proof that it works. The patent office only checks whether something similar "was published" before. The patent office does not check the correct functioning of the claimed machine or process.

Nevertheless the patent publication gives us something to talk about.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?NUM=US20120117957

It still may be that crucial concepts are not included in the patent. Is this the case?

If everything is in the patent we can start a meaningful discussion. And Wayne could start to disclose meaningful data.

But as I know the world, he is bound by some money matters to keep secrets.

Greetings, Conrad

Exactly, a patent don't mean shit! And doesn’t prove anything!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 05, 2012, 03:17:01 PM
Conrad is correct,
Just a filing alone does not prove a machine works - I appreciate facts.

In our case, we supplied enough information to build a fully functional machine - that uses buoyancy in a uniques concept to provide net energy from the exchange.

I had to make a decision as the inventor - leave crucial information out - in an effort to undercut theft, to hide our true purpose (net energy), or to fully disclose -

My policy from the begining - and continues - to be completly honest. That decision to publish the patent - without crucial information left out - meant we had to have a very strong patent - close to $40 grand later - you get to read it for free - online!

Now we have things not in "this" patent - Sustantial improvements being covered under additional writing. which meant much more $$ (Please do not ask questions regarding those, I will not be discussing those until they are released as well).

Due dilligense - not becasue "money matters" - I have full authority in all matters.

The rules regarding patents makes it standard to prohibit such discussions until the process is in a released stage - as is the state of our core design. 

Data release will be a business decision - We are sharing our work - not asking for approval.

Those with real curiosity - or able to get involved can contact me regarding that and other information.

mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

Thanks Conrad for the clear and steady mind, it protects individuals.
Wayme Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 05, 2012, 04:34:51 PM
Conrad is correct,
Just a filing alone does not prove a machine works - I appreciate facts.

In our case, we supplied enough information to build a fully functional machine - that uses buoyancy in a uniques concept to provide net energy from the exchange.

I had to make a decision as the inventor - leave crucial information out - in an effort to undercut theft, to hide our true purpose (net energy), or to fully disclose -

My policy from the begining - and continues - to be completly honest. That decision to publish the patent - without crucial information left out - meant we had to have a very strong patent - close to $40 grand later - you get to read it for free - online!

Now we have things not in "this" patent - Sustantial improvements being covered under additional writing. which meant much more $$ (Please do not ask questions regarding those, I will not be discussing those until they are released as well).

Due dilligense - not becasue "money matters" - I have full authority in all matters.

The rules regarding patents makes it standard to prohibit such discussions until the process is in a released stage - as is the state of our core design. 

Data release will be a business decision - We are sharing our work - not asking for approval.

Those with real curiosity - or able to get involved can contact me regarding that and other information.

mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

Thanks Conrad for the clear and steady mind, it protects individuals.
Wayme Travis

  Wayne,
 I think aboiut the only improvements that would allow your device to work are what I am illustrating.
By using low pressure air to create hydraulic pressure, then a spring or even air can be compressed in an
attempt to close an expansion chamber. One thing that would help in this is if the pneumatic piston had a
spring itself could compress. Springs are an equal exchange item. As such, when compression occurs
from closing thew expansion chamber, there is some give in the high pressure air chamber.
 Then when it is closed, the spring under the oneumatic piston would help to maintain high pressure air in
that chamber while it expqands along with the low pressure chamber. By having them both expand, the h.p.
more quickly of course would allow for more work to be performed.
 Be that as it may, it is difficult to discuss engineering when a claim is made but there is nothing that supports
those claims.
 
                                                                                                                          Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 05, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
For this device to be overunity it is required that more head pressure is available for boyancy than is present in the entire water head.  That is clearly not possible with a single cylinder in either a simple Archemedian set up or the simple "Travis effect" set ups we have compared.
 
With this design Mr. Wayne has nested three cylinders.  They all use the same water head.  So to be overunity, the sum of the heads for the three cylinders must be greater than the single water head.  Or in the picture below, B + C + D must be greater than A.  That is clearly the case.
 
He has a workable overunity bouyancy device design.  From the video's I would say he also has the devices built.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 05, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
For this device to be overunity it is required that more head pressure is available for boyancy than is present in the entire water head.  That is clearly not possible with a single cylinder in either a simple Archemedian set up or the simple "Travis effect" set ups we have compared.
 
With this design Mr. Wayne has nested three cylinders.  They all use the same water head.  So to be overunity, the sum of the heads for the three cylinders must be greater than the single water head.  Or in the picture below, B + C +D must be greater than A.  That is clearly the case.
 
He has a workable overunity bouyancy device design.  From the video's I would say he also has the devices built.
 
Thanks,
 
M.

  M.,
 Out of respect for you and Mr. Travis, I am going to quit following this thread after I point out one incorrect assumption in your previous post.
 When B+C+D have a greater effect than A, energy is being lost. This is because the weight (110?) is trying to compress a hydraulic cylinder. Instead, it is lifting a column of water that does not perform work.
 In the patent application, section no. 88, Mr. Wayne states that the static heads need to be recharged with air. I would have to believe this is the reason for the compression of the hydraulic cylinder occuring, not because of any effect.
 The reality is that A would seek a balance with B+C+D dependent on their respective air pressure. The water columns would adjust accordingly.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 05, 2012, 07:28:26 PM
@mrwayne,
 
What are the benefits of moving the water between the two ZEDs vs. moving the air to cycle the buoyancy force back and forth?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 05, 2012, 08:05:47 PM
When B C D have a greater effect than A, energy is being lost. This is because the weight (110?) is trying to compress a hydraulic cylinder.

Sorry @johnny874, but there is no "weight" 110.  110 is the outside wall of the Outer Riser.  I think you may be thinking that the rectangular area in which the numbers 188 and 162 are printed is a weight, but it is actually an open top cylindrical chamber.
 
The rest of your post is also unfortunately wrong in many ways.  If you wished to understand better you may want to try rereading the patent.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 05, 2012, 09:39:11 PM

Sorry @johnny874, but there is no "weight" 110.  110 is the outside wall of the Outer Riser.  I think you may be thinking that the rectangular area in which the numbers 188 and 162 are printed is a weight, but it is actually an open top cylindrical chamber.
 
The rest of your post is also unfortunately wrong in many ways.  If you wished to understand better you may want to try rereading the patent.
 
M.

  M,
 Not sure how your post got to me with my having stopped all notifications.
 It is okay, you can call me wrong, especially on this;
The differential air mass exchanger 102a may be connected to at least two units 101a and 101b, when additional work is added to one side of the differential air mass exchanger 102; the cylinder 216 travels in the opposite direction. The additional work can be supplied directly or mechanically. The differential air mass exchanger 102 is utilized to control the speed of the pre-charge and cycle/stroke of the apparatus

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957#ixzz1wwuUjVcO (http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957#ixzz1wwuUjVcO)
It's the 2nd half of 0088. I did not write that. Air pressure is controlled by something other than the mechanics being cited.
 It seems I did read the patent. This is why I designed something where the manipulation of the air pressure comes from manipulating the volume of the cylinder through mechanical/haydraulic and pneumatic means, but using no air exchangers.
 Just a flow path where each individual item can be understood on it's own terms as to energy consupmtion and work performed. But as Mr. Wayne posted, they are adding more complexity to this device. I believe it is as I posted earlier,
It seems the more complex something is, the less likely it is to be genuine.
 
                                                                                                                                 Jim
 
edited to add; it looks like 104 is the outer wall. 110 seems to be something that occupies the space on top of various riser sections. Like the weight Mr. Wayne used in his aqurarium demonstration.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 05, 2012, 10:38:23 PM
Jim,
 
The three buoyant section, 1. the Pod, 2. the Inner Riser, and 3. the Outer Riser all move upwards due to buoyancy and drive a hydraulic accumilator attached above.  The motion is controlled by balancing the air pressure through the differential air mass exchanger.  The differential air mass exchanger is utilizing a portion of the energy that is stored by the hydraulic accumilator.  Each upstroke of a ZED produces more energy than needed to cycle the differential air mass exchanger.  So air pressure is 100% being controlled by the mechanics being cited.
 
Later on in the patent you can read that an alternative way of cycling the buoyancy between the two ZEDs is to move some of the water instead of the air.  I believe there may be some advantage to moving the water vs. the air and hope to hear an answer.  Might just be economics.  The differential (water) mass exchanger is cheaper and has fewer wear items I think.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 05, 2012, 11:32:05 PM
Jim,
 
The three buoyant section, 1. the Pod, 2. the Inner Riser, and 3. the Outer Riser all move upwards due to buoyancy and drive a hydraulic accumilator attached above.  The motion is controlled by balancing the air pressure through the differential air mass exchanger.  The differential air mass exchanger is utilizing a portion of the energy that is stored by the hydraulic accumilator.  Each upstroke of a ZED produces more energy than needed to cycle the differential air mass exchanger.  So air pressure is 100% being controlled by the mechanics being cited.
 
Later on in the patent you can read that an alternative way of cycling the buoyancy between the two ZEDs is to move some of the water instead of the air.  I believe there may be some advantage to moving the water vs. the air and hope to hear an answer.  Might just be economics.  The differential (water) mass exchanger is cheaper and has fewer wear items I think.
 
Thanks,
 
M.

  Did a quick check on no.110, he is mixing in the "pod" which floats with other systems. None the less, it is still a weighted float.
The prime mover in the what's his name Effect. Also, you failed to mention how water rising outside of this system performing no work creates an advantage. Seriously, if you or Wayne Travis wish to discuss engineering, I am all for it.
 But what is being presented fails to address a flow path of cause and effect which can demonstrate a potential gain. Complicating the system is akin to cooking the books in accounting. Just create phoney off shore accounts and no one can follow all the transfers. Enron did it until tthey had to pay the bills.
 D@mn me if you will, but pretty soon I'll start coming off as credible for supporting Bessler's work which can be considered using cause and effect and action-reaction. Simply put, I do believe he cheated the laws of physcis by having gravity drop weights twice. Of course, in a rotating wheel, this is possible  :D
 Once when the are moving upwards and then again on their way down when they are performing work which keeps the wheel rotating. You see, his weights cancel each other out until you consider f=ma. That means it takes energy to rotate the wheel. Simple, just the way I like it.
 


edited to add;
 A quick video showing water is displaced when placed between 2 surfaces. Something I have discussed for the last 2 years or so.
By using a tube, the fluid and it's characteristics can be controlled. This simply means that it can be pumped from one pump to another as the wheel rotates.
 And what Bessler realized was that using leverage allowed for more work to be done. This simply means that more fluid could be pumped than what the weight alone could do. And the weight is reset because as the wheel rotates, it drops when passing top center. This allows it to fall again when it is primed (has fluid ready to be pumped).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chyOzgkaDkg&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chyOzgkaDkg&feature=youtu.be)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 06, 2012, 12:45:35 AM
Jim,
 
If  Mr. Wayne's device can work, and the energy gain is from buoyancy, that means the prime mover is gravity I believe.  Now gravity is understood to be a Conservative Field of Force (like that of a magnet) and therefor thought to be unable to do work.  If this is untrue, and gravity *can* do work, then Bessler's wheel would also have to be reconsidered by many as a possibility.
 
I wish you the best of luck in figuring out how Bessler did it!  I really want to know.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 04:21:16 AM
@mrwayne,
 
What are the benefits of moving the water between the two ZEDs vs. moving the air to cycle the buoyancy force back and forth?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Very good Question - To create our buoyancy - we essentially raise the water level (increase the head) - at the same time the other side is lowering - the output force from the floating Zed is converted to Hydraulic production - which in a three layer system is barely over unity (regarding the up stroke).
Now the raised head is still in the Zed after the hydraulic fluid is captured.
The energy stored in that head is transfered directly to the other Zed - That energy subtracts from the input cost of the upstroke - guess how much?
In cycle - it happens each direction - or twice a stroke.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 04:23:45 AM
  M
As you said, if.
With Bessler, it is about recognizing what someooe has done.

Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 05:08:16 AM

  M.,
 Out of respect for you and Mr. Travis, I am going to quit following this thread after I point out one incorrect assumption in your previous post.
 When B+C+D have a greater effect than A, energy is being lost. This is because the weight (110?) is trying to compress a hydraulic cylinder. Instead, it is lifting a column of water that does not perform work.
 In the patent application, section no. 88, Mr. Wayne states that the static heads need to be recharged with air. I would have to believe this is the reason for the compression of the hydraulic cylinder occuring, not because of any effect.
 The reality is that A would seek a balance with B+C+D dependent on their respective air pressure. The water columns would adjust accordingly.
Hello Johnny,
Thanks for being respectful.

What you are refering to as a Hydraulic cylinder is an inlet tube.

What you are refering to as a weight is a empty bowl.

Sorry - patent drawings are not clear.

Section 88 as refered to - is for shut down and venting of pressures and lock out - as it follows, returning from a lockout tagout scenerio - the system would need reset, recharged.
This is not the case during run -  just during a maintnence type shut down - as with any energy isolating and removing condition.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 05:31:26 AM
Tongue in cheek question:

How much buoyancy can you get from a cup when the water is on the inside?

None

How do you move the water from the inside to the outside?

Air pressure

 :)
Actually webby,
The "Travis Effect" works up side down as well - let me explain.
If you attached the inner displacment (like the concrete that Tom showed) to the ceiling (rigid) and then placed a cup around the block (right side up) and then placed a scale under the cup - and filled the gap between the block and the cup with water - instead of Air - the down ward force is equal to the total mass from the top of the water level to the bottom of the cup.
The force pushing down on the cup is equal to the head pressure x the surface area -
The mass (block) suspendid from the ceiling acts as a mass discplacement -
Fun fact.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 05:57:20 AM
 But what is being presented fails to address a flow path of cause and effect which can demonstrate a potential gain. Complicating the system 


Hello Johnny,
A very simple flow path -
I am suprised by your comments.
The inner system of layers is not pushed down as in your video -
They are held in place by resistance from a production cylinder - the water (or air) - increases the head pressure - which increases the air pressure - the air pressure acts upon the surfaces creating an upward force which overcomes the resistance of the production cylinder.
When the prodcution cylinder is over come - the production is split two ways - to supplement the next half stroke, and to run the generator -
After the stroke length is achieved - the head pressure is transfered to the alternate system, which then uses the pre supplied production + ( plus) the head pressure to stroke again.
(the lowering syetem is refilling it prodcution cylinder on the down portion of the stroke)
and the production is split again for the next half stroke.
Over and over - it is very simple.
You see - head has stored energy, and the compressed air - has stored energy - we do not consume those - we just supplement the transfer from side to side (Zed to Zed)
p.s It is the "Travis Effect"
Thanks Wayne
 
 
Title: downward travis
Post by: prato_braun on June 06, 2012, 01:17:41 PM
Hello mrwayne,


thanks for your time and input. I really hope it's not a scam and
your going to succeed to put a working system in the market.
I still have problems grasping the travis effect so I drew a picture of how I understood the
downward travis effect and I would like your opinion.
Is it utterly wrong or is downward pushing force not equal to weight?
All the best,


Prato
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Hello Prato
Yes, only fix the "block" with a solid connection. (it could float up - and confuse things)
The Block - or mass displacement does not have to be concrete - you just need to create the flow path so that the small volume of water becomes head pressure.
In buoyancy - the head pressure is converted to air pressure which acts against surfaces -
In hydro pressure - as you have drawn - the head acts directly against the surfaces. same forces - opposite capture method.

Well Done.
(the point on the lack of need for concrete - if the block were hollow - you would see it as buoyany too)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 03:19:53 PM
?
 
edited to add;
 Okay, I get it now. You use an air pump to increase the air pressure in "A" to
lift the block. And when you bleed the air off, it allows the block to compress air
in "D" to create hydraulic pressure.
 With what I drew, there is the high pressure area which is the source of energy
for the low pressure area which performs the actual work. As my drawing shows,
only 2 areas are needed. And how any pressure change occurs is observed at that
location.
 I think using an air manifold and an air pump really makes it difficult to believe
your system is self powering.
 
                                                                      Jim
 
edit;
 Not sure how to put this Wayne, but I think you complicated your idea to such an extent that you probably can't follow it yourself.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 03:52:52 PM
  Wayne,
 Could you make a list of all "add ons" that peform work.
You know, any motor, pump, etc. ?
 The difference between my designs and yours is that I
use mechanical means which can be tested independently.
 And as I mentioned, creating a static head is not overunity.
It has to be shown how the system can be reversed without
expending any energy to do so, or less than what the system
develops. You don't show this at any time.
 You see, when your weight drops, it does create hydraulic
pressure. It also takes an equal amount of work to lift the weight
back to it's original position. This is why I think you use an air pump.
Other wise, your 2 sides would balance each other out in a neutral
position.
                                                    Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 05:16:57 PM
    Wayne,
 If you would like to do something that would make a difference in the world, give Bessler a thought. Sure there
would be no "hero" moment, but is that really necessary ?
 As has been "discovered", a 12 ft. (3.8m) Bessler wheel could generate 400 watts of electricity. With 5 wheels,
that would be 2,000 watts of power. Would that make a difference ? For humanitarian purposes, it could be huge.
 Why ? not everybody has running water or even a source of water that doesn't require effort, you know, getting
water from a well. Of course, there are people who would pursue such things with an open source free energy
invention. I know of one person who lives in Egypt.
 With me, I like Bessler's work and think he is someone I would have liked to have met. I think a lot of people
will be fascinated by what he knew and did. And at the same time, it would have the added benefit of allowing
some people to help others.
 But as I let Stefan know, I will need another surgery. I have an appointment on the 14th and until my situation
is resolved, if I'm not capable of working for my employer, it's best I not build either. As frustrating as that is for
me, it is something I need to accept.
 
                                                                                                                               Jim
 
edited to run spell check
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 05:38:42 PM
 
edit;
 Not sure how to put this Wayne, but I think you complicated your idea to such an extent that you probably can't follow it yourself.
Hello Jim,
 
Thats funny...
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 06:06:33 PM
 The difference between my designs and yours is that I
use mechanical means which can be tested independently.
                                                    Jim

Hello Jim,
I have no idea of your system - so comparisons are confusing, and good luck.
Again, thanks for your input - when you do understand our process - I hope you are as excited as we are.
Good Luck on your pump.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 06, 2012, 06:13:15 PM
@mrwayne,
 
I noticed you are also answering questions and disclosing more info over at PESN.  Are there any other public forums where you are also active on this subject?  I'm just not wanting to miss anything.
 
Also, I noticed a forum login on your own site, but no sign up.  So I assume that is not public.  Is there any way to get access to that?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 06:37:27 PM
Hello M.
I actually answer private questions first.
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I comment on both of the new releases Sterling has added to his site.
And Stefan's site.
I do not use the forum on my web site - just e-mail and phone calls.
Many of the same people visit all three - I have seen the "Travis Effect" show up many places - but I currenlty only have time for the three, I authorized.
Thanks
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 06, 2012, 06:49:29 PM
Wayne,

The patent diagrams have done much to clear up the system process comments in your previous post. It also proves, that as you stated, you have been completely honest in your post. Thank you, this has not always been the case here, and it may restore faith in some.

Your post have given the impression that the overunity is coming from the air pressure in the lifted ZED to supply half the pressure to the other ZED for precharge. This makes sense at a base level, but I don't see how to mathematically solve it.

'Do not forget - We prove it on paper using simple and also complex physics. (note to future free energy inventors - if it does not work in the simple math - it will not get better in the complex).'

Can you show the math proving the overunity?

Regards,
Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 07:02:00 PM
Wayne,

The patent diagrams have done much to clear up the system process comments in your previous post. It also proves, that as you stated, you have been completely honest in your post. Thank you, this has not always been the case here, and it may restore faith in some.

Your post have given the impression that the overunity is coming from the air pressure in the lifted ZED to supply half the pressure to the other ZED for precharge. This makes sense at a base level, but I don't see how to mathematically solve it.

'Do not forget - We prove it on paper using simple and also complex physics. (note to future free energy inventors - if it does not work in the simple math - it will not get better in the complex).'

Can you show the math proving the overunity?

Regards,
Larry

Hello Larry,
I have a meeting in ten, so I will say - this is a good question, and I apprecaite your logic and wisdom.
Staying honest it the only way to go. Sorry about those that do not hold that value.
I will answer later - I am not a engineer so my answer will be in - inventor - test and rest type language.
Thank you Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 07:14:32 PM
The difference between my designs and yours is that I
use mechanical means which can be tested independently.
                                                    Jim

Hello Jim,
I have no idea of your system - so comparisons are confusing, and good luck.
Again, thanks for your input - when you do understand our process - I hope you are as excited as we are.
Good Luck on your pump.
Wayne
  Wayne,
 Unfortunately I do understand what you are trying to do. I would say you are in a state of denial.
 You spend a lot of money and put a lot of work into something and it doesn't work. Something it
seems you are having trouble accepting. Spending more money further complicating it won't get it to work.
 I wish there was someone else who could get you to understand this. Using an air pump to increase
the "bouyancy" effect is basically converting air pressure into hydraulic pressure. There is nothing in your
system that amplifies the potential for work to be performed.
 Maybe one day you'll understand being a part of something is better than being on top of the mountain.

                                                                                                                Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 07:26:29 PM
  Wayne,
 Unfortunately I do understand what you are trying to do. I would say you are in a state of denial.
 You spend a lot of money and put a lot of work into something and it doesn't work. Something it
seems you are having trouble accepting. Spending more money further complicating it won't get it to work.
 I wish there was someone else who could get you to understand this. Using an air pump to increase
the "bouyancy" effect is basically converting air pressure into hydraulic pressure. There is nothing in your
system that amplifies the potential for work to be performed.
 Maybe one day you'll understand being a part of something is better than being on top of the mountain.

                                                                                                                Jim
Once again,
We do not use an air pump - (after initialization)
It is not denial my friend -
What 'you' think we have - your are right - but what we have 'you' do not understand.
 
Thanks
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 06, 2012, 07:52:29 PM
Once again,
We do not use an air pump - (after initialization)
It is not denial my friend -
What 'you' think we have - your are right - but what we have 'you' do not understand.
 
Thanks
 
Wayne
hi Wayne,
how many cycles it can run until the next initialization?
Alex
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 08:57:03 PM
Once again,
We do not use an air pump - (after initialization)
It is not denial my friend -
What 'you' think we have - your are right - but what we have 'you' do not understand.
 
Thanks
 
Wayne

  Wayne,
 You have intentionally misrepresented yourself in this forum. That is plain wrong !!!
To wit, you have a provissional patent. This is not to be confused with an actual patent.
 What are the differences ? Namely a provisional patent requires no examination which you claim to
have been subjected to. Seriously, lying like that is not good. Would you like me to show you the post ?
 A provisional patent costs $110 and is given just for paying the application fee and submitting a 2 page form.
 The purpose of a provisional patent is to help inventors who might wish to market their invention while having
the protection of a PROVISIONAL patent. It requires no patent search, examination or any demonstration of
being an actual invention. The inventor(s) is given 1 year from I believe the filing date to convert the provisional
patent to an actual patent which would require going through the complete patent application process which you
claim to have done. Shame on you !
 If your device works as claimed, after initial operation, disconnect the battery. That is the only proof you need
and yet have failed to post a video showing that your invention generates enough electricity to power itself.
 And any excuse you make (baseless claim) will mean you want something. What was it you posted ? With a patent
and being able to generate sufficient power to have a new and valuable source of energy would make you quite rich.
edited; not quite rich, you would be thanking God for the great things you are doing  ;edited
 Who knows, maybe your ego and greed interfered with good judgement.
 Still, prove me wrong and disconnect the battery. A simple request.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 09:30:15 PM
Conrad, very well said.

If you would like to see my working device - you are welcome to come on over, I love sharing the discovery, No one has gone away disappointed.

As far as experience of so many come and goes........ is that not with every attempt at innovation.

The process of discovery if full of failures, measurement errors, misguided at temps, and over optimistic claims.

When someone does hit it just right, like the "intermittent windshield wiper" .....no one worries anymore about the effort it took, the diligence it required, the tenacity to not give up. And yes, a big company comes and gobbles them up.

I wonder how many truly great ideas have went away from a need to fund, or to get people to listen.

I do not claim to have all the answers to the problem, but I do have a very over unity device.

A very good point you made: "Bigger"

When I built my first attempt - it was a "full scale bucket brigade" with modern improvements - that was before I truly understood how buoyancy worked - I have Photos. I learned a great deal with hands on and practical application.

(I am on design number seven - and it is works very well) I would say that I am an expert on what does not work, as well  :)

One thing I heard from critics, and have confirmed with my physical research is that if it does not work on the small, it will not work on the big - (with a little disclaimer - your drag in a over all system does not reduce at the same rate as you can reduce the design).

And in functionality - if drag is going to be an issue - your machine is not worth the effort to build.

My models 5 and 6 were also over unity, (125) those designs each had four energy conversions, at the end of the day - the only thing I had to "sell" was $300 worth of electrons (a year) from a $35,000 dollar machine.

Very much a waste of time, my goal has not been to disprove the laws of physics, but to build a system that produces in an abundance.

I am going to post this chat, and go back to explaining my system.

Thank all of you for the interest. It is en courageing.

Mr Wayne

  >>  When someone does hit it just right, like the "intermittent windshield wiper" .....no one worries anymore about the effort it took, the diligence it required, the tenacity to not give up. And yes, a big company comes and gobbles them up.  <<
 
 I saw the movie, can't remember it's name. The guy made like $30 million on his invention. How is this being gobbled up by some company ?
He had patent protection and sued for violating his rights to his patent. The issue the motor companies had was he wanted to manufacture them himself. It was his greed which created the initial problem. He was an engineer and had no manufacturing experience.
 Most people would've been glad to have licensed their invention, make the money and let someone else do all the work. He pretty much showed the wrong way to go about things when you realize an invention.
 Need to stick with verifiable facts Wayne. I will look for more disinformation in your posts as time goes by.
 
                                                                                                                                          Jim
 
edited to run spell check
edited to add; The movie was called Flash of Genius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_of_Genius_(film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_of_Genius_(film))
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 06, 2012, 09:40:33 PM

  Wayne,
 You have intentionally misrepresented yourself in this forum. That is plain wrong !!!
To wit, you have a provissional patent. This is not to be confused with an actual patent.
 What are the differences ? Namely a provisional patent requires no examination which you claim to
have been subjected to. Seriously, lying like that is not good. Would you like me to show you the post ?
 A provisional patent costs $110 and is given just for paying the application fee and submitting a 2 page form.
 The purpose of a provisional patent is to help inventors who might wish to market their invention while having
the protection of a PROVISIONAL patent. It requires no patent search, examination or any demonstration of
being an actual invention. The inventor(s) is given 1 year from I believe the filing date to convert the provisional
patent to an actual patent which would require going through the complete patent application process which you
claim to have done. Shame on you !
 If your device works as claimed, after initial operation, disconnect the battery. That is the only proof you need
and yet have failed to post a video showing that your invention generates enough electricity to power itself.
 And any excuse you make (baseless claim) will mean you want something. What was it you posted ? With a patent
and being able to generate sufficient power to have a new and valuable source of energy would make you quite rich.
edited; not quite rich, you would be thanking God for the great things you are doing  ;edited
 Who knows, maybe your ego and greed interfered with good judgement.
 Still, prove me wrong and disconnect the battery. A simple request.
Johnny,

False. The provisional application filed on Nov 9,2010 is under the Related S.S Application Date section of his standard Patent Application which was filed Nov. 9, 2011 and approved May 17, 2012.
You seem to be just looking to spin any point to attack Wayne.

Regards,
Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 06, 2012, 10:10:28 PM
Yes, please Jim.  You are making a lot of false and slanderous statements.  I am not sure if you just do not understand or have some malicious intent.  But your conduct is becoming less and less professional and respectful.  Please try and reread the patent and try to fully understand the principle.  Nothing in Mr. Wayne's Zed is moving due to pressure in closed vessels like a classical hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder.  The motion is in an open top system and happens due to buoyancy.  It is buoyancy that is being utilized in a unique configuration.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 10:52:08 PM
hi Wayne,
how many cycles it can run until the next initialization?
Alex
I know this is repeating, I presume you have not read the whole thread - no problem.
Initialization is simply filling the system with the water and then adjusting the "head" with air into position for continuos run.
How many cylces? - Until Mechanical  failure -
The system has "no" external inputs once set up, and can be stopped and restarted with a single button.
(as many times as desired).
 
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 11:01:49 PM
Yes, please Jim.  You are making a lot of false and slanderous statements.  I am not sure if you just do not understand or have some malicious intent.  But your conduct is becoming less and less professional and respectful.  Please try and reread the patent and try to fully understand the principle.  Nothing in Mr Wayne's Zed is moving due to pressure in closed vessels like a classical hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder.  The motion is in an open top system and happens due to buoyancy.  It is buoyancy that is being utilized in a unique configuration.
 
M.

   M.,
 Nothing false about the guy who invented the intermittent wiper making $30 million.
 Wayne claimed that large companies gobbled it up.
 And here is a link to the USPTO web site and provisional patents. You'll find I have
researched this before which is why I know about it and what it requires. I learned for myself, so if Wayne wishes to say the USPTO is wrong, he can.
 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/provapp.jsp (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/provapp.jsp)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 11:10:43 PM

  Wayne,
 You have intentionally misrepresented yourself in this forum. That is plain wrong !!!
To wit, you have a provissional patent. This is not to be confused with an actual patent.
 What are the differences ? Namely a provisional patent requires no examination which you claim to
have been subjected to. Seriously, lying like that is not good. Would you like me to show you the post ?
 A provisional patent costs $110 and is given just for paying the application fee and submitting a 2 page form.
 The purpose of a provisional patent is to help inventors who might wish to market their invention while having
the protection of a PROVISIONAL patent. It requires no patent search, examination or any demonstration of
being an actual invention. The inventor(s) is given 1 year from I believe the filing date to convert the provisional
patent to an actual patent which would require going through the complete patent application process which you
claim to have done. Shame on you !
 If your device works as claimed, after initial operation, disconnect the battery. That is the only proof you need
and yet have failed to post a video showing that your invention generates enough electricity to power itself.
 And any excuse you make (baseless claim) will mean you want something. What was it you posted ? With a patent
and being able to generate sufficient power to have a new and valuable source of energy would make you quite rich.
edited; not quite rich, you would be thanking God for the great things you are doing  ;edited
 Who knows, maybe your ego and greed interfered with good judgement.
 Still, prove me wrong and disconnect the battery. A simple request.
(Correction) - Johhny, you have move from negativity to attack.
We filed the Provisional in Nov 2010, the conversion to a full patent in Nov 2011, and the PCT.
I have the Letters from the patent office and Numbers - you might be confused?
Lets be clear on one point - I may make a spelling error - or mix up a number - or use the wrong symbol
But you have just accused me of lying - Untrue -
I have spent nearly $40,000 for the very best Patent searches - Provisional patent, Conversion, and PCT.
Please be careful with your charges.
I understand a mistake has been made here on your account, your joy in the charge is dissapointing.
Stefan - please handle this.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 06, 2012, 11:23:18 PM
Larry, you have move from negativity to attack.
We filed the Provisional in Nov 2010, the conversion to a full patent in Nov 2011, and the PCT.
I have the Letters from the patent office and Numbers - you might be confused?
Lets be clear on one point - I may make a spelling error - or mix up a number - or use the wrong symbol
But you have just accused me of lying - Untrue -
I have spent nearly $40,000 for the very best Patent searches - Provisional patent, Conversion, and PCT.
Please be careful with your charges.
I understand a mistake has been made here on your account, your joy in the charge is dissapointing.
Stefan - please handle this.
Wayne

  Wayne,
 Saying that you're protecting your investment because you don't want to be ripped off like the guy who invented the intermittent wipers is not a typing error.
 And >>  I have spent nearly $40,000 for the very best Patent searches <<
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm#search (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm#search)
 Unfortunately, the USPTO charge fees for doing the search. Doubt you could spend $40,000. Anyone can check the link. $620.00 is the highest search fee they charge and that is for a utility search fee which is probably what you would have needed.
  When I have tried to discuss engineering with you, your only answer has been that I do not understand. Yet you won't disconnect the battery which you claim is only used to operate the air pump when you initialize your invention. And this suggests that it is what's responsible for what you claim to be an overunity device.
 
                                                                    Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 06, 2012, 11:39:49 PM

  Wayne,
 Saying that you're protecting your investment because you don't want to be ripped off like the guy who invented the intermittent wipers is not a typing error.
 And >>  I have spent nearly $40,000 for the very best Patent searches <<
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm#search (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm#search)
 Unfortunately, the USPTO charge fees for doing the search. Doubt you could spend $40,000. Anyone can check the link. $620.00 is the highest search fee they charge and that is for a utility search fee which is probably what you would have needed.
  When I have tried to discuss engineering with you, your only answer has been that I do not understand. Yet you won't disconnect the battery which you claim is only used to operate the air pump when you initialize your invention. And this suggests that it is what's responsible for what you claim to be an overunity device.
 
                                                                    Jim
Johnny,
Our patent attorneys are top notch.
The Battery question has been answered.
You decided the intermitten windshied wiper guy was robbed of money - that is not my focus.
The point of his battle was not the money - but that a scoundrel back by big bucks - claimed they invented it. Did you watch the show?
 
I have spent to much time - trying to show you respect - as you continue to disrespect our work.
And you are still in my prayers, for your health, the surgery, the Job, and your heart.
Good Day.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 07, 2012, 12:40:10 AM
Johnny,
Our patent attorneys are top notch.
The Battery question has been answered.
You decided the intermitten windshied wiper guy was robbed of money - that is not my focus.
 Did you watch the show?
 
I have spent to much time - trying to show you respect - as you continue to disrespect our work.
And you are still in my prayers, for your health, the surgery, the Job, and your heart.
Good Day.
Wayne

  Wayne,
 I did watch the movie. That is why I wondered about a lot he did.
 I have let Stefan know that I am hoping by this weekend to have a demonstration of what Bessler knew 300 years ago. I think it is something everyone will understand.
 Simply put, it will be straight forward and will not need an explanation. This si why one critic of Bessler's said it was so simple, a child could build it. He was ridiculing Bessler for being successful.
 About the intermittent windshield wiper guy, you are the one who said big companies gobbled it up, I showed your post. I said he made $30 million.
 I think this is why we can't be friends. 
>>  The point of his battle was not the money - but that a scoundrel back by big bucks - claimed they invented it.  <<
 It was about money. Either that or he was a control freak who wanted to play King Midas or something. After all, he wanted Ford to supply him with the funds to manufacture it and then sell it back to them at his price. That is what he wanted, that kind of control.
 This is what I like about Bessler's wheel, I think it's a cool part of history.
 And this is why I hope once I demonstrate how he did it that you stay out of it.
 
                                                                       Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on June 07, 2012, 12:43:49 AM

 Doubt you could spend $40,000. Anyone can check the link. $620.00 is the highest search fee they charge and that is for a utility search fee which is probably what you would have needed.
 
                                                                    Jim

40k is for the Atty to do the search. I dont doubt it. ;]  They have the experience in doing so. I did my own search for a simple idea. I spent a lot of time doing so. But I didnt have to pay any fees at the time either.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 07, 2012, 12:55:42 AM
40k is for the Atty to do the search. I dont doubt it. ;]  They have the experience in doing so. I did my own search for a simple idea. I spent a lot of time doing so. But I didnt have to pay any fees at the time either.  ;]

Mags

I was also thinking the $40k included the fees to the Atty's to *write* the patent.  It is very detailed.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 07, 2012, 02:33:53 AM
40k is for the Atty to do the search. I dont doubt it. ;]  They have the experience in doing so. I did my own search for a simple idea. I spent a lot of time doing so. But I didnt have to pay any fees at the time either.  ;]

Mags
Every time I use spell check it deletes my post -
Hello Mags,
Not for 'just the patent search' - Those were my fee's so far - we still have much more to go.
I also did my own search  - when it came time to really sink my life into this, I had to make sure I was not treading on others work.
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 07, 2012, 02:36:50 AM
Opps gotta run
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 07, 2012, 03:50:19 AM
@Wayne - great discovery.




 
But by correctly adding another Travis Effect layer the lift height would go back to 1 Ft as each would lift 6 inches, but now with 370 pounds of lift.

If it was further adjusted so that the lift height of each is 3 inches, it would require 4 layers to lift 1 Ft with 740 pounds of lift. The Travis effect now only requires .11 of the total force required by Archimedes.
The other upside to multiple layers is that it make his buoyancy machine incredibly fast to pressurize and unpressurize while providing an ever greater lift.

This is with 144 square inches surface area, his current at 707 square inches is a monster.

Bottom line: It would help greatly, if more here would just try to understand the unlimited potential of the Travis effect and less on the working of the current system. None of us here, can hope to equal the combined engineering capabilities of the current team.

Regards,
Larry
Hi Larry,
you kindly provided a great explanation of the principle, and I was able to follow it up to this point.
But now, can you please expand on how to correctly add another Travis effect layer?
BTW, it just has occurred to me that air can be replaced by a liquid, oil for example. Pumping liquids is much more efficient than pumping air, could add up
to the efficiency of the device.
Alex
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 07, 2012, 04:02:02 AM
I know this is repeating, I presume you have not read the whole thread - no problem.
For those that don't know,you can click on the mrwayne name in the left most area. This will bring you to the mrwayne screen, where you can click on the show post option and get a list of all of his post.
Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on June 07, 2012, 04:20:17 AM
Every time I use spell check it deletes my post -
Hello Mags,
Not for 'just the patent search' - Those were my fee's so far - we still have much more to go.
I also did my own search  - when it came time to really sink my life into this, I had to make sure I was not treading on others work.
Thanks Wayne

I was just guessing. ;]  Im sure there are much higher prices than 40k for some patents, and some less, search n all.  I could only imagine. 
Do you only have 1 pat. ?

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 07, 2012, 10:31:17 AM
I have physics/mathematical proof that harnessing "the Travis Effect" (AKA Archimedes' principle) can't generate energy that I posted over @ PESN:
Higher water pressure means lesser volume of air which in turn means higher net density which in turn means lower uplift. System where water exerts pressure on air (open chambers / flexible seal) is less efficient than a system where the chambers are completely enclosed so water cannot compress air at depth - so let's use closed chambers(cups) to maximize efficiency:
Quote
g = 9.80665 m/s^2;
ρ(empty cup) = 7850 kg/m^3 (carbon steel - using advanced alloys (1800 kg/m^3), you can get slightly better efficiency);
ρ(water) = 1000 kg/m^3;
ρ(air) = 1.2041 kg/m^3 (at 20 °C and 101 kPa);
-------------------------------------------------
V(air/water) = 1.0552 m^3, r(tank) = 0.63156 m (sinking tank);

m(air) = V(air)·ρ(air) = 1.0552 * 1.2041 = 1.27056632 kg;
m(cup) = V(empty cup) * ρ(empty cup) + m(air) = 0.18 * 7850 + 1.27056632 = 1414.27 kg;
m(displaced water) = 4000 kg;

d(cup) = 0.96 m;
d(tank) = 6.2231 m;
F(cup) = Fb - Fg = (4000 - 1414.27) * 9.80665 = 25357.35 N;
W(cup) = F·d = 25357.35 * 0.96 = 24343.06 J;

1) Using heavy tank, using energy to lift:
m(empty tank) = V(air)·ρ(water) - m(air) = 1054 kg;
W(tank) = m(empty tank)·g·d = 64323.26 J;
2) Using light tank, using energy to sink:
Fb(tank) = (V(air)·ρ(water) - m(air))·g = 10336.1037 N;
W(tank) = Fb(tank)·d =  64322.6 J;
3) On-demand air compression:
W = pB·vB·ln(pA / pB) = 151584 * 1.0552 * ln(101325 / 151584) = 64429.52 J;
where pB is water pressure @ 5m (151584 Pa), pA is ambient air pressure (101325 Pa) and vB is the compressed volume;

P.S.: without the piston/insert, the device would require about 4 times as much energy (over 244 kJ) each cycle which means less than 10% efficiency.
P.P.S.: too bad you can't just magically turn the buoyancy on and off without energy, it would work very well then ;)
(actually, you can turn it off easily, but then you consume energy to turn it on again, and vice versa)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 07, 2012, 02:35:29 PM
I have physics/mathematical proof that harnessing "the Travis Effect" (AKA Archimedes' principle) can't generate energy that I posted over @ PESN:
Higher water pressure means lesser volume of air which in turn means higher net density which in turn means lower uplift. System where water exerts pressure on air (open chambers / flexible seal) is less efficient than a system where the chambers are completely enclosed so water cannot compress air at depth - so let's use closed chambers(cups) to maximize efficiency:
P.S.: without the piston/insert, the device would require about 4 times as much energy (over 244 kJ) each cycle which means less than 10% efficiency.
P.P.S.: too bad you can't just magically turn the buoyancy on and off without energy, it would work very well then ;)
(actually, you can turn it off easily, but then you consume energy to turn it on again, and vice versa)
Hello Kanshi,
This looks just like the post from another "user" early yesterday and then again under your name - on two of Sterling's links.

As I demonstarted in long detail on that site - your application do not correspond with our system.

To be very clear - We have built several fully functioning models that have been tested, third party.

It would be better to spend your time understanding the system - and impacting the world.

Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 07, 2012, 03:55:36 PM
As I demonstarted in long detail on that site - your application do not correspond with our system.
Can you or one of your engineers point out exactly where the equations do not correspond? Because the equations support exactly what you show on those "Travis effect" videos, they just don't support your claim of overunity for the whole device.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 07, 2012, 04:11:25 PM
Can you or one of your engineers point out exactly where the equations do not correspond? Because the equations support exactly what you show on those "Travis effect" videos, they just don't support your claim of overunity for the whole device.

Please take time to review the Patent - not the simplified Travis Effect.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 07, 2012, 05:23:37 PM
   Wayne,
 Not to be yanking your chain but a couple of things to consider.
 1) by lifting a cap, it's stored energy's release can be controlled
 2) a slightly lower pressure and higher volume can perform more work
 3) the hydraulic converter to rotation can act as an expansion chamber reducing useable pressure
 4) back pressure reduces efficiency (hydro-electric generators have no back pressure)
 5) lower pressure/higher volume around the outside of a fan type blade might be more efficient as it generates more torque
 6) line pressure can be converted from high volume/low pressure to low volume/high pressure by using a convergent-divergent nozzle.
 Of course, one day I may take the time to learn engineering.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 07, 2012, 05:43:15 PM
Hi Larry,
you kindly provided a great explanation of the principle, and I was able to follow it up to this point.
But now, can you please expand on how to correctly add another Travis effect layer?
BTW, it just has occurred to me that air can be replaced by a liquid, oil for example. Pumping liquids is much more efficient than pumping air, could add up
to the efficiency of the device.
Alex
Hi Alex,
Lets call this the complex Travis Effect and much harder to explain.
I recommend that you first look at Travis post #6 on Page 1, then Travis post #15 on Page 2.
#6 helps to understand how the layers increase the head pressure and #15 has a section on how the system is precharged.
I,ve attached patent fig 14,15 and 18 showing half of the vessels next to each other with the water colored in to improve visibility of the water before precharge (14), after precharge (15), and after lift (18).
This precharge technique is very unique as it would seem to require less input cost than by standard methods. I can't prove it does, but the fact that Mark Dansie is on board has convinced me that it works. Mark is one of the top free energy skeptics in the world and debunked many free energy devices all over the world.

Hope this helps,
Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 07, 2012, 06:20:48 PM
Hi Alex,
Lets call this the complex Travis Effect and much harder to explain.
Hope this helps,
Larry
Hi Larry,
I just want to point out, that in your first diagram ( post 197) you could picture the Archimedes vessel not vertical, but horizontal.
In this case the total work to charge it with the air would be smaller, equal 3cu ft x 2 feet.
On the surface it appears that Travis effect still takes less energy than Archimedes, but IMHO it only can lift because the air is pressurized , which , unfortunately, requires energy.
If we replace air with a light liquid, such as oil, it will be evident that Travis effect is not working at all - nothing can be lifted.
Again, the lift is done by the pressure in the compressed air.
I think it is pointless to look at the complex Travis effect if simple Travis effect doesn't hold the water.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 07, 2012, 06:35:58 PM
@Travis,
In Fig 5B the water level in the pod only appears to have gone down 10% and the water level outside the pod has gone to the top. Is the drawing accurate?
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 07, 2012, 07:50:02 PM
Hi Larry,
I just want to point out, that in your first diagram ( post 197) you could picture the Archimedes vessel not vertical, but horizontal.
In this case the total work to charge it with the air would be smaller, equal 3cu ft x 2 feet.
On the surface it appears that Travis effect still takes less energy than Archimedes, but IMHO it only can lift because the air is pressurized , which , unfortunately, requires energy.
If we replace air with a light liquid, such as oil, it will be evident that Travis effect is not working at all - nothing can be lifted.
Again, the lift is done by the pressure in the compressed air.
I think it is pointless to look at the complex Travis effect if simple Travis effect doesn't hold the water.
Hello all, I am sure you are all aware that we are looking at only a portion of the system, so it is understandable to draw such conclusion.
Here is what I realized when I first noticed the "Travis Effect"
First - the minimal amount of volume it took to begin lift of a certain weight
Second - the speed at which buoyancy could be utilized
Third - that venting and refilling was not necessary to to change the force of a submerged object
Fourth - the relationship to the Work being done was not limited to one direction
I combined those discoveries - and turned them into the patent, the working models and every step of our process - conforms to standard physics - except the entropy notion that mechanical free energy is impossible.
Thank you for your comments.
Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 07, 2012, 11:35:55 PM
   Uh, Wayne,
 I talked to God. She told me to give you a simple hydro-generator idea that can work so I can enjoy building my Bessler wheel.
I don't like you, but do want to enjoy my own life.
  This idea is quite simple so it might be over your head. I did go to school for stuff like this and thanks to God who gave me a hearing loss, I have had much time to learn about such things. After all, who wants a family when they can spend their time learning engineering, right ?
 This idea is that the staic head on the left is pumped into a chamber with a vacuum measured in hg's. For people who have no engineering background, hg's is pronounced inches and is what  vacuum is measured in. A vacuum is a pressure below 14.2 psia (pounds per square inch absolute).
 At 33 ft. or 9.8m's, a mass of 1 lb. or 1 kg. would have twice the pressure at the bottom of the static head. Any diver would know this, even my brother Paul who did diving for free for the Coast Gaurd. Talk about breaking the rules, he should have been court martialed. He is a strict by the book kind of guy.
 The trick is, when pumping water into a vacuum, you are not going against atmospheric pressure. Even at 7.5hg's or 7 psi, a net force of 3.5 psi can be realized. And this simply by using the water in the open side (open to the atmosphere) creating an air tight seal that maintains the vacuum while the water flows.
 This is where area to lift vs. pressure comes into play to prevent a static head in the vacuum chamber being of such a height it becomes unworkable.
 This is something that can work because it would be manipulating the pressure difference between a constant vacuum and atmospheric pressure.
  If you choke on this Wayne, it's okay with me. But as Alex posted, if it doesn't work in the simple, it won't work in the complex.  And with this, it's components can be tested for under $100.00. I know, you can't afford something that cost effective.
 Now I can enjoy my build which I have spent several years on. It's how I roll, like Bessler  8)
 
edited to add; correction, a complete vacuum is 30 hg's (inches) or 0 psia. 15 hg's of vacuum is equivalent to 7.1psia.
Was thinking to let it go and see if anyone caught my mistake. It's engineering and something probably everyone in this thread should know.
But who would have thought that a vacuum could perform work ? I mean besides Nature who abhors it.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 08, 2012, 12:06:58 AM
@Travis,
In Fig 5B the water level in the pod only appears to have gone down 10% and the water level outside the pod has gone to the top. Is the drawing accurate?
Thanks, Larry
Hello Larry - what you have in those three drawings - it the action of using "Air"  to move the water - to create the head in the system.
5A - no air yet, 5B Precharge air, 5C stroke
In 5b - you see the quantity required to go from sink to full float - Now since the resistance is overcome - as you add more air - the system moves higher - it makes it appear that the water level satyed the same in the next example.
P.s. We built the air moving system as drawn and the water moving system - the water worked much much better.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 08, 2012, 12:09:45 AM
Dear Johnny,
After reading all your posts, I have to say.

Wow,

You are really smart, you should go to the Bessler page and teach everyone.

Thanks for the info, it will come in handy.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 08, 2012, 02:28:30 AM
wayne
tnis part of the forum is for gravity power,
your system is mechanical, it is disruptive to this part of the forum,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on June 08, 2012, 02:44:30 AM
wayne
tnis part of the forum is for gravity power,
your system is mechanical, it is disruptive to this part of the forum,
What force does buoyancy work against John?  :o

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 08, 2012, 03:24:11 AM
in Wayne,s system, it is purely mechanical.
 edited
with hydraulic pressure. input equals output.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on June 08, 2012, 12:42:22 PM
   Uh, Wayne,
 I talked to God. She told me to give you a simple hydro-generator idea that can work so I can enjoy building my Bessler wheel.
I don't like you, but do want to enjoy my own life.
  This idea is quite simple so it might be over your head. I did go to school for stuff like this and thanks to God who gave me a hearing loss, I have had much time to learn about such things. After all, who wants a family when they can spend their time learning engineering, right ?
 This idea is that the staic head on the left is pumped into a chamber with a vacuum measured in hg's. For people who have no engineering background, hg's is pronounced inches and is what  vacuum is measured in. A vacuum is a pressure below 14.2 psia (pounds per square inch absolute).
 At 33 ft. or 9.8m's, a mass of 1 lb. or 1 kg. would have twice the pressure at the bottom of the static head. Any diver would know this, even my brother Paul who did diving for free for the Coast Gaurd. Talk about breaking the rules, he should have been court martialed. He is a strict by the book kind of guy.
 The trick is, when pumping water into a vacuum, you are not going against atmospheric pressure. Even at 7.5hg's or 7 psi, a net force of 3.5 psi can be realized. And this simply by using the water in the open side (open to the atmosphere) creating an air tight seal that maintains the vacuum while the water flows.
 This is where area to lift vs. pressure comes into play to prevent a static head in the vacuum chamber being of such a height it becomes unworkable.
 This is something that can work because it would be manipulating the pressure difference between a constant vacuum and atmospheric pressure.
  If you choke on this Wayne, it's okay with me. But as Alex posted, if it doesn't work in the simple, it won't work in the complex.  And with this, it's components can be tested for under $100.00. I know, you can't afford something that cost effective.
 Now I can enjoy my build which I have spent several years on. It's how I roll, like Bessler  8)
 
edited to add; correction, a complete vacuum is 30 hg's (inches) or 0 psia. 15 hg's of vacuum is equivalent to 7.1psia.
Was thinking to let it go and see if anyone caught my mistake. It's engineering and something probably everyone in this thread should know.
But who would have thought that a vacuum could perform work ? I mean besides Nature who abhors it.

So you’re saying this system will work?
I’m assuming you haven’t built this in real life, have you?
Looks a lot easier than building your Bessler wheel.
Could you make some more drawings and explanations?
Either send me private message or start a new thread, should probably not post it in here.
Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 02:05:36 PM
in Wayne,s system, it is purely mechanical.

False.  Mr. Wayne's system uses BUOYANCY.  Buoyancy is the result of gravity acting on fluids of different densities!  It is gravity that causes the pressure differentials.  And gravity is free, get it?
 
with hydraulic pressure. input equals output.

Here you are correct.  With traditional hydraulic systems buoyancy is not part of the equations and you have no mechanism for a gain to create an apparent overunity system.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 02:41:44 PM
There is no doubt that I need to spend a lot more time trying to understand this thing. Based on what we are told , I accept that this works, and that it is overunity. I am impressed with Mark Dansie`s opinion . I think that more people, including me would understand and be impressed if a simpler way of explaining this can be found. I believe that the hydraulics is not essential to the device being OU, and is just a convenient form of power transmission.
       I understand that in its basic form, the Travis Effect can not form an OU device on its own, so the "layer effect" is used- several basic units in series so to speak.
       You could be the best driver in the world, but that does not make you a good driving instructor. Mr Travis obviously knows more about this machine than anyone on earth. But perhaps someone else is better equipped to reach the rest of us. What we need is a set of diagrams, incorporating a simple Travis device, showing how it could be made to do work operating a teeter totter [see-saw].
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
Double posted:  Please see below.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 08, 2012, 02:55:03 PM
  With hydraul pressure, it ir not possible to create another static head that has greater pressure without a corresponding drop in the static head.
 Work will always equal mass times distance.
 His increased lift is because of lower pressure. He can install 2 pressure gauges in neighboring layers and see this is what is happening.

                          Jim
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 02:55:27 PM
All,
 
Mr. Wayne's invention utilizes the effects of buoyancy.  Buoyancy results only in a field of Gravity.  Any Force generated by buoyancy is fundamentally different from Forces generated in standard pneumatic or hydraulic systems.  Here is a few examples why:
 
Gravity is a (field of) Force that only acts normal to the surface of the Earth (pulls things towards the center of the Earth).  Because Mr. Wayne's device relies on Gravity (buoyancy) it only works if the Zeds are normal to the surface of the Earth (standing up).  If you tip the Zeds on their side, they would no longer work.  A pneumatic/hydraulic cylinder will work in any orientation.
 
Gravity is a (field of) Force not found (strongly) in space or in Earth satelites such as the International Space Station.  Because Mr. Wayne's device relies on Gravity (buoyancy) it would not operate on the International Space Station.  A pneumatic/hydraulic cylinder will still work on the International Space Station.
 
Many Engineers are not intimately familiar with buoyancy.  This was the case for me before studying Mr. Wayne's device and the "Travis Effect".  You need to understand buoyancy, Head Pressure, and pressure differentials created by gravity to understand the operation of this device.  You cannot understand it if you are thinking this is a pneumatic or hydraulic device that is independent of gravity and buoyancy.
 
Hope this helps.
 
M.

Edited to add:  Sorry for the double post.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 03:44:23 PM
OK Guys and thanks for your help. My problem at this stage is as follows. Take the simple Travis effect . As soon as the Travis vessel lifts a short distance, the effect is lost. We can not overcome this problem by making the displacer block rise with the vessel . So how exactly do we overcome this problem. Is it by restricting the vessels rise to a short distance ? Is this why we need multiple vessels , or layers?
      Just suppose that instead of driving a generator, we wanted this machine to drive a winch , raising a weight. Could we replace the hydraulic system with a purely mechanical system, in theory at least?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 04:04:34 PM
@neptune,
 
I believe the "Travis Effect" is important to understand only because most think that buoyancy requires a large volume of air (or other lighter fluid) to be pressent in the buoyant device in order to achieve large buoyancy Forces.  It does not.  Only the height of the water (head pressure) on the outside of the vessel is important.  So Mr. Wayne was able to "nest" additional water columns and buoyant devices within each other, in the area usually assumed to be reserved for just the volume of air most think is necessary. 
 
The result is he has one water head pressure.  But he is using that THREE times to create buoyancy.
 
The single water head pressure is used to create three different head pressures on the three buoyant members in the device.  The sum of the three different head pressures is greater than the single water head pressure.  This results in overunity.  The Force being used to create this imbalance is apparently Gravity.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 04:23:27 PM
@mondrasek. Ok , I sort of understand that. Would you care to comment on my last paragraph, about doing away with the hydraulics?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 08, 2012, 04:24:12 PM
OK Guys and thanks for your help. My problem at this stage is as follows. Take the simple Travis effect . As soon as the Travis vessel lifts a short distance, the effect is lost. We can not overcome this problem by making the displacer block rise with the vessel . So how exactly do we overcome this problem. Is it by restricting the vessels rise to a short distance ? Is this why we need multiple vessels , or layers?
      Just suppose that instead of driving a generator, we wanted this machine to drive a winch , raising a weight. Could we replace the hydraulic system with a purely mechanical system, in theory at least?
Good thinking,
The Travis Effect does have a predictable and short range - which become design and expectation requirements.
 Layering does not help with the stroke length,the primary reason for the layering is to increase the pressure diffirentials in relatively the same space - it is like haveing the Travis Effect mutliple times
Or multiple forces combined - the way it is designed - only one of the layers needs to be changed in order to activate the force in all layers - making it very simple to alternate between an upward force and sink.
 
Thanks Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: markdansie on June 08, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
Hi
Just to get the record straight, from what I have seen Mr Wayne has something from early tests I saw. However before i sign off on this one It has to be subjected to a continuous two day non stop test, and then be subjected to evaluation by a team of engineers and scientists.
i am impressed with the people involved and the community spirit in which it has been developed.
Time will tell if the device will be proved out but all the signs so far is indicating they may succeed.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 04:55:47 PM
@mondrasek. Ok , I sort of understand that. Would you care to comment on my last paragraph, about doing away with the hydraulics?

Neptune, I think the hydraulic accumulator and feedback system could be replaced by a mechanical winch system.  Due to the short stroke and high forces being output, I believe a purely mechanical system would end up with a lot of gearing that would, of course, introduce more losses.  But that is only a guess.
 
Right now the output of the system is captured and stored by a hydraulic accumulator.  Would it be better for you to visualize a mechanical accumulator run off of the hydraulic capture system?  Something like each rising Zed still pushes on a hydraulic cylinder, but instead of that pressure going into the hydraulic accumulator it directly runs a hydraulic motor that is used to winch up a weight.  The potential energy stored in the raised weight can be used to back drive the hydraulic motor as a pump to supply hydraulic pressure to other parts of the system, or it could be used purely mechanically or to spin an electric generator.  Either conversion method would work.  It's just a matter of finding the most efficient (least loss) way of capturing the energy from the buoyant rise of the Zeds.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 05:31:09 PM
@Mondrasek. OK that last post was most helpful to me, and hopefully to a lot of other people who do not understand all this and are afraid to ask. I can visualise a hydraulic accumulator . in its simplest form, it is just a balloon! If we pump oil into a balloon, we expend energy stretching the balloon . But we can make use of that energy later by using the oil under pressure to operate a hydraulic ram . Another way we could make an accumulator would be to use a ram to compress a spring. Later, by use of valves , we could allow the spring to compress the ram again, and feed the oil into a second ram .
        Now imagine that we want to build a version of this machine that is just a "bare bones" version to use as a teaching aid. We are not too worried about max efficiency , we do not need to drive any massive loads. What would be good is if the machine would run itself. If necessary any switching or valve operation could be done by hand, just as it was in the first steam engines.
         So we replace the whole system of hydraulics , including the accumulator with a lever or levers and a spring.From a practical point of view, this machine would be pretty much useless. Except that as a teaching aid it would be priceless. All the cylinders/ tanks could be transparent, and where possible separate volumes of water could be dyed different colours.
      The big question here is, is any of this feasible or am I talking BS.
  @Mark Dansie . Thank you for your words of encouragement . I realise that you need to see more prolonged tests before totally committing yourself.


    Another important question here . So we have 3 cylinders nested inside each other. So to increase the bouoyancy of the whole thing, I am presuming we have to force a [small] amount of air into this system . So to do that we need to input some energy into the system, to pump that air . Am I right in thinking that the energy we can gain by that buoyancy is greater than the energy needed to pump the air?


 I am just greatful that there is someone who will answer my questions.





Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 05:48:38 PM
@neptune,
 
Except for the cost involved, I'd be building a table top version out of acrylic myself!  I was thinking different transparent tints of acrylic for the different moving members.  But I had not thought of tinting the water.
 
I was thinking of asking CLaNZeR or TinselKoala.  But the cost is too much to ask IMHO.  CLaNZeR might want to take a stab at it anyway regardless of expense (he is like that).  But both CLaNZeR and TK have interests mainly in magnetics and elctromagnetics respectively.
 
The patent and my own limited understanding of the device suggest that sizing of each member is important to achieve OU let alone to optimize the design.  So we would need a builder or team that could support "the numbers" as well.  But maybe Mr. Wayne's team already has such a teaching unit in mind?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 05:58:15 PM
    Another important question here . So we have 3 cylinders nested inside each other. So to increase the bouoyancy of the whole thing, I am presuming we have to force a [small] amount of air into this system . So to do that we need to input some energy into the system, to pump that air . Am I right in thinking that the energy we can gain by that buoyancy is greater than the energy needed to pump the air?

If you read the patent carefully you will find in the last few paragraphs that it is possible to move the *water* between the Zeds instead of the air to achieve the same switching of the power units.  This is the current way Mr. Wayne's team is going.  It is more efficient.
 
Like always, the air "pre-charge" of air is just to balance the forces of the static system.  Then water is pumped into the first Zed to raise the head pressure and initiate the first stroke.  That water is then transferred (first half will flow naturally into balance, second half needs to be pumped using some of the captured output from the first stroke) to the second Zed.  So in this case, no air is being pumped.  Since the water is pumped to the outer most chamber it should be easier for everyone to understand that buoyancy is causing the output motion and force, not classical pneumatics or hydraulics.
 
And yes, it takes less energy to transfer that second half of the water head to the second Zed than was captured in the first Zed's upstroke.  Lather, rinse, and repeat.

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 06:11:19 PM
Thanks again Mondrasek. So going back to my idea of a teaching aid which would run itself. Simplicity is the key here, not max efficiency . So imagine we have just one Zed in stead of two . [I am just thinking out loud here]  So as it alternatively floats and sinks, or rises and falls it drive a crank via a connecting rod.  The crankshaft drives a water pump to change the levels as required . Very simple , cheap, low tech, but illustrates the principle  . Might be worth some experiments . Maybe Mr Travis built something like this along the way.It would make a fantastic executive toy.
    My problem with the patent is that it comes up on the screen very small, and I do not know how to make it bigger , so it is hard work for me to read.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 08, 2012, 06:18:20 PM
I have been asked for support and permission to have the demo model build, I am keen on the idea.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 06:31:43 PM

    My problem with the patent is that it comes up on the screen very small, and I do not know how to make it bigger , so it is hard work for me to read.

If you are here:  http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957 (http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957) and on an up to date Miscrosoft Windows Explorer (not sure with other browsers), try holding Ctrl and tapping the + key to make bigger.  To make smaller, hold Ctrl and hit -.  Ctrl and 0 resets to default.
 
Hope this helps!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 06:33:02 PM
I have been asked for support and permission to have the demo model build, I am keen on the idea.

So your team will build one?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 08, 2012, 06:37:35 PM
@Neptune & Mondrasek:[/size]
Thank you for your discussion. It is productive and helpful.


@Wayne: First and foremost, a demo model is imperative and highly instructive. 


@Neptune:
Re: your problem with enlarging the text of the patent.
Download the patent, copy & paste to Text Edit, or Word, or whatever program you have for document creation. Then you can enlarge the font as much as you like.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 08, 2012, 07:12:46 PM
@neptune,
 
Except for the cost involved, I'd be building a table top version out of acrylic myself!  I was thinking different transparent tints of acrylic for the different moving members.  But I had not thought of tinting the water.
 
I was thinking of asking CLaNZeR or TinselKoala.  But the cost is too much to ask IMHO.  CLaNZeR might want to take a stab at it anyway regardless of expense (he is like that).  But both CLaNZeR and TK have interests mainly in magnetics and elctromagnetics respectively.
 
The patent and my own limited understanding of the device suggest that sizing of each member is important to achieve OU let alone to optimize the design.  So we would need a builder or team that could support "the numbers" as well.  But maybe Mr. Wayne's team already has such a teaching unit in mind?
 
M.
I`d love to see a working model built like this!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 07:49:12 PM
Thanks for the suggestions from everyone about enlarging the patent.@Mrwayne, I did not fully understand your last post. Are you saying that you would like to build a model, or are you encouraging us to do so. In the light of your experience, do you think it is feasible to build a simple model along the lines I have suggested, with just one group of nesting chambers, and a crank replacing the hydraulics? As you have a patent, you have nothing to loose, and probably much to gain in terms of publicity , by helping us. All we are seeking is to educate ourselves and the public, not trying to profit from your invention, which would of course be illegal and unethical.
       Regarding the numbers game, my gut feeling would be, that the concentric cylinders would need to be sized so that the spaces, or volume between them would all be equal.
        I would like opinions on sizing, that is , would it be more difficult to make a small model OU than a big one ?
         Another thought . For a given size, based on gut feeling, using a liquid with a density higher than water would probably give a higher COP.The problem might be finding such a liquid, after all , all oils are less dense than water




 Such a self acting model , if feasible , would help not only to sell this idea, but wake up the world to the reality of alternatives. Perpetual motion machine on your desk, anyone?


Also I disagree that such a machine would need a lot of money to build. Lots of time, yes . (0% of it could be built from junk.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 08:02:31 PM
         Another thought . For a given size, based on gut feeling, using a liquid with a density higher than water would probably give a higher COP.The problem might be finding such a liquid, after all , all oils are less dense than water

Denser than water and still clear:  Glycerin?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 08:37:43 PM
Glycerine is a good idea. Second thought . A denser liquid would give greater buoyancy , but this would be offset by slower movement .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 08:58:39 PM
I think it scales better for a model though.  A less dense fluid would cause a faster action, but in a model you want it to move slower so you can witness everything.  I think it might actually make a model act more like an actual small scale replica of a larger unit.  Not sure of course.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 09:16:40 PM
OK.At this stage we need to make a sort of mental "Block diagram" of what is required to build this model . Here are my initial thoughts.
1 A tank of water.
2 A "block" of 3 concentric cylinders . Need not be transparent in the mark 1 model , use empty food cans.
3 Some kind of frame or lever system to allow[2] to rise and fall a fixed amount without falling over .
4 a flexible tube to connect [2]  to [5]
5 A pump to force water or air as required into [2]. This could consist of a large vertical hyperdermic syringe .
  By pushing it down with a weight , we can measure input energy [weight x distance it falls. ]


By causing [2] to raise a weight, we can measure output energy. [weight x distance it rises.]
 
  Until and unless we can, by the above methods, show that output exceeds input, it would be futile to proceed further in our attempts to build a self runner .


Anyone agree, disgree? Comments? Total cost thus far less than 10 dollars?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 09:33:13 PM
I think you are missing the fact that each cylinder is separated from the next by a ring that is attached to the bottom of the "tank".  We must create three "rings of water" into which the three cylinders fit.  The outside ring could be a tank as you suggest, but I think another cylindrical shape best represents the concept.  This is because to change the entire head pressure means you must change the fluid level in the outermost "ring."  So having a tank means more fluid to move to raise or lower the head and therefor less efficiency.  You want to minimize the amount of fluid in each ring, without making the gap between the ring and cylinder so small that Reynolds drag impedes the exchange of the fluid.
 
So for three cylinders, and three "rings", you need a minimum of 6 nesting cylinders that have enough clearance to allow for an adequate amount of fluid to exist that can be exchanged easily (at least on the outside chamber).  This is where I thought trying to make one out of acrylic would get expensive...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 08, 2012, 10:10:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOXFiJ4IDU
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 08, 2012, 10:11:32 PM
@Webby1 . The effect that you describe will no doubt work . The question as ever, is if it is OU or not.
@ OK so the fabrication of [2] is more complex than I at first supposed, and will be correspondingly more expensive .Cylinders will have to be made to specific dimensions. So we really need some input on dimensions and proportions from Mr Wayne, to justify the expense .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 08, 2012, 10:23:14 PM

If you read the patent carefully you will find in the last few paragraphs that it is possible to move the *water* between the Zeds instead of the air to achieve the same switching of the power units.  This is the current way Mr. Wayne's team is going.  It is more efficient.
 
I'd like to point out that Fig 5B shows that the liquid gap is filled to the top when just 10% of the water is pressured out.
Fig 15 shows that all of the water has been pressured out, so now if the pod rose of 10% of  the fill distance then there would be no liquid gap and combined head, which would upset the whole process. Since it is a container, it seems to require that water has to be pumped in to that container to reach the results in Fig 18. In his pictures on his site of his patented device, the water pumps on top have flexible piping running to the bottom of the tanks.
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 08, 2012, 11:31:14 PM
@mrwayne, is the precharge method for introducing the air through the pipe into the pod (to pressure balance the static system) exactly the same when you are setting up the system to run by exchanging the water vs. exchanging the air?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 09, 2012, 12:24:37 AM
Hi
Just to get the record straight, from what I have seen Mr Wayne has something from early tests I saw. However before i sign off on this one It has to be subjected to a continuous two day non stop test, and then be subjected to evaluation by a team of engineers and scientists.
i am impressed with the people involved and the community spirit in which it has been developed.
Time will tell if the device will be proved out but all the signs so far is indicating they may succeed.
Kind Regards
Mark

Mark,
 
If you are allowed to tell us, what is Mr. Wayne's team's next step?  How do they go from where they are now to agreements with Siemens, GE, ABB, Hitachi, etc., to start replacing existing nuclear reactors and fossil fuel burning electric generation systems with this new technology?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 09, 2012, 12:51:44 AM
Mr. Wayne's team's next step?
Get it from the horse's mouth (no offense, Wayne) during yesterday's interview with Gary & Mark on Smart Scarecrow. Wayne comes on soon after 1:13.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMda6OUOYRw&feature=player_embedded#!

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on June 09, 2012, 12:39:58 PM
3 new Travis effect Videos online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPXBY0Bx0Iw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=643UYo-CEx0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_MLjkt8ti4


Posted with Permissioin from Wayne.

Enjoy !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 09, 2012, 01:24:20 PM
@mrwayne, is the precharge method for introducing the air through the pipe into the pod (to pressure balance the static system) exactly the same when you are setting up the system to run by exchanging the water vs. exchanging the air?
 
Thanks,
 
M.

Sorry Men, + Ladies,
I have been super busy setting up tests.
Now that i am not having to spend so much time on nay sayers - lets get to the fun!
I see where the group has dwindled down to the experimentors - good, lets roll.
OK, the tube in the pod - no - it was when we were transfering the stored energy from one side (Zed tank) to the next the high tube kept the water from getting into the tube.
With the water moving - it is irrelevant - as well as the skirt under the pod - no need when moving water - make your pod full length.
I am still testing - but wanted to guide you on the model -
3 layers is the least effecient - (Over unity), 4 is not much better - build you model at least six layers -250% with two Zeds connected, 190% with one Zed.
Eight layers breaks 350% but new set of variables to deal with (head loss in the outer most layers must be mathced to volume at pressure) - six layers is pretty easy.
Next, be sure to have your upper surface above the water - like in the patent - with extension.
Make the holding tank tight clearnace - just like the layers - it acts as another head storage - big tank wastes it.
Conect the input to the center (bottom) - no elongated tube is needed - use water - not air.
Do not worry about the weight of the layers - it actually improves the system. the weights cancel out when two tanks are connected (why a two Zed system is better than one) - but holds the system in the "Travis Effect".
On that note - once you reach Determine the Ideal lift without weight divide that by three - Make sure your risers weigh that much (add weight) - we are only going to be producing "free" about a third of the total potential - assuming the best system can net the full "Ideal" is another big mistake made - then you have magical energy.
You must have resistance for the system to work - so you never apply work to the system without a load,
Without a load - the system leaves the "Travis effect" you entire operation will be inside of it.

Concerning the load - if you are using the system like a pump-  water up a tube - so the riser has to lift the weight of the water in the tube to a higher level - that is a good simple demonstration.
use the higher water pressure to operate your level arm - and you will have a perpetual water fall - you will need to design an over flow - that is what we did with out model 7, we just wasted the extra.
Oops I forgot - M. Mentioned the need for the lower seperator - called RIng walls in the patent - MUST have - without you are back to 37%.

I will give advice as you go, send pictures so I can advise.

My request - these are for personal use - I have an agreement working with a another party.

Two - you agree to put the name on all models "ZED" or Travis Effect..

Three, you must also make me a model - I may be willing to pay your flight to the full size model and
have you stand in front of the full size model for pictures.

Lastly - if you do this as a group effort - I will donate $2000 for materials. Should cover everything but your efforts.

Time to invent!
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 09, 2012, 01:55:49 PM
In the third video, when setting the experiment up, does it take the exact same force to submerge the "archimedes cup" with the "3 ounces of air" in it, as it does to submerge the "travis effect" cup with the same amount of air in it?

The first video would seem to indicate that it does not; the TE cup would take a stronger push to submerge it.

Therefore.... there is stored energy in the system, like a compressed spring, and this spring is compressed more on the TE side than on the other side.

When both cups are held down with the same amount of weight in the third video, the TE cup is effectively "lighter" in the water already, so when the air is bubbled into it, of course it rises first.... as long as the block is displacing some air. If the original water level was higher, the TE cup could rise up until the block no longer displaces air, and then ... except for the head start given by the stored energy ... the two cups will rise equally.

Why does this effect occur? I think it is because volume is conserved (or rather, pressure times volume is conserved for a gas) but surface area is not. This means that the gas pressure in the TE cup is greater than in the archimedes cup, even though they both started out with the same volume of gas initially. The gas in the TE cup is compressed more than the gas in the archimedes cup, because a lot of it is forced to a greater depth in the water by the displacer. This compression is stored energy, it requires work, this work is done when the cup is pushed down over the displacer _raising the water level in the external container_ and this work will be returned, minus losses, when the residual weight is further reduced by bubbling in the air from the bottom.

I think this explanation could be tested by linking the two submerged cups with a passive air tube across the air chambers, so that the pressures within them would be the same. (Test to make sure by seeing if it takes the same amount of weight to hold the cups down equally. If not... then there is asymmetric stored energy still.) Then bubble air into them from beneath as before.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 09, 2012, 02:03:46 PM
http://www.mcmaster.com/#acrylic/=hwgbdp (http://www.mcmaster.com/#acrylic/=hwgbdp)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 09, 2012, 02:17:45 PM
OK.At this stage we need to make a sort of mental "Block diagram" of what is required to build this model . Here are my initial thoughts.
1 A tank of water.
2 A "block" of 3 concentric cylinders . Need not be transparent in the mark 1 model , use empty food cans.
3 Some kind of frame or lever system to allow[2] to rise and fall a fixed amount without falling over .
4 a flexible tube to connect [2]  to [5]
5 A pump to force water or air as required into [2]. This could consist of a large vertical hyperdermic syringe .
  By pushing it down with a weight , we can measure input energy [weight x distance it falls. ]


By causing [2] to raise a weight, we can measure output energy. [weight x distance it rises.]
 
  Until and unless we can, by the above methods, show that output exceeds input, it would be futile to proceed further in our attempts to build a self runner .


Anyone agree, disgree? Comments? Total cost thus far less than 10 dollars?
OK in the light of further info it is time to update the above list. First item 1. I had sort of envisaged putting 2 into a tank, e.g. an aquarium . Bad idea. The tank, should of course be the largest diameter cylinder of 2.
Now item 2 . I referred to this as a block . What I meant was block, as in block diagram, in electronics . So on a diagram you might have a square box or block labelled "Oscillator" . So we know what it does , but we do not concern ourselves with the individual components within . Yesterday , i did not fully understand how these cylinders were arranged , so I called it a block .


Here is my current understanding of this block . Imagine you have three empty baked bean cans . They are all the same height . Their diameters are , 6 inches ,5 inches and 4inches . Put some glue in the bottom of the 6" can, and drop the five inch can inside it. so they are concentric .Drop glue into 5" can , and place the 4" can inside it . Now we have 3 more cans , with diameters 5.5 , 4.5 , and 3.5 inches diameter . We glue these together to form a similar unit to we made with the first 3 cans . We invert this second unit and drop it into the first unit , so that the cans of the second unit interleave with the cans of the first unit . Before we drop it in , we fill the lower unit with water .  Can someone confirm , or deny , that this is the basic layout please? I know we can not use food cans because the gaps between adjacent cans needs to be smaller than half an inch .
      If my description above is correct , I can now understand the bit about the coiled hosepipe with the lower half of its turns filled with water .
      As with any new concept it is vital that we understand the basics or we will never grasp the complex. You can not do simultaneous equations unless you can add 2+2 . I am making progress I hope, but do not fully understand it yet . I am sure I am not alone .


 Question . Is the upthrust or buoyancy of a given volume of air dependent on the SHAPE of that volume, and is that upthrust greatest when that volume is elongated in a vertical direction?


  Participation without a full understanding is futile.


  Momma always told me that two Zeds are better than one !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 09, 2012, 02:36:01 PM
It is important in these experiments to monitor carefully the water level in the external container. Buoyancy forces arise because of lifted water. The larger the external container, the smaller the _level_ change will be, so it's best to use a container just big enough to hold your cups or other experimental vessels, so that you can see the change in the surface _level_ for a given _volume_ of displacement in your experiment.
Even when you stick a tube from the air pump down into the water and force that first bubble to come out of the tube down at the bottom of the tank: you have just _lifted_ that same _Volume_ of water to the top of the tank, and you can see this volume lift by looking at the small change in the level of the water in the external container. This spherical volume of water that the bubble displaced results in a slight rise in the surface level, spread out over the area of the surface... volume is conserved in the incompressible liquid water. But volume is not conserved with a gas: it is (pressure times volume) that is conserved. PV=nRT.

Take a tank of water, mark the level carefully, then submerge the concrete displacer. The water level rises. Now take a cup with "three ounces" of air in it. (The Fluidounce is a volume measurement so it would be more correct to say "three fluidounces" of air). Submerge the cup. Now the water level rises again, by that same three fluidounces. Now start to lower the cup over the displacer. What happens? Some of the displacer is no longer submerged! It is in air ! In other words, the displacer is trying to occupy the same space as the air does. But half of it, say, is no longer displacing water, it is displacing air, which is pushing water out of its way. Since (pressure times volume) is conserved for a gas (neglecting temperature effects), the gas pressure increases--because the water is pushing back, thanks to gravity-- and the gas volume decreases; this, combined with the fact that part of the displacer isn't displacing water directly any more but is doing it through the "spring" of the trapped air, results in no observable further increase in the external water level... in fact it might drop a bit as the total volume displaced decreases due to the increased compression and decreased volume of the gas. Now you have two stores of energy: the lifted water that raised the level when you first submerged the cup with air, and also the compressed air within the cup itself, which is more compressed by the displacer pushing much of the air further down into the water.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 09, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
I think this explanation could be tested by linking the two submerged cups with a passive air tube across the air chambers, so that the pressures within them would be the same. (Test to make sure by seeing if it takes the same amount of weight to hold the cups down equally. If not... then there is asymmetric stored energy still.) Then bubble air into them from beneath as before.

This is good, it is the same pressure in both cups to lift the same load with the same Surface area, assuming you have them at the same depth in the water.
A simple visual, I like it. Also if - the floats /caps - I call them "risers"  are identical - then the hieght of the air (from top of the air pocket - to the bottom of the air pocket) will be exactly the same length at any depth to lift the same wieght. which is an indication of the pressure diffirential PD needed to lift
My layman terms; PD X si = lift
Thanks Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 09, 2012, 03:09:29 PM
@mrwayne,
 
I seem to remember (from the patent I believe) that a three layered Zed was considered the most efficient?  To increase power it was better to size up the entire three layer system rather than add additional layers.  Now you are indicating that a six layer system would be more efficient than just three?  Am I mixing apples and oranges?  Or did changing from transferring water between two Zeds vs. transferring air allow for more layers to raise efficiency further?

Could you please point out where I have gotten off track in my understanding?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 09, 2012, 03:29:34 PM
Lastly - if you do this as a group effort - I will donate $2000 for materials. Should cover everything but your efforts.

A generous offer.
 
TK, do you still have access to a model shop?  Would you be willing to build?
 
I've sent a PM to Sean (CLaNZeR) to see if he is interested in building.  But I don't know if that bloke has the time.  Plus if he is only at home on weekends it would take much longer than I would like to construct.  And I believe it should be made in the US if at all possible, just to honor Mr. Wayne who is in OK.
 
Wait, where are you now?  Still in TX, back in Canadia, elsewhere?
 
You know I don't expect a serious answer to the last question, right?
 
M.

Edited to add:  Sorry if I might be slighting anyone!  I am sure there are others who have the talent and equipment for a build.  I'm just looking to the ones I know.  Please chime in if you are or know of anyone else who would be a good resource.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 09, 2012, 03:47:02 PM
@Mondrasek. I would be very grateful if you would comment on my last post. Am I right on the arrangement of cylinders? What about my question on the "shape" of a volume of air .


 I would think it unlikely [but not impossible] that there will be a team build on this device, due to members being widely scattered . Individual builds are much more likely .


When I FULLY understand this, I will most likely have a go myself. I am sure this applies to many members.
A patent, being a legal document, is not the best teaching aid.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 09, 2012, 04:02:00 PM

and place the 4" can inside it . Now we have 3 more cans , with diameters 5.5 , 4.5 , and 3.5 inches diameter
  Participation without a full understanding is futile.


  Momma always told me that two Zeds are better than one !
Two Quick points - tight clearances - Head pressure is head pressure - unless you get to the caplilary effect. SO make it close as you can - and still have a gap.
This will reduce the volume that it takes to activate the Travis Effect - smaller gap - more effecient.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 09, 2012, 04:06:23 PM
oops,
 
The same thing goes for the thickness of the walls - Small/thin - do worry about the pressure - the effective pressure will only be the total hieght of one layer. so if the layers/cantainer can hold up to the water pressure of it sitting up right full of water (without contortion)- they will hold the pressure in system.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 09, 2012, 04:09:08 PM
@neptune,
 
I believe you have most of the fundamentals covered with your description of the build in your previous post.  Here are the differences and/or next considerations that I have:
 
1)  The walls of the first set of cans may need to become slightly lower from outside to inside.  I believe the outermost must be considerably higher than the two inner ones since it houses the water head that is exchanged between the two Zeds and also defines the stroke of the system.
 
2)  The three cans that become the buoyant members (pod and risers) are all attached?  That is different than the patent.  It may be how the unit operates, but I think it would make assembly a problem.  The inner and outer riser need to be installed while allowing for the air inside to be pushed out through a vent in the top.  Then the vents are sealed.  So they need to be installed one at a time and not as a group of all three.
 
3)  The outer riser needs to have an outer wall that extends up beyond the bottom of the "can".  This is again because this defines the stroke of the system.  Water must not cover the top of this riser, or we end up with that much more water that needs to be transferred between Zeds.

4)  The inner most can needs to be made into a "pod."  So an empty, sealed can, with a top and bottom.  This is different than the patent since the patent diagrams show a system that exchanges air and we (I assume) are building one that exchanges water.  Mr. Wayne has said that this change from air to water exchange allows for a pod of this new configuration that is not in the patent diagrams.  Hopefully he will correct my understanding if it is not 100% correct.
 
5) Finally we need a way to "pre-charge" the system.  A way of introducing (pressurized) air from under the "pod" section slowly.  It will eventually fill all the "rings" where air is need and balance the water pressure to initialize the system.  The risers must be held down when the air is introduced.  The pre-charge is complete when bubbles are seen rising in the outermost ring of water.  Then the air inlet is sealed and never used again (unless the system needs to be relieved of any potential energy prior to maintenance, etc.).
 
Am I missing anything?

Hope this helps.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 09, 2012, 05:12:39 PM
Many thanks to mrwayne and mondrasek for the time you spent helping me. My understanding is progressing by leaps and bounds . A way to introduce air under pressure , and prevent it escaping . For a model, that could be a bicycle tyre pump and valve.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 09, 2012, 05:21:25 PM
@Mondrasek. I would be very grateful if you would comment on my last post. Am I right on the arrangement of cylinders? What about my question on the "shape" of a volume of air .


 I would think it unlikely [but not impossible] that there will be a team build on this device, due to members being widely scattered . Individual builds are much more likely .


When I FULLY understand this, I will most likely have a go myself. I am sure this applies to many members.
A patent, being a legal document, is not the best teaching aid.
I am headed out -
 
but wanted to comment:
Shape of the air is not the essential - except in consideration of stroke - then a straight wall matters - they keep the clearances during travel.
For your predictive measurement - pretend that all the layers are stacked on top - not over eachother - sealed and submerged (full of air) that is your Maximum lift your system will have.
Second - collaboration is good - it will take as much effort to build the transfer system as it will the layering system, and then you need brainstorm how you will show the work?
 
Each can be a seperate job. (just like the real manufacturing process is working out).
The key is to make a decision on the size -
Diameter of the inner chamber will dictate volume needed - keep you stroke lenght short - no more than one inch - (trust me) - will explain later.
So now you can have your volume -
If you find the rubber pump or something without to much static resistance first, you can size the inner  tank to it.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 09, 2012, 05:26:29 PM
@Mondrasek: I am afraid that I'm not going to be able to build any intricate models this time, sorry.
But I suggest that you examine, build, and meditate upon the Cartesian Diver, illustrated in a modern form in the video I linked. Water pressure, air volume, buoyancy... it is all there.

In addition, I thought there was already a working, self-powering prototype of this device? Isn't that what the claim is, for the big, groaning, hydraulic/pneumatic device? I'm not sure I understand just what is happening in this thread. If there is a working prototype, let it be carefully examined. A patent is nearly useless for something as complex as this; what's needed is engineering drawings, schematic diagrams of the electronics, the hydraulic and pneumatic circuits detailed, and so on, and this information isn't easily gleaned from the patent. If it is self-powered and can run itself while providing useful work to a load... or even just keep moving, under its own power, not stored power... then this should be clear on careful examination, and any and all efforts are worthwhile to try to understand and promote the discovery. However...

If the illustrated prototype does NOT self-sustain.... then no amount of effort on our parts is going to make it so, because.... well.... buoyancy is nothing but gravity misspelled.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 09, 2012, 05:42:53 PM
You are all welcome to follow Tinsels suggestion,

No offense really, if you persue I will guide - I have had to overcome many obsitcals to get our system built and running both. Some people offer good educated thought, other seek more.

He is right - we do not need to replicate - it would just be a a teaching tool - and a mark in history.

I love the Gravity mispelled - very clever.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 09, 2012, 06:11:21 PM
Wayne, if your present system works, the one in the video, without supplied external power.... then you don't need to "guide" anyone.
Provide what I suggested: engineering drawings, the electrical schematic, the hydraulic circuit, the pneumatic valvology, from the existing, working prototype, not the patent. Or, if you like, invite some interested impartial third party (like me) to examine and test your working prototype. I can tell you this: if it is self powered, truly, and uses gravity and buoyancy to sustain operation.... I can set you up solid, my man, solid. I'll get rich from being the middleman, but you will get hugely so rich you cannot imagine it, and the world will be a better place very quickly.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 09, 2012, 06:17:41 PM
@Mondrasek: I am afraid that I'm not going to be able to build any intricate models this time, sorry.

Are you kidding me old man?  A FULLY FUNDED (well, materials only) build?  In acrylic?
 
Just think how sweet that would look on the shelf next to your mondrasek wheel!
 
Seriously though, I appreciate you considering the idea.  It is a lot to ask, and you are a busy man.  I also understand that it is extremely hard to justify if you have to dismiss the principle of it's operation.
 
I know you will, but I ask anyway:  Please continue to monitor this thread and give your sage advise and input when appropriate (as you have been doing).
 
Also, once you have thoroughly digested the FULLY FUNDED (add disclaimer here) offer, please reconsider.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: norman6538 on June 09, 2012, 11:54:52 PM
Tom's new demos are very exciting and promising but the challenge is simple now.
Get 1 or 2 foot pounds to put the air in the cup to lift about 10 foot pounds and then
with some of that work pick up the original 1-2 foot pound weight and
 
1. remove the air and then
2. repeat the air filling process.

That will be the undeniable proof of the long sought after perpetual motion machine.

I'm very optimistic....
Norman

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 12:04:43 AM
A couple of quick questions.

Would 2 layers of lightweight fiberglass be sufficient for strength.

Would 4 layers of wax paper be a sufficient air gap and can that be the same on both sides.

I was thinking that the cylindrical components could all be made at the same time by wrapping them around the pod former starting with the former then 4 layers of wax paper then 2 layers of fiberglass and then 4 layers of wax paper,, so on and so forth.

Webby1, I (just me here) think that on a small scale fiberglass has all the strength needed to stand up to the pressures in the system.
 
As far as using a few layers of wax paper to create the gaps in the annulus (-es?  annulai?), any gap will do, just so long as it is not so small that capillary action takes over (the gap tends to "wick" up water like a sponge).  Ultimately I think too small (but bigger than capillary) a gap will also cause (Reynolds) drag on the exchange cycle.  But in a model, that is okay.  It would just not be the most efficient method for a "production " machine.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 12:11:38 AM
FULLY FUNDED doesn't mean anything so why are you using capital letters?

It is significant only that every time that I have seen TK build he has spent his OWN moneys to do so.  I was hoping that he could be teased into performing a build by being reminded (yes he knows) that he gets to build a cool thing without the personal expense of the materials.
 
I'd take on a build myself but lack the experience of having worked with acrylic and do not have access to a lathe to ensure clean 90 degree cuts to the tubes.
 
Microcontroller, do you want to try and make a model?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 01:27:28 AM
Microcontroller,
 
You miss the point.  But thank you for telling us all that you could do but will not.
 
The fact that Mr. Wayne has offered to pay for the build means all those tubes you "have in stock" would not be given for free, right?
 
I probably should have let you have your say without pointing that out, but, really?  Really?
 
Who do you thing your are fooling?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 10, 2012, 02:21:00 AM
if he is willing to pay for the build, he can trust Stefan with the money and over seeing the build.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 03:49:34 AM
I have no idea if you know the value of some of our cnc machines, but i do not think these are included in mr wayne's offer.

You are correct.   I am sure you know a lot more than me about this subject. 
 
I apologize for underestimating your skill level.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Wayne, if your present system works, the one in the video, without supplied external power.... then you don't need to "guide" anyone.
Provide what I suggested: engineering drawings, the electrical schematic, the hydraulic circuit, the pneumatic valvology, from the existing, working prototype, not the patent. Or, if you like, invite some interested impartial third party (like me) to examine and test your working prototype. I can tell you this: if it is self powered, truly, and uses gravity and buoyancy to sustain operation.... I can set you up solid, my man, solid. I'll get rich from being the middleman, but you will get hugely so rich you cannot imagine it, and the world will be a better place very quickly.
That is great, I really appreciate it.
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review and then (assuming of course) the team to prepare our scientific presentation.
He has seen our system running last November, and had full access to our engineering.
Now that we (following his advice) installed the Data collection system and generator to the system - it is time for the follow up - should be about June 28. (I am leaving end of next week to go to a 50th anniversary party)
We do have our working model - actually since May last year, Mark has guided us very carefully - what "extraordinary proof means".
So we are not rushing ahead - doing it right - after the pct cleared - I decided to let the group know where we are.
We are not setting up Middle men - but we never know who will actually become part of the team - so if you are just tongue in check making the offer - no worries.
If you would like to be in the group coming for our final review - let me know, I will bounce it off Mark and make a decision.
Once again - Thank you for the professionalism.
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 10, 2012, 06:13:31 AM
How much will it cost to become a part of your group ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 10, 2012, 10:50:59 AM
If tk evaluates this and says it works, I want to buy shares in your company!! lol
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 10, 2012, 02:29:15 PM
In the light of newer information, I have had to re evaluate the feasibility of building a model of this device . The problems are as follows .
1 Owing to very poor eyesight , and very limited computer skills ,I am unable to gain much info from the patent.
2 The patent shows a design that works by moving air. It is since discovered that moving water is more efficient, but no revised diagrams are available .
3 To gain reasonable efficiency, fairly close tolerances are needed. So no building from empty baked bean tins.
4 The idea of building from fibreglass and waxed paper was an excellent one . But who is going to risk the investment in time and materials without having concrete info on proportions and dimensions. Trial and error methods could take years, and then costs mount up . Who would invest hundreds of man hours without knowing that there is an excellent chance of success.
5 I am unsure of mrwayne`s motivation in encouraging us to build a model . Maybe he hopes that we will discover new ways to make this better. I do not have a problem with that. However , there is a far greater incentive he could contribute  to model building than his $2,000. Of far greater use would be much more info , especially in the form of diagrams, dimensions and proportions . Forget about hydraulics. All we need for now is how to get two ZEDs working . From there it is just conventional engineering.


I would guess with the possible exception of Mondrasek, nobody really understands tis enough to attempt a build.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 10, 2012, 03:49:30 PM
I agree. more details required to build a scaled down desktop model.

The whole point of having a working model is to show less clever people like me how it works! :)

Someone posted a youtube link to a animation of a similar idea, an animation of the way wayne`s device works (same arrangement as in the patent drawing) would be a start.

At the moment all I have is a vague idea of stacked nested containers filled with tubes linking each one.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 10, 2012, 04:15:06 PM
@All,
MrWayne has a working device. Hd coukd put a live feed on the internet.
 A liue feed would demonstrate his claims are valiid.
edit
 If he has oter people build versions of his device, it cottld be considered that he is looking for answers as t6 why it does,t work. This is ojjay as long apr people know why Wayne ir letting them build his invemmtion I would have to think.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 04:17:10 PM
Happen to have my work laptop at home so I have access to Autocad.  Hope the attached can help some to see what I see.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:17:17 PM
Hello all,
I apreciate the consideration.

Whats my motivation? That is a good question - I have had many people tell me what they think it is on this site - so let me answer for a change - again - good question.

My motivation as has always been - encourage the thinkers.

Some people live inside a book, or the knowledge contained within - others are wanderers, innovators, looking beyond what they are taught.

We all know that "new" fields of study are found outside the confines of the current education of the time.

Those that have not really looked into the "Travis Effect" have no idea that we are in a new frontier of uses for buoyancy.

Man and Flight, Man on the moon, Solar Energy, Lenar was beaten to a pulp just a few years back - and now how many companies thrive on these teschnologies.

New frontiers are forged by the those with a certain contenance, able to persist - where others are safe to avoid.

I support "extrodianry proof"  - History tells us that our intrepertaion of the Laws, our understanding of the books, grows - not from within itself - but from those that question, think, wander, dream.

I support both - that is why our company decided to go the hard route - instead of expecting people to jump on board and run in with support - we expected dream crushers.

But, as our support has shown - for every thousand put downs - a thinker emerges and says - Why not?
If it does work - how?

Those people begin to build - touch, measure - not with simulations from the books - ok..self fulfilling, but from physical experimentation, physical proof - the kind that the writers of the books did - observation.

From time to time, a new observation comes along - upsets things for a while - and the books get better.
As we have shared before - we have already passed three phases of scrutiny - and expect and welcome more.

Our Critical Skeptic said - "this work is changing the dynamic on which mechanical energy is understood" at least for those involved - for now.

My motivation, my friend - to help you and the others get past the mindsets such as we have seen on this site, like the ones I put below.

I know what I have, I know the positive results of the third party review so do nearly 100 others - we have had to know every step of the way - and I know that puts me in the positon of being the one person who is responsible and "knows" that all of these nay sayers are wrong.

Here is a short list of negativitey, poor logic, holding onto the known - attacking the wanderer - just from this site:

No one else has done it in the past - so it must impossible....

The Laws says it can't be done......so it is impossible (kind of makes you wonder why those people are here on an OU site - that surprised me last year - not anymore)

A guy in his garage without "My level of educaton" could not do it......
I didn't waste my time getting an education to believe you could do it...
A guy who goes to church can not be smart enough.............
He must be after money, greed, ...take him down.....
and many who - mine is better than yours so your must be insulted...
as well as If I can not do it then at least I can beat on yours.....
And my fovorite for the week:
Sure he has passed the design phase, engineer reviews, built a test module, built a perpetual running model, built a closed looped model, is being supported by severe skeptics - with continued critical review -
......but if he has trouble with a check valve in the new model that now runs a generator off excess hydraulic prodcution --- I won't waste my time looking...... (p.s. - do you increase the level of review when it doesn't work at the simple level?- thinkabout it)

We all have motivations - they are clear - we show them with our words, our support, our actions, and our lack of them.

I chose to support our fellow kind.

And thank all of you who have sent kind words, encouragment, and the like - you support the improvement of the quality of life for all mankind.

Wayne Travis
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:46:18 PM
Happen to have my work laptop at home so I have access to Autocad.  Hope the attached can help some to see what I see.
 
M.
VERY GOOD,
yes - cap lock on purpose!
Please send me this drawing - I want to use it in our power point - I could replicate the simplistic truth you demonstrated - but I want your version for credit.
Thanks you M.
p.s. you two steps from then end of this section of the design - very close well done.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
Sorry Wayne, I didn't save the .dwg file.  I only hit "print screen" so I could transfer to "Paint" and make a .jpg.  I'd be happy to redo it for you once I am back at work and have a real monitor!  Working off a laptop screen is painful.  I am sure your designers will attest that in CAD, monitor realestate is everything!
 
I believe I could put in the next two steps.  I didn't think it was necessary at this point.  I just wanted to illustrate how nesting the sections of a taller system is being done.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ResinRat2 on June 10, 2012, 05:15:10 PM


This system is really similar to what you guys are doing in this thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oV5wFTfsTSs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oV5wFTfsTSs)


It seems to be using the same principles.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 10, 2012, 05:35:49 PM
@Mr Wayne. I asked exactly what your motivation was , and you came up with an answer that seems OK to me. There are members who have been on this website for many years, and I am one of them . We see ideas come and go. We see measurement mistakes. And unfortunately we see scams and deliberate fraud . I find it impossible to understand these fraudsters, because they gain nothing and loose respect. But their worst crime is that they divert research resources away from worthwhile projects . We all remember Trawoegers pyramid , Mylowes motor, and the Muller dynamo . Between them they cost me £1,000 I could not afford to loose .
       So why am I still here? because I still believe in the strong possibility of Free Energy and Overunity . I am just a lot more wary than I once was. From the info available to me , I believe that you have discovered something real. Replication is the way forward, and for that we are going to need a LOT of help from you,[who else can we ask .]
        You know what you know as a result of hard work and experiment. The road from the simple Travis Effect demonstration to what you have now, must have been a long and expensive journey. So I need to ask you a very simple question, and I am almost sure you know the answer . Here is my question.


Suppose we have a simple inverted cup , sitting over a Travis block, with no air in it, so it is completely full of water. Then we pump a small amount of air into it , and allow it to lift a weight .So is the energy needed to pump that air , smaller than the "output energy" , of lifting the weight . Hope fully , you can give us a yes, no , or don`t know answer.
@Mondrasek, you are a star. Brilliant diagrams . That is exactly the kind of thing we need.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 10, 2012, 05:43:12 PM

This system is really similar to what you guys are doing in this thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oV5wFTfsTSs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oV5wFTfsTSs)


It seems to be using the same principles.
Yup, thats the animation I was referring to in my previous post.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 07:15:23 PM
This system is really similar to what you guys are doing in this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oV5wFTfsTSs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oV5wFTfsTSs)
It seems to be using the same principles.

How is it similar and what same principles is it using?  The only similarity I can see is that it uses a fluid.
 
Don't want to come off being rude.  Please explain what I must be missing?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on June 10, 2012, 07:26:45 PM
 
 
               www.hidroonline.com (http://www.hidroonline.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 07:50:28 PM
               www.hidroonline.com (http://www.hidroonline.com)

Okay guys.  How about we set some ground rules for comparisons?  Just because any scam out there is using a fluid does not mean it is a direct comparison. 
 
Here is the minimum requirements (IMHO) for any similar technology/scam/idea to be sited:
 
1)  The concept must involve buoyancy.
 
2)  The concept must involve nested cylinders or some other means of displaying the "Travis Effect."
 
Have a nice day.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on June 10, 2012, 07:57:37 PM
I'm not sure if this system uses Travis Effect or not, similarities are hydraulic towers, self perpetuation, electrical generation..........
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 08:05:44 PM
I'm not sure if this system uses Travis Effect or not, similarities are hydraulic towers, self perpetuation, electrical generation..........

Yep.  And it is PATENTED!  Care to find that patent?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on June 10, 2012, 08:11:50 PM

Yep.  And it is PATENTED!  Care to find that patent?
  It is patented in Australia and licensed in Indonesia by Inter Pacific Energy.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 08:14:34 PM
  It is patented in Australia and licensed in Indonesia by Inter Pacific Energy.

So the patent should be online?  Or is it different in Australia?  Can you find it?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 08:15:07 PM
Yup, thats the animation I was referring to in my previous post.
I am very familiar with that inventors work, and I am you know him well.
Each man must stand on his own merits.
That is all I care to say for the "comparison".
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on June 10, 2012, 08:20:58 PM

So the patent should be online?  Or is it different in Australia?  Can you find it?
I am not sure how to find it, he gives patent numbers.  Perhaps you could perform a search of the Aussie Patent Office?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 08:21:37 PM
http://www.jameskwok.com/ (http://www.jameskwok.com/)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on June 10, 2012, 08:24:35 PM
I agree with one of the other members, a patent is too difficult to discern the operation of a device.  It is more suitable as a legal document (which it is).  I prefer a block diagram, followed by a component drawing and then an overall schematic.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 08:40:27 PM
I agree with one of the other members, a patent is too difficult to discern the operation of a device.  It is more suitable as a legal document (which it is).  I prefer a block diagram, followed by a component drawing and then an overall schematic.

Ha!  I also agree.  Patents suck to read.  "Leagalese" is a language that may be necessary, but in an annoying kind way IMHO.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ResinRat2 on June 10, 2012, 08:47:07 PM
I am very familiar with that inventors work, and I am you know him well.
Each man must stand on his own merits.
That is all I care to say for the "comparison".


Sorry guys, I wasn't trying to get anyone upset or insinuate anything. I just wasn't sure if mrwayne was familiar with James Kwok's work. It appears to be using nested cylinders of different diameters. His original design used buoyancy and I am assuming the latest design I linked to uses it as well somewhere in the system.


mrwayne says he is familiar with it so I will leave it at that. Sorry for even saying anything. Scheesh!


Over the years posting here on Overunity I am tired of the ill feelings that pop up. I'm done with this.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 08:54:32 PM

 Sorry for even saying anything. Scheesh!

Sorry if I cam accross wrong  Resin,

My dissapointment is in my dealings with that inventor, and he has been used as a reason to discredit my work for years - unfairly.
We have nothing in common other than water in our system.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 09:05:39 PM
Somebody wake up Hicks!
 
Err, I mean, Sean.
 
Anyone know where CLaNZeR is these days?  I can't post or PM on his forum.  Not sure if it is working right or if it is just user error.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 09:32:30 PM
Suppose we have a simple inverted cup , sitting over a Travis block, with no air in it, so it is completely full of water. Then we pump a small amount of air into it , and allow it to lift a weight .So is the energy needed to pump that air , smaller than the "output energy" , of lifting the weight . Hope fully , you can give us a yes, no , or don`t know answer.
@Mondrasek, you are a star. Brilliant diagrams . That is exactly the kind of thing we need.
Back when I did force calculations I would be quick to answer yes -

Now I will give a clear answer (not as shown in the video) -  if you build your system so that the volume of the air you use to stroke is 1/5 of the total volume and the stroke is 1/4 of that same volume -

And YES - the Travis Effect can create more power than it takes to pump the air into itself -
(It is even better if you use that "still pressurized" air to assist filling the next Travis effect).

In simple inventor talk - you have to use a lever to to capture the force and transfer it to the longer end of the lever to allow for the extra stroke length needed to compress the air to the pressure of the depth.

Since the cost of "compression of air" is not the same value of standard buoyancy you must prepare to pay three times as much to compress the air as the value you get out of standard buoyancy- or to produce at least 1cf for the depth.

I am tired, so let me just ball park my expample:

1cf of air submerged = 33% worth of standard buoyancy you start in the hole 66%
1cf of air Travis effect with 5/1 ratio and I/4 stroke = roughly 111% the value of 1cf
This is not much in the plans of supplying power - so we moved well past this.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 10, 2012, 09:50:11 PM
@mrwayne . Thanks for the detailed explanation, and answer to my question. I fully realise that you have moved on a long way beyond this. However, for us guys just starting out on this, we have got to start somewhere, and experience has taught me that it essential to start at the beginning. All I am looking for at this stage is experiments that are cheap and simple, that can be built from junk on a zero budget.
         I do not doubt what you have achieved, but there is no substitute for seeing some thing with ones own eyes. My dream has always been to be able to show an experiment where 1 kilogram falling 10 cms will raise 1kilogram 11cms, or higher. I have been trying for about 50 years now, and I am getting old . Maybe the Travis Effect could be the catalyst that makes my dream a reality .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 10, 2012, 10:25:27 PM
I,ve been trying to find out where the free energy could come from and made a couple of drawing to assist. Hope this helps with some of the patent confushion. Nothing fancy, just keep in mind that the channel sizes are exaggerated for clarity.
 
The Precharge drawing shows the position of the water at the end of stage 1, 2, and 3.
In stage 1, the water is open and air 1 and air 2 is closed. The force from the water only has to overcome the head in channel 1. As the water flow over into channel 2 gravity will level the water in channel 2 and 3 until the top is reached.
In stage 2, the water is closed, air 1 is open and air 2 is closed. The force from the air only has to overcome the head in channel 2 at the start, then gravity pushes that air up to the top and pushes the water in 2 down, and pushes the water in channel 3 over into channel 4 and 5 where gravity will level the water half way up.
In stage 3, the water is closed, air 1 is closed and air 2 is open. The force from the air only has to overcome the head in channel 4 at the start, then gravity pushes that air up to the top and pushes water up in channel 5.
This is a simple example, in actual process the air in 2 and 4 would need to be rebalanced at the end because as the heads combined the trapped air pressures changed length. Also this would not be the exact sequence in the real process as they may be done in concert, but it is broken up to get a better idea of the  total force requirements.
 
The Travis Effect picture shows the system with exaggerated channels for clarity. The surface areas were based on the drawing using Travis's statement that the top tank was 30" by 20". I used the 3/4 scale on a  architectural rule to get the other dimensions. It is easy to see that the inner and outer risers will work like Pneumatic cylinders. 
Another interesting fact is that the water channels seem to be around 1" and the air channels are around 2". Don't know the drawings accuracy. 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 10:45:26 PM
Larry,
 
That was great.  Thanks for posting.
 
You seem to be on the same wavelength that I have been on recently.  I am not sure how the change in pressures (due to the risers rising) will affect the air columns in the annuli (rings) on the first stroke after the pre-charge.  That is the reason I was hoping for a model built out of acrylic.  But I guess I could just do the maths.
 
I'm a visual kinda person.  I would like to "see" the interactions and not just do the maths.
 
Now try thinking about the two risers and the pod being inserted into place with the "tanks" filled with water.  The risers would need to have a vent hole to let out the trapped air.  After those risers are installed those vents are then closed for good.
 
Then start bubbling air in from the center of the bottom of the main tank.  Won't everything evetually end up in the configuration of your second diagram?

 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: CLaNZeR on June 10, 2012, 10:57:29 PM
Somebody wake up Hicks!
 
Err, I mean, Sean.
 
Anyone know where CLaNZeR is these days?  I can't post or PM on his forum.  Not sure if it is working right or if it is just user error.
 
M.

Hi Mondrasek
Sorry to say, not got much time these days as tied up trying to get a factory setup.
http://www.cncdudez.co.uk (http://www.cncdudez.co.uk)

So time very short and no time to play :(
Cheers
Sean.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 11:14:37 PM

Hi Mondrasek
Sorry to say, not got much time these days as tied up trying to get a factory setup.
http://www.cncdudez.co.uk (http://www.cncdudez.co.uk)

So time very short and no time to play :(
Cheers
Sean.

Okay.  Thanks!
 
Oh, and best wishes on the factory.
 
Cheers,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 10, 2012, 11:50:52 PM
You seem to be on the same wavelength that I have been on recently.  I am not sure how the change in pressures (due to the risers rising) will affect the air columns in the annuli (rings) on the first stroke after the pre-charge.  That is the reason I was hoping for a model built out of acrylic.  But I guess I could just do the maths.
 
I'm a visual kinda person.  I would like to "see" the interactions and not just do the maths.
 
Now try thinking about the two risers and the pod being inserted into place with the "tanks" filled with water.  The risers would need to have a vent hole to let out the trapped air.  After those risers are installed those vents are then closed for good.
 
Then start bubbling air in from the center of the bottom of the main tank.  Won't everything evetually end up in the configuration of your second diagram?
M. Thanks,

I was trying to show a mainly water transfer system like Fig 19, but with the pod solid as Travis recommended.

In fig 18 it shows how the air channels have been effected with slight water intrusion in the air channel and slight air intrusion in the water channels, it does not seem to be an issue with the narrow channels. Also, there would be some decompression to help keep the balance. So the lift force at end would be less then at the beginning. But without more facts, he may continue to add air with the rise as shown in 5B  to 5C.

Then start bubbling air in from the center of the bottom of the main tank. 
Won't everything evetually end up in the configuration of your second
diagram?

It would, but then you would have to get rid of the air after lift.
If the pressured water in column 1 was released after lift, then the entire system would collapse and gravity would re-level the water in col 2,3,4,5. That pressued water would be used in the other ZED.  The patent has said there would be water remaining in the system after collapse.

My issue is that as the pod rises, water would need to be added to the pod container to keep the system in balance. This seems to be an issue in both cases, mainly air (Fig 15 to Fig 18) or mainly water.

Regards, Larry 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 10, 2012, 11:54:07 PM
So this is confusing.
When you use pressurized air the system will start to act like a pneumatic cylinder.
In that case the cylinder starts to rise on the air pressure in stead of buoyancy.

Air pressure needs to be below atmospheric pressure otherwise you are overruling buoyancy.

Well I think it needs to be understood that any "air chamber" that is under water is affected by the water pressure.  So, for example, if you take a soccer ball and try to drive it to the bottom of a swimming pool you will find that is becomes soft.  This is because the water pressure has overcome the air pressure inside the ball.  A ball that is normally very hard (due to air pressure) on the surface becomes soft (in relation to the surrounding water pressure) as you go deep in the water.
 
Initializing a Zed system with compressed air is only NEUTRALIZING the outside pressure from the water.  It is not driving anything to move like in a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder.  How could it?  The system is open on top. 
 
Ever see a pneumatic or hydraulic system work with an open end (leak)?
 
Buoyancy.
 
Check it out.
 
Great post, BTW.
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 11, 2012, 12:04:15 AM
Check this out for clarity.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 11, 2012, 12:06:19 AM
My issue is that as the pod rises, water would need to be added to the pod container to keep the system in balance. This seems to be an issue in both cases, mainly air (Fig 15 to Fig 18) or mainly water.

I'm with you on this.  That is exactly why I would like to *see* a model out of acrylic.  I cannot visualize this part of the cycle so far.
 
I've gotta run now.  Have a 4.5 year old who has been left in my care for an hour or two.
 
Larry, thanks for giving this the mental horsepower I believe it deserves.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 11, 2012, 12:34:29 AM
Check this out for clarity.
Wayne
Thanks, this will help a lot.
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 11, 2012, 01:03:20 AM
Larry, thanks for giving this the mental horsepower I believe it deserves.

M., Back at you.

@All, new Travis drawing with much more detail, let's start trying to understand.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 11, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
Well it is about time for us in the US EST to pay more attention to our families than the forums.
 
However, AU should be just well into their morning. 
 
Good Morning Gents (and Lasses?)!
 
I know you guys are more than up to the task of dissecting this one.
 
Cheers,
 
M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 11, 2012, 02:41:31 AM
I just PM'd Fletcher.
 
I believe he's a Kiwi now.  (Hopefully that will spur some quick response from the opposing AU team.)
 
Not sure if Fletcher has any Internet access on the beautiful rock he is living on, but I would love to hear his take on things.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 11, 2012, 06:43:19 AM
This system will never work. There is no way to extract energy from buoyancy in the way described.  Buoyancy is a function of gravity, and gravity (at least at newtowian scales)  is a conservative field. If you displace a mass in this field then the energy required to return that mass to the starting location is the same (or more if considering mechanical effieciency losses).  That this system uses bouyancy is irrelevant, as the conservative field principle still applies.

Sure, that's what I say too. But there seems to be a working prototype that runs itself.... and a patent.

I think MrWayne has come out and said clearly that the prototype runs itself without external power supplied, and produces useful electrical power over and above that required to run its own electronics and air compressor and so on. (I could be wrong about this; I'm just going by what I think he meant when he's been answering questions.)  And there will be a team of observers, some of whose names we know, that will be looking it over and reporting, soon.

So it's a  mystery for those of us who believe in conservative fields, in the acumen of scientists at the various national Naval Research Laboratories in the East and the West, in the USA and Russia, in China and Germany..., and in physics in general. How can its working be reconciled with what we _think_ we know?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 11, 2012, 07:49:28 AM
MrWayne is at best mistaken in his beliefs, and possibly now acting fraudulently given that I believe he has an inkling that his system does not actually work as dscribed.

I'd place a bet of any amount you care to mention that any 'overunity' he claims to have measured  ( barring ourright fraud) is simply the amount of energy taken to precharge the system with air, or in the case of the fish-tank 'Travis Effect' videos the amount of energy associated with sinking the cup  *and* block of cement to the bottom of the tank.

Yes.. to actually generate/consume energy a force needs to be applied over a distance, something that is lacking in any video seen so far.
You make me smile,
We have been working on this for four years - we have been running well over O/U (closed looped) since November 2011 - eye witnesses have reported it here.
In total $500 grand in Research and development - well spent.
I just left a meeting with my engineers, we were reminesing back to when they were hired to prove my system did not work - back then - they told me the same thing you just said - it is a funny
Nice to meet you,
 
Wayne Travis
 
Except the fraud part - they know me better.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 11, 2012, 08:19:51 AM
So describe to me just where you think this source of energy comes from as i completely unconvinced by any demonstration available to me so far. Your video demonstration on you tube of the Travis effect is entirely unconvincing and is easy to refute that it could be a source of energy.

Simply making the appuratus more complex and attempting misdirection won't wash.
Very simple - well forgive me - we have studied it for a long time -
The total buoyancy of our design is equal to the mass discplaced - times the number of layers.
The number of layers reduce the input requirement to activate the buoyancy.

We convert that Buoyancy to hydraulic pressure and volume - it takes one third of that energy to repeat the process - another third is lost in the energy exchanges, and we net the last third.

Where does the energy come from - a super effecient method of making an object buoyant - then stroking and capturing that energy(If you could not see that in the video, well what can I say).

And to top it off - we reuse the exhaust pressure - to supplament the system
So in recap - 100% available - 33% internal operating cost, 33% lost in conversions, Net 33%
Now, I did not misdirect - but you insulted - we do not need unprofessionalism.

This group has been invited to learn of our discovery.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 11, 2012, 10:45:12 AM
It is a bit late for nay-saying,there is a self working model producing excess energy and a patent. It reminds me of the fact that newspapers were still publishing articles to prove that flight was impossible, three or four years after the Wright Brothers flew. And there is still a thick book in our local library proving that man will never fly by pedal power.Time to move on.
 
  A word on dimensions and proportions. If we look at the example of the coiled hosepipe hanging on the wall, each lower half of each turn is full of water. So each separate mass of water has the same volume . So I get the gut feeling that the same should apply inside a ZED. So perhaps it is ideal if all the separate rings of water have the same volume for best efficiency . So perhaps the gaps between cylinders decrease as we move towards the outside of the machine.


The relationship between the diameter of a ZED and its output power is not a linear one. I suspect it is proportional to the cross sectional area. So a small increase in diameter gives a very large increase in power . Sadly, a small decrease in diameter gives a massive power decrease . So there is a minimum realistic size for a working model.


All comments welcome.
 @Seamus 101. Mrwayne has already stated the OU is possible with a single layer, however, the COP is only 1.1. So the OU would be lost in the system, for example the friction in an air pump.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 11, 2012, 12:10:10 PM
@Seamus101. You really need mrwayne to answer those questions, but in the meantime, I will throw in my two cents. In my understanding , which is as yet incomplete, adding layers is basically a way of getting a greater head of water in a compact space. Read and try to understand, in the early posts of this thread, the example of the coiled hosepipe.
      I agree that it should be possible to show OU with one layer, but look at the practical difficulties. Suppose we recreate the classical Travis Effect as in the video . So we inject a given amount of air into the cup, using say a hypodermic syringe and a tube . We use a weight to press down the syringe. So we are measuring the input energy. No we are not, because it would probably waste 50% of the input energy in friction in the syringe.
      I would actually like to do this experiment, and I have spent much time thinking about it . Here is an idea. Imagine a large U tube, say half a metre high . We half fill it with water. The top of the right arm is now sealed, except for a thin tube which leads to a point under the Travis cup.By adding water to the open left arm , we push air under the cup . We should be able to calculate energy input by what weight of water we add and how far it falls. Very little friction . Output is weight of load x distance it rises.


As for sinking a large object in the ocean , you missed your best chance when they filmed "Titanic."
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: norman6538 on June 11, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
Neptune said
"    I agree that it should be possible to show OU with one layer, but look at the practical difficulties. Suppose we recreate the classical Travis Effect as in the video . So we inject a given amount of air into the cup, using say a hypodermic syringe and a tube . We use a weight to press down the syringe. So we are measuring the input energy. No we are not, because it would probably waste 50% of the input energy in friction in the syringe. "

This is what I intended to do and realized that my syringe has too much friction so decided
to use a bellows/diaphram  type air supply. I tried Tom's demo 3 experiment and did not get the same results.
Being puzzled I then took 2 qt containers and discovered that at around the 3 ounce
level line the air provides a good bit of resistance so to test the true Travis effect will require
more air than at the 3 oz level. 
I'm still working on the simple demonstration of the Travis principle. When I see the Travis effect I will proceed onward.

Norman
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 11, 2012, 12:54:33 PM
@Norman6538. Hi Norman and good to see you are doing practical stuff. Not all quart containers have the same height to diameter ratio, so you may well have to experiment to find the ideal air volume. They say that great minds think alike, and I was thinking along similar lines, using a balloon as a diaphragm . Things are a bit critical when the expected cop is so small. Good luck, and please post your results, whether positive or negative.
 @Seamus101. It is vital to realise that the Travis Effect only operates over a short distance, probably one centimetre  in the video example.Once the travis cup starts to rise , and the water level comes up to the top of the concrete block , the effect is finished . So any experiment must make use of this short stroke.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 11, 2012, 02:01:46 PM
If there is an "exhaust pressure" then perhaps there is an input pressure as well?. Can you absolutely confirm there is no supply of a hydraulic working fluid at a higher head than the exhaust pressure. This would include suppplying fluid at a higher altitude than the exhaust , a supply of pressurised water from a tap, or any other mechanical means (other than this magical bouyancy effect). 

The same test would apply to any air in the system.
Thank you,
I realize you have not looked reviewed all that is written: The entire system is closed looped - What I have called exhaust pressure - (and sorry - I see the point of the question created by the term)
By exhaust pressure I do not refer to something leaving the system - I meant the energy still available in the head - at the end of a troke - is transfered laterally - we call the exchange free flow - and since it is the energy transfer during the "down" stroke of one side of the system - we call it exhaust.
Our system have been verified concerning the pressure suspension, increases, and no external energy put into the system - it does not require any external input. - You do have to have the initial water and air in  the layers - you do have to start the hydraulics - and the system generates on the first half stroke - twice the fluid consumed.
 Thanks
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 11, 2012, 02:16:02 PM
So, if  this effect is actually a source of energy then it should be possible to harness it with just one "layer", would you agree? If you don't then the above statement is false.

Thus to convince me you need merely provide a convinicing demonstation of an overunity effect (no matter how small) with this single layer.. I await this explanation with interest.
Hello Seamus,
I really enjoy poping in and shareing - but please take the time to review the Q and A that has already been covered.
We have had plenty of people tounge and checking our system on this site.
To answer your question again, the layering effect in conjunction with the travis effect is required for OU, you break even at three layers on the up stroke -
The reason for failure on all previous Buoyancy attempts: the time to fill and sink eats away from effeciency - it is not a force only calculation.

What you left out of "Work"  it is not work over distance - it is work over a distance in certain "time".
The Travis effect merely effects the speed at which the field of gravity - in buoyancy can begin its capture cylce.

The layering system concentrates that effect - you said you watched the video and saw nothing.
You should have noticed the speed at which the reaction to the discplacement overcame the load, and the minimal volume it required. Volume and speed are tied together - and then comes work.

A big mistake all many "tounge and cheek" here have made - was to assume you needed to operate with the same perameters of the submarine type buoyancy.
Well, distance and work is "trumped" with Speed and work - in the Travis Effect.
 
Look again at video 5, if you do not see anything significant, don't bother wasting your time here.
No effense taken, if you do not do your due dilligense, let us move on.
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 11, 2012, 03:48:10 PM
@ Seamus101. The fact that the Travis Effect only operates over a short distance is nothing to do with gravity wells . Think of an internal combustion engine. The piston on the power stroke only operates over a limited distance. If we rebuilt the engine so that the piston could pop right out of the cylinder, all power would be lost after it left the cylinder. Nothing new there . You just need to open your mind a little.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 11, 2012, 03:59:54 PM
 A possible Experiment to measure if OU exists in a single layer Travis Effect device.




 We can measure the output by simply measuring what weight we can lift over what distance .


Measuring the input is more problematic.Here is a possible way to do it.




 Take a large syringe, and pull out the plunger enough to suck in the required amount of air , say 5 fluid ounces . Take a balloon and inflate it with the syringe. Float it in a fish tank , and by experiment find the exact amount of weight that you need to add to it to cause it to sink such that its centre is level with the bottom edge of the inverted Travis cup. Input = weight x distance you sank it . Job done .
Any comments?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 11, 2012, 08:04:07 PM
@Webb1. Calling mrwayne devious could be misconstrued as almost an insult, but I am sure that was not your intention. I think what you are saying is that he is very good at "thinking outside the box" and I am in full agreement with that. I too had made the connection between stretching the coiled hose out like a sine wave, and the shape of the path through the concentric cylinders, which is more like a square wave .
     But I get the impression that you have seen something above and beyond that. You have had an epiphany, or even a "Eureka" moment, an apt expression when talking of buoyancy and immersing bodies in fluids. Days of brain wracking have failed to fully enlighten me.
   My problem is this. In the concentric cylinders, the internal volume increases as the risers and pod lift . Obviously this can not happen in a coiled hose . Nor can I quite understand how a ZED is an extension of the basic Travis Effect demo. I think what may help me and others is this . Would it be possible for someone to draw a diagram of a simplified ZED, having only ONE layer as opposed to three. After all, if we were trying to understand a four stroke engine , we would start with a single cylinder motor cycle engine , not a Rolls Royce Merlin V12 with four valves per cylinder.
  By the way, I understood "series charged parallel used " after a bit of thought, thanks.


A single direct question for mrwayne . I am I right in thinking that for max efficiency, the volume of individual masses of water have to be equal, and to achieve this, the gaps between cylinders are not all equal , but diminish as we go from the  centre to the outside of the ZED?


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 11, 2012, 08:23:29 PM
It is not too difficult at all.. lets assume the effect is real. In this situation if we connect the two air volumes together with a lever rotating about a pivot we should see that the side employing the 'Travis effect' would  be able to continously push the other side down.

What actually happens? the "travis effect" side rises until the pressure on both sides equalises. At this point no further movement is possible.  What provided the thrust to provide to move it to this equalised condition.? If you think overunity energy is the answer then there is no hope of understanding even basic concepts of mechanics.

This is right, and is basically the same thing I said in my analysis of the videos. The Travis Effect is due to the compression of the air caused by pushing the cup down over the displacer and represents stored energy. This stored energy is released over the "short range" of the Travis effect: because it is a small compression. The Cartesian Diver video that I linked, as I said, contains many clues to the operation of the Travis effect. There is no mechanism in what is shown and explained in the Travis Effect videos for any excess energy other than that provided by Mr. Hand... all the rest is simply explained by variations in volume and pressure of the gas chambers involved and the difference in the weights _actually_ required to hold the two cups down and the energy supplied by the air pump itself. Equalize the pressure in the two chambers at the start of the experiment by connecting the two air chambers with a small tube, and the Travis Effect will vanish. Since the two chambers started out with the same volume and pressure... and the pressure difference when submerged is the only thing that has changed by the addition of the small connecting tube.... the Travis effect is caused by the difference in pressure caused by pushing the cup down over the displacer, which forces some air deeper into the water. Clearly this is stored energy that is returned as the cup is lifted or allowed to float off the displacer. How could this effect possibly allow any extra energy to enter the system? It seems to be fully understandable from consideration of the pressures and volumes and masses alone, when analyzed properly.

So... I say this: I believe that MrWayne's big system, if it is overunity and running itself without external input other than that required to start it... that first half-cycle-- then it is doing it by some other means than the Travis Effect as shown in the videos.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 11, 2012, 09:39:52 PM
No offense taken,
I am impressed with the hose anology - you caught on - I told that last year-
I have learned that jumping to the end gets me know where (educating wise)
This system requires more insight than most are willing to afford.
Look at this -
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 11, 2012, 10:12:22 PM
OK I will agree with the figures, but not sure about the formula . I remember from school that pressure = depth times density . The diagram shows 4 columns of water each 12 feet high . So we know that pressure is directly proportional to depth . An equivalent diagram would be a single pipe, 48 feet tall with pressure guages every 12 feet . We know that atmospheric pressure can support a column of water 30 feet in height . [ the limit you can lift water by a suction pump is 30 feet .]  So I would expect the pressure at the bottom of a 48 foot column to be about 24 pounds/ sq inch . The formula is this . The pressure at any point in the system is Inlet pressure minus 0.43 x total height of water columns between inlet and measurement point. This formula does not quite work exactly.

 I asume your diagram represents a hose so the volume in each column is the same . This will not be true in a ZED unless inter cylinder gaps are adjusted to compensate .
 
 I have said twice previously that we must start at the beginning, so "jumping to the end" will cause problems.,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 11, 2012, 10:27:17 PM
I asume your diagram represents a hose so the volume in each column is the same . This will not be true in a ZED unless inter cylinder gaps are adjusted to compensate .
 
Bingo!
That is what we refer to as set up - that is the only air put in the system - once..... Make sense now?
A lot of people got hung up on that single point.
Thanks
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 11, 2012, 10:49:58 PM
Thanks mrwayne. Was my formula anywhere near correct, please?


Ok so now we have 4 reservoirs of compressed air . We have switched off the compressor used for initial charge, disconnected it and closed the inlet port . The air pressure in said reservoirs is 5 , 11 , 17 , and 22 psi.
So now we allow the risers to rise . Its a bit like a compound steam engine in that we have different size pistons for different pressures ? And each riser or piston produces the same thrust ? I will say no more until and unless I get confirmation of what I have said . Many thanks.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 12, 2012, 12:01:05 AM
Dear Seamus,
You are right - I do not talk in your language, I am afraid - if I did - I would probably see as you - you imply for this reason - that I am inferior - I have no reason to be concerned by your opinion.
I would never think to place myself above you.
I do not question your ability,  just that your conclusions are extremely premature to your understanding of the system.
You demonstrate you do not understand the system by your comments thus far, many start out that way.
I do undertand our system, very well - I do not insult you for being wrong.
I have asked you for "nothing"
Nor did I ask your opinion - I just welcomed questions.
Thank you,
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 12, 2012, 12:18:48 AM
. The pressure at any point in the system is Inlet pressure minus 0.43 x total height of water columns between inlet and measurement point. This formula does not quite work exactly.

Hello Neptune:
Your on the formula - starting from the outside moving in - the pressure increases (charged) dirctly related to the head and previous head at any given point -
This is not the total hieght x head --- but specifically where the distance is measured (on a connected column of water - inside a layer ) from surface to surface - on that same column.
Little confusing - if one side of the same body of water has six feet and the other has two feet - you have four feet of head ...so  4 X .43 = 1.72 psi
(before I go much further on this - please notice that to increase the head 2 feet - you only need to move one side 1 foot) Big point.
When I said we get 24 feet worth of head by moving three feet - 24 feet were possible - four layers, activated by moving one layer 3 feet - no where else in the world ....
And of course the total head is the direct route to the total force available.
Your in a can of worms now, please ask specific questions around this one.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: prato_braun on June 12, 2012, 12:40:44 AM
Hey guys,


my guess recording to demo 5  is that even if you have to put in more energy to push down the cup the first time you could harvest that indefinitely considering a system using up and down strokes. I mean in the left cup you would have to remove and add always more air than in the right system once the cup is set in the initial position. 
It becomes also apparent in the downward travis effect as once the construction is built in set up you would always have to pump out less water on the right than on the left.
That's how I understood it so far and please point out if I got it wrong. I will look at the patent, too as the drawings so far didn't give me the 'aha'-effect yet.
Keep us updated and good luck.

Prato
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 12, 2012, 02:05:03 AM
Hello group,
Just saw a video of a non aquantince - Tommy Reed.
Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2S0taX_1rg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2S0taX_1rg)

Tommy claims I refuse to answer questions WOW........

I refuse to answer snotty insults laden statements, but never heard from Tommy.

And Tommy states that my generator is powering a hydraulic pump..... from secret wires.

Do ya thing Mark Dansie would have caught that one???

Tommy points to the pressure transducer cables.....

We did not have the generator and motor running when Mark took the video of the Zed system running last November - We have released two videos - with and without the Generator pump running - poor homework Tommy.

The hydraulic MOTOR and GENERATOR was an upgrade for the final critical review.

Tommy owes me an apology, better be quick.

Let me state Publically - He has never spoken to me, nor asked me a question - unless he used a bogus name, Tommy has slandered me, and lied about our process.

I suggest a little homework is done before slandering a good man's character.

Tommy, You have 24 hours to remove that unsubstantiated slander against me, and Apologize - or you
will answer.

You have your fame - and I will follow through, I can back up our claims - with our machine and in court.

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 12, 2012, 02:25:01 AM
 Wayne,
aoy chance you can post a battery free video ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 12, 2012, 03:21:51 AM
I will have my son make a video tracing the wires to where they go - which is directly from the 3 phase ac generator to the rectifier and then directly to the little 12 batteries that power the sensors, record the data - activate the hydraullic valves and power run program. oh yeah and power the light s for fun.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 12, 2012, 03:56:46 AM
  Wayne.
 With out the battery wotld be just fine.
   God Bless

  Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 12, 2012, 04:37:18 AM
Does the machine run if you disconnect all these items from an external power supply.? Surely, if it produces overunity energy it would be able to power all these items itself?
The Output of the ZED is Hydraulic fluid under pressure, we use that fluid to both operate the system and the generator which charges the battery - that battery controls and monitors that system.
The system will operate without the pump or generator until the battery no longer power the controls.
Thank you - we are not a magnetic motor (capable of directly generating electricity).
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 12, 2012, 05:04:04 AM
Hello group,
Just saw a video of a non aquantince - Tommy Reed.
Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2S0taX_1rg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2S0taX_1rg)

Tommy claims I refuse to answer questions WOW........

I refuse to answer snotty insults laden statements, but never heard from Tommy.

And Tommy states that my generator is powering a hydraulic pump..... from secret wires.

Do ya thing Mark Dansie would have caught that one???

Tommy points to the pressure transducer cables.....

We did not have the generator and motor running when Mark took the video of the Zed system running last November - We have released two videos - with and without the Generator pump running - poor homework Tommy.

The hydraulic MOTOR and GENERATOR was an upgrade for the final critical review.

Tommy owes me an apology, better be quick.

Let me state Publically - He has never spoken to me, nor asked me a question - unless he used a bogus name, Tommy has slandered me, and lied about our process.

I suggest a little homework is done before slandering a good man's character.

Tommy, You have 24 hours to remove that unsubstantiated slander against me, and Apologize - or you
will answer.

You have your fame - and I will follow through, I can back up our claims - with our machine and in court.

Wayne Travis

It appears Tommy is wise - he has removed the slander video.
Thank you Tommy,
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 12, 2012, 05:15:01 AM
 Wayne,
where is the live feed ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 12, 2012, 09:13:42 AM
"By a happy coincidence this doesn't cost me any more energy to do this as I've rigged up few ropes, pulleys and etxra fabric that allow me to efortlessly change the canopy shape and size at will."


[/size]
Dogs may not normally fly, but parrots do. Ironically, the only time I've ever seen one fly WITHOUT spreadings its wings was placidly perched on a bar of a hang-glider, totally content and deferring maneuvers to his buddy the pilot. Amidst this highly unusual circumstance, the bird did have the good sense to face forward. [/size]
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 12, 2012, 12:50:17 PM
Well, Thank you Seamus,

You have well described the lateral transfer of energy from side to side.

That is one part of our nine part operational process.

No claim of energy production here- it is very important
It does eliminates the energy normally required to overcome the dead weight of the risers -
kinda makes our pneumatics function like a hydraulic cylinder - no need to compress air to stroke.
I say kinda - because -  well we lift more per pound of pressure x surface area than a hydraulic cylinder can with the same area and pressure - a lot more (wouldn't be over unity if we didn't).

Just a disposition change between the two systems - setting the stage of the next step.

I am going to presume your pet levitating comments are some kind of inside joke?
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on June 12, 2012, 01:55:00 PM
Well sort of :) ...  but if you expand on your  comment that
"The Travis effect merely effects the speed at which the field of gravity - in buoyancy can begin its capture cylce." then one is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that the effect could also be used to create levitation as it implies some sort of 'gravity shield' field modification.


I think you are missing the gist of his statement. His comment didn't mean gravity shield, but getting something to be ready and able to fall from the influence of gravity...faster...from a higher point. The counterweights, or return load in this case.


I believe that the gist was that if you can remove the upward buoyancy -faster- then the weights up top can drop on down faster...faster cycling = faster return to next stage. More cycles = more output.
 
Kind of like kicking out the chair from under a hanging man faster, so he falls faster. Bad analogy, but one can either kick out a chair fast from under them, or deflate a balloon from beneath their feet slow.  If you've got a lot of hanging to do, and who doesn't these days, can't have people protesting your gubment and whatnot, then you want a faster reset cycle.


All this here seems to me in a way to be somewhat of a hydraulic energy storage system... a hydraulic capacitor/battery in a way once charged and balancing.


 Hydraulic stuff is can be pretty efficient. I recall somebody, can't remember the name who claimed to run a hydraulic motor from a smaller steam or gas engine, and their car went along mighty fine speed on next to no horsepower input. Cannot recall that inventor though...was a long time back.  Maybe a farmer/engineer. Can't remember the name or where I read about it. Wish I could.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 02:18:44 PM
I have to admit that I am most disappointed at the amount of nay sayers we are getting here. I have made my position clear, in that based on the evidence so far, I am a believer. I fully respect the rights of those who think otherwise. If the naysayers are right, their day will come and they will be free to say "I told you so" as many times as they wish. Even if you think that the odds against this being real are 14,000,000 to one , give it a chance. Let it run its course. Those odds are the same as the national lottery. What you are doing is like rushing into the studio where the lottery is being drawn, insulting the staff, and smashing the machines. And all because you did not win last week and you do not think you will win this week. And yet there is a winner to every lottery . So if you don`t like the odds, don`t buy a ticket . Go watch the football instead.
 
The time that mrwayne has to spend on the naysayers could be better spent teaching those who would dearly like to learn, rather than trying to get through to those who will never see beyond nit picking definitions, and the Gospel According To Saint Newton.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: prato_braun on June 12, 2012, 02:22:32 PM
No, I'm not misunderstanding his statement at all. It may not be obvious to you but this statement implies exactly what I said.   

To fall "faster/longer/from a higher point et al  and end up with a net gain in energy of the masses involved would necessarily imply a localised change in the acceleration due to gravity during the time the motion occured.

I actually don't think so as you could pump out the air in a container creating a vacuum ONCE. After that things inside the vacuum would fall faster as there's less friction falling and it would also take less energy to lift an object to a certain height inside  the vacuum for the same reason or am I missing something?

Prato
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 12, 2012, 03:15:31 PM
Look, here's the argument in a nutshell.

Conventional physics says this device cannot be "overunity"... that is, a net "producer" of energy. This does not require a lot of analysis because it is based on first principles: the _fact_ that gravity is a conservative field of force and gravity is the source of buoyancy effects. The present device confounds pure buoyancy with lifting effects due to gas pressure transmitted through various incompressible fluids, and there are a number of well-known loss mechanisms that are clearly evident in the actual design, yet there is nothing evident in the design that would allow it to operate without replenishing some original store of energy, like the "precharge" with compressed air. This is the default position of conventional physics, a field that many of us have studied in university and which... we thought.... was well-understood.

Now we are presented with a device that, IF it works as described and represented, isn't just a clever mechanism. Rather, the device MUST be "violating" some kind of "law" of physics that nobody has ever been able to violate before, and it's overturning not just some need to plug into the grid for a while, but Thermodynamics itself. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed", remember? This device, since it has no connections to "zipons" or the Zero Point Field or the radio station next door.... must be creating energy that wasn't there before, if it is operating as claimed.

See the problem? This device is OVERTURNING CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS and yet..... it's not being swarmed over by teams of scientists eager to earn a Nobel Prize for the discovery of how to extract useful work from a conservative field of force.

Therefore the "incredulity" level must be high. The bar that MrWayne has to clear, for acceptance, is very high indeed, if he is to be believed. So those who are disrespecting the "naysayers" (mostly me and Seamus at this point, it seems) are really kind of out-of-line. Because it is the NAYSAYERS who are representing the mass of hundreds of years of physics and mechanics and mathematics that MrWayne is attempting to overturn with his simple device. If he cannot convince a bunch of people on an internet forum.... how is he ever going to convince the scientists at GE or Siemens? Look at dealing with the "naysayers" here as good practice.

Which brings up an obvious (to me) question: where are the scientists?

And like I said before... if MrWayne can convince _me_, then I can convince others... much more important others.... to take a real, hard look at the device and its principle of operation..... and if THEY are convinced, then the world will begin changing for the better immediately.

So far, the analyses and drawings and Travis Effect videos have not been sufficiently convincing to me. I suppose that at this point I'd need to see the device itself and poke around a bit, since I'm not seeing any rigorous and convincing mathematical analysis that shows how it would work.

And as Seamus pointed out, if there is confusion about basic terminology like energy and power, torque and pressure, gradients and volumes.... then it will be very difficult to communicate effectively. There is a standard terminology in use, standard mathematical procedures for analyzing systems.... so please, let's not confuse power with energy in our discussions; this has led to major errors and wasted efforts in the past and _some people_ are still terminally confused about the difference.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 03:42:58 PM
Picking apart a diagram and pointing out the inconsistencies is hardly nay-saying. If this thing works (and I don't discount the very small possibility that it might) then surely a robust theory of why it works is equally valid to search for.
The problem as I see it is that you have not even begun to search. This is a new discovery, and untill you fully understand it, including information yet to be divulged , you are not in a position to judge.
TinselKoala asks where are the scientists. Do you really need to ask. They are busy maintaining the status quo, not even daring to take a sideways glance at things like this , lest it tarnish their professional reputation, and terminate their fat salaries.
   I too have been to university, but some of the most gifted innovators I have met, did not .




  A serious suggestion. Why don`t you guys start another thread with a title such as " Why the Travis Effect can not possibly ever work, nor any similar idea, and we are all condemned to a future of cold and starvation"


 That way those of us who wish to learn will be in a better position to do so.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 04:01:50 PM
OK. Back to technical matters . A basic question for mrwayne. The machine itself is complex, involving several subsystems. My understanding is that the OU happens in the ZED itself. So my question is this.


Can one ZED onits own or at worst 2 ZEDs working together show overunity without additional systems.


If we are using just one ZED, we would need a water pump to supply the inlet, and a way to measure the input energy. We would use a the Zed  to raise a weight to measure the output as in force x distance, but the weight MUST be removed at the top of the stroke. It can be replaced again after the downstroke to be lifted again.


My reason for asking this question is this. One ZED , or even two, could be built by an experimenter . Then if OU can be shown at this time, there is the motivation to carry on and build a self running machine.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on June 12, 2012, 06:10:36 PM
Look, here's the argument in a nutshell.

Conventional physics says this device cannot be "overunity"... that is, a net "producer" of energy. 

Therefore the "incredulity" level must be high.



I think the level -is- (appropriately) high.
 
I'm still on the fence about this one, appropriately, since I can't see it, measure it, or touch it more than over YouTube so far, and because a) none of these things ever do seem to work in the end, there's a neutrino problem somewhere (meaning a measurement error), and b) I read about it online...where the world is nebulous and funky, and known to be vaporous. I await more news.


Time will tell all about The Colossus of Chickasha.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 12, 2012, 06:51:42 PM
OMG ;D
 
I'll send more later when I get time.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 06:57:28 PM
@webby1. I like your explanation, and your way of looking at it. However there is a little bit of a dilemma here that I can not quite get my head around .
 Look at this real life example. Two guys set out on a journey on a flat level road . The plan is to travel until each of them has expended 200 calories of energy. One decides to walk, and the other chooses to ride a bicycle. At the end of the competition, the bike guy has travelled 3 times as far as the walker. This, although true seems strange, because a bike has mechanical losses. We know a bike is not OU. so the only possible conclusion is that walking is a very inefficient form of locomotion.
  So if we assume that raising a weight by pumping air into a submerged tank[disregarding pump inefficiency]
is a 100% efficient process, then this must show that the Travis Effect is OU.


In the diagrams the pod, inner riser, and outer riser lift as a unit. Am I right in thinking they are fixed together at the top, but fixed in such a way that air can flow through this join?


@Larryc. Where in heavens name did you get that from?
Do we know what units are used to measure "head"? would that be feet or inches , presumably feet.]
What units are used to measure "Force"? is that really pounds?
Yes it is pounds.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 12, 2012, 07:04:29 PM
The problem as I see it is that you have not even begun to search. This is a new discovery, and untill you fully understand it, including information yet to be divulged , you are not in a position to judge.
TinselKoala asks where are the scientists. Do you really need to ask. They are busy maintaining the status quo, not even daring to take a sideways glance at things like this , lest it tarnish their professional reputation, and terminate their fat salaries.
   I too have been to university, but some of the most gifted innovators I have met, did not .




  A serious suggestion. Why don`t you guys start another thread with a title such as " Why the Travis Effect can not possibly ever work, nor any similar idea, and we are all condemned to a future of cold and starvation"


 That way those of us who wish to learn will be in a better position to do so.

Come on, are you trying to suppress and censor discussion? Put all the naysayers aside, where you won't even look at what they are saying, and prevent them from commenting here? Do you know how typical that tactic is, coming from people who don't turn out to have what they claim?
Even MrWayne himself isn't afraid to engage with your "naysayers", and that is good and appropriate.

Now... on the issue of scientists, status quo, and universities: I assure you, if you gather together a handful of physics _graduate students_ and show them the working prototype that runs on its own, creating energy from buoyancy..... you will immediately have a bunch of scientists crawling all over you, _competing_ with each other to be the first to explain and exploit scientifically the Travis Effect phenomenon.
Scientist careers are made by INNOVATION, not protecting some kind of status quo ante. And they award the Noble Prize not to protectors of the pearly gates, but to people who expand them and make major NEW contributions to knowledge. Your view of science and scientists is simply erroneous. Where, for example, did that fast computer that you are reading these words come from? Certainly not from scientists who were interested in maintaining some kind of closed system.  The electronics in your computer work because they are packed in there by people who thoroughly understand _conventional thermodynamics_ which doesn't have any holes in it and which can be used to predict _precisely and accurately_ such things as energy flows.

Or maybe you think aliens gave us the transistor and large-scale integration.

(Fat salaries for scientists? I am all for that.... too bad it hardly ever happens. The scientists who DO make a lot of money do it.... by innovating.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 07:25:22 PM
@TK. I am more than willing to discuss the points you raise.I fully respect your views. However, just not on this thread , because it just gets in the way of people who want to study this, and then make an unbiased assesment of it .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 08:24:10 PM
A LarryC. It has occurred to me that rather than having found a new source of info , you have just done some very clever calculations based on info gleaned from the demonstration diagrams. If this is the case, well done .
The only problem with that, is that some info on the diagrams is not to scale, and as far as I can see, that takes nothing away from what you have show. Unfortunately, however, it does not enable us to accurately calculate some further stuff. We can not for instance calculate the volume of water needed for the inlet phase, because we do not know the width of the inter cylinder gaps. That is a pity because if we knew what that volume was [and the inlet pressure which we already know] we could calculate the energy input per stroke .
 
 The calculation of these gaps is, as I have previously stated , is not easy . The gaps have to get narrower as we work from the centre of the device towards the outside , because we want the volume of water in each stage to be the same , and of course the circumference is increasing at each stage. Coupled with that we have been told that the gaps want to be as narrow as possible .


A practical problem I can forsee is this .When building a model , we really need a way to determine water levels in the various parts of the apparatus. I am not sure that this would be completely solved by the use of transparent building materials, and adding dyes to each volume of water .




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 12, 2012, 09:21:28 PM
OMG, the follow up. The OMG was meant as a eureka moment and I am still smiling.
This was not intended to be an example of the perfect system, it is intended for the understanding of how the system is producing overunity.
 
The spreadsheet was developed on the 8 PSI in the precharge equates to 18.6 of water head (8/.43). The surface diameters were based on the stated fact that the first surface is 30". The  other surfaces were based on the drawing dimensions and the stated fact that each lower surface has less lift then the one above due to Travis effect.
 
I showed the Full Precharge and Full lift as they are the most important to understand. Note that the full lift has more water than the Precharge. This is required in order to maintain the heads, which maintains the air pressure on the inner Riser surfaces as the system lifts. The spreadsheet shows the force produce by each surface. The actual lift force is equal to the difference between the surface above and the surface below.
 
So as long as water is being forced in to keep up with the lift height, the system will continue to produce much greater lift force than what is required to force the water in (marked in red). Of course this sounds impossible, but the key is that the riser are huge precharged pneumatic cylinders with Travis effect inserts to keep the air requirement down. The water is not lifting the system, only maintaining the head.
 
Water is almost incompressible. Air is easy to compress and is allready compressed at Full Precharge.
The spreadsheet is included below above the picture, but you need to click on it to view.

 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 09:43:45 PM
OK. Back to technical matters . A basic question for mrwayne. The machine itself is complex, involving several subsystems. My understanding is that the OU happens in the ZED itself. So my question is this.


Can one ZED onits own or at worst 2 ZEDs working together show overunity without additional systems.


If we are using just one ZED, we would need a water pump to supply the inlet, and a way to measure the input energy. We would use a the Zed  to raise a weight to measure the output as in force x distance, but the weight MUST be removed at the top of the stroke. It can be replaced again after the downstroke to be lifted again.


@ LarryC. So based on your Eureka moment , and your calculations, how would you answer my question above, noting the bit about "The weight must be removed ".


My reason for asking this question is this. One ZED , or even two, could be built by an experimenter . Then if OU can be shown at this time, there is the motivation to carry on and build a self running machine.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on June 12, 2012, 10:02:14 PM
MrWayne is not getting out any more energy than what is being provided by an interaction with gravity, he IS supplying something :) just like a damn\hydroelectric facility.  Build the damn and nature supplies everything else, but you have to guide it through something YOU can take advantage of.

The damn (hydroelectric facility) is a good thought experiment. The flaw is the water coming out after it flowed through the turbine. The water was put in the reservoir behind the damn by solar power (rain, inflow from a river) and then drops through the machinery. The water was higher up before going into the machinery (generator) and is lower down afterwards. The difference in height is the determining factor for the amount of energy which can be generated.

What bothers me most in the Travis concept, is the "closed system". After it is set up, while running, the Travis machine does not suck water or air in and does not let water or air out.

It could let heat in and cool it, but this is not claimed.

To claim it lets "gravity" in and destroys it or makes it lighter, is a bold concept which is difficult to accept.

As far as I understand:

There are two "pumps" in the system. One pump is a "conventional pump or known convection" which transports air from one cavity to an other in order to reset the system (system is brought to state A). The second "pump" is the "Travis pump" which sets the system up (system is brought to state B).

The claim is, that setting the system up costs less than resetting the system (and consequently the net difference can be harvested as output power).

In other words: state B has more energy than state A or at least has the same energy, but going from state A to B (Travis effect) costs less than going from state B back to A (conventional pump or known convection).

And exactly that is not proven, neither by a calculation nor by a self running system. Also the patent application ultimately just states that without any attempt to proof it (no calculation, no energy balance sheet).

I am not very keen on calculations and theories, because they could be false or based on false assumptions. So, let us hope that Mr. Travis can eventually demonstrate a self running machine with some net output. "Self running" would be best, because input versus output calculations or measurements are always very difficult and will always be questioned.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 12, 2012, 10:03:40 PM
In the diagrams the pod, inner riser, and outer riser lift as a unit. Am I right in thinking they are fixed together at the top, but fixed in such a way that air can flow through this join?

@neptune, I believe the pod, inner riser, and outer riser do lift together, if properly restrained by the hydraulic accumulator system and not allowed to stroke beyond design limits.  But there is no reason for them to be attached together at the top.  In the patent I believe it states that they can be separated by spacers/bumpers and this allows for the air gap and geometry shown in the illustrations.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 10:15:19 PM
Deleted due to double post.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 12, 2012, 10:19:21 PM
@mondrasek, thanks for clearing that up.
@Conradelektro. He already claims a self runner with net output. He has said that those willing to travel and sign an NDA can go and have a look .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 13, 2012, 03:56:57 AM
Wayne,
can you do me a favor and post that as a Christian you will respect my reruest to not involve yourself with my efforts to demonstrate that Johann Bessler who was a devout Christian did build a perpetual wheel that worked.
  Thank You in advance.

  Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 13, 2012, 05:25:54 AM
Look, here's the argument in a nutshell.

Which brings up an obvious (to me) question: where are the scientists?


Hello Team,
First let me say, We are being reviewed - by the best, you do not get the "best" unless you have demonstrated at least a solid chance of success.

Secondly, I am not on this site - as I have stated repeatedly - to convince you of anything, you have claimed the job for your self.

Nay sayers are welcome if the remain respectful - floating dogs is not, once if funny - repeatedly - that is something else.
If you want to know for sure - get in your car, on a plane and knock on my door - I love sharing our work.
Don't expect that from your insults I am going to feel obligated to you.

We have released our progress and I have spent considerable time sharing our hard earned research with those respectful enough study and ask.

Lastly regarding The Law - we have yet to claim and will not claim "over Ideal" or more than the energy available in the simple physics of our design -
We have very clearly claimed to be able to operate at a lower than we can generate. I have even explained how.

The entire thread on defying the laws is your interpretation of what we have - not ours.

The Travis effect (in its simple form) as Tom demonstrated - had a lower operating cost than the standard - very clear and simple - if you do not see it - well I understand if you do not come.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 13, 2012, 05:41:44 AM
  Wayne,
 I made a simple request.
Is something wrong ?
 The travis effect does not account for back pressure caused by back pressure.
 Sorry but not my problem.

 Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 13, 2012, 05:50:42 AM
OK. Back to technical matters . A basic question for mrwayne. The machine itself is complex, involving several subsystems. My understanding is that the OU happens in the ZED itself. So my question is this.


Can one ZED onits own or at worst 2 ZEDs working together show overunity without additional systems.


If we are using just one ZED, we would need a water pump to supply the inlet, and a way to measure the input energy. We would use a the Zed  to raise a weight to measure the output as in force x distance, but the weight MUST be removed at the top of the stroke. It can be replaced again after the downstroke to be lifted again.


My reason for asking this question is this. One ZED , or even two, could be built by an experimenter . Then if OU can be shown at this time, there is the motivation to carry on and build a self running machine.
Three answers:

History, the first unit Mark came and checked was a simple input outout system - and we passed - that was in May of last year, so yes. It is a simple measurement of the volume and pressure required for the hydro input - compared to the Hydraulic out put - volume and pressure.

Works just like a pressure increaser - except the out put volume and pressure is greater than the a pressure increaser could produce.

The Second Model Mark tested was Closed looped - we merely bled off the excess fluid and ran totally free - we were  not trying to charge the CP battery. 

Second Part of the question - yes one Zed six layers is 190% two of the same systems linked 260%.
 
Out put energy is merely a portion of the "ideal," the ideal is a factor of width and height and number of layers.
 
The efficiency is not rated from the ideal - we are always under the ideal - efficiency is a factor of comparison to the internal operating cost.

To be clear - let me use this analogy - a six cylinder car - four cylinder provide free energy - two require input  - at the end of the day we have a six cylinder engine running self powered with a net free energy of two cylinders.  Much less than ideal - but free none the less.

Third Question:
Contact me privately and I will put you in touch with the authorized manufacturer of our Educational demo models - work with him - he is solving the same functional questions.

Wayne Travis 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 13, 2012, 05:58:44 AM
Johhny,
I am respecting the personal request you sent me - no communication.
If you have changed your mind - please advise.
WT
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 13, 2012, 06:28:05 AM
I chose the Damn analogy *because* we know the ins and the outs of the system, that has not always the case however.  Like man can not fly, at the time of that statement many things were simply not known, but we learn.

The "Travis effect" shows an advantage in using a non-compressible item to replace a large volume that would otherwise require extra input to fill, it shows that you do not need to fill the whole volume with your input substance, hence a reduction in costs of operation.  I actually have been playing with a movable item filling the volume, just having fun and gaining understanding of the effect and ways of using it, this is making a float with weight sink.

If I use the buoyant value inside an accumulator to move something up and down and all that, have I diminished the function of the accumulator?

Hmmm,,, multi-tasking

I saw a post a while back, and got distracted by ..stuff again.

But if we can get back on track - I wanted to clarify the staging model I sent a couple of days ago -
It showed a weight on top - do not confuse this weight with the load on the system - the load is the Hydraulic cylinder not drawn - we were discussing water levels and pressures - with horrible spelling errors.......

The weights have three functions - (and they do eat part of the Ideal) but they do not add to the cost of the system in fact -they reduce the input costs:

For fun - can you tell me three energy savings from the weight on a two tank system:

To pick on your brain there is four dramatic reductions in the cost of operation directly from the Weight.

I had a science teacher rather sure that I was lost when I disclosed that a single system was 190% and a double was 260% efficient.

She was pretty sure of herself, my own engineer argued with me for two hours until he modeled it -
Not getting all out of your system - just does not compute to an engineer - and hence where the error in the search for free energy begins. The logic is - you must plan to take everything out of a system.. and  if you take everything out of a system ---- you have to put it all back in again - you can gain nothing.

But if you leave energy trapped in the system - changes things allot - a non technical term.

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 13, 2012, 06:31:01 AM
Wayne,
the request was for no involvement with Bessler.
 His work will show what travis missed.
 
       J
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 13, 2012, 06:57:07 AM
Wayne,
the request was for no involvement with Bessler.
 His work will show what travis missed.
 
       J
Thank you.
WT
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 13, 2012, 08:15:44 AM
Wayne,
Is it so difficult to say you will let myself and otherr pursue Besslers work without worrying about you involving yourself ?
 After all, you are the travis behind the travis effect, right ?
 It seems you have a lot to lose. Like I said, I feel sorry for you but you are a grown man and will be able to deal with it.
 It is not my mistake, maybe next time if there is one for you, you might listen to what others have to say.

Jim

corrected spelling
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on June 13, 2012, 02:04:03 PM
Johnny, what seems to be your problem?  You are acting as if Wayne is in the Bessler thread bothering you, just as you are doing in Waynes thread here. But I dont see Wayne posting over there.

So why dont you go and work on your stuff, instead of posting this nonsense here?

Get a grip dude.

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 13, 2012, 02:37:19 PM
@Seamus101. I can not help but respect you are you are obviously educated, and you are a thinker. You have taken the time to analyse this phenomenon, and reached a conclusion that there is no OU here. If you are right, all will be revealed and resolved in time.Perhaps your best plan would be to just wait and see?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 13, 2012, 02:50:31 PM
@mrwayne. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the weight is not part of the load. So it essential to the working of the machine, and it rises and falls with each stroke . The net energy needed it to raise and lower it will be small, because what energy we put in to lift it, we get back as it falls. I would guess, but am not yet certain , that when we use two ZEDS, the weights counterbalance each other to a large extent. You say the actual load is the hydraulic system .
    OK but in a simple demonstration model, we may want to avoid the complexity and expense of hydaulics.
But we still need a load as we know that the machine needs a load . Could the load be a mechanical ratchet system used to constantly raise a weight? By that i mean a "new" weight, other than the weights mentioned previously.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 13, 2012, 03:29:27 PM
Johnny, what seems to be your problem?  You are acting as if Wayne is in the Bessler thread bothering you, just as you are doing in Waynes thread here. But I dont see Wayne posting over there.

So why dont you go and work on your stuff, instead of posting this nonsense here?

Get a grip dude.

Mags

  Mag,
 Me and Wayne have pm'ed some. Something he said to me.
 I guess though it is unfortunate I went to school to understand systems like this.
Compression creates a low pressure high velocity discharge. Engineers have worked with this for years.
 The reason it becomes high velocity is because of the back pressure caused by compression.
 I was going to say that when he sees what I will be demonstrating, he can build it. Of course, what is
not understood about Bessler was that he was using his work to demonstrate his faith. He used 3 crosses
placed around his wheels as a "sign" to have faith. Some how, everyone has missed this clue of his. It could
be they lack the discerning mind he says a person needs.
 And one thing I could be missing is he might not be able to work with his hands.
 Sorry Wayne, Happy Hunting  :D
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 13, 2012, 04:10:39 PM
@mrwayne. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the weight is not part of the load. So it essential to the working of the machine, and it rises and falls with each stroke . The net energy needed it to raise and lower it will be small, because what energy we put in to lift it, we get back as it falls. I would guess, but am not yet certain , that when we use two ZEDS, the weights counterbalance each other to a large extent. You say the actual load is the hydraulic system .
    OK but in a simple demonstration model, we may want to avoid the complexity and expense of hydaulics.
But we still need a load as we know that the machine needs a load . Could the load be a mechanical ratchet system used to constantly raise a weight? By that i mean a "new" weight, other than the weights mentioned previously.
The load can be what ever you desire - pump water, turn a ratchet, hydraulic pressure  - but without a load - the system will simply rise without building head -
Larry was dead right when he recognized the diference between continually adding head - to do work, and simply raising the water level (where the head already exists).
Larry has taken a big jump in the right direction.
When you add a weight to a spring, the weight compresses the spring to a point of equalibrium, then the work to lift the spring is related directly to the weight of both the spring and weight -
The point is energy - is not added to compress the spring any more - as you travel.
On the reverse - when you take the load off the weight - at the end of travel - the spring will expand - which direction it expanded depends on the capture device.
Our system has a Hydro pnuematic spring.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 13, 2012, 06:25:41 PM
Wayne,
Is it so difficult to say you will let myself and otherr pursue Besslers work without worrying about you involving yourself ?
 After all, you are the travis behind the travis effect, right ?
 It seems you have a lot to lose. Like I said, I feel sorry for you but you are a grown man and will be able to deal with it.
 It is not my mistake, maybe next time if there is one for you, you might listen to what others have to say.
 
Jim

Jim, I just wanted to point out (again) that if Mr. Wayne's device is proven to work and that it is harnessing the Conservitive Field of Force known as Gravity, it gives validity to Bessler's wheel like never before and there may be many times more individuals interested in that.  Me included. 
 
You believe that Bessler also used buoyancy, but others (like myself) do not.  So I would be looking for what fundamental underlying principle could be used without a fluid that could be derived without buoyancy to cause a Conserative Field of Force to be used to do work.  The guys playing with magnetic fields would also be searching feverishly for this underlying principle.
 
So asking Mr. Wayne not to try might be the least of your concerns if your goal is to be "first" to replicate a Bessler type wheel.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 13, 2012, 08:53:03 PM
@Mondrasek, a very perceptive post. I always sat on the fence regarding Bessler`s wheel. But I believe that the first OU device to make it to market, will have an effect greater than the sum of its parts. Not only will it provide affordable energy, it will change the whole human perception of energy and indeed physics. In short it will be the first white crow that proves that not all crows are black. Suddenly , there will be fever of white crow hunting like never before. In the initial hysteria, white crows will be seen everywhere . But as things settle down, we will be able to separate the Magic from the Tragic. Then, who know, we may find a breeding pair...


 @Mrwayne. I have re read all your posts over again and will do so several times, because to fully understand everything you have said, it helps me. Regarding models , you built a machine to show input and output, which I believe was the first machine seen by Mark Dansie . You refer to this as a "Table Top Simple System" which might be a good starting point for the home builder/experimenter. Table top implies fairly small . Could you give a rough idea of the size of the ZED please, and if possible the number of layers. was it three?


Suggestion.  The ultimate teaching tool in understanding this phenomenon would be an Animation, with commentary on what is happening at each stage. Perhaps someone with the necessary skills and soft ware could consider this ? Every picture tells a story .




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 13, 2012, 10:23:50 PM
Thought I'd show what could be done using the 1/8" thick acrylic tubes available from McMaster-Carr.  Since they have every size covered in 1/8" increments from 6" OD on down to 1.5" OD I think a fairly small model could be made, though it would take some expense, expertise, and equipment.  This drawing shows a three layer ZED only, but more inner layers could be produced.  The tops and bottoms of members are 1/4" thick sheet to allow for vents and fill tubes to be more easily fitted.  But this gives the idea of the scale and possibilities with commercially available acrylic.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 14, 2012, 12:06:43 AM
I would argue that your system IS a  Hydro pnuematic spring, and is not any more than that.
As springs do not provide overunity energy where does the claimed excess come from? No explanation given so far holds any water.

A spring can be used to move a certain amount of a fluid at certain (decreasing) PSI if it is allowed to act on a fluid reservoir such as a cylinder filled with said fluid.
 
Can the volume of pressurized fluid that the spring can move create a combined buoyancy force on several nested risers (a la the Zed arrangement) such that the energy that is produced by the resultant buoyant force is more than the energy that was initially stored in the spring?
 
I'd apprecite more than just talk.  Please show some diagrams and equations to explain if you can.  I know this is a very demanding request, but it is hard to follow just your rhetoric.  Some graphical and calculational examples of why you state it cannot work would be most helpfull.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 14, 2012, 02:51:54 AM
Suppose you build a table top model using the nested acrylic tubes, the patent, and MrWayne's helpful explanations.... and it works, and you can show it self-powering for hours on end, turning a little generator and lighting some LEDs. What then? I know exactly what I'd do. I'd grab MrWayne, the model, and we'd all go together to see some friends of ours, and the world will begin changing immediately.

But what if the model doesn't work?  Did you get the clearance between parts A and B a thousandth of an inch too large? Did you use the wrong kind of glue? Is there a tiny leak somewhere? Need different water?
My point is, the model building is an interesting exercise. What is it for? A null result (failure to operate or no overunity operation) proves nothing at all. You could have been holding your mouth wrong, or a million other reasons why it won't work. (Of course... there is one real reason but we don't need to go there right now.)
And if there is a positive result.... won't that just be repeating work already done by MrWayne's engineers and builders? The device in the video is not "kludged" together: it is clearly the end result of a process of development. Somewhere along the way the engineers will have built a small version for testing the principle.
Where is this small version now, and how was it constructed, exactly?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 14, 2012, 03:31:44 AM
TK,
 
I completely agree.  The model building will not be a validation of anything so far presented.  I only thought it would be neat as a visual aid for teaching, if it is a working device.  I'm not trying to push it on anyone.  But since Mr. Wayne has offered to pay for the expense of the materials if we do a group build, I thought, "Why not?"

I think the maths are simple enough (so far) that we could either witness or not the OU without resorting to debating dimensional discrepancies. 
 
But (again) you are correct.  If it didn't work, it would be easy to look for some minuscule difference in the replication that possibly changed the outcome.
 
I do not think that a  replication in table top form is necessary.  I just think it would be fun (if not costing anyone too much capital).
 
I ask again (earnestly), would you build?  If you didn't have to pay for materials?
 
I'd be happy to CAD (know you don't need it) if you want.  Just in case proportions are more important than I think and we can't receive better dimensional advice.
 
M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 14, 2012, 03:54:36 AM
TK,
 
I completely agree.  The model building will not be a validation of anything so far presented.  I only thought it would be neat as a visual aid for teaching, if it is a working device.  I'm not trying to push it on anyone.  But since Mr. Wayne has offered to pay for the expense of the materials if we do a group build, I thought, "Why not?"

I think the maths are simple enough (so far) that we could either witness or not the OU without resorting to debating dimensional discrepancies. 
 
But (again) you are correct.  If it didn't work, it would be easy to look for some minuscule difference in the replication that posibbly changed the outcome.
 
I do not think that a  replication in table top form is necessary.  I just think it would be fun (if not costing anyone to much capital).
 
I ask again (earnestly), would you build?  If you didn't have to pay for materials?
 
I'd be happy to CAD (know you don't need it) if you want.  Just in case proportions are more important than I think and we can't receive better dimensional advice.
 
M.

Hi guys,
for your information, there is a Russian website which actually explains in details operation of the O/U hydraulic engine:
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/70_Book_2_part_70.htm
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/71_Book_2_part_71.htm
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/71_Book_2_part_73.htm
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/71_Book_2_part_74.htm
Alex
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 14, 2012, 04:41:11 AM
I would argue that your system IS a  Hydro pnuematic spring, and is not any more than that.
As springs do not provide overunity energy where does the claimed excess come from? No explanation given so far holds any water.

You would argue if I said you were smart.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 14, 2012, 04:45:34 AM
Well, I don't read Russian as well as I should but I can see already that there is a problem between Figs 1 and 2 in the first link. The water height "h" is shown to be the same, but if the figures are showing what happens when the ovoid shape is pushed into the water, that's wrong. As the shape is pushed under the water from the floating position in Fig. 1, the level of the water "h" will rise... and it is the lifting of this water which provides the buoyant force.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 14, 2012, 04:45:40 AM
TK,
 
I completely agree.  The model building will not be a validation of anything so far presented.  I only thought it would be neat as a visual aid for teaching, if it is a working device.  I'm not trying to push it on anyone.  But since Mr. Wayne has offered to pay for the expense of the materials if we do a group build, I thought, "Why not?"

I think the maths are simple enough (so far) that we could either witness or not the OU without resorting to debating dimensional discrepancies. 
 
But (again) you are correct.  If it didn't work, it would be easy to look for some minuscule difference in the replication that posibbly changed the outcome.
 
I do not think that a  replication in table top form is necessary.  I just think it would be fun (if not costing anyone to much capital).
 
I ask again (earnestly), would you build?  If you didn't have to pay for materials?
 
I'd be happy to CAD (know you don't need it) if you want.  Just in case proportions are more important than I think and we can't receive better dimensional advice.
 
M.
A working replication from an outside source is awesome -
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 14, 2012, 04:52:38 AM
@Mondrasek: I might be tempted to build something if there was an actual verified design, but right now I don't have my machine shop set up and the nearest one I can use involves a couple hours drive, so I'm not really too interested. Plus, two thousand dollars might buy some basic materials and pay for some expenses, but anyone can tell you... and I'm sure you yourself know.... that this won't buy very much of a skilled machinist's time, much less the time of skilled design engineers.  It would have to be a labor of love, and I don't love this particular labor.

There is a _lot_ of time and money spent on the machine we saw in the video. This is one reason why I cannot understand what is going on here, nor do I understand why MrWayne is making the two thousand dollar offer. If it already works, then it seems that this effort would only be useful to convince a few hobbyists and forum posters. But this effort _does_ make a sort of sense if it is looked at as sort of a "Steornish" effort at distributed development of an idea.

It would seem to me that CLaNZeR is much more in a position to perform this work than I am, but he doesn't seem to be interested either, for reasons of his own.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 14, 2012, 04:57:18 AM
Hello All,
You may Reach me at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I will ask my Web designer to add a blog to my site which will be a safe zone for positive discussion.
Thank you and Good Bye.
Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 14, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
I agree with Tk, I had the same thought, at some point wayne must have had a smaller demo version built and running before spending the money on a larger version.

So, just show the demo running on a live feed, why not?

Or, invite Tk to inspect the current machine (under NDA), if he says its works, watch the investors queue up and make wayne a very, very rich man...

Clanzer would ideal for building a demo unit, but I think all his time is being used to set up his CNC manufacturing factory.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on June 14, 2012, 12:22:15 PM
Or, invite Tk to inspect the current machine (under NDA), if he says its works, watch the investors queue up and make wayne a very, very rich man...
i doubt that venture capital investors hinge their decisions upon the opinions of some anonymous flamboyant marsupial internet personality from a fringe science forum... ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on June 14, 2012, 01:05:56 PM
Again this guy is not going to fully Open Source his machine.
History will once again repeat itself and this “break through” will be lost just like many others.
Our current corrupt Government will NEVER let a self-sustaining free energy machine be commercialized. Remember Tesla? Government will lose control of the people if it happens…
So far there is NO concrete Open Source evidence how this machine works.
Yeah go hide in you safe room where you belong, you will be doing us (most of us anyway) a favor!
Now who really wants to save the world? Open Source it! Or fuck off!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 14, 2012, 01:13:40 PM
Well, I don't read Russian as well as I should but I can see already that there is a problem between Figs 1 and 2 in the first link. The water height "h" is shown to be the same, but if the figures are showing what happens when the ovoid shape is pushed into the water, that's wrong. As the shape is pushed under the water from the floating position in Fig. 1, the level of the water "h" will rise... and it is the lifting of this water which provides the buoyant force.
I will try to  explain briefly what I have understood, but first the name of the author is Mr. G.P. Perveev,  ut27972@yandex.ru   ,  ut27972@narod.ru (no disrespect for
 mrwayne)
 
According to him, the principle is very simple.
First of all, the submerged body doesn't have to exit the water, so the water level doesn't change.
The body's volume is such, that it takes a very small amount of an additional water to have it to sink when it is close to the surface, or a very small amount of air to rise, when it is at the bottom.
Think of a submarine!!!
 Basically we may have a body with a fairly large displacement, say, 10 tons, but because it is balanced in this way, it takes a very little energy to make it to go up or down.
So, if we have a 10 ton body at the bottom of 1 m vessel, and it takes it 1 second to rise, the power produced will be 100  kw!
Needless to say, that the body doesn't have to weight 10 tons, but it can be connected to the load with the weight of 10 tons by the mechanical means.

Alex

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 14, 2012, 02:16:44 PM
Offcource this isn't correct.

It will only be 10 ton when you empty it completly and it will sink, or when you put in enough air to make it rise at 10 ton.
In the little water little air example you will only get the differential force you create so this would be the same for a 1 gram piece and a 10 ton piece it all depends on how much water/air you pump in and out not on the weight of the actual container.

So is this now claimed to be the new travis effect or what?

The work is done by the displacement according to Archimedes.
Little air/water just to make it to move.
Like in here:
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 14, 2012, 03:04:33 PM
Hello,
I am unimpressed with you limited interpretation - of my decision to leave this forum.

Some of you have offered continual interuption, disrupted disc cussion.

And the most intelligent thing you had to offer was - "I see nothing".

The only thing you have succeeded at - was to keep those who actually "See"
from learning how the system works.

Once Again - what I offered freely - you wasted your time trying to stop, you wasted the forums time, and the time others gave to follow.

One day, you will see the futility of your desires.

We have finished what you are afraid of, the world is welcoming our discovery - as we speak.
 

You assumption that your actions interfere with the success of our
Certified Over Unity device - they are like the rest of your comments.
You jump to conclusions without listening, understanding, it is fear, pride, envy, ego, I have no commitment or promise to you.
I do thank the others, and appreciate all of the letters, intelligent questions and respectful correspondences - we have more than words, we have the the real deal ;-)
"Roasting" - only works if at least part of what you say is true - claiming that which you do not know - is something else. It won't work, I don't believe, I see nothing here....is not roasting - it is opinion.
Good day.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 14, 2012, 03:29:09 PM
@Mondrasek: I might be tempted to build something if there was an actual verified design, but right now I don't have my machine shop set up and the nearest one I can use involves a couple hours drive, so I'm not really too interested. Plus, two thousand dollars might buy some basic materials and pay for some expenses, but anyone can tell you... and I'm sure you yourself know.... that this won't buy very much of a skilled machinist's time, much less the time of skilled design engineers.

@TK, I understand.  If this was only 10 years ago when I was still doing design and project engineering and constantly "in the trenches" with my own machinists who would let me use their equipment without a second thought.  But times and employees have changed and our shop is now locked up or under guard and I am no longer known to the new guys.
 
Here I sit in the tooling capital of the US, surrounded by machine shops.  But no one I know would produce the pieces for a model for free.  It would deffinitely require someone who has the equipment, time, and the "love."
 
@all, I doubt Mr. Wayne would have made any of his test models out of acrylic.  He would more likely have been working with metals, and just like with the videos, ended up with devices where you cannot "see" what is going on.  Even looking at one in person would not help anyone to understand.  Many would not understand the operation even if they were allowed to witness it being taken apart, re-assembled, charged, and started back up.
 
Even in acrylic it may not be possible to see clearly through the multi layer design, even if different color tints were used on the different moving parts and fluids.  But it would be more convincing than an annimation IMHO.  The ultimate teaching device would probably require a model *and* an annimation.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 14, 2012, 04:00:04 PM
God I hope and wish what you have is real and true wayne, we need something to get us out of the hole we are in.

You have to understand those of us who have been here for a while have had our hopes dashed too many times, so we tend to skeptics when we see something new.

Quote "Certified Over Unity device" unquote, certified by who?, have you had a university look at this?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 14, 2012, 04:11:17 PM
The work is done by the displacement according to Archimedes.
Little air/water just to make it to move.
Like in here:

  AB Hammer had an idea using weighted floats, he wasn't willing to try and work wtih the design.
 With even a submarine, it is the density of the mass relative to water which determines it's bouyancy.
  All this means is that if you have a cylinder expand with empty space (not a vacuum, inert gas?) inside of it, it's density will become less.
 Would have to wonder if this would allow enough lift to allow for the work being done, expanding the cylinder. It might be possible.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on June 14, 2012, 04:52:36 PM
Hello,
I am unimpressed with you limited interpretation - of my decision to leave this forum.

Some of you have offered continual interuption, disrupted disc cussion.
thanks stefan... for not moderating your forum... AGAIN.  ::)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 14, 2012, 04:54:03 PM
Offcource this isn't correct.


Hi Microcontroller,
I see your point - basically it will take the same amt of energy to bring load down as up.
will keep browsing through his website looking for an answer.
Alex
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 14, 2012, 04:54:50 PM
i doubt that venture capital investors hinge their decisions upon the opinions of some anonymous flamboyant marsupial internet personality from a fringe science forum... ;)

I'll have you know, Wilby you meatball-challenged pasta chef you, that I had my pouch surgically removed as a child and no longer associate at all with my marsupial relatives. Besides, where I come from, a person's marsupiality-- or lack of it--- is not considered a topic for polite discussion.

But then nobody has ever accused you of being polite, have they, you flesh-colored crayon-scribbler you.

Now... do you have an on-topic comment to make about the veracity, or lack of it, of a buoyancy drive that runs of itself? No? Then stuff this in your pouch and incubate it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 14, 2012, 05:06:07 PM
You know, some days I think I have selected the wrong forum . I was under the impression that this was an OVERUNITY FORUM. All I have to go on is the title. If I am right , then this is not the "Overunity is impossible" forum.
        I make no secret of the fact that I am an Atheist. No big deal. But I do not waste my time interrupting church services, and being rude to the local priest. I respect him. He has his ideas, and I have mine.
        Back around the year 1890, the then chairman of the Royal Society, proposed a motion. His motion was that the Royal Society should be disbanded, on the grounds that all the scientific discoveries had now been made, and everything was now known. That guy is no doubt dead now . But I seem to recall that we have discovered one or two things since then. Dead he may be, but his spirit and philosophy is alive and well.
        Mark Dansie is a well respected sceptic investigator who has seen this device with his own eyes . But we have people here so gifted that they are better qualified to judge, even from several hundred miles away. At least in their own eyes.
       Does it work? I do not know yet, because I have not yet learned all there is to know about it. But I intend to go on learning. The evidence so far looks promising .
        The laws of physics are the summation of what we have learned up to now.  Assuming there are no "holes" in them takes us back to the arrogance of the 1890s.
           "Give instruction to a wise man, and he will become yet wiser"
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on June 14, 2012, 05:46:08 PM
Hi Mr. Wayne,

Thank you for sharing your idea here.

TinselKoala and Neptune bring up some valid points on the difficulty of fabricating a small model. If there are no takers to build maybe you could have your engineers develop a small working 3D model of it and put it up on Shapeways (www.shapeways.com).  A 3D printed model would allow for some tight tolerances.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 14, 2012, 05:59:50 PM
I agree with Tk, I had the same thought, at some point wayne must have had a smaller demo version built and running before spending the money on a larger version.

So, just show the demo running on a live feed, why not?

Or, invite Tk to inspect the current machine (under NDA), if he says its works, watch the investors queue up and make wayne a very, very rich man...

Clanzer would ideal for building a demo unit, but I think all his time is being used to set up his CNC manufacturing factory.

   Lakes,
  it's possible he might have built it before doing any testing. The lack of gauges showing pressure, volume of flow, etc. are missing.
 it's that type of information that would dictate the development of an idea such as this. Wayne did mention that he was adding data collection devices to obtain this information as someone he knows suggested it to him.
  I think if he would have done so that he would have found out that by compressing hydraulic fluid, it slows it's flow rate which diminishes the work it can do in the way he is trying to use it. With hydraulic theory, it's potential is increased by low pressure acting on one side of a piston and the opposing piston acting on the hydraulic fluid has a smaller surface area (edit) but has no extra travel. Volume is being exchanged for pressure. (end edit). His device uses compressed air to act as a piston. I think what he might not have understood is this information. For me, I think if he spent more money without doing actual testing that the costs he incurs might cause him more problems which he wouldn't need. And not all those costs would be financial.
 If he really wants to try something that might work, he might consider a weighted float. As the Russian guy mentioned, it could be quite heavy which would have a lot of potential. Any way, Wayne can think about it. But as some have mentioned, this is supposed to be a Research Forum.
 And as for Stefan's moderation ? His being patient might be seen as a good thing by some. It allows idea's and discussions that might not other wise be allowed.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 14, 2012, 06:30:20 PM
Hi Microcontroller,
I see your point - basically it will take the same amt of energy to bring load down as up.
will keep browsing through his website looking for an answer.
Alex
I found out how he does it - its here:
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/71_Book_2_part_71.htm
Basically, he is using a variable displacement piston.(In  yellow color, consisting of parts 1 and 2)
During the down stroke, piston is kept at the minimal displacement (part 2 goes inside of part 1). This allows for extra liquid to get in.
After reaching  bottom the piston expands, and due to its increased displacement it rises up.
At the top position part 2 gets pushed in again.
The o/u is the excess liquid equal to the volume of the part 2 of the piston.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 14, 2012, 06:46:19 PM

"Basically, he is using a variable displacement piston.(In  yellow color, consisting of parts 1 and 2)
During the down stroke, piston is kept at the minimal displacement (part 2 goes inside of part 1). This allows for extra liquid to get in.
After reaching  bottom the piston expands, and due to its increased displacement it rises up.
At the top position part 2 gets pushed in again."[/size]

[/size]
Ever heard of ELSA? Your description of the Russian device apparently uses the same mechanism that was presented by John Herring with his ELSA--albeit in a much less sophisticated fashion--9 years ago. I believe he has died since then. [/size]
The mechanics of part 2 getting pushed in again at the top position is where he lost me.[/size]

[/size]
http://www.icestuff.com/energy/elsa/
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 14, 2012, 06:53:14 PM
"Basically, he is using a variable displacement piston.(In  yellow color, consisting of parts 1 and 2)
During the down stroke, piston is kept at the minimal displacement (part 2 goes inside of part 1). This allows for extra liquid to get in.
After reaching  bottom the piston expands, and due to its increased displacement it rises up.
At the top position part 2 gets pushed in again."[/size]

[/size]
Ever heard of ELSA? Your description of the Russian device apparently uses the same mechanism that was presented by John Herring with his ELSA--albeit in a much less sophisticated fashion--9 years ago. I believe he has died since then. [/size]
The mechanics of part 2 getting pushed in again at the top position is where he lost me.[/size]

[/size]
http://www.icestuff.com/energy/elsa/
Hi,
will gladly look at Elsa.
According to the website, during the rise, while smaller part of the piston (2) reaches the top, bigger part (1) keeps moving up,
this is what causing part 2 to collapse into part 1 of the piston.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 14, 2012, 09:22:31 PM
@johnny874. You said "If he wanted to try something that might work, he might consider a weighted float"


 Can you please explain why he could possibly want to try something the "might work" when he already has something that does work?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 14, 2012, 10:33:04 PM
@johnny874. You said "If he wanted to try something that might work, he might consider a weighted float"


 Can you please explain why he could possibly want to try something the "might work" when he already has something that does work?

  Neptune,
 I did mention specific principles in engineering which I think he has not considered. it is merely a consideration of the facts. Compressing hydraulic fluid will only allow for a conversion of it's potential. This is one problem with a closed loop system.
 If he made the mistake of building before doing testing to verify potential did exist, okay, so he reacted a bit more than he should have. But in research, sometimes it's best to start over at the beginning and do the basic tests. I think he'll find any increase in the height of the static head results in less work. This is because compression of the hydraulic fluid reduces the volume that can be pumped in a certain amount of time.
 With a submarine or weighted float, having one weight drop on another would close the space between them increasing the density of the structure. When the device plunges deeper in water, the top weight can be caught and held while the lower weight continues it's plunge. This would open the device decreasing it's density and increasing it's buoyancy. Basically playing it like a yo-yo. It would need some mechanics or what ever to control it's function but might be a simple idea that could be tested with pvc pipe, weights, plastic and some plastic glue and a trip to the beach or lake and see how it responds ?
 But then, something like that would have come from different peoples idea's. Scientists have even tried floats on top of the water to harness wave energy, but they never thought of sinking it.
 Still, would be something for you guys to talk about if you want, and who knows, Wayne might like the idea. And since I have some things to take care of before I get to pursue my favorite hobby, will take that break I need and if you guys like the idea, it's all yours.
 
                                                                               Jim
 
p.s. in this very basic concept, if one pvc tube goes over another, plastic can be used to seal it like an air shock so if the is a gap between tubes, it's okay. All it would be is a start if you guys think it's worth considering.
 
edited to add; with fluid systems, it is possible that increased pressure also increases adhesion and cohesion. With a collapseable weight, it is changing it's potential to a body of water or outside force.
 basically, perpetual motion or overunity is considered impossible because a mass or an object can not change it's potential relative to iteslf or it's closed loop system.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 15, 2012, 01:36:59 AM
  @All,
 PiR^2 H is the volume of a cylinder. There are 28.3^3" in a lb. of water. Basically, 3.14 times diameter times height equals volume.
By placing and end cap on both ends of a pvc pipe, you can see how volume changes
buoyancy. The pipe might leak a little without glue, but it would give you an idea.
 A 2 1/2 lb.(dumbell) weight going by the numbers would need a tube that has a volume of
about 70 cubic inches to float. A simple test to understand buoyancy and mass. Cut the pipe in half
and see how it starts to sink, then you'll get it.
 With a collapseable weight, the water it is in as well as gravity would be acting on
it, 2 other forces. This means it's not a closed looped system but would take advantage
of gravity and the density of water.
 I guess in a way it's up to Wayne. Myself, I know there is a lot of pressure to prove
something yesterday, have experienced it myself.
 With something like this, everyone would be in the loop from the beginning and would be able to test
different parts of it themself. research isn't free so if you need to spend 10 or 20 dollars to try something
yourself, why not ? Then you'll better understand what is being discussed.
 as for myself, talked to my surgeon today. The best scenario is after he knows what it is specifically, I
would only miss 3 more weeks of work. Having a CT/PET scan next week. Not so good would be they
take my guts out again and give me lots of morphine, worst case, you don't need to know  :(
 So do think I'll take it easy. But maybe one of you will give this a try.
 
                                                                                                                         Jim
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 15, 2012, 03:56:45 AM
Here is my solution to improving the output energy of this device. Rather than use air in the cylinders, why not use a substance capable of undergoing a phase change during the expansion and compression cycle. Ammonia perhaps.?

As the Zed compresses the ammonia it will liquify,  taking up far less space than it did before. That contraction could be used to displace FAR MORE water than merely compressing the air could achieve. More displacement = more lift !

I'd imagine such a machine might be able to apparently produce 3 times as much energy as it does now. It would achieve this energy gain at the expense of cooling the water and heating the ambient air, but there are plentiful supplies of those two things, right?

I'll order one from the first person to build such a device, I need to keep some champagne cool for the launch party.
Another way of doing this would be to increase the density of the fluid, for example,
dissolve lots of salt into it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 15, 2012, 05:04:35 AM
But then you'd need a supply of salt and a means of drying it out.. This only needs air water and a smallish amount of ammonia.

It's ok though, don't need go investigating the idea too closely as I've already managed to find people selling them.  It has a COP >  4.
just meant that by increasing the density. it would be possible to increase buoyancy forces = there is no need to dry anything.
There is nothing wrong with your idea, but under what pressure it liquefies?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 15, 2012, 02:25:28 PM
I am a bit confused about what has happened on this thread. OK there are some interesting ideas and theories being discussed but discussion on the original subject seems to have disappeared. Perhaps these ideas and theories would be better discussed on their own threads. Hopefully those who still wish to learn will be able to do so elsewhere, and I have got my name down.
       Why do I think this idea merits study? I am also very interested in stuff like Quentron, and Rossi`s ecat. but You are never going to be able to build either of these, even in model form, in your garage. That is what makes Wayne Travis`s idea special. "Boiler Plate Technology" he calls it.
        My biggest difficulty in understanding this, was that I could not see the connection between the basic Travis Effect concept and the ZED. As a result of some things said by LarryC, I am starting to understand that connection.When I really "get it" I will share with anyone who is interested.
       Do not lose sight of the fact that Mark Dansie has endorsed this, and is impressed enough to arrange to go back in the future for further tests.
        There is a bit of confusion, in that Wayne says he will not open source. And yet there is the patent , and Wayne`s answers to questions. I think there is enough info to build a model that will prove OU. It will not power your house, but will show that the theory of thermodynamics is not without "holes".




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 15, 2012, 02:59:42 PM
I am a bit confused about what has happened on this thread. OK there are some interesting ideas and theories being discussed but discussion on the original subject seems to have disappeared. Perhaps these ideas and theories would be better discussed on their own threads. Hopefully those who still wish to learn will be able to do so elsewhere, and I have got my name down.
       Why do I think this idea merits study? I am also very interested in stuff like Quentron, and Rossi`s ecat. but You are never going to be able to build either of these, even in model form, in your garage. That is what makes Wayne Travis`s idea special. "Boiler Plate Technology" he calls it.
        My biggest difficulty in understanding this, was that I could not see the connection between the basic Travis Effect concept and the ZED. As a result of some things said by LarryC, I am starting to understand that connection.When I really "get it" I will share with anyone who is interested.
       Do not lose sight of the fact that Mark Dansie has endorsed this, and is impressed enough to arrange to go back in the future for further tests.
        There is a bit of confusion, in that Wayne says he will not open source. And yet there is the patent , and Wayne`s answers to questions. I think there is enough info to build a model that will prove OU. It will not power your house, but will show that the theory of thermodynamics is not without "holes".

Hi Neptune,
I think we were able to discover original ideas which were used for ZED.
The main idea is the variable geometry buoyuncy piston, which was described in ELSA and in a Russian website.
I want to come up with some formulas to confirm everything (this should't be hard), and than we could build a demo version.
Nothing to worry about.
Alex
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 15, 2012, 03:06:45 PM
After digesting Mr. Wayne's One+Zed+through+complete+cycle.jpg I realized that finding the starting configuration of water and air in the collapzed ZED would be problematic (for me at least).  So I decided to try and start with an ideal case where the ZED model I showed earlier was already stroked upwards the maximum of 2 inches.  Hopefully I can figure out how to work backwards from here.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 15, 2012, 04:46:18 PM
Here is an attempt to remove 5 in^3 of water from the center section of the ZED (as if transferring the water from this ZED to a second unit).  Some interesting things happened:
 
1)  The Pod and Outer Riser are still buoyant enough to overcome their own weight and want to float. 
 
2)  The Inner Riser is no longer buoyant enough to overcome it's own weight and wants to sink.  It is almost now heavier than what the Pod can support with it's buoyancy, so both of those members may sink a bit more than shown in the diagram until the resultant increase in buoyancy of both members equals out their weight.
 
3)  The pressure of the air inside each riser dropped due to the dropping water column height and would therefor allow for some expansion which is also not shown properly in the diagram.  Truth be told, I do not know how to calculate the balance point for all the air expansions and resultant water level changes.  I could get close by doing this iteratively but can't fathom putting in that much effort.  Proper parametric equations would be the way to go.
 
4)  The Equivalent Water Column Height dropped dramatically for only removing 5 in^3 of water.  This is mainly because each water head is not just dropping, but is rising into the next inner air chamber and thus decreasing head pressure at twice the rate of drop.  I believe this is significant.
 
Interesting exercise.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 15, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Travis has kindly helped me to understand how the Total lift force is calculated in the system.
The relationships are not exact, but fairly accurate and can be analyzed to help the model builders.
 
The PSI in Riser 2 seems wrong, but it not incremented to account for the downward force that Riser 1 adds to the system. The total head in the system is actually 14.4.
The Pod is Archimedes's.
 
 
The xls file is right above the picture.

Enjoy, Larry
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 15, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
@LarryC,
 
Interesting.  I seem to have missed that the buoyant force in each enclosed Pod or Riser also needs to overcome the downward force from the pressure of the air in the chamber in which it is rising.  I'll have to redo my calcs.
 
Thanks for that!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 15, 2012, 05:49:30 PM
Mondrasek,


In your Extended ZED Model, you "decided to try and start with an ideal case where the ZED model I showed earlier was already stroked upwards the maximum of 2 inches."


Back in Post 321, Travis had written "Diameter of the inner chamber will dictate volume needed - keep your stroke length short - no more than one inch - (trust me) - will explain later."
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 15, 2012, 05:57:00 PM
OMG. Positive discussion is back, great . Can I just ask, Is 5in^3, just a way of writing 5 cubic inches?
 @mondrasek. In item [4] in your last post, you mention "decreasing head pressure at twice the rate of drop" and say that you think it is significant. Indeed Wayne mentioned this earlier in a sort of obscure way .
 
 

It is probably a bit early, but has anyone considered the problem of interwall gaps. Does anyone agree that the volume of water needs to be the same in each section , in spite of circumferance increasing as we move from the centre towards the outer wall. Ultimately we need a formula to work this out , taking wall thickness into account .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 15, 2012, 06:29:22 PM
@Cisco,
 
Thanks for pointing that out.  But I don't think it matters right now, since I am just trying to figure out the dimentional relationships of the members.  I think you can start at any level, but then (in my case) you need to lower to the point where the ZED members becomes neutraly buoyant.  The volume of water needed to do this should be 1/2 the volume that needs to be exchanged bertween ZEDs for operation.  This will define the actual stroke needed and the outside wall and rings attached to the bottom member can then be shortened to elliminate wasted material and uneeded water volume.  At least that is how I was seeing it before realizing I need to adjust my Buoyancy forces by subtracting the down force of the increased air pressure.  BTW, an initial look at that makes me think that my proportions are not correct.  I think all of the members are too tall, but I need to do some more checking.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 15, 2012, 06:35:35 PM
Can I just ask, Is 5in^3, just a way of writing 5 cubic inches?

Yes sir.
 
It is probably a bit early, but has anyone considered the problem of interwall gaps. Does anyone agree that the volume of water needs to be the same in each section , in spite of circumferance increasing as we move from the centre towards the outer wall. Ultimately we need a formula to work this out , taking wall thickness into account .

I have not yet committed to needing the same volume in each annular section yet.  But you may be right.  I believe I have another mistake in my diagrams and calcs on the -5 in^3 due to only ajusting fluid level heights when they do have different volumes which makes that wrong.  If they had the same volumes then that would have been okay.  But I will have to check if just calculating the volumes properly is okay or if the same volumes are a necessity.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 15, 2012, 06:44:33 PM
Interesting.  I seem to have missed that the buoyant force in each enclosed Pod or Riser also needs to overcome the downward force from the pressure of the air in the chamber in which it is rising.  I'll have to redo my calcs.
Thanks for that!
Hi M,
 
Nice work. But think Wayne, he's the genius, I'm just hanging on for the ride and loving it.
 
The pod is not effected as it is Archimedes's, so the volume or pressure differentials can be used for the calculation.
 
For those that don't have a spreadsheet and want to understand the calculations in the spreedsheet file, OpenOffice can be downloaded for free and it has most of the Microsoft Office applications. 
 
The total force is without the system losses.  But think of it this way to help understand the great potential, allow that force to lift the external load 1 MM, then the water inlet refills that 1 MM and it only sees the water head.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 15, 2012, 08:36:54 PM
@LarryC, after thinking about it some more I think what I had done originally is fine, since all my Bouyany Force calculation were based off of the head pressure differentials, so the internal air pressures are already accounted for.  So now I'm having trouble understanding the spread sheet you have.  Could you draw up a diagram to explain where the dimensions and especially the "Next layer" are refering?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 15, 2012, 09:13:58 PM
Corrections to my previous diagrams and calcs when removing 5 in^3 of water from the full ZED model.  Everything is still buoyant, so I may try and see what happens if a few more in^3 are removed.
 
The air expansion due to lessened pressure is still not being accounted for accurately.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 15, 2012, 09:28:31 PM
@LarryC, after thinking about it some more I think what I had done originally is fine, since all my Bouyany Force calculation were based off of the head pressure differentials, so the internal air pressures are already accounted for.  So now I'm having trouble understanding the spread sheet you have.  Could you draw up a diagram to explain where the dimensions and especially the "Next layer" are refering?
This is faster, but let me know if you need more.
 
The Next layer at 10A is the top outside surface of Riser 3. The Next layer at 13A is the top outside surface of Riser 4.
 
The Height of all water channel are generalized at 100 inches, same as the pod. The miner clearance between risers and pod are not considered as they would not make a significant difference in the force calculation.
 
Riser 4 is 2 inches in diameter larger than the pod. Riser 3 is .9 of 2, and so on.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 15, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Hi M,
 
Nice work. But think Wayne, he's the genius, I'm just hanging on for the ride and loving it.
 
The pod is not effected as it is Archimedes's, so the volume or pressure differentials can be used for the calculation.
 
For those that don't have a spreadsheet and want to understand the calculations in the spreedsheet file, OpenOffice can be downloaded for free and it has most of the Microsoft Office applications. 
 
The total force is without the system losses.  But think of it this way to help understand the great potential, allow that force to lift the external load 1 MM, then the water inlet refills that 1 MM and it is only sees the water head.
 
Regards, Larry

That last paragraph says it all. I am not 100% sure what system losses are involved. In a working machine there would be lots of losses, but if we are just talking about a ZED on its own those losses are going to be small. We need a pump to inject water into a ZED, which might consist of say a large syringe pushed down by a weight. That would involve some friction in the syringe. Or we could use a vertical pipe full of water with a valve at the bottom and a suitable head of water . Less losses . The losses within the Zed itself would be very small.I think what I am trying to say is that this device, on paper at least looks very promising indeed .
     I make no claims to be a mathematician, but I understand basic maths. I am just Gobsmacked by the amount of info that you guys have derived from next to nothing. One can not help but be impressed by the large forces in a model so small. Well done lads .


 It seems to me that there are two main problems in building an efficient model of a ZED.
  1. Knowing what the water levels are in the various parts of the ZED , especially during set up.
  2. The smaller the model, the closer tolerances it will be necessary to work to. This will be mitigated by the fact that initially we are not trying to build the most efficient ZED ever. One would probably need to compromise between tight clearances and ease of building . Since we are not talking of a tiny amount of OU, there would seem to be some room for compromise .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 15, 2012, 10:24:23 PM

That last paragraph says it all. I am not 100% sure what system losses are involved. In a working machine there would be lots of losses, but if we are just talking about a ZED on its own those losses are going to be small. We need a pump to inject water into a ZED, which might consist of say a large syringe pushed down by a weight. That would involve some friction in the syringe. Or we could use a vertical pipe full of water with a valve at the bottom and a suitable head of water . Less losses . The losses within the Zed itself would be very small.I think what I am trying to say is that this device, on paper at least looks very promising indeed .
     I make no claims to be a mathematician, but I understand basic maths. I am just Gobsmacked by the amount of info that you guys have derived from next to nothing. One can not help but be impressed by the large forces in a model so small. Well done lads .


 It seems to me that there are two main problems in building an efficient model of a ZED.
  1. Knowing what the water levels are in the various parts of the ZED , especially during set up.
  2. The smaller the model, the closer tolerances it will be necessary to work to. This will be mitigated by the fact that initially we are not trying to build the most efficient ZED ever. One would probably need to compromise between tight clearances and ease of building . Since we are not talking of a tiny amount of OU, there would seem to be some room for compromise .

Hi Neptune,
can you or somebody else describe the operation of ZED, the cycle itself. I can easily now understand it for a variable geometry piston machine, but not for  this particular machine.
Alex
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 15, 2012, 11:03:07 PM
@telecom. I have yet to study the variable geometry piston. There are still parts of the actual cycle that I am struggling to grasp. I suggest you read reply 525 on page 35, as this is one of the best aids to understanding , as it takes us step by step from the basic Travis Effect to the working of a ZED. Having understood this, then the original sequence of diagrams by mrwayne will start to make more sense.
      The most telling thing about this device is that the resistance to the water injected is only the head of water it has to resist. And when that water is sucked out again as the load falls, it still has half of its energy recoverable. Mathematically, it seems to stack up perfectly. No one can say specifically where the excess energy is coming from . At this stage , that seems to me unimportant.
       To sum up, I have spent ages studying this, and for me there is no Eureka moment , just continuing small steps in understanding .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 15, 2012, 11:57:05 PM
@Neptune


Reply 525 on page 35?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 16, 2012, 12:14:50 AM
Just a quick update on what happens if I take 6 in^3 of water out of the model I've been studying.  The Inner Riser looses so much buoyancy that it will begin to sink.  It is now heavier than even the Pod can overcome at the fully extended level that the analysis started from.  BUT, lowering the Pod and Inner Ring only .05 inch back into the water made them buoyant again.
 
So here is where this method of analysis ends, I think.  I would have to do several iterations to see just where between dropping only .05 inch and not dropping at all that the balance point for floatation of the Pod and Inner Riser exists after removing 6 in^3 of water.
 
BTW, at this point the Outer Riser is still buoyant.  So everything is not sinking yet and I have not found the half way amount of water volume that needs to be exchanged between two ZEDs of the geometry I am studying.
 
Just a reminder:  I am studying this geometry because it is made out of commercially available shapes and sizes of acrylic.  It is not designed from any optimization point of view.  But many devices begin with being limited to the materials that can be purchased easily.  Only once they are a marketable device will custom shapes and sizes become economically justifiable.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 16, 2012, 01:52:39 AM
@Mondrasek> Have you meditated properly upon the Cartesian Diver?

Buoyancy depends on volume displaced; the same "quantity" of air has a variable volume, depending on the pressure; a container containing an air chamber will be buoyant or not, with the same "amount" of air in it, depending on the volume that the air displaces, which depends on the pressure.

The Cartesian Diver's variable buoyancy depends on the pressure transmitted to it by the water it is diving in. If the external container is pressurised somehow, the pressure is transmitted to the volume of air in the Diver, which compresses.... that is, it shrinks.... displacing less volume, so the diver sinks. When the external pressure is relieved, the fluid pressure relieves also, which allows the air in the diver to expand, displacing more water, so the diver rises.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 16, 2012, 02:06:22 AM
@Mondrasek> Have you meditated properly upon the Cartesian Diver?

Hi TK!
 
Your assumptions are correct.  I have not meditated properly on the e Cartesian Diver.  I have had experience with that device since a child (some 35 or so year ago), but that does not mean I have given it the merit it deserves.  I will try and find the time to examine the physics there ASAP.  I am sure that it teaches more than I "think" I know now.
 
Doesn't everything?
 
Thanks again for "hovering".  Sage advice is just that: Sage advice.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 16, 2012, 02:10:31 AM
An example of a 4 riser system with exaggerated water/air channel for clarity.
 
The PRECHARGE shows the lift as 16,065 as shown in the spreadsheet.
 
The 7% RISE show the lift now as ~ 11,000 due to the loss of head.
 
The last stage shows the force of ~ 15,000 after the head has been restored by the water inlet.
 
Of course, this is not how the system works, as it wouldn't wait for a 7% rise to start forcing water, it would be instantaneous.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 16, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
@Cisco.Sorry that should have been Reply 523 on page 35.
@Seamus101. I can see what you are getting at, but to be honest, calculus is beyond me. I am sure that there are members here who are far better qualified to comment.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 16, 2012, 01:57:47 PM
@TK re: Cartesian Diver.  That was a cool video!  I'd never thought to use the effect to amaze my kid.  This should be a hoot!
 
Thanks again,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 16, 2012, 02:51:50 PM

if only this were so, but it is absolutely not true. Injecting any water would begin to increase the head thus it would become more and more difficult to push the water in as the resistance rises. The forces increases but the distance over which those forces can act are decreased. One needs to integrate the force and displacement over the stroke (basic calulus). When you do that you'll find the energy remains constant, (minus any losses due to heat but we needn't complicate it with that.
Hi Seamus,
 
Please note in the example drawing in reply 537. The head is the same in PRECHARGE and after the water is FORCED IN.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 16, 2012, 07:37:27 PM
@telecom. I have yet to study the variable geometry piston. There are still parts of the actual cycle that I am struggling to grasp. I suggest you read reply 525 on page 35, as this is one of the best aids to understanding , as it takes us step by step from the basic Travis Effect to the working of a ZED. Having understood this, then the original sequence of diagrams by mrwayne will start to make more sense.
      The most telling thing about this device is that the resistance to the water injected is only the head of water it has to resist. And when that water is sucked out again as the load falls, it still has half of its energy recoverable. Mathematically, it seems to stack up perfectly. No one can say specifically where the excess energy is coming from . At this stage , that seems to me unimportant.
       To sum up, I have spent ages studying this, and for me there is no Eureka moment , just continuing small steps in understanding .
Sorry to say this, but variable geometry piston is not going to work out - all the O/U is being spent into retracting piston2 into the piston1 at the top, plus some.
As the last resort, will study  post 523.
Generally speaking, it is close to impossible to get O/U in a closed system - it has to be open.
Examples of the open system: wind, waterfall, sunlight, gravity, electrostatics, magnetism.
Alex
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 16, 2012, 07:52:29 PM
@Telecom. As far as I can see the maths seem to stack up in favour of this system. We have some pretty good anecdotal evidence, and the opinion of Mark Dansie. Until and unless someone replicates this, then we are not going to know anything for certain. Simple at first glance, as ever the devil is in the detail. We have been told that we need close gaps between risers and the walls containing the rings of water , so one of the main problems is we need custom made cylinders .
        I was interested to see that you include gravity in your list of open systems. As someone said earlier, buoyancy is just gravity misspelt.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 16, 2012, 07:59:55 PM
@Telecom. As far as I can see the maths seem to stack up in favour of this system. We have some pretty good anecdotal evidence, and the opinion of Mark Dansie. Until and unless someone replicates this, then we are not going to know anything for certain. Simple at first glance, as ever the devil is in the detail. We have been told that we need close gaps between risers and the walls containing the rings of water , so one of the main problems is we need custom made cylinders .
        I was interested to see that you include gravity in your list of open systems. As someone said earlier, buoyancy is just gravity misspelt.
Hi Neptune & everybody,
can someone please provide a clear diagram with explanations?
So far what I see in a post 528 looks like a normal air over oil system with multiple pistons. Used in car lifts, for example...

To control gravity, it has to be shielded. There is a website dedicated to this:
www.blazelabs.com
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 16, 2012, 09:00:31 PM
Hi Neptune & everybody,
can someone please provide a clear diagram with explanations?
So far what I see in a post 528 looks like a normal air over oil system with multiple pistons. Used in car lifts, for example...

To control gravity, it has to be shielded. There is a website dedicated to this:
www.blazelabs.com (http://www.blazelabs.com)

Hi telecom. 
 
I think if we could explain this with just a clear diagram we would.  But, then again, this unique construction would have been found years ago.  That is always the argument, right?
 
This device is extremely interesting so far, at least to me.  The "simple maths" support it.  At least the simple maths that I have performed.
 
If you start with the taught "rule" that a "Conservative Field of Force" like gravity cannot do Work, then you must dismiss this idea outright.  That is exactly what I would have done prior to running some calcs.
 
My Father taught me his understanding of buoyancy when I was a child (maybe 40 years ago?):  The weight of the water displaced by any buoyant body is equal to the amount of weight it can support from sinking.
 
I believe my Father's interpretation of Archimedes is correct.  But now I am seeing a new construction that shows what I believe to be an "addendum" to that explanation.
 
One of the reasons I never considered buoyancy to be a possible method for doing work was just because my Father, and several year of Engineering school, all taught that this was the case.  So far with Mr. Wayne's construction, I am pleasantly amused to find that we may have been wrong.  Maybe if we had not been taught that "it was not possible" more individuals would have looked for a way and maybe found this way earlier?
 
I still look forward to more info and demonstrations from Mr. Wayne.
 
I am sorry I cannot provide a way for you to understand this system.  I was hoping that a physical model and maybe some animations would help, but I (personally) cannot provide those.  I believe they will appear soon, however.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 16, 2012, 09:30:09 PM
Model buiding hopefully made easier.
 
Cylinders are the idea containers for high pressure, but since the model will not have high pressures, it seems it could be made square or rectangular shaped. So cut acrylic pieces and glue.
The pressure should still keep the side surfaces centered, but if it is a problem, spacers could be added.
 
Anybody, see any problems?
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 16, 2012, 09:37:32 PM
Double post.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 16, 2012, 09:46:07 PM
@LarryC,
 
I see no problem with making everything from acrylic sheet.  But unless you have perfect machining capabilities, a box is the hardest thing to make.
 
How do you recommend we bond the pieces?  If it is with something "glue like" such as silicone, that may disrupt an individual's ability to see clearly all the operations through multiple layers of acrylic and water.
 
I had hoped to see something made more like this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT6Ow_cBTps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT6Ow_cBTps)
 
But that is just me.  I would welcome anything that helped others to understand.  I mean, I'm definitely not a teacher, so those who teach should explain what would be the best teaching aid.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 16, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
I see no problem with making everything from acrylic sheet.  But unless you have perfect machining capabilities, a box is the hardest thing to make.
 
How do you recommend we bond the pieces?  If it is with something "glue like" such as silicone, that may disrupt an individual's ability to see clearly all the operations through multiple layers of acrylic and water.
 
I had hoped to see something made more like this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT6Ow_cBTps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT6Ow_cBTps)
 
But that is just me.  I would welcome anything that helped others to understand.  I mean, I'm definitely not a teacher, so those who teach should explain what would be the best teaching aid.

The following pretty much covered the issue:
http://www.bit-tech.net/modding/2008/03/14/a_modders_guide_to_acrylic/1 (http://www.bit-tech.net/modding/2008/03/14/a_modders_guide_to_acrylic/1)
 
It is easy to get accurate cuts using a compound miter saw or table saw.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 16, 2012, 10:14:34 PM

It is easy to get accurate cuts using a compound miter saw or table saw.

Yep.  It appears that easy.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 16, 2012, 10:17:34 PM
@Tom Webb


If the interim risers would not be offering any lift value, what other kind of value would they offer, spacers?


Also, could you provide a diagram of the arrangement you describe in Reply 523?


Thanks
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 16, 2012, 10:26:33 PM
It is good seeing some ideas on the practicality of model building. The square idea is certainly a radical approach."Thinking inside the box?"  It somehow seems a shame that everyday cylinders are being thrown away in the form of empty tin cans. If we could arrive at the ideal proportions and dimensions, either mathematically or with info from mrtravis, then transparency might be less of an issue. We could predict what is happening inside at least in theory. I still think that an animation would be the most cost effective teaching aid. I keep trying to think of an alternative geometry method of making this that is simpler to fabricate.
      I have this sort of half baked idea in my head that most probably wont work but won`t go away . I keep thinking of a fat hose arranged in a sine wave shape and partly filled with water as mrwayne described . At each "positive peak"of the sine wave , where the air is , there is a vent pipe connected to a piston and cylinder [syringe] that lifts a load. Most likely rubbish, but the subconscious is still working on it. A sort of "equivalent circuit" of a ZED...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 17, 2012, 03:50:13 AM
If the interim risers would not be offering any lift value, what other kind of value would they offer, spacers?

They increase the head for the large force provided by the most inner riser.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on June 17, 2012, 03:59:17 AM
LarryC.- I was playing with your Travis Effect Calculator and saw that if you ran the four risers through the same volume calculations you used for the pod, and added all 5 together, it comes up with virtually the same number (16,082 vs. 16,065) as in in your original total.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 17, 2012, 02:52:24 PM

They increase the head for the large force provided by the most inner riser.


The water head at any pod or riser is only due to the difference of the height of the water on the outside vs. the inside of that member.  That is the only head that acts on each individual member.  I believe the calculator spread sheet is missing a "Next layer" line under Riser 4 where a good portion of that "large force" needs to be subtracted.  The majority of the total lift is actually coming from the Pod and Outermost Riser?

I think the way this spread sheet is laid out might be confusing.  The buoyancy of each member is the Surface Area x Head on that member only.  So the biggest member (Outermost Riser) always has the largest Surface Area and possibility of the largest head.  Each inner member has less Surface Area and less possible head.  So the possible force coming from each member must be:

Outer Riser > Inner Riser > Next Inner Riser > ... > Pod
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 17, 2012, 03:11:08 PM
LarryC.- I was playing with your Travis Effect Calculator and saw that if you ran the four risers through the same volume calculations you used for the pod, and added all 5 together, it comes up with virtually the same number (16,082 vs. 16,065) as in in your original total.
Good catch, very interesting observation. So a 4 Riser Travis system is basically equal to the lifting force of 5 separate Archimedes's systems, but with almost 5 times water inlet requirements on Archimedes's to move the system up the same height and almost 5 times the physical footprint.
 
Travis has stated several times, the more layers, the more efficiencies.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 17, 2012, 04:37:28 PM
Hello all,
I am heading out of town for a week, I want to congratulate you all.

First; any of the three methods you introduced will reflect the upward force properly - well done.

Second - stroke length is a decision you make on how much of the "Mechanical" ideal you wish to use.

In the model you are working with - overlapping walls (ring walls and Risers) are best when you are at the bottom of a stroke
The over lap is the most you can expect at anypoint in the stroke - it changes as you stroke.

Simply plan to utilize the overlap at the end of your stroke - set that as your combined load - force - or resistance
There is no loss - (other than utilization) because you can  not create more head than the load anyway.

So - on your small model - I said short stroke - now you know why.

Next comment:

You are at the same point at which our Engineers (who where hired to disprove our system started to say omgosh).

Let me help you jump ahead a little - in our system the head -like Larry mentioned - travels up with the stroke - this results in a special condition at the end of stroke -
Namely - all the energy you put into the system is still there - the load is up - and removed - but the buoyancy - "head" - is still intact.

You limited the stroke - unlike other buoyancy systems we do not fill -then - float -then DRAIN and then sink - as you have discovered - moving the head creates a sink condition. The sink condition is directly related to the static load - as one of you mentioned - well done.

Now - we move the head - into the other Zed (equalization - free flow as we call it) the first one does not sink during equalization it sinks (during stroke of the other Zed).

We reserve a large portion of the head (neutralizing the weight of the system - we also do not expand the air in the system (Much) as one of you stated - well done.

Now in the equalized postion - we use the pressure in the lowering Zed to supplament the Stroking Zed -
Guess what this does for efficiency..........very exciting

We add weight to the riser and split the desired force - like this with our 6000 pound force model - 2000 pounds lifts weight - returned in the system (exhaust - lowering Zed transfer),  2000 to fuel the internal operations and 2000 pounds absolutely free.

In short - our three layer system has a total of 1/3 the Ideal - absolutely free.

Do not get trapped into thinking you have to exceed the Ideal of a system to achieve OU - that would be magic - our system is simple physics - seen in a new light.
When you wrap this together - you will see why - every engineer who comes - is so excited to join our work.

Well done men, ladies'

Now you know what I saw in the hot tub back in 2008 - in the Travis Effect - pretty cool, and why we dropped everything and persued this - against all odds.

Please e-mail me when your OMGosh moment hits - I am honored by your work, and will include you in our historical journals (with permission) and possibly work together in the future of Clean FREE Energy.

jwtravis5@peoplepc.com

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 17, 2012, 05:16:13 PM
First can I say a big thank you to mrwayne for dropping by. Although I am gobsmacked by the intellect and intuition of some of the members here, we are going to need all the help we can get. And who better to help us than the Main Man.
   I had a little idea when I was out riding my electric bike today. As I was passing a farm, I was looking at a large tank used to store diesel fuel for tractors. On the side of this tank was a home made device used to check the fuel level in the tank. It consisted of an adapter fitted into the tank wall near the bottom. From this, a clear plastic pipe extended up to the tank top. where it was open to atmosphered. So the level of fuel in the tank was the same as the level of fuel in the pipe.
    Suppose we built a ZED from non-transparent materials . We could use this idea to "see" the water level in each compartment, but the upper end of the pipe would have to return to the compartment through the top. This would be possible if all risers were fixed together at the top, as I believe they all rise and fall together anyway. Any comments ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 17, 2012, 05:31:29 PM
First can I say a big thank you to mrwayne for dropping by. Although I am gobsmacked by the intellect and intuition of some of the members here, we are going to need all the help we can get. And who better to help us than the Main Man.
   I had a little idea when I was out riding my electric bike today. As I was passing a farm, I was looking at a large tank used to store diesel fuel for tractors. On the side of this tank was a home made device used to check the fuel level in the tank. It consisted of an adapter fitted into the tank wall near the bottom. From this, a clear plastic pipe extended up to the tank top. where it was open to atmosphered. So the level of fuel in the tank was the same as the level of fuel in the pipe.
    Suppose we built a ZED from non-transparent materials . We could use this idea to "see" the water level in each compartment, but the upper end of the pipe would have to return to the compartment through the top. This would be possible if all risers were fixed together at the top, as I believe they all rise and fall together anyway. Any comments ?
Thank you.
Exactly as we did our first six models - long clear tubes - steel tanks. very simple only draw back - you can not be sure what the water level is - just the combined air pressure and head - why we eventually went to the effort to install sensors for both.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 17, 2012, 05:32:58 PM
The water head at any pod or riser is only due to the difference of the height of the water on the outside vs. the inside of that member.  That is the only head that acts on each individual member.  I believe the calculator spread sheet is missing a "Next layer" line under Riser 4 where a good portion of that "large force" needs to be subtracted.  The majority of the total lift is actually coming from the Pod and Outermost Riser?

I think the way this spread sheet is laid out might be confusing.  The buoyancy of each member is the Surface Area x Head on that member only.  So the biggest member (Outermost Riser) always has the largest Surface Area and possibility of the largest head.  Each inner member has less Surface Area and less possible head.  So the possible force coming from each member must be:
Hi M,
The pod calculation that was done, used the volume technique (2548), so let's use the Pressure Difference technique which is also valid.
                      PSI      DIA SI    PRESSURE
Pod top         10.8     30    707    7633
Pod Bottom  14.4     30     707  10177
Total upward force =  Pod Bottom - Pod Top = 2544
The pressure at the top of the pod is being considered in the calculation, just differently in the volume calculation.
 

 
'Each inner member has less Surface Area and less possible head.'
I am confused by that statement. The water head is the length of the water column starting from the top of the outside water column to the bottom of the water column below the pod. Each surface from outside to in, sees an ever increasing water head and PSI.   
 
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 17, 2012, 06:06:37 PM
'Each inner member has less Surface Area and less possible head.'
I am confused by that statement. The water head is the length of the water column starting from the top of the outside water column to the bottom of the water column below the pod. Each surface from outside to in, sees an ever increasing water head and PSI.   

Hi Larry,
 
The head that is able to produce buoyancy is only the portion of the entire head you describe that is the height of the water displaced by the Risers or Pod.  So for example, the head creating buoyancy on the Pod is the length of the Pod (when full submerged).  Water above or below the Pod does not cause any buoyancy.
 
Each inner member must be a bit shorter than the one surrounding it.  Therefor each inner member has less potential head than any outer.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 17, 2012, 06:30:45 PM
@LarryC,
 
Here is how I would have done it.  I'm for whatever way that works that anyone can understand, however!

Here you can see that each Riser and Pod are adding to the Buoyant Force in a straight forward fashion.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: iflewmyown on June 17, 2012, 08:10:30 PM
MrWayne : Greetings from a fellow Okie! I would like to give you an idea for the use of your device. As you know each time you convert energy from one form to another you lose some. All around me sit thousands of oil pump jacks running 27 / 7. They each have a huge transmission and electric motor just so they can bob up and down. Your unit bobs up and down from the git go and should last for many years. No conversion needed and a ready market where you are at. They pay a high price for electricity and sometimes have to pay a fortune just to get lines put into the oil patch. The unit you sell to them could be very simple and easier to construct.


Another market would be 100 kw units for the local electrical co-ops to use in distributed generation. The Gov has shut down coal fired generator  plant expansion. The co-ops are owned by the customers and are some pretty sharp cookies. Our co-op covers four counties and has been operating since the thirties.


Garry


 

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 17, 2012, 08:56:27 PM
@iflewmyown,
 
Here is the big picture:  Free electricity from ZED stations power desalinization plants and pumps.  We can now irrigate all the farm land we need.  Free electricity from ZED stations electrolysize water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.  Free electricity from ZED stations compress and cool that Hydrogen into liquid.  The liquid Hydrogen replaces any need for oil as a fuel, though it will still be used for all those other chemical products it is now.
 
Pure electricity from ZED stations will be able to power many of today's devices that currently use gas and diesel from oil.  This includes most cars.  But the technology does not yet exist, and maybe never will, to provide enough electricity from batteries (or other storage devices) to power a tractor trailer.  Or to power a jet plane.  But Hydrogen can do that.  Heck, you can put a man on the moon with Hydrogen.  And the only byproduct is water, not Carbon Monoxide.
 
I'd not invest in any oil jacks long term if I were you.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: iflewmyown on June 17, 2012, 10:00:42 PM
MrWayne: I know the pump jacks are on the way out. I have an old diesel Bobcat loader. It works great as long as you give it a shot of ether to start. The pump jack replacement was just a shot of ether for your operation. The New York Times refused to interview the Wright brothers for five years after they first flew. All their experts told the Times that it was impossible to fly. In the same way free energy will start very slow, no matter what the benefits, no matter how cheap energy becomes and the oilagarchy will be the last to know. Good Luck and God Speed.
Garry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 17, 2012, 11:57:49 PM
@iflewmyown, just me here, not Mr. Wayne.  Thanks for the analogies.  Especially those about the Wright Bros.  I actually live in the area of their research.  Where I work is within viewing distance of the hanger with the model Wright B Flier that the local air club built and flies.  It's pretty neat for me anyways, especially since as a kid I vacationed at Kitty Hawk and got to see the museum and their full sized model.  The family and I are actually scheduled to head to the Outer Banks later this year for our vacation.  It will be my first time in many, many years.  But I want to see the Wright Bros. museum there again!
 
I think the differences between the situation with the Wright Bros. not being taken seriously and the ZED are paramount.  At the time of the Wright Bros. flight the "technology" of a curved wing producing lift had not been established and taught in schools.  With the ZED we are playing with known and taught phenomenon.  It is just a clever construction that allows the known physics to do something previously thought/taught to be not possible.
 
Also, at the time of the Wright Bros. flights we did not have the media to cover such events that we have now.  The editors at the New York Times could not watch a video on the internet, see the e-mail comments of scientist who have reviewed the patent and math, or "fly" (ha!) to go see it for themselves.  All that is now reality.  So I expect a faster uptake of this development.  Hopefully.
 
Any production facility making anything is competing with others.  Any advantage is extremely important.  And every product has some associated "energy" cost included.  Any way to lower that energy cost will be adopted fast.  And only the fastest will survive, IMHO.
 
Here is the link to Mr. Wayne's last update to his web site before heading off to the 50th anniversary he is attending:  http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives)
 
Cheers,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 18, 2012, 12:04:38 AM
@M,
Agree that we should use the spreadsheet that most helps each to understand, but since I still am using the original, here are some update.
 
@All,
The fields in yellow, at the top can be changed and is used in the calculations for the rest of the spreadsheet.
This will help in model design. There are two versions, one for the Square shape and one for the Cylinder shape.
This is still the 4 Riser version, Wayne recommended that we build the 6 Riser version. The efficiency of the 4 Riser is 183% and the 6 Riser is 316%. At this point, I find that would be very difficult, but if someone can handle it, please do. If you need, I'll be glad to make a 6 Riser spreadsheets.
 
I stopped at Lowes today, they will cut the acrylic pieces for you or you can buy their scoring tool.
It seems simple to use, just clamp down a straight edge on top of the acrylic, score, then move it to the edge of the table and snap off.
 
The 1/8 inch is cheaper, but 1/4 inch thickness acrylic would probably be required for the container to maintain the glue holding ability on the corners.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 18, 2012, 01:00:24 AM
@LarryC,
 
Well done!  And I agree totally that making a square version lends itself to changing the gaps between each outlying Riser and it's annulus walls much easier. 
 
Hopefully we will see a model build soon.
 
BTW, are you going to build?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 18, 2012, 01:13:40 AM

Well done!  And I agree totally that making a square version lends itself to changing the gaps between each outlying Riser and it's annulus walls much easier. 
 
Hopefully we will see a model build soon.
 
BTW, are you going to build?


Hi M,
Thanks,
 
 I may build, but with the 1/4 thickness walls with a small model, it will present challenges. Would you or anyone else be able to do a material take off with with autocad or other, with whatever specification the modeler wants to use? That would save a lot of manual calculations.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 18, 2012, 03:15:09 AM
If there is a serious builder out there who understands the challenges and the concept...  Yes, by all means I will CAD.
 
Just to let you know my "vision" of this project, I was hoping to do a complete miniature replication of the existing ZED test setup.  But I can deviate from that idea to help others.
 
In my vision we would end up with the two ZEDs and the water transfer system.  The transfer system could be made from bellows type vacuum cups like the below, once they were properly attached to a surface to turn them into a pressure type pump.  How to actuate that pump system (ie. collect output from the system and reuse) is still a problem in miniature.  And the controlls...
 
But others may have ideas?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 18, 2012, 09:38:02 AM
Just something that should help you understand what is going on (I have posted it on PESN as well):
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 18, 2012, 02:52:24 PM
@Seamus101. OK. Now can you please explain how this "oscillation " happened in the early models where mrtravis had only a single ZED, which showed him a sufficiently high degree of OU to inspire him to move on to the two ZED configuration?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 18, 2012, 05:58:55 PM
If there is a serious builder out there who understands the challenges and the concept...  Yes, by all means I will CAD.
 
Just to let you know my "vision" of this project, I was hoping to do a complete miniature replication of the existing ZED test setup.  But I can deviate from that idea to help others.
 
In my vision we would end up with the two ZEDs and the water transfer system.  The transfer system could be made from bellows type vacuum cups like the below, once they were properly attached to a surface to turn them into a pressure type pump.  How to actuate that pump system (ie. collect output from the system and reuse) is still a problem in miniature.  And the controlls...
 
But others may have ideas?
 
M.
Wow, that is an ambitious plan. Sweet, to much for me right now, need Clanzer.
I,m just hoping to build just one ZED and take measurement for proof. Probably need 6 layers, as Wayne observed that the bigger the system the less the losses.
I,ll let you know. At this time, I have other updates in mind.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 18, 2012, 08:04:33 PM
If there is a serious builder out there who understands the challenges and the concept...  Yes, by all means I will CAD.
 
Just to let you know my "vision" of this project, I was hoping to do a complete miniature replication of the existing ZED test setup.  But I can deviate from that idea to help others.
 
In my vision we would end up with the two ZEDs and the water transfer system.  The transfer system could be made from bellows type vacuum cups like the below, once they were properly attached to a surface to turn them into a pressure type pump.  How to actuate that pump system (ie. collect output from the system and reuse) is still a problem in miniature.  And the controlls...
 
But others may have ideas?
Quote

Hi mondrasek,
I think we need to come with exact sequence of the operation of the machine first.
Perhaps you and Larry C. understand it - may be you could share your knowledge?
Alex

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 18, 2012, 09:24:01 PM
@telecom,
 
I'd be happy to try and explain the exact sequence of operation of the machine if I only knew what was unclear.  The patent spells everything out very clearly to me, but I understand that is not the case for everyone.  Playing with the drawings I have made and the calculations have also firmed up some things for me.  Maybe if you had some specific questions?
 
Maybe the picture below is a good start.  The ZED on the left has no lift.  The ZED on the right has full lift and has stroked to it's mechanical limits.  So from this starting point the pressurized water at the bottom of the center chambers would be allowed to flow from the right ZED to the left ZED freely through the pipe shown.  Once half the water has been redistributed the system reaches a balance and both sides are at the same water pressure.  Now the pump (circle in the drawing) would begin to pump the second half of the water from the right ZED to the left ZED.  While this second half of the water transfer is happening, the left ZED will become buoyant and begin to rise.  At the same time, the right ZED will have lost it's buoyancy and begin to sink.  When all the water has been transferred, you have the mirror image of the picture below.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 18, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Just something that should help you understand what is going on (I have posted it on PESN as well):

Hello again Kanshi,
 
I will be glad when you understand the system.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 18, 2012, 09:40:58 PM
I hope people will now see this for the trick it is.  Because the stored energy oscillates between the two Zeds it creates the illusion of energy being created because it will remain in motion for quite a long time. The internal flows are quite slow, so the internal losses will be too.

Seamus,
 
It is no trick, no fraud, no lie, no error, no mismeasurement.
 
We do not have a system that just "stays in motion" we have a system that Produces its own operating energy and supplies extra.
 
Even the first engineers wrote - enough to supply  consumer end power.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on June 18, 2012, 10:17:57 PM
@telecom,
 
I'd be happy to try and explain the exact sequence of operation of the machine if I only knew what was unclear.  The patent spells everything out very clearly to me, but I understand that is not the case for everyone.  Playing with the drawings I have made and the calculations have also firmed up some things for me.  Maybe if you had some specific questions?
 
Maybe the picture below is a good start.  The ZED on the left has no lift.  The ZED on the right has full lift and has stroked to it's mechanical limits.  So from this starting point the pressurized water at the bottom of the center chambers would be allowed to flow from the right ZED to the left ZED freely through the pipe shown.  Once half the water has been redistributed the system reaches a balance and both sides are at the same water pressure.  Now the pump (circle in the drawing) would begin to pump the second half of the water from the right ZED to the left ZED.  While this second half of the water transfer is happening, the left ZED will become buoyant and begin to rise.  At the same time, the right ZED will have lost it's buoyancy and begin to sink.  When all the water has been transferred, you have the mirror image of the picture below.
 
M.

Stevin's Principle.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 18, 2012, 10:20:24 PM
     
@telecom,
 
I'd be happy to try and explain the exact sequence of operation of the machine if I only knew what was unclear.  The patent spells everything out very clearly to me, but I understand that is not the case for everyone.  Playing with the drawings I have made and the calculations have also firmed up some things for me.  Maybe if you had some specific questions?
 
Maybe the picture below is a good start.  The ZED on the left has no lift.  The ZED on the right has full lift and has stroked to it's mechanical limits.  So from this starting point the pressurized water at the bottom of the center chambers would be allowed to flow from the right ZED to the left ZED freely through the pipe shown.  Once half the water has been redistributed the system reaches a balance and both sides are at the same water pressure.  Now the pump (circle in the drawing) would begin to pump the second half of the water from the right ZED to the left ZED.  While this second half of the water transfer is happening, the left ZED will become buoyant and begin to rise.  At the same time, the right ZED will have lost it's buoyancy and begin to sink.  When all the water has been transferred, you have the mirror image of the picture below.
 
M.

I am stuck at the air port - nine hour wait.
 
The two Zed system is not connected as drawn above - the water in the pod section is always under pressure - the pressure is related to the direction of travel and stage of the process.
 
When Zed 1 is all the way up - it has the full charge in Head + the volume inside the pod added for stroke length- It is at the top because it has just finished its production stroke -
 
At this moment the Hydraulic assist is "on" but no movement or consumption of energy. - To be clear - the hydraulic assist is what adds to the head pressure from the lowering Zed in order to overcome the hydraulic resistance in the production cylinder - or the load.
 
 
Both Zeds are connected to opposite sides of one a piston (bags in our lastmodel) that piston is at the end of its travel or near empty at zed one.
 
Zed one
is at Its has the highest presssure (8 psi - example given last week)
 
Recap Zed one - top of stroke - high pressure connected to Mass exchanger --(bags - cylinder)
 
The other Zed (Zed Two) is at the bottom of the stroke It still has 4.6 psi (caused by the weight)
 
Now the first step is to let go of the hydraulic assist - The two Zed's eqaulize head pressure - so both heads are now at 6.7 psi --both zeds are still in the same position they were in - but the Mass exchanger has traveled half of its distance.
 
Zed two is ready to be precharged - this means going from 6.7 psi to 8.0 psi (over coming resistance pressure).
 
The precharge is nearly instant - when the first hydraulic assist is turned on - when the pressure drops to 4.6 psi - about 3/4 of the total travel - we kick on the second hydraulic assist cylnder.
 
And we finish the stroke (we are capturing the buoyancy during the Stroke.
 
Then we are half way through a cycle - Zed two is up (8psi) and Zed one is down (4.6 psi)
 
ready for free flow to begin - the other direction.
 
Let me be clear - we exchange 1/2 of the hydro transfer during free flow - no input - then we pay for 1/3 of the next quarter, and then less than half of the last 1/4 .
 
That is our total input - nothing else - very simple.
 
The layering system which Kanshi disregarded - makes the "Exhaust or water transfer" pay for nearly 70% of the total input cost for each Zeds production stroke (roughly - three layers - better with more layers).
 
When our third part engineers measured the up stroke - they were excited - but when they realized that alll the energy for the up stroke was available for the transfer - (minus standard losses)
 
The weight in the system reduces the ideal of the unit - but do not mistake ideal for effeciency, yet the weight makes the transfer more powerful - and the size of the weight (percentage of ideal) is based on th enmber of layers.
 
So when you see th ethree layer system has about 1/3 of its ideal lifting weight - now you know.
 
A point many critics make is to ignore that stored energy in the head - still complete and intact - at the end of every a stroke.
 
Wayne Travis
 
can't spell check on this cp - sorry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 18, 2012, 10:53:36 PM
I've improved the spreadsheet to make it easier to understand. Also, got rid of the confusing PSI not being equal to the head. Anyone who understands Wayne's earlier post of the forces in holding a cup full of water underwater and a cup of air underwater should understand the spreadsheet.
 
This was just to make M happy. LOL
Good luck with your trip, Wayne.
 
Regards, Larry
 
PS: A Riser is a cup.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 18, 2012, 11:55:41 PM

This was just to make M happy. LOL


And you have achieved that (noble) goal!
 
BTW, you can use "PI()" to return a much more precise version of "pi" in your calculations rather than typing in the 3.14... figure.  That would make me even happier.
 
Much thanks, Larry,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 19, 2012, 01:05:58 AM

And you have achieved that (noble) goal!
 
BTW, you can use "PI()" to return a much more precise version of "pi" in your calculations rather than typing in the 3.14... figure.  That would make me even happier.
 
Much thanks, Larry,
 
M.

So, 4 decimal positions is not accurate enough, are all engineers such precision fanatics?
 
@All,
The Wayne example I referred to in my previous post is Reply 108 on page 8.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 19, 2012, 01:23:56 AM

So, 4 decimal positions is not accurate enough, are all engineers such precision fanatics?
 

As my wife may tell you:  Only the nerdiest.
 
(sigh)
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 19, 2012, 02:27:02 AM
so when are you guys going to demonstrate overunity ?
 The rest of us are waiting.
 Wayne has already posted that it is a working overunity device.
 Of course, my car starts when I want it to and it keeps runnimg.
 Somethimg Waynes device cant do.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 19, 2012, 02:39:52 AM
i owe you guyr an apology. if yott want to slobber over each other, thts okay.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 19, 2012, 03:14:27 AM
@telecom,
 
I'd be happy to try and explain the exact sequence of operation of the machine if I only knew what was unclear.  The patent spells everything out very clearly to me, but I understand that is not the case for everyone.  Playing with the drawings I have made and the calculations have also firmed up some things for me.  Maybe if you had some specific questions?
 
Maybe the picture below is a good start.  The ZED on the left has no lift.  The ZED on the right has full lift and has stroked to it's mechanical limits.  So from this starting point the pressurized water at the bottom of the center chambers would be allowed to flow from the right ZED to the left ZED freely through the pipe shown.  Once half the water has been redistributed the system reaches a balance and both sides are at the same water pressure.  Now the pump (circle in the drawing) would begin to pump the second half of the water from the right ZED to the left ZED.  While this second half of the water transfer is happening, the left ZED will become buoyant and begin to rise.  At the same time, the right ZED will have lost it's buoyancy and begin to sink.  When all the water has been transferred, you have the mirror image of the picture below.
 
M.

Thank you,
but were is the proverbial air bubble from the post 108?
If its in air gaps, is the air pressurized?
Also, to collapse quickly, is the air gap supposed to disappear?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 07:10:49 AM
I've improved the spreadsheet to make it easier to understand.
You forgot a very important fact: the air/water exerts pressure on the surface of the risers in every direction, that means, also down on the riser below it.
The correct formula is subtracting force from the riser above (Outer surface of Riser X). Also, the pod won't be fully submerged as described in the patent and several drawings...

I have attached the corrected spreadsheet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 19, 2012, 02:35:45 PM
You forgot a very important fact: the air/water exerts pressure on the surface of the risers in every direction, that means, also down on the riser below it.
The correct formula is subtracting force from the riser above (Outer surface of Riser X). Also, the pod won't be fully submerged as described in the patent and several drawings...

I have attached the corrected spreadsheet.

That would be double dipping. The pod is Archimedes and is calculated using volume or pressure differential formulas, please see my reply in 563.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 03:40:21 PM
That would be double dipping. The pod is Archimedes and is calculated using volume or pressure differential formulas, please see my reply in 563.
Let's reiterate over facts:
Only the outermost riser is affected directly by the weights. All the other risers are affected by air pressure of the riser above them. Essentially the risers are "sitting on each other" on air cushions - which is described by the pressure.
The pod is lifted by displacement of water (not air) - if and only if it were submerged fully in air, would it be "double dipping" (if I understand that term correctly) - which is what you did in your former spreadsheet (adding forces with different directions, which is just wrong)
Buoyancy is the upwards force exerted on a submerged body and is equal to the weight of displaced water. In this case, you can simplify it just by using pressure over area. Since the pod is not fully submerged in water, you need to account for the pressure exerted on the pod from above (from the weight of other risers).
Don't believe me? Grab 4 cups, manometer and a force meter and see for yourself (or you can just look at the drawings and remember simple physics).
The drawing I have attached to post #574 shows the net forces acting on those risers and the pod.

Edit. Let me simplify:
The buoyancy volume calculations can only be used as the net force when the pod is fully submerged.
When the pod's top is above the water's surface, you need to subtract the pressure exerted on the pod's top to get the net force exerted on the pod.

Also, regardless of the pod's height, only it's submerged volume counts and since it is supposed to do work and lift weights, the submerged volume will gradually decrease. As approximation, you can use the average submerged volume.

And as a last note, if you want to be precise, you can calculate riser pressures as
Quote
P2 = P1 + h·ϱ·g
where h is the height difference in the U-column of water in two neighbouring risers;
ϱ is water density (999.7026 kg/m^3 (at 10 °C));
g is gravity (9.80665 m/s^2);
(again, see the attached image in my post #574 )
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 19, 2012, 04:20:16 PM
Thank you,
but were is the proverbial air bubble from the post 108?
If its in air gaps, is the air pressurized?
Also, to collapse quickly, is the air gap supposed to disappear?

The air bubble from the simple cup experiments is now the air gaps in the charged ZED construction.  And yes it is under pressure to equal the pressure of the water head created throughout the system.
 
Think about starting with the ZED on the right in the previous illustration but having only water, and no air in or around each riser.  Then you pump air into the bottom center chamber.  That air would have to be pressurized to overcome the water pressure.  And as it is pumped in it would eventually fill all the air gaps just as shown in that illustration until bubbles would be rising in the outermost chamber.  So the air gaps will naturally balance to the correct pressures to enable the configuration of air and water in the illustration.  Of course, the risers need to be weighted or held from rising further up while this air pre-charge is being implemented.
 
The air gaps do not disappear.  As water is allowed to leave the bottom of the right ZED, the water head pressure drops.  So each column of water begins to drop and pushes the air through the serpentine channels between risers and the separating rings from the outside most towards the center.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 19, 2012, 04:27:02 PM
@KanShi, as the air pressure increases in each chamber, so does the WATER pressure.  The air pressure at the surface of each water column is equal to the water pressure at that surface.
 
If that is not clear, please consider this:  Actual atmospheric pressure is ~14.7 PSI.  So any buoyant device place in water has that 14.7 PSI pushing down on it, right?  Why doesn't everything sink?  Because it has exactly 14.7 PSI pushing back up at the surface of the water.
 
You do not need to consider the pressure of the air on top of a body of water when determining the buoyancy of an object in that water.  You need only consider the pressure differential from any vertical displacement of that water.  This is known as the head pressure.  It can be calculated as (Inches of Vertical Water Displacement)/27.71.  At least at fairly minor depths like we are discussing here.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 04:34:42 PM
@KanShi, as the air pressure increases in each chamber, so does the WATER pressure.  The air pressure at the surface of each water column is equal to the water pressure at that surface.
That is correct. I said the same thing - maybe in more complex terms, I am not used to express myself in simple terms as most of my colleagues and students usually understand.
You do not need to consider the pressure of the air on top of a body of water when determining the buoyancy of an object in that water.  You need only consider the pressure differential from any vertical displacement of that water.
Exactly. Please read my posts carefully, every word counts. The pod is NOT FULLY SUBMERGED - that is the whole point, if it were, you could simply calculate the net force as the volume of displaced fluid (which is what I've actually stated in my post). I have stated explicitly I am talking about the pressure exerted on the pod's top not on water surface.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 19, 2012, 04:42:22 PM
@KanShi,
 
All that needs to be considered is the height of the water displaced by the portion of the Pod submerged in the water.  That "height" / 27.71 = the water head.  That times (x) the surface area of the Pod is your Buoyant Force.  The air pressure above the Pod plays NO part in the calculation.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 04:57:35 PM
All that needs to be considered is the height of the water displaced by the portion of the Pod submerged in the water.
For buoyant force, YES. For net force, NO. Again, please read the whole posts. I am talking about the net force (the total force acting on an object).

When you have a body that is partially submerged and it's total density is lower than water's, it would (by your thinking) float up and end up above surface. It does not happen in reality. The body ends up partially submerged because it's weight (Fg) pushing down is equal to the buoyant force (Fb) pushing up.

Now, consider this: the body is partially submerged (eg. on surface of a lake) and a hovercraft runs over it. The air pressure (which is higher than atmospheric pressure) of the hovercraft's air cushion will push the body down.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 19, 2012, 05:10:16 PM

When you have a body that is partially submerged and it's total density is lower than water's, it would (by your thinking) float up and end up above surface. It does not happen in reality. The body ends up partially submerged because it's weight (Fg) pushing down is equal to the buoyant force (Fb) pushing up.
 

You are correct, the total force is the Buoyant Force - the Weight.  However, Weight also has NOTHING to do with the air pressure above the object.


Now, consider this: the body is partially submerged (eg. on surface of a lake) and a hovercraft runs over it. The air pressure (which is higher than atmospheric pressure) of the hovercraft's air cushion will push the body down.
 

This is incorrect.  The hovercraft is increasing the surface pressure of the water just as much as it is increasing the pressure of the air.  The partially submerged body will NOT be pushed down.
 
M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 19, 2012, 05:23:00 PM
@KanShi,

Maybe this will help. The spreadsheet shows that 1 Travis 4 Riser system has the lifting force of  5 separate Archimedes system. Thanks again GreenHiker.
Your 'more efficient design' is only approximately equal to the lift force of the Riser 1 pod.
 

'P2 = P1 +  h·ϱ·g'
We could, but the goal is for all to understand.
 
I too, will be glad when you understand the system, as Wayne previously stated.
 
@M
Good Luck. It is to much like spitting into the wind for me.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 05:37:49 PM
However, Weight also has NOTHING to do with the air pressure above the object.
Yes, it doesn't.
This is incorrect.  The hovercraft is increasing the surface pressure of the water just as much as it is increasing the pressure of the air.  The partially submerged body will NOT be pushed down.
Don't be hasty :). This is actually true in the real world. And here is why:
We are dealing with forces and a small area. The lake is really big, the hovercraft is really small. The hovercraft exerts force on the water, BUT it is insignificant in the scope of the lake. Also, most of the force is directly pushing on the partially submerged body. Force = pressure over area.
Let's have P = pressure of the air cushion 200 kPa.
Area of the body is 5 m^2, area of the hovercraft is 6 m^2. Which means the exerted force on water is only 200 kN, while the exerted force on the body is 1 MN (do you see the difference?). The buoyant force is actually the same (for the stated reasons).

Now, if the hovercraft was as big as the lake, things would be as you say (this was just an amusing experiment to test your skills).

@LarryC: sure, if in your example the pod is submerged, then your calculations are correct (except you forgot to subtract forces on the risers - you just added them all up - that was the main point of my post). If you look at the drawings, it is not submerged - unless the height is the submerged height, then it is also OK. Also, my "more efficient design" has, for the same amount of required energy, the same lift as the Travis system (eg. 5x more than regular buoyancy with the same amount of water displacement).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 19, 2012, 06:04:24 PM

Let's have P = pressure of the air cushion 200 kPa.
Area of the body is 5 m^2, area of the hovercraft is 6 m^2. Which means the exerted force on water is only 200 kN, while the exerted force on the body is 1 MN (do you see the difference?). The buoyant force is actually the same (for the stated reasons).


Now you are confusing apples and oranges, aren't you?  In this example the water under the hovercraft is supporting 200kN of the hovercraft mass.  The body is supporting 1 MN of the hovercraft mass.  And as you state, the buoyant force is still the same.  And the body will not be pushed down into the water.  It has the same buoyant force in any case, regardless of the air pressure at the surface of the water and over the top of the body.  No weight is applied to the body to make it sink.  This is because that weight you are imagining is actually a pressure that is applied equally to the body and the water around it and buoyancy is not affected.  Pressures are already accounted for in the spread sheet as written.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on June 19, 2012, 06:11:54 PM
For anyone who wants to understand the Travis Effect fully , or how Wayne and his team engineered the twin ZED machine to utilize the effect, I personally suggest:

Watch the videos 1-5 on the Travis Effect - Links are on this site, Wayne's site or search "Travis Effect" on YouTube.
Study post number #523 page 35 from Tom Webb (webby1) titled "Just my 2 cents worth". Nice write up. That moves you from the effect, to the machine. Do not give up on his write up and skip ahead. Understand each point before you go to the next.

When finished, you should now understand exactly what Larry just said. With the Travis effect and Wayne's concentric tanks, there is the equivalent buoyant force from several filled air tanks wanting to rise, in each ZED.

Whatever calculations you are using to verify the claims, double check that you come up with approximately the same buoyant force for each shell if it were by itself underwater, with air inside. Then sum the results for the total number of shells plus the buoyancy of the pod. See LarryC's Travis Calculator if you need help.

After that you can study the cycling of the machines and how the different stages of the stroke operate. Very cool.

You folks are tearing this up! Great work.

Thanks,

Tom (from the Videos) 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 06:38:05 PM
@mondrasek:
As I said, it was an experiment to test your abilities (it does not directly apply to the travis effect device). In simpler terms, most of the weight of the hovercraft is transmitted to the partially submerged body through the air cushion, so yes, it will sink a bit. It's the same thing as putting 17% of weights on the water and 83% of weights on the body (you even said so yourself). Adding a few kilograms of weights to a huge area (let's say 1 square kilometer) will do nothing, the water pressure at any depth will (virtually) not change. As soon as the body sinks a bit, the buoyant force will increase as more water is displaced (that's what I haven't stated explicitly).
Do you finally understand?

As for the spreadsheet, LarryC added all the pressures up (in his first spreadsheet, it was correct) - even those, that should have been subtracted. That was what I was pointing out.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 19, 2012, 06:56:30 PM
Do you finally understand?

@KanShi, what I understand is you trying to back away from your original argument rather than just admit you were wrong.  The only time the body will sink in an ideal system is if the "hovercraft" becomes so small that it is not supported by any of the water.  Then the body will effectively see the weight of the hovercraft (ie. 100% of the pressure) and since no pressure is transferred to the water, buoyancy will change.
 
Since in the case of the ZEDs the air pressure IS equally distributed over the tops of Pod/Risers and their surrounding water columns there is no correlation with your hovercraft example.
 
The spreadsheet was and is correct I believe.  That is the only point of this discussion.  Failing to admit your mistake is disappointing, but just so the other members understand and do not follow that mistake is all that I hope to achieve.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 19, 2012, 07:21:00 PM
As a layman , I am amazed at the level of mathematics which is apparently needed to analyse this device, which is basically half a dozen empty bean tins and some water. There are some differences of opinion, and various theories.I have made my opinion clear and I will not repeat them here. I think that very soon this device will be replicated, and also we shall see what the results of Mark Dansies prolonged tests are . Four years after the Wright Brothers flew, the academics were still busy "proving" that it was impossible. At least we have not yet quite sunk to the level of name calling .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 09:00:36 PM
What is worth considering is this:
1) instead of 4 risers you can have 1 riser with the same pressure, same area and even larger pod.
In Larry's latest spreadsheet you see surface diameter of 36.9i, pod diameter of 30i and pressure of 14.4 psi creating a lift of 16075 pounds.
So, you can have 1 riser with the same parameters and a 34.9i pod with a lift of 18858 pounds and the same input requirements (see picture).
Any disagreements? ;)

2) Lifting force will gradually decrease as the riser rises (assuming no further input) - decrease in air pressure and lower water level.

3) Lift distance is limited.

4) Let's completely remove the pod and just use a riser with a solid insert. Now we are using almost no air for 15410 pounds of lift. See what you got? Yes, that is called a pneumatic lift.

5) Or simply use a pod inside a closed tower. See the picture. 34.9i diameter pod and 14.4 psi. Little air used.

Compare 1, 2 and 4... See the analogy? Seems to me like a pneumatic lift with added 2548 pounds of lift using buoyancy.
(what you need is calculating the distance of lift vs. the energy required to fill the tank up).


@mondrasek: no, I am not trying to back away. The hovercraft does NOT have to become small. Basically what that exercise was based on is that a small local displacement virtually does not affect total pressure at depth (this is a fact).
LarryC had an error in his spreadsheet (in the one using square shapes) - it is fixed now, though. He is now subtracting correctly and he wasn't before (at all).

@neptune: that is basic school mathematics and basic school physics (at least for europe).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 19, 2012, 09:27:48 PM
@KanShi. Yes I understand basic mathematics and physics. What I would like you to do next is to draw two of the machines you illustrated in your last post, coupled together in such a way that the resulting machine would run itself and produce 500 Watts of surplus energy to power a load. Forget Physics and mathematics , there are only two possible scenarios here .


1 Mr Wayne Travis`s machine does what it says on the tin.


2 Mr Wayne Travis is either a conman, or is deluded, and has spent many years a half a million dollars developing one of the best conjuring tricks in the history of the world.  So good in fact that it has fooled Mark Dansie, and scores of other professional engineers.


3 There is no third possibility.


In the fullness of time we shall know one way or the other.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
@webby1: I have used the same formula as in the spreadsheet.
@neptune: My take is it's option 2 (it becomes obvious as soon as you simplify the device).

Although, if you want to build the device to see for yourself, go ahead. Building stuff is fun regardless of results.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 19, 2012, 10:31:48 PM
@KanShi,
 
Now, I understand that your issue is with the concept of water head. The pressure in your drawing is not 14.4, it is 3.6. The actual water head is the short distance from the top of the water column outside the riser to the top of the water in the riser. It is gravity that create the force, it is pushing down on both columns, and it does not matter if the volumes are different.
 
Regards, Larry 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 19, 2012, 10:53:45 PM
The piston is static (it does not move). To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. So the air inside the pod exerts pressure on the piston and the piston exerts pressure on the air.
The result is that the pod displaces the same amount of water as if the piston wasn't there - although only using a fraction of air volume (and also limiting the lift distance - but the same is true for the ZED from the patent).
Lift of the pod (with the stated parameters) is 3448 pounds (pi*(34.9/2)^2*100*0.03606) and the riser's lift is 15410 pounds (pi*(34.9/2)^2*14.4) => the total lift is 18858 pounds.
I am just talking about the lift force. Not sure what you mean by hydraulic lift (since the risers are basically hydraulic/pneumatic lifts (or lifters?) and they are part of the spreadsheet).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on June 20, 2012, 02:08:27 AM
Lets say we have a closed bottom tube, and an empty top and bottom closed tube containing just air, that when it is inserted into the open top tube, we have say 1/8 in gap between the inner tube wall and the outer tube wall.

We fill the larger tube say 1/3 water.  We insert the floater in the tube containing the water.

By just the weight of the floater we should see some of the water forced up into the 1/8 in gap. Now we add weight/load. Say we add just enough to get the floater to just be hitting bottom. The 1/3 water may need adjustment as to not completely fill the 1/8 gap when the floater hits the floor. ;] lol floater.


Now we see there is more of the 1/8 in gap filled with water and the buoyant cylinder has just enough added weight to allow the cylinder to touch the bottom.

Now, if we add water to the gap, the loaded cylinder should rise. Of course as it rises, water needs to be taking up the displacement happening at the bottom at the inner cylinder rises.

So as we fill the gap, the loaded floater rises, and water added to the gap ends up filling space created by the rising loaded floater.

If we have 2 of these, exchanging the water levels from one floater set to the other, may be easier than lifting and lowering the loads manually.

Just my take on this so far. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 20, 2012, 03:00:11 AM
Thanks all, glad to see more understanding and passing examples. Each example may be hard to understand for some and easy for others. So each example has values and will add to the total understanding. Which is critically required for the mass acceptance of this system.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 20, 2012, 08:38:54 AM
Maybe a better model would be described by two relatively incompressible fluids (like mercury and water or oil), so you can ignore compressibility of air in the calculations.

@webby1: Exactly. Without the pod it is a plain old telescopic pneumatic lift. And pneumatic lifts are not OU. The more air you pump into the pneumatic lift, the more upward force you get. With this out of the way, you can just concentrate on the pod that is lifted by buoyancy, which is also not overunity. So, where do you get the energy to pump air/water into the ZED? What you can do is use potential energy (for example from a pendulum) to move air or water between ZEDs, but that potential energy will deplete in a few hours (depending on energy losses and the amount of stored potential energy).

@LarryC: I haven't heard it called water head, just water column (that actually explains some things). Fact that water pressure is the same at depth is well known. Now, in my drawing, the pressure can be 3.6 psi, it can also be 14.4 psi and it can be any pressure you want - if you have a compressed air tank with pressure higher than whatever the water pressure is at the input depth, you will increse the internal pressure and, at the same time, compress the air. Or, you can simply make the water column taller, which will increase the pressure on the air - compressing it to whatever pressure you want. Also, you can open the water column to atmospheric pressure and have an instant "boost" in pressure (of over 100 kPA or 14.7 psi) at the top. In each case, the lift will be the same and proportional to the energy input.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 20, 2012, 08:58:07 AM
@KanShi,
"Fact that water pressure is the same at depth is well known."
Like so many other things these days, the "facts" are getting really strange.
Ask anyone who's ever had the bends if water pressure is the same at depth.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 20, 2012, 09:10:41 AM
@Cisco: DCS is caused by breathing in high pressure air (due to depth of water) and quickly rising to the surface (lower depth of water => lower pressure) which causes bubbles. What is your point? Do you not agree that water pressure at eg. 100m depth below surface is the same, regardless of the size of the body of water? Or do you disagree with my description of DCS?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 20, 2012, 04:23:14 PM

@LarryC: I haven't heard it called water head, just water column (that actually explains some things). Fact that water pressure is the same at depth is well known. Now, in my drawing, the pressure can be 3.6 psi, it can also be 14.4 psi and it can be any pressure you want - if you have a compressed air tank with pressure higher than whatever the water pressure is at the input depth, you will increse the internal pressure and, at the same time, compress the air. Or, you can simply make the water column taller, which will increase the pressure on the air - compressing it to whatever pressure you want. Also, you can open the water column to atmospheric pressure and have an instant "boost" in pressure (of over 100 kPA or 14.7 psi) at the top. In each case, the lift will be the same and proportional to the energy input.
LOL, what a load. I'll not waste time pointing out the obvious.
 
I do have one question. How many people do you know that actually fall for your 'make a error, don't admit it, change the story' technique?
 
I will be glad when you understand, you may be able to help.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 20, 2012, 05:00:53 PM
@LarryC: What? I have made a partial error (with the pressure on the pod) with the corrected spreadsheet (you can read I was agreeing with mondrasek). But the point of my drawing is that I can have whatever pressure I want in my closed system. You are not limited to zero pressure at the top. Just pressurize the air more and you will get more pressure (eg. hydraulic lifts use that, you know?).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 20, 2012, 07:58:57 PM
LOL, what a load. I'll not waste time pointing out the obvious.
 
I do have one question. How many people do you know that actually fall for your 'make a error, don't admit it, change the story' technique?
 
I will be glad when you understand, you may be able to help.
 
Regards, Larry

   Wayne made an error and won't accept it. He thinks a higher static head creates more work. Unfortunately,
 he is pumping water into a smaller channel. Because this slows down the flow of water, the hydraulic pressure it creates can't be converted into useful work by rotating something like his generator. He needs the increased work to happen in the same amount of time as if pressure were being apllied to a static head that has the same surface area as the orifice it passes through and the same surface area of the static head it is filling. Why they limit hydraulics to devices that are not dependent on the time factor to realize work.
edited to delete a part of one sentence to keep thought of the post properly expressed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 20, 2012, 08:06:51 PM
@johnny874. All I can say is that it is fortunate that nobody pointed that out to him until after he got it working then.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 20, 2012, 09:56:25 PM
@johnny874. All I can say is that it is fortunate that nobody pointed that out to him until after he got it working then.

  Nobody has seen it work. It would have been fortunate for him if he would have listened to those that tried telling him that. According to what he has posted, he would have saved $70,000 is it ?
 The reality is, I doubt he spent $40,000 patenting it as he claims.
edited to add; it's almost funny because I was harassed quite a bit for working openly on Bessler's wheel which can work. I tried finding people to work with, especially at besslerwheel dot com, but I don't think they want to see somethign that works. it seems to be all about who gets credit more than anything.
 With static heads, what some people miss is that if you pump water up to a decent height, it will seem like there is extra potential. I mentioned it in one of my first posts, if water is pumped up to a height of 33 feet, then if 1/2 the volume/mass is released, it would have the potential for over unity. Basic math, 10 lbs. of water at that height woudl require 20 pounds of force in a mechanical pump. If 5 pounds drops 16.5 feet, it can use leverage to oeprate the pump and keep a cycle going. Unfortunately it's not as fancy as what wayne built but is something that could work.
 That is what sucks about engineering, you can't do it your way. I don't think anybody ever really has, they were just willing to change their ways and be willing to work with what engineering doesn't allow. As things stand, because of wayne's continued insistance of having a working device, I'm thinking elaborate hoax any more.
 But do have more serious things to be concerned with than what he and his friends don't understand.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 20, 2012, 10:04:58 PM
OK we have only his word on how many people have seen it work. I look forward to Mark Dansie`s prolonged testing . I have no idea on costs, but where patent lawyers are involved I would think The sky is the limit . I would go and have a look myself, but like yourself I have health issues, and I am old and poor . Time will tell.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 20, 2012, 10:23:16 PM
Hmm.  I've been corresponding with others that have seen it.  NDA's are still in place so they can't say much more than that.  But they say that it works.  Some of these individuals are new to me.  Some are not.
 
I believe the subjective evidence is still in Mr. Wayne's court.  Any evidence against comes from the "I've been taught that it is impossible" camp.  Same as with flight.  Same.
 
Rather than go on about how this is not possible because of (insert historical reference here), why not wait and see?  Or run some numbers, simulations, etc., ON THE EXACT CONFIGURATION DESCRIBED!
 
Changing the unique construction in order to "simplify" or otherwise do analysis is not actually analyzing the same construction, is it?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 21, 2012, 12:19:33 AM
Hmm.  I've been corresponding with others that have seen it.  NDA's are still in place so they can't say much more than that.  But they say that it works.  Some of these individuals are new to me.  Some are not.
 
I believe the subjective evidence is still in Mr. Wayne's court.  Any evidence against comes from the "I've been taught that it is impossible" camp.  Same as with flight.  Same.
 
Rather than go on about how this is not possible because of (insert historical reference here), why not wait and see?  Or run some numbers, simulations, etc., ON THE EXACT CONFIGURATION DESCRIBED!
 
Changing the unique construction in order to "simplify" or otherwise do analysis is not actually analyzing the same construction, is it?
 
M.

  M.,
 Have some very pressing personal business to take care of. After that, will be able to demonstrate where wayne went wrong or missed something. And it does come back to time.
 If you try to pump 100in^3 from a cylinder into one with twice the height, it will probably take longer. This is because compression converts the energy in the static head from high volume low pressure to low volume high pressure. They use this principle on steam driven turbines. this what he won't consider.
 Wayne is compressing a hydraulic piston to create a flow which converts the pressure into work. When the flow slows because compression reduces the flow rate, the enrgy can not be stored as in a traditional hydraulic device.
 The odd part is that if 141.5^3 in. (5 lbs.) of water were pumped up to 16.5 feet from a cylinder that dropped 10 in., then with a 4:1 leverage ratio, it would take a weight dropping 40 in. to pump the water back up.
 And since 40 in. is less than 16.5 feet, 5 lbs. dropping 10 feet could perform how much work ? The trick to this is that if a static head of 16.5 ft. is maintained, then when pumping water up, it would be the water in the static head that would be pumped into a reservoir so it can be made to work. In reality, the static head and reservoir would have 10 lbs. of water.
 Since the reservoir would top out at 16.5 ft., it would not add any extra resistance to pumping water upwards.
 It would take something like that to use the potential of a static head. But then, I figured that out from going to school, studying (it does take some time  ;) ), working with it and a willing ness to consider someone else's work. After all, I am not Bessler but have learned from him and his work.
 It will probably disappoint a lot of people to consider that someone already came up with a vaery good idea hundreds of years ago. Of course, a 12 ft. wheel with 20 lbs. of over balance would only generate about 400 watts @ 20 rpm. But that's math and anyone can go over the numbers and show me where I wrong. Of course, I am not the only person to say that Wayne's "Travis Effect" has no extra energy in it. Maybe he can show where my math is wrong ? That is if he really understands this type of behavior.
 
                                                                             Johnny
 
edited to change the thought on converting the potential of a static head to more realistically represent their behavior according to accepted principles of engineering.
 
 edited to add. @All, anyway, a static head that is 8 ft. high could be made to work and be a simple perpetual motion machine. Floats could control the release of the water or something similar like flapper valves. And if you want to go smaller, that's up to you.  8)
 
edited to add; the shorter the pump, the less movement needed to pump. would require greater amount of leverage to pump quickly. The diagram is fairly basic and is hopefully something everyone can understand.
 A float opens the drain on the top reservoir filling a bucket on the lever. When the lever drops, it pumps up the reservoir again. When it is finished pumping (while it is moving downward), a flapper valve could be lifted allowing it to drain into the bottom reservoir which feeds the pump.
 And to lift it back up ? Water in the reservoir could float it back up, might take a little playing with it to get this worked out. Maybe have a gate open when the flapper valve opens so a "pond" could be filled with water lifting it back up then feeding (priming) the pump itself.
 It would almost be like building a better mouse trap. Not sure if any of you ever played the game but it used basic mechanics to get a lot of things to happen.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 21, 2012, 04:45:50 AM
Hello all,

My offer still stands - 2k for replication -

I am very impressed with the ones of you that have moved forward.

I am surprised at others - they have seen their own stated "absolutes crumbled" and still call our honor into question - several of the negative contributors have posted outright errors -  proven mistakes - incorrect physics and drawings and they still claim the the authority to call us wrong?


And bravo to those of you who see thru the attempt to call this a pneumatic pump - it is a diversion to avoid discussing the other absolute statement where "Mass was the limitation of buoyancy" - Larry's calculator blows that away.

I suggest you move on to Webby's lead - how much energy is available to transfer - and what does that do to input cost.

Two more misleading contributions - the weight effects all layers - not just the outside - increasing the atmosphere in any layer effects all the layers.

Second - the Pods water level is key to the system - the pods water level is directly related to the nuetrality of the weights and risers weights.

one inch change in the Pod can mean float or sink - when that point is matched to the system - you can control the direction of the Zed's travel by simply raising above that point - or below that point.

To produce power from the system add 12  inches of head to the pod - that translates into 24 inches in each of the layers after that.

SO 12 inch change in the pod (water level) equates to a 7 foot head change in a three layer system.

Now - where our increased efficiency from layering - (this is another "absolute" claim against us - which is wrong)

In a six layer system - increasing the pod 12 inches - increases the head 13 foot head -

8 layer = 12inches  = 17 feet of head - hope you see the pattern merging.

I will pay up to $500 for the flight of the model - representative - to visit for clear teaching and the check.

Wayne Travis



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 21, 2012, 04:50:24 AM
disconnect your battery then,
attacking math with words is weak,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 21, 2012, 05:01:28 AM
disconnect your battery then,
attacking math with words is weak,
I did not see anywhere where Wayne's offer to pay for a replication required a battery in the replicated machine.  The machine requires no battery to demonstrate the principle of operation.  You should encourage someone here to replicate it.  After all that would be the strongest evidence for or against the theory of operation.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 21, 2012, 05:22:17 AM
   see3d,
 he has one, the replicate would also have one.
 Of course,  my car has a battery.
 Coincidence ?

  Johnny

edit. will someone put that 2 thousand to work please ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 21, 2012, 05:36:08 AM
give it up wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on June 21, 2012, 09:00:35 AM
I've been thinking about how to best demonstrate the relative lift of the ZED and realized, the best would be visual, mathematical and physical comparison with regular lifts:
You can see the visual comparison in the attached image (the pod is of course full of air - it is drawn as full for visibility reasons).
As you are going to see, in all compared devices, the pressure exerted on the pod is the same (those with the pod +h2·ϱ·g) => every device has the same input requirements: fluid at the same pressure. What is also demonstrated is that multiple risers just increase complexity and that just one tall water column is needed to generate the ~same pressure and lift (with the ~same input).
To precharge the devices, we pump-in air at the required pressure and thus displacing water; or, in other words, increasing the potential energy of the device and storing it in the water column(s).

Quote
ϱ(water) = 999,7026 kg/m^3 (at 10 °C);
g = 9,80665 m/s^2;
h1 = 2m;
h2 = 1.5m;
A = 1 m^2;

hydrostatic pressure: p = ϱ·g·h = h·9803.73350229;
ZED:
Quote
p1 = 2·9803.73350229 = 19607.46700458 Pa (19.61 kPa);
p2 = p1 + 1.5·9803.73350229 = 34313.067258015 Pa (34.31 kPa);

Lift from pressure: Fp = p1·A + p2·0.9·A - p1·0.9·A = p1·0.1·A + p2·0.9·A = 32842.5072326715 N (32.84 kN);
Lift from pod: Fb = ϱ·g·V = 9803,73350229·0.8·A·h2 = 11764.480202748 N (11.76 kN);
F = 44606,9874354195 N (44.61 kN);
Hydraulic lift / hydro-pneumatic lift:
Quote
p = (1.5 + 2)·9803.73350229 = 34313.067258015 Pa (34.31 kPa);
F = p·A = p = 34.31 kN;
Hydro-pneumatic lift with a pod:
Quote
p = 34.31 kPa;
Fp = 34.31 kN;
Fb = ϱ·g·V = 9803.73350229·0.9·A·h2 = 13235.0402280915 N (13.24 kN);
F = 46077.547460763 N (46.08 kN);
The weight of air is ignored - as it is also ignored with ZED. It is only approx. 8.28N anyway.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 21, 2012, 01:47:59 PM
  If you guxs want to do a simpldd test, get a garden hose. All yott need to do is adjust the nozzle. The pressure in the hose does not change, how dver it,s flow rate does whem
you adjust the nozzle.

@micro, it,s old wayne and friends saying it,s a working over unty device.
such claims put the burden  of proof on those saying they have done it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 21, 2012, 04:19:40 PM
   see3d,
 he has one, the replicate would also have one.
 Of course,  my car has a battery.
 Coincidence ?

  Johnny

edit. will someone put that 2 thousand to work please ?
As has been stated, a simple model to demonstrate OU [not a self runner] would not need a battery .


                                              CHECK LIST
                                                                          JOHNNY`S CAR                        WAYNE`S  MACHINE
Battery fitted?                                                            Yes                                              Yes
Is battery charged by the machine ?                              Yes                                              Yes
Is the battery the actual main power source?                   No                                               No
If you removed the battery, and made no modifications,
would the machine still function?                                    No                                                 No


What a coincidence, as you said. Give it up, Johnny.


None of us live forever. Concentrate on your Bessler work.
                                                                   
                                                                                   

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 21, 2012, 04:44:49 PM
Had some time with my laptop waiting between meetings at a customer yesterday and was able to doodle the attached.  I have changed the wall thickness of the outside tank on the little 6 in dia. model from 1/8 " to 3/16" since it was the next size available.  This shrinks the outermost water gap and gives a better balanced operation IMO.
 
You can see that the system goes from Buoyant to Non-Buoyant when somewhere between 5.5 and 6 in^3 of water is removed from the "Full" condition that I used to start analyzing.
 
Thinking about a demo set up with just one of these ZEDs (to eliminate controls and energy capture systems).  I was thinking to plumb a hose from the bottom of the center of the ZED and run it into the bottom of a sealed bellows type vacuum cup with the proper dimension to dispense exactly the correct amount of water needed to take the ZED from a lowered condition of -1 inch, back up to the "Full" condition where it is still producing 12.3569 lbs of lift.  The bellows is completely filled with water and must dispence the correct amount of water (per the design) when being collapsed exactly 1 inch.
 
Now place a 12.3269 lb weight on top of the ZED to full collapse it 1 inch.  This will also force water into the bellows to make it expand 1 inch.  Now a weight of less than 12.3269 lbs is place on top of the bellows.  If it causes the bellows to collapse 1 inch while driving the ZED and it's 12.3269 lb (heavier) weight up 1 inch, OU is proved, right?
 
I think this simpler test setup is a nice balance point between complexity and necessity to demonstrate the principles of the system.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 21, 2012, 05:14:10 PM
That would seem to have been a wise investment of your time. Can I make a couple of practical suggestions? It is unlikely that you would find a set of bellows off the shelf, which when depressed one inch, would give exactly the amount of water that needs to be injected into the ZED to raise it one inch. What I would do, is this. [and by the way although you refer to the bellows as a "vacuum cup" it is not used to create a vacuum in this application.] Buy the approximate size needed, but err on the large size rather than the small. Instead of placing the bellows weight direct on to the bellows , Have lightweight beam pivoted at one end [half a see saw] touching the top of the bellows and place the weight on the beam above the bellows. Arrange an adjustable mechanical stop to limit travel of the beam, to inject the correct amount of fluid. As the bellows weight`s fall will not be exactly an inch, we now use Force X distance to measure input .


  Does anyone have an opinion as to whether bellows would be a better choice than a large hypodermic syringe, taking into account friction losses.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 21, 2012, 05:39:11 PM
As has been stated, a simple model to demonstrate OU [not a self runner] would not need a battery .


                                              CHECK LIST
                                                                          JOHNNY`S CAR                        WAYNE`S  MACHINE
Battery fitted?                                                            Yes                                              Yes
Is battery charged by the machine ?                              Yes                                              Yes
Is the battery the actual main power source?                   No                                               No
If you removed the battery, and made no modifications,
would the machine still function?                                    No                                                 No


What a coincidence, as you said. Give it up, Johnny.


None of us live forever. Concentrate on your Bessler work.
                                                                   
                                                                                   

  actually will probably be quitting Bessler. It's like AB Hammer told me once, he either gets the credit or will do everything he could to prevent it from happening. I think between him and my doctors, it's a waste of time.
 And if it worked, there would be nothing to talk about, you know, a lever drops and the wheel rotates. BORING.. Can just build that little self repeating water pump I posted and make millions. That would be the smart thing to do. Don't need a shop to build it and since I have published it, I have one year to patent my invention.
 I think what you guys are missing among other things is that air is compresable. This means it acts as a shock absorbing energy but not really able to put much back into the system. It's why they use them on cars and tractor trailer rigs to control ride height.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 21, 2012, 05:45:19 PM
I've set up a Material take off spreadsheet based on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNPNiIeAi5g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNPNiIeAi5g)
 
I used the relationships in Fig 14 and Fig 15 of the patent for the calculations in the B and C columns.
I'm tired of looking at this, so there probably is errors. All, please take a look and point out any errors, not piecemeal, but all your noted errors at once.
 
@M, Please Autocad, so we can see if there are any intersections and what the build would look like.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 21, 2012, 06:26:59 PM

Thinking about a demo set up with just one of these ZEDs (to eliminate controls and energy capture systems).  I was thinking to plumb a hose from the bottom of the center of the ZED and run it into the bottom of a sealed bellows type vacuum cup with the proper dimension to dispense exactly the correct amount of water needed to take the ZED from a lowered condition of -1 inch, back up to the "Full" condition where it is still producing 12.3569 lbs of lift.  The bellows is completely filled with water and must dispence the correct amount of water (per the design) when being collapsed exactly 1 inch.

I think this simpler test setup is a nice balance point between complexity and necessity to demonstrate the principles of the system.

I believe you are taking the right approach to come up with a simple setup to demonstrate the essential heart of the system.  I have giving this some thought for a while.  Why not just have your input hose go up to a raised bucket of water with the height providing the exact pressure and the volume of water measured out to be exactly what you need?  It only provides the upstroke energy part of the demonstration.  For the down stroke, water has to be extracted.  The key is to show that you can remove more energy to get it back down that was used to raise it up.  That would be the most direct proof of operational validity.  Closing the loop would use the gain in energy to raise the volume of water back up to the bucket.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 21, 2012, 06:42:27 PM
@neptune,  Have you learned nothing from the "Travis Effect?"  We use a bigger bellows and then put a block inside to limit the stroke and volume to exactly what is needed!
 
@LarryC, I'll draw it up.  Guess I can take my laptop home and maybe work on it some there.  I am off work tomorrow to celebrate my birthday (today actually) and have half a dozen projects already in mind.  But it shouldn't take too long if just drawing geometry.  Might squeeze it in today if nothing work related is too pressing.
 
@see3d, the reason I was looking at the bellows is that I am trying to show a relationship that a child can understand.  Two different weights traveling through the same distance.  But the smaller weight lifts the bigger.  You could have a simple balance next to it to show how it is the opposite of what a balance would show.  No equations.  No other physics involved.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 21, 2012, 07:03:56 PM
@see3d, the reason I was looking at the bellows is that I am trying to show a relationship that a child can understand.  Two different weights traveling through the same distance.  But the smaller weight lifts the bigger.  You could have a simple balance next to it to show how it is the opposite of what a balance would show.  No equations.  No other physics involved.
Yes, that would be conclusive, but you need to use a 6 layer system to get enough gain to realize that in a human perceptible way.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 21, 2012, 07:52:26 PM
@LarryC,
 
It builds.
 
Two comments:
 
1)  The Pod needs a top and bottom.  The height there needs to be 23.50.  I made that change in the .dwg.
2)  The gap between the Outside Retainer and Riser 1 is too big, I believe.  Driving water into it from the thin gap inside Riser 1 will not raise the water level there by much at all.  It needs to be the thinnest gap of all.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 21, 2012, 07:57:06 PM
@Mondrasek. Yes, I like the idea of the block inside the bellows. It is doable, but it might be a bit fiddly to calibrate. In an earlier post, you said that you had corresponded with people who had seen the machine in action, and that it worked . Do you know, or can you say, if what was seen was the self runner, or just a simple model to show proof of OU . I would choose to see the latter given a free choice, especially if it could be stripped down before and after use. The problem of seeing the self runner , for a sceptic, is that you are looking at 2 large tanks that could contain anything. Given that the purpose of a model is to convince sceptics, this is important.
         There are probably a number of questions we need answers to before building a model . I have asked the first one before.
1.Is it necessary that the separate bodies of water inside the ZED [with the exception of the central chamber] are all equal in volume. If so this prevents the use of off-the-shelf riser sizes, and necessitates that each riser be custom made .


2 It would be a great help if we had a step by step procedure to fill and precharge the machine .


The more help we have before we start, the greater the chances of a successful build.


The person who will gain the greatest benefit from a successful build will be mrwayne. Replication will give him more credence and publicity. So I hope that he will give us all the help he can.






Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 21, 2012, 08:22:50 PM
@neptune, I have not heard anyone I have cooresponded with talk of any models like we are discussing.  It was always about the larger units Mr. Wayne has built.  Explanations of the workings had to be done with diagrams and animation since you cannot see into those like you mentioned.
 
It is interesting to me that Tom from the videos has posted here and no one has directed any questions to him.  At least not openly.  I PMed him and we exchange a couple messages.  It was not on topic with this thread so I did not ask openly.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 21, 2012, 09:25:58 PM
@LarryC,
 
It builds.
 
Two comments:
 
1)  The Pod needs a top and bottom.  The height there needs to be 23.50.  I made that change in the .dwg.
2)  The gap between the Outside Retainer and Riser 1 is too big, I believe.  Driving water into it from the thin gap inside Riser 1 will not raise the water level there by much at all.  It needs to be the thinnest gap of all.
 
Thanks,
 
M.

Thanks M,
I intended for the Pod not to have a bottom, would be less of a problem to fix, if a leak developed.
In Fig 1 in the Patent it shows a larger diameter at the top of container. To handle overflow better or more water to keep the head higher on Riser1 without water coming in from water inlet, not sure, but it was just my way of compensating, without having the arkward build.
 
Would you add the spacers on my next version and shade the acrylic.
 
I'm more concerned about the narrowing in each air, water column. I will figure out how to correct.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 21, 2012, 10:04:23 PM
@Webby1. So if I understand your last post correctly. You are proposing two separate models.


1. A relatively simple model based on an inverted vessel and a concrete block, and an air pup.[bellows,syringe, etc] Or possibly two or more such vessel/block assemblies.machine to be self running,


2 A more complex machine with multiple layers, more along the lines of Mondraseks design.


The success of [1] depends on such a basic "single riser" design having OU. I am torn two ways here.\Wayne says that 3 layers are "only just OU" so you might be struggling with just one layer . On the other hand I have no doubt that Wayne`s first attempts were with a single layer set up. My guess is that he must have seen a degree of OU in the early single layer experiments to inspire him to develop the multilayer concept.




I would say that any self running machine needs a minimum COP of 1.5 to work and overcome losses.
However a COP as low as 1.1 might be sufficient to prove OU by causing a given weight falling one inch to raise a heavier weight one inch.[Not self running .]
 I would appreciate your views on all this .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 21, 2012, 10:13:05 PM
I intended for the Pod not to have a bottom, would be less of a problem to fix, if a leak developed.

I understand.  Do keep in mind that the Pod chamber has the most air volume, and without a bottom, some water will enter the bottom of an open Pod as the air there is compressed.  This reduces buoyant lift from the Pod.

In Fig 1 in the Patent it shows a larger diameter at the top of container. To handle overflow better or more water to keep the head higher on Riser1 without water coming in from water inlet, not sure, but it was just my way of compensating, without having the arkward build.

That may be true.  And an overflow may be a good idea.  But you will get very little lift from the Riser 1 if the outer gap is so large.

Would you add the spacers on my next version and shade the acrylic.
 

I could add spacers if you need.  What do you mean by "shade the acrylic?"  If you mean to add "hatching" to show that this is a cut away view (and make easier to see the walls vs. voids) that is no problem.  If you mean adding color or tinting, I can do different color lines and hatching.  But no "transparent color tinting".  You'd need a Solids program for that and I don't have a key to use our package (nor am I anywhere qualified to use it anymore!).
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 21, 2012, 10:22:53 PM
The success of [1] depends on such a basic "single riser" design having OU. I am torn two ways here.\Wayne says that 3 layers are "only just OU" so you might be struggling with just one layer . On the other hand I have no doubt that Wayne`s first attempts were with a single layer set up. My guess is that he must have seen a degree of OU in the early single layer experiments to inspire him to develop the multilayer concept.

@neptune, I do not believe there is any OU in a single layer design.  I believe Mr. Wayne only saw the "Travis Effect" as the way to nest Risers inside Risers.  It is the layering of the "nested" risers that leads to OU.
 
The purpose of the "Travis Effect" is only to show that you do not need the Risers (or cups) to be completely filled with air to maximize their buoyancy.  Instead you can replace a portion of that air with other items.  And if those other items are rings of water with other Risers, you end up with a unique arrangement where the buoyant forces of the Risers sum together and produce a larger total buoyant force in the same space of the one Outer Riser.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 21, 2012, 10:28:01 PM
I understand.  Do keep in mind that the Pod chamber has the most air volume, and without a bottom, some water will enter the bottom of an open Pod as the air there is compressed.  This reduces buoyant lift from the Pod.

If it is an issue, styrofoam can be added, but we'd need to remove after the test to show no battery. ;D

That may be true.  And an overflow may be a good idea.  But you will get very little lift from the Riser 1 if the outer gap is so large.
I don't understand why the lift would be less.

I could add spacers if you need.  What do you mean by "shade the acrylic?"  If you mean to add "hatching" to show that this is a cut away view (and make easier to see the walls vs. voids) that is no problem.  If you mean adding color or tinting, I can do different color lines and hatching.  But no "transparent color tinting".  You'd need a Solids program for that and I don't have a key to use our package (nor am I anywhere qualified to use it anymore!).

Edit: Any color but blue hatching would be great.


Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 21, 2012, 10:45:27 PM
@M,
 
New version, the biggest problem is the large walls with such a small model. Needs to be thinner, but I don't think the 1/8 would work very well.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 21, 2012, 10:47:21 PM
I don't understand why the lift would be less.

Let me think on this.  It may not matter, like you say.  Could be just my mistake!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 22, 2012, 12:38:26 AM
may I remind politely.

Hi Tom.  Thanks for the reminder.
 
I can see how that reply from Mr. Wayne can be interpreted as saying a one layer system can produce OU.  But that was not clear to me.
 
In the second sentence where he says "if you build your system..." I was unclear if he was still talking about a single layer "system" or talking about a multi layer ZED "system".
 
So I guess I would need a clarifying statement from Mr. Wayne.
 
Just a "yes" or "no."  Can the "Travis Effect" be used to show OU in a single layer system (just a cup over a cement block)?
 
Thanks again,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 22, 2012, 12:14:47 PM
IMHO there are 2 effects that need to be demonstrated in a self run mode. 

First is the simple "Travis effect", the one demonstrated in the videos but in a self run mode, if this part is not understood then the next effect will make no sense and appear as "magic".

Second is the nesting of the risers to decrease the input needed and conserve some of the input itself for re-use.

Then when you explain that each riser is the concrete block, from the first demonstration, for the riser above it, it makes more sense, and is easier to understand.

For Travis effect to work you need to have enough space on the sides of a central piece, I think you call it a pod, to accommodate the compressed air. At the same time , in the initial position there shouldn't be any space on top of the pod.
Once there is a bit of lift from the incoming water, air will rise up from the sides to the area between the top of the pod
and the bottom of a riser and lift it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 22, 2012, 03:48:18 PM
An observation. If we look again at the videos of the basic Travis effect, we notice that the cup used is tapered, it does not have a uniform diameter all the way up. It appears that the cement block was made by using the cup as a mould. While this is convenient, it does create a problem. As the cup and block are both tapered, as the cup rises, the air gap between the cup walls and the block increases in width.
       In my opinion, the net result off this is that the lift distance of the Travis effect is reduced. I am not saying that the total energy of the lift is reduced. It may be that we get a more powerful lift over a shorter distance .Or not.
      It is interesting to note that the multilayer systems are based on cylinders of uniform diameter, not tapered cylinders.So if you are building a single layer model, it may be best to use a cylinder of uniform diameter . Any comments ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 22, 2012, 03:48:19 PM
Good Morning,

I will of course lend any support Technique, set up, clearances design - etc - what ever you need.

The benefit of the negative detractors is more proof that I am the established inventor - in a sad way they help us.

I would appreciate if the questions were sent to my e-mail - one question per e-mail - please - I only get a second to sit and jot down answers, so a multi question - does not get the proper attention.

Clear plastic does offer a whole new set of issues - to replicate - steel was pretty easy - our system has pressure sensors in ever upper and lower layer - and our program gives us a visual of the water and air levels through the whole cylce.

Set up is simple - Hold the system down (locked) down - fill slowly with both air and water into the inner most layer - until the water level reaches the top of the outside layer.

You have full ideal at that point -

When you remove the lock - the system will extend to the distance matching the head/surface area/and load.

At that point - removing water from the pod results in sink mode- adding water results in stroke.

When you hook up two systems - you just adjust the water level between the two Z.E.D.'s so that you match the stroke lengths - to pressure to height - actually a simple process - we will cover later.

Wayne







Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 22, 2012, 04:55:37 PM
@M,
The latest Material Take off is attached, now with Gap Clearance calculations. To solve the Gap Clearance I removed the reduction of gap as the model went from Pod to Riser 1. It is just not practical with a large wall small model.
 
After we check your latest drawing and everything seems correct, I will be building a Hobby model out of Elemer's foam board. It is just 3/16 thick, but that should be close enough. It will also give us a good idea of how much material is needed, so we can cost out the acrylic. I picked up a freeware version of a Sheet Layout program, so it should be pretty accurate.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 22, 2012, 06:26:51 PM
Cheers.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: telecom on June 22, 2012, 06:36:47 PM
Cheers.
Hi Mondrasek,
these spacers on top - I thought all the air should be squeezed out from the top to bring the expansion force to 0?
I'm not by any means an expert in these kind of devices - just asking...
Alex
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 22, 2012, 06:53:59 PM
Cheers.
Thanks, M.
But, It's not hanging right at the bottom, should look like Fig 14. I'll check my specifications.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 22, 2012, 06:57:42 PM
Thanks, M.
But, It's not hanging right at the bottom, should look like Fig 14. I'll check my specifications.
 
Regards, Larry

Okay.  Please note that I levitated the Pod so that the gap between it's top surface and the next Riser was the same gap (.31) as all the other gaps.  Just FYI.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 22, 2012, 07:04:12 PM
Hi Mondrasek,
these spacers on top - I thought all the air should be squeezed out from the top to bring the expansion force to 0?
I'm not by any means an expert in these kind of devices - just asking...
Alex

Hi Alex,
 
To be honest, I am also not sure.  The buoyancy is the product of the "water head" and the "surface area" of the water displacing Riser's top surface.  So the need for air in the gap due to the spacers does not seem to be necessary.  But I have not tested and really don't know more than that.  Maybe TK or someone else with higher physics understanding can elaborate.  Or possibly someone can do an experiment?
 
Then again, Mr. Wayne might also answer?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 22, 2012, 07:26:57 PM

      It is interesting to note that the multilayer systems are based on cylinders of uniform diameter, not tapered cylinders.So if you are building a single layer model, it may be best to use a cylinder of uniform diameter . Any comments ?

With the buoyancy force being the "water head pressure" x "surface area" of the top of a cylindrical "riser", I would think that having tapered walls would change this simple equation into a calculus function.  With a tapered riser, the effective "surface area" would be changing at the different heights of the "water head?"  Just my "swag" at your question.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 22, 2012, 07:27:42 PM
Not 100% certain, but I think these spacers are shown in the patent.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 22, 2012, 07:31:33 PM

Let me think on this.  It may not matter, like you say.  Could be just my mistake!
 

@LarryC, I believe you are correct that the outer ring of water can be as big as you want without any negative effects on performance.  In fact, having a bigger ring might change how much pressure difference there needs to be between the ZEDs in a two ZED system in your favor.  But I will need to get back to my own little model and analysis to figure out if that second part is true or not.  And that is not on my schedule for this weekend (which has already started for me!).
 
Sorry for confusing anyone with my mistake.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 22, 2012, 07:34:47 PM
Not 100% certain, but I think these spacers are shown in the patent.

Definitely shown.  But described in legalease as "may or may not" be used in a given embodiment of said device. 
 
Man that is painful to try and type...  Need to stop reading legalease.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 22, 2012, 07:46:36 PM
They are certainly shown in the "how it works" diagrams posted by mrwayne of the ZED. That tells me that it would work with them. Will it work without them ? Dont know.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 22, 2012, 07:49:42 PM

Okay.  Please note that I levitated the Pod so that the gap between it's top surface and the next Riser was the same gap (.31) as all the other gaps.  Just FYI.
 
M.
Yes, that may be it, it does look like Fig 16, 17 and 18. Fig 15 should be the same, not sure, because the latest picture from Travis with 8 systems is like 15.
 
@Travis,
Please clarify this issue?
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 22, 2012, 08:11:02 PM
"But, It's not hanging right at the bottom, should look like Fig 14. I'll check my specifications.
 
Regards, Larry"

[/size]
Fig. 14 does hang different at the bottom. It also shows spacers and vents to be used during assembly. But there is a minor mistake where the vents are shown. According to the (argh!) patent description of assembly at [0095] and [0096], Vent 162 should be located not on the pod--the pod needs no vent--but instead on the inner riser where vent 188 is shown; and vent 188 should be shown at the top of the outer riser. They are depicted correctly in Fig. 15.[/size]
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 22, 2012, 09:26:27 PM
Yes, that may be it, it does look like Fig 16, 17 and 18. Fig 15 should be the same, not sure, because the latest picture from Travis with 8 systems is like 15.
 
@Travis,
Please clarify this issue?
Might have the logic. At rest, with low or no water, each Riser sits on a retainer wall, enough that would allows them to separate from the spacers. So each retainer wall from inner to outer is higher by spacer plus separation gap. Thus, when lifted and the separation gap is lost, the longer Riser walls would be the outer most. So it seems 14, 15 and the 'One Zed through complete cycle' is more likely.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 22, 2012, 11:25:01 PM
Might have the logic. At rest, with low or no water, each Riser sits on a retainer wall, enough that would allows them to separate from the spacers. So each retainer wall from inner to outer is higher by spacer plus separation gap. Thus, when lifted and the separation gap is lost, the longer Riser walls would be the outer most. So it seems 14, 15 and the 'One Zed through complete cycle' is more likely.
I did some manual drawing and the logic appears correct. The slope of the riser walls at bottom will end up being a function of the combined lost separation gap and it will slope downward from the inside riser to the outside.
 
@M,
Sorry, but the latest MTO is attached. There is a couple of  retainer wall calculation correction. One to adjust for the fact that the inside of the riser is reduced by the thick top plate, while the retainer does not have that issue, and the other is a compounding error on my original calculations.
 
The gaps between retainer, riser, etc should be the same size as the material thickness. They appear a lot smaller, could you look into that issue.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 23, 2012, 12:56:47 AM
The gaps between retainer, riser, etc should be the same size as the material thickness. They appear a lot smaller, could you look into that issue.

@LarryC, right now you have all the gaps at .125".  The material thickness is .25".
 
If I can ask, what is driving all the dimension changes?  Is there something in the design you are trying to optimize?
 
If you are trying to replicate the patent drawing proportions, please first find out if they are from production model drawings.  Patent drawing do not need to be correct to scale.  They only need to be representative for the purpose of explaining the device.  They may not be the correct proportions to create a working device at all.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 23, 2012, 01:54:41 AM

@LarryC, right now you have all the gaps at .125".  The material thickness is .25".
 
You're right, I forgot to split the difference for the two sides. The new attachment gets it to .25 gap.
 
 
If I can ask, what is driving all the dimension changes?  Is there something in the design you are trying to optimize?
 
If you are trying to replicate the patent drawing proportions, please first find out if they are from production model drawings.  Patent drawing do not need to be correct to scale.  They only need to be representative for the purpose of explaining the device.  They may not be the correct proportions to create a working device at all.
Agree in part, but I keep in mind Travis's honesty policy. So I think of the issues as drafting issues. Your drawing led me to look at the drafting issue at the bottom riser height and then to logically figure out how the system should look after the initial lift.
 
Regards, Larry 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 23, 2012, 02:34:21 AM
Agree in part, but I keep in mind Travis's honesty policy. So I think of the issues as drafting issues. Your drawing led me to look at the drafting issue at the bottom riser height and then to logically figure out how the system should look after the initial lift.
 
Regards, Larry

Keep in mind that in a patent application, the drawings are cartoon drawings designed to help the patent examiner understand the claims.  Scaling a patent drawing is not advised.  Use the drawing to understand the words, which are designed to claim far more than the drawings show, even to things the inventor never tried out in a practical way, and may not even work.  Pay attention to what Wayne says on his site and on the posts, and he said he would respond to a single question at a time in an email.  Take him up on the offer.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 23, 2012, 03:04:03 PM
 
Hello all,
 
A quick not on the spacers between layers - they are not necessary - We built our system large for a large range of testing - yard stick measurements instead of micrometers -
The spacers were to direct the lifting force - In our new patents - we show them attached together and as a solid.
 
Now - on that topic - we have four primary forces:

The last riser has full lift - like the Travis effect

Each layer increases the pressure into the "inner riser" (above the pod or under the pod if the pod is attached)

The Pod acts as its own float - Archimedes'

And the layering diameter "increase adds a Little lift" - in our three foot wide six foot tall model - about 250 pounds additional per layer.

The four of these combined - in relationship to the head of each layer - as Larry and others have calculated

I added that clarity - because of the question of surface areas "between layers" - they are not necessary.

They do help the system because the pressures in the system naturally center the layers and make assembly simple.

Just another note:
The thickness of our three foot wide and six foot tall model - is .20 per wall, and per gap.
the pressure you have to prepare for is only the head of one layer.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 23, 2012, 03:59:22 PM
And to you, sir.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 23, 2012, 04:25:12 PM
@mrwayne. That was a very useful post. From a first reading I have learned a couple of thimgs.


1. There is no disadvantage in bolting all the risers together as one unit. So that being the case, If the risers are being custom made, in a three layer system , we could fabricate the riser assembly from three concentric tubes and a single lid to which the 3 concentric tubes are welded/glued.


2.All the walls and the gaps are 0.2 inches . Therefore the volume of all the "pockets" of water in the system are not equal. This had been worrying me as I had this theory that they needed to be, and therefore gap widths would have to decrease as we moved from the inner layer to the outer. In a smaller model we could perhaps use gaps of less than 0.2, but precise construction would be essential. In this sense it is probably easier to build a large model than a small. But it costs more .


I keep thinking that model building would be much easier if we could find a supplier of plastic or thin wall metal tubing in a wide range of sizes.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 23, 2012, 05:44:19 PM
@mrwayne. That was a very useful post. From a first reading I have learned a couple of thimgs.


1. There is no disadvantage in bolting all the risers together as one unit. So that being the case, If the risers are being custom made, in a three layer system , we could fabricate the riser assembly from three concentric tubes and a single lid to which the 3 concentric tubes are welded/glued.


2.All the walls and the gaps are 0.2 inches . Therefore the volume of all the "pockets" of water in the system are not equal. This had been worrying me as I had this theory that they needed to be, and therefore gap widths would have to decrease as we moved from the inner layer to the outer. In a smaller model we could perhaps use gaps of less than 0.2, but precise construction would be essential. In this sense it is probably easier to build a large model than a small. But it costs more .


I keep thinking that model building would be much easier if we could find a supplier of plastic or thin wall metal tubing in a wide range of sizes.
How about having the parts 3D printed?
I`ve no idea of the costs involved though.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 23, 2012, 07:18:12 PM
@M,
Thanks, looks great. Hobby model building is a go.
 
@All,
The attached picture shows the forces with Wayne's latest sizes.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 23, 2012, 07:23:24 PM
  Wayne,
 Mondrasek who is an adamant supporter of yours (praise the lord ! ) has just p.m.ed me that I am an egotist and I shouldn't ask for pity because of my medical problems. haven't asked for pity, but trying to build while on disability insurance is rather difficult.
 I haven't been blessed by the Lord like you have to have all that money and to offer $2,000.00 to anyone willing to build your device to prove it works.
 Yet while I like Bessler's work, you like the Travis effect. Not sure who Travis is, but your own website is http://mrwaynesbrain.com/ (http://mrwaynesbrain.com/). What exactly are you supporting ? That you're smarter than everybody else ? Why not The Travis Effect by Wayne Travis ?
 Thane Heins promoted his own work and he had something that was accepted by a professor at MIT who saw it. That is independent varification.
 If I understand this correctly, you are seperating you from yourself, like Jesus the Holy Ghost and God are one, you and Travis are 2 different people but are like the Trinity are 1.
 And yet as a Christian you are thanking God, the Holy Father for what you will be doing in his Holy name, like telling everyone what a big brain you have and how we are blessed by your presence.
 Amen Jesus, I myself am glad you are here. It has renewed my faith in God, Thank You.
 
                                                               A sinner among sinners
 
  @M., sad to say, the surgery that messed me up was performed at a devoutly Christian hospital. I could easily spin this as my complications were easily avoidable.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 23, 2012, 07:39:17 PM
I am a newcomer here, but I do have a sense of decency.  I would like to request that nobody reply to offensive posts by Johnny874 publicly.  If you find any of his posts offensive, then notify the moderator instead.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 23, 2012, 08:05:10 PM
1. There is no disadvantage in bolting all the risers together as one unit. So that being the case, If the risers are being custom made, in a three layer system , we could fabricate the riser assembly from three concentric tubes and a single lid to which the 3 concentric tubes are welded/glued.

2.All the walls and the gaps are 0.2 inches . Therefore the volume of all the "pockets" of water in the system are not equal. This had been worrying me as I had this theory that they needed to be, and therefore gap widths would have to decrease as we moved from the inner layer to the outer. In a smaller model we could perhaps use gaps of less than 0.2, but precise construction would be essential. In this sense it is probably easier to build a large model than a small. But it costs more .
Hi Neptune,
 
I don't think a single lid would work as it would loose most of the Travis effect, each Riser would have a much smaller surface area and still seeing the same PSI. For instance, in my previous post of Wayne's latest size change, if it were one lid, Riser 2 SI needs to be subtracted from Riser 1 SI then multiply that by 2.6 and you can see the effect.
 
In the MTO the gap clearance can easily by adjusted by changing the 'Riser 4-Side Increase' variable.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 23, 2012, 08:20:39 PM
Here you can see the effects of having a larger water gap around the Outer Riser.  The comparison is made for the case where 5.85 in^3 of water has been removed from the center Pod section of the model as compared to when it is completely "Full" and at a restrained full stroke.  The 5.85 value was used as this is right where the model with the smaller gap has lost enough buoyancy to overcome it's own weight and would begin to drop as the water level drops.
 
In the system with the bigger gap removing the same volume of water has a lesser effect on dropping the buoyancy on the Outer Riser.  It is still well buoyant beyond it's weight.  So only the inner two members will begin to drop as more water is removed.
 
Does this matter?  Probably not, if the system is designed to account for this.
 
But in the case of the smaller gaps (all around) you get a much larger change in effective water head in the system for smaller water volume changes.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
 
Edited to add:  Forgot to mention that the larger gap is achieved by replacing the 6 in OD x 3/16 in thick tube with a 7 in OD x 1/8 in thick tube that is also available through McMaster-Carr.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 23, 2012, 09:22:15 PM
Here you can see the effects of having a larger water gap around the Outer Riser.  The comparison is made for the case where 5.85 in^3 of water has been removed from the center Pod section of the model as compared to when it is completely "Full" and at a restrained full stroke.  The 5.85 value was used as this is right where the model with the smaller gap has lost enough buoyancy to overcome it's own weight and would begin to drop as the water level drops.
 
In the system with the bigger gap removing the same volume of water has a lesser effect on dropping the buoyancy on the Outer Riser.  It is still well buoyant beyond it's weight.  So only the inner two members will begin to drop as more water is removed.
 
Does this matter?  Probably not, if the system is designed to account for this.
 
But in the case of the smaller gaps (all around) you get a much larger change in effective water head in the system for smaller water volume changes.

Interesting observation. We may have to adjust the outer column to where the system would sink.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 23, 2012, 10:13:15 PM
The outer column is a tradeoff depending on how you want to use the potential energy stored there.  The amount of potential energy should be a constant based on how high the column of water is raised vs the volume of water.  The potential energy stored would be an integral calculation.  The question would be how to use it without unbalancing the total amount of water in the closed loop system?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 23, 2012, 10:40:17 PM
  @Wayne, can you ask Moondasek or what ever it is to quit preaching to me. he tells me all of my problems will go away when i put God first in my life as he says i have to follow you and him. If i wanted to hear a sermon on why people are special because of their relationship with god, I would go to church.
 And I hope Wayne that one day faith will allow your machine to work.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 24, 2012, 01:15:10 AM
   Wayne@
  I will quit posting in here.
 Your machine is not gratuity powered, it is mechanical. sorry, it is powered by gratuity, not gravity. my mistake.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 02:38:54 PM
The outer column is a tradeoff depending on how you want to use the potential energy stored there.  The amount of potential energy should be a constant based on how high the column of water is raised vs the volume of water.  The potential energy stored would be an integral calculation.  The question would be how to use it without unbalancing the total amount of water in the closed loop system?

The outer layer has a significant purpose at this stage of understanding the system -
The Last riser - the largest surface area - needs very little head to overcome the total weight of the risers - keeping that in mind -
The Pod is "also" used to keep the weight of the system neutral
The weight keeps the system in a precharge condition.
 
Now - in set up - you want the maximum usage of the pod,
a fully submerged pod at stroke is best -
SO to sink the system  -you only want to lower the water (head) around the pod enough to sink.
So if you will add ten inches of head to the pod in order to stroke - reverse that ten inches to sink -
Now the last riser is you adjustment - you can add or subtract the head (water volume in this case) in this layer to balance the system.
Just an example - if you use 2500 pounds of weight to keep the free flow pressure at least 5.0 psi - the pod itself will not neutralize the weight - just increase the head in the last layer - a tiny bit of pressure goes a long way when you have a large surface.
In our set up procedure - we over charge every layer - then lower the pod water level to the lowest operating point - then lower the water level in the last layer -until the system begins to sink, - or 5.0 psi is reached.
Set up is complete and matched to the weighted system.
Wayne
 
 
 
The weight - which is used to keep the air compressed (and head) -
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 02:46:21 PM
The outer column is a tradeoff depending on how you want to use the potential energy stored there.  The amount of potential energy should be a constant based on how high the column of water is raised vs the volume of water.  The potential energy stored would be an integral calculation.  The question would be how to use it without unbalancing the total amount of water in the closed loop system?
In our early model - we had the water connected between systems - this resulted in a bad scenerio - where when one side was set up better than the other - the better side would end up pushing more water into the other side -
our solution was two seperate bodies of water - seprated by a dual sided cylinder - the cylinder cost $19,800 each - and so we went to the convoluted bags by firestone - for $900 each.
My point is - We are closed looped by energy - but each Z.E.D has its own water - and its Own Air - they do not trade sides.
This is where some of our energy exchange losses come from - we take some water out from the pod into the bag - and transfer that pressure thru a lever to pressurize the other bag - and then we add what more is needed.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 02:54:11 PM
@mrwayne. That was a very useful post. From a first reading I have learned a couple of thimgs.


1. There is no disadvantage in bolting all the risers together as one unit. So that being the case, If the risers are being custom made, in a three layer system , we could fabricate the riser assembly from three concentric tubes and a single lid to which the 3 concentric tubes are welded/glued.


2.All the walls and the gaps are 0.2 inches . Therefore the volume of all the "pockets" of water in the system are not equal. This had been worrying me as I had this theory that they needed to be, and therefore gap widths would have to decrease as we moved from the inner layer to the outer. In a smaller model we could perhaps use gaps of less than 0.2, but precise construction would be essential. In this sense it is probably easier to build a large model than a small. But it costs more .


I keep thinking that model building would be much easier if we could find a supplier of plastic or thin wall metal tubing in a wide range of sizes.
We have fully modeled the gap - Or Volume equalitity - and the results were/are - that in a six layer system - equal gaps are just fine -
When you move to eight layers - then the fun begins - the expansion and compression rate to volume begins to mess with stroke length - so you adjust with the clearances.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 24, 2012, 03:00:07 PM
Wayne, is Mark still scheduled for the 28th?

Maybe a live video feed from Ustream?? :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
You People impress me,
My Patent attorney told me that few people could - or would wrap their heads around a system (like ours) that had so many naturally correlating effects within the system - you are doing well!
On that note: does it amaze you yet on how much is going on in basically a single moving part (when they are attached together).
Now for a big jump in your computations - I know some of you are working ahead - so.......
Consider the Weight - I told you it was to keep the air compressed - the heads in place (partially) and to control the sink rate of the system .... right -
 
Two More reasons for the weight:
First - as you have noticed - the effeciency of the system is best at "ideal" in most systems to get to ideal requires going from 0- ideal and back again = over and over -
The weights let us skip past the first 55% of the system and function only in the begining of the "super effecient range".
The weight would seem to some to be a waste of energy - or a simple teeter taughter effect - which it is (in that normal relm of physics - but to be able to cancel out the need to go from 0 - ideal - and instead operate at 55% of ideal too ideal only is good, very good.
We do not get to "eliminate" the need for the weight - but we do not pay for that part of the process over and over .
That was hard for my engineers - they wanted to squeeze everything out of the system - which means - you have to put it all back in - poor logic with a free energy machine - net Zero. They insisted on light weigting the risers - I argued - it cost us nothing if they are equal on both sides - they argued "Ideal usage" I argued - pay for everything - results in nothing.....
 
Part two:
The weight and mininum pressure effect:
As in our last model - we have enough weight to keep the pressure at 5.0 psi hydro - this means that if we had chosen to place our pump at the bottom of the system - we would have to overcome the 5.0 and then charge it to 8.0 in order to stroke - but we do not do that - we raised our pump to an elevation equal to that head/psi and so - when we push our water into the pod - the pump has a resistance of - well 0-3 psi - which is much better than 5-8 psi.
Three pounds is not three pounds - Some one will jump on me for that - but to let you all work it out - I will just say - that you can raise the water level in a column from any point - it is harder the lower you go - just in the friction of a seal ---
To be fair - the weight eliminates the input cost of 5.0psi - and reduces the ideal use of the system (please recall that fully utilizing the ideal results in under unity.
Raising the pump eliminates the stress of the exchange - that stress is what tore our model seven apart - during long runs.
- when you get done with this part - let me know - and I will explain the inverted pump system - 20% reduction in pumping cost -(real good).
Got to go
Again - very impressive teamwork.
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
Wayne, is Mark still scheduled for the 28th?

Maybe a live video feed from Ustream?? :)

I spoke to Mark two days ago - he is ready now - we worked out a game plan - now that we have our Debree clogging checkvalves open issue put to bed -(PLEASE OH PLEASE - paper towel pieces were introduced to the system in the plumbing upgrades - major pain).
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs - I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.
He has been very patient, and our birthing issues only fuel negativty - fortunaltely The Z.E.D portion of the machine is very resiliant - continues to function without issue.
After his check - the next team gets scheduled.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 04:55:04 PM
A question was asked about a weight selection calculator -
We do have that in our system - We are not releasing that work without NDA.
Our Model allow us to state the required output "Net"  such as "50kw" and it will find all of the size hieght, width, layers, and weight that will match that output. Then we chose which to select - based on several factors - shipping manufacturing, location etcetera.
The model takes into considerations about 3000times (rough guess) - the information you have uncovered so far.
We have spent four years - not struggling - but in careful understanding.
Concerning your models at this stage, I suggested 1/3 of the ideal of the system - since you have discussed small systems - if your system calculates to lift 600 pounds (at the end of your stroke).
- add the weight of the risers and then add enough weight to reach about 200 pounds.
You will discover that the exhuast pressure created by 200 pounds is over half the energy required to lift 600 pounds.
Some of you may have noticed that we have 5.0 psi in our system from 2500 pounds of weight - and we only add 3psi to get to 8 psi to lift 5500 pounds (which is our operating lift).
So my suggestion - fill out the NDA meet our engineers that have busted it for years to come to a complete and predictive model....
Or, just add a weight to increase your exhuast above half the operting pressure.
We are fortuntate to have a large o/u operating range, this will get you in the good.
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 24, 2012, 05:00:33 PM
@mrwayne.Many thanks for the new information that you have given us. It will take a while to digest, but I feel I am learning all the time.As always, what at first seems to be a very simple device gives us lots to think about. I would say that 80% of people who drive vehicles, do not understand how an engine works. An engine has far more moving parts than a ZED. And yet it is very easy to understand by comparison. As I have long suspected, the best efficiency is all about dimensions and proportions. I think it was Stevenson, a pioneer of railway locomotives, who said that any fool can design something complicated.But to make it simple needs a genius. Look at the long history of this forum. We have sought OU in electronics, in coils , capacitors, and pyramids, to name a few.How ironic for OU to show itself in a device that could probably have been built by the Ancient Romans.


Wayne talks about "raising the pump" or injecting water not at the base of a water column, but at a point higher up. In a ZED we cannot inject water into the side wall of the inner chamber, there are things in the way. So I assume Wayne means that water is injected via a pipe through the base of the chamber which projects upwards to the required point. More later when I have studied more .
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 24, 2012, 06:52:42 PM
Wayne talks about "raising the pump" or injecting water not at the base of a water column, but at a point higher up. In a ZED we cannot inject water into the side wall of the inner chamber, there are things in the way. So I assume Wayne means that water is injected via a pipe through the base of the chamber which projects upwards to the required point. More later when I have studied more .

@neptune,  I think you only need to plumb the water exchange pipe to the bottom of the center section of the ZED.  But the physical pump is then raised to the correct height that the head pressure of the water column from the elevated pump system to the bottom of the ZED is equalizing an optimal amount of the ZED operating water pressures.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 24, 2012, 07:22:00 PM
@Mondrasec.What you say about the input pump makes perfect sense. We are likely to understand more about this at a later stage when Wayne explaines his inverted pump scenario.


 Looks like things are still on schedule for the Mark Dansie tests. The results of these tests will be a vital milestone. Public awareness of this technology is going to be an exponential curve. I would go so far as to say that once it has been in widespread use for 4 or 5 years, it might even get a small mention in mainstream media. I have always said that the first OU device to hit the market will cause changes on a scale that we are not capable of imagining.  It is going to make the Industrial Revolution seem like a vicarage tea party.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 24, 2012, 09:38:27 PM
On that note: does it amaze you yet on how much is going on in basically a single moving part (when they are attached together).
Wow, spend half of the day preparing for the hurricane and we get a Wayne storm of post. Thanks.
 
At first it did, but then it seemed it would be no difference if they are attached or separated by spacers and rising in unison, as long as the same surfaces areas receive the same PSI.
 
I'd liked to point out that it would not be a good idea to permanently attach on the acrylic model, it will need to be broken apart to repair leaks if they occur.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 10:14:05 PM
One point on Mark's visit,
 
Mark is a good skeptic - his aye on nay opens or closes the door to the access to the highest critiuqe.
 
Do not be misled into thinking that Mark's or any skeptics word will end speculation - that is not his purpose -
Mark's job is to route out the phoneys - the mistaken, and the confused and direct the real technology to those that can and will help.
When Mark's work is done - the real tests begin - and then you wll start to hear public non "fringe" discussions.
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 24, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
@mrwayne.Thanks for the remarks about Mark`s visit. Let us assume the Mark makes a favourable report, as I personally think he will. This will be a first step in the proverbial thousand mile journey. In some ways you will be in a worse position than Wilbur and Orville Wright. Whilst their achievement was momentous, it only made necessary the rewriting of books on aerodynamics. You have made it clear that you are not really interested in re-writing physics books, but what you are about to achieve will necessitate just that. As a side effect of what you set out to achieve, you are striking a body blow at the very heart and soul of physics as we know it . Rock solid concepts like entropy , and the laws of thermodynamics , are about to receive a strike that will rock them to their foundations. A lot of ivy league professors on fat salaries are going to be left wondering just what has happened.
        Do not expect an easy ride. Fasten your seatbelt. You do not strike me as being a quitter, so hang in there. I am with you all the way, and I am  not the only one.You have a tool that Wilbur and Orville did not have, The Internet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 25, 2012, 12:34:12 AM
Thank you Neptune,
History has a way of repeating itself - unless we learn from it, and then we can plan to do things diffirently.
I am sure you heard Mark D say that we were doing everything right -
What he means is that we are paving the way so that we do not repeat the errors that many others have made in trying to introduce a new understanding in the realm of physics - not a denial of what is understood.
The truth is - the understanding of physics has leaped year after year - it is immaturity that thinks that everything is understood and nothing new can be discovered.
It is also true that billions of dollars have been spent looking - someone wrote recently -
Paraphrasing - "History does not favor the idea that those with the most education or the most money make the greatest discoveries".
Mature minds know that discoveries are made by the people who chase anomolies - that many people write off as noise, fringe technology.
If I have one single giftedness - it is persurverance - no worries on faulire or quiting.
Thanks again
 Wayne 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 25, 2012, 12:34:52 AM
Physics laws cannot be broken.  They are known as "laws" because experiments can be done that predict the outcome.  So you can perform any experiment and the physics "law" will return the same answer as the experiment.  Everytime.  Both positive and negative.
 
In the case of Mr. Wayne's ZED we are not dealing with a physics law, AFAIK.  We are dealing with the "assumption" that a Conservative Field of Force cannot do Work.  This is not a "law."  It is only what has been observed throughout history (and therefor taught to students).  But there is a difference between this "assumption" and a "law".  The law can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment.  The assumption cannot.  This is because there is no experiment that can prove that the assumption is incorrect.  How do you "prove" that something is not possible?
 
Mr. Wayne may be rewriting the teachings about the "assumptions" that a Conservative Field of Force cannot do work.  But he is in no way rewriting the "laws" of physics.
 
As I have been taught, and have repeated:  The laws of physics are pretty good.  They have been used to launch rockets from Earth and deposit their payloads on Mars.  I mean, that is pretty good!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 25, 2012, 01:37:06 AM
He is doing no such thing. Apart from from unverified assertions that his device works as described, his explanations of how this occurs are nonsensical and demonstrably false.

Welcome back Seamus!  Please demonstrate the falseness?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 25, 2012, 02:53:04 AM
He is doing no such thing. Apart from from unverified assertions that his device works as described, his explanations of how this occurs are nonsensical and demonstrably false.

Essentially he is making the assertion that water can be made to flow uphill, gaining gravitational potential energy without the input of work. It doesn't, not in nature , nor in this device.

It is my policy to be respectful, but do not confuse my respectful nature with giving you permission to be disrespectful.
Here are the facts for Seamus:

You have created a new user name -  added 28 posts, all 28 on this thread, most assertions and misdirection of our claims.

You have failed at making one positive contribution to this thread -  In defense or denial of this thread.

And in regards to your last comment:
You already know that water flows in which ever direction up / down / sideways - away from the higher pressure towards the lower pressure.
 
The direction of water can be controlled by controlling those pressure differences,

The effect of gravity within that flow can and has been used for work for centuries.

You don't have to post here humorously, we are trying work together.

I am not sure how we have injured you to warrant your tainted  attention, but in case it was in my error - I am sorry.

Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 25, 2012, 05:18:55 AM
Seamus wrote,
"1. Post conclusive proof that a single layer system employing the travis effect could result in overunity energy, no matter how small.
2. Failing that, demonstrate what new mechanisms other than buoyancy and expansion/compression of air are in play and providing overunity energy in a layered system.
3. Failing that, provide a conclusive account of how you machine increases the *energy* (not just the forces) of a closed system,( ie without any external inputs no matter how small).
4. Failing that admit your machine is not OU.

Did you copy this list from Mark E and old Kanshi notes?"

You - just as Mark E, 
Have mistakenly set yourself up as the expert - in which you understand nothing about our system by your list of questions.

Lets start with your largest flaw in your question - which is the base of your argument for all the questions.
 
You make the assumption that layering a system can not improve the efficiency.

Your point in simple terms - would be to say that hooking two 35% efficient motors together does not make a 70% efficient motor - your would be right if that is what we have stated. - It is not what we have shown.

Each layer of the Travis effect adds to the total lifting capability - just like hooking motors together would -  the difference is in the input - adding layers does not increase the volume of our input - and the increase in pressure is not proportionate to the output.

I agree that hooking six 35% efficient 2hp Briggs ans stratton motors will net you 12hp - the increase in cost is proportionate to the output.
But you have ignored that stacking six layers of the ZED together increases the output at a disproportionate rate to the input -
which makes your questions - invalid.
Several forum members have offered calculators for weeks that you can use to verify the disproportionate aspect of our layering system.

To be clear, your list of questions is based on a fallacy in relationship to what has been shown..

If you are Mark E or speaking for him, do your homework as we have already discussed - if not - you can wait until the tests results are released.
You have not demonstrated the effort to understand.
Good night

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 25, 2012, 05:28:01 AM
Hello All,
Pretests begin in the morning, so my time to post will be very limited.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 25, 2012, 02:36:25 PM
A good question was asked by a college student,
"It is guessed that the weight of the riser assembly (piston/float + top deadweight) is equaled by the default upward buoyancy force of 4.8psi.  A 8psi would nearly double this force. "
 
The guess is wrong:
 The function of lifting a weight using the layering system has a different set of principles than using the weight to increase the pressure in the same chamber.
 
The linear scale of (hydro) pressure to lift increases toward ideal - this means we get more bang for the buck, lift more for pound in the higher range than in the lower - this is extremely useful - taking advantage of this relationship is fundamental.
 
In simple terms - increasing the pressure in the pod from 7 psi to 8 psi (hydro) of pressure will lift an additional 687 pounds (for the cost of 1 pound of work)
 In the lower scale - 3.8 psi to 4.8 psi (Hydro) 458 pounds creates 1 psi of hydro pressure -
 
So the input value depends on the point in the scale - the weight value - and the lift value is also controlled by that scale
 
 
If you put 5500 pounds of weight on both of the Zed - we would have 8psi at all points - same scale = no gain.
 
Currently - we uses the lower scale weight to increase the value of the sinking system - while benefiting from the higher range on the upstroke.
 
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 25, 2012, 02:50:02 PM
@Mondrasek. We basically share the same opinion on the laws of physics, and on assumptions. Perhaps the terminology I used could have been better. My point is this. Science is indeed a wonderful tool. It is the summation of all mankind`s knowledge up to the present day. But the worst assumption we can make is that we now know everything. Science needs to be updated in the light of new discoveries, which may lead to past assumptions being cast aside. After all we used to "assume" that the earth was flat. It only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black.People often fall into the trap of saying things like "There is no evidence that we can harvest energy from a conservative force." In the words of James Randi, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.


Here is something I have been thinking about. Wayne himself has said that this technology is not one-size-fits-all type of solution to the worlds energy problem. He has said that his device is probably not a cost effective way to power one home, but is more appropriate for groups of homes, farms, and industrial applications. And you will not be driving a Zedmobile anytime soon.
      Now think of first steam engines, used to pump water from mines . They were huge , cylinders of 6 feet diameter, and 30 foot flywheels . And boy, did they turn slow, maybe 20 RPM. A modern engine is much smaller, turns very much faster, and can have the same output power. So, within limits, the power of an engine is related to its speed. Wayne`s machine works slowly. There is probably an optimum speed of operation. We are pumping water through narrow gaps, that have to narrow. So the faster we force the water through, I suspect that the more energy we consume to do it. It seems logical that in a smaller demonstration model, that it could operate somewhat faster.
    So what I am saying is this. Although the energy density of this device is relatively low, if used for the right scale of application it is a world changer. And remember that this is just the beginning. Further development is inevitable.And equally important is the encouragement this will give to the searchers in other fields of energy research.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 25, 2012, 03:41:35 PM
@neptune.  Yep, we are on the same page.  I only chimed in to hopefully clarify if anyone might interpret your prior post to mean that physics laws are being broken.  I do agree that the amendments and new information that would be a necessary part of acceptance of a ZED system would require a lot of texts to be changed.
 
Here is an idea that keeps coming to the forefront of my mind.  I work for a Japanese company and have for over 20 years.  So the plight of the Japanese people in the aftermath of their Tsunami/Earthquake disaster was watched by me any my coworkers quite intently.  The fallout from those events affect our ability to provide product to our customers still today.
 
Japan had around 50 nuclear reactors in operation at the time of the disasters.  Currently they have zero in operation.  As each reactor has been taken offline for maintenance the people of Japan have successfully protested to keep them powered down.  So now they are a highly industrialized country that is starved for power.  Acceptance and licensing of the ZED technology in Japan could be a major kickstart to world change.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 25, 2012, 05:59:50 PM
I know nothing of the Japanese from personal experience, but as everyone knows they are very innovative people. When Japanese motorcycles first appeared in the UK, they were considered a joke. Within a few years, the joke was on us. Their machines were light years ahead of ours. Fukushima was headlines for a time, but now we hear nothing . The  Japanese have to live with it, in some ways forever. They are not the only nation having a No More Nukes policy. What is the reaction in the UK? Oh haven`t you heard, we are having10 brand new ones. Hopefully they will get the sheds built just in time to install the ZEDs. Japan is an energy revolution just waiting to happen. She is not in a position to wait long.
        What I would like to see is one customer running a factory on this, who can not only cope with the publicity and visitors, but who can turn these visits to their advantage. Guided tours anyone? Of course the best factory for the job would be a ZED factory.


UPDATE. I have just read the latest news on mrwayne`s website. Two items immediately caught my attention. Firstly, his team are working on an "Educational Model" I will be interested to find when that will be available, and under what circumstances.
       Even more vital, it would seem that now, the actual source of the energy has been discovered. I very much look forward to finding out what that is. Might even silence a few nay-sayers, but I doubt it...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 26, 2012, 01:20:09 PM
Hello Seamus,
I am glad you are doing your due dilligencse - good form.
 
I was going to ask you to explain this premise a little better, I am trying to follow your logic in your hypothetical example, but I realized you think our O/U comes from the precharge - no - It does not.

"To be 'overunity' the ONLY energy available to enable  cycling between the two states is represented by the initial state shown with a body of water initally raised above a free surface. This equates to a 'pre-charge' of the Zed device. At the end of the cycle this precharge must be at least fully intact and for overunity, be raised by delta h."
 
You seem to be saying (assuming) that energy for overuntiy must be present in the precharged "state" in order to cycle....... your premise of our operation is wrong.

If this is true - I am begining to see why you offer opposition, well done.

Before I continue - let me say - I agree with your conclusion based on your premise.

Your premsie - A sum of what you know and the assumption you based on those physics are correct.

For a little clarity - the precharge of the system is merely to set the stage for the operation of the system - it is "not" the operational - or cycling energy of our system.

Since you base your premise on the assumption that our energy to operate comes from that source - you can not analyze our process.

Precharge is set up - it is a one time cost to put the water and air into the chambers - it is only counted as a cost to account for all the energy that goes into the system - it is akin to counting the energy used to bolt the tire onto a car, or putting water into the radiator.

Why the cost of precharge is  mentioned - When our sketics reviewed our "Non" Hypothetical system - I graciously accepted the
"Exceptional Burden of proof" which included all input - including filling the tanks with water/air - as input energy.

The Sketics noted on the Video - that the Precharge values did not get consumed and continued to return to the same set up - each stroke - and even the next day - without any additional input.

Missing these points made by others is where you and I get seperated - those were key points to hear.

The level of sketisism - that we openly subitted to - was far beyound what you have realized - and we passed.

I will add another post repeating and expalining our operational process - and "energy in" and where it comes from.

Wayne
 

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 26, 2012, 02:23:36 PM
Operational input:

With both Zeds precharged (filled with water and air)
then equalized - (common Column equalization)
We have a state of being - where the resistance to lift (the weight of the risers and any added weight is counter balanced by the other Zed. Teeter taughter - is a good example of the static state.

That is very important - in the static state - nothing is moving - all things are equal
If the system were to be caused to move - the resistances change immediately.

The up going Zed will have the resistance of the hydraulic cylinder used to capture the buoyancy beyond the buoyancy used to float the riser and weight.

The lowering Zed has benefit of the weight of the riser and any additional weight.
To be clear - our teeter taughter - "when moving" is no longer equal

To start the "moving" - energy must be added to overcome the new resistance - the hydraulic cylinder.
Now follow closely - in the up direction - the added resistance 'increases" the required head pressure in order to overcome the "new resistance"

The energy added - become the new head - and the resistance is overcome - the system strokes and produces and stores the Hydraulic production - the energy added - continues until the end of the desired stroke.

Now - that head is still fully intact at the end of stroke - not just the value to overcome the resistance - but also the value to stroke.

The next step is to stop adding any energy - and equalization occurs again - everthing moves to center - naturally.

Note: the energy required to overcome the resistance - was converted during stroke into a second energy - while the original energy used is still intact - you see "head"  and the resultant air pressure "is" our opposite and equal reaction.

Now we are half way through a cycle - and heading the other direction - one difference than the start - the first Zed is still all the way up - and the other zed is all the way down.

Equalization after the stroke - is not the same as precharge set up - where both are at equal distances.

We call this position post "Free flow" when the higher tank (risers are higher - with fully charged Head) is allowed to flow into the lower Zed.

Free flow can be easily calculated (for those following) as the average between the top of stroke head and the bottom of stroke head (In my examples offered on line 6.7 psi hydro)

From the post free flow position we have a balanced teeter taughter pressure wise - but not in travel.
When we now reverse the direction of the system - the same resistance to upward travel is realized -

The energy required to overcome that Resistance is now less than the initial stroke (due to the Free flow pressure - both the available and the amount required to overcome the resistance.

That energy is added - at the rate needed no extra is needed - the resistance balances the input.

At half way through the travel and production (if we were to stop) the system will now mirror the original configuration.
The energy required to evercome the resistance is stable, and once again stored in the for of hydraulic production and an equal volume of energy is stored in the head.

And the system repeats.

At this point - it should be clear - that the production of the system is supplamented by the latereal transfer of "Head" into the other Zed - More than 50% as I have stated in previous explanations.

{Most engineers have their own OM-Gosh moment about here when they realize that this adds up to - in total - one Zed operates evenly and the other is totally free - which is why we say is general - if you want 100kw net free energy - we build two tanks capable of producing 100kw each - and net 100kw}

back to the operation:
Just at this stage of the operation - we have reduced our total input cost by half.

For Seamus - your drawing show large tanks - the rise of water in your tanks during the process to overcome the resistance will hardly be recognized as a value - but it is well understood that when creating a displacement:

At least three things are occurring:
Head is generated (stored energy)
Air is compressed(stored energy)
Buoyancy is realized (stored energy)

In your system - you are adding and subtracting the value of one effect you will need to adjust when you add your next example.

We are utilizing all three, and few we have not yet discussed -
 
Wayne
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 26, 2012, 02:31:24 PM
Oh, I forgot to state where our input energy comes from? - from the production.
Just as our input cost is reduced by Over 50%, that results in our production being over 50% above our need - Like Mark Dansie noted in his November Video.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on June 26, 2012, 03:22:52 PM
Wayne, any more details on the "educational models"?

Will it be a physical desktop model like others are working on here?

Thanks for taking the time to post here.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 26, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
Dennis is Hammering out the manufacturing details of the educational model.
At this point in Dennis's decision - it will be a simple input output system demonstrating the lifting of a larger weight the same time and Distance of a smaller weight.
A small version of what Mark Dansie witnessed back in May of last year.

Some of the members here are already involved with the project.

If you would like to get involved with it, just e-mail me and I will forward it to Dennis.

Let me be clear - Dennis is helping because he values open / honesty - our educational model is as something he looks forward to as well.
One of the mistakes inventors make is to claim to "endorsments by association" that is not my character.
I can quote Mark Dansie - because he has openly explained his position.
Dennis is Good and very intellegent man, whom I have chosen to trust, that is our relationship.
You are welcome for the posts, actually you all help me to put into words and view the operation of our system in clarity - I appreciate it.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 26, 2012, 03:57:46 PM
@mrwayne. Thanks for the detailed explanations. I am a bit unsure about your explanation about where the energy comes from. As I understand it , you are saying that we have an excess of energy because we have saved energy at the input, by using exhaust from the descending ZED. Sort of saying that there are two ways to increase your bank balance, one is by earning more, and one is by spending less.
       However, I believe that you said it is possible to build an OU machine using a single ZED, and although it is less efficient than a two ZED machine, it is still OU. That being the case, there is something else happening here. I suppose that conventional physics would say that it must in some way extract energy from outside itself. Just what form that energy takes, is hard to say. It could be gravity, or something else. But this is the question that sceptics will ask. It is possible that at this stage, this is a question to which you do not know the answer. There is no shame in that. Ultimately, all that matters is that it can be shown to work.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 26, 2012, 04:21:49 PM
Hello Neptune - it is time to test so i have to go,
But let me say - a single Zed system can demonstrate a gain over the operating cost - but it is not of much point -

Our Goal is to provide abundant excess energy - the two Zed system is better for that.
The "cannot beat" o/u comes from the simple travis effect as shown in Tom's Videos.

The whole operation is dependent on differential exchanges - namely caused by gravity.

The Physics of our system are simple - not magical as Seamus arrogantly alluded to in the naming of his drawing.

The cost of the entire operation is reduced by reusing the energy stored in the head - after the buoyancy has been captured.

The cost is less than the capture - before the resuse of the head (exhaust) because of the layering system.

You can check that with one of the calculatorslike Larry provided - compare to a common hydraulic cylinder - surface area x pressure = lift

we can lift more than a Hydraulic cylinder - which means if we were using a hydraulic cylinder to create the lift pressure and volume - we can capture more than used.

Remember - we use a 1"Si cylinder (input) to operate a 5"Si cylinder (Output) at the same pressure.

if you build a chart showing lift from 2 pounds to 9 pounds you will see a graph that climbs at a higher rate than a cylinder of matching surface pressure -

From an old note: 707 Si x 10psi would lift  7070 pounds - we lift 7700 with 9psi in our current three layer system.

BUT -on the low side 0-5 psi we are worse than a  hydraulic cylinder 5 psi only lifts 2500 pounds.

We use that to our advantage - it only takes 2500 pounds to create 5 psi hydro, exhaust

psi - the weight puts us in the operating range of being "above the hydraulic cylinder" at no loss.

Do the math - I have to go - crew standing by..

No magic - simple mechanical and operational uniqueness - mind boggling simple.....very good for this our energy needs.

Wayne
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 26, 2012, 04:47:46 PM
@Neptune.  Yes, if a single ZED shows OU, then, even though not as efficient as a dual, the loop can be closed to self run (by definition) -- as long as the loop closing mechanism does not lose all the excess in friction.  It has to be a relatively simple and pretty much friction free feedback system.  The dual setup has a nice straight forward symmetry for practical applications.  If an educational model is created as a single ZED, there is no particular reason that two could not be connected together for a dual ZED educational model.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on June 26, 2012, 06:41:00 PM
Hi Wayne,

You noted, "Free flow can be easily calculated (for those following) as the average between the top of stroke head and the bottom of stroke head (In my examples offered on line 6.7 psi hydro)" 

I presume the examples you refer to are shown in your post #373, "ZED through complete cycle-1"?
In that illustration, you show the pressure at the bottom of the head stroke as 4.8 psi, and at the top, 8.0 psi. And just as you said above, the post equalization free flow pressures are shown there as 6.7 psi.

For the sake of clarification, isn't the average between 4.8 and 8.0 not 6.7 but 6.4--or have I misunderstood/miscalculated?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 26, 2012, 07:03:29 PM
Hello Cisco,
Thanks for the clarity - most of the time when I am answering questions - I answer directly related to the operating pressures of that moment in time - it does not explain in detail all of the lessons learned and changes to the system - just the pressure.
6.7 was the free flow pressure when Mark was here - it was increased from the 6.4 by adding weight to the system.
So the range if ideal usage changes - which effects the value of the free flow - in pressure volume and speed of delivery.
The formula still works to each specific range of usage.
If you lowering pressure is 4.0 and your overcoming resistance pressure is 8.0 ----- 8 4 / 2 = 6  predictable Free flow pressure
Thank you for the correction.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 26, 2012, 08:36:16 PM
Update on design of the 6" OD clear acrylic ZED model:
 
Changed the outer tube back from 3/18" to 1/8" thick, since this works better once a preload weight is added.  Added a 2.2 lb weight (in calcs only) to the Outer Riser to load to approximately 1/3 of the "ideal" buoyancy potential, as far as I understand it.
 
I removed water from a fully stroked ideal setup until the Pod and Inner Riser were about neutral buoyant.  The volume of water removed was 5.748 in^3.  At this point the Outer Riser was still slightly buoyant so I removed water from the outer ring until it too was neutral buoyant.  I went back and drew the initial "Full" condition with this slightly reduced water volume and redid the calculations.  Now my system is preloaded to just slightly more than 1/3 of it's full buoyant lift potential, but I believe we are well within tolerance limits.
 
If my understanding is correct, removing the 5.748 in^3 of water should put this single ZED model at it's equivalent "free flow pressure?"  If so, removing 2 x 5.748 in^3 will define the amount of water that needs to be exchanged (with half a pump system) in order to define the system stroke?  I'm still trying to decide whether I have convinced myself of this or not.  Everyone's thoughts are appreciated.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 26, 2012, 10:31:49 PM
OK. It is Tuesday night. If everything goes according to plan, we can expect Mark Dansie to start his tests on Thursday. They say that patience is a virtue. But with a forthcoming event that is potentially much more important than the first man on the moon, waiting is not easy. I know that Mark is there to check that it works, and not to prove how it works. I seem to remember that Mark will spend a couple of days testing , but I am not certain. No doubt he will need time to get back home and write his report. I just hope that he will not make us wait too long before saying what he has to say. I know that Marks report is just the beginning, but it is a very important step. Personally I find it very exiting.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on June 27, 2012, 04:07:30 AM
   Neptune,
You are jokimg, right ?
  edit wayne run it for two days, it is a simple test. just have faith,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
OK. It is Tuesday night. If everything goes according to plan, we can expect Mark Dansie to start his tests on Thursday. They say that patience is a virtue. But with a forthcoming event that is potentially much more important than the first man on the moon, waiting is not easy. I know that Mark is there to check that it works, and not to prove how it works. I seem to remember that Mark will spend a couple of days testing , but I am not certain. No doubt he will need time to get back home and write his report. I just hope that he will not make us wait too long before saying what he has to say. I know that Marks report is just the beginning, but it is a very important step. Personally I find it very exiting.
I am excited to  - Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.
But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.
 
As Mark wisely says - it will be when it will be, do not rush this moment. - one of the mistakes inventors make - rush in and blow the one good chance (we will not blow it).
Now I send a Report each step of the way - and here is the one I just sent:
 Hello Men, Very good day.
 After replacing the last suspect leaking check valve - and the pressure loss remained - we pulled the lid off the Zed and found the leak was from the fitting under the lid inside the top of the Zed. - repaired and are leak free  at last!
 Matthew reversed the operation of his water level adjustment calculator - and gave us the low position based on our end of stroke data (high position)
 This is where the water level should be at the start of a cycle / so now we have both.
 We set it up, ran it and verified the accuracy.
 We also verified the production strength  :-) we are GOOD!
 In short - we gained 750 pounds lift per inch - above the internal input cost.........
 Everything is working great -
 In the morning we will be fine tuning the water level (minor changes) and running the system.
 I have one manageable set back - we only need 1.375 si cylinder for the lever arm assist - (the internal input) and we have the options of 1.0si and 2.0si
 Running 2.0si is a big waste - still over unity - but overkill the input -
 I used to be able to move the location of the cylinders - but not since we mounted it horizontally.
 Another option is lowering the output - by lowering the operating range - with less weight. - but that lowers our output too.
 The third option is to adjust the system to use all 2.0si - that puts us dangerously close to blowing skirts.
 I will have to make a decision,
 Thanks for your support.
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001524/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 27, 2012, 01:29:55 PM
Hi Seamus. Of course energy is added at every stroke. It comes from the output. This is called LOOPING.


Energy density increases as you scale up, in a non-linear fashion. How ever low the energy density is, it is still a WHITE CROW. The energy density of the present machine is higher than all the Hot Fusion devices ever built at a cost of Billions of dollars. It is indeed possible that white crows are the only type we will see, soon, as all the black ones will have been eaten by academics.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 02:07:13 PM
So,you admit that extra energy is being added at each stoke. How large is this input and what proportion of the net output is it? In this calculation do not include any energy that might be be recovered by exhausting the precharge energy.

Even if this device is overunity, and I am fairly certain it is not, it doesn't sound like the energy density of the output is large.

Seamus -
I tire of your immaturity, I have waited patiently - and you persist.

I am here sharing our world changing discovery - and you are busy eating "sour grapes" - what is up with you?

I would rather you chew your grapes here - and leave other inventors alone - I can take it.

One of the primary reasons I was able to find a system that produces Over Unity - was that I never tried to take a system and reduce all of the losses - instead I designed a system with Net energy - from the beginning.

I saw the Net energy possibilities in our Travis Effect - which I would not have seen if I was looking at reducing losses.

Your comments show "that methodology" as being lost in your dogma, I am sorry for you. I am merely humbled to be called the inventor - that's all - and I have the persistence and ability to see it through - I thank God for that.
 
We have never concerned ourselves with Over/Unity - My goal has been to provide Energy Independence -
And why you are such a turd about our long and hard efforts - must be pride.
 
We are very, and I mean very Over unity - and energy density - Our 50kw continuous model takes up the space of a full parking spot - and will power the average consumption of thirty homes (USA).
 
It operates with no Fuel, No emissions, Can run near Silently, and provides freedom.
 
p.s If it takes up too much room for you, have yours put in the basement - it does not need wind, the sun, nor any fossil fuel.

You might consider staying off all comments sites if you can't man up to your errors. I make them, make corrections and apologies, and then try not to repeat them.
 
On that same note: My engineers felt the same passion to protect the entropy idea of an  "operating system"  as well, yet they were professional about their original objections - and we are a good team now - you close doors, and very unprofessionally.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 02:17:10 PM
My web Guru added a guest book to my web site:
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)
If you would like to leave your mark - as witness to this work I would love for you to sign the book.
Also, I write weekly updates on the Current objectives page if you would like to keep track.
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 02:48:51 PM
Hi Seamus. Of course energy is added at every stroke. It comes from the output. This is called LOOPING.


Energy density increases as you scale up, in a non-linear fashion. How ever low the energy density is, it is still a WHITE CROW. The energy density of the present machine is higher than all the Hot Fusion devices ever built at a cost of Billions of dollars. It is indeed possible that white crows are the only type we will see, soon, as all the black ones will have been eaten by academics.
Hello Netptune
Our system can be scaled and linked to replace the power of Nuclear - much cheaper and with a smaller foot print, so no worries here.
Just clean - safe energy.
We are currently Blue printing our Beta Models -
Our due diligence means we allow the inspectors to come, so I also spend time with the Demo model.
Yet, our understanding of the design capabilities are very advanced, very clear, and very scalable.
 
Currently - thru direct contact, and those Mark has made - we are offering the funding of the Beta systems in exchange for exclusive rights of sales, manufacturing, distribution, and maintains.
 
I heard comments about open sourcing - open sourcing has yet to provide the funds to see the project through - our goal is to make sure energy Independence becomes a reality - first.
We have had preemptive offers, which I respect - they are in the process of vetting.
Unfortunately - some people see the opportunity and try to become middle men - we need to deal with the people who can make it happen.
Somebody out here is in the right position, the right mindset, with the right contacts or capabilities - and have just been waiting for this discovery - I welcome them.
That is how all of our hard work has moved ahead - it has been a blessing.
If we have any trouble, or people wait too long to get involved - we will use the demo model to claim a few Prizes - ;-) 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 27, 2012, 05:18:29 PM
@mrwayne. In a sense this project is already open source, in the sense that you are hiding nothing. Ok, there may be further stuff that you are not telling , until you are granted further patents. No problem with that . Before my health forced retirement, I was a business man, in the sense that I worked for myself, and made a good living. But I get the impression that you probably run a large and diverse business which is a whole different thing. However that puts you in a strong position to do research and development, and marketing. How many inventions have been lost because the inventor was not in a position to develop and market the idea.
        In its present form your machine is more suited to groups of homes rather than individual houses. That means that to benefit from this, there will need to be cooperation between groups of people. That in itself is no bad thing.
        You seem to have a step by step plan in place to bring this to the world. Although the need is urgent, it can be a case of more haste less speed. To build a Nuclear power plant takes 10 years. And here in the UK we are just starting to build 10 new ones . My hope is that by the time the buildings are complete, Nukes will be redundant. Here`s to the Future.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 27, 2012, 09:28:53 PM
This is a bit OT, but I love the sentiment expressed.  It is the same as I have expressed before about this device and others.  This particular one is an excerpt from:  A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion -- Edmund Storms.  It is his closing statement on page 40 that I think is great:

"Science has been successful because certain rules of evidence were adopted centuries ago, the so-called Scientific Method. These rules require that many people using different devices duplicate all novel observations. Such replications reduce the human tendency to deceive and to be deceived. In addition, the behavior observed in these various studies must show similar patterns, i.e. important variables must have the same effect in all studies, regardless of the equipment used. Having an explanation for a strange behavior is NOT initially necessary, although eventual discovery of an explanation is important. This is a good method and has served mankind well when it is faithfully applied. Science fails when these rules are ignored. They can be ignored several different ways, the most obvious being premature acceptance. Some scientists think premature acceptance is so damaging that they base their careers on protecting Science from such a violation. A less obvious problem occurs when evidence is ignored because a scientist does not WANT to believe results that conflict with a favorite theory. Initially, cold fusion was rejected for the former reason. Now rejection is based on the latter. The first rejection was valid and consistent with the Scientific Method. The present rejection is not."

"Skepticism, when carried to extreme, is as damaging as naive acceptance. At the present time, many people respect the skeptic for guarding the high ideals of science. Unfortunately, skeptics frequently cause much more harm by stopping progress, stifling originality, and turning creative people away from science altogether. Although many examples of this injury can be cited from many fields of science, the continued rejection of LENR is particularly egregious because of its vehement nature and the importance of the discovery..."

"Remember that new and strange claims do not have to be blindly accepted or blindly rejected, but only explored with an open mind. Important new ideas always conflict with conventional understanding. Such conflict should not be used as a basis for outright rejection before the possibilities have been carefully examined."
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 27, 2012, 10:21:33 PM
@Seamus101. If energy was added from an external source, such as an air compressor , a water pump , generator utc, I think Wayne would have pointed this out, or if he had not, Mark Dansie, or other independent examiners would have noticed . You say that all the output has to be used to reset the machine for the next stroke, and the output is nill. Wayne says about one third .
       At the moment all you, or I have to go on is what Wayne, and Mark et al says. Not unnaturally you want more than this.There are only 3 ways to remedy this.
1.Sign the NDA and go and have a look.
2.Build your own
3. Wait for Mark Dansie`s report, and the reports of other independent inspectors.
The question is how many reports will it take.There are still people who believe in a flat earth.This is something new and radical. The answers will not be found in your textbooks.
If you would rather I did not comment on your posts, ask, and I will desist.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 28, 2012, 01:48:03 PM
Hello All,
The Right question now should be asked - is where does the free energy come from?
I have shown where the exhaust from a lowering side is added to the input of a raising side and in doing so reduces the cost of the up stroke. Simple Water column equalization - on the surface a very common process.
Now let me teach you why Zed is so different than all the not Layered systems - why it produces a net excess energy.
Before you proceed - it takes understanding the full circle of the operating system - just a warning to those that look at one point in the system and make opinions.
Verify this with your own models - and calculators:
Record the stroking lift of your model. Divide that lift by the input pressure. - this will give you the lift per pound of input (Stroking lift is reduced from the ideal to allow for the stroke length desired)
Our stroking lift is 6000 pounds (the weight of the risers and the production). 6000/8.8=681
(Our Ideal is 7500)
Now take your ideal lift (not stroking lift), divide it by three. In our demo - ideal is 7500 pounds/3=2500
Now lower your input pressure in your model until it will only lift that amount (2500).
Take that input pressure and divide it by the reduced lift 2500/5.0 = 500
In recap so far at stroking pressure - or production pressure - we are lifting 6000 pounds total at a input cost of 8.8 psi, that results in a term we call (Effective Surface Area) this is not a real surface area - it is a calculated number that tells us how much lift we are getting per pound.
The 681 is the ESA and is also the value of lift per pound we cost to desired stroking lift.
The weighted risers - total 2500 pounds - this results in a pressure of 5.0 and has an ESA of 500 - this is also the value of one psi input -
At stroke pressure 1 psi = 681 Pounds lift
At sink pressure 1psi = 500 Pounds lift
Total pressure needed to stroke is 8.8
Of the at 8.8,  'At least" 5.0 is coming from the lowering Zed (more during the free flow and the third quarter of travel) .
So our operating cost - is 8.8 - 5.0 = 3.8
Our stroking Zed is lifting 6000 - 2500 weight and risers = 3500 pounds Production
Now take the production and calculate the ESA 3500/3.8=921
Our input value - is 1 psi = 921 pounds lift
(The combined value 6000/8.8 is ESA 681) - the lift per pound if we supplied the input without using the exhaust or weight.
(Note: Our pod chamber - which is the input volume - is 737surface inches)
Now the input we use - comes from that 921 per pound production - looped - its value is already increased - and when we use it
That increased value gets increased again - because we only have to use the portion of the production that equals the NON increased value.
In our small model 60% of each Production stroke - is enough to overcome all the losses in our system (all nine energy exchanges w/losses are over come - with less than 60% of the production.
40% is our Net - this is our worst case scenario.
In recap:
The up stroke cost portioned - 5.0 psi was provided at a cost of 500 pounds per psi
 and the 3.8 psi was provided at a production value 921 pounds per psi ZED - in a cylinder (actual surface area) 737.
(the actual surface area is the physical input volume) The layering system makes our Zed lift more per volume and psi than a hydraulic cylinder in the upper range - and worse than a hydraulic cylinder in the lower range.
That means we can lift two weights at the same time and get the super effectiveness of the up stroke - and remove on of the weights (production) and the other weight requires a higher pressure to maintain its lift - or .... provides a higher value pressure to supplament another system.
Compare this system to a hydraulic cylinder if 5 psi lifted 2500 pounds, 8.8 psi would lift 4,400  Zeds 8.8 lifts 6000
Questions?
 
Wayne
p.s I would love to hear in your own words a description of this effect - I would love a simplified way to share this with others.
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 28, 2012, 06:28:06 PM
The Hobby Travis effect model was built using the Material Take Off spreadsheet and foam board. All front walls were left off for visibility, the front wall is the same size as the back wall, so no issue. It proves that the MTO is accurate. The model does expand a lot per riser, but this is due to using .25 material thickness and .25 gap and pod 2.00 X 6.75.
 
If you want to change the gap and material thickness to .20, change 'Riser 4-Side Increase' value to 1.60 and the 'Thickness' value to .20.
 
I do not intend to build the model, as I don't need convincing and am fortunate enough not to need the money. I will assist anybody who wishes to build. The latest MTO and calculator spreadsheet files are attached at the bottom. Lowes and Home depot will cut the acrylic, if needed.
 
This model has a predicted lift force of 54 pounds. But, if a model with a 18.00 X 6.00 pod was built then the lift would be 350, so it increases rapidly and can easily become too much to control.
 
@Wayne,
Please approve the MTO, or point out any modifications that should be made, as I'm sure no one will build without your approval.
 
An issue with building a 4 Riser acrylic model is that it will be difficult to see the air location, since it will be surrounded by layers of water.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 28, 2012, 07:15:42 PM
Very Sweet,
Thank you Larry,
One big suggestion - The .20 clearnance is for our 6 and 12 foot tall models.
The pressures adds up inside - but the wall do not have to be stroneger than needed for the head of one layer.
The Pod is a big gain to the system - so look at the ratio from my perspective?
Does downsizing it make it impossible for this relationship?
Thank you again - could I add your work to my journal?
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 28, 2012, 07:26:51 PM
@LarryC. Congratulations on your build. Obviously a lot of time, thought, and calculation went into that. One thing that springs to mind, is that it would be possible to do a hybrid build. By that I mean the use of two different materials, one of which is translucent [see through] and one of which is not. So only the front walls of each compartment are translucent. This would perhaps keep material costs down. It is impressive how the "power output" increases dramatically with a relatively modest size increase, and for a model, as you say it would not need to be very large before things got out of hand. Would it be possible to formulate a rule to show the relationship between size, and lift? Is the lift proportional to the volume of the machine, or combined area of all the risers X pressure, or something else?
       Personally I still think that one of the problems of building a working model is assessing the water level in each compartment. In an earlier post, I suggested loops of translucent pipes running externally, and connected between the top and bottom of each body of water . Wayne says he has used this but it is problematic. It is not totally solved by a transparent machine due to multiple layers.
Wayne has said that a 4 layer machine is not much better than a 3 layer, so is it worth the extra work?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 28, 2012, 08:14:56 PM
@mrwayne. In your last post you told us of the importance of the pod-to-riser diameter ratio.


Question. Please tell us if the ratio of diameter of outer tank to its hight is an important one.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 28, 2012, 09:34:32 PM
@mrwayne,
 
I have found that trying to lower the ZED model from it's neutral buoyant condition is very time consuming to calculate.  This is because the volume of the chamber that contains the air and water channels between the Riser layers is also collapsing as the entire Pod and Riser group descends.  This causes the water head in these areas to rise again and buoyancy to rise above neutral for everything except the Pod.
 
These observations are with an unloaded ZED however; one loaded to 1/3 of ideal only by it's own material weight and additional weights to make it that value.  So the entire system should still sink once loaded to 80% for "production."
 
All this leads me to believe that the actual working stroke is much less than what I had imagined.  Can you give us an idea how much you are stroking your test set up?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 28, 2012, 10:12:09 PM
One big suggestion - The .20 clearnance is for our 6 and 12 foot tall models.
The pressures adds up inside - but the wall do not have to be stroneger than needed for the head of one layer.
The Pod is a big gain to the system - so look at the ratio from my perspective?
Does downsizing it make it impossible for this relationship?
Thank you again - could I add your work to my journal?
More difficult to build, but yes it can be done.
The acrylic at Lowes are Optix - 20x, Duraplex - 50x, and Lexan-250x (x times glass strength). Each has an increase in price, but not as much as the strength. The easiest technique is to have the 1/4 inch Optix cut at the store and glue (actually plastic welding) them together. 1/8 would not hold up well with this technique. Another technique is the 'Hinge' method where V grooves are cut and they are then folded into a complete box. It requires a router table or a table saw with a V blade. This would work with the 1/8 as the glue surface area is increased. I would only use this to make a four sided box and the top of the riser should be cut separately, as this would not work well for deep boxes. Just google 'acrylic box construction' to see videos.
 
In the attached spreadsheet, the gap and material thickness is set to .125. The retainer 2 wall would be equal to your 2 riser system shown. Retainer 2 is 10.50 and 8.00 is Pod, or 1.25  to each side of the Pod. I used a computer ruler to take the width relationships off your system and it would be 1.76 to each side, so actually a little better. But if you want the same, a combinations of sizes could be used, like Riser 1/4 and Retainers 1/8. It would also require a thicker material on the top of outer Riser as the total lift force is 221 in a 4 Riser system.

Edit: Just ran another spreadsheet with .25 material thickness and .125 gap and it came out to 1.86 per side. A little over, but close. It seems that just starting with a much wider Pod reduces the relationship issue.
 
Yes, you or anybody, can add anything I post to whatever you wish.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 28, 2012, 10:41:53 PM
@LarryC. Congratulations on your build. Obviously a lot of time, thought, and calculation went into that. One thing that springs to mind, is that it would be possible to do a hybrid build. By that I mean the use of two different materials, one of which is translucent [see through] and one of which is not. So only the front walls of each compartment are translucent. This would perhaps keep material costs down. It is impressive how the "power output" increases dramatically with a relatively modest size increase, and for a model, as you say it would not need to be very large before things got out of hand. Would it be possible to formulate a rule to show the relationship between size, and lift? Is the lift proportional to the volume of the machine, or combined area of all the risers X pressure, or something else?
       Personally I still think that one of the problems of building a working model is assessing the water level in each compartment. In an earlier post, I suggested loops of translucent pipes running externally, and connected between the top and bottom of each body of water . Wayne says he has used this but it is problematic. It is not totally solved by a transparent machine due to multiple layers.
Wayne has said that a 4 layer machine is not much better than a 3 layer, so is it worth the extra work?
Thanks, actually it was tedious, but all the sizes were taken off the MTO spreadsheets.
 
Two different materials would not be advised, as the glue actually melts the two surfaces or acrylic welding. But two different size acrylics, 1/4 an 1/8 could be used on each box.
 
Just use the Travis Effect Calculator spreadsheet to find total force for any combination.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 29, 2012, 12:39:41 PM
To me it sounds like you have invented the equivalent of a longer lever. No mention of the energy involved in this description at all. Force multiplication does not equal extra energy produced unless that force is maintained over an equivalent stroke length. Can we see analysis that integrates both the forces and the distance over which they act, and show that there is a net increase.

Also it is not important that the energy to reset the stroke comes partially from  the other side. This simply represents the oscillation of the stored precharge energy, again with no net increase.
Thanks Seamus,
Study the non linear function of our "Lever" and you will see what you are missing.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 29, 2012, 01:31:52 PM
@mrwayne,
 
I have found that trying to lower the ZED model from it's neutral buoyant condition is very time consuming to calculate.  This is because the volume of the chamber that contains the air and water channels between the Riser layers is also collapsing as the entire Pod and Riser group descends.  This causes the water head in these areas to rise again and buoyancy to rise above neutral for everything except the Pod.
 
These observations are with an unloaded ZED however; one loaded to 1/3 of ideal only by it's own material weight and additional weights to make it that value.  So the entire system should still sink once loaded to 80% for "production."
 
All this leads me to believe that the actual working stroke is much less than what I had imagined.  Can you give us an idea how much you are stroking your test set up?
 
Thanks,
 
M.
@M.
I have not explored the unloaded Zed - in our Demo model - with no additional load it takes 1.9 psi to lift 900 pounds worth of riser.
Or 4.4 feet of accumulated head.
This is the sinking Pressure - you can not get below this pressure unless you are setting on bottom.
The Risers and Pod will not begin to lower until after the 1.9 drops to 1.8and immediately - when the pod and riser drops the pressure returns to 1.9 - until bottom is hit.
With no load - you can float the system 2.0 and sink the system 1.8.
With our added weight 1600 pounds ( 900 =2500) - we have 5.0 pounds of pressure 4.9 sinks and 5.1 floats
When we add our Hydraulic load 3500 pounds ( 900 2500 =6000) - we have 8.8 pounds of pressure
So if you start at 4.9 (sunk) and you increase to 8.8 you are in production mode - How much production is based on stroke length.
The maximum pressure in our system is 10.4 - so you have the ability to stroke to the same place -if you were to stroke to 10.4.
As you stroke (loaded with 6000) - your head does change but a fraction you merely raise the water level below the Pod.
The load maintains the head - so the pod chamber diameter becomes you volume of stroke Per inch.
In our case 737 inched
On that note 737 x 3.8 =2800 That is what a hydraulic cylinder can lift
we add 3.8 to lift 3500....................... Seamus pay attention.
The 2500 gives us a pressure of 5.0
8.8 = total of 6000
1.9 lifts 900
To all - Build a linear chart comparing the hydraulic cylinder and our Zed - if you have not had your OM-Gosh moment - it is time.
I would like to hear from more of you who have, and Thank you.
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
Wayne
 
 @M if I did not answer your question - I was not sure I understood the question?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 29, 2012, 01:47:04 PM
@mrwayne. In your last post you told us of the importance of the pod-to-riser diameter ratio.


Question. Please tell us if the ratio of diameter of outer tank to its hight is an important one.
Well, Pod to riser "GAP" was the point specifially: that the pod is nearly a bonus to the lift - it is good to have it as large as you can, considering the smallest gap you can. Don't throw away its value with big gaps - is the point. and since the largest gain in the system comes from the riser above the Pod -make it priority in your models.
Next question: Ratio to Hieght to Diamter - depends on what you value
We have models that are 860% effeceint - and the prodcue less net than our 340% system.
So do you want to blow the minds of people - or supply more power.
SO - yes they matter, taller reduces the non lenier function -
The non lenier is awesome to reduce our input cost.
Wider incereases power very quickly.
Layers increase the non lenier - so our model selects the sweet spots for both.
Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 29, 2012, 05:52:36 PM
@M if I did not answer your question - I was not sure I understood the question?

You gave enough information for me to understand where I think I need to focus next on the cylindrical model analysis.  So the actual question is not important for that, but still I would like to know:  What is the production stroke that you use in your 6 foot tall ZED systems when they are in full automatic operation.  If you can share that info...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 29, 2012, 06:34:42 PM
I have been giving some thought to mrwayne`s suggestion about making a linear chart. I will freely admit that mathematics is not my strong point. So I think by a linear chart he probably means a graph. Obviously we have to be careful to compare apples with apples and not oranges. It is usual to start with some assumptions. So we assume that for the purpose of this graph, we will use one zed. We know the size of this ZED, and we know how much water we need to inject into it to "stroke" it, and at  what pressure. We know how much weight it is going to lift and what distance it will be lifted.
    The equivalent hydraulic system we will use for comparison. It just consists of two interconnected cylinders, or if you like giant syringes. The input cylinder or pump will be designed to pump the same amount of water as is used to stroke the ZED. The diameter of the output cylinder will be chosen so that it has the same stroke length as the ZED . So both systems will have the same input volume and pressure.
    So we have a two axis graph. Question is, what do the two axes show? Is one for the amount of weight lifted, and the other for input pressure? Would that show what we want to show?
    So now we have two curves on the graph, one for the hydraulic system and one for the ZED. We may want to show a third curve for a two ZED system.
    These are just the initial thoughts of a layman. Could be complete Bullshine. Come on guys , someone can do better than this?






Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 29, 2012, 06:38:59 PM

You gave enough information for me to understand where I think I need to focus next on the cylindrical model analysis.  So the actual question is not important for that, but still I would like to know:  What is the production stroke that you use in your 6 foot tall ZED systems when they are in full automatic operation.  If you can share that info...
 
M.
Our available stroke length is 7.75 inches at 6000 pounds - we only stroke 3 inches (limited by Bag selection).
Even if we had a longer bag, or wider cylinder - we would not stroke 7.75 - for reliability - to close to ideal means risking blowing skirts (air or water to next layer).
 
Thanks
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 29, 2012, 07:14:29 PM
I have been giving some thought to mrwayne`s suggestion about making a linear chart... So we have a two axis graph. Question is, what do the two axes show? Is one for the amount of weight lifted, and the other for input pressure? Would that show what we want to show?

I am actually working on this idea right now.  I think the essence would be shown by stroke position vs force of the input compared to the stroke position vs force of the output.  So one axis would be the stroke position for in and out.  The other axis would be the force generated -- in two lines, one for in and one for out.  Some scaling may be required to overlay the lines.  A straight hydraulic piston can be also plotted in the same way.  Integrating the force over the distance of input and output might also make an interesting curve. 

Creating the formulas is step one.  They can be plugged into the WolframAlpha dot com site to draw the graphs. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 29, 2012, 07:55:58 PM
I have been giving some thought to mrwayne`s suggestion about making a linear chart. I will freely admit that mathematics is not my strong point. So I think by a linear chart he probably means a graph. Obviously we have to be careful to compare apples with apples and not oranges. It is usual to start with some assumptions. So we assume that for the purpose of this graph, we will use one zed. We know the size of this ZED, and we know how much water we need to inject into it to "stroke" it, and at  what pressure. We know how much weight it is going to lift and what distance it will be lifted.
    The equivalent hydraulic system we will use for comparison. It just consists of two interconnected cylinders, or if you like giant syringes. The input cylinder or pump will be designed to pump the same amount of water as is used to stroke the ZED. The diameter of the output cylinder will be chosen so that it has the same stroke length as the ZED . So both systems will have the same input volume and pressure.
    So we have a two axis graph. Question is, what do the two axes show? Is one for the amount of weight lifted, and the other for input pressure? Would that show what we want to show?
    So now we have two curves on the graph, one for the hydraulic system and one for the ZED. We may want to show a third curve for a two ZED system.
    These are just the initial thoughts of a layman. Could be complete Bullshine. Come on guys , someone can do better than this?
Hello All,
This graph shows our actual internal input cost (psi) on our demo model and the resultant lift in pounds.
This is after the weight and risers are lifted - so add 5.0 psi to see actual psi.
The weight of the risers  weights = 2500 - and they create on the down stroke 5.0 psi.
Notice what the added input is to lift another 2500, and then what 5.0 more lifts....
This is what we mean by non linear.
p.s Ignore the first ten or so points - the cylinders had cross over pressure in them - start where the lift begins.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 30, 2012, 12:32:48 AM
The attached spreadsheet is intended to help in the understanding of Wayne's reply 746. In blue the nonlinear aspect and sweet spot is easy to see and it is mathematical proof of OU. Hope you get your OMG. The spreadsheet file is also included, just change the yellow fields for your model.
 
Edit: Some of the relationships are based on Wayne's 3 layer demo unit that he described in 746, it would need to be adjusted for higher layer models as they would be more efficient.

Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:12:42 PM
Can I ask where the energy comes from to 'merely' raise the water level of the pod? If it comes from the other Zed then there is no overunity present as you have simply depleted the potential of the other side. All that potential needs to be restored and the net effect is zero. If it comes from an external water supply then you have invented a generator powered by the head of the water supply. No OU there either.

This situation reminds me of a question once posed by my high school physics teacher who asked us to show why a float rising through a free surface was not a source of free energy. A naive analysis based around forces showed it to be so as it neglected to consider the change in height of the water surface as the float was sunk into it.

Sorry about your teacher.
 He should have shown the energy potential in the height of the water raised, the value of the compressed air in the float, and the value of the down ward force caused by the buoyancy - and in a tiny degree - the humidity, temperature change, and the friction in the water.
The Force calculations should have raised the question "where is "all" the missing energy? Even using Energy instead of force - you can only find 67% of the energy in buoyancy - that means something was unknown, not observed, or not utilized.
That's what I was looking for when I discovered the Travis Effect - a volumetric based equation does not give the answer.

To your Question:
Two parts - we do not consume the energy from the other Zed - as I have shown before - the head is not consumed in the process - we transfer it laterally from side to side - your teacher did not ask you what the cost of moving a floating object side ways -
Until the Zed - no one had a use for that idea - the Zed does. (we move the raised water - as your example - in the form of head - side ways back and forth - and then when we do - the value of our float goes from float to sink - allowing us to operate the float in a cycle. This accounts for 5 psi worth of work, in our system - that we do not add or subtract  during operation.
Second: the 3.8 pounds of input comes from part of the production - Which is produced at the high side of our ESA.
I hope this helps, Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.
Mark is on Standby - he is very graciously patient. As you already know - we update his group most every day.
Update on Mark's return:
We ran into a few minor technical problems - which have been resolved - so our Pretrial runs begin again Today.
Here is a copy of the last few update letters to Mark's Group:
June 26
Hello Men, Very good day.
 After replacing the last suspect leaking check valve - and the pressure loss remained - we pulled the lid off the Zed and found the leak was from the fitting under the lid inside the top of the Zed. - repaired and are leak free  at last!
 Matthew reversed the operation of his water level adjustment calculator - and gave us the low position based on our end of stroke data (high position)
 This is where the water level should be at the start of a cycle / so now we have both.
 We set it up, ran it and verified the accuracy.
 We also verified the production strength  :-) we are GOOD!
 In short - we gained 750 pounds lift per inch - above the internal input cost.........
 Everything is working great -
 In the morning we will be fine tuning the water level (minor changes) and running the system.
 I have one manageable set back - we only need 1.375 si cylinder for the lever arm assist - (the internal input) and we have the options of 1.0si and 2.0si
 Running 2.0si is a big waste - still over unity - but overkill the input -
 I used to be able to move the location of the cylinders - but not since we mounted it horizontally.
 Another option is lowering the output - by lowering the operating range - with less weight. - but that drops our output too.
 The third option is to adjust the system to use all 2.0si - that puts us dangerously close to blowing skirts.
 I will have to make a decision,
 Thanks for your support.
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
June 27
Hello Men,  Better day than our very good day yesterday.
 Matthew built me a lever arm calculator (excel) so I could make the adjustment once - lol
 Then took a cat nap and I slept on my Lever arm decision - and came up with a fourth alternative -
 Step one - Drop one section from the three section production cylinder (leave it open it to the reservoir).
 Step two - charge the accumulator from 550 psi (nitrogen) to 950 psi.(Chickasha Industrial will be here 9:00am)
 Step three - remove the lever arm two from the staging program.
 Step four - Adjust the gate valve to accommodate the speed increase.
 Step five - set starting position and hit it!
 In summary:
 Using only one lever arm - at the higher pressure will give us the right force to create the same/better pressure at the production cylinder
 This will result in a higher net production, and happens to be the pressure our Hydraulic {Motor not pump} pump is designed for - which means we will provide more torque, volume and rpm to the generator - and the Zed's run faster.......
 p.s. We had one poppet valve for the cross over function fail - that is the section we will bypass.
 Everything just fell perfectly into place ;-)
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
June 28
Hello Men, Made the changes mentioned yesterday - the poppet valves did not hold under the higher pressure - so I had them disabled. We do not have to have them to run. We began running at 3:30 pm.
 The Data showed that one of our cylinder (sections) was not building pressure - probably an air bubble form pulling the Poppets.
 I had meetings all day until about 9:00pm - We will vent the system and pull data in the morning.
 Even with the one exception - the system is running well - and the set up (which we keep practicing and improving) - is going very well.
 We are close, maybe a day away.
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
June 29
Hello Men,
I have to say I am disappointed (that we did not finish this week) - I really wanted to be done by the 28.
 The Poppet valves that could not handle the pressure - yesterday we blocked the ports so we could run without them - the block - did not hold - so we went ahead and removed them completely and plumbed the sections.
 We can later re-install a new better valve.
 We have bled the lines, and after my 7:00 meeting in the morning - I run again.
 Some good news - the set up worked perfectly again, and the new procedure allows us to set up on the low end - instead of the high end - which will help with the "measuring setup cost to".
 I will be working through the weekend - and I hope you have a great weekend and a Fourth of July.
 We will be doing a designed experiment on sloping the water levels - we have noticed that we can get better lift - from the same (total) pressure - by the way we set up the layers.
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001539/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:36:48 PM
Our poppet valves have nothing to do with the Zed functions - it is a system I designed to turn a inefficient hydraulic system into Near zero loss system (hydraulics only)
They were very hard to locate (exactly what I needed) when I bought them -
Apparently I accepted a pressure rating less than the rest of the system - (3000 psi).
So We pulled those out Yesterday - until we, or somebody out here can help us find better ones.
We could not run with them leaking bye.
Now, We resume testing - when we finish mark will be here.
From Mark Dansie
June 26
"great news
Mark (from Mark)
 Wish I was there this is exciting times
 I will be soon as your ready only need a days notice."
[font=]
 [/font]
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 30, 2012, 05:45:09 PM
Whilst we are waiting for Wayne`s tests and Mark`s tests, Here are some random thoughts about transmission. The transmission is a vital part of any machine but especially this one. In a recent post Wayne has said that his hydraulic system is a low loss system .I know little about hydraulics, but I would expect that the overall efficiency of that hydraulic system is probably about 80% .
      The problem we face is that we like our energy in the form of electricity because it is so versatile. But efficient generators need to spin fast, and the ZED machine is slow moving. Any transmission that involves a wide gear ratio is going to have losses. Interestingly, Wayne talks about the use of a crankshaft in proposed larger machines. I am just wondering if a similar approach in a smaller machine would be more cost effective than hydraulics. No doubt Wayne has considered this.
       In manufacturing any machine it is vital to keep costs low. Here is my rough guess as to how such costs would pan out .
                             ZEDs- 25% of total costs


                              Generator and electronics-25%


                              Hydraulics- 45%


                               Miscellaneous-5%
  So that is just a guess, but it is obvious that the first place to look at saving money could be the transmission.




                               

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 30, 2012, 06:10:20 PM
@neptune,  well said.
 
I have to go cut up some trees that fell in my Mother-in-law's yard during some unexpected storms yesterday evening and night.  So I can't look this up, but what is the transmission efficiency of a Muller type generator?  (kind of ironic, eh?)
 
Just curious myself and hope someone else has the time to do the research.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on June 30, 2012, 06:22:26 PM
Stopped at Lowe's today and talked to the Acrylic cutter. The machine appeared to be very capable of  good accuracy, but it depends on the cutter. I asked how accurate and was told it could be up to 1/8 off. Asked if I could use MM, was told only inches, then showed him on the machine that it had MM on the rulers, he said I guess we could. The other issue is that it is a scoring machine where they will score then snap off the piece, so the cut edges would need to be block sanded with 2000 grit wet sandpaper.
 
Called ACE and they didn't exactly understand my question, just said they could cut to any 1/16.
 
Checked online and this place http://www.eplastics.com/Plastic/Lexan_Clear_Polycarbonate_Sheet (http://www.eplastics.com/Plastic/Lexan_Clear_Polycarbonate_Sheet) will cut your MTO for a reasonable charge and with accuracy to .030".
 
Edit: Noticed they had 3/16 size online, this may be the best fit for the model, using 3/16 material and 3/16 gap. Compared to Wayne's drawing with 1.76 on each side, this would be 1.86 on each side. It is wide enough to glue and more stiffness than 1/8. 
 
So the best would probably be Online.
 
But check with me first before using the MTO to order, as I may have some adjustments in mind.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 06:25:39 PM
Just a quick note - our re-usage of a portion of the production is relatively efficient
But transferring the excess to production is a very standard poor.
Thank Goodness, we have abundant excess.
We do not have the same problem facing LENR, we produce electricity in excess - even with the transmission cost.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 30, 2012, 07:11:43 PM
@Mondrasek. I am not sure that I fully understand your question. When you speak of a "Muller type" generator, are you talking of a permanent magnet alternator, or one using the alleged Lenz law cancelling principle, which is proving so elusive. Wayne is using a wind generator type alternator. These are permanent magnet alternators designed to work at a few hundred RPM, as opposed to say , a car alternator which typically need to spin at several thousand RPM. Wind generator alternators are relatively expensive, but can have efficiencies better than 90%, whereas a car alternator can have an efficiency as low as 27%! So untill and unless someone cracks the Lenz law thing, wind alternators are our best bet .
         Looking at the video, the ZEDs seem to complete one cycle in roughly 10 seconds, so when connected to a crankshaft, that would give us a crankshaft speed of 6 RPM. So we would need a gear ratio of roughly 100 to 1. As a guess we could expect such a gear box to have at best an efficiency of 50%. Fortunately, as Wayne says, we have an abundance of energy to play with. It is possible that a better way will be found, but right now, Wayne has a cost effective working solution.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on June 30, 2012, 08:59:21 PM
When it comes to electric generators, it is not RPM, but surface speed that counts.  For instance, if a 6 RPM crankshaft was connected to a very large diameter flywheel with high performance magnets on the outer surface, It could be an efficient generator.  The inertia of the flywheel would help when the load on the generator varies.  However, the inertia of the flywheel would also force the ZEDs to run at a single natural frequency.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on June 30, 2012, 10:01:37 PM
@see3d. Actually that is an interesting point. There might even be a cost effective compromise here. For instance, we could gear up from the crankshaft by a modest 3 to 1, which would then need a flywheel only one third the size, for instance. Somewhere in there is the best compromise of gearbox ratio, gearbox efficiency,flywheel diameter, surface speed and cost. To a professional mathematician, a problem like that is a dream come true.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on June 30, 2012, 11:31:29 PM
@neptune, by "Muller type generator" I meant one that has and odd number of rotating magnets vs. an even number of coils (or vise versa) so that the "cogging" of the generator is minimized.  I personally am not sure how efficient those types of generators are.  But I believe they are used in modern wind turbines, so I assume they are the least loss conversion method we know of.
 
The last time we collaborated was on a "Muller" type system, IIRC.  So I thought that fact was humorous.
 
Maybe it's just me?  Either way, cheers!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 01, 2012, 12:43:07 AM
Hello Seamus,
I do not deal in "predictions" - nor opinion, nor guesses, nor dogma, nor feelings.
All of our testing has been physical testing, repeatability, consistency - hands on experimenting - real research.
 
Study the useage of a Non linear functioning system -
When you understand it - you will see that "the Load" improves our efficiency.
Thanks
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 01, 2012, 12:27:58 PM
And that's another twenty pages of OU in words.

Seamus i'm still with you.

Wayne, Let's hope the world sees your discovery soon. (again)
Hello Again Micro controller -
"Twenty pages" to show - Our physics are good and verifiable, our design is good and verifiable, our process is good and verifiable - our concept is original and verifiable.

I have explained at a pace that most were willing to follow, slower than some, and too much for others - but enough.
All have been given more than enough to know that our system is completely O/U.
It works in the simple, it works in the complex, it works in the physical, it worked last year, it works today.
I have given of my time, willingly.

Times have changed:
For 2000 years, the O/U cynic has the best chances of being right  - it is not much different than betting that people who purchase a lottery ticket are going to lose - history is in your favor.

This used to be an easy win for the cynic, times have changed.

I can not be responsible for you, the question now is of your own integrity;
How do you handle yourself when you make the bet against the winner.

Did you do your home work, on this bet?
If you did, show the integrity.

Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 01, 2012, 02:16:16 PM
For those considering or building a model and want to see the water/air levels in each layer, how about a small, colored, floating bead of some sort in each annulus?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 01, 2012, 02:52:23 PM
@Mondrasek. The bead idea is very clever. Such beads would have to be very small of course. Perhaps we could find beads of a retro-reflective material, so they would show up better.
@Microcontroller. In any machine of this size, there are bound to be teething troubles, and that includes leaking valves. This is not like buying a machine from a department store with a one year guarantee. Anyone who has built things from scratch, will have experience of this.
      We have waited since the dawn of civilisation for something like this. What is another week, or another month. In the meantime, let us behave like mature adults, and treat each other with respect.





Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 01, 2012, 02:56:42 PM
Not good form Micro.
@All
Here is a simple drawing showing our system -
P.s. don't get hung up on a 3 psi generator - this is just for example - we increase the presure - a pressure increaser - instead of gears.
It is really this simple.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 01, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
@ All,
The calcualtors such as Larry, and other have presented will confirm our "Word" claims.
Micro,
We have shown the world - and the skeptics - and do you know what they wanted next - the "words"
and the Data, and the understanding - you seem to value these the least.
At some point, you will realize you have been given a treasure - hard earned, and labored over for four years - right now - you see nothing, in time - I have faith in you.
Concerning our leaking valve:
In any Alpha testing stage - you run into these problems - I have deveolped working proto types before, it is part of the natural process.
We fired up again last night - and ran.
Do  not confuse my "open and honest" policy with "excuses"
Thanks for your concern.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 02, 2012, 12:01:39 AM
Wow, Serendipity rears it beautiful head. ;D
 
The question is 'Why is the Travis effect machine nonlinear?' This tasked me, as I haven't seen an explanation, just the observed production results from Wayne.
 
I was playing around with a 3 Riser spreadsheet and thought it would be simple to leave all the input spec's the same and just change the force of gravity to see the total force at different PSI's. But as you can see in row 26 the differences indicate a linear rise. But after looking at the cycle drawing, it easy to see that it is due to the air being compressed, is the reason that it is nonlinear. My calculations were using fully aligned water column to get the results. That is not physically the case, because as the pressure increases, the air volume decreases to bring the water columns in alignment.
 
Excitedly, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on July 02, 2012, 12:51:54 AM
@Larry,


Row 27?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 02, 2012, 01:11:55 AM
@Larry,
Row 27?
Row 26. Thanks.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 02, 2012, 01:28:33 AM
Wow, Serendipity rears it beautiful head. ;D
 
The question is 'Why is the Travis effect machine nonlinear?' This tasked me, as I haven't seen an explanation, just the observed production results from Wayne.
 
I was playing around with a 3 Riser spreadsheet and thought it would be simple to leave all the input spec's the same and just change the force of gravity to see the total force at different PSI's. But as you can see in row 26 the differences indicate a linear rise. But after looking at the cycle drawing, it easy to see that it is due to the air being compressed, is the reason that it is nonlinear. My calculations were using fully aligned water column to get the results. That is not physically the case, because as the pressure increases, the air volume decreases to bring the water columns in alignment.
 
Excitedly, Larry
Great Job Larry,
You are exactly right - the compression ratio - reduces with pressure translating into greater head exchange as pressure increases.
Fantastic!
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 02, 2012, 05:07:13 AM
Bye Bye Seamus,
We never claimed a technology that did not already exist - just a very clever design and way to use that which is already understood.
And Yes - we are very over unity.
Good night, and peace.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 02, 2012, 06:10:00 AM
At this point I'm going to have to call it as it is. Garbage... This device is not and never will be overunity.
Take care then,
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 02, 2012, 06:13:12 AM
At this point I'm going to have to call it as it is. Garbage... This device is not and never will be overunity.
What arrogance's. Please explain why you would think that anyone would put stock in an opinion by someone in college like you. When there are many of us here with degrees, but tempered with wisdom, common sense and experience. Just look at Wayne's team here  http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/special-thanks (http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/special-thanks).  Do you really think you are smarter than all these people?
Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 02, 2012, 07:30:32 AM
Just what i was thinking more words.
Seamus buddy i'm still with you !

Garbage... !

You do make it clear that you did not understand.
Goodnight.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 02, 2012, 01:36:53 PM
I am an old guy who served his time at the University Of Hard Knocks. One of the things that life has taught me is this. If you are right, and you are absolutely used to being right, do not crow too loudly. Because nobody in the history of the world has ever been right 100% of the time. So it is absolutely inevitable that one day you will be wrong. When that day dawns, and it will, the louder you crowed, the smaller you are going to feel.
        Arrogance has no place in a scientific discussion. It is merely a sign of selfish immaturity. A gentleman knows how to disagree without destroying his opponents dignity. If you want examples of really knowledgeable gentlemen who know how to conduct themselves in a debate, then look no further than Wayne Travis and LarryC.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 02, 2012, 02:47:09 PM
@ All
Let Seamus and Micro have peace - please do not respond to their attacks on me.

Denial is only one stage in the process of adjusting ones own hard felt belief.

I do not knock others belief - I myself have unbreakable belief - belief that their is something greater than myself, and that the sum off all knowledge does not reside in my mind.

That gives me the patience and undersanding that I could be wrong, and that others can understand something that I can not.

What these two show - is only the beginning of the change that will follow, and why we have to be open and honest.

One Day - they will understand, they will be enlightened - Going through life bitter is a hard life, it is giving your mind over to others.

Adding Negativity "now" will only take that process longer. 

Hopefully, the Moderator will recognize the personal attack - in the drawings and name calling and put an end correct the behaviour. I have been patient - but due time to act.

Thank you very much for the time to share - and the effort so many of you took to be enlightened just as I was, very good work.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 02, 2012, 03:12:44 PM
@All
Back to work:

Most of you have seen the patent - studied the natural physics of the design, and now see how we use the nonlinear attributes to our benefit.

Let me now affirm - what some of you have supposed - all of the information we have released - is just the beginning.
We have progressed far beyond what has been shown, which is sufficient to understand the validity, this discovery has led to many more.

As I shared with Mark Dansie - he stated (from memory)

"We have spent two years trying to take a 1 watt O/U (massive magnetic motor) and two million dollars later we have 1 watt - and the simple fact that you can continually find substantial improvements to your O/U device.........with no funding - lends credence to the viability of your discovery"

I can not share those improvements at this time, due diligence requires the attorneys have their go first.

But - those that join our effort, come and visit - they become part of the team and part of the history.

As Senator Justice stated "We have become the deciders of winners and losers, the hard part is ..when we pick a loser to win...(unsustainable alternatives) we (the government) can not hardly stop funding him - with the way things are set up - and the real winners are left out"

Do not expect Goverment to help.

This go round - we (HydroEnergy Revolution llc) are letting the people choose who is going to win or loose - not the trolls, nor governments, nor the funding.
The passion for Energy Independence, the years of hope for the discover - the beauty of the simplicity and complexity - as Nature is on its own.

Do not sit idol, do not sit bye, do not rely on the past to dictate the future - All Great discoveries had a first time of success, so those of you who seek, or sought, lived or followed - the dream of our world with ample energy to spare ----
It is time for the dream to become a reality, do not sit by and let the world try to gobble it up and spit it out - like Micro and Seamus try.

Let's get it done - Tell me where you can help, be a part of this truth, let no man step on your part of this destiny and the future of your families.
It is amazingly fitting that this is our Independance day in America - it can become the World's, join us now.

Wayne Travis   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on July 03, 2012, 11:10:27 AM
Sorry, but my enlightenment occurred a long time ago and it involved recognising the nature of conservative fields such as gravity cannot give rise to overunity energy. Recognising this doesn't give rise to any bitterness and it is not a personal attack on anyone.

My only qualification to that statement is that there is a small possibility that at nano scales the existence of the Casimir effect points to something that may allow gravity modification with a suitable technology. This technology does not include buoyancy.


You continue to mention gravity "modification". The thing does not modify gravity.  I read the original post you appear to have latched onto as to that incorrect notion, and it's clear from the context that he meant something else...just modifying the amount of force needed to get the load lifted.


The gist of it all seems to be, in the main, that a ZED can lift the (Example) 2500+ pound load using leverage via concentric cascaded buoyant-pneumatic means...such that you can do it for less than the usual pressures (and thus work) that one might think are needed here.


Once that the load is lifted, you have the usual gravitational potential energy ready to work during the sink cycle..and yet because it uses an efficient lever so it seems, that work is not all used up to re-lift the other side, between that and the transferrals. Repeat...
 
I don't know how that leveraging works just that it is said to, but please stop mentioning "modification" of gravity. Such is not being claimed.
 
rc

Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Low-Q on July 03, 2012, 01:13:09 PM
I posted with permission from Wayne the 2 principle videos to my youtube account at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkxrLzcp0Z8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkxrLzcp0Z8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUj42h6j7Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUj42h6j7Y)

Also the hard skeptic Mark Dansie says that this device works.



 The main effect is that only the height of the air in the plastic cup counts !
Not the volume ! So you only need to pump a very low amount of air under the plastic cups
which needs very low amount of energy. Then you can gain the massive lift energy by buoyancy which is much more than the used pump energy to get the air inside the platic cup.!
So you have a big energy gain there !
Hope this helps...
Also have a look at their website for more informations.

 

http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)

Regards, Stefan.
I made a comment on the two videos, but wants to repeat it here:


The concrete block is independent of the cup, and therfor assist in pushing the cup upwards with the same amount of force as the other cup. So the experiment is some how misleading us to believe that two different amount of air can lift the same weight. The right hand cup does not "see" the concrete block, but the block is displacing the water instead of the air doing it, and therfor act as it is filled with as much air as the left hand cup. Other than showing the experiment, it is practically useless.


That means if the concrete block is suppose to be a part of a machine, it would not be possible to work as a over balanced wheel.


Vidar
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 03, 2012, 04:02:08 PM
I made a comment on the two videos, but wants to repeat it here:


The concrete block is independent of the cup, and therfor assist in pushing the cup upwards with the same amount of force as the other cup. So the experiment is some how misleading us to believe that two different amount of air can lift the same weight. The right hand cup does not "see" the concrete block, but the block is displacing the water instead of the air doing it, and therfor act as it is filled with as much air as the left hand cup. Other than showing the experiment, it is practically useless.


That means if the concrete block is suppose to be a part of a machine, it would not be possible to work as a over balanced wheel.


Vidar
Hello Vidar,
I read your statement several times - because you both made our point and then concluded the opposite?
"The concrete block is independent of the cup, and therfor assist in pushing the cup upwards with the same amount of force as the other cup."
And then concluded with:
 
"Other than showing the experiment, it is practically useless."

You imply - Just As Tommy did - that the video shows that the volume is reduced by the non attached block to get the same for out of a system with much more air ----becasue the block takes up the space of the air - which makes it equal to the other cup---which results in less air need to lift the same amount-----

and then

"That means if the concrete block is suppose to be a part of a machine, it would not be possible to work as a over balanced wheel."

Vidar, to be clear;

We don't lift the concrete block - we do not  have an overbalanced wheel?

Or anthing remotely related.

I hope this helps,

Wayne

 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 03, 2012, 08:32:08 PM
The attached shows how the buoyancy of the different Pod and Riser sections changes at different rates as the system is allowed to raise and/or fall.  This is the 6 in OD model system that has an ideal lift of about 15 lbs. It was weighted to 1/3 of that and balanced by adjusting the water level in the outer most ring.  This is shown in the "FULL" condition where it would need to be restrained from stroking up further.
 
Additional weight was then added to increase the loading to 80% (12lbs).  Water was then removed iteratively from the center Pod section until neutral buoyancy was achieved.  This happend when 1.8156 in^3 of water was removed and is the second view shown.  From there water was removed in additional increments of 1 in^3.  This would cause the Pod and Risers to drop.  The exact amount of the drop to return to neutral(ish) buoyancy was again found by iterations.  In the middle view 2.8156 in^3 of water is removed and buoyancy achieved after the Pod and Risers have lowered .07373 in.
 
I drew some witness lines across the various water levels to help illustrate that the buoyancy ratio of the different members is changing.  The Pod is loosing the most buoyancy.  The Inner Riser is loosing a lesser amount.  The Outer Riser is actually gaining buoyancy.  All together, the buoyancy adds up to be the 12lbs of loading of course.
 
The reason for the changing buoyancy ratios appears to be the volume decrease of the air/water channels between the Pod, chamber walls, and Risers as the system collapses.
 
FWIW.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 03, 2012, 08:48:18 PM
The following vertical column example clearly shows why a layered Travis system has greater lift than a Hydraulic cylinder. It simply boils down to surface area. The Travis has diameters of 36.2, 35.1, 33.9, 32.5 and 31 all at psi of 2.2. The hydraulic cylinder of 31.75 at 11 psi. Each system has the same water volume input, but Travis win's on surface area.
 
This is only part of the OU, but if you understand this part your on your way.
Edit: You may need to download and blow up to see it better.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 03, 2012, 08:58:27 PM
@webby1,
The following 5 riser calculator may help. The spreadsheet data set is below the picture.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Edit: Can you imagine having to put 5 100 pound weights on top to hold down this little model.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 03, 2012, 09:59:44 PM
Thank you Seamus,
For your input.
Please consider the information that has been replicated and offered, your comments are unrelated to the Z.E.D system.
We have several fantastic discoveries - all of which can be measured with simple physics.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 03, 2012, 10:42:23 PM
Thanks to webby1 bringing up the 5 Riser, found this gem. Note the Light Blue at the bottom, which is the Travis Lift efficency over Hydraulic Lift.
 
Does anyone else hear a large cracking sound in the background? ;D
Sounds like something being broken.

 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 03, 2012, 11:53:16 PM
Hate it when I do that :)

I appreciate the help in understanding but I am only trying to understand the "concept" and the "where" the forces are.

I know that in a real setup the numbers are not as simple as I am using, but simple numbers are easy to grasp and that is what I am trying to do, grasp the where and the what.

In the simple setup I gave, if the input tube to the pod chamber were also 10 ft tall then the 2 pressure values would be the same, 4.3 psi, so what I am asking is: Is it basically that the only force that is needed as an "extra" input is the force to take the input to the pod *from* the 4.3 psi up to the 6.45 psi, which is only 2.15 psi, meaning that I would only have to have a "pump" to "pump" the fluid down from the pod input tube that can make 2.15 psi.  All this giving me back the lifting force equal to 6.45 psi.

Hi,
I posted the Riser 5 calculator with the 1 Foot Pod and Riser value to show that the Max PSI is 2.60. So your PSI figures are misleading as they don't correlate to 1 Foot. But, you are bascially right in your understanding of the additional pump force given the correct height Pod and Riser.
 
Edit: Webby1 or anybody please review my 808 post. Let me know if you understand or point out improvements to help the understanding.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 04, 2012, 02:12:10 PM
@ All,
Here is the last update:
In recap: We are balancing the two sytems - one of thelast things needed.July 4, 2012 Hello Men, I hope you and your families celebrate Independence day!
 Mark, Enjoy Denver - I pray you are not there long lol.
 Thank you Rick for helping with the Poppet valve issue, The time you saved is very much appreciated, let Auggie - I put the data collection on hold until we work through these last issues.
 Bullet recap - fixed leaks - repaired poppet's - isolated components - removing weights today - improved set up procedure - two repairs this morning then expected to be run ready - by this evening - will keep you informed.
 Details:
Our Monday run - with the Poppet valves removed - we were able to extract an existing issue that (we were unaware of) - the low pressure valves were not tightened to the the same torque as the high pressure - and when we isolated two of the production cylinders - we were able to suck air into the system from those low pressure fittings (the fittings were not low pressure - just the way they were treated at install).
 So - we also spent four hours tightening Stainless compression fittings.  With the Hydraulics clean of air - we ran Tuesday morning and with all the noise out of the way - we were able to determine that Zed two had 80 pounds more weight than Zed one - that made a .4 (tenths) of a pound gain difference - which is significant since the two Z.E.D.'s are connected - and the value works both ways (an increased load one direction - and unequal free flow in the other.   We determined which way to go (Add more on one or remove weight from the other)  The Equalization of the system is the lateral transfer of the Head from side to side - over 50% is moved freely - when the system is not balanced at least roughly close  - you have one direction working better than the other - this results in extra input having to be input on the heavy side and extra - uncaptured energy on the other side (we don't capture a different value per Z.E.D. at least on this model - and the staging program having to compensate - and the cycle time increased.   We will be removing the weight from Zed 2 this morning.   Yesterday -We replaced the Poppet valves and installed isolation valves (in case of trouble) and for future trouble shooting. We will bleed the system this morning while the lids and weight are removed.   We have two last repairs to make to improve the set up  and the extended run times - a simple air trap installation prior to the pump, and to unkink the air line to riser three (adds about 20 minutes to the set up) - while the lid is off today.   I am looking for "equal" or balanced data out of our run tonight.   The set up to run procedure continues to improve, requiring less time and more accurate - while Terry replumbed the Poppet valves - the rest of us worked on the setup with the assist operation engaged - we are very close - this will make the set up a 1,2,3, simple process.
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
p.s.
We resolve our issues and refine and the process recording understanding to support others.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 04, 2012, 05:10:18 PM
@Wayne. Sounds like you are still finding small problems, but it also sounds like your team is on the case and you are progressing by leaps and bounds. We share your frustration, but all we can do is wait, in the knowledge that victory is inevitable.
      Larry asked if anyone heard a loud crack, like something breaking. I did not hear a crack. To me it was more of a thunderous roar! Even so it was but a tiny taste of the storm to come.
       I too had thought, in my thought experiments, about using a column of water as an input pump. The only practical problem here, is that as soon as we start to draw water from the column, the pressure falls, making calculation difficult . If we wanted to use this idea for practical experiments, the problem could be reduced by using a wide column, or a wide tank on top of the vertical pipe.
       Another obvious thing about model making. As soon as we try to make a model much larger than say 6" diameter, the weight of the weights quickly becomes too large to handle easily. So build it small unless you own a fork lift truck.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 04, 2012, 07:12:06 PM
@LarryC. Re your post 808. In a sense, this is just a thought experiment, as in real life, all the water would sink to the bottom, and all the air move to the top. Unless the tube was quite narrow, or the air and water pockets were separated by frictionless pistons . So this is really an "equivalent circuit" of a ZED. You say that the ZED beats the hydraulic ram because it has greater surface area. If you tried to "improve" a hydraulic ram by increasing the piston surface area, what would happen? Well the lifting force would be greater but the stroke length , for a given input volume and pressure would be less. However, its output, as in force X distance would remain the same. So to be really honest, and I always try to be honest, I can not see how more surface area alone would cause the ZED to be more efficient then a hydraulic ram.
         There is something subtle going on here. Someone [might be Webby1] described the ZED as " fed in series, discharged in parallel." Might this have a bearing on what is going on . Another hint dropped by Wayne might be relevant. He said[paraphrased] That the secret of the ZED lies not in its greater output, but in its lower input.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 04, 2012, 09:03:14 PM
No, I won't stop mentioning gravity modification. Because buoyancy is a function of gravity and gravity is a conservative field this machine could not function as claimed unless it caused some modification of the nature of gravity. Obviously that is not the case, so we can only deduce that the machine does not work as claimed. To put it in simple terms water does not flow up hill.
@Seamus101, first let me apologize if the contents of this post are not 100% correct with regards to my description of logic.  It's been a long time since I had to argue in philosophical terms and I am sure I am making mistakes.
 
Also, let me salute you for your tenacity.
 
I believe your argument goes as such:  Buoyancy is a function of Gravity (true).  AND Gravity is a Conservative Field of Force (true).  AND a Conservative Field of Force cannot produce Work (ASSUMPTION).  Therefore, the only explanation for the Zed to function would be that Gravity is being Modified.
 
There is absolutely no proof, Physics Law, or otherwise, that concludes that a Conservative Field of Force cannot produce Work.  That ASSUMPTION is only what has been shown by historical evidence (so far) and therefore mostly taught to students.  It is NOT, however, a known fact, and therefore cannot be used to prove any subsequent claims if used as part of a logical progression.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 04, 2012, 09:11:58 PM
@LarryC. Re your post 808. You say that the ZED beats the hydraulic ram because it has greater surface area. If you tried to "improve" a hydraulic ram by increasing the piston surface area, what would happen? Well the lifting force would be greater but the stroke length , for a given input volume and pressure would be less. However, its output, as in force X distance would remain the same. So to be really honest, and I always try to be honest, I can not see how more surface area alone would cause the ZED to be more efficient then a hydraulic ram.
Hi Neptune,
 
Thanks, but the premise was to have the same input volume and PSI for both systems and show the lift force difference. So if the hydraulic ram had an increased surface area, than for a ZED to have the same input volume it's pod's retainer wall would have to be increased to the same surface area. Again, it would have greater lift.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 04, 2012, 09:50:00 PM
Hi Larry. So if I am understanding you, in both cases we have the same input volume and pressure . But in the Zed we get more lift because that same input is acting on a larger area.


In your post no 813, the spreadsheet shows that a ZED is 146.43% as efficient as a hydraulic ram. Am I right in thinking that that is a single ZED and so does not have as high an efficiency as a twin ZED set-up , where we use the "exhaust" of one ZED to partly feed the input of the other ZED?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 04, 2012, 10:09:56 PM
Hello Neptune,
That is correct - each layer divides the pressure 'as does Boyles law' -
Each Layer of the Z.E.D. acts to increase the surface area - because each diameter is larger.
In the Zed system the only volume is the "Pod chamber"
So when you use simple physics to calculate the lift - the extra surface area of the risers shows up.
(keep in mind that this is only one of the unique attributes - it is least of our gains).
Wayne
p.s. running good today ;-)
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 04, 2012, 10:58:12 PM
p.s. running good today ;-)

Thanks for the mid-holiday update.
 
Godspeed.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on July 05, 2012, 03:04:50 AM
Hi All,

I found this amusing and encouraging to all builders, experimenters and tinkerers out there.

Quote
Hawking says he lost $100 bet over over Higgs discovery.

"But it is a pity in a way because the great advances in physics have come from experiments that gave results we didn't expect."

"For this reason I had a bet with Gordon Kane of Michigan University that the Higgs particle wouldn't be found. It seems I have just lost $100."

source:http://news.yahoo.com/hawking-says-lost-100-bet-over-higgs-discovery-151710271.html

Keep building and experimenting.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 05, 2012, 03:07:37 AM
The evidence given so far showing increased forces in a spreadsheet are laughably inaccurate. They conveniently ignore internal transfers of energy (forces AND displacements) and quote some of the force increase on one side as 'overunity'.  This completely ignores that ALL of this 'force' (and displacement) needs to be transferred back to the other side for the system to continue to function. If we were to tap ANY part of that 'increase' the system would immediately stop. (as it will anyway due to friction losses in the fluid flow.)

Wayne asked that we do not respond to attacks for him, and yes, I can respect that, but this time it is a attack on me. The difference is that I don't believe you are here to learn, as shown in your first post to your last (just click on his name and press on show post to understand his agenda), but I know that you are here to deceive as I have witness several of your kind. So lets check out your current deceptions.
 
'The evidence given so far showing increased forces in a spreadsheet are laughably inaccurate'.
 
I included the spreadsheet dataset just to make sure that all can review that the math is clear, so Seamus101, please show where the math is inaccurate, laughing deceiver.
 
'They conveniently ignore internal transfers of energy (forces AND displacements) and quote some of the force increase on one side as 'overunity'.'
 
Seamus101, I have not stated they were created to show the internal transfers of energy. They only show the initial lift forces for a single zed and some show the increase over Hydraulic's initial lift force. So what what would you call 146% over Hydraulics, deceiver?
 
 
 
'This completely ignores that ALL of this 'force' (and displacement) needs to be transferred back to the other side for the system to continue to function.'
 
Again, Seamus101, this is only a single zed to show the initial lift force and not a full ZED transfer system.
 
 
 
'If we were to tap ANY part of that 'increase' the system would immediately stop. (as it will anyway due to friction losses in the fluid flow.)'
 
Ludicrous statement that it would immediately stop, Seamus101, but lets bring up your friction losses in the fluid flow. In a Hydraulic cylinder the losses in a cylinder is mainly due to the friction loss between the cylinder and the seals on the piston and the gland, they do not even considers the fluid loses as the seal and gland frictional loses are so much larger. Travis system has has no such seal losses, deceiver.
 
 
 
@All, Please see the attached picture to understand the large frictional loses of the hydraulic seals as opposed to the small fluid loses in the Travis system.

 
 
 
Regards, Larry 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on July 05, 2012, 06:17:28 AM
@DreamThinkBuild: That's the third bet Hawking lost recently - those experiments deal with forces and scales that a regular inventor does not have access to, though.

@LarryC: why don't you add input energy calculation to your spreadsheet (you can average the values between the start and the end state so you do not have to run a simulator, since the progress is linear)? It has been done over at PESN and the energy excess was 0 (and that's not counting energy transfer losses) - eg. not overunity.

Also, compare ZED to a telescopic hydraulic lift of the same size - for the same energy input you will get the same energy output (if you leave the buoyancy pod out, since buoyancy is known not to be overunity). ZED is a closed system that only lifts internal weights, unlike a lift that lifts external weights - that is why it does not need seals. Even if you could reduce energy losses to zero, you will still end up with only unity.

Again, see the attached image (detailed calculations are in my earlier post (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg326477/#msg326477))
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 05, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
@KanShi. You suggested that we leave out the buoyancy pod as buoyancy is known not to be overunity. So presumably, when we compare a ZED to a standard hydraulic cylinder, we can leave out the cylinder`s piston.After all it is known that pistons are not overunity....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: KanShi on July 05, 2012, 02:17:14 PM
@neptune You can do that but then there is nothing left to compare. Anyway, while you mention it, ZED's hydraulic part (hydraulic lift) is not overunity and buoyancy is not overunity, so the device as a whole cannot be overunity (effeciencies of parts connected in series have to be multiplied).

Also, as you see from the calculations and the attached image. The lifting force of a ZED is less than a hydropneumatic lift with a buoyancy pod of the same volume (and the same volume of liquids used). Not that it matters, what you should be comparing is not force but energy and as soon as you do that, it will be clear as day that you won't achieve overunity (unless you are working for/are friends with Mr. Wayne, ofc, in that case, you will be claiming overunity regardless of reality).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 05, 2012, 02:34:16 PM
@DreamThinkBuild: That's the third bet Hawking lost recently - those experiments deal with forces and scales that a regular inventor does not have access to, though.

@LarryC: why don't you add input energy calculation to your spreadsheet (you can average the values between the start and the end state so you do not have to run a simulator, since the progress is linear)? It has been done over at PESN and the energy excess was 0 (and that's not counting energy transfer losses) - eg. not overunity.

Also, compare ZED to a telescopic hydraulic lift of the same size - for the same energy input you will get the same energy output (if you leave the buoyancy pod out, since buoyancy is known not to be overunity). ZED is a closed system that only lifts internal weights, unlike a lift that lifts external weights - that is why it does not need seals. Even if you could reduce energy losses to zero, you will still end up with only unity.

Again, see the attached image (detailed calculations are in my earlier post (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg326477/#msg326477))
Hello Kanshi,
I am suprised you chimed in here once again.

Please take note - that you, Mark E /Seamus / and Micro controller have made your opinons clear.
At the Same time, you state that the ZED is not O/U - a Dozen replications of our claim of over unity has been accurately calculated and shared with me.

Power/ Energy/ and Force - some replicators were satisfied with force - most followed through. Those same people had read your posts on Peswiki and Overunity.com.
I think we are all waiting to see if you follow through. Your repeated logic "that if one part is not overunity then all parts can not be over unity - is limiting your understanding.

The succesful replications took the whole process into acount - and the best took three of the seperate Overunity functions in the system.

First - Our input volume times pressure exceeds a hydraulic cylinder - you have not yet understood that - I had hoped when you reported a 33%  to  and the layering as 14% to then to 67% - you would look into the whole system - now you state a dead even 0 gain - keep going - there is much more.

Second - Our porcess is not Linear - you are incorrect - the volume in the internal layers changes at a disproportionate rate than each successive layer - this result in a a greater diffirential force applied in the internal layers during a stroke. Reducing the ratio to the downward force above each layer.

The result is that as we double our lifitng requirement - we do not have to double our input. (we are using energy - not just force)
We use the Non linear function to our advantage - in the next phase.

Third - our lateral transfer of energy - two system ZED which you have yet to include in your opinions - recieves over half the total operating cost from the other Zed each stroke - at the Non linear value linear value.

By itself - the Lateral transfer makes a two ZED system near a Zero cost process for one of the ZED - if you reduce in operation the input cost by 50% each - that is the same as 100% for one. SO if we only had that gain - one of our ZED's runs for free.
I pray you are just supplying incomplete data - as I said before - it is unprofessional to make, Opinions, and Incomplete assumptions.
As was shown before - all the head is still in the system after the load is removed -(do not let the system float up after tthe load is removed - and you have the complete head still available). You calcs only show the energy taken out - not the value left behind.

Let me be hopeful - that you and the others are not simply disinformationists.

Our proof and resolve is complete.

Wayne Travis
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Low-Q on July 05, 2012, 03:21:59 PM
Hello Vidar,
I read your statement several times - because you both made our point and then concluded the opposite?
"The concrete block is independent of the cup, and therfor assist in pushing the cup upwards with the same amount of force as the other cup."
And then concluded with:
 
"Other than showing the experiment, it is practically useless."

You imply - Just As Tommy did - that the video shows that the volume is reduced by the non attached block to get the same for out of a system with much more air ----becasue the block takes up the space of the air - which makes it equal to the other cup---which results in less air need to lift the same amount-----

and then

"That means if the concrete block is suppose to be a part of a machine, it would not be possible to work as a over balanced wheel."

Vidar, to be clear;

We don't lift the concrete block - we do not  have an overbalanced wheel?

Or anthing remotely related.

I hope this helps,

Wayne
it's hard to be clear in a non-native language ;)


Well, this experiment displays nothing unusual. The displaced water will cause the water level inside the cup to descend. The pressure between the walls of the block and the cup is the force which keeps the weight in place at the same level as the other cup filled with only air. So the pressure is the same in the two cases.


If the block is suppose to follow the cup in an over balanced wheel, the pressure against the block and the cup will cancel out, leaving the tiny volume of air inside the cup as the final cause of buoyancy. That means the cup with the block inside no longer can lift the same weight as the air filled cup.


Still not a good explanation, but I hope it helps  :D


An over balance wheel made with this concept will therfor not work. The counterforce that balance the whole system is explained above. No rotation. No free energy from this - if that was the goal...


Vidar
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 05, 2012, 03:51:02 PM
Thank You Vidar,
I think I understand your reference.
When I first introduced the system to my engineer - he tried to relate it as well to the standard process of buoyancy - big mistake - those do not work over unity.
The comparison to an over balanced wheel - or like a float and sink operation - will mix you up.
My engineer originally tried to match stroke lengths to the standard process of buoyancy - Fill, float and sink cycles -
If you read my claims - we eliminate most of that process - or to say it another way - we do not use that process in the same manner. We have a near instant up or down - at any point of our process by changing direction of the flow of water in the inner chamber.
We can go from sinking to maximum lift - the example I use - real numbers - .2 cubic feet of displacement results in a change from sinking to lifting 6000 pounds using buoyancy - not other system in the world can do that. It does not relate to the standard usage and so the standard usage can not be the gauge.
In comparison to standard buoyancy - stroke length is your power out - Our power out is input cost to output.
With our three layer system - we are at over unity at 70% utilization - we have no need to go much below that. going below that 1% is sinking. Going higher - like to 88% is more gain.
We do use weight on the system - so that the ideal is at 68% by static load - and we will sink just below neutral - then only add energy to enter the over unity range - which means we have a direct conversion to excess -
We only have an 7.5 inch stroke range on our little system - but in our process - the other side is going up when this one is going down - we basically have a continual stroke - You look at both Zeds as one process.
Also - an 8 inch stroke continually over unity is much better than a six foot stroke that goes from Zero to full power and then back again - which is not over unity.
My main point in sharing - the process is unique - study it first - you will see where all other attempts at buoyancy are different.
Comparing to other systems will not lead to understanding ours unless you define why those systems did not work and then compare to ours.
Thanks for you input, and welcome.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 05, 2012, 04:03:16 PM
On this point the mathematics are clear. It is possible to derive an absolute mathematical proof that this is the case. I won't do that here but you'll be able to find many of these on the web.
Of course.  And those mathematical proofs are taught at Universities.

Each and every one of the mathematical proofs is an analysis of a specific system or one that is meant to generalize all possible cases.  Which leaves open the possibility that a specific system can be constructed that will not produce the same results for the same mathematical analysis.  Therefore these proofs are not a "law."

Why do those who say Mr. Wayne's device is not possible keep changing the geometry of his unique construction before analyzing?  Please analyze the unique construction.  Show a mathematical "proof" for this specific case.  Trying to "dumb it down" to some simplified equivalent system shows nothing but a lack of diligence.

Thanks,

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 05, 2012, 04:55:15 PM
Herein lies the crux of the missdirection that is occurring. For this machine to be overunity you do need to be able to lift the block or some part of it as well. It is easy to see the extra 'lift' you claim is an anomaly of buoyancy actually comes from the compression of air against the block. This lift vanishes as soon as the weight rises and this compression is reduced.

Thanks, for the statement in bold above.
 
The videos had a concrete block. It could have been any kind of block, foam, balsa, empty container, and still worked the same, but the critics would have had a field day.
 
Wayne has stated that the POD's lift was a bonus, so what was it's real purpose?
 
It rises with the system to maintain the next inner air channel and keeps the water head aligned or a floating concrete block replacement.
 
Now, please show us that you are a person of your word?
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 05, 2012, 06:45:30 PM
@LarryC. The pod acts as a floating concrete block replacement. A profound statement in a nutshell. This is the missing link between demonstration video`s and the ZED.
@Mrwayne. I was intrigued that there have been a dozen replications. I am assuming that these are replications built by others rather than your own team. Independent replication is an important milestone on the road to the acceptance of a new concept. I wonder if you are in a position to talk about any of these, or if there is a link we can follow.


@All. An idea has occurred to me. Suppose we have a machine that has just one ZED. So we have to allow a specific amount of water to exit the ZED, on the downstroke. We do not release all the pressure, just enough to cause a downstoke. In a 2 ZED system, this "exaust" would be used to partly charge the other ZED. So in a single ZED machine, we could feed the Exhaust into a low pressure hydraulic accumulator. In a model, this could take a number of forms, ranging from a balloon, a piston working against a weight or spring, or a vertical water column. This would improve the efficiency of a single ZED model. I have no doubt that mrwayne has tried this.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 05, 2012, 10:03:25 PM
@LarryC. The pod acts as a floating concrete block replacement. A profound statement in a nutshell. This is the missing link between demonstration video`s and the ZED.
@Mrwayne. I was intrigued that there have been a dozen replications. I am assuming that these are replications built by others rather than your own team. Independent replication is an important milestone on the road to the acceptance of a new concept. I wonder if you are in a position to talk about any of these, or if there is a link we can follow.


@All. An idea has occurred to me. Suppose we have a machine that has just one ZED. So we have to allow a specific amount of water to exit the ZED, on the downstroke. We do not release all the pressure, just enough to cause a downstoke. In a 2 ZED system, this "exaust" would be used to partly charge the other ZED. So in a single ZED machine, we could feed the Exhaust into a low pressure hydraulic accumulator. In a model, this could take a number of forms, ranging from a balloon, a piston working against a weight or spring, or a vertical water column. This would improve the efficiency of a single ZED model. I have no doubt that mrwayne has tried this.
Hello Neptune:
I have been helping (answering questions) for others who have been replicating the physics'
Some college students - some free energy buffs, and some curious engineers.
Some ask deep and important question which has taught me to answer better and better - some things I take for granted - like the floating Pod - instead of Brick.
Other force me to understand and to be able to communicate better - non of them are disrespectful.
So it has been a Joy.
Some have sent me there in progress and finished work - that is exciting.
 
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 05, 2012, 10:14:57 PM
Consider finite element analysis for example. The basic equations are predicated on the conservation laws  laws where each element has no specific form. To use it to solve specific situations you define a mesh of elements with specific forms and then solve the resulting system of equations. 

Techniques such as computational fluid dynamics would not exist if it were not possible to do this. I'd doubt any one would doubt the accuracy of such simulations if they have ever flown in a modern jet aircraft which are designed with extensive use of such techniques.

Seamus101, thank you, but I am well versed in the capabilities of FEA and Computational Fluid Dynamics.  Would you care to provide the output of either one of those methods for analyzing the particular configuration of a ZED system or will you just continue to reference non specific cases?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Diffirential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 06, 2012, 12:52:19 AM
The important part in the demonstration is that the block was connected to the bottom of the tank. Because of that he could have shown the arrangement producing any amount of 'lift'. Perhaps even an infinite amount if there was no air in the cup and then gone to claim the buoyancy did not require displacement of mass to occur...

My question is ..repeat the demonstration with a block that is not attached to the bottom and then see if this extra lift can appear. The answer is it cannot.
From my previous reply #836 to you.
'Now, please show us that you are a person of your word?'
 
You had 3 choices.
1. Admit that your stated requirements for the Travis effect to be OU have been met and start helping with this project.
2. Just leave.
3. Ignore your original statements and change the subject, in which case it shows that you have no integrity.
 
You have chosen number 3 and now all know that you have no integrity and just here to present misinformation. My next question is how much are you paid to be a deceiver?
 
'The important part in the demonstration is that the block was connected to the bottom of the tank.'
 
Even your new subject change is deceitful. None of GreenHiker videos shows the concrete block connected to the bottom, they were all on stands. Besides, you could easily do these simple test yourself and see the results.
 
Larry
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: iflewmyown on July 06, 2012, 02:20:02 AM
Hello all,
My wife and I have just returned from Wayne Travis' shop in Oklahoma. I was very impressed with Wayne and his machine. I had visited with him for over two hours on the phone prior to the visit and what questions I had left were answered by Wayne in person. I am satisfied that he has an overunity machine currently and the capability to design any size needed. He is level headed and answered my questions and other's truthfully including saying he did not know when asked questions that he did not know the answer to. He is still teaching on this site in spite of being badgered by folks blinded by their faith in professors who have not seen this twist of physics and would not see it if these demo's took place in their own  lecture hall. I have signed an NDA and will not respond to questions. Thank you Stephan for this site. Some day I will tell my grandson that I met Wayne Travis and his original team in person.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 06, 2012, 05:00:00 AM
Just to pick nits :)

The better response is that the block only needs to provide enough force to counter the force of the cup.  If the block were buoyant and that value was higher than the cup on top of it they both would lift, just as in the ZED.
Thanks, webby1,
 
I'd like to add some info to help clear up the ZED part, as I gave the simple version to seamus101 earlier. It is the retainer wall next to the Pod, and the water between the Pod and retainer wall, and the Pod, that would be considered the total concrete replacement. The moveable part that maintains the air column is only the Pod. This makes it more complex to understand, but since many more are starting to see, I'm sure most can handle it.
 
@iflewmyown,
Thank you for your witness, it was very inspiring. I wish more would post here, but there would be many attacks against those that just got an id to post it. In your case, you have an established history long before Wayne.

 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 06, 2012, 07:06:20 AM
I was asked to leave this thread a long time ago and I did.  I glanced in from time to time.  I can see that you have been in ongoing discussions with Wayne and people are still arguing about buoyancy.

My suggestion is to understand the upcoming demo ahead of time.  (I assume that there will be one)

What will be demoed, what is the input (if any), how is it measured?  What will the output be and how will it be measured?  How long will the demo run?  Who will be there?  What measuring instruments will be used?  I am sure that you can butt your heads together and arrive at a consensus about what you want to know, and what the setup will be.

From the amount of interaction that you have had with Wayne, there is no reason that you should not be aware of this information.

Too often demos are done with zero information ahead of time.  Some of you get star-struck and are awed by what you see.  You often see people demoing systems with very little explained and no data.  This is your opportunity to break that pattern.

Look at the example of the Bedini "Ferris Wheel."  What did that thing actually do?  I haven't a clue and the people at the show didn't have a clue either but people cheered.  I doubt there was much discussion of input vs. output and how things were measured and what they were measured with.  It was pretty awful.

You have talked spreadsheets and setups and have engaged a lot with Wayne?  How many of you know what will be shown at the demo and how it will be measured?

For example, suppose the system is claimed to output 10 horsepower from a rotating mechanical shaft.  How do you measure that horsepower?  As an example, you could use some kind of prony brake setup.  In addition you need a prony brake that can run continuously for hours connected to the machine.  10 horsepower is 7.45 kilowatts of power and that adds up to a lot of energy very quickly.  So if the machine is going to output 10 horsepower of free energy for 24 hours, you should know ahead of time how the test setup is going to take care of dissipating 7.45 kilowatts of power continuously.  It's a serious question that demands a serious answer.  This is a suggested example for how you want to deal with the testing issue.

Remember, just seeing a running machine like in the first round of clips is not enough.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2012, 07:15:48 AM
At this stage I'll just reference the non specific cases.
LOL!   ::)

I already know that the basis of the calculations used depend on the laws of conservation.  Using them to analyse a Zed system (or any system) cannot possibly lead to anything that shows an overunity result. That should be self evident to you or I'd predict you know a whole lot less about FEM than it being "very familiar"
more "predictions"?   LMFAO  ::)

Since MrWayne alludes to some magical 'non linear process' occurring somewhere in the machine, I'd say it it up to him or his engineers to model that it in a way that is consistent with the observed results.
However, being a software engineer and trained in mechanical engineering myself,  I'd happily provide some code if I could be convinced the effect was real and able to be modelled. Nothing shown so far passes that test for me.
and does your modeling software include ALL the parameters that reality includes? will you provide the list of your parameters for peer review? ohh wait, that's all a moot point isn't it... because there is no way to convince you the effect is real.  ::)  so... why are you even bothering to blubber on about things you aren't going to do?


i see the troll milelow is back again... doing nothing but telling everyone else how it's done... ::)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 06, 2012, 01:36:47 PM
Hello all,
My wife and I have just returned from Wayne Travis' shop in Oklahoma...
Thanks for your update! 
 
Too bad about the NDA.  Not the fact that you signed one (I would too), but just that you can't tell all!  Good for you!
 
Now please add anything more you can reveal.  Technical or not.  It's all very interesting to those who live in "flyover States" that are much further away.  And at least one from Queen's land is on the edge of his seat...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 06, 2012, 01:58:51 PM
@MileHigh, welcome back!  I can't remember anyone asking you to leave but I, for one, am happy to see you return.  Your type of critical thinking fills a gap here, I believe.
 
I've noticed a pattern in Mr. Wayne's responses that I thought I might address to you.  It appears to me that he does not answer some questions purposely.  At first I thought it was because he may have overlooked them in the thread posts.  And that may still be true.  But I wonder if he does not respond to questions that would involve disclosure of information that has not already been made public in the patent and videos?  I believe he might not be addressing questions that may be considered IP that is not legally secured.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 06, 2012, 02:53:56 PM
 :)
Hello All,
When I was a young manager I was in charge of all the MIT's (Managers in Training).

One particular "Corporate" transferred MIT - was transferred  to me - so that corporate could decide if his problem surrounding his last location were personal issues with his other trainer (no they did not tell me of his issues).

And since his issues were of his own doing - they arose very quickly - he made grievous errors continually - he put no effort in to changing his skill or efforts - because he had become a master of deceit - and he felt very safe in his ability to divert responsibility - lie - and to always have some counter charge - or teary eyed excuse about something.

He was not improving - and he was not trying to - and as the lead trainer for OKC this was a nightmare.

I was pretty frustrated - like many of you are - here on this web site - dealing with what you call "Trolls" they can say anything - and back up nothing - they don't try - they don't need to - they can switch at any point to a new position - as you futilely try to defend or hold them accountable to the last lie.

So, back to the MIT-  I was livid with this MIT - my supervisor Danny Cruze - come by and asked me about the MIT's progress - boy did I have a load to get off my chest - after I vented - Danny said -

"Wayne, the MIT is not the problem - you are............. You are in charge and you have given your efforts and energy to a game of tennis........he said go look in the mirror and ask what you can do differently that will change the outcome - not what you can make others do."

It was not good advise to my ears at that age - I was PO'ed - dealing with a liar - cheat - and I was frustrated and tired with the effort I was extending proving the falsehood's - over and over.

Danny called and asked a week later - "Did you take that look in the mirror" .................I wanted to tell Danny something rude - but he was such a Good man and wise - I bit my tongue and then said - "OK Danny - I will"

So feeling like a fool - I stood at the mirror - and asked what could I change about me - to change the situation.
I really wanted to win the tennis match - really wanted to win - how could I change my behaviour - set up traps? cameras? detailed log books, duct tape and beatings --lol

Danny called again - "are you still playing tennis with the MIT?"
I said "No"  ....not because I had solved the problem - but because it was the right answer at the time - and instantaneously - I realized that was the answer -
The only way to defeat a liar - a deceiver - an obstructionist - is to not give them the game.

Do not step on the court - the lies are just diversions - the truth is all that matters - if you chase the deceptions - you run back and forth expending much time and energy - and you gain nothing but a record of a new lie.

But when you step off the court - and hold your true position - you are in charge of yourself - and the liar.

So the Next Lie the MIT told - I stopped him mid sentence - and said - "fix it now" - he countered with "but I did it already".... "do it now" .... "I have witnesses" .......  Do it now.......I do not care what when how or who - your job is to do this work - do it now or quit.

I tell you all this story because it is happening again here.
 
All you have to do to let Seamus, Mark Euthanasia, Microcontroller --- waste your time --- is to give your time to them.

I think Kanshi is just confused - or has not done her due diligence and Micro controller just jumps the band wagon.
 
Milehigh had my respect that he left - a real troll will not leave  - or just change his name to "Seamus"

My point:
Many of you have replicated the physics - and saw the attributes of the system and that it is Overuntiy

We can not hope that the moderator can keep up with trolling -
So instead of responding to the continual twisting and changing of statements and directions of attacks -

If you must respond to a diversion attack - just make a this statement:

We hear you, we will think about it, and if necessary we will change it.
Thank you for your input.

Lets get off of the tennis court where they control our time with "untruths, false assertions, misuse of logic and dogmatic entropy - and return to the discovery at hand.

In the end - any great leader knows - we are only in control of ourselves - we can not force lasting change in others - it comes from inside each of us to do our part - and not feed the "trolls".

Wayne Travis

The obstructionists know that they are not talking about the topic at hand - that is their point - we are better than that.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 06, 2012, 04:21:23 PM
@Mondrasec. I can only second what you said about the report from Iflewmyown. Any kind of background information would be welcome and interesting. Living as I do in the UK, I am even further away, and totally unable to come and see for myself.
@Mr Wayne. I hear what you say about not feeding the trolls. Your experiences in Corporate Life are interesting although I can not relate to them directly as I have always worked for myself. Even so, I guess we have all met people like that.
         I would like to think that at least some of the trolls will be silenced when we here what Mark Dansie has to say. Even that might be to much to hope. Any news or updates on the pre tests?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 06, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
@MileHigh, welcome back!  I can't remember anyone asking you to leave but I, for one, am happy to see you return.  Your type of critical thinking fills a gap here, I believe.
 
I've noticed a pattern in Mr. Wayne's responses that I thought I might address to you.  It appears to me that he does not answer some questions purposely.  At first I thought it was because he may have overlooked them in the thread posts.  And that may still be true.  But I wonder if he does not respond to questions that would involve disclosure of information that has not already been made public in the patent and videos?  I believe he might not be addressing questions that may be considered IP that is not legally secured.
 
M.
Hello M,
It is a combination -
Some peoples posts I hardly look at - I give everyone respect until they un- earn it.
Sometimes someone askes a question as a statement
Some people ask a bunch of questions in one post and I have a hard time matching those with my short visits.
Some people ask idea questions - such as to related but unrelated topics - they loose out to the schedule - unless I have anight were I can not sleep.
Sometimes the question is asked - in an unbelief manner - such as how do you defeat the law of such and such (I am not here to expalin system other than mine) those laws related to "previously studied designs" Study this one then ask if the law applies.
Many - and most times - the question has been asked and answered by both myself and others.
I do not avoid any question - I may not have an answer to some.
Only the Questions that pertain to our improvemnts from the patent are left out - as I said before - the lawyers do thier work first.
My NDA's are to protect the privacy of those who are involved - and then to make it clear we are not helping you to compete with us - join us - fine - use us - no.
Any of the people who have signed NDA's have my explicit permission to tell anything about the machine except - the improvements - who is helping us - and our business plans.
If chose to share - it is fine with me - so don't ask those questions.
I hope this helps.
Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 06, 2012, 05:35:00 PM
@Mondrasec. I can only second what you said about the report from Iflewmyown. Any kind of background information would be welcome and interesting. Living as I do in the UK, I am even further away, and totally unable to come and see for myself.
@Mr Wayne. I hear what you say about not feeding the trolls. Your experiences in Corporate Life are interesting although I can not relate to them directly as I have always worked for myself. Even so, I guess we have all met people like that.
         I would like to think that at least some of the trolls will be silenced when we here what Mark Dansie has to say. Even that might be to much to hope. Any news or updates on the pre tests?
No,
The trolls will not stop - Mark has spoken five times publically about our project.
They respect no one - just demand attention - if this site was not being read - they would go elsewhere - for attention.
Rest assured - the real skeptics, the professionals, are helping us - the "troll's' will move on - no apologie - to someone else - until they can not get attention.
They have no effect on our work - just waste time.
Thanks Again
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 06, 2012, 06:13:22 PM
Hello all,
My wife and I have just returned from Wayne Travis' shop in Oklahoma. I was very impressed with Wayne and his machine. I had visited with him for over two hours on the phone prior to the visit and what questions I had left were answered by Wayne in person. I am satisfied that he has an overunity machine currently and the capability to design any size needed. He is level headed and answered my questions and other's truthfully including saying he did not know when asked questions that he did not know the answer to. He is still teaching on this site in spite of being badgered by folks blinded by their faith in professors who have not seen this twist of physics and would not see it if these demo's took place in their own  lecture hall. I have signed an NDA and will not respond to questions. Thank you Stephan for this site. Some day I will tell my grandson that I met Wayne Travis and his original team in person.
Thank you very much,
You have been very kind, thank you for the visit, as I said before - I love to share our discovery.
The NDA is to protect your privacy - you may share anything you like - just not the things we discussed that are private.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: iflewmyown on July 07, 2012, 02:48:20 AM
Please study what Wayne has shown on this site. The best way is to read only his posts in the order he wrote them ignoring All others. Then read the posts of the guys who are honestly studying what he teaches. Find and view each of his videos. Do the experiments he shows, as you will never find a cheaper experiment showing the basis of one form of free energy.  I believe Wayne has exactly what he says he has and a lot more that he is not sharing publicly. That is the only answer that is needed by those with an open mind.
Garry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 07, 2012, 02:57:24 AM
Well done, Garry.

So what do you fly?  I'm very much a little plane enthusiast.

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 07, 2012, 06:18:38 AM
Mondrasek:

Quote
I've noticed a pattern in Mr. Wayne's responses that I thought I might address to you.  It appears to me that he does not answer some questions purposely.  At first I thought it was because he may have overlooked them in the thread posts.  And that may still be true.  But I wonder if he does not respond to questions that would involve disclosure of information that has not already been made public in the patent and videos?  I believe he might not be addressing questions that may be considered IP that is not legally secured.

i can't really comment on that.  Once assumes that you can debate this issue with Wayne and eventually you will hit a wall.  The wall is the "secret sauce," we see it all the time from people promoting free energy propositions.

Just a few more comments.

I saw some spreadsheets but they seemed to only be looking at increased force.  As has already been said, you have to look at work-in and work-out in the spreadsheets.  Without those calculations the spreadsheets are meaningless.

With respect to the "trolls" debate, don't let yourself get brainwashed and don't brainwash yourself.  If you decide that "people that disagree with me are trolls" you are no better than a fascist.  Trolls are not people that want to argue the merits or lack of merits of the proposition.  You start thinking like that and you are heading down a dangerous and ugly path.  Go look up the Wikipedia definition for "troll" and you might agree with me that there is only one troll on this website.

The only thing that Wayne has to offer you is a story that there is a magic configuration that will fit inside a black box filled with water and valves and pipes that can produce an unlimited amount of free energy.  Even though I have not been following, any of you that have been playing with buoyancy and making little setups only see unity.  As far as I am concerned you are just wasting your time.

It's very likely that this thread as it gets longer and longer gets more and more Google attention and starts coming up higher and higher in various search results.  Even a mixture of both good and bad publicity is better than no publicity.  So this could all be part of a project to "set up your fishing" to get investors.  Not such a nice thought, it would imply that Wayne is using you, and this ultimately the exercises you are all doing are BS.  Don't shoot me, it's a real possibility.  Following that train of thought, "Iflewmyown" could very well be a shill.  If he has never been in this thread at all and just showed up the other day with a visit report I would be suspicions.

Because of all of the above, that's why I am suggesting that you focus on whatever Wayne claims he is going to do in his demo of his system to prove that his technology is real.  Play hard ball with Wayne and push for getting all of the input and output measurement data like I already posted.   After all of your back and forth talk in this thread, all that you guys know when push comes to shove is that Wayne is claiming that he has a magic black box that creates power out of nothingness using buoyancy.  He can claim that he is "bending the rules" or that he has a "special trick that does not break the laws of Physics, bla bla bla" it doesn't matter.   Wayne claims that he has a black box, and what you should do on this thread is get ALL of the information about the input and output measurements on the black box.  You should demand this.  Forget about trying to "understand how it works" because that's impossible.  Wayne will always cite his "secret sauce" if needed.

Get the proof that Wayne delivers the goods when he does his demos.  Don't just stand idly by like passive wallflowers and wait to be spoon-fed the results.

MileHigh

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 07, 2012, 07:16:35 AM
I just ready Milehighs latest attempt to insert the idea that we have magical free energy.

Well milehigh,

We heard what you said, we will think about it, and may make a change if we decide it has any merit.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 07, 2012, 08:11:34 AM
Wayne:

Quote
latest attempt to insert the idea that we have magical free energy

That's exactly what you are trying to claim, make no mistake.  I don't care what phraseology you want to throw at me, in the final analysis that's what you are doing.  Same thing for precisely how you are supposedly doing it, that's your "secret sauce."

So what follows from that is the only way to be credible is to tell the people on this forum all of the details pertaining to the measurements and apparatus that you will be using in your upcoming tests ahead of time.  Then follow-through and deliver all the data.  Your actual system can be put aside does not really need to be discussed.  What your system actually does in terms of test setup and the provided data is the real way for you to show the people on this forum that you really have something.

Basic questions:  What form will the power output be in and how will you measure it?  What equipment will you be using for the measurements with manufacturers' names and part numbers?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 07, 2012, 04:21:44 PM
As it happens I haven't been here to troll at all. I'd only represent the usual thinking of engineers on these matters.

I've re-read all the descriptions in this thread of how this machine works with a genunie desire to see a working principle that could explain your apparent success at achieving useful work output from it.

Now, I have a question, Is the working principle able to be deduced from the demonstration provided by the Travis effect video 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHbP3QTncBY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHbP3QTncBY)  A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.
I wish you were sincere;
Looking for the "Working principle"  is why I believe this system has been over looked - You can not get free energy from buoyancy - alone.
We do provide free energy from a clever usage of several separate reactions that occur when dealing with Air, Water, design, and Gravity.
It is simple (one basic moving part inside) and a plethora of complex physics inside the process.
I did not need the complex understanding to see what was smack in front of me - had great potential.
One Very Good Engineer - Stephen Seymour - third party/grant committee - said Wayne - you need to measure more than force - you need to break the actions and reaction down into inf-antesable measurements of the reactions at every moment of the operation to fully understand it (why it can not possibly work).
I said - Oh, I am sorry - just the simple output was so clear - I forgot to offer those (the full spectrum of energy power and force) to you - here....... He looked and said - OMG - build it........now...... - do not tell anyone else until it is protected and build it now.
But what he said - was volumes - some people need the unendurable to believe the obvious - I believe our engineers are taught to look at the infinitesimal - for what other reason would they deny the simple - based on the complex.
Which is more powerful? If you are making your assumptionsoff of force - the details will tell you where you are wrong, but in power out - excess power out - then the details only explain how.
You can not gleam the details - the full operation from one Video - one working principle.       
To your other question:
"Now, I have a question, Is the working principle able to be deduced from the demonstration provided by the Travis effect video 5"
Mondrask asked why I do not answer some questions -
Yours is an example of one I would not answer the way it was formed.

If you asked - as I have said - "is this the effect that you observed that led to your eventual design of your claimed working Z.E.D. system" - the answer is "yes".

But in context to our discussions and the charges you have already repeated - I must assume that you will again turn "A" answer to your question into a claim that we have claimed over unity in video #5 again.

Video 1 - 5 were the inception moments - a part of histoy to us - which I have stated every time you claimed against it.

Why I think you are not genuine - is this question has been hammered by you, Kanshi, Mark E, and second opinion's by Micro 
and I have clearly answered it repeatedly - it is the same question you posed - that Larry C challenged you on - "to keep your word".

Now Answer me this question please:
How would you describe a machine the provided more energy than it required to operate - not more than the Ideal of the system - but a simple 5 hp Ideal motor that consumes 2 hp to operate and only has 3 hp to use?

In case you do not understand the question - If I claimed to get 6 HP from a 5 hp motor - or even 100% I would agree with the "magic claims" from the other. What you should ask is if it is impossible to reduce the input of a system to provide net energy.
It is not the same as taking one form of energy and claiming it grows into more.
Their is a difference - That is under under utilization - it is only 60% of the ability of the system - but it is free -   
Because the Travis Effect showed a way to run faster and cheaper - that is all video five needed to show.
The "Laws" which you protect - we do not make claims again - we make Solid claims that we developed a system to capture multiple reactions to the same input - and then use those multiple reactions to supply the input - reducing the operating cost of the same system well leaving energy to supply to the consumer.
The middle school example of "opposite and equal reactions"  and we discovered the combination of usage - of the compression nd expansion of Air and recapture - of head pressure and recapture - of buoyancy and recapture - and mixed that with the speed and cost reduction the Travis effect offered - and then layered the system to resuse the mechanical displaced mass multiple times at the same time - even speeding up the Travis effect - times each layer.
In short - each layer speeds the Travis effect at a greater rate with each layer - because the layering system decreases the compression and expansion with each layer - which is why we have a non - linear system - a polynomial.
I am just an inventor - but I clearly understand that power can be measured in time distance and mass -
Video 5 shows the Mass 2 pounds - lifted much much faster - at our controlled distance than the standard - Very good.
I can clearly understand that air volume compresses less within higher pressures.

We engineered a way to utilize that attribute - condensed it, and added the usefulness of the old column equalization - and some very cool attributes to develop the self powered system.

That should raise a flag of hope for all of us - it is just one world.

Even Larry C and other showed the upstroke potential - if you just used that and then added the equalization - you would intuitively know we blow the lid off Free energy.

In regards to your status:
Maybe you  are - maybe your not -  but coming on this link - the way you have presented yourself to this point - moves you to the other camp.
I hope it is just you are slow to realize that all possible combinations of physics - have not been completely explored - this system is an example - you can grow from it.
Wayne Travis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 07, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
Wayne:

That's exactly what you are trying to claim, make no mistake.  I don't care what phraseology you want to throw at me, in the final analysis that's what you are doing.  Same thing for precisely how you are supposedly doing it, that's your "secret sauce."

So what follows from that is the only way to be credible is to tell the people on this forum all of the details pertaining to the measurements and apparatus that you will be using in your upcoming tests ahead of time.  Then follow-through and deliver all the data.  Your actual system can be put aside does not really need to be discussed.  What your system actually does in terms of test setup and the provided data is the real way for you to show the people on this forum that you really have something.

Basic questions:  What form will the power output be in and how will you measure it?  What equipment will you be using for the measurements with manufacturers' names and part numbers?

MileHigh
You have dismissed everyone that has presented Data.

Which is the proof that you are in a philosophical debate with yourself.

I do physical testing - not philisophical.

Our physical system has been tested to confim to all physics - except the notion that it can not be done.

Multiple people have reported even here to the system - but a million people could present you with Data - and you will still struggle with your belief.

It is not my Job to make you a believer - it is my Job to share our advancement to physics - you are welcome to stay behind.

Again - Since our system conforms to basic and complex physics - which you can do yourself - make your own Data.
As I presented mine - you just say it is wrong - flawed or trickery.

You waste our time, and will until you decide which of your physics to believe.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 07, 2012, 04:39:59 PM
Please study what Wayne has shown on this site. The best way is to read only his posts in the order he wrote them ignoring All others. Then read the posts of the guys who are honestly studying what he teaches. Find and view each of his videos. Do the experiments he shows, as you will never find a cheaper experiment showing the basis of one form of free energy.  I believe Wayne has exactly what he says he has and a lot more that he is not sharing publicly. That is the only answer that is needed by those with an open mind.
Garry
Hello Garry,

You are a brave man, I have such respect for you.

You looked, you listened, you asked questions and understood.

The fact that you would risk the ignorant accusations that have now been dropped by the 'Trolls'
Lends credence to your courage, well done.

I apologize for them.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 07, 2012, 05:03:20 PM
Mondrasek:

i can't really comment on that.  Once assumes that you can debate this issue with Wayne and eventually you will hit a wall.  The wall is the "secret sauce," we see it all the time from people promoting free energy propositions.

Just a few more comments.

I saw some spreadsheets but they seemed to only be looking at increased force.  As has already been said, you have to look at work-in and work-out in the spreadsheets.  Without those calculations the spreadsheets are meaningless.

With respect to the "trolls" debate, don't let yourself get brainwashed and don't brainwash yourself.  If you decide that "people that disagree with me are trolls" you are no better than a fascist.  Trolls are not people that want to argue the merits or lack of merits of the proposition.  You start thinking like that and you are heading down a dangerous and ugly path.  Go look up the Wikipedia definition for "troll" and you might agree with me that there is only one troll on this website.

The only thing that Wayne has to offer you is a story that there is a magic configuration that will fit inside a black box filled with water and valves and pipes that can produce an unlimited amount of free energy.  Even though I have not been following, any of you that have been playing with buoyancy and making little setups only see unity.  As far as I am concerned you are just wasting your time.

It's very likely that this thread as it gets longer and longer gets more and more Google attention and starts coming up higher and higher in various search results.  Even a mixture of both good and bad publicity is better than no publicity.  So this could all be part of a project to "set up your fishing" to get investors.  Not such a nice thought, it would imply that Wayne is using you, and this ultimately the exercises you are all doing are BS.  Don't shoot me, it's a real possibility.  Following that train of thought, "Iflewmyown" could very well be a shill.  If he has never been in this thread at all and just showed up the other day with a visit report I would be suspicions.

Because of all of the above, that's why I am suggesting that you focus on whatever Wayne claims he is going to do in his demo of his system to prove that his technology is real.  Play hard ball with Wayne and push for getting all of the input and output measurement data like I already posted.   After all of your back and forth talk in this thread, all that you guys know when push comes to shove is that Wayne is claiming that he has a magic black box that creates power out of nothingness using buoyancy.  He can claim that he is "bending the rules" or that he has a "special trick that does not break the laws of Physics, bla bla bla" it doesn't matter.   Wayne claims that he has a black box, and what you should do on this thread is get ALL of the information about the input and output measurements on the black box.  You should demand this.  Forget about trying to "understand how it works" because that's impossible.  Wayne will always cite his "secret sauce" if needed.

Get the proof that Wayne delivers the goods when he does his demos.  Don't just stand idly by like passive wallflowers and wait to be spoon-fed the results.

MileHigh
First - what is that safety device in a steering wheel?

Second - We have working Demo models - which have been tested - the fact that you keep claiming otherwise is simple disinformation.

The NEXT Validation is a big step up - you do not move onto the NEXT level of Validation unless you passed the last - Three.

In validation recap - again:
Is our Physics good - PASSED
Is it original concept - PASSED
Do we have IP protection - PASSED
Is our group reptualable - PASSED
DO we have the ability to make Business decsions - PASSED

Does the input and out put math the physic model - PASSED

Can the system run closed looped - PASSED

What are the reactions within the system and can it be scaled - IN preparation

You are simply a disinformationist - you try to confuse people to our progress.

Third - Secret Sauce - it wasn't secret sauce for the replications.....That is your word for things hard for you to agree with.

Complain that it takes to much effort OK, but secret sauce - that points to you.

It is fine with me if you ignore the truth - you waste your time making bogus claims against us, and using your issues an an excuse is bad form.

As before - I asked - are you going to put as much effort in supporting us - that will be the test of your character.

If you already know you do not have it in you - quit insulting the good people that do.
I will take your banter - I can handle it.
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 07, 2012, 07:00:45 PM
Wayne:

Quote
You have dismissed everyone that has presented Data.

Which is the proof that you are in a philosophical debate with yourself.

I do physical testing - not philisophical.

Our physical system has been tested to confim to all physics - except the notion that it can not be done.

Multiple people have reported even here to the system - but a million people could present you with Data - and you will still struggle with your belief.

It is not my Job to make you a believer - it is my Job to share our advancement to physics - you are welcome to stay behind.

Again - Since our system conforms to basic and complex physics - which you can do yourself - make your own Data.
As I presented mine - you just say it is wrong - flawed or trickery.

You waste our time, and will until you decide which of your physics to believe.

Wayne Travis

Quote
First - what is that safety device in a steering wheel?

Second - We have working Demo models - which have been tested - the fact that you keep claiming otherwise is simple disinformation.

The NEXT Validation is a big step up - you do not move onto the NEXT level of Validation unless you passed the last - Three.

In validation recap - again:
Is our Physics good - PASSED
Is it original concept - PASSED
Do we have IP protection - PASSED
Is our group reptualable - PASSED
DO we have the ability to make Business decsions - PASSED

Does the input and out put math the physic model - PASSED

Can the system run closed looped - PASSED

What are the reactions within the system and can it be scaled - IN preparation

You are simply a disinformationist - you try to confuse people to our progress.

Third - Secret Sauce - it wasn't secret sauce for the replications.....That is your word for things hard for you to agree with.

Complain that it takes to much effort OK, but secret sauce - that points to you.

It is fine with me if you ignore the truth - you waste your time making bogus claims against us, and using your issues an an excuse is bad form.

As before - I asked - are you going to put as much effort in supporting us - that will be the test of your character.

If you already know you do not have it in you - quit insulting the good people that do.
I will take your banter - I can handle it.
Wayne Travis

I asked you, "What form will the power output be in and how will you measure it?  What equipment will you be using for the measurements with manufacturers' names and part numbers?"

And you generate all of the text above but you don't answer my very basic questions.  That says a lot about you and your hypothetical system.

Contributors to this thread:  My advice is to push Wayne and keep on pushing him for basic answers to basic questions, focusing always on his demos and the energy input and output measurements with all of the details.  That is supposedly what this whole thing is about.  Don't let Wayne or anybody else sway you from this fact and try to deflect you away from this.

If Wayne does some demos in the future and you don't get all of the relevant data about the input and output and how it was measured and what was used to make the measurements, etc, etc, then I would walk away from this whole thing.

If you can't get a straight answer to a straight question then there is a serious problem.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 07, 2012, 07:41:42 PM
Milehigh,
Who needs pushing? You divert and double down.

I have answered openly and honestly - you again assert the outright lie by calling our system hypothetical and dismiss everyone.
you dismiss that we have answered your question.

You are welcome to the results of our validation - you may ask the validators how they measured.
Be of character and stop making up poop - until it is over.

You continue to disrespect me and others claiming we have a grand conspiracy an agenda - theft - and such.

We have not injured anyone - nor have we asked for money or investors - nor have we made false claims - you now try to pretend to protect people from a future threat..... did you give up on proving our replicators wrong?

Since you persist with your accusations - let me repeat what I have already stated repeatedly
We have the help - from the right people - already.

I am here explaining my patent - and who knows - maybe some of the people who read this site might be in a position to join our team one day - after the validation.

If that is a problem with you - it is your problem.

Bad form

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 07, 2012, 07:52:48 PM
I asked you some straight questions on behalf of all of the readers of this thread and I am requesting some straight answers.

Are we supposed to assume that you have a system that produces free energy and you won't tell us how you measure it?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on July 07, 2012, 10:29:57 PM
I asked you some straight questions on behalf of all of the readers of this thread and I am requesting some straight answers.

Are we supposed to assume that you have a system that produces free energy and you won't tell us how you measure it?

Actually, you presume too much.  You are not asking questions on my behalf that I want answered right now.  I am happy to wait for the on-site verification by Mark Dansie first, then I will ask Mark about his test details.  Then if that passes, I will wait for the on-site engineering due diligence tests.  Then I will ask about the details of those tests. 

The sequence of due diligence tests have been repeatedly outlined by Wayne and Mark in the public forums.  Each step to be designed and taken in sequence based on a passing grade for each along the way.  A fail stops the follow-on test steps.

If you want to post concerns about the testing process or equipment, then I suggest you direct those to Mark.

Many posts have been presented in the "spirit" of an attack, rather than one of inquiry and constructive engagement.  These types of posts do nothing but fill the thread with noise that makes it hard to navigate the information.  Most want to pronounce the verdict before the trial is half over.

I don't have a problem with Wayne if he is wrong about the energy generation potential of his device.  If he is wrong, it will come out through the tests and reviews by those qualified skeptics who are tasked with the on-site verification.  I would not think the lesser of him for being wrong, because he has not tried to scam anyone by hiding what he has and knows.  He has invited the skeptics to prove him right or wrong.  All he has asked is that they respect his IP with an NDA if they want access to non-public information. 

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 07, 2012, 11:06:55 PM
I asked you some straight questions on behalf of all of the readers of this thread and I am requesting some straight answers.

Are we supposed to assume that you have a system that produces free energy and you won't tell us how you measure it?
You made my day - that was funny.
Just be professional - thats all I expect from you.
Ask Questions that are sincere -
Do not insult those who disagree with you -
Keep your stero types about inventors to yourself -
Do not ask questions to support your belief system -
ask questions with respect to the whole system -
Read what was already answered -
Leave the Ego out of the conversation -
Do not assert in your questions that you behold all the attainable knowledge in the universe.
And the hardest Part - which I am sorry to have to say -
You are the student here - not me - (on this one subject only) listen, look, ask proper questions, and learn.
If you want to learn - don't jump to conclusions -
If you already understood what we have enough to make a "conclusion" - you would have built it long ago..
Ready if you are.
Wayne Travis
 p.s. In referance to the Validation - I set no parameters - nor obstructions - you can follow their report in regards to input and output measureing methods.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 08, 2012, 12:19:08 AM
Wayne:

I have avoided discussing your system and instead I am focusing on the test results.  You have been talking in this thread about thousands of pounds of lifting force in the system, bla bla bla and then when someone comes along and asks you how you measure the energy out you croak.

You have tried to make me the issue and fired off your entire arsenal at me with everything under the sun in an attempt to put the spotlight on me and deflect it away from what really counts, the results.

Everybody knows that the spotlight is on the test results of your system.  It has nothing to do with me.

Why can't you say what the power output from your system is and what form it's in?  Why?  How can you talk about it over almost 60 pages of this thread and discuss all sorts of aspects of it and you crumble when somebody asks you about the output measurements?

If I was in your shoes and someone asked me what the output of the setup was I would tell them.  For Christ's sake, you have been working on it for months and months and months and you can't say what the output is?  You should be able to answer that question without batting an eyelash and give the details.  It's not even a question that asks about how your system works, it's just a question about the useful output and how you measured it.  It's unbelievable that you can't answer that question.

I am NOT the issue and you can whine and pout and deflect all you want, and sound wounded and in need of sympathy and perhaps some of the readers will buy it, and others not.

The first issue is the measurements of the output from your system will all of the data and test apparatus documented for everyone to see.

There is a secondary issue, which is you Wayne.  Watching you squirm and deflect and pout and try to make me out like the bad guy is not at all confidence inspiring for anyone.   It's a pathetic joke that you are pitching that you have a free energy machine based on buoyancy and when someone asks you for data on the output from said free energy machine you can't answer and then you do your dance.

I am done with this thread for now and I will be glancing in from time to time to read about any demos of the system and the results and how they were measured.

MileHigh

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 08, 2012, 12:22:10 AM
Quote
Ask Questions that are sincere

How much power output will your system deliver?  What form will the power output be in and how will you measure it?  What equipment will you be using for the measurements with manufacturers' names and part numbers?

It can't get any more sincere than that.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 08, 2012, 12:57:08 AM
First - as I have stated before - We are not doing the testing - and I am sure they will not use our equipment.
Second - we test our system by running closed looped - no fuel - no emissions, no inputs, and running a simple load.
(with the new cylinders bronze type bushings a little noise - but this is temporary). 
A note you might have missed - we have nine energy conversions in our system - all with losses - we can not even capture all the lift from the Zed - and still we have ample to demonstrate our point - at some point - putting a gauge on it sinks a little deeper into the testing of the past systems - which might have been "barely" overunity.
Our system is basically a self running pump - one of our Beta model will be for agricultural pumping, the other three will be for electrical conversion and demonstrating scale ability.
What you do with it is based on demand -
How much you want - is based on scale.
If you are wanting to know the specifics of our demo - I will let you know when we have finished the runs - promise.
Thanks.
 Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 08, 2012, 01:10:05 AM
Wayne:

I have avoided discussing your system and instead I am focusing on the test results.  You have been talking in this thread about thousands of pounds of lifting force in the system, bla bla bla and then when someone comes along and asks you how you measure the energy out you croak.

You have tried to make me the issue and fired off your entire arsenal at me with everything under the sun in an attempt to put the spotlight on me and deflect it away from what really counts, the results.

Everybody knows that the spotlight is on the test results of your system.  It has nothing to do with me.

Why can't you say what the power output from your system is and what form it's in?  Why?  How can you talk about it over almost 60 pages of this thread and discuss all sorts of aspects of it and you crumble when somebody asks you about the output measurements?

If I was in your shoes and someone asked me what the output of the setup was I would tell them.  For Christ's sake, you have been working on it for months and months and months and you can't say what the output is?  You should be able to answer that question without batting an eyelash and give the details.  It's not even a question that asks about how your system works, it's just a question about the useful output and how you measured it.  It's unbelievable that you can't answer that question.

I am NOT the issue and you can whine and pout and deflect all you want, and sound wounded and in need of sympathy and perhaps some of the readers will buy it, and others not.

The first issue is the measurements of the output from your system will all of the data and test apparatus documented for everyone to see.

There is a secondary issue, which is you Wayne.  Watching you squirm and deflect and pout and try to make me out like the bad guy is not at all confidence inspiring for anyone.   It's a pathetic joke that you are pitching that you have a free energy machine based on buoyancy and when someone asks you for data on the output from said free energy machine you can't answer and then you do your dance.

I am done with this thread for now and I will be glancing in from time to time to read about any demos of the system and the results and how they were measured.

MileHigh
I answered before I read your rant ..
I think it is wise for you to leave.
Your tactic to start out attacking does not lend to someone caring to read - listen or answer.
I am sorry if you do not like me avoiding your laten and direct insults.
Have no fear, I do not crouch, nor fear, nor hide, nor get bothered by your insults - I just don't waste my time.
What you do not realize is that what I have shared here is real.
That won't go away.
Have a nice day.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 08, 2012, 02:10:15 AM
Wayne:

Quote
I am sorry if you do not like me avoiding your laten and direct insults.

Bullshit, all I am asking for is data on the output of your device and how it is measured.  I am not going after you and insulting you.  You are lying and using playing the victim as a tactic to avoid discussing the output from your system.

Stop playing the victim Wayne it's tedious.  All that I know is that after 60 pages you still can't even state what the output from your device is.  You just want to deflect attention away from the most important aspect of what you have been talking about for 60 pages - the output.  Without any serious discussion about the output from your black box you lose all credibility as far as I am concerned.

For what it's worth, I have some comments this clip that was recently linked to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHbP3QTncBY

"Travis Effect Demo 5" shows nothing of significance.  "The Travis effect has won the race and is the more efficient system."  If any people reading this thread that watched that clip believe that you are seeing a "more efficient system" then you are wrong.   Once you factor the vertical displacement of the cups into the picture then you should realize that there is nothing there.

If I have accomplished anything it is that some of the readers and contributors will be more focused when you announce the results of your testing.  If you claim that the system produces seven horsepower continuously then they will want to see tangible proof of this.  They will want to know precisely what load you put on the output and how you measured it.   They are now aware than any load has to dissipate the energy output from your system and they will want to know how you are doing that.

We can all wait and see if you are going to deliver any results.

When I come back after you announce some results and ask you some questions about the results, don't you dare play the victim and try to deflect attention away from your results.   i will ask you straight questions and if you start dancing your victim dance I will state that's exactly what you are doing.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: EMdevices on July 08, 2012, 04:37:31 AM
MH

I watched some of the videos at the http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)  website, and specifically the "TRAVIS EFFECT" videos, and if this machine is based on these principles it certainly does not produce extra energy, regardless if it is "closed looped" or not.   The "travis effect" is just a static test and the force on the piston is down and is supported by the floor of the water tank.  If this piston is attached to the cup, as some are thinking and designing, this force will than be supported by the cup and it will sink real fast.   


So, let's talk about the proof offered:     CLOSED LOOP


In the free energy "circles" most folks have the impression that "closed loop" operation automatically means proof of free energy, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.   Take for example the simplest closed loop system, a spinning wheel!   If it is on good bearings and friction with air is minimized, it can spin for quite a while if given some initial energy.   Seeing the wheel spin does not mean it is producing extra energy. 


The same concept can be applied to more complex system, where it is not clear what is inside and what forces and energy storage reservoirs are present.   In such cases it is mandatory that the "initial conditions" of a system be specified.    For example, what is the water level in the pistons or bellows, what is the center of gravity of the whole unit, how much pressure is in a cylinder, what springs are compressed, how much charge is in a battery, capacitor, etc..   Anybody who does not specify such things before or after a test might be a good inventor but proves he is not a good tester of a system.


So, looking at a system  moving tells me nothing.  The video of bellows moving is a worthless waste of bandwidth if it is meant to prove overunity.



EM
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 08, 2012, 02:00:30 PM
MH

I watched some of the videos at the http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)  website, and specifically the "TRAVIS EFFECT" videos, and if this machine is based on these principles it certainly does not produce extra energy, regardless if it is "closed looped" or not.   The "travis effect" is just a static test and the force on the piston is down and is supported by the floor of the water tank.  If this piston is attached to the cup, as some are thinking and designing, this force will than be supported by the cup and it will sink real fast.   


So, let's talk about the proof offered:     CLOSED LOOP


In the free energy "circles" most folks have the impression that "closed loop" operation automatically means proof of free energy, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.   Take for example the simplest closed loop system, a spinning wheel!   If it is on good bearings and friction with air is minimized, it can spin for quite a while if given some initial energy.   Seeing the wheel spin does not mean it is producing extra energy. 


The same concept can be applied to more complex system, where it is not clear what is inside and what forces and energy storage reservoirs are present.   In such cases it is mandatory that the "initial conditions" of a system be specified.    For example, what is the water level in the pistons or bellows, what is the center of gravity of the whole unit, how much pressure is in a cylinder, what springs are compressed, how much charge is in a battery, capacitor, etc..   Anybody who does not specify such things before or after a test might be a good inventor but proves he is not a good tester of a system.


So, looking at a system  moving tells me nothing.  The video of bellows moving is a worthless waste of bandwidth if it is meant to prove overunity.



EM
You see nothing in the Travis Effect - OK..
Ok, - ya got me, I guess I am done here.....
Have a nice day.
Seriously - have a nice day.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 08, 2012, 02:14:11 PM
@Mrwayne. It would be a great shame if you really are done here. So the verdict has been reached even before the trial begins. Remember that the Flat Earth Society is still in existence and thriving. I dare say that there are people around who do not believe in Flying Machines. I think what would be helpful, is if you are in a position to tell us when the Mark Dansie tests are likely to take place. If for some reason you are still having problems, perhaps you could share that with us. For those of us who wish to see you succeed, it would cheer us up to see how things are progressing.


Regards Neptune.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 08, 2012, 02:21:58 PM
To All,

To those of you who are sharing and asking for Data privately - please continue - and you may post what you like of what I share.

This Web site has turned into a loop of interuption - of our sharing and efforts.

We should be talking about the details of the Non - linear - the inverted pumps - the cross over hydraulic exchange system.

What Se3d said is exactly right - validation is a long and hard process - and if you do not understand the process of extraordinary proof - you will be confused for a long time.

For those of you who jump to conclusions -  without understanding - I fear you may be on the "Edge of Jealousy"
I am sorry for that - I grew up with the notion that intelligent people helped eachother - for greater good - not of themself.

The professionals we are dealing with - hold their conclusions until the due diligence is done - I am so honored that they are professional.

And Se3d is exactly right - you do not move on to the next stage of validation until you pass the last - we have passed seven stages so far. No one - as I have been told has passed two stages before - in regards to free energy.

And for those of you Who have been professional - I commend you - it is hard to share your pearls of wisdom around split hooves.

And for you who are already typing your victory messages for running off an inventor- I will be back.

I will be back - to present the Conclusions of the Testing - Good or Bad - I am an honest man who keeps his word.

I suggest you get a BB gun and a cook book on how to roast Crow.

You are going to owe me an apology.

Don't bother claiming I did not give you enough information - you wasted your information gathering time - enough said.

To all who care,

Please keep us in your prayers, the preparation for the tests are going very well.

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution.com
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: EMdevices on July 08, 2012, 07:03:19 PM
Quote
You see nothing in the Travis Effect - OK..


Wayne,  I did not realize it was you who invented the machine,  but sadly yes,  I don't see anything new in your "travis effect" setup, and calling it by your name really insults the great scientists that have explored the physics hundreds of years before you were even born!   So have some respect.


but for discussions sake, here's why the "effect" is not special.   I drew a diagram to illustrate.




Notice that the higher pressure inside the cup is also pushing down on the piston with force F2.    It is true that a lesser volume of air is needed in such a configuration, but that's nothing new because the piston is displacing some of the volume.  Your car breaks work on this principle. F=p A, and you can have a very large area 'A' and create quite a force with very little hydraulic fluid pressure or displaced, or have a small area and high pressure.  But all this is just a STATIC configuration.     


If we want a DYNAMIC cycle based on this "effect", we can perhaps let the cup move up, but it will quickly drop the pressure of the air inside as the air moves up top, since it depends on the water/air interface level.     On the other hand, if we try and attach the piston to the cup,  than the cup will be loaded down with force F2, and then the net force F1-F2 will be small, so nothing gained from this either. 


Do you follow what I'm saying?


EM
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on July 09, 2012, 01:15:17 AM
I just posted the below to Sterling's site today because someone had made an incorrect assertion on how the Travis Effect was named.

"I (Tom Miller) coined the term "Travis Effect" and used it on the first video. The team liked it and the name stuck. Wayne called it "the Effect" back in April when I visited Chickasha.

Keith & Sterling's article on (PESWiki), talks about it accurately: "Tom Miller, in two videos (1 | 2) on the principle, has termed this the "Travis Effect." And though Mr. Travis may not necessarily approve of the nomenclature,...""

If there are issues with why the effect was named as it was, you may address that criticism to me.
 
I would suggest that the commenters in this thread read the material available before jumping to conclusions or making their own assumptions up. If you want to post snide comments or incorrect assumptions, they will be mostly ignored.

On the other hand if you want to ask a pertinent question in a nuetral, or a nice way, there are several people here that are happy to help others learn.

Thanks,
Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 09, 2012, 02:51:47 AM
Hi EMdevices,

You are correct in your observation

How much input did it cost to bring the cup up to lift potential?
How much input does it take to bring an empty cup up to lift potential?

If the cup was to raise 20% the height of the cup how much energy is used?

This demonstration is being used to build the understanding of the functioning system, this is not the whole thing but the basic building block that is needed to understand how the system works.

If you could also raise the block at the same time you are raising the cup, that might be something novel, and this is what Wayne Travis has managed to do.

Another observation to this simple demo is that the input to the cup with block starts out at its highest value, and the lift is at its highest value.

To take this and find advantage would mean using a short up stroke, that is the area where the input is far less than a normal system, if you keep the stroke going then the costs rise up to the same value as conventional, so don't do that.

Nothing has been made, no extra forces nor energy BUT something has been conserved and that is where the gain comes from, after all, we all understand a penny saved is a penny earned.  Take some of those savings and invest them into the system itself and continue with more savings :)
Outstanding, that was a great explanation.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: theotherguy on July 09, 2012, 02:58:37 AM
To All,

I visited Wayne Travis last week. I found him and his machine very credible. He was very open with the priciple and the design of his machine.  You can tell this is something he has put a lot of effort into and is very passionate.  He has a small staff working with him and they are well beyond whether the machine works or not. 

There are many reasons to be skeptical about the ideas and inventions out there, especially those promising overunity.  So when I had a chance to check something out personally, I took it.  I may actually be a believer.


 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2012, 05:46:30 PM
I cannot agree with that statement.
no one cares... mint?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2012, 08:13:15 PM
Is the Travis device, the big one, hooked up to the municipal water main supply (or to a local wellpump) while it's running?

Not for any flow, you understand, or perhaps allowing for just a small flow rate to replace leaked water... but perhaps seeing the _pressure_ of the municipal supply (or wellpump pressure)? And perhaps this connection could be valved on and off by the pneumatic control system ... again, not for any substantial _flow_ but for the pressure?

It's a question that's been nagging at the back of my mind for some time. I am believing all that MrWayne is sharing with us, but I still have the feeling we aren't quite asking the right questions yet.

MrWayne has told us that there's no exhaust, like excess water or air,  and no input beyond the initial precharge of pressures. I believe him, benefit of doubt style, and that's what makes any "supplied external power" scheme break down, because if outside power were being supplied there would have to be an input and an exhaust of some kind. So either there is some well hidden or neglected input/exhaust happening, like an open pressure tap to the muni watermain, or the Travis Effect is really doing what MrWayne claims in a manner that defies rational analysis. (None of the positive analyses done so far have explained where any excess energy could be coming from).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 09, 2012, 08:43:10 PM
@EM Devices. I find your post about closed looping a little strange. If we have a machine that will run closed looped, but produces no energy to external load, the conclusion we draw will depend on how long it will run. I would say that if the machine is purely mechanical, and runs for, say a month without slowing down, then something is happening that challenges the laws of physics. If it produces a tiny amount of excess energy, then it is overunity. If it makes any sound, that is excess energy. If it causes tiny air currents, that is OU. If the bearings run at one hundredth of a degree above ambient temperature, that is OU.  Such a machine would be of no practical use, except to open peoples minds. That in itself is very useful.
@TinselKoala. For the first time , you have written a post I can agree with! Mr wayne has made it clear that there is no connection to the water mains, or well pump. If there was such a connection , then during 4 years of experiments, he would have tried the machine without it. If the machine then stopped, it would not be difficult to figure out where the energy was coming from. That would have been a pivotal moment at which time he would have realised that all he had was a water mains powered engine. Mark Dansie would have noticed. The other engineers would have noticed. It would be one of the first things you would look for.
      That leaves only your second possibility. You express it as defying rational analysis. I would say it defies conventional analysis. I will admit that in a way, mrwayne has not said exactly where the energy comes from, in a direct sense. It is not impossible that he does not know. At this stage I am not by any means certain that it really matters. What does matter, is that there is excess energy. When mankind started to make articles from metal, he had to put away the tools he used to work with wood, and fashion some new tools. To understand this concept, perhaps we need some new tools.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Low-Q on July 10, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
no one cares... mint?
Who cares?
But what you imply with your statement is that the Travis effect can some how be used to create a buoyancy effect that can deliver excess energy. That statement is BS. Because the Travis effect isn't displaying how much volume of air that is required to lift a weight, but the over all surface pressure that acts on the inside of the cup. It is a visually disturbing demonstration - specially for OU seekers.
Ofcourse, the same pressure is counter forced on the block inside the cup, pressing the block down as much as the cup is pressed upwards. If you put a scale under the block, you will see that the weight of the block increase with the same weight as the displaced water volume + the weight of the water above the cup that creates the pressure.


On the other hand you say " "a spontaneous increase in the energy state of a system" is not needed, it is only redistributing the energy that is already present"
What you say is that the system is trivial, and it cannot work.


I have had several sleepless nights because of a convincing idea, and it hurts when I realized I have done a mistake in my calculations.
You too have probably made too much effort in this to admit that you are wrong. It's painful to realize the facts, but you will recover soon ;)  - I did after a week or so...

EDIT: That said, being unconcerned of the impossible is the reason behind most of the great inventions made in history.

Vidar
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 10, 2012, 03:14:43 PM
Who cares?
But what you imply with your statement is that the Travis effect can some how be used to create a buoyancy effect that can deliver excess energy.
bullshit. i didn't "imply" anything... ::) don't go putting words in my mouth that i didn't say.

me telling seamus that no one cares that he chooses to disagree with whatever he so chooses in no way implies anything about the travis effect... ::)  don't be asinine.

On the other hand you say " "a spontaneous increase in the energy state of a system" is not needed, it is only redistributing the energy that is already present"
What you say is that the system is trivial, and it cannot work.
what in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about son? i have said no such thing. again, stop putting words in my mouth that i haven't said!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Low-Q on July 10, 2012, 05:19:26 PM
bullshit. i didn't "imply" anything... ::) don't go putting words in my mouth that i didn't say.

me telling seamus that no one cares that he chooses to disagree with whatever he so chooses in no way implies anything about the travis effect... ::)  don't be asinine.
what in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about son? i have said no such thing. again, stop putting words in my mouth that i haven't said!
OK. I'm sorry.


Vidar
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: jdsanders on July 10, 2012, 05:35:57 PM
UNBELIEVABLE visit with Wayne Travis, ZED, and team!

All,

Last week, I had the singular pleasure of getting to visit with Wayne Travis, his wife Sandy, and several members of his engineering team at his home and in the ZED workshop. In total, there was a group of about 7-8 "seekers" who signed NDA's and were treated to a tour of the ZED facilities and to a long question-and-answer session with Wayne.

Two initial observations:

1) WAYNE TRAVIS IS HIDING NOTHING! He is bending over backwards to get the word out to EVERYONE on the veracity of the ZED and its underlying principles. He gets the "big picture" and he understands the huge hurdle of gaining acceptance of this paradigm-shifting invention. There are improvements made to his machine that are not explicitly shown in the patent. That is the main reason for the NDA. But, there are no limitations for any individual to replicate this invention.
 
2) WAYNE TRAVIS IS NOT ATTEMPTING TO DUPE ANYONE! He spent NEARLY THREE HOURS in front of a white board, diagramming portions of the ZED, explaining some of the processes, explaining how things worked, and detailing some of the over-3-years history of the current rev.  He is one of the most sincere, forthright, non-duplicitous individuals that I've ever met! He fielded every single question without hesitation.

Unfortunately, it appears that a few posters here have now successfully chased him off, and with him goes the wealth of understanding that he was sharing freely. So, we're trading the one true expert for a couple of individuals whose main expertise is obfuscation. (um, NOT a wise trade)

Regards,
-Joel D. Sanders
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 10, 2012, 06:41:56 PM
@Webby1. Thanks for your detailed explanations. For the benefit of everyone, could I impose on you to ask something . In your last couple of posts, You refer to a set up with an external water column. I am pretty sure that you previously posted a diagram of the setup you are describing. Could you please post a reply number and page number for this diagram.


@All. We have problems on this thread with naysayers. No one objects to people who are trying to prove to themselves and others that this technology is impossible. But there are such things as respect and decorum. It is a shame to say the least that we have lost mrwayne`s contribution here, at I time when it would have been really valuable. As Forrest Gump said, "That is all I have to say about that."


To all the people who have witnessed Wayne`s machine under NDA. I believe we now have three such witnesses who have posted here. Whilst I find your reports fascinating, it is noticeable to me [and to the naysayers] that you are all new members. Whilst not doubting your integrity, it would be valuable to know how you first heard about this technology. I am assuming that you heard about it elsewhere, and were probably directed here by Wayne and his team. Would any of you care to enlighten us please?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: jdsanders on July 10, 2012, 09:57:13 PM
@Neptune -- First let me say thanks to you (and LarryC, Webby1, etc) for helping to keep a sane discourse in the face of said "naysayers". 

Heck no, I'm not a new member (2005) (check my profile). I'm just the type of individual who reads, thinks, and doesn't find it necessary to post my few (usually skeptical) opinions on most of the discussions.  I rarely consider myself the expert, frequently have not made the effort to replicate, and realize that my two cents is worth about, well, two cents. My educational background is BS Computer Science. I minored in Mathematics and Physics, so I know more than the average non-degreed individual, but much less than the experts and genius-types.

Like many people here, I've been through many overunity highs and lows in the past (i.e. David Hamel, Newman, Searle, DePalma, Bedini, Marks, Bearden's MEG, Steorn/ORBO, etc, etc). I even got sucked in for a while on the Archer thing (God help us).

What struck me differently about the Travis device (ZED) were the videos of the Travis Effect. The effect itself is completely simple, yet completely counter-intuitive. It also is completely replicable by anyone who will take the few minutes to do it. Then, there's the machine that runs with NO INPUT. Does anyone here understand? -- NO INPUT! We're not chasing a fraction of a watt, there is not a string of batteries, there is not a magnet flipping back and forth, there is not some hazy measure of excess heat -- there is simply NO INPUT!  How can one not be excited about that?

Then, after following/reading for a couple of days, I see that THE INVENTOR is answering ALL QUESTIONS and invites ALL COMERS to witness the machine. I live in Springfield, MO which is about five hours from Chickasaw. I reason that if the effect and machine are for real, then later generations will look on Wayne Travis the same way we do Newton, Maxwell, Edison, Bell, Tesla, etc, now. Would you not give your right arm to have visited any of those men in their experimenting prime? It was a no-brainer for me. I emailed, he re-invited, and the visit happened.

Neither Wayne Travis, nor any of his associates, asked, suggested, implied, cajoled, or any way influenced me to post about my visit. I simply did it as a way to help balance the sheer stupidity of some of the negative comments that were being posted. I was visiting this forum to gain additional information, but instead was spending my time wading through the ignorance of a negative few who were doing nothing to further my understanding, either favorably or unfavorably.

Any more questions? Please ask. I'm trying to increase what I know. Wayne Travis has given NDA-signers permission to discuss anything about the machine except for the specific improvements. It's in his (and the world's!) interest to get the word out.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on July 10, 2012, 11:35:24 PM
Neither Wayne Travis, nor any of his associates, asked, suggested, implied, cajoled, or any way influenced me to post about my visit. I simply did it as a way to help balance the sheer stupidity of some of the negative comments that were being posted. I was visiting this forum to gain additional information, but instead was spending my time wading through the ignorance of a negative few who were doing nothing to further my understanding, either favorably or unfavorably.

Any more questions? Please ask. I'm trying to increase what I know. Wayne Travis has given NDA-signers permission to discuss anything about the machine except for the specific improvements. It's in his (and the world's!) interest to get the word out.

Could you do any conclusive measurements? Input versus output?

Is the machine working? If it is working, for how long does it run?

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 11, 2012, 02:56:04 AM
@All,
 
With much assist from Wayne, please consider the following:
 
The Travis effect device has four principles working at once to achieve over unity. If you look at just one principle, you will not be able to understand.
 
(1) The Nonlinear effect due to air compression/expansion requires less weight to make more pressure on the down stroke, and less pressure to make more lift on the up stroke.
 
(2)The Zed design is more efficient than a hydraulic cylinder as my previous calculations have shown. Partly due to the lack of friction robbing seals in the Zed as opposed to those in the hydraulic cylinder and mostly due to the increased surface area in the layered Zed. More layers, more efficiencies.
 
(3)The ZED system has production in both directions. First, on the up stroke, the buoyancy force is captured in a hydraulic fluid under pressure, some of which is used to move the water back and forth. Second, on the down stroke, the head production is captured and all of it is used to pay for most of the water transfer.
 (Do not overlook the fact that the buoyancy captured, does not consume any of the head used to create the buoyancy)
 
(4) The inverted pumping system reduces 20% off the operating cost.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: iflewmyown on July 11, 2012, 03:22:18 AM


Neptune said:

To all the people who have witnessed Wayne`s machine under NDA. I believe we now have three such witnesses who have posted here. Whilst I find your reports fascinating, it is noticeable to me [and to the naysayers] that you are all new members. Whilst not doubting your integrity, it would be valuable to know how you first heard about this technology. I am assuming that you heard about it elsewhere, and were probably directed here by Wayne and his team. Would any of you care to enlighten us please?


Username:iflewmyown
Posts:60 (0.042 per day)Age:N/ADate Registered:August 09, 2008, 06:44:26 AM

Have a nice day  :)








Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: jdsanders on July 11, 2012, 03:26:48 AM
Could you do any conclusive measurements? Input versus output?

Is the machine working? If it is working, for how long does it run?

Greetings, Conrad

@conradelektro: No, my visit occurred the day AFTER they isolated the poppet valve leakage problem. During the visit, an engineer/technician was at the control panel working on the machine. I believe he was successively pressure-testing the different portions of the machine to check for additional leaks.  So, I did not witness the machine running, nor was I able to request or observe any meaningful measurements.   -Joel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: theotherguy on July 11, 2012, 06:48:24 AM
To Neptune,

I learned of the ZED from PESN.com a few months ago, while checking out information on LENR, which I have only been seriously following since Rossi's announcement last Fall.  I'm only 3 hours from Chickasha and Wayne was very open to receive visitors.

Yes I am new to this forum.  The evening I got back from checking out the ZED I came across this forum from a link posted on a site discussing the Rossi's E-Cat.  Coincidence? Probably, but browsing the posts, I thought an eye witness post would be helpful.  Wayne Travis never asked anything of us. He barely even mentioned his detractors and I think only because someone brought it up.  Like I said, I didn't even know this site existed until after I visited with Wayne.

My background is Computer Science, Math, Physics & Chemistry.  I get the skepticism.  It shouldn't work, but it sure looks like it does.  I will probably spend the next few weeks playing with cups and lead weights in the sink.

Wayne Travis should be commended for his openness and willingness to share his discovery.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Low-Q on July 11, 2012, 01:36:01 PM
@Seamus101


It doesn't help to argue against believers - regardless of what they believe in (It doesn't have to be OU machines) ;-) I have tried. Believe me - it doesn't work... The only thing that works for changing peoples mind is a bullet, but it isn't allowed. The best thing is to look away, accept that other people thinks different, and have another view on things. Whish I had the patience to let people believe in what they want :)


However, being unconserned of the "impossible" (like many in here are - myself included) is important for learning, important for inventing something - even if the final product isn't what you first thought out. Maybe not OU, but at least something useful anyways. Remember that most of us, if not all, are still in our childhood in physics. We mostly do not see the whole picture, and cannot predict the real outcome other than what ones mind has made up - until one have had hands on experience with the invention. Then you scratch your head for a while, and ask yourself why it doesn't work as intended. Then learn something, and moves on  :)


Vidar
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on July 11, 2012, 02:02:23 PM
To All,

I visited Wayne Travis last week. I found him and his machine very credible. He was very open with the principle and the design of his machine.  You can tell this is something he has put a lot of effort into and is very passionate.  He has a small staff working with him and they are well beyond whether the machine works or not. 

There are many reasons to be skeptical about the ideas and inventions out there, especially those promising overunity.  So when I had a chance to check something out personally, I took it.  I may actually be a believer.

...

My background is Computer Science, Math, Physics & Chemistry.  I get the skepticism.  It shouldn't work, but it sure looks like it does.

@ theotherguy

It is so trivial, that it is almost childish to ask it again. But it seems that the discussion always goes away from the essential.

The essential question in connection with any OU machine is how much energy is put in and how much energy comes out of the machine. And in order to answer this essential question one absolutely needs a working machine and one needs to do measurements to establish input and output. The measurements are best done by independent persons with the necessary technical knowledge.

So, did you see a working machine and did you do measurements?

You claim a highly technical background (Computer Science, Math, Physics & Chemistry). Well, this background should enable you to answer technical questions like "how much energy was put in and how much energy came out of the machine"?

It is obvious that you did not see a working machine and that you could not do any measurements (a mentally sane person would have told in case this had happened).

So, what did you witness and why do you think it is a credible OU machine (without any measurements and without closely examining a working machine)?

I am not attacking you or Mr. Wayne, but we have to stay on the technical level in order to make any sense. OU is a very bold claim which needs clear and concise proof. And the burden of proof lays on the shoulders of the person who claims to have a OU machine.

So far, all self proclaimed witnesses in this forum have stated that Mr. Wayne is a nice person, but none has seen a working machine and most important none has witnessed or done any conclusive measurements. Therefore, on the technical level, no proof has materialised.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 11, 2012, 05:41:38 PM
It should really come as no surprise to anyone, that most of the witnesses have come away with no scientific proof. The first step in real proof will come from Mark Dansie, who incidentally has seen the machine working .Wayne has said that Mark will not be called back until he can guarantee the reliability of the machine 100%. Mark is well known for his sceptical views, and remember that Mark was invited to see this machine. Had the other witnesses seen the  machine working, it would have proved little. Incidentally it amuses me that people want to see measurements of input and output. How do you measure the input of a machine that uses no external input? Even exact measurement of the output is not that vital. With no input, if we can show an output, however small, then we have overunity. Like it or not, we are still in a waiting game.
        I would say that Marks results will convince most rational people. And his tests are to be followed by still more rigorous tests. But even after these tests, there will still be people writing mathematical proofs of its impossibility. Exactly like the DDWFTTW machine.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 11, 2012, 06:53:28 PM
@All,

Simple Non-Linear explanation attached. Enjoy the understanding. Bright green for free green energy. Keep in mind this is only one ZED, think of the possibilities with 2 and water transfer.
 
Thanks to Michel for a better looking presentation.
 
Edit: Changed descriptions for better clarity.

 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on July 11, 2012, 06:59:29 PM
Incidentally it amuses me that people want to see measurements of input and output. How do you measure the input of a machine that uses no external input? Even exact measurement of the output is not that vital. With no input, if we can show an output, however small, then we have overunity. Like it or not, we are still in a waiting game.

@Neptune

May be I can add to your amusement by pointing out that "setting up the machine" is an "input".

As far as I understand, the machine has to be pressurized. This clearly is an "input of energy" (equivalent to winding up a mechanical clock).

Even, if one only has to pump water a few meters up, it would be an "input". A great amount of water sitting in a container a few meters above ground has a lot of energy which can be released by having the water run through a turbine situated below the container. The energy is put in when filling the container.

The first thing to do is a rough estimate of the energy required "to set the machine up into a working state". The output should then of course be much higher than this "initial input".

If "setting the machine up" involves creating high pressure within the machine, the first thought coming to mind is that the machine slowly "winds down this pressure". Which could take a lot of time, e.g. days, in case only a small load is driven.

You will be even more amused, because there clearly is continuous input: valves are switched, sensors are read and a controller (microprocessor)  is running, which consumes electricity. This has to be taken into consideration, because the machine will not function without this input.

But besides the "initial input" and the continuous "control input", there might still be further input which we do not know at the moment. The functioning of this machine would be better explained if this "unknown input" could be identified. Simply stating that there is no input is as bold as claiming OU and therefore equally controversial. It would need additional irrefutable proof (and can not serve as an explanation of the machine).

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 11, 2012, 07:56:09 PM
Hi Conrad. Firstly, I am not privileged to any more information than you are. I only know what has been disclosed, and pending information to the contrary, I am prepared , for the time being to take that on trust. I agree that setting up the machine requires an input in the form of an injection of compressed air or water. But that is a once only input, and after the machine has stopped, that input can be recovered. So that is , if you like , a "loan" rather than a debt.
        Setting up the machine does not involve a "high pressure". I do not have the maximum pressure to hand, but I am certain that it never even reaches 10 pounds/sq inch. I believe that the output of this demonstration machine is 500 Watts, not that small in my opinion. Yes I am moderately amused to learn that all the valves, sensors etc , are provided with electrical input. I am of course less amused to learn that these are powered by the alternator driven by the hydraulic motor at the output .
       You say, and I agree, that there may be a further input that we do not know about. If that is the case, then Mark Dansie will tell us all about it.No such input is shown on the patent, which we are told gives us all the info needed for replication.
        So based on what we are told, there is no external input .
   Yours, Well Amused, Ken.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 11, 2012, 11:01:47 PM
All,
 
This thread started with an Inventor of a supposed OU device coming to OU.com (of all places) to explain the workings of his invention.  The patent for his device was located, the contents of which were also being explained by the Inventor.  For a while there was a mostly respectful dialog with the Inventor as he continued to openly answer questions and try to explain to several forum members who were trying to figure out how his device could work, why, where the energy could come from, etc.
 
This thread has been overtaken by several who continue to argue about the impossibility of the supposed OU device based on principles.  And while that is fine in and of itself, it has become a constant detraction from the actual study of the patent and device, whether it was intended or not.
 
So I ask that those that want to argue why or why not a device based on the principles of buoyancy can be OU please start a thread for that purpose.  Let those who wish to discuss the device disclosed by the Inventor at the beginning of this thread and in the later disclosed patent please continue to do so without your constant interuptions.
 
The interuptions have already driven off (for the moment) from the OU.com forum the best source for answering questions about the physical device described at the start of this thread and in the patent.  That should be considered regretable to all.
 
If you would like to show how this device cannot work, please stay.  But please show your analysis of the specific construction disclosed in the patent or the other models that are being analyzed.
 
Respectfully,
 
Mondrasek
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 12, 2012, 12:16:51 AM
@All,
 
My earlier statement:
'(1) The Nonlinear effect due to air compression/expansion requires less weight to make more pressure on the down stroke, and less pressure to make more lift on the up stroke.'
 
Understanding this concept is another important step in understanding the OU in the Travis system.
 
The first attachment shows the Zed at 4.8 PSI and at 8 PSI to help prove why the increase in lift is Non-linear.
The height values are all relative and the lift values are based on the height of water on the pod and the difference in height of water between two adjacent water columns.
 
They show that at 4.8 PSI there is 33.5 units of lift value, and at 8 PSI there is 130 units of lift value. So the lift value of 130 units is 3.88 times greater than 33.5. The PSI of 8 is only 1.67 times greater than the 4.8 PSI. This non-linear increase of 3.88 output at 1.67 input is due to the compression of air as the water head aligned. Note that there is also less air in the channels between  PSI 4.8 and 8.
 
The second attachments is showing the 'Non Linear Zed advantage over Hydraulic cylinder' again.
 
I would appreciate a PM from anyone who is not understanding and where my explaination can be improved.
 
Regards, Larry 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Low-Q on July 12, 2012, 02:03:29 PM
Incidentally it amuses me that people want to see measurements of input and output. How do you measure the input of a machine that uses no external input?
It should not be a suprise that energy cannot be created, or be destroyed. So if the machine has energy output, it must be a potential energy difference between input and output to do so. That would probably mean that the input energy is negative. To achieve negative energy one of the elements, force or distance, have to be negative. How do we measure negative distance, or negative force? Both distance and force has to be 0 or more. So basicly, the energy input cannot be measured, because it must be negative - or at least a source of energy that has no origin, and at the same time is constantly decreasing. - still not possible to measure.


Vidar
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 12, 2012, 05:24:39 PM
I finally finished the analysis of my ZED model design from a full lift of 80% capacity (12 of 15lbs) down exactly .5 inches which in my 12 inch tall system coorelates to the 3 inch stroke Mr. Wayne is using in his 6 foot systems.  I was analyzing every 1 in^3 of water removed from the Pod chamber starting with a neutral buoyancy condition.  This gave me 8 equally spaced data points (last one is a little less than evenly spaced).  With this done I started really searching for the nonlinear relationships that have come up in discusions lately.  And I think I found something very interesting.
 
I've posted the picture below before.  At the time I thought the Changing Buoyancy Ratios were interesting.  But take a closer look at the witness lines drawn on the top and bottom of the outermost water column.  The ZED is lowering from left to right.  But the water head of the Outer Riser is increasing from left to right.  So the air pressure inside the Outer Riser is increasing from left to right.
 
So while the Pod chamber water pressure decreases, the air pressure in the Outer Pod is increasing.  I believe this is very significant and may be the nonlinear relationship being discussed?
 
Actually I find the relationship pretty linear (since I am not adjusting air volume for changes in pressure).  Its just that the slope of that graph is opposite what one would expect.  Wow.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 12, 2012, 06:38:36 PM
@All,
 
New changes based on some comments PM'ed to me. First, I removed the extra hardware in the center of the POD. Wayne had said the POD can be solid, so this will reduce the confusion. Second the water wasn't balanced between the 4.8 and 8.0 cycle, so it is corrected on the right side only of 4.8. The good news is that someone else has understood why it is nonlinear.
 
The following is as posted earlier, with updates:

 
'(1) The Nonlinear effect due to air compression/expansion requires less weight to make more pressure on the down stroke, and less pressure to make more lift on the up stroke.'
 
Understanding this concept is another important step in understanding the OU in the Travis system.
 
The first attachment shows the Zed at 4.8 PSI and at 8 PSI to help prove why the increase in lift is Nonlinear.
The height values are all relative and the lift values are based on the height of water on the pod and the difference in height of water between two adjacent water columns.
 
They show that at 4.8 PSI there is 42 units of lift value, and at 8 PSI there is 128 units of lift value. So the lift value of 128 units is 3.05 times greater than 42. The PSI of 8 is only 1.67 times greater than the 4.8 PSI. This nonlinear increase of 3.05 output at 1.67 input is due to the compression of air as the water head aligned. Note that there is also less air in the channels between  PSI 4.8 and 8.
 
The second attachments is showing the 'Non Linear Zed advantage over Hydraulic cylinder' again.
 
I would appreciate a PM from anyone who is not understanding and where my explanation can be improved.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Edit: Corrections to 8.0 numbers. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 13, 2012, 03:28:08 PM
    Post Deleted.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 14, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
According to the information posted on his website, one of Mrwayne`s tasks in the current week, was to schedule the next stage of verification. I am assuming that he probably means arranging the next visit from Mark Dansie. Judging by the way things have been done in the past, his next website update will be on Monday, when he will probably tell us more. If Marks verdict is positive, and I believe it will be unless there are teething problems, the next stage will be verification by the Big Guns on behalf of potential investors.
         There are several very promising technologies in the frame at the moment, and personally, I think that in the future as in the past we shall see several competing technologies running side by side. There will probably be no one-size-fits-all answer. Experience will tell what is the most cost-effective size for ZED machines. The answer could be a machine suitable to serve all the homes in one or two streets. This would be handy, as the sites of electricity substations could be reallocated as generator sites when the National Grid becomes redundant. When that happens, the scrap merchants are going to have a field day. We can recycle the pylons as a source of steel to build ZEDs. We live in exiting times, and things may move faster than you thought possible.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on July 14, 2012, 05:55:04 PM
We live in exiting times, and things may move faster than you thought possible.


Poignant ambiguity created by the mere (accidental or deliberate) omission of that little "c" in "exiting".
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 14, 2012, 08:13:18 PM
The following interesting nonlinear example came up in PM's with others trying to understand and help.
 
One nonlinear unit is a car air shock absorber, as its resistance to compression increases as applied force gets higher.
 
Now, if you had a small Travis model on your desk, that is set at a PSI (50% of max) which will lift 25 pounds and it has a 20 pound weight on top and had risen an inch to a stop. Now with your hand apply forces varying from >o to 10 pounds. It will respond similar to a spring as the internal air will be compressing/decompressing and the water column lowering/rising in response to the air volume changes due to the external pressure changes.
 
Then compare that to a hydraulic system doing the same test. No movement.
 
Correction: Thanks M.

 
Regards, Larry 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 14, 2012, 09:09:04 PM
Anybody up for a Beta test?
 
The below attachment is from my water height calculator and the spreadsheet is below.
Note how the New water levels have a increasing downward slope from outside to inside.
 
The logic used is to first lower the water level in the Outside Container by the entered value, then raise the water level in the adjacent channel. The new difference in water levels causes the PSI in the adjacent air channel to lower. The lowered pressure is used to calculate the expansion of the air. That expanded value is used to determine how much to lower the next water channel and raise the water in the adjacent channel. Then use the accumulated PSI to calculate the expansion of the air. So on and so on until the pod water level is lowered.
 
Basically, the outside water drop is forcing all the inner channel to respond accordingly.
 
 
This logic is much simpler, then changing the POD level and calculating outward. To do it correctly, it would require recursive iteration calculations forward and backward on the previous channels. As each channel change require changes to all previous channels which again changes the current channel, and round and round you go until it settles.
 
Regards, Larry
 
.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 14, 2012, 10:21:15 PM
@LarryC. re your penultimate  post .I see what you are saying regarding the loaded ZED having spring like qualities. Are you just drawing our attention to this as a sort of curiosity? It would have relevance in the complete machine. The ZED is used to compress a hydraulic ram which in turn is used to pump oil into a hydraulic accumulator. The amount of pressure needed to compress that ram increases from the start of the stroke to the end of the stroke, as pressure rises in the accumulator. The effort required is non linear. So if the water being forced into the zed is fed in at a constant rate, this "springiness" of the ZED might be of benefit. This springiness might be useful if two ZEDS were used to operate a crankshaft by connecting rods. It would help to get you through top and bottom dead centres.
        If you had a hydraulic system consisting of a pump and a ram lifting a load, there would be no springiness in the system as you say. You could introduce springiness by having an air pocket inside the top of the ram. But it would be of no advantage, indeed, quite the opposite. So TBH I am not really sure why you are drawing our attention to this springiness.
Regards, Ken.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 10:39:19 PM
I'm following as closely as I can but not yet doing calcs of my own... I have no desire to reinvent the wheel. My position, as I've stated before, is that any overunity behaviour must defy conventional analysis in this system, and that IF calcs indicate OU behaviour there must be something wrong in the calcs. I am still taking MrWayne at his word that there is no input and no exhaust and the machine keeps running until it breaks or is deliberately stopped, producing useful power while running itself. That is, I am suspending disbelief for the moment, even though my training and education and experience tells me that it is impossible for it to be true.

So... at this point I have a question for larryc and mondrasek and the other spreadsheet modelers. I know that the mass of the water is in your calcs, else how could you compute the forces exerted by the water head heights. But is the mass of the cylinders themselves included in your calculations?

I just want to point out that many rotary PM designs would work, turning forever, if only just some single small factor were altered or removed, like bearing or seal friction or the mass of a swinging arm... or hydraulic cylinder. Or even viscous drag.

The "moral" being that if your calcs show OU behaviour, especially if it is small wrt the total energy flows in the system.... then the first thing you should suspect is that you have omitted something from your calcs somehow, not that you are about to save the world from the Tyranny of Big Oil.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 15, 2012, 12:27:14 AM
Hi TK.
 
My analysis has started with a small, three layer model (6 in OD x 12 in tall) of a single ZED.
 
I began by calculating the entire lifting force due to bouyancy, ie. the "ideal."  This was about 15 lbf.  Initialy I was only looking at the counter force being the weight of the acrylic materials.
 
Based on info from Mr. Travis I then adjusted my calculations to add additional weight to the Outer Riser for the "floating members" of the model to have a mass of approximately 1/3 or that ideal, or ~5 lbs.
 
I then calculated what outer ring water level would be necessary for the above described set up to be only neutral bouyant.  This required that the water level in the outer ring be lowered just a bit.
 
The next step was to load the system to ~80% of "ideal" lift capacity.  So I added weight to the Outer Riser so that the entire Pod/Riser arrangement weighed about 12lbs.
 
Next began the removal of water from the "ideal" completely stroked up system until the neutral bouyancy condition for the now 12 lb weighted system was found.
 
Once neutral bouyancy was established I began an iteraitve search for how much the Pod/Risers would drop if 1in^3 of water was removed from the Pod chamber.  I repeated this exercise for every -1in^3 until the Pod/Riser system had dropped .5 inches, as this cooresponds to what Wayne has said is currently the condition of his test system (though he acknowledges that the stroke of his current test system is limited by the volume capacity of the Firestone cylinders he has in use in his mass transfer pump system).
 
Please let me know if I can help with any other details.
 
M.
 
BTW, I used ACAD quite a bit to determine dimensions so the spread sheet does not have all those intermediate steps and calculations.  I am happy to elaborate it it will help anyone.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 15, 2012, 12:40:02 AM
Graphical representation attached.

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 15, 2012, 01:49:58 AM
@LarryC. re your penultimate  post .I see what you are saying regarding the loaded ZED having spring like qualities. Are you just drawing our attention to this as a sort of curiosity? It would have relevance in the complete machine. The ZED is used to compress a hydraulic ram which in turn is used to pump oil into a hydraulic accumulator. The amount of pressure needed to compress that ram increases from the start of the stroke to the end of the stroke, as pressure rises in the accumulator. The effort required is non linear. So if the water being forced into the zed is fed in at a constant rate, this "springiness" of the ZED might be of benefit. This springiness might be useful if two ZEDS were used to operate a crankshaft by connecting rods. It would help to get you through top and bottom dead centres.
        If you had a hydraulic system consisting of a pump and a ram lifting a load, there would be no springiness in the system as you say. You could introduce springiness by having an air pocket inside the top of the ram. But it would be of no advantage, indeed, quite the opposite. So TBH I am not really sure why you are drawing our attention to this springiness.
Regards, Ken.
Just pointing out that a standalone ZED has similar non-linear characteristics to an auto air shock.
 
M's comment about air shock reaction: 'Push on the cylinder rod with one unit of force and it will collapse one unit of distance.  But push on the cylinder rod with two units of force and it will NOT collapse two units of distance:  it will collapse less.  And considerably less for the third unit of force.  So, nonlinear.'
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 15, 2012, 03:12:09 AM
M's comment about air shock reaction: 'Push on the cylinder rod with one unit of force and it will collapse one unit of distance.  But push on the cylinder rod with two units of force and it will NOT collapse two units of distance:  it will collapse less.  And considerably less for the third unit of force.  So, nonlinear.

Just to clarify, my comments about an air shock were that they ARE linear.  So if you push on the cylinder rod of an air shock with one unit of force it will collapse one unit of distance.  Push on the cylinder rod with two units of force and it will collapse two units of distance.  And push on the cylinder rod with three units of force and it will collapse three units of distance.
 
With the ZED it is nonlinear so:  'Push on the cylinder rod with one unit of force and it will collapse one unit of distance.  But push on the cylinder rod with two units of force and it will NOT collapse two units of distance:  it will collapse less.  And considerably less for the third unit of force.  So, nonlinear.'
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 15, 2012, 12:32:37 PM
I will admit I am not familiar with air shocks. In the past I worked on oil shocks, but that`s different. As I see it there are probably two types of air shocks. Type one would be like a bicycle pump with the outlet hole blocked up. So this would be non linear, you are simply compressing air progressively. A similar technology is used for the suspension of semi-trailers on tractor-trailer rigs. This consists of air bags, just like Wayn`s Firestone bellows. Here they act as just a spring, a separate oil type shock absorber being used.
        The only type of air shock that I could envisage that would have a linear response, would work on the same principle to an oil shock . Here, air would be forced by a piston from one chamber to another through a small hole . A separate spring would be needed.
      Actually, I have just remembered a type of linear air shock that I came across. These are used on some front loading washing machines. The drum assembly hangs on two springs, and has air shocks at the bottom. These are like a bicycle pump with a closed outlet. The piston [ which does not incorporate a valve like a bike pump] is deliberately made to be a leaky fit in the cylinder. So it is linear, and more effective at higher frequencies of vibration.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 15, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
Just to clarify, my comments about an air shock were that they ARE linear.  So if you push on the cylinder rod of an air shock with one unit of force it will collapse one unit of distance.  Push on the cylinder rod with two units of force and it will collapse two units of distance.  And push on the cylinder rod with three units of force and it will collapse three units of distance.

The above is not correct.  An air shock force vs. displacement is NOT linear.  Sorry if I confused anyone.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 16, 2012, 12:22:39 AM
Please see the attached spreadsheet. It shows the main reason that the Travis system has less lift force than the Hydraulic Cylinder at 4.8 PSI.
 
On the right, note the Total force of the Travis system of 3777 (bright green)  after the system in lowered to 4.8 PSI by lowering the water level. It is greater than the hydraulic cylinder of 3678.
 
On the left, it shows the Total force of the Travis system of 2630. This is due to the fact that the water around the pod has been lowered so that it cannot support it own weight and sinks to the bottom. Compressed air has been pumped in to maintain the original PSI on the layers. Only the risers are now applying the lift.
   
I hope this helps clear up as to why the Zed works as shown in the attached  'Non Linear ZED advantage over Hydraulic Cylinder'.
 
 
Thanks to Wayne for clearing this up.
 
Edit: 'Compressed air has been pumped in to maintain the original PSI on the
layers' missing statement was added.

 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 16, 2012, 01:43:28 AM
@All who is downloading the Travis water height calculator. Sorry, but a save error has occurred and my changes wasn't saved. I'll correct and post later when I figure out what happen. Thanks for the patience.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 18, 2012, 06:19:26 PM
Things have gone very quiet. The last I heard, on Wayne`s website, he planned to call in Mark Dansie. Anyone heard any news from anywhere?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: markdansie on July 19, 2012, 05:05:59 AM
they are planning to do long term running this week, will keep you informed.
Mark
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 19, 2012, 02:07:59 PM
Hi Mark, and many thanks for the update. At the risk of repeating myself, it is obvious that Wayne`s team have to have everything perfect before your tests begin.There is, after all so much at stake. This technology , in terms of the future of mankind, is of far greater importance than putting a man on the moon. Not only is there the prospect of cheaper , cleaner energy, but if this pans out, we can never look at physics in the same way again. I trust that, in as much as you are able, you will keep us up to date.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2012, 03:08:23 PM
@mondrasek: thanks for the answer and the graphics. You are working hard on this, I can tell. I hope you are getting enough sleep!
I see then that you are considering the moving masses of the cylinders themselves, and your iterative process seems to be zeroing in on the maximum "break even" masses: if the cylinders are too heavy, the system won't work. And apparently also if they are too light it won't work, because the added lifted mass (A "bias" mass?)  is just effectively making that cylinder heavier, since the mass itself is constant.

I still haven't had the time to go over the spreadsheets in detail. I am trusting the accuracy of the modellers and accepting the numbers provisionally but I still feel that somewhere there is something that's not getting into the accounting.

This last little RED statement worries me, pulls me up short. Have I missed something?

Compressed air must be pumped in? From where? What does the pumping, how much compression, etc. and is this pumped in compressed air accounted for when we have been told that, except for the precharge, nothing is added or exhausted during operation?

(Linear, nonlinear? These terms are used ambiguously. Sometimes it appears that "linear" is used in the sense of the order of the equation: linear, quadratic, cubic, quartic, etc. all of which have different shaped "lines" on a graph of the function. And anything that is not first-order (straight line) is considered non-linear, even if it is still a smooth, easily predicted graph like the second order, quadratic function. Stretchy springs or compressed air cylinders are examples that are smooth functions but not necessarily straight line functions... especially if the way the volume changes as the air is compressed is itself NONLINEAR....... imagine a tapered cylinder with a conforming piston..... hint hint....
Other times it seems to mean "non-differentiable", that is, the function cannot be described by a _smooth_ line, or it has holes or kinks in it.. discontinuities or cusps, places where the function's first derivative vanishes or is undefined. Bend a pencil and you get a linear stress-strain relationship right up until it breaks-- becomes non-linear, the derivative vanishes and the behaviour can't be described by a simple function whose solution is a smooth curve ( a straight line is the ultimate "smooth curve".))
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 19, 2012, 04:09:30 PM
@TK, lol yes I am able to sleep with this one!  It's not my baby to birth. 
 
Re: Compressed air.  The addition of compressed air is part of the assembly process of the ZEDs.  It is how you get the water and air into the proper locations within the system.  To begin assembly you start with no Pod or Risers installed.  You have only the main tank and it's internal walls that are all sealed and attached to the bottom.  You need to fill that tank until the water covers all those internal walls.  Then you install the Pod.  Next you install the smallest riser.  But to do so you must have a vent in the top to allow for the air inside to escape.  Once this riser is full submerged you seal that vent.  The next larger riser is then installed, also allowing the air inside to vent.  Rinse and repeat until all risers are installed, all trapped air is vented, and all vents are sealed.  Note that at this point the only air in the system is the air inside the sealed Pod.  The Pod may also have been slightly pressurized to help neutralize the minimal water pressure it will face.
 
Of course, the Pod and Risers need to be held down in the water at this point as well as when the compressed air is introduced.
 
The compressed air is then added from below the Pod in the center chamber of the ZED.  It is compressed only enough to overcome the pressure due to the weight of the water in the system, nothing more.  This air will bubble up around the Pod and begin filling the gap between the Pod chamber wall and the inside of the inner most riser.  It forces the water in this area down, thus increasing the water level in the outer most chamber and driving up the overall pressure in the system due to that water height.  So the compressed air pressure to overcome is also increasing in order to continue pumping.
 
Once the air has driven all the water out of this gap between the Pod chamber wall and inner most riser it will begin bubbling up again through the water between the outside of the Inner Riser and the wall directly outside the Pod chamber wall (middle wall).  Once again the air begins to fill and drive the water down and out of the gap between the middle wall and the inside of the Outer Riser.  Again, this drives up the level of the water in the outer most chamber and increases the pressure in the entire system.  So the compressed air pressure is still rising to over come the ever increasing water head pressure.  However, the compressed air is still relatively low pressure.  Wayne is saying it is only about 8 psi gage in his 6 foot tall system.  In my little model it is only .917 psi gage.
 
The system is "full" of the correct amount of air when you see air bubbles start to rise in the outer most chamber.  The ZED will now have water and air in the comfiguration shown in my illustrations as "Full."
 
As far as the nonlinear stuff goes, I am not 100% sure how Wayne means this and look forward to his explanation.  I have found some relationships that might not graph as a straight line, but I'm not sure if it is exactly what he means.  The most interesting is that when the water is allowed to flow out from the ZED Pod chamber in the "Full" condition, the water pressure begins to drop and therefore the air in the chambers begins to expand.  So the Pod/Risers do not drop as much as I have shown in my illustrations so far (those ignored air volume increases).  The expanding air increases the buoyancy and the pressure of the water flowing out of the Pod Chamber.  Calculating for data points under these conditions is an iterative nightmare for me, so I cannot tell it yet if is nonlinear or simply linear with a different slope.
 
The way this thing moves and the air and water levels adjust is fascinating!  I can only now begin to visualize what is going on inside after a LOT of calculations and illustrations.  I can only imagine Wayne learned as much about his system as he experimented and tested.  To think that anyone could come up with all this straight away is more than I can (yet) attribute to any person of less than savant status.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 19, 2012, 04:28:51 PM
This last little RED statement worries me, pulls me up short. Have I missed something?
Compressed air must be pumped in? From where? What does the pumping, how much compression, etc. and is this pumped in compressed air accounted for when we have been told that, except for the precharge, nothing is added or exhausted during operation?
I don't know how much you had in Red, but I'll try to answer this part for now as I am working on a new example now which will show more.
 
That is from an example of how to get the POD to sink at 4.8 to reduce the total lift to approx. 2500 LB. It could have been done at other PSI's (8.8,7.etc.) without blowing the skirt, but it is easier to understand at 4.8. The water is lowered, POD sinks, and the original PSI on the layers is now lower then what is was originally at the total 4.8 PSI. This also lowered the lift much below 2500. So compressed air is added from below the POD to bring up the PSI on the layers to the original value. It would only need to be done once as part of setup, and remains during operations. Then to bring the system back to 8.8, on the layers, water is added under the pod to fill the small POD/Retainer Gap (~ 9.5 SI). The POD would have a similar lift as it had at the initial 4.8 before water drop, not a problem, as it is mainly used to rise with the system to maintain the Head levels on the layers.
 
I don't have an NDA, so my examples are based on a lot of shared facts from Wayne and part logically deduction on my part. So it is not how the actual system works, but it could work in a replication. My goal is to keep the examples simple for everybody to understand and anybody is wellcome to check my spreadsheets. I'll be glad to make corrections.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 19, 2012, 05:07:44 PM
@Mondrasek. Thanks for that clear description of the "set up " procedure . Referring to your first paragraph, you talk about adding the risers one by one and venting the air. Here is a different way to do it that I think would work, and would eliminate the need for vents.
       Just fit the pod and all the risers, and then mechanically restrain the risers from rising. Now pump water into the central chamber, until it pours out of the outer gap. I am not sure if this would totally purge all air from the system. If it would not , then in the case of a smallish model, we could pump water in at a high rate, and whilst holding the model over a sink , constantly invert it and return it to upright . Would this work?  If any air remains in the upper part of the chambers, as long as its a small amount it would not matter, as we are going to add air anyway. What do you think?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 19, 2012, 06:46:14 PM
@neptune, I believe your method of starting with a dry assembly and then adding water from the bottom of the Pod section would work fine.  And there is no need to try and purge all the air out of the system at all.  Any air that remains is exactly where you want the air to be.  I think some additional air would still need to be added after the water, but just not as much now.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 19, 2012, 08:57:06 PM
I am pleased to hear that my simplified set up stands a good chance of working . This is really good news for model builders. Elimination of riser vents is no trivial thing, as it saves building time and gets rid of hidden leak points that would be hard to detect .
         I just had an idea. Think of Wayne`s original hose pipe analogy. Take a length of clear plastic pipe. Attach it to a back board that has horizontal lines marked on it, say at 1 or 2 mm intervals. Arrange the pipe in a sine wave shape having an amplitude of say 250 mm, and a wavelength as short as possible. Mount it on the wall. If we use a syringe, and a long thin pipe pushed into the main pipe we can fill all the lower parts of the sine waves with water and the upper parts with air. As we pressurise the main pipe with air [or water?] from one end . we can see exactly how the water columns react with the air pockets, and how the air contracts and expands under pressure. This would be a useful teaching and self teaching aid, and would enable us to get a glimpse of what happens inside a ZED. The one thing it won`t do is simulate the rise and fall of the risers.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 19, 2012, 10:34:40 PM
The first attached picture is showing just part of the spreadsheet, to see the entire spreadsheet you need to download the Travis Effect System Setup.xls below. Anyone that doesn't have Microsoft Office can download the free OpenOffice program from the internet to view the spreadsheets.
 
The second attached picture is of the spreadsheet that was used to generate most of the data for the first attachment. It is also included below.
 
Repeat of my previous statement: I don't have an NDA, so my examples are based on a lot of shared facts from Wayne and part logically deduction on my part. So it is not how the actual system works, but it could work in a replication. My goal is to keep the examples simple for everybody to understand and anybody is wellcome to check my spreadsheets. I'll be glad to make corrections.
 

Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 21, 2012, 12:24:48 AM
Wayne has stated that a 1" rise in the Pod water results in a 2" increase in the water head of each layer.
 
The attached picture shows how the height changes in each water channel. First, water is added to the Pod retainer, then air pressure causes the water in the next channel to lower, which causes the water in the next channel to rise. So the difference between the last two water channel in now twice what was added to the Pod area.
 
I'm sure some allready understand, but it important that most understand, as my next example is based on this concept. The next example will show the great difference in Input volume and obvious time of input as the number of Layers increase.
 
Regards Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on July 21, 2012, 12:43:28 AM
I'm very late to this thread.

I will be very surprised if Mr Wayne can can make a self sustaining engine, with no additional input of energy once it is started - I do wish him luck in proving his hypothesis - if he can do that it would be game changing - like others I will watch with interest the final analysis of all data.

I read the first 20 or so pages of this thread & then the last few to be current - I watched the Travis 1 & 2 video's.

What I saw I thought was not inconsistent with Archimedes principle.

Archimedes says that the upthrust force of buoyancy of an object is equal to the weight force of water displaced less the weight force of the mass doing the displacement, IINM.

The Work Energy Equivalence Principle says Work in Joules [ force x distance] is interchangeable with energy [PE + KE].

It says that if PE is raised then the PE gained is equal to the Work Done to achieve that gain, not adjusted for system losses - this applies equally to forcibly sinking a floatation device.

So what was different about the Travis effect ?

Well, buoyancy is well known - if the displacement volume doesn't change then the buoyancy force will raise an object a distance vertically - it takes the same energy [Work Done] to sink the object to a release height as the Work Done capability of the buoyancy force can do on an object rising the same height - zero sum energy game.

In the Travis video's the upthrust force is the same 'initially' as the ordinary buoyancy control - there is no doubt that this takes considerably less volume or air that the standard control - the difference IMO is that the Travis effect example cannot do as much Work i.e. f x d, IINM.

IOW's, & has already be identified, the control buoyancy test has an upthrust force that doesn't change as the object rises in the fluid - this is because the pressure differential top & bottom is maintained & is proportional to the height of the air gap [volume] - since water pressure is linear then that upthrust force remains constant as it moves up thru pressure levels - this is a constant force x distance = WD.

In the case of the Travis effect experiments, although the same upthrust force is created initially [because the effective air gap distance & pressure differential is the same], as the object rises it leaves behind the concrete block & the air gap depth reduces dramatically - this reduces the pressure differential between top & bottom of water & the upthrust force reduces rapidly accordingly - this lesser buoyancy force has less capability to do Work i.e. variable force x distance.

In many ways, this is a variation [the reverse application] of the "hydrostatic paradox" IMO.

I would be surprised if there is enough energy to cyclically transfer the required volume of water from cylinder to cylinder & have excess energy left to do external work.

Then I guess that's why competent people like Mr Wayne appears to be do experiments & have them independently validated.

If it can self sustain & do any measure of external work then the hunt will be on for the energy source - good luck to him.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 21, 2012, 01:45:03 PM
In the case of the Travis effect experiments, although the same upthrust force is created initially [because the effective air gap distance & pressure differential is the same], as the object rises it leaves behind the concrete block & the air gap depth reduces dramatically - this reduces the pressure differential between top & bottom of water & the upthrust force reduces rapidly accordingly - this lesser buoyancy force has less capability to do Work i.e. variable force x distance.

Very late indeed!  Welcome @fletcher.  Did New Zealand just get the Internet?  Or are you somewhere else now?
 
What if the object never "leaves behind" the concrete block as you mention?  What if the concrete block is replaced by the Pod member that is also allowed to rise as it is also buoyant in a separate annulus of water?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 21, 2012, 01:46:37 PM
Wayne has stated that a 1" rise in the Pod water results in a 2" increase in the water head of each layer.
 
 
Regards Larry
Hello Larry,
That quote was a general statement - not intended as a control number -  Please let me be a little more clear, and forgive me of the statement.
The exact movement of each layer in relationship  to the pod is related to both the clearance and pressure between each additional layer
So you must consider if you matched the volumetric clearances - or if you adjusted the volume metric clearances for the pressure.
(This example is of equal clearnaces - not matched volumes - not the best method - but what is in our data model)

Now since we push down - to cause an upward movement of the next layer - the differential pressure is increased at twice the rate as the volume - directly in the first inner layer and while the next layer is (under lower pressure) is pushed down - and the differential changes twice the downward movement, and so on.

In our Little model (5.0 to 8psi) - a 1 inch push in the pod is against all three layers - this results in a .68 downward push - or 1.36 inch differential in the first (inner) layer.

The Next layer pushes down .40 with a .80 differential and the next layer pushes down with .28 with a differential of .56 (corrected)

SO - 1 Inch in the pod results in a differential change of:

Pod - 1 (this movement is direct)
Layer 1.36
Layer .80
Layer .56 (Corrected)
Total   3.72 inch differential (corrected)

This value changes with layers - higher pressure means more differential between layers. (Partially -where the Non Linear comes from).

p.s. We have our Data collection Model are up and running - free energy.

Mark says to ignore the Baiters -

Mark has now given our crew some homework and a few simplafiying steps to take and changes to make - I will let you know how things go.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 21, 2012, 04:37:52 PM
I remember getting an acceptable internet connection in NZ back in 1996, so more than enough time to become familiar with the medium. I don't think being in NZ is a significant disadvantage for ferreting out bullshit when it is presented as fact actually...

What if the object never  'leaves behind the block' you ask. It's a fair enough question. What you need to answer though is what provides the energy to 'raise the block' so that the pod can continue to push upwards. Perhaps the fairies that would provide the necessary impetus just haven't made it this far south yet
@Seamus101
 
1)  I was addressing Fletcher.
 
2)  My comments about Internet access in NZ were intended as a joke.  Fletcher would get that.
 
3)  The Pod is in a separate annulus of water and rises for the same reason that the Riser does:  Buoyancy.  No fairies need be involved.
 
4)  We understand that you do not believe the ZED system can operate as explained.  Repeatedly stating that fact adds nothing towards understanding the Invention that was presented at the beginning of this thread.  It only aids in interupting.  You have been asked to take discussions that do not pertain to understanding the Invention that was presented at the beginning of this thread elsewhere.  Regretfully, I ask again.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 04:47:00 PM
Quote
3)  The Pod is in a separate annulus of water and rises for the same reason that the Riser does:  Buoyancy.  No fairies need be involved.

Indeed.  But then you need the fairies to push the pod back down for the next cycle, don't you?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 21, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
@Seamus101
 
1)  I was addressing Fletcher.
 
2)  My comments about Internet access in NZ were intended as a joke.  Fletcher would get that.
 
3)  The Pod is in a separate annulus of water and rises for the same reason that the Riser does:  Buoyancy.  No fairies need be involved.
 
4)  We understand that you do not believe the ZED system can operate as explained.  Repeatedly stating that fact adds nothing towards understanding the Invention that was presented at the beginning of this thread.  It only aids in interupting.  You have been asked to take discussions that do not pertain to understanding the Invention that was presented at the beginning of this thread elsewhere.  Regretfully, I ask again.
 
M.

Hello Monderask, and Stefan,
In the Z.E.D. Lab - We have overcome the troubles that delayed us and are moving forward.
To that point:
As you know - several people "posing as intelligent, protectors of their belief" continue to interupt with uniformed opinions, statements and slander -
Since they demonstrate the inability to do their due diligence and lack the ability to self moderate  - I ask that you address this as moderator.
I have been very generous here on your site.
I will not waste this precious time "watching or participate" as those Baiters try to suppress the discussion.
As you have noticed - when the attack on me failed - they started attacking the rest of the group.
 To the final point -
There are several very good forums currently discussing the Zed Technology intellectually and the impact - I am not  participating in those forums - yet.

They do not tolerate "Baiters" seeking attention.
Baiters never show proof - and never apologize for bad behaviour, mistakes, or ignorance -and they have to have the last word even it is just an insult.
Several of the Baiter created new user names - you can look into the histroy and see that they only post here - on this one link. Others are known as loud mouths in your community forums - not adding to the discussion - just proping themself up - until they are taken down and resurface.
The Baiters only serve themself at your "Stefans" expense - you are loosing me.
Stefan, please decide if you want the Inventor of our FE device to answer questions and share - or not.
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 21, 2012, 05:48:32 PM
Hello Larry,
That quote was a general statement - not intended as a control number -  Please let me be a little more clear, and forgive me of the statement.
The exact movement of each layer in relationship  to the pod is related to both the clearance and pressure between each additional layer
So you must consider if you matched the volumetric clearances - or if you adjusted the volume metric clearances for the pressure.
(This example is of equal clearnaces - not matched volumes - not the best method - but what is in our data model)

Now since we push down - to cause an upward movement of the next layer - the differential pressure is increased at twice the rate as the volume - directly in the first inner layer and while the next layer is (under lower pressure) is pushed down - and the differential changes twice the downward movement, and so on.

In our Little model (5.0 to 8psi) - a 1 inch push in the pod is against all three layers - this results in a .68 downward push - or 1.36 inch differential in the first (inner) layer.

The Next layer pushes down .40 with a .80 differential and the next layer pushes down with .28 with a differential of .52

SO - 1 Inch in the pod results in a differential change of:

Pod - 1 (this movement is direct)
Layer 1.36
Layer .80
Layer .40
Total  3.56 differential

This value changes with layers - higher pressure means more differential between layers. (Partially -where the Non Linear comes from).

p.s. We have our Data collection Model are up and running - free energy.

Mark says to ignore the Baiters -

Mark has now given our crew some homework and a few simplafiying steps to take and changes to make - I will let you know how things go.

Wayne
Thanks Wayne,
 
Additional information from you always helps. In my next example, I was going to add air compression and how it has a combined effect the more layers you have. With my previous example I just wanted to make sure everyone understood the basics, before my next example to show the difference in Input volume and obvious time of input as the number of Layers increase.
 
In your little model, what is the Pod Height, Pod Diameter, Material thickness, Clearance?
 
The attached water height calculator based on Outside retainer water drop used 71,30,.25,.20. It used .28 for the drop as I was confused about your .28 diff is .52, not .56, then the .40 on the total differential. 
 
The water input is set to ideal, so that would be part of the small difference if you are starting from Initial Pre-charge. In playing with this calculator, I noted that it can get the same total differential with different water layer values as long as you balance it properly. The calculator used volumes based on each air/water gap square inches and calculates from outer water to inner, which forces the water/air column's to align based on the previous channel air expansion/compression.
 
I wasn't sure about releasing this one again , since I corrected it, as it is quite confusing. It shows a lot of extra calculations that could have been part of the formula's, but it helped me to better understand the parts that make up the whole.
 
The calculator xls is attached last.


Edit: Added new fields to calculator and changes to the xls file.
 

Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 05:51:54 PM
Wayne:

Mondrasek gave an answer, but it was only half an answer.  Hence the comment.  I asked you a while back what the output from your device was and how you measured it and you were unable to answer that question.  How is that possible?

And yet again you play the "wounded butterfly" and pout.  People have legitimate concerns about your whole proposition and that's life for you.  Be a man and don't call 911 like somebody took your parking spot.  You know nowadays they arrest people for making bogus 911 calls.

I won't be surprised if you implode and disappear after your "real demo."

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 21, 2012, 06:27:10 PM
Indeed.  But then you need the fairies to push the pod back down for the next cycle, don't you?

MH, if you would simply READ and TRY to understand this concept instead of coming back time and again with your own preconceptions of what is going on, you might realize that no further explanation was necessary.
 
It has be explained in the patent and discussed time and time again in this thread that the water that is used to create the buoyancy in the Pod and Riser in one ZED is then EXHAUSTED to the other ZED.  Allowing the water to freeflow from the "high" pressure ZED to the "low" pressure ZED requires no additional input energy.  And this is how the elevated ZED Pod begins to attain it's neutral buoyancy and then negative buoyancy condition where it will again drop.
 
And YES, additional energy is necessary to accumulate the rest of the water from that "high" pressure ZED and introduce additional water to the "low" pressure ZED in order to complete a full cycle.  And that additional energy is a fraction of the energy produced by the lift of one ZED.
 
MH, I really wish you would read and try to understand rather than standing on "principals."  Or go have your "principals" discussion in a thread intended for that purpose.  If you refuse to read and try to understand, then please don't bother posting.  It is like the sighted trying to tell the blind how to see.  Or vice versa.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 06:52:28 PM
Mondrasek:

I admit that I am not following the thread but your answer is still insufficient.  You are apparently claiming an "energy gain" from the lift of one ZED can take care of moving the water over to the other side of the system?  Know what it sounds to me like?  It sounds like you are just moving the fairies further up the chain of events.  No fairies needed to move the water back and forth between the two cylinders because the two ZEDs take care of that.  So who takes care of the ZEDs?  Even if you have an explanation for that it just means that you are moving the fairies along yet again.  Eventually you will hit a wall and there will be no place for the fairies to go.

Here is my challenge to you and the other believers:  Stop beating around the bush and ask Wayne what the output of the system is and exactly how he is measuring it.  He won't answer me and always plays the "wounded and harassed inventor" card.

You believe in his system?  Then again, I challenge you to ask Wayne what the output of the system is and how he measures it.

Put aside the spreadsheets and the buoyancy calculations for a week and ask about the output.  Supposedly Wayne is on the verge of doing a demo so why not ask him?

It's too easy to just "play free energy calculations" and pretend that the over unity power output is a given.  You "know" that it's there so you don't have to ask about it.  You would prefer to focus on the "science" of the calculations.

Shift your focus on the power output of the device for a while and ask about the tangible real-world results.  Are any of you believers willing to step up to the plate and ask Wayne?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 21, 2012, 07:00:14 PM
Thanks Wayne,
 
Additional information from you always helps. In my next example, I was going to add air compression and how it has a combined effect the more layers you have. With my previous example I just wanted to make sure everyone understood the basics, before my next example to show the difference in Input volume and obvious time of input as the number of Layers increase.
 
In your little model, what is the Pod Height, Pod Diameter, Material thickness, Clearance?
 
The attached water height calculator based on Outside retainer water drop used 71,30,.25,.20. It used .28 for the drop as I was confused about your .28 diff is .52, not .56, then the .40 on the total differential. 
 
The water input is set to ideal, so that would be part of the small difference if you are starting from Initial Pre-charge. In playing with this calculator, I noted that it can get the same total differential with different water layer values as long as you balance it properly. The calculator used volumes based on each air/water gap square inches and calculates from outer water to inner, which forces the water/air column's to align based on the previous channel air expansion/compression.
 
I wasn't sure about releasing this one again , since I corrected it, as it is quite confusing. It shows a lot of extra calculations that could have been part of the formula's, but it helped me to better understand the parts that make up the whole.
 
The calculator xls is attached last.

 
Regards, Larry
That was an internall adding error, thanks for catching it.
I will go back and fix it.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on July 21, 2012, 07:32:06 PM
Just visited the local zoo with my kids.

Most visitors are respectful. They go to the zoo, see the animals, read and watch the presentations, and they learn.

Others go to the zoo and end up throwing rocks & sticks at the animals for their own cruel entertainment.

The internet is the same way…


Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 21, 2012, 07:34:14 PM
Good work Larry,
You have shown how the "concentration" of the "Travis Effect" works.
I might suggest that we move on to the next portion of the system.
The next phase is to understand how much Head is transferred to the second Z.E.D
Things to consider - The weight of the risers and added weight - they allow the system to sink when partially charged (head)
When You calculate how much (minimum) head it requires to float - amount of weight - you have the minimum exhaust pressure.
Next - you need to Know what your stroking pressure is - so your weight plus your production load - maximum head needed.
Take the average of the two pressures - and this gives you the post free flow pressure.
The value of the free flow is the head at max (end of stroke) to the post free flow pressure.
The value of the remaining exhaust is the post free flow pressure to the Minimum head pressure (sinking pressure)
The head less than the sinking pressure always remains in the Z.E.D and never needs replaced.
This is a good start.
Our pressure is:
Minimum 5.0,  8.4 max, and 6.7 post free flow.
Since the true input cost to each side it the diffirence between these pressures and the Max - this is very important.

Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 21, 2012, 07:44:04 PM
Larry,
 
Some where read and lost track of  - You asked about our system:
 
The Pod is 707 si or 30 inch diameter 6 feet tall
All our walls are .198 thick and clearances are .25 inch
This system is three layers.
And Yes  the arangement of the diffirentials within layers - very much effects the lift.
(Wise observation) - More diffirential in the outer layers increases the lift - think about how that effects our exhuast pressure (when the inner laers have dropped the diffirential)
Remember - very little movement happens in the outside layers...............
Well done.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 21, 2012, 08:58:17 PM
Here is my challenge to you and the other believers:  Stop beating around the bush and ask Wayne what the output of the system is and exactly how he is measuring it.  He won't answer me ...

MH, I've tried several times to help you to understand what is happening right in front of you.  I really wanted that for you.  I believe you deserve it.
 
It is very clear to me:  Your statement that, "He won't answer me..." is just false.  He has answered the question you ask in the patent and in multiple posts.  He has not addressed those answers to you because you ask AGAIN after he has explained that portion of his presentation several times before.  Therefore answers to your questions only cause our progress to backtrack significantly.  If you would only read and digest the entirety of this thread you would be "up to speed" and able to stop asking insulting questions.
 
I have hoped time and time again that you would get on board by at LEAST reading the patent and the rest of the thread.  That is the LEAST you should do before commenting?  But I doubt that you are going to do so and will again proclaim "Bullshit!"
 
I do not wish to leave you behind on this.  I really hope you would do us (and yourself) the courtesy of reading the entire presentation. 
 
The presentation was interesting enough for me to start running the numbers.  The numbers is what solidified my interest.
 
Please stop harping about Mr. Wayne owing anyone the "MileHigh" required explanation of anything.  That is just your Ego.  It is not a requirement for anything else than satisfying your Id.
 
You will not even read Mr. Wayne's methods of explanation.  Yet you mock him for not conforming to yours?  Really?
 
Be a "baiter" and be ignored or join our genuine search for understanding and truth, wherever that may lead?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 10:02:47 PM
Mondrasek:

Asking about the power output of the device is not an "insulting" question.  Nor am I going to read through the entire thread and the patent.

Just pretend I am a newcomer to this thread for the sake of argument.

I come into the thread and I have the following three questions:

How much power is output by the device?
In what form is the output power?
How is the output power measured?

I honestly doubt those three questions have been answered in this thread.  Now, in saying that, you put your ego in check and please do me the courtesy of answering those three questions.  If you can't answer them then just be honest and state that you can't answer them.  If that's the case, you personally should direct those three questions to Wayne yourself.

So, I am asking to forget about all of the attitude issues and all of the ego issues.  Saying, "You're not nice so I won't answer your questions" is something that you should hear in an elementary school schoolyard and not in this forum where we are supposed to be adults exchanging ideas and information.

So can you do me the courtesy of answering those three questions?

Just take the position that the device is a "black box" and I, as an imaginary newcomer to the thread would like for my three questions to be answered.  I don't want to be directed to "read the whole thread and read the patent" to find the answers.  I am just asking about the output from the device.

MileHigh




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 21, 2012, 10:30:08 PM
Asking about the power output of the device is not an "insulting" question.
 
Asking it repeatedly when it has been disclosed repeatedly and you REFUSE to read those replies is not "insulting," I agree.  Maybe embarrassing is a better term?

Nor am I going to read through the entire thread and the patent.

Thank you for making my point!  You are willfully ignorant on this subject.  WILLFULLY.
 
MH, I'm done.  You win.  I give up.  Sorry I tried.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 10:45:24 PM
Mondrasek:

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about the operation of the device.  I am not WILLFULLY ignorant either.  You can't force me to learn about this stuff and I never expressed a desire to learn about this stuff.  You are putting forth a false proposition.

You go shopping for a car and you ask the car salesman what the power output of the car is... Does the salesman tell you to go learn about combustion engines and transmissions and differentials and different fuel mixtures?  Get real.

My conclusion is that you can't answer those three simple questions.  So you have to do a song and dance routine and try to make me look like the "bad guy" again.

I will ask you one last time to answer my three simple questions and to respect the fact that I don't have to understand exactly how the device works just like I don't have to understand exactly how a car works.

I just want my three simple questions answered with no ego, no attitude, no preconditions, and no requirement to learn about the technology.

How much power is output by the device?
In what form is the output power?
How is the output power measured?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on July 21, 2012, 10:54:37 PM
Mondrasek .. lol, I live on another small pacific island now [no, not Australia] & yes we do have internet - however, I regularly spend long periods away from my computer as I will be doing again soon.

Whilst I sympathize with MileHigh's requirements to have clear Output answers I also trust in the abilities & cool head of people such as yourself & Larry C - so, in short, I too as a newcomer to this thread don't have to wade thru the detail that you have already assessed but can rely on your summary facts.

I believe in the process - that is, that Mr Wayne is confident that he has found something extra-ordinary - that you & others will winnow out the detail by an exchange with Mr Wayne until all relevant data is in - that process may or may not reveal weaknesses in the argument presented [for which Mr Wayne may already have 'work arounds'], or you may find a "show stopper" - I believe that MileHigh is simply trying to get to the end game where we all will eventually end up.

As I said before if all pans out as Mr Wayne predicts then your time will not be taken up in understanding design & crunching numbers, but in identifying where the extra energy is coming from - and that may be a far harder task.

In the mean time I read with interest Mr Wayne's comments & appreciate his sharing of his research & hope he continues to do so - Mark D has asked some searching questions no doubt [this might be uncomfortable], so we wait for further information to substantiate claims of an extra-ordinary nature.

With this device I'd definitely like there to be no "show stopper" in waiting, so it's not surprising that emotions can run high at times, because not all information is available to all parties at the same time, as yet - Mr Wayne is doing a good job in keeping his cool head & character & not emotionally imploding with a few harder questions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 21, 2012, 11:35:31 PM
You go shopping for a car and you ask the car salesman what the power output of the car is... Does the salesman tell you to go learn about combustion engines and transmissions and differentials and different fuel mixtures?  Get real.

MH, you are not "shopping for a car."  You are in a forum thread discussing a new "engine" technology.
 
Yes, you are supposed to try and understand that technology.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 11:46:46 PM
Mondrasek:

Quote
MH, you are not "shopping for a car."  You are in a forum thread discussing a new "engine" technology.
 
Yes, you are supposed to try and understand that technology.

I told you I was asking my simple basic questions without any preconditions.  There is no rational reason to have any preconditions.  I am not "supposed" to do anything.

I will take that as an admission that you can't answer my three simple questions about the output because you simply don't know the answers yourself.  Why can't you just admit it?  You should try to build up some character.

It's up to you or any other contributors to this thread to work up the courage to ask Wayne yourselves.  Without doing that you are just sheep being led around by Wayne.

So the three simple questions remain unanswered and for all of your discussions with spreadsheets, none of you can answer them.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 21, 2012, 11:55:41 PM
MH, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 11:58:15 PM
Good work Larry,
You have shown how the "concentration" of the "Travis Effect" works.
I might suggest that we move on to the next portion of the system.
The next phase is to understand how much Head is transferred to the second Z.E.D
Things to consider - The weight of the risers and added weight - they allow the system to sink when partially charged (head)
When You calculate how much (minimum) head it requires to float - amount of weight - you have the minimum exhaust pressure.
Next - you need to Know what your stroking pressure is - so your weight plus your production load - maximum head needed.
Take the average of the two pressures - and this gives you the post free flow pressure.
The value of the free flow is the head at max (end of stroke) to the post free flow pressure.
The value of the remaining exhaust is the post free flow pressure to the Minimum head pressure (sinking pressure)
The head less than the sinking pressure always remains in the Z.E.D and never needs replaced.
This is a good start.
Our pressure is:
Minimum 5.0,  8.4 max, and 6.7 post free flow.
Since the true input cost to each side it the diffirence between these pressures and the Max - this is very important.

Wayne
At the risk of arousing the further wrath of mondrasek and the other workers, I have to say that what is described here sure sounds to me like something material, not "just" energy,  is being "produced" from nothing ... You can't have air pressure that increases or that is exhausted to some other place, without increasing the amount of air... the number of molecules, the mass of the air.
You are removing mechanical energy from the system to keep it moving against friction etc. But you are also exhausting something from one Zed to the other. How is what is exhausted, replenished, so that the mechanical losses are made up, with extra left over?  I know, I know.... from the exhaust of the other Zed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 22, 2012, 12:11:42 AM
How embarrassing!  Sorry if I have been emoting.  I truly didn't mean to be wrathful.  I'll take a break.
 
Sorry again,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 22, 2012, 12:25:39 AM
Mondrasek:

You have this big honking groaning behemoth of pistons and valves and compressed air and displacing water and a programmable logic controller with a digital display but nobody can state what the power output is!  There is something wrong with that picture!

MileHigh

P.S.:  Here is a link for you to contemplate:  http://www.choicepaintballguns.com/bulk-co2-hpa-tanks

Wow!  100 cubic feet @3000 PSI and it's only $289 USD!   :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 22, 2012, 02:10:30 AM
At the risk of arousing the further wrath of mondrasek and the other workers, I have to say that what is described here sure sounds to me like something material, not "just" energy,  is being "produced" from nothing ... You can't have air pressure that increases or that is exhausted to some other place, without increasing the amount of air... the number of molecules, the mass of the air.
You are removing mechanical energy from the system to keep it moving against friction etc. But you are also exhausting something from one Zed to the other. How is what is exhausted, replenished, so that the mechanical losses are made up, with extra left over?  I know, I know.... from the exhaust of the other Zed.
Hi TK,
 
Thanks for reminding me, with the many inputs from Wayne today, I haven't shown the difference in Input volume and obvious time of input as the number of Layers increase. Please see attached. Do you see how the Travis effect layers have a big advantage over regular buoyancy?
 
Both Archimedes's pod and Archimedes's +  3 Layers have the same starting and ending PSI. The Archimedes's + 3 Layers have a clear advantage in reduced volume input and time.
 
The figures shown in the first attachment are from the second attachment xls spreadsheet.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 22, 2012, 12:38:04 PM
Milehigh. Whilst I am thoroughly disappointed that you will not  study this device, For the sake of keeping the peace, I will try to answer your three questions. The answers I will give are purely my own opinion based entirely on information gleaned from the thread.
1. This is a small proof of concept model, and is designed to output up to 500 watts. The relationship between size and power output and size is not linear, and I believe that Wayne said that a 25Kw model would occupy a space the size of a parking space. In the present model, a high percentage of the output is being used to run monitoring equipment. I believe that leaves about 40 watts running a lamp load. Even if that figure was 5 watts, we still have overunity.
2. The output device appears to be a permanent magnet alternator, of the wind turbine type.
So the ouput, after rectification, will be DC.
3 No idea how Wayne measures the output. Much more relevant is how Mark Dansie measures the output. I have little doubt he will tell us in due course. Those are my opinions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 22, 2012, 01:44:45 PM
Neptune:

It's almost like you guys are out of the movie The Manchurian Candidate.  You are so uncomfortable when someone asks some very basic questions when in fact you should freely answer them without turning things into a psychodrama.  It's a form of peer pressure bordering on self-brainwashing.  It's right out of the Twilight Zone.

I really don't have to know all of the specifics to ask my questions.  Alleging that I am "beating my wife" as some sort of quasi comical segue to avoid answering the question yet again is ridiculous and it's playing into the "bad guy" angle yet again.  What the hell?

I can feel the discomfort here, why?  You need to do some searching to try to answer that question.  Not even being able to admit that you can't answer the questions shows how deeply ingrained the peer pressure and discomfort level is.  You should work on deprogramming yourselves, seriously.

Thank you nonetheless for trying to answer my questions.   I will "reformat" your answers if you don't mind into what I am really asking:

Quote
How much power is output by the device?

A:  Between 40 and 500 watts.

Quote
In what form is the output power?

You did not answer or misunderstood my question.  You said, "The output device appears to be a permanent magnet alternator, of the wind turbine type. So the ouput, after rectification, will be DC."

Based on your response, my preliminary conclusion is that he output power is in the form of a rotating shaft.  My confidence would be increased if there are any references to this in the thread.  Strictly speaking, the question has not been answered.

Quote
How is the output power measured?

You indicated that you don't know the answer to this question.  Based on what you say above, it's possible that it may be measured by having a generator drive a load and then measuring the electrical power dissipation in the load.  Again, I am speculating, and you haven't answered the question.

So you could only answer one of my three questions.  I am not singling you out by stating that and my assumption is that it's the same story for most of the other participants in this thread.

Finally, look at your quote, "No idea how Wayne measures the output. Much more relevant is how Mark Dansie measures the output. I have little doubt he will tell us in due course. Those are my opinions."

This is an example of the discomfort and the peer pressure bordering on collective brainwashing.  I am assuming that you have been an active participant in this thread from the beginning and yet you have no idea how the output power from the device is measured and apparently you don't even want to know how the output power is measured.  How is that even possible?  I can also infer from your responses that you are not sure what form the output power takes.

Again, I am not the "bad guy" and I refuse to be made to feel like asking about the output from this device is somehow a bad thing to do.  There are a lot of issues for you guys to think about.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 22, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
1.The output power is between 40 and 500Watts
2.The intermediate output is in the form of a rotating shaft, being the output shaft of a hydraulic motor. This motor is then used to drive the aforementioned alternator .
3. We have not been told how Wayne measures this output . If you wanted to measure the output at the hydraulic motor, a Prony brake would do the job.


 I do not speak for anyone but myself, hence my pointing out that these are my opinions. It is of no concern to me whether you beat your wife or not. There you go. three plain answers to three plain questions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 22, 2012, 02:19:00 PM
Neptune:

Quote
It is of no concern to me whether you beat your wife or not.

That is a gross and gratuitous statement and you should be ashamed of yourself for stating that.  And if I did beat my wife you should be concerned with it because if not then you might be a misogynist and beat your own wife.  In fact I am hypersensitive to the issue of conjugal violence.

You are just taking a gratuitous and malicious pot-shot at me because of my response to your posting.  Shame on you.

I would never beat my wife and I never said that I would beat my wife.  That was just a nonsensical statement made by Mondrasek that came out of nowhere.  I never made any reference whatsoever to anything like that EVER.

Retract your statement.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 22, 2012, 02:32:19 PM
@Milehigh. Now you are just being childish. I am against violence in any form, and that it includes violence inflicted on women. It is not my concern if you beat your wife, in that you live half a world away from me, so, concerned or not, I could not stop you. I answered your three questions when no one else would. This is an overunity forum. Not really the place to discuss domestic violence.At no time did I state that you were guilty of beating your wife, merely that if you did, I would not concern myself with it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 22, 2012, 02:38:50 PM
Neptune:

Quote
@Milehigh. Now you are just being childish. I am against violence in any form, and that it includes violence inflicted on women. It is not my concern if you beat your wife, in that you live half a world away from me, so, concerned or not, I could not stop you. I answered your three questions when no one else would. This is an overunity forum. Not really the place to discuss domestic violence.

Any inference that I would beat my wife is totally unacceptable.  By repeating Mondrasek's ridiculous and unfounded statement you are casting aspersions on me by reenforcing an unfounded point.

You take your statement back and then it will be over.  Don't you dare repeat a lie about me in some subtle attempt to impugn my character.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on July 22, 2012, 02:40:29 PM
MileHigh, I bawl down to you Sir!
Your last 3 replies was just killer! Very true, very true Sir!
Right on target! Let the truth be told!
LoL! Nice job!
Keep it up!
I've always enjoyed reading your posts!
Good day Sir!  :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 22, 2012, 03:08:16 PM
@Milehigh. Dont you dare use your dont you dare card with me. I do not do subtle character assassinations. I am straight John Bull and if I have anything to say , I say it . You have made it clear that your purpose here is to disrupt the forum . I no longer wish to converse with you and will ignore all subsequent posts from you.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 22, 2012, 03:24:02 PM
Neptune:

Quote
@Milehigh. Dont you dare use your dont you dare card with me. I do not do subtle character assassinations. I am straight John Bull and if I have anything to say , I say it . You have made it clear that your purpose here is to disrupt the forum . I no longer wish to converse with you and will ignore all subsequent posts from you.

Well then you are pathetic excuse for a man because you are attempting to do a subtle character assassination.  You don't even have the guts to acknowledge your wrongdoing and retract your statement.

So you are not being straight right now and you won't make the retraction.  It's just to be belligerent because you are uncomfortable with the things about this device that I have pointed out to you.  So you lash out and make an attempt to impugn my character.

That leaves you with two problems, your attempt to impugn my character by repeating a lie and and your general ignorance about the output of this device that you have been talking about for months.

My purpose here is to inquire about the output of this device to understand what it is.  It goes to the credibility of this free energy proposition.  If the question was answered freely without any psychodrama then it would add to the credibility of the proposition.  When anybody tells you that they have a free energy device and you ask them about the output from said device and they refuse to answer you then attempt to make you feel like you are doing something wrong then you should beware.

Go hide your head in the sand, I don't care.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 22, 2012, 03:32:46 PM
I never intended to imply that anyone beats their wife.  I meant only to give the classic example of a loaded question:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)
 
I was intending to point out that there is usually no correct answer for MileHigh.  He takes given answers or lack there of and then "reinterprets" their meaning to suit his own needs, preconceptions, whatever.  This is usually in his posts directly after anyone gives answers.  Take a look and see.
 
Sorry if I offended anyone, especially MH, with that reference.  It is, like I said, just a classic example.  I didn't expect that it was not common knowledge.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 22, 2012, 03:38:14 PM
How can asking what the power output from the device is be a loaded question or not have a correct answer?  Think about what I have stated in my previous postings.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 22, 2012, 03:46:55 PM
@Mondrasek. Yes, this "loaded question" is of course common knowledge, as would be apparrent to anyone with a basic education.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 22, 2012, 03:50:23 PM
You are trying again Neptune, I never said that I did not understand what a loaded question is.  Now you have three problems.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 22, 2012, 04:16:26 PM
To All,
It is clear through all of our postings and answers to the questions regarding our system that we us Buoyancy In a very unique way to generate excess power - and that the system is self looped - requiring no input.
As I said before - I have allowed the skeptics and the validation teams to decide how they chose to measure the input and output.
It is elementary to understand that a system such as ours - that requires no input to produce work - "of any kind" requires proper and due dilligense before making claims of any sort.
It has also been explained in regards to comparisons to other systems -  Mark Dansie - 99.9% of all claims of FE are - measurement error - poor theory, and a few scams.
Mark has also said publically and on other forums repeatedly - this Oklahoma device is the .1% we have been looking for.
It is a waste of my time to tell you how good our system is - that is why I have helped others to discover for themself.
You can get as complicated as you want - you can get even more sophisticated equipment - you can claim you see nothing - but you can not make the simple math go away.
The truth of the .1% success is right before your eyes - if you just are honerable enough to look.
As I said to MH before - I will not waste my time with the dishonerable - do your home work.
I do not expect anyone to take my word for it - and I have been open and honest.
All the claims to the contrary do not float like the Z.E.D.
P.s. I have asked nothing from any of you - I have offered to share.
I am thankful for the sucess our team has had - and the now 13 replication (modeling) successes that have been reported to me.
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 22, 2012, 04:46:36 PM
@mrwayne. Thanks for that information. Could you please make it clear for us what you mean by modelling. Are you speaking of an actual device, made from sheet metal, plastic or some other substance, or are you speaking of a "Mathematical Model", a computer simulation, or indeed something else entirely. It is important for us to know.
                                                                                       Respectfully Neptune.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 22, 2012, 04:49:59 PM
To all members . I have made a big mistake , and I will now apologise. I am very sorry for feeding the Trolls. I promise it is a mistake that I will never repeat. Sorry.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 22, 2012, 05:05:11 PM
@mrwayne. Thanks for that information. Could you please make it clear for us what you mean by modelling. Are you speaking of an actual device, made from sheet metal, plastic or some other substance, or are you speaking of a "Mathematical Model", a computer simulation, or indeed something else entirely. It is important for us to know.
                                                                                       Respectfully Neptune.

Hello Neptune,
I now remember you asking this before - I am sorry for the delay - lots of interuptions.

As far as I know - Mathematical modeling - simple and complex physics.

You do not need an new form of physics to understand our process - just the ability to see that we have an anomaly in the area of physics that does an 'endaround' to belief that mechanical FE is impossible.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on July 22, 2012, 05:31:20 PM
Quote
You do not need an new form of physics to understand our process - just the ability to see that we have an anomaly in the area of physics that does an 'endaround' to belief that mechanical FE is impossible.

I passed Grade 11 physics and because of that I have no desire to "learn" how the system allegedly works.  They only thing that counts are results.

Neptune you should look up the definition of "troll" and educate yourself.

The only thing of interest is to see how this story will end.  Will it take the form of one of the classic free energy exit strategies?  I am willing to bet that it will.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 22, 2012, 05:40:38 PM
@mrwayne. Many thanks for your reply.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on July 22, 2012, 06:24:54 PM
The only thing of interest is to see how this story will end.  Will it take the form of one of the classic free energy exit strategies?  I am willing to bet that it will.
MileHigh
Correct, i wouldn't be surprised either.

@true open source people. 

Jesus fucking Christ! People must think we're re-fucking-tarted or something, my God!
This is why I have NO patience anymore. People don't know what OPEN SOURCE is and pretend it's all out in the open! When it's NOT!
And I have said this before and I'll say it again...You CAN NOT commercialize Free Energy/Over Unity (NO I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WIND, SOLAR, ETC!), period. You may be able to patent it but not commercialize it. Look at Tesla, and many others who have tried to commercialize FEE ENERGY! THEY DID NOT GET VERY FAR!. What makes you think you'll bypass our current corrupt government to make it happen?! If the people get a hold of real true free energy devices/machines they will break loose from the government and that is something they DO NOT want people to have access to, because then they will lose control of us slaves. Oh wait you think the government is for the people by the people? lol not really, its for the private banks by the privates banks who enslaves us through debt, monopoly, energy, media, drugs, and agriculture! wake the fuck up people, Jesus!




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 22, 2012, 08:21:41 PM
The two pictures show the water heights at 5 PSI and 8.4 PSI using the water height calculator with a "Out Ret Water Drop" value of 12 and 4.38. These were the latest PSI's stated by Wayne. In the 5 it is easy to see how the outer columns have moved much less than the inner. The percentages also change.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 22, 2012, 08:39:15 PM
That is very good Larry,
You may notice that the outer layers - with less movement - account for the higher pressure for lower weight.
The outer layers have a larger diameter - and the last layer pushes against the atmosphere.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on July 23, 2012, 03:29:17 AM

To All, It is clear through all of our postings and answers to the questions regarding our system that we us Buoyancy In a very unique way to generate excess power - and that the system is self looped - requiring no input.

As I said before - I have allowed the skeptics and the validation teams to decide how they chose to measure the input and output.

It is elementary to understand that a system such as ours - that requires no input to produce work - "of any kind" requires proper and due dilligense before making claims of any sort. It has also been explained in regards to comparisons to other systems -  Mark Dansie - 99.9% of all claims of FE are - measurement error - poor theory, and a few scams. Mark has also said publically and on other forums repeatedly - this Oklahoma device is the .1% we have been looking for.

It is a waste of my time to tell you how good our system is - that is why I have helped others to discover for themself. You can get as complicated as you want - you can get even more sophisticated equipment - you can claim you see nothing - but you can not make the simple math go away.

The truth of the .1% success is right before your eyes - if you just are honerable enough to look. As I said to MH before - I will not waste my time with the dishonerable - do your home work.

I do not expect anyone to take my word for it - and I have been open and honest. All the claims to the contrary do not float like the Z.E.D.

P.s. I have asked nothing from any of you - I have offered to share. I am thankful for the sucess our team has had - and the now 13 replication (modeling) successes that have been reported to me.

Wayne Travis


Hi Wayne .. please tell me if I have this wrong & my apologies in advance if I have - I think you said your ZED's are pressurised ?

If so, what is the purpose of pressurising the system ?

Would it not work without pressurisation or does it only work this way ?

I assume, if it is so, that it helps to shunt water back & forth efficiently but you might be using a hydraulic pump for that ?

Sorry if I've missed relevant detail that answers this query that you've already given elsewhere - just trying to mind map the system accurately.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on July 23, 2012, 03:33:25 AM
Correct, i wouldn't be surprised either.

@true open source people. 

Jesus fucking Christ! People must think we're re-fucking-tarted or something, my God!
This is why I have NO patience anymore. People don't know what OPEN SOURCE is and pretend it's all out in the open! When it's NOT!
And I have said this before and I'll say it again...You CAN NOT commercialize Free Energy/Over Unity (NO I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WIND, SOLAR, ETC!), period. You may be able to patent it but not commercialize it. Look at Tesla, and many others who have tried to commercialize FEE ENERGY! THEY DID NOT GET VERY FAR!. What makes you think you'll bypass our current corrupt government to make it happen?! If the people get a hold of real true free energy devices/machines they will break loose from the government and that is something they DO NOT want people to have access to, because then they will lose control of us slaves. Oh wait you think the government is for the people by the people? lol not really, its for the private banks by the privates banks who enslaves us through debt, monopoly, energy, media, drugs, and agriculture! wake the fuck up people, Jesus!

Thats not quite true

If everyone wants one, or 2, more?, then who is going to make them? A device may not be able to be recreated in the garage or back yard or on the kitchen table easily. And those that can do it, are they going to be the ones that make them for everyone? And after doing soo many and demand increases, will those that can want to industrialize it, because the garage isnt going to work out any longer?

Sombody has to make it. And if it works, there is always the chance that the idea can be improved upon and research and development would be intense, or not. And there would be a job market open all over the world. But money will be needed to make them. When making them in very large volumes, cost goes down.

Meanwhile, everyone is saving money on energy and has more to spend in the economy.
And, all things should become cheaper, once the cost of energy is factored into the equation.

The key is to get everyone or at least a good majority, to understand that free energy exists. Otherwise, fugidaboudit. Until then the earth will be continually punctured and damaged because of our reliance on fossil fuels.

If free energy does exist, imagine the dry lands that could be watered, without energy cost. Meanwhile when a Nuclear power plant gets its power cables broken by a tornado in Alabama, it requires 40,000, thats right, 40,000 gallons of diesel an HOUR, thats right, an HOUR to power the cooling pumps till the power lines are repaired, over a period of 2 weeks.  These plants are not prepared for many things. And many are being re licensed beyond the original licensing periods.

Tesla said, there is no better time than now. That was a long time ago.

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on July 23, 2012, 04:39:42 AM
To all members . I have made a big mistake , and I will now apologise. I am very sorry for feeding the Trolls. I promise it is a mistake that I will never repeat. Sorry.
No problem, all Trolls, Flamers, Baiters, haul ass, get the hell outta here!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: markdansie on July 23, 2012, 05:22:57 AM
Hi
i am sure Mr Wayne is ok me updating.
The unit is initially pressurized, but these pressures are maintained without any other external inputs once running
Latest update is to go into long term running this week self sustaining then add the generator (its already connected)
Mark
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 23, 2012, 06:00:14 AM
Thanks Mark,
Today is my Birthday - so I left to go see the Dark Knight in an I Max theater - that was fun.
And you have my permission to answer - as you feel - anytime.
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 23, 2012, 06:04:51 AM
Hi Wayne .. please tell me if I have this wrong & my apologies in advance if I have - I think you said your ZED's are pressurised ?

If so, what is the purpose of pressurising the system ?

Would it not work without pressurisation or does it only work this way ?

I assume, if it is so, that it helps to shunt water back & forth efficiently but you might be using a hydraulic pump for that ?

Sorry if I've missed relevant detail that answers this query that you've already given elsewhere - just trying to mind map the system accurately.
Hello Fletcher,
We do not have a hydraulic pump - we do spin a hydraulic motor - from our excess - to spin a generator.
And Mark is correct - part of the initial set up is to push the heads into the minimum position (with Air) - and that's it - no new air is used.
The pressure increases and decreases repeatedly in a cycle.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on July 23, 2012, 07:26:06 AM
Hello Fletcher, We do not have a hydraulic pump - we do spin a hydraulic motor - from our excess - to spin a generator.

And Mark is correct - part of the initial set up is to push the heads into the minimum position (with Air) - and that's it - no new air is used.

The pressure increases and decreases repeatedly in a cycle.

Wayne

Thanks Wayne & Mark.

Well, that adds to the intrigue as it appears a totally closed system except for load as output energy - all I can say is very best of luck & I look forward to Mark's analysis after the long run test.

If excess energy to do work is being produced, & pressure isn't dropping over time to provide that, then I wonder if the ideal gas laws are coming into play with a twist i.e. where there is are adiabatic & isothermal cooling & warming legs in the process that brings ambient heat energy into the system from the air to replenish mechanical energy losses ? - that of course would mean a machine that converts heat directly into mechanical motion & that would be very interesting from the Laws of Thermodynamics perspective - I could be totally wrong there & you no doubt have a theory Wayne.

Temperature differences might be something for Mark to consider in his investigation of the closed system ?

Once again, thanks for being forthright & sharing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on July 23, 2012, 07:34:29 AM
Thanks Mark,
Today is my Birthday - so I left to go see the Dark Knight in an I Max theater - that was fun.
And you have my permission to answer - as you feel - anytime.
Wayne Travis
Happy Birthday Wayne, and please have many more.  I envy you seeing Batman in the Imax, God rest the people in Colorado.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on July 23, 2012, 09:30:49 AM
That's why people do experiments - that's also why long run tests are important - that's why long run tests under load are even more important - the energy to do work in a seemingly closed system must come from somewhere - especially if buoyancy is the prime mover & we correctly assume that it is an artifact of conservative gravity.

So, I look forward to Mark D's investigation & analysis to see if an energy anomaly exists & if so where might it come from in his or Wayne's opinion.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 10:43:51 AM
@MarkD:

When you go and look, please remember the story of the Redheffer machine. What is driving, what is driven; upon which side of elements does wear appear, etc.

I'm not accusing; like I've said before I have suspended disbelief and am still taking MrWayne at his word, but at the same time I'm as sure as I can be that something is missing. Happy Birthday, by the way, and many more to you!

13 replications all in simulation models, right? Nobody has yet built a working, self-running model?


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 23, 2012, 02:02:01 PM
@TK. I understand that some guy out in Oaklahoma, name of Wayne Travis has built one. :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 23, 2012, 03:51:20 PM
Yes, Of course respect to the families of Colorado and their loved ones - they are our brothers and sisters.... enough said.

Thank You for the Birthday wishes - 45 half way there.

Replications are expensive - who among would replicate a $30,000 to $500,000 system in your garage?

Dennis is building the replications - and has completed his Physics model - his plan is to explain and educate in simple terms.

I am sorry for those I am not able to communicate clearly too - what seems simple to some - can appear complex to others - and in my experience with engineers - complexity is often added where it is not needed - this can becomes a personal stumbling block to others.

I understand that we each have our own unique perspective - I have also observed where sometimes education works the uniqueness out of us.

I was a bit of a rebel (secretly in school) I held onto my uniqueness - others tried to fit in - while I refused to join the crowd -
I did not hold it against them - I did step in when the crowd attacked someone for "being Smaller" -
Thank you to those who try to stop the character attack - but please refrain - my character is solid - and not based on what others say.

I value Freedom:
True freedom is partly the right to choose to fit in or not - nobody has the right to step on others for personal gain or ego.

Text books:

The idea that all discovery and understanding was to be found in text books was counter intuitive to the process that put the knowledge in the books in the first place - the inventors - the researchers - the observant - and the creative - did not get their understanding from text books - but from thinking people.

Error is and was introduced to the field of science - when science became its own Law maker - rather than the observable, repeatable fact..... Newton warned of that - we should all understand that to use science as a "limiter" of observation is counterintuitive.

I had a good science teacher - when I was very young - in one instance -  I argued that water did not always seek a level position - I referenced the round ocean - the wick effect - and evaporation - that in perspective - it could be seen differently.

I was very young - But my teacher respected my curiosity - he was the kind of teacher who stood on glass plates and ran electricity through his arms to lite  a lite bulb with his finger tips -  super cool....he died of an enlarged heart - happy to have inspired the minds of others.

He explained -
"The questions you are asked in this school are merely to teach and to share what others have learned and observed - the instruction will be based on those things previously discovered, you will be graded on your understanding of what they observed.......but you must keep asking questions, new discoveries are made that way."

This same teacher then suggested I try to make use of the wick effect - that was the start of my move from observation to experimenting.

Fully functioning Z.E.D. models:
I did - I built 8 of them - reused parts from older models of course to save money - but that is what it took to discover the secrets of buoyancy - it took quite some doing to design the mechanics to take advantage of the "Travis Effect"

Our Market:

We are not in the FE machine to "run a refrigerator" market- like the "Imagine FE commercial" on Peswiki.

One of our Machines will power between 60 and 70 homes - average annual consumption - not peak of course - but averaged power consumption.

The Z.E.D system is very robust - we have not had the issue of unrepeatability - we have modified - changed configurations - disassembled - reassembled and the Z.E.D. portion of the machine - and they Z.E.D. portion functions repeatedly just as the Physics show it does - very much FE.

The hardest learning curve was the use of the Non linear - since the system uses two Z.E.D.s the linear functions had to be matched - which meant they had to be understood - that took hard and long work.

Now - the Energy capture system - which can be of any complexity - has given me trouble in my Garage - I am not an engineer - but people want to see electricity - so our lateral stroke had to be turned efficiently into electricity - that is hard with a small model. Hence the hydraulic conversion system.

Thermal:

We do not exchange heat - or do any form of exchange in that manner - When it is hot outside - or cold - the system does respond as expected - the accumulators nitrogen does expand a bit - but since the system is self regulating - it compensates automatically.
The speed and pressure we deal with are barely enough to measure that exchange - Our engineer said - it is less than one 90 degree elbow (in the plumbing) adds in resistance and loss to the system.

Partial Theory:
It takes understanding the full operation to grasp our system - which is why I direct those who make predictive emotional comments to do the due dillignese. in my experiance - those people never do - "learning" becomes a distant memory in some minds.

The Operation of our system is Mechanical FE - we Mechanically manipulate the pressure differences between three separate mediums - because they are each effected by gravity in a measurable and predictable manner - differently - we can control the effect.

Our exchange system is a huge cost reduction and is simple equalization - captured and controlled.
The Unique portion - the pressure diffirential section - is a key.
Our water in our layers is like a liquid but act as both a solid lever and a pressure increaser - taking advantage of both the incopressability and the effect gravity has on the density of the fluid.
Our Lever has enabled us to design a system which is bent up and down many times (shortening the length of the lever - reducing the stroke length of the long end of the handle) - while still applying the force and output on the short end - like any understood lever. (how we take the work out is why this portion works --and a bent steel lever does not).
Larry has shown this effect in many of his spread sheets.

The force applied to the levers "folded long end" is gravity induced pressure from mechanically controlled pressure differentials.
 
Level of disclosure:

This group, had only been shown the inception and the basic process - and when you are ready - I will show how we turned our 160% (three layers) efficient model into 340% (six layers), then 840% (eight layers) and then reduces the "input cost"
We have one unreleaesed portion of the deisgn that takes any of those internal input costs and reduceds them another 88%.

Yes - we have discovered how to take our Original FE system and using the theory of operation to expand the process well beyound what - at this point in time - is even believable - for now.

Today some people treat us like crack pots - tomorrow - (figuratively) as we move forward - those people will realize thier error.
 
We are ready for the World, and most of the world is ready for us, let me repeat - We are ready for the World.

Don't wait too long - and thank you for the value you offer by at least being part of the knowledge of this adventure.

Suppression:
No one has tried to interfear with the development, research, or production of this system - unless you call apathy and slander interference - as I have seen on this web site.

In my humble opinion - regarding the interference - the brilliant one ones have stopped - the smart have doubled down.
I understand that "Smart" comes in many forms - on this site it has been emotional disagreements - not based on understanding not based on the physics of our system or observation or witness of others.

Emotions are not good scientific proof for or against a fact.

All I offer here is the truth and share in our discovery, I am not here to boost any egos, play games, or to be rude to others.

Thank you sincerely to those who have asked questions and spent the effort to understand.

True Freedom, Independance, the systems will cost to be deployed - but the continued benifit will be seen in a few years - for genrations - which is a rare occurance in this world - that is why I named my company HydroEnergy Revolution llc - ( H.E.R)

Wayne Travis
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 23, 2012, 04:18:17 PM
Quote of the week.


"all reasonable men change themselves to fit in with their environment. Unreasonable men change the environment to suit themselves. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable men."


This was the original quote. I would substitute "unconventional" for "unreasonable".
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on July 23, 2012, 06:54:57 PM
Nice quote Neptune.
One of my favorites that I believe also applies:

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
  –- Calvin Coolidge

PS - My change would be "Persistence and faith alone are omnipotent"
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 07:51:22 PM
@TK. I understand that some guy out in Oaklahoma, name of Wayne Travis has built one. :)
Uh huh... and I understand he's trying to get somebody else to build another one, a tabletop demonstrator. Has anyone succeeded in this, yet?  ;)

I was asking, in my post, if the thirteen model replications were spreadsheet models or actual model models that you ... meaning mostly me ... could build and set to running and watch running.... and running.......... and running........... right there in my own kitchen. I think I've gotten my answer.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 23, 2012, 08:51:54 PM
Hi TK. That was just me  trying to be humerous. I do know there are people working on a table top model, but as far as I know no one has yet completed the work. Wayne has said that the thirteen models are mathematical models, not table top models. Although a ZED is basically a simple device, making one in your garage is not a five minute job. I have no doubt someone will do it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 23, 2012, 09:39:20 PM
My own experience with trying to design a model made it very clear that it is very difficult to accurately calculate the changing water heights and air volumes as the Pod and Risers begin to move.  And accurate calculations are necessary when trying to made a ZED device small enough to have as a desk top demonstrator.  As has been shown, the lift forces become too large to manage once the device becomes larger than about 6 inches in diameter.  More layers also increases the forces, but would more easily show the "OU" effects.
 
One of the critical design parameters has to do with thin walls and gaps for all the members.  My own attempts to use commercially available acrylic tube of 1/8 inch wall thickness and gaps might be workable, but the amount of water that must transfer between ZEDs is proportionally larger than what Wayne is doing with his large units.  This is because the wall thicknesses and gaps of a model with those material limitations are much larger proportionally than Wayne's device.
 
The gentleman who has been "authorized' by Wayne to build teaching models plans to make tooling for the model pieces.  So he needs a very precise design first.  To that end he has been working on a parametric software simulator where every dimension can be adjusted.  Including air and water density.  It is very cool, IMO.  Unfortunately he is using a commercial software package now so you would have to purchase that to run his code.  But he has told me that it should be easy enough for someone to transfer into VB, Java, etc.
 
FWIW.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 23, 2012, 11:53:00 PM
Developed a new Water Height Calculator for a 4 Riser system. With that information I updated the Water Input for Different Layers spreadsheet. Attached picture shows the volume of water input for different layers when raising water around the pod. It considered the cost of input with just the Pod, Pod plus 3 layers and Pod plus 4 layers.
 
The most significant values are in red and green.
 
Red is what the cost was for the many failed buoyancy machines, part losses, but mainly due to the volume of water input and obvious time of input to get to the Pod rise force required and the volume of water output and time of output to lower the Pod after rise.
 
Green is what the cost is for a 3 layer and 4 layer Travis system. Any of those failed buoyancy machines would have worked with that advantage. Remember the simple formula 'Power = Force X Distance / Time'.
 
One of the advantages of the Layering system is that
The Layer system reduces the volume of water and time required to load and unload a system.
 
The spreadsheets are attached. The 'Volume of Water Input for Different Layers' spreadsheet has simple calculations as it is using data from the more complex Water Height calculators.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on July 24, 2012, 03:31:28 AM
I'm new to this forum as a registered user but not so new to the discussion or the development of this device.
I've read the patent, watch the HER site for updates and have had a couple of direct questions for mrwayne.

If I'm reading the current developments correctly the pod needs to be neutrally buoyant but no-longer needs the sealed chamber to accomplish that. (?) And in the patent drawings, air is the fluid medium being passed between the ZED devices.

Larry's calculators seem to be focused on water levels in the outer risers.

I'm just trying to keep up with the developments and understand the principles involved.
Is air still being transferred between pods or is the water level in the outer risers the connection between them?

Sorry if I'm a little slow to keep up
Dale   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 24, 2012, 04:29:32 AM
I'm new to this forum as a registered user but not so new to the discussion or the development of this device.
I've read the patent, watch the HER site for updates and have had a couple of direct questions for mrwayne.

If I'm reading the current developments correctly the pod needs to be neutrally buoyant but no-longer needs the sealed chamber to accomplish that. (?) And in the patent drawings, air is the fluid medium being passed between the ZED devices.

Larry's calculators seem to be focused on water levels in the outer risers.

I'm just trying to keep up with the developments and understand the principles involved.
Is air still being transferred between pods or is the water level in the outer risers the connection between them?

Sorry if I'm a little slow to keep up
Dale
Hello Dale,

The patent covers moving both water and air or separately - as well as moving separate bodies of both - in and out. All will work - but water is better - pumping a non compressable is easier than a compressable.

Having two separate by related bodies makes controlling the system much easier.

We have built systems and tested those three and a couple more methods that are being covered in our new patent.

 Currently - we move two separate bodies of water related by pressure through the pumping system.

The Pod adds to the lift, but that is its least effective use.

The pod is the internal mass discplacement that chases the riser to keep the differentials in place during stroke.

We do match the desired stroke length, clearances and weights of the risers and added weight to take the best advantage of the Pod.

The Pod can act to neutralize the weight of the system.

Larry wisely noticed that the outer layers add more lift to the system than the Pod - utilizing the outer layers requires less pressure to create more lift - because it is outer layers that have the larger diameter.

Our Pod has a si of 707 and the outer riser has a si of 1100 1 psi in the outer layer adds 1100 pounds of lift - and one psi in the pod lifts 707 - using the outer layer "more"  is better.

Understanding this - and how the pressure changes between each layer during a stroke - explains the non linear function.

Larry is on the ball.
p.s.
The pod was sealed during the air movng and the water moving - I am not sure what you meant.

Thanks Dale,
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 24, 2012, 07:45:48 AM
Larry hit on a very important note - Time, distance and mass.

I thought one could not escape the confines of "work"
By comparing "work" - you must consider those three.

 I first studied these as Horse power -

If in 1 minute, you move 330 pounds 100 feet that  was 1 hp

if you moved 660 pounds the same time and distance = 2hp

Or if you move 330 pounds 200 feet in 1 minute = 2hp

and if you moves 330 pounds,  100 feet in 30 seconds = 2hp

 
I studied many designs, and watched many inventors overjoyed about a system - only to later realize - the trap  that time distance and mass had on "Creating Energy".

Free energy seemed impossible, impossibility made sense.

When I saw the "Travis effect" I did not see a "creation even" nor was I looking for one -

I saw a system that had a "lift" proportional to the whole mass,  moved faster, a short distance - utilizing a very small mass of input.

I saw the ability to do work - cheaper and faster and with less input than any other buoyancy system in the world.

Thru hard work and testing, measurement and observation - I finally understood the "Why" the "How" and the later the "Where"

The "Where" was the hardest - because a false label had been given to the idea of Free Energy - that label "Energy Creation.........."

We are not allowed to create or destroy energy...................................

One of the lessons I learned in my critical thinking studies - does the argument apply......?

The Argument - If you claim Free Energy - you must also be claiming to be a "Creator of Energy".......

The obvious comparison - solar and wind - are they energy creators?

No, of course not - are they free Energy - Yes.
But we understand where thier energy comes form.

So do we just apply the label of "Energy Creation" to everything we do not understand?

Some Do, they are mistaken -  I do not - and that makes some people uncomfortable, I understand - I used to feel the same way.

As I have said before - We have a mechanical marvel - our system of interacting layers and the unique attributes residing in liquids and in discplacements - each effected by gravity and has giving rise to a system - a robust system - that has an internal operating cost - less than the total production.

We have "left over" Energy - which is free - just not "created from nothing".
We continue to find ways to save even more for the customer, but we will never be able to provide more than the system is capable. Reduce costs - we have - amazingly reduced - Energy creation - you can find it on another link - not this one.

Larry has been very keen in his investigation, the data he provides is very usefull in understanding our system.

If you get misled by biters into chasing a "creation system" that is not what we have or have ever described - the baiter misleads - that is his purpose - we have been very clear.

Wayne Travis
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on July 24, 2012, 10:58:34 AM
This describes leverage. NOT The production of usable work.

Please show how this cycle can continue to liberate energy without the injection of additional mass into the system. If the additional mass comes from the other side then the net output of the combined system is zero.


As I see it...this works as claimed via:


2 masses on top of a see-saw balance beam in effect (or connected like so via hydraulics) You have the kinetic energy potential when one is lifted, to take work from on the way down. However, you also have a unique leverage system,where buoyancy gives you 'free' lift each time, so lifting up the other side during the downstroke takes not 100 percent of that mass X distance coming down, but only some percentage. That leaves a left over amount for 'work'. Yet you shift the mediums around...alter the balance.


Now the other side is raised up, transfers are initiated allowing it to return, and it repeats. Gravity (the equivalent of the wind, or sun in windmill or solar energy here) is the 'free'.


Consider two masses on a see saw. Both being blown down by the wind from above (metaphor for gravity)...One side is released to rise, the other to fall, one rising because the other is used to leverage water and air mediums to make it rise.


Yes each mass is getting the same wind blown at it, but one, mechanically, is on a side 2x longer than the other, so the wind, blowing the same, raises the other side.


What now if transfer this leverage, making the other side the longer one...now it raises the original back. Same wind a blowing (gravity). Except you have a weird buoyancy going on , which means you don't need all the gravity on one side to life that other side up.


You repeat. You get extra each cycle, because you can lift up the mass each time using less than you get when it falls? You do that using buoyant leverage, and any mechanical advantage therein from compression of air and water. Then you shift the air and water on a timely basis, and transfer the process about.


Imagine a donut weight on top of a telephone pole. If it falls 25 feet, that's a set amount of energy to extract. And then if by utilizing other forms of energy, pressure, buoyancy and what not to raise it back up, cheaper, (the other side of a ZED is that) then the extra from the fall is your 'free' mechanical energy. Yet you have raised up the other side during the fall of the first, and now you have more mass x distance energy to enjoy again. But it only took you some lesser percentage of the stored (it is pressurized initially) and newly gained to raise it. 


That's how I understand the thing.


Consider in this case, that gravity is a wind blowing constantly, linear direction, down a tunnel and there is a hole to inject something into the stream When you lift one side, it enters the tunnel, gets blown back down...and in doing, raises the other via leverage and buoyancy, overcoming that side's desire to fall as well, effectively in the tunnel it is smaller then the other due to the leverage. Then you transfer the leverage and buoyancy using the same compression from the mass, and now the other is 'in the tunnel' and full size again, getting blown harder in a way, gravity now ready to bring it back down.


You will say, takes same energy to lift it up as came down. Buoyancy provides extra lift, repeatedly, not just one time because if you are shuffling it around during the strokes or at the end...game changes doesn't it?


Since it's pressurized you can use that to initiate the transfers. At some point, gravity and buoyancy take over, and cycle repeats.


I don't understand things as to that leverage, I am an artist, kind of stricken by a 2D visualization more than I wish, and this is a 3D system of concentric leverage so I cannot explain it much better.


But here's your quandary, Seamus. If the thing does repeat on its own, and does run on its own (and I have no independent verification of this) then all your complaining about this and that about energy creation and such does not matter, you are looking at a gravity-buoyancy 'wind' machine.


Nobody questions that a windmill works. What if somehow, this thing does work, and it's a metaphorical gravity 'wind' machine, deriving work from gravity, by making each mass continually fall in a way...via that leverage allowing a return to full potential KE, for less than the full return. It would be as is you have made gravity work a circle using tricks of displacement, and buoyancy and how the conversion works among mediums.
 
I am long winded, pun intended, but there's the same thing said 3 or 4 ways.


rc
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on July 24, 2012, 02:05:10 PM
No, buoyancy cannot give you "free lift", here is why. It takes the same or more *energy* to move an object downwards into a fluid as can be recovered when it rises. 


Not necessarily true, if you are draining the air or adding water to re-sink or re-float depending on the cycle at hand, but I don't know the particulars. Something's being shifted to and fro, that's been made clear. First I thought it was air and water, but recently, seemed to be said to just be water?


Gravity as wind was just a metaphor for visualizing a streaming of the downward force in a linear way instead of left and right. I am not really thrilled with Einstein's summation and metaphor of it, but there are not many other presented alternatives thus far.


It's a really annoying force or manifestation of whatever , to be sure. And one wonders if the answer to it will be found this century, or 10 more from now.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 24, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
Hello Artist,
 
I enjoyed your explanations.

Yes, Gravity is in effect - the pull gravity has on an object is closely related to the density -
Air (atmospheric pressure)
Water (Head pressure)
Steel (our weight)

The same gravity affects densities differently.

Objects do not really float - they are pushed up by the denser object.

It is a very elusive concept - many patented inventors designed their systems as though Buoyancy somehow defeated Gravity - all while gravity causes it.

When I understood that Gravity caused both - I began looking into the effect - long before noticing the "Travis Effect".
When I learned that water pressure (head pressure) changed according to altitude - a very simple thing - I realized that it was not the distance from the center of the earth that caused a change in gravity's effect on water - but the change in gravity's effect on the atmosphere - which in turn affected the water pressure.

Water being incompressible
And air being compressible
Meant that the two could be combined to create a pressure differential system where the differential values could be changed.
Very much like your example - we use the gravity, water, and air in our layer system to increase the effect of gravity on the water.

A simple example:
I studied a 20 foot tube filled mostly with water - horizontal - basically no head pressure - a tiny bit of weight - the tube turns vertical and now 10 psi of head pressure.

Then I added pressure inside the tube - ten pounds - the result - horizontal - 10 psi - vertical 20 psi.
Simple enough - to understand - increasing the controlled atmosphere - increases the pressure at depth.

We use the risers weight to increase the "atmosphere" pressure between layers - it is additive -
A horizontal tube and volume of air - completely changed its value of pressure when turned vertical.

Not more energy - just a compression - turning vertical reduced the surface area - so pressure increased on the lower end.
So the effect - as you rotate - concentrated si - and then expanded - a piston with a changing diameter.......
I built that system - and like many of my attempts - it was only a stepping stone.

When I designed the Z.E.D. I used that understanding - each of our layers - the water hose example is that pipe - connected together - so the head pressure increase in each (tube) layer increases the pressure in the next.

Now - Our baiter is full of can't do's - he can't - that is all he can really say.

You see - our twenty foot pole example - has a rotational radius of 10 feet - it is a fixed value.

Our system has the same effect - "our radius" stays the same (input volume) - as we add layers - yet we have the combined surface areas - and the combined pressures and the combined buoyancy.

If it could be done with the tubes - and you hooked four together - to get two with water - two with atmosphere - you would have the head of 40 feet at vertical and still have a radius of 10. Six tubes would get you the head of 60 feet and still the radius of 10 feet.

In short - your tube example is clever - very cool - very close.

That  tube - lever action - increases the pressure at the cost of rotating a mass - the mass is constant and the pressure  depends on postion in the rotation - you can exceed the value of the pressure over the value of the mass. To consume it all you would have to do is drain the system - and replenish the water - but to use a portion of the pressure - and then let it return by gravity during the rotation - there is no consumption of the air or water. It is a sealed closed system.

Now - add a buoyancy system inside the tubes - you have both pressure increases and Free Buoyancy - the buoyancy turns off and on with the pressure changes as well - but does not add to the cost of the tubes.

Our system - uses three energy sources - the pressure increases, the buoyancy and the equalization to another Z.E.D. Instead of letting the system go back to zero by dumping (venting) - we reuse it.

We recycle the pressures - and capture the buoyancy - works very, very  well.

The "Travis Effect" showed me how to do the same thing - without the rotation - faster and larger surface areas.
Instead of rotating the incredible masses - just the input to one "tube".

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 24, 2012, 07:24:24 PM
hey seamus troll... all of your 65 posts... all in this thread alone.


troll much? or is this some personal vendetta similar to that nutjob tinselkoala/alsetalokin?


"Nice metaphor but it isn't how gravity works."
that was funny as shit... i'm going to print that and frame it! and then you admit to not knowing how gravity 'works'... but you 'know' that that's not the way....   ::)  idiot.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 24, 2012, 07:29:19 PM
Nice metaphor but it isn't how gravity works. (If the truth be known the mechanism by which gravity occurs is not fully known by current physics but we can characterise its effects accurately using newtownian mechanics at normal scales).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 24, 2012, 11:54:18 PM
The pictures show the 4 layer, and 3 layer system at Stroke PSI. The 4 layer has a higher PSI, but has the same safe outer skirt level as the 3 layer. Some important fields are the 'Water Head Change % over Pod water Level Change' and the Total Force field. This shows that the 4 Layer requires less Pod retainer input water then the 3 layer, while producting more lift force.
 
A 1 inch difference change in the Pod level can be shown by changing the 'Out Ret. Water Drop' by entering 4.5697 in the 4 Layer and 4.6887 in the 3 Layer from the original 4.38. The Pod force will change by 26 for each 1 inch difference, because it is linear. The Layers force will change 83 for the 4 layer and 75 for the 3 layer or 10.7% increase for the 4 layer at this PSI.
 
The attached spreadsheets xls files have updates to show the lifting force.

Regards, Larry   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 25, 2012, 12:42:09 AM
@LarryC,
 
Wow!  Nice find.  I mean, I could pretty much see that the added layer would increase the output force.  But at a reduced water volume change?  That I didn't imagine.  But maybe this is why the numbers that Wayne is stating for the scaling of the system with layers is not linear and increases at a faster rate with added layers.
 
Keep it up!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 25, 2012, 05:15:10 AM
Hello Larry,

My engineers worked the layering system originally from the outside in - this will become problematic later - they had to start over.
Eventually your do not have room for you Pod and gaps.

It is better to start with the pod of choice and work your way out.

The main reason the efficiency increases so quickly is that the output power increases faster then the input costs.

Adding layers is increasing the total Surface area - "Diameter" - without increasing the input volume.

Things are going very well here - and your work is great.

Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 25, 2012, 06:54:29 AM
Hello Larry,

My engineers worked the layering system originally from the outside in - this will become problematic later - they had to start over.
Eventually your do not have room for you Pod and gaps.

It is better to start with the pod of choice and work your way out.

The main reason the efficiency increases so quickly is that the output power increases faster then the input costs.

Adding layers is increasing the total Surface area - "Diameter" - without increasing the input volume.

Things are going very well here - and your work is great.

Wayne Travis
Hi Wayne,
 
Thanks, but there seems to be some confusion as to what my water height calculator is doing.
 
'It is better to start with the pod of choice and work your way out.'  That is what it is doing. Please see the 'Channel SI Calculator' section at the bottom of the spreadsheet. It starts with the pod diameter and uses the entered 'Thickness' and 'Clearance' to build outward. These values are used thruout the calculations to ensure the channel volume's are correct.
 
'Eventually your do not have room for you Pod and gaps.' Cannot happen.
 
The main difference between my method and others is the water height calculation logic.
 
There is two ways to do this, increase the pod water height or decrease the water height in the outer layer, which can be backed into a increase in the pod water height.
 
If you choose to increase the water height in the pod, the calculations would take many recursive iterations to do it correctly, because as you change values in one layer all values forward and backward need to be recalculated over and over until it settles, or you could just do approximations which is not as accurate. I could have done this correctly with a excel VBA, but it would have been very confusing to most and that is not my goal.
 
By choosing to decrease the water height in the outer layer, it simplifies the calculations as it does not require recursive iterations and is more accurate than the approximation technique. The decrease in the water level of the first outer layer forces the adjacent column water level to increase. Due to a decrease in water head this causes the air in the next column to expand and forces the next water level down and so forth and so on until the pod water is forced down. Another words, it forces all inward columns to align. You have seen seen that effect with with the previous 5 PSI example, is it correct or not?
 
Regards, Larry       
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 25, 2012, 01:42:54 PM
Just Confusion on my part,
When I read about the "Volume reduction" on the input - I though the pod area was shrinking -
SO I presumed you were trying to fit the four layers into the same space as three.
My mistake - well done.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 25, 2012, 04:34:43 PM
@Wayne,
 
No problem, it still confuses me at times. Many simple parts forming a complex whole. Which is why it is displaying a lot of unnecessary data, to help keep me straight.
 
I enjoyed the detailing of your learning quest. During my yesterday morning exercise, seen the last hour of the old Edison movie with Spencer Tracey. He had the same drive, determination and vision as you. When he was trying to complete his hardest vision to create the electric light, the learned naysayers came out in droves, some comparing it to the impossibility of perpetual motion. Sounds familiar. But the natural gas (main lighting source at the time) money baron didn't start abusing his power until his spy's informed him that it worked. Then he started paying off the politicans to fight him every inch of the way. As the same ones are buying off congress today to suppress renewable energy development.
 
@Artist,
Thanks, much enjoyed your examples.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 25, 2012, 05:34:27 PM
@Wayne,
 
No problem, it still confuses me at time. Many simple parts forming a complex whole. Which is why it is displaying a lot of unnecessary data, to help keep me straight.
 
I enjoyed the detailing of your learning quest. During my yesterday morning exercise, seen the last hour of the old Edison movie with Spencer Tracey. He had the same drive, determination and vision as you. When he was trying to complete his hardest vision to create the electric light, the learned naysayers came out in droves, some comparing it to the impossibility of perpetual motion. Sounds familiar. But the natural gas (main lighting source at the time) money baron didn't start abusing his power until his spy's informed him that it worked. Then he started paying off the politicans to fight him every inch of the way. As the same ones are buying off congress today to suppress renewable energy development.
 
@Artist,
Thanks, much enjoyed your examples.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Thanks Larry,
I toured (the extensive tour) Edisons estate - I was amazed at how many of his devices still worked....
I also incorporated his Power naps - when trying to solve complex issues.
What I I think helped Edision - was his relationships with people who could not be "bought out".
Our Success can be directly contributed to our Grass roots support - no one is on Salary - everyone works for the Goal.
Kind of hard to stop a stampede...
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 25, 2012, 06:40:55 PM
Just as an FYI,

I am building a build testbed, to see what I should and should not do and what I need to be careful of.

It is a very small build, 5 inches tall, an outside diameter of approx 2.4 inches and with a 1 inch diameter pod, approx. 1\16 space between things and I am using .008 thick plastic with the ends overlapped and glued.  My spacing is not very good, but it is a practice build made out of scrap material,, Tennis ball tubes ;)


Now that I have the 5 risers not leaking I did something stupid but fun, I put them all inside themselves and filled them up with water and grabbed the inside riser and lifted it up and down.  Watching this allowed me to see an interesting "gear" ratio occurring between the risers, so for a 1\4 inch lift on the 4th riser the inside riser moved up 1 inch.
I remember those days - that was/is  the "New Frontier"
Call it a gear, a lever, a pump - what ever - it is so simple - yet wow.
I used five gallon buckets and PVC pipe with wood plugs in the pipe.
Have fun my friend.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 25, 2012, 09:31:44 PM
@Webby1. Could you please tell us what type of glue you are using?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 25, 2012, 10:46:24 PM
For those that want to "roll your own," I've looked at some of the various plastic "films" available at McMaster Carr.  It was very interesting.  Several different types of clear plastics appear to be commercially available in various thicknesses.  Some may be easier to bond into tubes (though clear packing tape should be an option?).
 
For example, go here:  http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-plastic-film/=ikassw (http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-plastic-film/=ikassw)  If you click on polycarbonate on the left you will see that it comes in various thicknesses up to .040" (~1mm).  Unfortunately I don't know how small a bend radius you can expect before it "kinks" or shatters.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on July 25, 2012, 10:49:12 PM
This stuff would be beautiful to work with and the sizes available might work out, but you'd need to be willing to invest a bit.
The 8" x .250 is $70 per foot
http://www.eplastics.com/Plastic/Plexiglass-Cast-Acrylic-Tubing/Cast-Acrylic-Tubing-Cylinders-Size-Availability-List

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 25, 2012, 11:39:06 PM
Polycarbonate sheets have a forming temp of 275 F, so roll your own and put them in the oven to "set" the curve.

Good tip.  I've use the same method to curve plastic that was then to be cut into aircraft model canopies.  This should be a great way to make clear cylinders of thinner wall thickness which really improves the efficiency of a model.
 
What are you using for the end caps of the Pod/Risers?  The same thickness?  Same material?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 26, 2012, 12:11:45 AM
@webby1,
 
He he.  Well done and a tip of my hat to you sir.  Your resourcefulness is an inspiration.
 
So, one off topic question, purely for my own curiosity.  You are French Canadian, no?  Please do not respond or just PM me if that crosses any line.
 
So you are roughing up (sanding) the ends of the "tubes" so they adhere to the aluminum end caps with the RTV?
 
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "ring wall spacers?"  Please help me to understand.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 26, 2012, 12:39:57 AM
@webby1,
 
Any chance for some pictures? 
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 26, 2012, 02:52:13 AM
WOw - that looks good.
What is the metal for?
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 26, 2012, 02:59:03 AM
WOw - that looks good.
What is the metal for?
Wayne

If I may...
 
I believe that is a custom machined aluminum end cap shown on the end of a tube destined to be the Pod?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on July 26, 2012, 03:26:28 AM
I'm impressed
But then, if it can't be built with a torch, grinder and welder.... it's generally outside the scope of my typical shop projects.
Nice simple creative work !
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 26, 2012, 04:51:37 AM
Thanks,
I thought I had read that you had machined it.
Mine is steel - but with a 30 inch diameter.

As long as it floats  :)

The Pod chases the Inner riser during a stroke keeping the air from rushing to the top.

Have you decided how to attach the input?
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 26, 2012, 04:57:05 AM
Great News:
Our PCT Examiner cited three other patents - yet determined they were of no particular relevance in analyzing the patentability of the present invention (ours). yes!!! 
Also - My attorneys filed the 'three cited' in an Information Disclosure - listing the references.

We ran today - final tweeking - great Data!

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 26, 2012, 05:03:57 AM
I used a tire valve stem - with the pin left out.
The Rubber has a nice slot and I glued it for good measure - it held.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on July 26, 2012, 03:59:41 PM
With the discussion turning to replication and potential materials selections:
A thought that lead to a question, if it doesn't probe too deep.
I haven't dug too deeply into Larry's calculator yet, maybe this answer is there; I'll throw it out anyway.

Selection of suitable tubing sizes for at least the risers ( demo units ) might be easier if... the thickness of the vertical walls of the base can be varied. That's what caused the question: Which is more critical to the successful implementation of the principles ( and maybe the relationship between these 2 is just as important as either independently )...
1. The volume of the air / water contained in the spaces between vessel walls and riser walls.
2. The increase in displacement of the adjacent risers themselves.
IE: Could riser 1 be 2"OD and riser 2 be 2.75"OD if the thickness of the partition separating them was managed to create the appropriate volumes of air and water? Or is that too large a step in displacement?
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 26, 2012, 04:51:50 PM
It is my understanding that best efficiency is obtained by using thin walls for all risers and lower retaining walls. Like wise the air gaps should be as small as practicable, although not small enough to cause capillary attraction. A cheap material is tinplate [tinplated steel]. It solders easily, but needs a bit of skill to work with. Someone will correct me if I am wrong abot dimensions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 26, 2012, 05:04:29 PM
With the discussion turning to replication and potential materials selections:
A thought that lead to a question, if it doesn't probe too deep.
I haven't dug too deeply into Larry's calculator yet, maybe this answer is there; I'll throw it out anyway.

Selection of suitable tubing sizes for at least the risers ( demo units ) might be easier if... the thickness of the vertical walls of the base can be varied. That's what caused the question: Which is more critical to the successful implementation of the principles ( and maybe the relationship between these 2 is just as important as either independently )...
1. The volume of the air / water contained in the spaces between vessel walls and riser walls.
2. The increase in displacement of the adjacent risers themselves.
IE: Could riser 1 be 2"OD and riser 2 be 2.75"OD if the thickness of the partition separating them was managed to create the appropriate volumes of air and water? Or is that too large a step in displacement?
Dale
Dale, I have an older version of a 5 Riser force calculator picture and xls file attached. It uses the 'Riser 5 Diameter Increase' value to account for the clearance and material thickness between the Pod and the closes Riser. With the values set it shows webby1 specification going from 1" Pod to Riser 1 of 2.4", it does not have the retainer wall, so the Increase value would need to be adjusted lower to get webby1 actual Riser 1 size correct.
 
My newer versions use a 'Clearance' and 'Thickness' value instead, but I don't have any 5 Risers. I can change this one if requested, just PM me.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 26, 2012, 05:11:58 PM
With the discussion turning to replication and potential materials selections:
A thought that lead to a question, if it doesn't probe too deep.
I haven't dug too deeply into Larry's calculator yet, maybe this answer is there; I'll throw it out anyway.

Selection of suitable tubing sizes for at least the risers ( demo units ) might be easier if... the thickness of the vertical walls of the base can be varied. That's what caused the question: Which is more critical to the successful implementation of the principles ( and maybe the relationship between these 2 is just as important as either independently )...
1. The volume of the air / water contained in the spaces between vessel walls and riser walls.
2. The increase in displacement of the adjacent risers themselves.
IE: Could riser 1 be 2"OD and riser 2 be 2.75"OD if the thickness of the partition separating them was managed to create the appropriate volumes of air and water? Or is that too large a step in displacement?
Dale
Hello Dale,
I can not answer definitively on the Small model.

In the large model - we originally built equal layers - thickness and gap, and then we modeled varying the gap - increasing the diameter of the wall thickness is a loss since as the risers move - the air gap above the wall is increased by the wall thickness and the water gap below the riser wall is increased as you stroke - those are minor with thin walls - but thick wall will make a difference.

Also - in our physical testing - you have to allow the air to expand in the system in order to lower the pressure -
If you have too much air in a gap -(by design) you may not be able to move enough to lower the pressure "enough to sink".

Weighting the system can give you a larger range - but you give up some Net to do it.

Here is my point - Sinking is as important as floating - if you plan a 0 to pressure system - and then to Zero again -
That is simple - but you give up efficiency - if you weight the system - you increase efficiency and give up some Net
That is why we suggest the six layer system - it is easy to build and has a nice balance between efficiency and Net.

Lastly - you do not have to match Volumes - equal gaps work almost as well - what you are looking for when matching volumes is to maximize your stroke length - and still Have differential at the last riser.

If you have equal gaps - you will shorten your stroke - in a two Z.E.D system - one side or the other is going up - so stroke length is good - but high Net with short strokes is good too.

 I hope this helps 
Wayne
-
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on July 26, 2012, 06:31:11 PM
Thanks Wayne
LOTS of good info there !
Now I need to go chew and digest a while....
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on July 26, 2012, 08:55:57 PM
Hi All,
has anybody done yet an animation, how the prociple works ?

As I did not have much time lately to studay the whole thread I would really like to see the principle
in an 3D animation.

Aynbody out there that can do this and show this in a short movie ?

I guess it would become then also much more clear.,..

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 27, 2012, 12:05:38 AM
Hello folks.

Reading up on the later posts, good to see more replications developing.

Congratulations to all who have figured out how the basic principle works, not only as a force advantage but also as an energy advantage. It takes a bit of due diligence and time to grasp.

If you examine the patent closely, and read all that has been presented in the forums, a simple model can be constructed (0ne pod one riser) that can demonstrate the force effect and the gain.
The  pre-charge portion of it, maybe not easily understood at first. But then think of it as “priming the pump”. It is required once and stays there for the remainder of the cycles or up until the system is drained. This initial charge is not used to drive the system, only to initiate the cycle. Elastic -air compression- energy storage, kept in the system.
For one pod one riser, make them neutral buoyancy as a system, fully submerged. Compress (pre-charge) to get to the load force needed, move up, (force on the pod is less than force on the riser, diff areas same pressure)  end of stroke remove the load, let it expand, move down (sink) to the original level.
For a 2 zed system, let the portion of the pre-charge move to the other side, and use portion of the gain to get to full pressure and so on.
The Sequence shown in post 373 is quite helpful
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/360/

I hope this helps.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 27, 2012, 12:35:31 AM
Also - in our physical testing - you have to allow the air to expand in the system in order to lower the pressure -
If you have too much air in a gap -(by design) you may not be able to move enough to lower the pressure "enough to sink".

The clearance issue interested me, because the increased clearance always showed more lift in my original force spreadsheet. So I ran test on the 3 and 4 riser water height calculators using clearance of .25, .50, 1, and 5. It showed that as the clearance increased the compression/expansion lowered as would be expected. 
 
The 4 Riser did not work well showing low lift increase up to 1 and 5 was a disaster, blowing out the Pod water. So 6 would be much worse.
 
However, the 3 Riser system results were impressive as shown in the attached picture.
 
Didn't consider the input cost change, but the results are interesting.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 27, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
For this one pod one riser system that demonstrates the principle, the sequence as shown in 373 requires that the volume of water contained by the device increases. I'm assuming then that this cycle can't explain the effect in a one pod system. Can you give an equivalent diagram for the one riser system that clearly shows the effect?
Ok, I’ll try to break this down to the most basic steps - there are few of them for this model construct-, but it'll make it easier to avoid misunderstandings for all the readers who may also follow this.

But lets agree on a very basic conservation of energy for e.g.  a frictionless piston/cylinder.

If we compress the gas inside and then release, the piston will go back to it’s original position, no net thermal energy exchange with the soundings due to compression decompression for the cycle etc So basically we compress a gas from Volume 1 to Volume 2 with V2<V1 and then let it go back to V1. So for this full cycle V1 to V2 to V1 everything we put in we got out.  Agreed?

Let me know yes or no and I’ll continue.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:46:45 AM
Good work - and very good to see understanding of the process.

Just a small warning on Gaps - increasing Gaps takes away from the prinicple of operation - it is alluring because of the force gains.
The gap increasing may "putout' more because of the Diameter increase - and that increases your input volume and time of operation.

And be very careful into the expansion volume of large gaps and see if you can handle the expansion and not blow the skirts.
Also - Our engineers' modeling results did not not show much gain from 3-4 layers on up - until they understood the effect the layers and on considering both speed and volume of the reused "head".  The value changes with layers and pressure - the higher pressure results in more of the head transferring in free flow mode - which means less work or more stroke.


@ ALL
Be careful not to nail down comments from a year ago - that was when we were testing the closed looped system - extensive testing - since our Data collection model - our understanding has soared.
Current answers are more accurate and so is the understanding - as it is with hands on research.
You can use our long history here as a map of the progress we have made.

One more thing:

Play with the water levels - you can reduce the input pressure without giving up much lift by having the greater differential in the outer (larger diameters).

Stefan - I have 2D running models - but they include some of the improvements - not yet released.

I have put a call into my Animator.
Thank you all,
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 27, 2012, 04:08:15 AM

...Also - Our engineers modeling results did not not show much gain from 3-4 layers on up - until they understood the effect the layers and on considering both speed and volume of the reused "head"  The value changes with layers and pressure...


There must be a tradeoff, the more layers the more water to move inside those thin columns. Total flow ability is reduced plus more water mass to move back and forth. True, more force out (lifting) capability measured at equilibrium states. However; cycle time may have to increase, lowering the overall power out. (in that part of the equation) There should be an optimum mathematical solution for each configuration. (It could be more than one local maxima depending how complex the math gets)
Good stuff.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 27, 2012, 05:21:53 AM
Not so sure on that.

If a model could be built, it would of been built.

Rube G. buddy is your friend,,, follow his teachings and BUILD something and stop TALKING,, it makes a huge difference to understanding.
Wow webby1, thank you for the warm welcome mate. But it seems the sneak peek you took into by lab, must have been when the lights were off… I guess no-one should talk, exchange ideas or comment unless she/he has a build to show? ;)
Anyway... nice creative build you have going  there, thank you for posting the pics/info.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
@All
I very much appreciate the intelligent approach and respectable behaviour being shown by most.

Those that took the time to Replicate the Physics, or the simple math - well done.

Those that experimented in the sink, tub, pool, fishtank - well done.

Those that built replications - Very well done.

Those who came and visited - took pictures -  in history -well done.

Those of you who privately discussed the technology in your peer groups - well done.


It has been a joy to share our discovery with you - I hope you have enjoyed and will continue.

Let me tell you the exciting news - first - we are up and running.

Those of you who might want to be part of this - at any level;

Be it getting your picture with the Current machine  (show to your grand kids one day) or To joining our Team - Welcome.

It is an honor to have you involved, and as a friend.

Second; We have taken this breakthrough model and have improved it to the point that this model is the "tricycle"
Compared to the Beta Test Models - our improvements are with less parts, fewer conversions and smaller foot prints.

In short - much less complicated and massively more Net Power to serve to the consumer.

As I told Stefan in the beginning - I am not here to claim any prize - but to include those people passionate about the future of clean energy production - we are certainly going to need friends and team members around the world.

Our system is solid as a rock, our IP can not be stronger than it is. The demand for our product ...... it can not be expressed (the demand) - and its Scaleable.

We could be the only viable clean energy system that has a Return on the Investment - in a few years - less in some areas.
Mark Dansie and his personal associates have aligned us with a group of partners for after the validation, and have prepared an awesome validation team. Well Done.

The Adventurers have been aligning with us - in preparation - very quickly, it will not be long before the waves begin.
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams world wide to bring this technology to the world - this could include you - Let Mark or I know - we will include you in the team - if you can join our vision, manage or support the same goals, have a quality character, and ability to followthrough - you will be welcomed.

This Machine is big - big enough for the world. Big enough to include you.
Yes, I do presume we will be validated - and so do those who have replicated the system - again well done.

Z.E.D or Zydro Energy Device

Wayne Travis
HydroEnergyRevolution.com
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 27, 2012, 04:10:39 PM
My bad, I was thinking of a post about simulating and I hit quote instead of reply.
No problem.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 27, 2012, 04:16:57 PM
Yes, I would agree with that.

Great.
Next we take this frictionless piston/cylinder, and we fully submerge it in water.

We position the cylinder vertically with the piston/rod assembly extending downwards and the cylinder on top. We keep some air in the cylinder (air pocket), and we make the whole thing buoyancy neutral. We can do it as a whole unit or we can make the piston rod with an effective density equal to water, so it is buoyancy neutral and we have enough air  inside the cylinder so it exactly counterbalances its own weight. (cylinder also buoyancy neutral)

Furthermore we make the rod same diameter as the piston, and now it looks like a medical syringe (like the old all glass ones – keep it still frictionless)
So the whole assembly as it stands now is buoyancy neutral, and has some air in it. And lets say is at level1 inside the water.

Do we agree on the following?
a.   If we compress the assembly at that level1 and let go, there is zero net energy for the cycle same as per previous post.
b.   If we move the assembly from level1 to level2 and back to level1 there is no energy gain or loss. The assembly is weightless inside the water. And actually even moving from level1 to level2 requires no net energy (weightless-buoyancy neutral)
c.   Now, lets do both. Compress at level 1 move (translate) to level 2 decompress at level2 and move back to level 1. Net energy is zero, the translation contributes/subtracts nothing, the compression/decompression cycle is also net zero.

Agreed?
Let me know yes or no, so we’ll continue next with the simplified  pod/riser model as you asked.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2012, 05:28:53 PM
Great.
Next we take this frictionless piston/cylinder, and we fully submerge it in water.

We position the cylinder vertically with the piston/rod assembly extending downwards and the cylinder on top. We keep some air in the cylinder (air pocket), and we make the whole thing buoyancy neutral. We can do it as a whole unit or we can make the piston rod with an effective density equal to water, so it is buoyancy neutral and we have enough air  inside the cylinder so it exactly counterbalances its own weight. (cylinder also buoyancy neutral)

Furthermore we make the rod same diameter as the piston, and now it looks like a medical syringe (like the old all glass ones – keep it still frictionless)
So the whole assembly as it stands now is buoyancy neutral, and has some air in it. And lets say is at level1 inside the water.

Do we agree on the following?
a.   If we compress the assembly at that level1 and let go, there is zero net energy for the cycle same as per previous post.
b.   If we move the assembly from level1 to level2 and back to level1 there is no energy gain or loss. The assembly is weightless inside the water. And actually even moving from level1 to level2 requires no net energy (weightless-buoyancy neutral)
c.   Now, lets do both. Compress at level 1 move (translate) to level 2 decompress at level2 and move back to level 1. Net energy is zero, the translation contributes/subtracts nothing, the compression/decompression cycle is also net zero.
Please don't rush through this step so fast. Compress at level 1 --performing work -- this means your formerly neutrally buoyant assembly will now sink, if you are doing it like a syringe or Cartesian diver, since the total water volume displaced by the assembly decreases but its mass is still the same. The external pressure rises as the assembly sinks. Decompress back to neutral buoyancy at level 2 -- that is, back to the same volume it had at level 1 before compression --- against a higher external pressure --  using only the stored energy in the compressed air? Please explain.
Quote

Agreed?
Let me know yes or no, so we’ll continue next with the simplified  pod/riser model as you asked.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 27, 2012, 06:48:48 PM
Please don't rush through this step so fast. Compress at level 1 --performing work -- this means your formerly neutrally buoyant assembly will now sink, if you are doing it like a syringe or Cartesian diver, since the total water volume displaced by the assembly decreases but its mass is still the same. The external pressure rises as the assembly sinks. Decompress back to neutral buoyancy at level 2 -- that is, back to the same volume it had at level 1 before compression --- against a higher external pressure --  using only the stored energy in the compressed air? Please explain.

Ok for clarity, none of the scenarios a,b,c show any net energy gain or loss after one cycle. Agreed?

Are you are talking about a?
The cylinder can be held in place at level1 and the piston is compressed and let go as previous post net gain/loss is zero. Same situation at level 2 and so on. I’m only describing compression/decompression after submersion at some depth, (level1) for scenario a.

Scenario b?
We can lock the piston/cylinder relative to each other in place, move from level1 to level2, the air pocket is the same (locked no relative movement) so no net energy gain or loss there either.
The piston/cylinder remains neutrally buoyant throughout the motion. Translation of a buoyancy neutral body within the medium requires no net energy.  Agreed?

When the piston is allowed to move freely relative to the cylinder, then I take it you are talking about c?
Glad you brought it up. It equals out at the end of the cycle. As it moves up the outside pressure to the piston/cylinder is also reduced, so when it expands at the level 2 the expansion is more than level 1. Any added energy during raise up (or sink)  is given back by the “extra” expansion at the top. I left that aspect out to keep it simple. The end result is the same, net gain/loss from level1 to level 2 and back to level1 is zero.

Cartesian diver side note,
True, the Cartesian diver, we can take it down to a certain depth and as the “bubble” collapses it will sink to the bottom. (friction excluded it will keep on accelerating as the buoyancy becomes less and less.)It woluld take an ever increasing force as it sinks lower to stop the fall and reverse up Then unless the liquid is decompressed (air removed vacuum etc) to allow re-expansion of the “bubble” and ascension of the diver. Again just a side note here.

Now we can also take the Cartesian diver at level 1. Let’s say neutrally buoyant. Nudge it up and let it move to level 2. As it moves up it can increasingly lift more weight until we stop it at lets say level2.
To move it back down to 1 is the reverse process (weight substation to stabilize it back to level1) and from 1 to 2 to 1 the net gain/loss is zero,(integral dw*dx for each path and so on) right?

Ok back to the scenarios a,b,c, no net energy gain/loss for the cycle.
Agreed?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2012, 09:21:28 PM
Ok for clarity, none of the scenarios a,b,c show any net energy gain or loss after one cycle. Agreed?
For clarity? You are kidding me now, I know.
Quote

Are you are talking about a?
The cylinder can be held in place at level1 and the piston is compressed and let go as previous post net gain/loss is zero. Same situation at level 2 and so on. I’m only describing compression/decompression after submersion at some depth, (level1) for scenario a.

Scenario b?
We can lock the piston/cylinder relative to each other in place, move from level1 to level2, the air pocket is the same (locked no relative movement) so no net energy gain or loss there either.
The piston/cylinder remains neutrally buoyant throughout the motion. Translation of a buoyancy neutral body within the medium requires no net energy.  Agreed?

When the piston is allowed to move freely relative to the cylinder, then I take it you are talking about c?

I am talking about the same cases that you are talking about. Since you started at Level 1 and compressed, in your first setup, then your level 2 must be lower than level 1. Let's stick with that convention please, since we are trying to be clear. Now... is the piston FREE, or is it LOCKED? In case A the piston must be free and frictionless. Right? The work you put in is returned instantly when you stop compressing the piston.  In case C..... you first have the piston FREE, to compress at level 1 (call this C1). Then you must LOCK the piston otherwise it will expand back out to neutral buoyancy. Then you sink to level 2, with the piston LOCKED (C2). This sinking comes "for free" since it is a result of reduced buoyancy; in fact you will have to do work to make it stop sinking at level 2. At level 2, you unlock the piston (C3). What happens? The piston expands until the pressures on both sides are equal.... that is, to lesser volume than it was at level 1 because the external pressure is greater, and you haven't changed the mass of air, just its volume. Now you lock the piston again, but your apparatus is still just a little negatively buoyant, since it is not expanded back to the same volume as it had at level 1 but still masses the same (C4). Hence it will require work to get it back up to level 1. Now, at level 1 again, you can unlock the piston, let the chamber expand, reestablish the correct volume for neutral buoyancy (C1) and  NOW get that work back.
But where did the work come from, that raised the negatively buoyant apparatus from C4 to C1? 
Quote
Glad you brought it up. It equals out at the end of the cycle. As it moves up the outside pressure to the piston/cylinder is also reduced, so when it expands at the level 2 the expansion is more than level 1. Any added energy during raise up (or sink)  is given back by the “extra” expansion at the top. I left that aspect out to keep it simple. The end result is the same, net gain/loss from level1 to level 2 and back to level1 is zero.
Did you not just reverse the order of level 1 and level 2? In your first setup and in my discussion, level 1 is above level 2, is it not? Let's please remain clear about this point.
Quote
Cartesian diver side note,
True, the Cartesian diver, we can take it down to a certain depth and as the “bubble” collapses it will sink to the bottom. (friction excluded it will keep on accelerating as the buoyancy becomes less and less.)It woluld take an ever increasing force as it sinks lower to stop the fall and reverse up Then unless the liquid is decompressed (air removed vacuum etc) to allow re-expansion of the “bubble” and ascension of the diver. Again just a side note here.

Now we can also take the Cartesian diver at level 1. Let’s say neutrally buoyant. Nudge it up and let it move to level 2. As it moves up it can increasingly lift more weight until we stop it at lets say level2.
To move it back down to 1 is the reverse process (weight substation to stabilize it back to level1) and from 1 to 2 to 1 the net gain/loss is zero,(integral dw*dx for each path and so on) right?
Let's point out that the Cartesian diver is a case where the "piston" is free to move, that is, unlocked, so that it is the water pressure only that changes the diver's volume. There is no "Mr. Hand" doing the initial compression of the internal volume, then locking it against expansion regardless of the external water pressure, as there must be in your a-b-c scenario. In your "b" case, the piston could be locked, as you postulate, or free to move, as in the Cartesian diver. But not both, one on the way up and the other on the way down.
Quote

Ok back to the scenarios a,b,c, no net energy gain/loss for the cycle.
Agreed?

Are we agreed? Where did the work come from that raises your negatively buoyant apparatus from C4, piston locked, back up to C1? In order for things to equal out, for you to get this work back at the top, you first have to put it in from the bottom.

Are you going to tell me that this work comes from the other Zed, at the top of its cycle?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on July 27, 2012, 10:31:07 PM
Nice job keeping this focused and detailed TK.
I think he's saying that the external input from gravity that is causing the compressed device to sink is countered by another external input ( maybe a wind powered sail... ) bringing it back up.

OR maybe that IF the energy from gravity were to be returned into this perfect model and applied to lift the device that at the end of the cycle all forces would be equal, energy expended = energy captured.

At any rate, again, great detail. Next?
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 27, 2012, 10:39:21 PM
I took it that @phwest always meant level2 was ABOVE level1.  It was my mistake also at first to assume it was below.
 
At no point in the examples is the piston assembly moving up or down on its own due to a change in buoyancy I think.  I believe he is stating that it must be transferred between levels 1 and 2 by an applied force (work) and that the net gain once returned to the start condition, again by an applied force (work), is zero.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 27, 2012, 11:45:08 PM
For clarity? You are kidding me now, I know. I am talking about the same cases that you are talking about. Since you started at Level 1 and compressed, in your first setup, then your level 2 must be lower than level 1. Let's stick with that convention please, since we are trying to be clear. Now... is the piston FREE, or is it LOCKED? In case A the piston must be free and frictionless. Right? The work you put in is returned instantly when you stop compressing the piston.  In case C..... you first have the piston FREE, to compress at level 1 (call this C1). Then you must LOCK the piston otherwise it will expand back out to neutral buoyancy. Then you sink to level 2, with the piston LOCKED (C2). This sinking comes "for free" since it is a result of reduced buoyancy; in fact you will have to do work to make it stop sinking at level 2. At level 2, you unlock the piston (C3). What happens? The piston expands until the pressures on both sides are equal.... that is, to lesser volume than it was at level 1 because the external pressure is greater, and you haven't changed the mass of air, just its volume. Now you lock the piston again, but your apparatus is still just a little negatively buoyant, since it is not expanded back to the same volume as it had at level 1 but still masses the same (C4). Hence it will require work to get it back up to level 1. Now, at level 1 again, you can unlock the piston, let the chamber expand, reestablish the correct volume for neutral buoyancy (C1) and  NOW get that work back.
But where did the work come from, that raised the negatively buoyant apparatus from C4 to C1?   Did you not just reverse the order of level 1 and level 2? In your first setup and in my discussion, level 1 is above level 2, is it not? Let's please remain clear about this point. Let's point out that the Cartesian diver is a case where the "piston" is free to move, that is, unlocked, so that it is the water pressure only that changes the diver's volume. There is no "Mr. Hand" doing the initial compression of the internal volume, then locking it against expansion regardless of the external water pressure, as there must be in your a-b-c scenario. In your "b" case, the piston could be locked, as you postulate, or free to move, as in the Cartesian diver. But not both, one on the way up and the other on the way down.
Are we agreed? Where did the work come from that raises your negatively buoyant apparatus from C4, piston locked, back up to C1? In order for things to equal out, for you to get this work back at the top, you first have to put it in from the bottom.

Are you going to tell me that this work comes from the other Zed, at the top of its cycle?
I see where a mixup might be coming from.
Level2 is higher than level 1.
 I also stated:
“””Now we can also take the Cartesian diver at level 1. Let’s say neutrally buoyant. Nudge it up and let it move to level 2.””
 I ‘d think that the readers follow the movement from level1 to a higher level2, but you assumed Level 2 was lower. I apologize for the confusion if it wasn’t fully clear. (also to remotely refer  diagram post 373 level1 is lower level and move up to higher and then back down etc)

Ok,
For case a it is irrelevant if level1 is lower than 2.
For case b where the piston/cylinder is locked still irrelevant.  You can move it anywhere there is not net energy gain/loss. Are you stating differently?
“Translation of a buoyancy neutral body within the medium requires no net energy.  Agreed?”
So for case a and b there is no net energy for one full cycle correct?
Case a, no movement between levels, cylinder is held fixed,  buoyancy neutral,l piston compressed and released, expanded, everything we put in we get out.
Case b piston locked with cylinder, with enough air inside to make the whole thing buoyancy neutral.
Move it anywhere from anywhere, but for this case from level1 up to level2 and back to 1.
No energy net gain/loss right? I’m only looking at translation of a neutrally buoyant body inside water fully submerged.

Ok back to case c.
Your statement:
“In case C..... you first have the piston FREE, to compress at level 1 (call this C1). Then you must LOCK the piston otherwise it will expand back out to neutral buoyancy. Then you sink to level 2, with the piston LOCKED (C2). This sinking comes "for free" since it is a result of reduced buoyancy; in fact you will have to do work to make it stop sinking at level 2..”
“….But where did the work come from, that raised the negatively buoyant apparatus from C4 to C1? 

Again, the model presented is based from level1 (c1) to higher level2 (your c4?),
But no problem with moving lower, actually we can extract work while it is sinking, and that work can be used to bring it back up again. No net gain/loss. It is sinking so there is a net force on it, moving for some distance, then it can produce work. Integral of df*dx.  As I said earlier that work equals to the amount needed to bring it back up. No free lunch there either.

For case c, all I’m saying is, there is no net energy gain/loss moving from level1 to level 2 and back to level 1. I cannot see why we do not agree on this. Conservation of energy holds.
Nowhere so far I’ve stated or shown any net gain or net loss for one full cycle.

I’m only attempting to establish the basics, and simplify as much as possible.

From level1 to higher level2:
At level1 we have a piston/cylinder with enough air to make it buoyancy neutral. Net forces on the system are zero. This is where we start.
1..We can lock the cylinder/piston relative to each other, move it up to level 2 (zero energy in or out) unlock the piston at level2 and it will expand to a volume greater than the one at level1
Of course, after the unlock and piston is free to move, it will no longer be buoyancy neutral.
The translation gave nothing, but the expansion gave something more than the original at level1.
That’s not free energy, we moved up to a lesser outside pressure.
Now to move it back down to level1 it will require some work. That work equals to what we got from the extra expansion up at level 2. Right?
Or 2.. we can just nudge it up (piston unlocked) and it will start and move up to level2 where we stop the movement.
Now as per previous post - last paragraph Cartesian diver-
“As it moves up it can increasingly lift more weight until we stop it at lets say level2.
To move it back down to 1 is the reverse process (weight substation to stabilize it back to level1) and from 1 to 2 to 1 the net gain/loss is zero,(integral dw*dx for each path and so on) right?”

Your statement:
“”Are you going to tell me that this work comes from the other Zed, at the top of its cycle?””

I haven’t involved any ZED or a two systems interconnected anywhere so far


I think we are making this unnecessarily complex…

Bottom line is for cases a,b,c and for each full cycle there is no net gain/loss yes or no?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2012, 12:09:23 AM
In your first post of a-b-c, you said this:
Quote
c.   Now, lets do both. Compress at level 1 move (translate) to level 2 decompress at level2 and move back to level 1. Net energy is zero, the translation contributes/subtracts nothing, the compression/decompression cycle is also net zero.

Does this not imply that level 1 is higher than level 2? You are compressing the volume, reducing the buoyancy, then going to a lower level, are you not? So I still think you have flipped your level definitions on me. But no matter, let's use your redefinitions, where you are now using Level 1 to be lower than Level 2.

You start at Level 2, neutrally buoyant. You perform work C1 pushing in the piston to reduce the volume. If your piston is FREE it pops right back out. If your piston is LOCKED, it is not a Cartesian diver. So now you have a locked piston, that is, a FIXED volume. Now your apparatus sinks to Level 1 and you must do work--- or rather oppose the effective unbuoyed weight --  to prevent it from sinking further, since it has been negatively buoyant since you compressed the air and it will continue to try to sink as long as this is true. Now you release the piston and we have a Cartesian diver again: the air expands until the pressure on both sides of the piston is equal. But this now happens at a smaller volume than before. You still have negative buoyancy, and you are not yet back to the Cartesian diver neutral equilibrium, in fact you are in the position where the diver wants to sink, not rise. So where does the work come from to get you back up from Level 1 to the higher Level 2? You are not yet at the end of the cycle so there hasn't been any work returned yet.
One of us is missing something. I am perfectly willing for it to be me, but so far you haven't convinced me.

In the Cartesian diver, where the piston is always free and the compression and diver volume change happens naturally from without, as the outer water pressure is changed, then yes, I agree with your conservative scenario. I do not think this is equivalent to the situation you have described, though, where you are compressing the apparatus without compressing the external water, and where you are locking and unlocking pistons.

(Sorry, edited some confusion about level one and two.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2012, 12:29:32 AM
Instead of starting with a neutrally buoyant syringe of air... let's just use vacuum. After all it is the volume that controls buoyancy, and the mass of a bit of air is negligible, it might as well be vacuum from a weight/mass standpoint in these small volumes.

So we have our "diver" with neutral buoyancy and a locked piston, at the higher Level 2. We now unlock the piston, and the vacuum "sucks" the piston in, reducing the volume. We lock the piston, fixing the volume. Now obviously the diver sinks, and we catch it at the lower Level 1. Now we can lock or unlock the piston..... but how do we now return up to Level 2?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 28, 2012, 12:42:05 AM
In your first post of a-b-c, you said this:
Does this not imply that level 1 is higher than level 2? You are compressing the volume, reducing the buoyancy, then going to a lower level, are you not? So I still think you have flipped your level definitions on me. But no matter, let's use your redefinitions, where you are now using Level 1 to be lower than Level 2.

You start at Level 2, neutrally buoyant.

No.  You start at Level 1.
 
You start at Level 1 and then you RISE (not sink) to Level 2.  The rise is not due to a change in buoyancy.  It is caused by an outside force being applied.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on July 28, 2012, 12:43:04 AM
Sorry, weird forum thingy...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 28, 2012, 01:23:31 AM
In your first post of a-b-c, you said this:
Does this not imply that level 1 is higher than level 2? You are compressing the volume, reducing the buoyancy, then going to a lower level, are you not? So I still think you have flipped your level definitions on me. But no matter, let's use your redefinitions, where you are now using Level 1 to be lower than Level 2.

You start at Level 2, neutrally buoyant. You perform work C1 pushing in the piston to reduce the volume. If your piston is FREE it pops right back out. If your piston is LOCKED, it is not a Cartesian diver. So now you have a locked piston, that is, a FIXED volume. Now your apparatus sinks to Level 1 and you must do work--- or rather oppose the effective unbuoyed weight --  to prevent it from sinking further, since it has been negatively buoyant since you compressed the air and it will continue to try to sink as long as this is true. Now you release the piston and we have a Cartesian diver again: the air expands until the pressure on both sides of the piston is equal. But this now happens at a smaller volume than before. You still have negative buoyancy, and you are not yet back to the Cartesian diver neutral equilibrium, in fact you are in the position where the diver wants to sink, not rise. So where does the work come from to get you back up from Level 1 to the higher Level 2? You are not yet at the end of the cycle so there hasn't been any work returned yet.
One of us is missing something. I am perfectly willing for it to be me, but so far you haven't convinced me.

In the Cartesian diver, where the piston is always free and the compression and diver volume change happens naturally from without, as the outer water pressure is changed, then yes, I agree with your conservative scenario. I do not think this is equivalent to the situation you have described, though, where you are compressing the apparatus without compressing the external water, and where you are locking and unlocking pistons.

(Sorry, edited some confusion about level one and two.)

I was going by the before your edit, I just refreshed and saw the edit note the original is lost but here is the reply:

True, hat statement in itself does not explicitly state level1 higher or lower than 2 but others as I note in the previous post do and/or refer so.

It always started at Level1 for the full cycle. I cannot see where I posted starting at level two for cases a,b,c.
The model presented, always uses level2  higher than level 1. (it works the other way too but let’s stick with level2 higher than level1 for consistency)

Level1, we start at buoyancy neutral and then we compress the piston then lock it and then move up. The move up requires energy since some buoyancy is lost due to compression. (loss of neutrality as we both agree)

At level 2 since the outside pressure is less, if we unlock it, It will give all the compression energy put in at level1 plus some due to the lower outside pressure, more expansion etc.
So we had to provide energy to move it up, but we got out some extra due to the higher volume expansion, the extra equals the energy we used to move it up. That extra expansion energy we can use to move it up. Nothing gained or lost

Similar in reverse if we move it back down from 2 to 1 so the full cycle is completed. Net energy is zero from level1 to level2 to level1.

All I’m saying is either locking it first and moving it from level1 to level2, or starting uncompressed (some air but buoyancy neutral) and then nudge up, after the full cycle nothing is gain or lost (friction and rest excluded)

Ok so we agree as you stated on the energy conservation scenario, but the issue is with technical description of what is happening. As I said I left that out earlier so it will be simple.

Then we are in agreement for a,b,c scenarios in one full cycle net energy gain or lost is zero.

I’ll wait to hear from seamus1 also before going to the single riser single pod next.

Maybe we can pick up the Cartesian diver analysis if we have time in another thread.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2012, 02:00:51 AM
All right, I misunderstood you at first, then, since I could not imagine why you might want to compress, thus doing work to reduce buoyancy, then RAISE the volume, doing extra work. I still can't, off the cuff, but I don't have time to rethink it now, so please excuse my earlier misunderstanding and carry on.

(We have all this time  considered adiabatic compression and expansion, with no heat loss to the surrounding cylinder walls or water, right? These losses will of course mean that, even if I do agree with your conservative ideal a-b-c scenario so far (reserving judgement here) in the real world this heat loss will require outside energy to replace.)



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2012, 02:14:31 AM
OK, so you start at lower level, with free piston, neutral buoyancy B0, and internal pressure P0 = external pressure E0. You compress the piston and lock it, performing work on the system by reducing the volume, raising the internal pressure to P1 > P0, and decreasing the buoyancy to B1 < B0. Then you perform further work to raise the syringe to higher level. The external pressure is now lower than E0, so when you unlock the piston it will go out further than it was at the lower height. Then you lock the piston. You now are displacing more volume than you were at the lower level, so you are more buoyant than neutral, that is, B > B0. How do you get back down to the lower level?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 28, 2012, 04:29:33 AM
All right, I misunderstood you at first, then, since I could not imagine why you might want to compress, thus doing work to reduce buoyancy, then RAISE the volume, doing extra work. I still can't, off the cuff, but I don't have time to rethink it now, so please excuse my earlier misunderstanding and carry on.

(We have all this time  considered adiabatic compression and expansion, with no heat loss to the surrounding cylinder walls or water, right? These losses will of course mean that, even if I do agree with your conservative ideal a-b-c scenario so far (reserving judgement here) in the real world this heat loss will require outside energy to replace.)

No problem. Misunderstandings are usually part of these exchanges. It’s all in good fun.
Yes, on frictionless, adiabatic vs isothermal, ideal gas approximation etc. I think I noted these conditions in the very early posts. Agreed, for the purposes of the model constructed, heat losses, transfers in out, would be set aside, but in the real world they are part of the package even if they can be very small.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 28, 2012, 04:35:07 AM
I think  see where you are going with this and initially I'd considered it a candiate for a 'wow' this is the working principle that explains this. Alas, I think you have missed something that does not allow it but however...

I'd agree that translation of a neutrally buoyant object  in a frictionless environment is energy neutral. That in itself is no use to us, but I'd predict you are about to introduce the concept of somehow 'capturing' buoyancy at a one level, using this energy neutral translation to transfer this 'capture' to another level and thus this 'captured' buoyancy could then be used to exert a force between level one and level 2. If that could be made to happen then that would be the working principle and this device would work.

Correct?
No wow moment shown so far. I understand where you are coming from , I was there also on this, but that is for another discussion alltogether.
All I’ve been attempting to do is to establish base lines using simple physics, understood by all who would follow, so we can build on them for the next steps. Your prediction, yes in the ball park I think. But you can be a better judge of what you exactly describe when we continue later on. So far no laws have been “broken” as we know them, physics hold well
 
So you do agree with a,b,c scenarios in one full cycle, net energy gain or lost is zero?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 28, 2012, 05:10:22 AM
OK, so you start at lower level, with free piston, neutral buoyancy B0, and internal pressure P0 = external pressure E0. You compress the piston and lock it, performing work on the system by reducing the volume, raising the internal pressure to P1 > P0, and decreasing the buoyancy to B1 < B0. Then you perform further work to raise the syringe to higher level. The external pressure is now lower than E0, so when you unlock the piston it will go out further than it was at the lower height. Then you lock the piston. You now are displacing more volume than you were at the lower level, so you are more buoyant than neutral, that is, B > B0. How do you get back down to the lower level?

I know, I was looking similar questions among the many, when I got into analyzing this.

Actually we don’t have to exceed the -more than neutrally buoyant level of expansion- at level 2. At level2 even at that amount of expansion, it has expanded more giving some extra energy. So at levl2 we got out what we put in as compression at level 1 plus some extra. The extra can be used for raising it… So now at level 2 it is neutral buoyancy, it only needs an nudge to fall back down, and it can also produce some work as it is doing so. ( the more it lowers the more it weighs  and so on), up until it arrives  back down let’s say to a support or stop at level 1, end of cycle.
We  can compress it just enough at level1 so when it reaches level2 is at exactly buoyancy neutral state..

Bottom line is: what we put in at level 1 as added compression we get out at level2 plus some, and the -plus some- helps/pays for the lifting cost of the less than buoyancy neutral body (after compression at level1)

Next cycle same as the first,  we recompress  ( using the “what we got out is what we put in” at level2) and repeat. Again no net gain or loss out of the full cycle. Conservation of energy holds. Keeping it simple that’s all.

Side note on scenario c :
There are many ways but all result in the same bottom line.
For example,
We can compress, lock, lift, expand, push if needed back down(depending on expansion amount at level2, and repeat.
We can start buoyancy neutral at leve1, no lock, nudge it, it lifts by it self to level2. Producing some work as it ascends, we use that work to compress it (at level2 back to the volume of level1) and lock it. Then it can sink with no added energy, (locked in buoyancy neutral now), back to level1 release the lock, it goes nowhere, nudge it up and so on. Ok maybe have we talked enough on this.

Bottom line is still the same, no net gain or loss, what ever is put in it is taken out during a full cycle.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on July 28, 2012, 05:06:22 PM
I agree that all three a,b,c scenarios are energy neutral. No gain or loss in a fictionless cylinder during a cycle. 
The' bottom line' comment is bordering on not being true though. There is no 'plus some' that could ever  be extracted as usable work. It can only ever be exactly the the same effort input or extracted. I'm not sure if you meant that or not.

So far we have described a system that could move about with no energy input but without the ability to extract energy from it. What happens next?

Correct, that’s what I meant.
That -plus some- stays inside the system, is not extracted, it is not over unity, it is part of the cycle. Again as I noted earlier, that was the reason it was left out in the beginning so we can keep it simple. The initial pressurization at level1 stays in the system and just gets recycled. All we did for the cycle is, compress, move up, decompress, move down.
So far no net energy extraction has taken place, no external weights lifted, no external mechanisms are driven. It is obvious, no debating should have been be required.

Great, we are in agreement on a, b, c

Ok let’s move next the one pod one riser model.


Now to one pod one riser.  Use as ref the patent with one riser only, also refer to video 5 but there use straight walls, the inverted cup is the riser,  the cement is the pod, its top area Ap is smaller than the cup area (riser) Ar,     Ap<Ar.
(the riser is the cylinder and the pod is similar to the piston/rod but with Ap<Ar)

At Level1
Everything is fully submerged, there is some air under the riser (air pocket) to counter balance the riser’s weight. The riser is buoyancy neutral. Let’s immobilize the riser at this level.
The pod is designed to also be buoyancy neutral. Next insert the pod under the riser so the pod’s top surface is at the same level as the water level under the riser (cup). The pod has not broken that surface, no added pressure there, the riser is still buoyancy neutral and has not moved. The pod is also buoyancy neutral inside  the water. No energy need moving it inside the water.


The riser is immobilized so it cannot move vertically. It stays at level1 for now.
Next push up the pod, lets say half way up for simplicity into that air pocket.
What is going to happen?
We compress the air (precharge) and also create a head differential that equals to air compression at pressure P greater than what was there before.
The head differential is at the gap between the pod wall and inner riser wall. (remember Ap<Ar)The riser, (cylinder) has not moved yet. We are holding it in place, immobilized with e.g. a pair of large pliers from its outside sidewalls etc.

At this state, let’s do a simple free body diagram on the pod and then on the riser:
The pod, we are pushing up with a force Fp and that force is P*Ap where Ap is the surface area on top of the pod. Fp=P*Ap plus some exposed pod weight above that water surface.
The riser sees a force Fr=P*Ar where Ar is riser area and Ar is greater than Ap and Fp<Fr 

The riser is held in place by pliers so the reaction at the plier contacts is also Fr, the riser has not moved yet.

Now lets drop/place a weight W equal to Fr , W=Fr on top of the riser, then release the pliers. Nothing moves.

The riser as it stands now is again buoyancy neutral inside the water. It is still weightless inside the water.
So if we push up the pod with just an infinitesimal additional force the whole thing will move up lets say to level2 .

Now what just happened? With Fp<Fr we moved W (Fr) from level1 to level2 (distance x)
For the move we have EnergyIn = Fp*x and EnergyOut = Fr*x=W*x
But Fp<Fr then EnergyIn<Energy out.

At level 2 we clamp the weight W, and we clamp the riser. The riser is now at level 2 and cannot move anywhere.
Then we release the Fp so it expands to the same position relative to the riser similar to before precharge at level1. (top of pod moves back down to water surface inside the pocket, head moves up to its original position and so on)
Now we are back to the same state as level1, unclamp the riser, next we move the riser/pod back to level1 ( they are buoyancy neutral similar to scenario c) (yes the added expansion due to x comes in place but adds or subtracts nothing, as we discussed before, the exposed pod weight is also returned no net there so we leave all these out)
With every cycle we are gaining (Fr-Fp)*x 
(If we run actual numbers the net gain is small with one riser, but can be increased with more risers, Ar total becomes greater for the same Ap, and so on) The assistance comes from the head differential which moves along throughout the x movement without any additional outside help. In this model, the head is created by precharge at level1 and given back at level2. That whole move along is cost free energywise but the travel is limited. The head differential is max at level1 and smaller at level2. Look also at diagrams post373 and patent. The change is not linear, we could let it go higher than levl2 but at earlier portion of the travel we get the higher advantage. 
The precharge  itself is intact energy wise, whatever we put in it was given back and so on.
The pre-charge is not used as an energy source during the cycle. Whatever is compressed at the lower level is given back when it expands at the higher level. Same as the piston/cylinder example earlier posts.

If a simple theoretical model/math does not work, then physical models built should not work either.
On the other hand, and to keep it simple, if a simple theoretical model/math does work so should the physical models built.

Ok over and out for now.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on July 28, 2012, 07:53:56 PM
small sidetrack from the current discussion :)

I am still working on my test build testbed, I am mounting it onto a base and all that stuff and will be attaching the head extenders after that is done and checked for leaks.

One thing I have done to make it easier to distinguish between risers is to color the bottoms of the risers, hopefully that will also allow me to see the difference between air and water.
Would be nice to some pics or even video when its done. :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2012, 10:55:45 PM
I am sorry, but I keep choking on some points. Please help me to understand before rushing on.
I know, I was looking similar questions among the many, when I got into analyzing this.

Actually we don’t have to exceed the -more than neutrally buoyant level of expansion- at level 2.
Wait a minute. So you are stopping the piston before it reaches its full travel, then, leaving the pressure on the inside greater than the outside.If the device was neutrally buoyant at a certain volume at the lower level, you cannot let it expand to a greater volume at the higher level without also making it positively buoyant. Therefore you must stop the piston before the pressures inside and out are equal. You no longer have a Cartesian diver if the piston is locked, so you don't get your dynamically unstable "hover". The CD's behaviour depends on its "piston" being free and all volume change a result of applied external pressure from the surrounding water.
Quote
At level2 even at that amount of expansion, it has expanded more giving some extra energy. So at levl2 we got out what we put in as compression at level 1 plus some extra. The extra can be used for raising it… So now at level 2 it is neutral buoyancy, it only needs an nudge to fall back down, and it can also produce some work as it is doing so. ( the more it lowers the more it weighs  and so on), up until it arrives  back down let’s say to a support or stop at level 1, end of cycle.
Not if the piston is locked, which it must be for your first condition to hold.
Quote
We  can compress it just enough at level1 so when it reaches level2 is at exactly buoyancy neutral state.. 
When, in the limit of zero difference between levels? If it's neutrally buoyant at volume V0... it will not be neutrally buoyant at any other volume. The amount of water displaced, hence the buoyancy, depends on the volume doing the displacing. Change the volume by moving the piston in any direction.... which is required to compress or decompress the gas... and you are no longer neutrally buoyant. And if you lock the piston so the outer water pressure does not equalize the inner air pressure by moving the piston and changing the buoyancy, you don't have the dynamically  unstable CD and your height changes don't come for free.
Quote
Bottom line is: what we put in at level 1 as added compression we get out at level2 plus some, and the -plus some- helps/pays for the lifting cost of the less than buoyancy neutral body (after compression at level1)

Next cycle same as the first,  we recompress  ( using the “what we got out is what we put in” at level2) and repeat. Again no net gain or loss out of the full cycle. Conservation of energy holds. Keeping it simple that’s all.

Side note on scenario c :
There are many ways but all result in the same bottom line.
For example,
We can compress, lock, lift, expand, push if needed back down(depending on expansion amount at level2, and repeat.
We can start buoyancy neutral at leve1, no lock, nudge it, it lifts by it self to level2. Producing some work as it ascends, we use that work to compress it (at level2 back to the volume of level1) and lock it. Then it can sink with no added energy, (locked in buoyancy neutral now), back to level1 release the lock, it goes nowhere, nudge it up and so on. Ok maybe have we talked enough on this.

Bottom line is still the same, no net gain or loss, what ever is put in it is taken out during a full cycle.

Bottom line for me is that there are still some equivocal points in your analysis that I'd like cleared up before charging ahead.  I've tried to keep it simple by sticking to your original description (once I got it straight) but now you are playing around with stopping pistons before they've fully expanded, and other things that seem non-physical to me.
How do you change the pressure inside the syringe without changing its volume hence its buoyancy? It seems that your above explanation requires this, in addition to requiring CD behaviour even though the piston must be locked.

If you want to specify clearly that the initial compression is part of your full cycle, and that ALL components, water levels, volumes, diver levels and internal and external pressures arrive back at the starting point of your full cycle, then I'll happily stipulate that you are correct even if your details are a bit muddled ... so far. But I'd really like to see you put that statement out there, explicitly, listing all conditions that have to repeat exactly to count as a full cycle.

In other words... how do I tell if a cycle, or tens of cycles, have occurred, between observation T1 and the later observation T2, both taken at the same point in a cycle?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2012, 11:10:48 PM
But of course!

One thing I think I should mention about this device I am playing with,, it is very sensitive to the way it is setup.

I have found,,by accident so far,, that there are sweet spots in the setup.  When you find one of these the lift value is much higher and the water pressure on return seems to be more for a longer return value.

Also, there is a difference in the lift compared to just letting the system lift right away and holding the system still until full lift pressure is met.
Yes, good for you. May I suggest that you also make yourself a simple Cartesian Diver and meditate upon its workings, if you haven't? It's a simple situation where the buoyancy depends on the pressure from the water, changing the volume of the air that's inside of the "lifting" element. Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 29, 2012, 06:00:24 PM
Too bad people are wasting their time and money on this while they can save it for real projects.
Anyway, My previous prediction was dead on, and came true yesterday.
So it is time for my new prediction.

I predict that this clow.. i mean man is going to ow us all an apology, but he won't apologize, not to us...
I predict he will leave with a silent drum to be heard of never again, once he finds out the error in his measurements.
I also predict once more that in the upcomming 20 pages we will not see any proof of the Travis effect producing any OU nor will we see Mr. Wayne answer the critical questions he is avoiding.

I will be back in 20 i will see you there.
I'm with Seamus !
oh my gawd!  you're a prophet! the world has been waiting for you! ::) where can i send you my money? ::)

i'm sure you'll be counting the pages... just like last time. ::)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 29, 2012, 06:03:10 PM
Learning how to measure things properly and understanding the working principles are equally important. 
but not necessary to make something work...

I have a mechanic that could fix my car but also believed in the whole HHO lie, primarily due to a lack of diligence in measuring the result. I also have plumber that could fix my pipes but who also believed I'd get increased pressure by constricting the flow with a nozzle. Getting my hands wet is no use if I approach it without understanding.
so your mechanic could fix your car... and your plumber could fix your pipes...  regardless of their 'beliefs'. did you have a point here? cause the point you're making isn't the one you want to make...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on July 29, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
I have been away a couple of days, and just catching up on developments. Congratulations to Webby1 on that build. It looks as if you are the first one with a real world model replication. I am not in a position to build anything at present owing to very poor eyesight. I am still trying to decide whether to risk having surgery on my one remaining working eye, or be satisfied with the limited sight I have. Either way I shall follow you progress with great interest.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on July 29, 2012, 09:01:40 PM
I added a VBA macro to the water height calculation to simulate an animation of going from Initial Pre-Charge to Full Pre-Charge as the Start value is reduced by .01 increments. The chart now shows the Water and the Retainer/Riser heights.
 
First position the spreadsheet as shown in the attached picture. Then by pressing Alt plus F8 the Macro box will come up. Press Run and the system will show the water level changes as it goes from Initial Pre-Charge to Full Pre-Charge. After 10 seconds, it will reset back to the start position. The speed can be slowed down or increased by changing the 'Increase to Slow down' value. It will run in the free Open Office Calculator, but it requires a few extra steps after Alt plus F8. 
 
When opening the spreadsheet a screen will be displayed about the Macros. Press Enable Macros. After it opens you can check the Macro by going to Tools - Macros - Visual Basic Editor to review the code, before you run.
 
Enjoy, Larry
 
PS: I am working on another version which will show the 3" production rise changes.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 30, 2012, 03:13:19 PM
Pretty amazing work:

Our end is going well:

I took off for the weekend to be with the family - they had to drag me out of the lab  - then put me in a ski jacket.

The room is still rocking - slowly.

I am very humbled by the value of the contributions - the excellent logic, the physics, the modeling -
With the effort you have taken - you are at least on the verge of understanding how we attain O/U - most likely far beyond it.

Nothing beats physical testing - I guarantee to you Webby is having fun!

I see the thugs, bugs, and baiters visited while I was gone - thank you for not spending too much time on them. No, I do not really expect an "apology" - they just owe it. I will be very impressed if they have it in them to apologize - I do hope for the sake of their own character.

Remember - Our "Day" is when we start providing Energy Independence to the World - That Day is approaching with great speed.

Wayne Travis

You all are a part of history - in the making.

Clean Energy - finally.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on July 30, 2012, 07:14:04 PM
We are having a fine day with our system running today - and lots of challenges - it is like climbing a mountain.
I am looking forward to the next two weeks!
I just re-read through the Logic Process by PH - very good.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 01, 2012, 03:13:54 PM
@Webby1. Congratulations. Heroic work indeed. It is very encouraging that you have already shown OU to your own satisfaction, albeit not yet repeatably. I do not doubt that you will need to spend a lot of time tuning to find the sweet spot. You have already achieved an incredible amount in a very short time. I would be very interested in what you are using as an input pump, and how you are measuring input energy. It seems to me that you will be the first person to show OU in a real world replication, which to me will prove more than all the mathematical analysis in the world.
 @Mrwayne. Your website does not appear to have been updated this week. I am sure we
are all anxious to hear what progress you are making towards the Mark Dansie tests.





Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 01, 2012, 09:45:33 PM
Well Done Webby,
I am sure you have just inspired many more replications.
You are now - In the Know - lol.
Our system is a lot more friendly - adjustable in most every way - lends to more discovery. I will be glad when the variables are fixed.
Hello Neptune:
Honestly - SUPER BUSY,
Right now I am packing to leave for a funeral - and will be out three days.
We will resume when I get back.
Don't worry - the world will know of Mark's report - "It will be...... when it will be"  - that is the only exact time table.
 
Great Job - Great people
 
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 01, 2012, 09:56:16 PM
@Mrwayne. So sorry to hear that you have a funeral to attend. Can I express my condolences.
I have a tendency to be impatient sometimes.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 01, 2012, 10:00:01 PM
Thank you Very Much.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 02, 2012, 04:03:33 PM
@Webby1.Looks as if you have been busy. I like your use of a water column as an input pump. It looks like you are still at the tuning stage. There are a few questions I would like to ask, if you wish to answer them .
1. You talk about adjustments to the pod. Apart from the water level in the pod chamber, which you mention, are there any other pod adjustments that one can make?
2. Is your apparatus fitted with any air vent valves for use during the initial filling process? In an earlier post, I suggested a filling method that required no vents.The method was to clamp down the risers, and then force water into the inlet until it overflowed from the outer vessel. Then force air into the inlet until it bubbles from the outer vessel.


I am impressed that, as a result of your mathematical analysis, you were confident enough to invest time, energy and money into a build. As regards the tuning process, I would have thought that apart from the water level and stroke length, and ballast weight, there are only a limited number of adjustments you can make. So sooner or later, you will derive "rules of thumb" to enable you to do an optimum set up, whereby you will be able to virtually guarantee best performance every time. I am certain that I don`t need to tell you how important your work is, because in my opinion, once we have the first independent replication with unquestionable proof of OU, then the Genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
Should anything happen to prevent Wayne continuing with his work[heaven forbid], there will be no turning back.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 02, 2012, 09:32:47 PM
Hi Webby1
Nice work.
Based on all of the information presented prior I would focus on only about a half inch of travel, even that might be a bit much for a system of that height. It looks like you are trying different weights, that is probably significant. Wayne even stated once that the system works better when it's working harder and I think I might be starting to understand why.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 02, 2012, 09:51:49 PM
I just had a thought that might be useful or it might not. If we run the device through a complete cycle, we need to input water under pressure to cause the lift. Then , to lower the risers, we need to let some water out of the device, and release some pressure, but not all the pressure. Here is a low tech way to achieve this. Webbby1 is using a vertical tube full of water to inject water into the system. To extract water and pressure for the downstroke, that vertical tube, which appears to be connected to the device by a flexible pipe, simply needs to be tilted over to a predetermined angle, to reduce its head pressure. The vertical tube needs to be long enough to contain all the ejected water. Not certain how you would then measure input energy. Just a thought...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 05, 2012, 12:54:48 AM
On a personal note...
 
I spent about 3 man hours opening the casing of a refrigerator compressor that I had to have replaced.  My goal was to find the "mechanical" lockup since all the (pre replacement) electrical tests seemed fine, except for current draw.
 
Found no problem.  Everything moved nicely.  So I tried to disassemble for my own learning, but also because I think little pistons and connecting rods are cool.
 
I was disappointed that the unit had obviously been manufactured only for assembly, and not disassembly or maintenance (Why would it not be?  Its in a sealed steel pod!).  But I did the best I could to take it apart with the tools in my garage.  And I succeeded!  But with a piston that broke its skirt when I had to punch out the piston pin after not being able to remove the roll pin that secured it.
 
Either way, I learned a lot.
 
A question:  I found no permanent magnetic properties in the stator or rotor.  Anyone know why?
 
I've heard from Dennis and Larry and they are both hard at work and about ready to reveal new information.
 
Oh, and webby has got some great updates coming.
 
Just thought I'd offer this info up.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on August 05, 2012, 01:25:01 AM
On a personal note...
 
I spent about 3 man hours opening the casing of a refrigerator compressor that I had to have replaced.  My goal was to find the "mechanical" lockup since all the (pre replacement) electrical tests seemed fine, except for current draw.
 
Found no problem.  Everything moved nicely.  So I tried to disassemble for my own learning, but also because I think little pistons and connecting rods are cool.
 
I was disappointed that the unit had obviously been manufactured only for assembly, and not disassembly or maintenance (Why would it not be?  Its in a sealed steel pod!).  But I did the best I could to take it apart with the tools in my garage.  And I succeeded!  But with a piston that broke its skirt when I had to punch out the piston pin after not being able to remove the roll pin that secured it.
 
Either way, I learned a lot.
 
A question:  I found no permanent magnetic properties in the stator or rotor.  Anyone know why?
 
I've heard from Dennis and Larry and they are both hard at work and about ready to reveal new information.
 
Oh, and webby has got some great updates coming.
 
Just thought I'd offer this info up.
 
M.
  No PMs?  The stator and rotor must be field wound EMs that are powered by the main supply.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 05, 2012, 01:25:12 AM
Curiosity costs nothing if it is already broke  ;) ......

I am back from Atlanta Georgia, it was only 88 degrees there - 108 here in Oklahoma.

Status on the ZED, we have been running - but with a loop of irritating small issues (mountain climbing - little mountains).

Our Mechanical team met and we have decided to put each of the issues to bed.

Since last Thursday - while I was gone - two of the five were put to rest.

The parts to fix two more were ordered - over nited and will be here Monday.

The last step is to pull the system and weigh the parts to see if they are equal.

We are also replacing any plumbing we had repeat leaks on - and using the new installation tools and torque settings.

We over torqued and caused leaks....drat....

The Great News

Both Sides of the Zed are over unity - just one side is a lot better than the other.

I can't wait to see what Larry and Dennis have? ??? ??
I have had three more Mathematical Replicators write me while I was gone - Well Done!
 
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 05, 2012, 04:10:10 AM
  No PMs?  The stator and rotor must be field wound EMs that are powered by the main supply.

X, the stator is EM for sure.  And the stator circuit is switched from first including a start up capacitor and charging all stator poles (several dozen) with the AC input power to (my guess) only every other pole once the compressor motor is up to speed and that start up cap is removed from the circuit.  But the rotor appears to be just laminates of silicon steel.  The outside of the laminates are perfectly cylindrical.  How would this rotor be attracted by a rotating magnetic field from the stator?
 
If someone has a quick answer, great.  If not, pls PM me so as not to clutter this thread.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 05, 2012, 12:52:47 PM

X, the stator is EM for sure.  And the stator circuit is switched from first including a start up capacitor and charging all stator poles (several dozen) with the AC input power to (my guess) only every other pole once the compressor motor is up to speed and that start up cap is removed from the circuit.  But the rotor appears to be just laminates of silicon steel.  The outside of the laminates are perfectly cylindrical.  How would this rotor be attracted by a rotating magnetic field from the stator?
 
If someone has a quick answer, great.  If not, pls PM me so as not to clutter this thread.
 
M.
http://www.globalspec.com/reference/10791/179909/chapter-3-ac-and-dc-motors-ac-motors-ac-induction-motor (http://www.globalspec.com/reference/10791/179909/chapter-3-ac-and-dc-motors-ac-motors-ac-induction-motor)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indmot.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indmot.html)
The aluminum bars are sometimes hard to see without removing the aluminum end ring, but they are there. You usually can see the small bright slanted edges along the laminate.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 05, 2012, 03:53:02 PM
Hello All,
 
I am calling "Webby" - the winner of the replication challenge, and I sent him the $2000

Nothing like getting your hands "Wet" I have already heard from several people who copied his work - and or improved upon the Tennis Ball container Z.E.D. or the "TBZED" construction experiment.

PhWest found a plastic bottle company that sold plastic bottles incrementally sized.

Time, Distance and Mass - does not lie - We are very Overunity - Great Job Team.

It is your work - being the good skeptic - doing your due diligence, searching - discovering - that is helping to bring freedom - in many forms to the World.

Excessive heat - has caused transmission failures - Extreme load on the Grid, Grid failure has caused massive outages - during the heat.

Many fables have been wisely written warning against putting all your eggs in one basket - when whole communities can be shut down - that is a bad thing - it gives too much control over free people.

Recent Nuclear power and even past events - give clear rise to the need for safe and clean energy -
We have been blessed with a solution - together we can make this happen, individually and together.
Never underestimate how important your single contribution will be to the future.

Never expect support from everyone - just do what is right - do it now.

Thank you Webby, and others that have helped.

To Webby, if you would like that flight down - to visit our lab and team - get your picture for our book, price it and let me know.
Thanks Again, you who seek the truth - have humbled and honored me - but lets keep this about our future - a future that is changing before your eyes.
I look forward to the next level - from Dennis and Larry.
Thank you Neptune for carrying the torch!
Wayne Travis

HydroEnergyRevolution.com
Each Freedom in its time..... Thank God.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 05, 2012, 04:34:27 PM
Let me be among the first to congratulate Webby. If ever a guy deserved a reward for a replication, he is that guy. As I have said before, he was already sure that this would work, based on his own meticulous mathematical analysis.But he did not stop there. He was prepared to get his hands wet and dirty, gather some recycled materials, and spend some time working with tools.Methinks we shall here more from this man.
      phwest has already made a great contribution in his previous "thesis" on how this technology works. It would benefit the community immensely if he could provide a link to the source of these incrementally sized plastic bottles. That on its own would facilitate more replications.
       I know I have said this before, but the thing that blows my mind is the essential simplicity of the basis of this technology. It is still to me a staggering thought, that the Ancient Romans could probably have built a pair of Zeds, to power, say, a water pump.
         That of course does not detract from the brilliance, and originality of this system.I am proud to have played some small part in the discussion even if it has been mainly in the role of "cheerleader". Here`s to many more successful replications.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on August 05, 2012, 04:39:44 PM
Let me be among the first to congratulate Webby. If ever a guy deserved a reward for a replication, he is that guy. As I have said before, he was already sure that this would work, based on his own meticulous mathematical analysis.But he did not stop there. He was prepared to get his hands wet and dirty, gather some recycled materials, and spend some time working with tools.Methinks we shall here more from this man.
      phwest has already made a great contribution in his previous "thesis" on how this technology works. It would benefit the community immensely if he could provide a link to the source of these incrementally sized plastic bottles. That on its own would facilitate more replications.
       I know I have said this before, but the thing that blows my mind is the essential simplicity of the basis of this technology. It is still to me a staggering thought, that the Ancient Romans could probably have built a pair of Zeds, to power, say, a water pump.
         That of course does not detract from the brilliance, and originality of this system.I am proud to have played some small part in the discussion even if it has been mainly in the role of "cheerleader". Here`s to many more successful replications.
Way to go Webby1, you're an inspiration to us all.   We need all the encouragement we can get, keep up the good work!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 05, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Congratulations Webby !!
History in the making.....
What an honor and opportunity to be such a part of it.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on August 05, 2012, 05:48:58 PM
Webby Well done  ;D  looking forward to seeing a self-runner
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: theotherguy on August 05, 2012, 09:25:14 PM
Congratulations Webby.  Its been fun watching your progress.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 06, 2012, 06:01:25 AM
Congrats Webby.  My motto: 90% of winning is showing up!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on August 06, 2012, 06:05:44 AM
Good job, Webby.

Keep building.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on August 06, 2012, 06:19:58 AM
Sometimes we all need to get out from behind the keyboard and take action.

Excellent job and congratulations!

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: diegra on August 06, 2012, 09:48:51 PM
Hello Weeby, my English is not good. Could make a video or a simulation or a drawing explaining the procedure to have a better understanding? thanks and regards.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 07, 2012, 06:49:22 AM
Nice work Webby. ;]  And on the cheap!  Good idea with the color codes on the tubes. ;]

So the individual tubes, do they have caps on top of each? And it looks like each tube is independent, floating within spacers between the tubes?

Using the thin plastic, are there pressures on the walls of the tubes that might crush them or cause them to bend in? I have a roll of this fairly stiff peal and stick plastic, that seems like it would work as you show.

Thanks for sticking with it and actually doing it. Also, thanks to Mr Wayne, for sticking around and just brushing off the fly's. ;] Good Show. ;]


MaGs  :o ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Blanco69 on August 07, 2012, 02:39:17 PM
Hang on! Are we really saying that Webby has just built an overunity device using nothing but some plastic tubes, water and super glue? Well, I'm truly gobsmacked! Are you going to use Wayne's 2 grand to build a bigger one? I dont mean to poke fun but- really?

I'm no over unity whizz kid and there are clearly a few here but, if you can draw off energy from a zed machine in the form of some kind of force. What happen's to the machine when you're not drawing off your "free energy". Does it a. get faster and faster until it shakes itself apart or b. build pressure until it explodes.

Blanco
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on August 07, 2012, 06:30:03 PM

Not sure what I will do with the money but I do have plans to build a slightly larger and better built unit, one that is more uniform in clearances.




Will the larger unit be a self-runer ?  I am keen to make one that operates continuously,
but so far there hasn't been enough information to make me feel confident at an attempt.
What are your thoughts on a self-running device ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 07, 2012, 07:05:54 PM
Can I be permitted here to add my own thoughts about a self runner? Whilst I think it is possible that a self runner will be built in a home workshop, It is fairly lengthy and involved task. If we look at Wayne`s machine, we can subdivide it into several separate systems.
 1. A pair of Zeds. Two is best, because we can recycle the "Exhaust" of one Zed to partly recharge the other, and vice versa.
2. A transmission system to convert the reciprocating output of the Zed into rotary motion. Whilst Wayne uses a hydraulic transmission, I think
for a small demonstration model, we could use a modified crankshaft type set up. Even if we do not wish to drive a generator, I favour a rotating shaft as output, as we can then have a camshaft to control the sequence of events.
 3. A feedback system, [mechanical] to feedback some of the output to help in pumping water into the Zed.
 4. In Wayne`s case, an alternator supplying energy to the load. If you just want a self runner without output, this is not needed.


 A complex challenge, but not insurmountable, especially if people work together.


 Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 07, 2012, 11:17:26 PM
A System Rise Calculator data set and picture are attached.
 
The first is the basic system rise logic used by the calculator.
 
The second shows the force results and compares the the original stroke water level from the outside retainer water drop and the water height level after a 3". Note that the pod retainer (Retainer 3) gap water level his risen and the next inside water level (Riser 3) has dropped. More explanation later.
 
The third shows the 'Adjustment' button that must be pressed after the 'System Rise' or 'Start Out Ret. Water Drop' value is changed. After pressing the values will start rolling like a slot machine. If your machine is slow reduce the System Rise value and it will speed up.
 
The fourth is the calculator file.

 
Further explanation of Pod Retainer gap water rise:
 
To go from Initial Precharge to Stroke, water is added which raises the water in the gap between the pod and the retainer to increase the water head. The gap is ~ 12 (D155 cell) SI. Then the system is allowed to rise under pressure, while water is being added to fill in the 719 SI (C155 cell) area below the pod inside the pod retainer.
 
During the system rise a dynamic balancing of water/air levels occur. As the system rises the physical air space will increase lowering the pressure and water head and slowing the lift. The input water still coming in at the same rate, now reacts to this by overflowing into the 12 SI pod retainer gap increasing the pressure, water head and increasing the lift. There is no stopping it as the ratio is 61 times (719/12), so the 12 is insignificant.
 
That is why the water level at riser 3 was forced down from 8.488 to 4.255. This was due to the retainer 3 level rising form 52.226 to 62.726, but reduced by the new air expansion volume.
 
So it is an important step for physical replicator on initial setup, after bringing the system down from idea to stroke level, is to lower the water level in the pod retainer gap and add air pressure to return the water alignment in the outer layers. This is only a one time event.
 
Wayne had told me before that for initial system setup after the system was at stroke or initial prechage the water could be lowered and replaced by air pressure to realign the water head. At the time I though this was just being used to have the pod sink away and the layers would be the only part lifting for the 2500 LB. But, it's other purpose is to reduce the chance of the pod retainer gap water going over the pod retainer wall into the next riser gap and the additional air in the pod retainer gap being compressible reduces the chance of blowing outer skirts.
 
For those that don't have Microsoft Office, you can download a free version from http://download.openoffice.fm/free/?pk=26976 (http://download.openoffice.fm/free/?pk=26976)
It has a Calc module which is the same as Excel.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: diegra on August 08, 2012, 12:54:02 AM

Webby thanks for your reply and your pictures, I begin to understand the parts of the ZED. Anyway, if you can, make a video with the procedure of imput and output of the system.
Regards
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 08, 2012, 02:58:59 AM
@All,
Sorry, but my latest spreadsheet is not responding under OpenOffice???, when pressing the 'Adjustment' button.
 
I will try to find a solution, but if anybody else comes up with a solution please post.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2012, 03:08:51 AM
Total force 6181
Minus pod 4582
Hydraulic 5799
Travis-Hyd 382

These are force figures?
Do we have the distances through which these forces are expected, or measured, to act?

Force is not a conserved quantity. Work is. Do your figures indicate a gain in _work_, or just in force?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2012, 09:47:27 AM
Hey TK,

The TB you play with inspired you to build, why not this.

What is an ampere.

What is the electric force.

The first one can not be answered without the second, not to your standards.

If you can not answer these then why ask others to answer the same style of question.

Build and you will understand.

You are not dumb, you are not stupid, you ARE capable, you MAY answer questions we all have,,, but not if you don't try.

In short to your questions,

When lift pressure is met the lift distance is made by a constant value of input, this is a no brainer, what YOU are not addressing is the conservation of that constant input.  Tar Baby,,

I don't detect an answer to my question. (It was referring to the spreadsheet's numbers anyway.) If there was one, it would look like this: the hydraulic force of xxx Newtons can be exerted over a distance of xxx centimeters. And the Travis Effect force of yyy Newtons can be exerted over a distance of yyy centimeters.
Two simple sentences, four numbers.

Yet you say this:

Quote
When lift pressure is met the lift distance is made by a constant value of input, this is a no brainer, what YOU are not addressing is the conservation of that constant input.  Tar Baby,,
and I find this difficult to interpret. Can you explain more clearly please? I really don't think I have to "address" anything, since I'm not making any claims. All I am doing is asking if you've made the proper measurements to draw correct conclusions.

Or do you wish to insult me instead?

Just on casual inspection of the projects I see involving electricity, electric fields and forces,  and electronics on this forum... I suspect I understand the Ampere and the electric field and electric forces better than many. Better than you? I don't know.... I haven't seen any electrical projects of yours. But there are plenty of my electrical projects available for inspection and criticism.

If you want to understand why and what I'm doing with Tar Baby, you are welcome to ask questions in that thread, and I assure you that MY answers to you will be informative. I don't see a real question in your latest post there, though.
Quote
Funny is it not, that you make this claim.

Things are not what Heavisides made it out to be.       
The claim referred to , of course, is that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects.... and three hundred pages later, that claim has been profoundly confirmed many times over in many different ways. I don't know what that has to do with Oliver Heaviside -- I have simply found that the claims of Rosemary Ainslie are not supported by her own data, much less that of replications like mine. Heaviside wasn't consulted and didn't need to be--- the independent laboratory that she sent her device off to, confirmed that her batteries DO discharge... .just as I did with Tar Baby months ago.

Now, let me ask you again, in a different way: are you claiming that the total work output of your nested cylinders is greater than the total work input, when all input sources are considered, including lifting masses during setup?

(I'm using "work" in its precise technical meaning here: force x distance)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 08, 2012, 03:48:39 PM
Hello Webby,
Yes - the ability to access each layer air and water separately - moved our control of the process in such a positive direction.

Then when we added Pressure transducers to each - and are able to display water and air levels - it reduced our effort to set up - from a four hour ordeal - to minutes.

We also have prediction modeling - a "what happens if" any change is made to any one point - and warnings if a system capability is exceeded.

We do not blow skirts anymore - unless we forget to open a production valve and run the system.
 
To All:  It has always been my position to be open and honest - this means sharing lessons learned - troubles - and successes.

Let me be clear about where we are  in our process - Leaks and all:

We currently have a two Z.E.D. system - with both sides overunity by themselves- barely - 750 pounds extra Net - same time and distance - in our three layer set up.

The Recycle of the Exhaust adds to the other side or reduces the input cost another 55% - each side.

Our current problem is a good one - Both sides are overunity - and one side is much better than the other.

The better working Z.E.D. needs less input - this means less exhaust - the other Z.E.D. needs more input - so the 55% is less from the better working Z.E.D - and having the Z.E.Ds tied together - meant a common output pressure. Not anymore - this is the problem we have been working on - and have now solved.

The actual issue "The separate  performance of the two Z.E.D.s" has been painstakingly solved and traced to our shop construction - basically our construction - welding the layers so that they did not match - actually a small amount one tenth of one percent in the outer riser resulted in a 90 psi production difference.

(Or you could look at it as less input to reach the same output value as the other Z.E.D.)

We have solved this problem - we have installed two separate production capture systems...

Having a problem is just an opportunity for some - it is something else for a prognosticator "baiter".

We do not have leaks in our water and air portion of the Z.E.D.s - we did have a drip of production fluid - which was annoying.

@ Webby,
We built ours large enough to be robust - we have a very large range of testing - resolution was important at this stage - actually our 2-5 models were 6 foot diameter and 12 feet tall -

That is a two layer system - laying in the Yard - for sale if someone wants to buy it lol - I will donate the money to JCCA (a small private school). Have a part of History ;-)

Be warned - you need three layers to have robust over unity - 5 and 6 layers are the best numbers of layers.
The two layer model was only 104% efficient upstroke - a simple capture method to use the exhaust will boost that.

Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 08, 2012, 08:42:14 PM
@Webby1 Just a couple of points. It might be worthwhile to experiment with having all the risers stuck together to asses if there is any advantage/disadvantage. You could also include the pod [or not] in this stuck-together group. Double sided sticky tape would serve the purpose on a temporary basis.
 
 The size/length of the pod is an issue that Wayne might help with if you ask him, assuming that he has investigated models of this small size.
   
It might be better, rather than limiting the speed of rise with finger pressure, to have a "ballast weight" on top of the risers consisting of, say, a small container of sand. The weight is then easily adjusted.


You have probably thought of all these things, but then again...
Carry on, and thanks for sharing your great work.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 09, 2012, 12:41:41 AM

@webby: thank you for this answer. It is close to an answer to my questions. I'm still not quite clear though. Are you saying that the lifting force is increased, but the travel distance is decreased, like a compound gear reduction?

Quote
If I look at the distance traveled of each riser and pod compared to the distance traveled for the lift, I see, in essence, a compound gear reduction. I have almost 2 inches of pod travel and only 1 inch of lift plus the added distance for 4 of the risers.       
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 09, 2012, 02:24:58 AM
I thought of ways to break the thing before I built it :)

Hmmm.  Sounds similar to TK's methodology for testing.
 
Well, thorough testing that is.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 09, 2012, 01:05:45 PM
Hello All,

And thank you for the personal e-mails - yes some people ignore the truth, attack and slander - it is poor form.

I have shared and others have confirmed with their own physics - more to come - and the replication of our massively overunity system.

When considering only one aspect of our Z.E.D technology - one portion of the process - one specific number of layers - in particular the discussion concerning the current three layered model:

The Up stroke - by itself - no transfer of energy from the other Z.E.D. - just a stand alone observation - is only better than a standard hydraulic cylinder - input to output by about 700 pounds of lift.

In this three layered model - that is only about 10% more than a hydraulic cylinder - which is not a bad thing - but not where our massive overunity comes from - just part of it (Our Baiter knows this).

Once again - our baiter has twisted out of context my statements.
Seamus101 and Seamus102 - who pays you to disinform people? - you have tipped your hand again.

To All,

To show that I have covered the topic of where our "massive input reduction comes from" - well on this thread -

Would someone else please explain how the Two Z.E.D process works to massively reduce our input costs.
This will help protect the new visitors from the intentional dis-information.
Yes, it is a shame we have to deal with this.

My appreciation in advance, many of you have proven your abilities.

Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 09, 2012, 03:32:08 PM
Change in ( current ) topic:
A few weeks ago there was considerable discussion about building a square ZED.
Did anyone ever try ?
I've been a little surprised no one took up the challenge then.

I happen to have a half-sheet of .060 acrylite and have ordered a piece of .470 for the base and top riser, and another piece of .250 for the "tank".
I've done a couple of tests and both PVC cement and 2-part epoxy seem to make acceptable bonds and are more tolerant of irregularities than the solvent weld shown in the posted video links.

I've laid out  a mock up for a 4" square x 12" tall, 3 riser test using .060 air gaps for a 5.800 outer dimension. If anyone would care to provide feedback in the thread or PM please do so. One question; would it be better to use a 4" or 6" "extension" for an overall height of 16" or 24"?

At the moment I'm planning on starting from the outside and working inward, I want to see and attempt to measure changes as the layering is increased.

Thanks
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 09, 2012, 03:33:31 PM
... bad math, that would be 16" or 18" tall
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 09, 2012, 06:41:48 PM
Not bad Webby,

You describe the lateral transfer of the Head pressure well. And you are right the input cost would be about 1/2
(starts making that 700 on the upstroke extra). The cost seems small when we pay 1/2 for the other 7000 pounds we lift.
 

Now - who will explain how we take advantage of the Non - linear aspect of our Z.E.D? (how much did the weight cost to lift versus the pressure it returned)

Wayne

@ Seamus101 and 102 - to borrow a line from a good show (modified) for you.

"I don't think that word you used 'Ludicrous' means what you think it means."

Please take the time to research - or keep your unintended "condescending" comments until you do your due diligence.

Good day.
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 09, 2012, 08:37:44 PM
This is a discussion board.
Nobody needs to keep their comments.
If you are not happy with what people post feel free to leave but do not tell them what to do, you are not in that position.

This is an open source board anybody can join the discussion.

So don't tell people to keep their comments Wayne.

Bye Bye

Dear MicroController,

I am very respectful of others ability to share - be included, and to listen.

I am sure you did not mean to leave out the "Condescending" portion of my comment.

If you have something of value to share - welcome.

This site is not for the purpose of interuption, disruption, insults, misinformation, and otherwise inappropriate behavior.

If that is all you have offer the discussion - then keep it to yourself.

We are doing good work here, showing what this web forum is meant for - showing and discussing free energy, over unity, and a new technology - that many of us here are enjoying the discussion.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 09, 2012, 09:45:44 PM
@microcontroller. The evidence of OU is there for those who are prepared to put in the time and effort to learn about this technology. Why are you so anxious that Wayne should leave? If he does, then that prevent those of us who wish to learn from doing so. If you believe that there is no OU here, then why not move on and leave us to it?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 09, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Simple as it can get proof. Apples to Apples.
 
The attached shows a Archimedes Pod of 30" diameter with retainer and a Travis Pod of 30" diameter with retainer. The Archimedes Pod is the height that it would take for it to have the same lift forces as a 4 Riser Travis System. The Riser are not shown as the water is only input into the Pod retainer.
 
Note that the Sink to Stroke water difference for Archimedes is 164, while only 37 for 4 Riser. Also note that the PSI levels are higher for Arch. than 4 Riser, this advantage is due to larger SI areas on the Risers.
 
Archimedes has to input 164" of water pushing against PSI from 5.43 to 11.33.
4 Riser has to input 37" of water pushing against PSI from 5.07 to 9.99 PSI.
Or Archimedes has to input 4.43 times as much water at the SI as 4 Riser for the same lift with a much increase load and unload time going from Sink to Stroke and Stroke to Sink.
 
I have more for later. Just want to give some time to digest, before I confuse with my new spreadsheet on this drawing.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 09, 2012, 10:53:15 PM

No Sir,

There is no evidence.

I post about twice every 20 pages do you think that's too much?
Maybe i should make it 40 pages then.

Yeah Neptune, i will see you in another 40 pages of empty words, claims, spreadsheets, images, and road trip reports!
I hope to see you there !

MC
Micro controller you are an...... something else.....
My only road trip was to our Aunts funeral, she was 59.
Very rude indeed.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 09, 2012, 11:54:11 PM
Larry:

Quote
Simple as it can get proof. Apples to Apples.
 
The attached shows a Archimedes Pod of 30" diameter with retainer and a Travis Pod of 30" diameter with retainer. The Archimedes Pod is the height that it would take for it to have the same lift forces as a 4 Riser Travis System. The Riser are not shown as the water is only input into the Pod retainer.
 
Note that the Sink to Stroke water difference for Archimedes is 164, while only 37 for 4 Riser. Also note that the PSI levels are higher for Arch. than 4 Riser, this advantage is due to larger SI areas on the Risers.
 
Archimedes has to input 164" of water pushing against PSI from 5.43 to 11.33.
4 Riser has to input 37" of water pushing against PSI from 5.07 to 9.99 PSI.
Or Archimedes has to input 4.43 times as much water at the SI as 4 Riser for the same lift with a much increase load and unload time going from Sink to Stroke and Stroke to Sink.
 
I have more for later. Just want to give some time to digest, before I confuse with my new spreadsheet on this drawing.

This is a comment for you and all others that have shown data or spreadsheets.

Can you please convert your analysis to the proper units for evaluation?

It takes a certain number of Joules, foot-pounds_force, Newton-meters, kilogram_force-meters, etc, to push the pod down.  The pod will produce useful work when it moves up and your calculations must result in a work calculation.

How much work can you extract from the pod and what is the vertical displacement?

How much work does it take to push the pod back down and what is the vertical displacement?

Without showing work calculations I just don't see the point.  It's all about how much work you can extract from a rising pod and comparing how much work it takes to push the pod back in place for the next cycle.

Without looking at the work and just looking a "pounds of lifting force" or whatever, you are completely missing the point.  I have looked at half a dozen spreadsheets by multiple contributors to this thread and I just don't get it.

You must not take your eye off the ball, it's all about work-in and work-out, everything else is secondary.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 10, 2012, 01:06:12 AM
This is a discussion board.
Nobody needs to keep their comments.
If you are not happy with what people post feel free to leave but do not tell them what to do, you are not in that position.

This is an open source board anybody can join the discussion.

So don't tell people to keep their comments Wayne.

Bye Bye
But thats just it. You are not discussing anything. You are just dropping paper bags of dog crap. And it stinks. 

Guys, at the top of each post, there is a 'Report to moderator' link. If a few of us post a complaint, Micro can be dropped like a bad habbit. ;]

My trigger finger is itchy. ;]

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 10, 2012, 01:22:54 AM
Webby1:

It's not force that is the issue, it's work: force x displacement.  You talk about the pod providing a lifting force and you talk about a displacement, so you should already have the tools in place to make a work computation.  Same thing for the "negative work" computation, where the pod has to go back down.

I will just repeat what I said:  Please show all of your work-in and work-out calculations.  That is what it's all about.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 10, 2012, 01:29:36 AM
I agree Milehigh et al, that these are the relevant facts needed to be ascertained to establish the potential for OU or free energy.

Ordinary buoyancy produces a constant force over vertical distance due to linear pressure gradients in a virtually non compressible liquid - this means you can find the Joules [Nm] & find the Power in Watts [Nm/sec] - this can be compared to the Joules expended to either depress a buoyancy piston or conversely pump liquid into the chamber to create the head.

Note: The "Work Energy Equivalence Principle" says that Work [f x d] in Joules is directly comparable to the Energy in Joules to depress the piston or pump the fluid - ordinary system mechanical losses bring an inequality to this relationship, especially if electric pumps are used etc due to heat losses & overall inefficiency.

The pod configuration has a variable force effect IINM so is more problematic to determine how much Work [in Joules] it can do - IMO a method to determine this would be to use the pod to raise a known mass to its maximum height achievable - then compare the Joules of PE it is given to the Work Done to set the system, or some such variation.

IOW's, the ZED pod should produce more PE Joules in a raised mass [= Work Done] than Joules of Energy to set the system, to be potentially either OU or free energy before system losses are accounted for in the energy budget.

Just my opinions to keep this discussion grounded, practical & non personality driven, in the interests of establishing credible rigorous fact from fiction, whilst we wait for MD's analysis to confirm the actual long run test results & setup detail in support of Mr Wayne's claims.

I have no particular axe to grind if Mr Wayne's device is OU or not [ I hope it is], however I have learned to examine & trust actual empirical data that can be replicated, above exuberance & spreadsheets - first establish that the Work Output is empirically greater than the Work Input.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 10, 2012, 04:04:41 AM
Webby1:

It's not force that is the issue, it's work: force x displacement.  You talk about the pod providing a lifting force and you talk about a displacement, so you should already have the tools in place to make a work computation.  Same thing for the "negative work" computation, where the pod has to go back down.

I will just repeat what I said:  Please show all of your work-in and work-out calculations.  That is what it's all about.

MileHigh

Give it a lil time M. Webby has just put the very simple 'test' tubes to some various tests the other day, just to see if there is something to see.  And actually, it was done well enough for MrWayne to delve out 2Gs, cashitos, to Webby for listening closely and accomplishing what he has done so far. A a paid trip to Mr Waynes facility to meet.

Im sure that Webby will do and show more as the work progresses. So far, he is the only one that did the deed, and it isnt done yet. ;]

Lets see what happens. Im involved elsewhere, but following closely.

He might not have the data you require at the moment. And also might have his own time schedule in doing more.    At least he has come this far, so far. ;]

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 10, 2012, 04:32:53 AM
Deleted:
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 10, 2012, 04:56:54 AM
Sorry Larry but you are not correct.  Work over a given amount of time, equates to power.  Work/Time = Power

So you can evaluate the total work that you put into the system over a certain period of time and get an average input power value.

You can also evaluate the total work that you put into the system over a certain period of time and get the total input work.

Likewise, you can evaluate the total work that you get out of the system over a certain period of time and get an average output power value.

You can also evaluate the total work that you get out of the system over a certain period of time and get the total output work.

Average input power vs. average output power or total input work vs. total output work are virtually the same thing. 

One factors in a time period to create an average power level and they other simply factors that same time period but only counts the total work.

So it's a phony issue and there is nothing to discuss.   Which brings us back to the beginning:  What are the input vs. output measurements or calculations done in your spreadsheets?   You can use work or average power, it doesn't matter, the same relevant data is conveyed in either measurement method.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 10, 2012, 05:45:24 AM
Sorry Larry but you are not correct.  Work over a given amount of time, equates to power.  Work/Time = Power

So you can evaluate the total work that you put into the system over a certain period of time and get an average input power value.

You can also evaluate the total work that you put into the system over a certain period of time and get the total input work.

Likewise, you can evaluate the total work that you get out of the system over a certain period of time and get an average output power value.

You can also evaluate the total work that you get out of the system over a certain period of time and get the total output work.

Average input power vs. average output power or total input work vs. total output work are virtually the same thing. 

One factors in a time period to create an average power level and they other simply factors that same time period but only counts the total work.

So it's a phony issue and there is nothing to discuss.   Which brings us back to the beginning:  What are the input vs. output measurements or calculations done in your spreadsheets?   You can use work or average power, it doesn't matter, the same relevant data is conveyed in either measurement method.

MileHigh
I had just deleted my post, because I didn't like parts of it, when I seen yours.
 
'Sorry Larry but you are not correct.  Work over a given amount of time, equates to power.  Work/Time = Power'. What a liar, I had just stated that Work without Time was useless as Power is equal to Work/Time.


First you stated ' it's work: force x displacement' in reply 1206, and fletcher stated ' Work [f x d]' in reply 1207. Now you are claiming new definitions that you did not state. All of your new definitions contained 'certain period of time'.  I did not know, but you are obviously a deceiver and this will be my last response to you.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 10, 2012, 06:03:36 AM
LarryC:

I won't argue this with you.  I suggest that you go to an educational web page and read up on energy and work and power and all that stuff.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 10, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm

One of the best sites is the hyperphysics web site - it is down for me at the moment.

Search on google .... Hyperphysics Work Energy Power
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: tagor on August 10, 2012, 08:27:44 AM
So don't tell people to keep their comments Wayne.
Bye Bye
can you apply this to your own comments ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 10, 2012, 09:12:32 AM
Quote
My lift load or force input on these basic test was 2.5 fl o over 6.5 inches to lift 1.5 lbs with .5 of those left on the risers.

I am fairly good at puzzles but I am having trouble figuring this out.

2.5 fl o      Does this mean "fluidounces"? The fluidounce is a VOLUME measurement, not a force.


 2.5 fl o over 6.5 inches to lift 1.5 lbs with .5 of those left on the risers      Huh?   .5 of those What? Inches, pounds? Left on the risers?

Webby, you are better at building than you are at explaining!!


Here's an example of what I'd consider a good answer:

"I press down with a steady force of 2.5 ounces, measured by the compression of a calibrated spring. I exert this force for 6.5 inches. The riser lifts a weight  of 5 ounces sitting on top of it a distance of twelve inches in response."

I think that Seamus10n and MH and me and some others would like to see answers in that kind of form.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 10, 2012, 11:48:29 AM
To All,
It is easy to loose track with all the 'Stink bags" being thrown - please just use your Moderator Report button.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 10, 2012, 11:59:38 AM
@TK.I am sure we would all like to see Data expressed in that form. There are two ways in which we can see that data .
1. Build your own test rig and measure it in your own way.
2. Wait until Webby has perfected his test rig to the point where he can make those measurements.
     My own build can not start yet until I have had eye surgery so I can see what I am doing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 10, 2012, 12:11:36 PM
Hello Tinsikoala,

I think that is a good question you ask.


I will give this to you in steps, you do your part - I will do mine.

Currently we are stroking 6 total inches in a stroke - and capturing 30 cubic inches of pressurized hydraulic fluid @ 640 psi
We stroke 3.7 times a minute.

Tin - Please place a Energy value of your preference to that and then I will step you through the input costs.

Thanks Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 10, 2012, 11:34:51 PM
Hello Tinsikoala,

I think that is a good question you ask.


I will give this to you in steps, you do your part - I will do mine.

Currently we are stroking 6 total inches in a stroke - and capturing 30 cubic inches of pressurized hydraulic fluid @ 640 psi
We stroke 3.7 times a minute.

Tin - Please place a Energy value of your preference to that and then I will step you through the input costs.

Thanks Wayne
 

Thanks for your response... but... no.

You are the one making a claim, I think, of overunity performance. It is actually up to YOU to put numbers on your claim, numbers that are standard and interpretable. Work, or equivalently energy, that is, Force x Distance, is the conserved quantity. You have not, as far as I can see, ever answered with numbers that would allow us to know the ratio of work input to work output. Yet, for a claim of overunity performance to be credible, this information must be known, in those terms, by "somebody" along the chain of analysis. Surely your engineers know the answer and can put it into the form required for others, classically trained and straitjacketed by our educations, to understand it.

How much energy, or equivalently, how much work must you do to produce your six inches of stroke at 3.7 times per minute? And how much energy, or equivalently, how much work do you recover from your 30 cu in of hydraulic fluid at 640 psi?
You have left out something critical: with what force must you push, over what distance, to obtain a flow of 30 cu in at 640 psi?

It's not up to your skeptics to provide you with information. Rather, if you really want to convince people that you've got what you claim, then you should be ready and willing to meet all their reasonable objections and questions with solid answers that are interpretable and make sense. I agree that the people who simply drop "stink bombs" and run away are not necessarily useful. But people like microcontroller, Seamus 10n, and myself are asking you to support your claim with real data... that's all. And we are telling you that, so far, your data are not providing that support. You should actually be thankful for that.... because at the very least we are making, or asking, you to firm up your argument, like a rehearsal for the "big time" exposure you'll be getting "when" your system is fully proven.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 12:54:33 AM
Wayne,
 
Would you be willing to host a visit by TK?
 
TK,
 
Would you be willing to visit Wayne and examine him and the device face to face?  What would you need to make that a reality?
 
Just a thought.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 05:42:52 AM
Thanks for your response... but... no.

You are the one making a claim, I think, of overunity performance. It is actually up to YOU to put numbers on your claim, numbers that are standard and interpretable. Work, or equivalently energy, that is, Force x Distance, is the conserved quantity. You have not, as far as I can see, ever answered with numbers that would allow us to know the ratio of work input to work output. Yet, for a claim of overunity performance to be credible, this information must be known, in those terms, by "somebody" along the chain of analysis. Surely your engineers know the answer and can put it into the form required for others, classically trained and straitjacketed by our educations, to understand it.

How much energy, or equivalently, how much work must you do to produce your six inches of stroke at 3.7 times per minute? And how much energy, or equivalently, how much work do you recover from your 30 cu in of hydraulic fluid at 640 psi?
You have left out something critical: with what force must you push, over what distance, to obtain a flow of 30 cu in at 640 psi?

It's not up to your skeptics to provide you with information. Rather, if you really want to convince people that you've got what you claim, then you should be ready and willing to meet all their reasonable objections and questions with solid answers that are interpretable and make sense. I agree that the people who simply drop "stink bombs" and run away are not necessarily useful. But people like microcontroller, Seamus 10n, and myself are asking you to support your claim with real data... that's all. And we are telling you that, so far, your data are not providing that support. You should actually be thankful for that.... because at the very least we are making, or asking, you to firm up your argument, like a rehearsal for the "big time" exposure you'll be getting "when" your system is fully proven.

I am sorry for your position,
The Skeptics I have meet did their own analysis.
 
You asked the question - and the answer requires the same language be used.
It is as simple as that - I have given the answer over and over in my "nomenclature", So has Webby, So has Larry, So has Phwest and others.

All of us have just tried to make it simple for you and the others.

How much education does someone need to determine how much work can be done with a known volume, known pressure, and a known time. Highschool - I am sure you are taking a stand - you may be busy.

Yet I watch as some argue that using 15 cubic inches @ 640psi to generate 30 cubic inches @ 640psi in the same time frame - is not overunity - or not using the right words to describe - that we have 15 cubic inches extra - every stroke - 3.7 times a minute.

The patent is online - and has been discussed in great detail here - and I have submitted myself to answer questions -respectfully.
I have Very Good PE's (engineers) Brilliant in fact - and many others have visited from around the world - here in Chickasha Oklahoma - They have prepared a brilliant presentation.
You were offered an inside peak.
If what I share - is too much trouble...not worth your effort... I understand - if you think you are teaching me to present to a Critically educated Crowd - We have good people for that.
I am just the inventor of the Z.E.D. who tried to share with those that would listen, get their hands wet, crunch a few simple numbers.

Good Day.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 11, 2012, 06:03:51 AM
@Mond:

It's a thought all right, and since I'm in San Antonio it wouldn't be a huge trip. Unfortunately... or maybe fortunately... for us all I'm not able to travel right now.

I am waiting to hear about MD's visit and evaluation.

I'm also kind of bemused at the 2000 dollars. Although I wasn't ever in the running.... and I'm not knocking Webby's efforts at all, I think they are great.... I'm really not sure just what was produced that was worth that much money. It's not quite a pushbutton demonstrator of overunity yet, is it? And I thought that was what was required for the reward.

We've got a bit of history, mondrasek and I, don't we? We had some fun back in the day, and I still think that Mondrasek magnet-assisted gravity motor you designed and I built is the closest thing to a "working" gravmag motor I've seen yet, especially with the JK "latch" wires. All it needs is some negative-friction lube for the magnetweights and it would go like gangbusters.
 ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 06:09:54 AM
Wayne,
 
Would you be willing to host a visit by TK?
 
TK,
 
Would you be willing to visit Wayne and examine him and the device face to face?  What would you need to make that a reality?
 
Just a thought.
 
M.
Hello M,
 
I do not recall TK ever being a Disinformationist, baiter, overly arrogant, or attacking. Welcome - if it is not too much trouble.

Most anyone who is of the spirit to actually discover what we have is welcome.

Let me answer broadly....

On my list of Not Welcome:

Mark Euthanasia - another forum - Lied repeatedly about us and our members and refused to apologize after he was repeatedly caught in them.

Milehigh - Microcontroller, Seamus101 and 102, Never offered a contributing word - and mocked the truth at every page.

Nor the guy who made the video of lies, slander and insults - what ever his name was.

On my list of welcome - people who really want to know the truth, I very much respect those that take the time from their busy schedule to see.

Who I don't care for - only had one so far - who refuse to believe what is backed up by the simple math, the complex math, and the physical proof - Who needs a dogmatic denial? Seen enough here.

What I will not share - our business plans, our improvements, who is helping us and our new patents.

Other than that - fair game - several who have visited reported here on this site to that effect.
 
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 11, 2012, 06:15:37 AM
Well, MrWayne, you sound a bit "tetchy" today.

Quote
Yet I watch as some argue that using 15 cubic inches @ 640psi to generate 30 cubic inches @ 640psi in the same time frame - is not overunity - or not using the right words to describe - that we have 15 cubic inches extra - every stroke - 3.7 times a minute.

As far as I am aware this is the first time that you have come close to stating work in / work out in actual measurable numbers. Has anyone _actually_ argued that those numbers you cite would not be overunity performance?

I think that what has actually been argued is that an input stroke of, say, 10 pounds of force over 15 inches of stroke, output producing a 20 pound lift force over 7 inches of stroke, is not overunity performance. But this is a different form of argument from what you are stating.

But even here you are stating it as a hypothetical.  Is this really your claim? If someone were to take a single one of your Zeds at a resting state, and inject 15 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid or water at 640 psi, will you really get 30 cubic inches at 640 psi back out?

ETA: I'm not hostile or rabid. I have said before that I've suspended disbelief and I'm taking MrWayne at his word... but I'm still trying to find out to my satisfaction just what the "word" really is. Are we dealing with a force multiplication system or a work amplifier? Very different beasties.

And I don't know anybody who has ever been able to figure out how to build a complex apparatus from a patent. What's needed for builders are engineering drawings with measurements, and dynamical analyses, and all that there stuff.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 11, 2012, 01:07:59 PM
@Tk. You ask the question "If someone were to take a single one of your Zeds at resting state, and inject 15 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid or water at 640 PSI , will you really get 30 cubic inches at 640 PSI back out."
        The fact that you asked this question demonstrates very clearly that you have not invested the effort to understand even the basics of this system.
 
1. Hydraulic fluid is never injected into a ZED, only water, and during set up, air.
2.Whatever is injected into a Zed, the input pressure
is in the region of 10 PSI max. Any more will result in blown skirts.
3.The only place in the system we find hydraulic fluid at 640 PSI , is in the transmission system between the ZEDs and the generator. The transmission uses conventional hydraulic components.
Please do your homework.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 01:35:49 PM
I just want to clarify what Wayne has said and has continued to do here on OU.com.  It is not to PROVE he has an OU device.  He knows he has one.  He has built it and can watch it run every day.  His plan for "proving" it to the world involved coming on this board over a year ago to ask for advise and assistance.  To that end he ended up in contact with Mark Dansie and has been working under his advisement to prepare for the testing required to "prove" his system.  It is Mark Dansie and his team that is to "prove" the system to the rest of us.
 
Wayne came here to OU to teach those who want to learn how his system works.  He has helped those who try to model and simulate a system every step of the way.  He is helping those individuals to prove it to themselves, even in advance of the "proof" from MD and team.
 
I appreciate those who want to see the "proof" of the OU of Wayne's actual machine(s).  I want that too.  But he has never said that is what he is here to do.  And barring some change of direction from Wayne, we all have been told to wait on MD for that.  If you want to pester someone for the proof, maybe you should pester MD?
 
But if you want to take Wayne up on his offer to learn how his set up works, to better understand the patent, or to build an analysis tool or even a device, please ask him any questions to that end.  He has so far answered with assistance on anything that is already public domain and even a bit more (when we have discovered more along the way).
 
Also, an opening statement like, "Sir, you are a liar,"  is just rude and bad form all around.  It is a classic example of what some individuals think is acceptable behavior while they are completely hidden behind the safety of the Internet.  If such "etiquette" were used in a face to face conversation, it would not be tolerated.  Especially when there is no evidence presented of any lie having been told by the accused?  So this is just name calling?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 11, 2012, 02:41:59 PM
Excellent use of the language @M !!
Amen

And Thank You Mr Wayne for doing all of the above.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 03:02:11 PM
Well, MrWayne, you sound a bit "tetchy" today.


I will look that word  up, but if it means tired of misdirection and misrepresentation - it is true.

It is in my weakness that I find strength - thank you for the concern.

At the end of the Day - We have the cure for the world's Energy needs, clean and reliable - we can deal with junk talk - it just sets my heart back a moment when the pearls are trampled upon - and then I realize - some will - the strength comes from the truth - it will prevail.
 
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 03:49:56 PM
Sir, You are a Liar.
Seamus and Milehigh offered some very good arguments.
Just because they do not fit your overunity claim does not mean they are not contributing nor does it mean they are telling lies.
Untill you deliver undeniable proof that your invention works it does not matter who sais what because there is nothing to start with.

And encouraging people to use the report to moderator button because you feel someone is throwing non existent stink bag's at you just shows your weakness and that fact that you want to play out the good guy's against the bad guy's.
But for that to happen you are on the wrong board buddy.
You want our moderator to get rid of the skeptics well let me tell you this: it ain't gonna happen...
We are not here to attack anyone or to cause trouble, so stop acting like we do, we just want the truth and you know it.

You speak of the skeptics as being liars, but don't forget you still didn't supply any proof that your invention actually works and untill you do so, everybody is contributing, and nobody is telling lies.
You can put an end to this by proving your claim!

It seems you have a problem making up your own truth and you have a tendency to see criticism as being 'stink bags' while they are not.
It is just a means to an end which is the solution for both party's so once again:

IT'S UP TO YOU.

Please no more words just prove your claim.

@ ALL
Micro and his team have been trying to twist this conversation all year to deviate from the clear and stated purpose of my visit here.

It is up to me to stay on topic and on focus - to share our discovery and to explain the patent and to answer questions.
We have a team secured for the "Extraordinary proof" it is impossible to show that level of proof here - that is not our purpose.

As far as Micro's rant above:

It is a simple task to click on someone's name and read just their posts - the truth is presented - who is doing "what" is clear.
And as has been suggested by several members here -

When Micro, Seamus, MH try to twist our conversation from explaining our system into their own purpose with insults, slander, and disinformation - whatever that might be - use the moderator button.


Everytime they try to change the conversation and state that I have to prove something to them - such as O/U - they are not trying to learn - they are trying to redirect the conversation.
Thank You.

@Micro your insults to our discussions are cataloged - as I said before - you will owe us an apology, I hope you have the character when MD's Team is done.
I have called liars.... liars - and Skeptics..... Skeptics there is a big difference - throwing insults does not make you a Skeptic.

Splitting and dividing - it is you who have said repeatedly - "I am with you seamus" - followed by slander of the group actually contributing.

It will be a refreshing surprise, for your sake, I hope for you, and I pray you find the character.

Finally: I have stated my position - You will not lead this thread away from the topic - listen - do the due diligence - get your hands wet - add to the topic - or move on.

To those that have - Very well done indeed - and you are only on the surface "the tricycle stage" of what we have going on here - much more fun to come!

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 03:52:18 PM
Excellent use of the language @M !!
Amen

And Thank You Mr Wayne for doing all of the above.
Dale
Thank you Dale,
I know that truly interested people are here - I appreciate you and the others very much.
I have nothing to gain from this - but sharing is its own reward.
Thank you and M. and the others with such a heart -Very Much.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 03:55:12 PM
I just want to clarify what Wayne has said and has continued to do here on OU.com.  It is not to PROVE he has an OU device.  He knows he has one.  He has built it and can watch it run every day.  His plan for "proving" it to the world involved coming on this board over a year ago to ask for advise and assistance.  To that end he ended up in contact with Mark Dansie and has been working under his advisement to prepare for the testing required to "prove" his system.  It is Mark Dansie and his team that is to "prove" the system to the rest of us.
 
Wayne came here to OU to teach those who want to learn how his system works.  He has helped those who try to model and simulate a system every step of the way.  He is helping those individuals to prove it to themselves, even in advance of the "proof" from MD and team.
 
I appreciate those who want to see the "proof" of the OU of Wayne's actual machine(s).  I want that too.  But he has never said that is what he is here to do.  And barring some change of direction from Wayne, we all have been told to wait on MD for that.  If you want to pester someone for the proof, maybe you should pester MD?
 
But if you want to take Wayne up on his offer to learn how his set up works, to better understand the patent, or to build an analysis tool or even a device, please ask him any questions to that end.  He has so far answered with assistance on anything that is already public domain and even a bit more (when we have discovered more along the way).
 
Also, an opening statement like, "Sir, you are a liar,"  is just rude and bad form all around.  It is a classic example of what some individuals think is acceptable behavior while they are completely hidden behind the safety of the Internet.  If such "etiquette" were used in a face to face conversation, it would not be tolerated.  Especially when there is no evidence presented of any lie having been told by the accused?  So this is just name calling?
 
M.
You have restated this very clearly, thank you M. for all that you do and have done.
When you are ready to come - let me know.
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 04:25:18 PM
Well, MrWayne, you sound a bit "tetchy" today.

As far as I am aware this is the first time that you have come close to stating work in / work out in actual measurable numbers. Has anyone _actually_ argued that those numbers you cite would not be overunity performance?

I think that what has actually been argued is that an input stroke of, say, 10 pounds of force over 15 inches of stroke, output producing a 20 pound lift force over 7 inches of stroke, is not overunity performance. But this is a different form of argument from what you are stating.

But even here you are stating it as a hypothetical.  Is this really your claim? If someone were to take a single one of your Zeds at a resting state, and inject 15 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid or water at 640 psi, will you really get 30 cubic inches at 640 psi back out?

ETA: I'm not hostile or rabid. I have said before that I've suspended disbelief and I'm taking MrWayne at his word... but I'm still trying to find out to my satisfaction just what the "word" really is. Are we dealing with a force multiplication system or a work amplifier? Very different beasties.

And I don't know anybody who has ever been able to figure out how to build a complex apparatus from a patent. What's needed for builders are engineering drawings with measurements, and dynamical analyses, and all that there stuff.
Hello Tk,
I agree with your logic - and experience.

I have not been here to use my machine to prove anything - and yes - it is very Overunity
MD made a video and in it explained where our output was basically twice the input - and that though the pressures changed during the stroke - they always returned to the starting point - with no additional input.

Here is a link to that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)

Listen closely to his words - he is right in what he observed.

That was back in Nov - his second visit - We were bleeding off the extra in that video - and since then - we took that rough model and converted it to a self runner with Data collection and electrical generation.

Now when answering questions for the team here - I have referred to that model and the data we pull - when questions about their personal modeling have risen - just to compare real world - physical comparison to the replications or modeling results.
Our physical model is a great indicator if someone is off track - usually overstating the actual - until they find where they left a cost of function out of their own model.

As one of our Very wise Advisers (who knows our system and its physics) explained to me - third party replication/duplication is more valuable than any other form of proof.

When M, and others decided to replicate - I know it only takes a couple hundred at most to build a set up - not to put on the shelf at wal mart  - but to scrutinize study and to test certain physics - such as input and output so i offered the funding to those that were willing.

Several started - I saw a real cool square mock up - but Webby followed thru and had a simple system that proved that the input was far less than the output -

I did not design his input and output - so I can not be for sure - but as he described it to me - he added a much lesser weight and lifted a much greater load - in the same time and the same distance - his details he sent to me privately - so I called him the winner.
The fact that he followed thru and then had the bravery to announce his findings - is a notch in my respect for his character.
I have countless numbers of people who replicate but are afraid of peer pressure.

The system is preloaded and that confuses people... but as others say - it is hard to jump into the conversation and expect to follow what is being discussed. Especially if you do not have a clear grasp of the function of the machine.

The desire for many - is to focus on one Zed - its in put and out put - this is a mistake - it is like calculating the work of a teeter totter with only the physics of "one side" and then trying to claim the system "balances".

More later - My beautiful wife has breakfast ;-)

Wayne
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
WELL I SUGGEST YOU GET 'R DONE THEN.

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

Are you going to keep repeating yourself? over and over ??
Like i said, at this point, i do not owe you anything.
I certainly hope this will change, but i doubt it.
I agree that i can be a little direct but there is nothing wrong with that.
We have seen so many fakers that we want to separate the fake from the real quickly, and you are not very helpfull, doing a terrible job at that.
It is almost as if you want your 'game' to continue in this fashion..
So once more, prove your claim or expect resistance from the skeptics and stop whining.
MC,
Each time you say this - I wonder how all the others were able to replicate from the patent and my help?
Did all your fakers have engineers posting their own physical and mathematical models?
You are dealing with the real thing my eager person - you will have to broaden your self determined limitations  a bit.
"Get er done" don't you worry about that - our team is doing an excellent job.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 04:53:24 PM

We have seen so many fakers that we want to separate the fake from the real quickly, and you are not very helpfull, doing a terrible job at that.


MC,
 
Please substitute the pronoun "I" where you used "we" above.  You do not speak for the group. The "me" of your "we" is in no such hurry, finds Wayne very helpful, and thinks he is doing a fine job at offering information that he does not need to provide for any reason at all.
 
Cheers,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 05:49:17 PM
Well Mr. mondrasek let me clear that out for you.
We is me and my team so, not you and me.

I wonder how long it takes for a person to examine if a device is overunity or not.
Maybe one day? or one week? one month? maybe one year??

Whoever needs that long must be either stupid or does not know anything about the subject.
At this point we have 80  pages of nonsense and make belief.
A good examiner should be able to tell within minutes if not seconds whether a device is 'massively overunity' or not.
Given that there is no external supply feeding any logic or in this case, air pressure.

So i have decided to rest my case since this is an endless discussion between a guy making claims without the courage to properly back them up and some people interested in REAL new technology.

Time will tell.
Well MC,

I understand you have never had to succeed thru multiple layers of Validation in a Free energy machine, I do not brag - I am humbled at the willingness and diligence afforded this invention.
Now - we have covered this topic before it is not a one step process. - unless you fail a step - in which case you go no further.

I know you already know this - you have made this insult before.

To All,

We have been through 7 levels of validation and passed all to date - only two more to go.

On that Note: it has been explained to me - that no one has passed - with a mechanical free energy device - even 2 stages before.

As I have also stated - I do not set the parameters of the test - I just work to meet them - each step was and is exponentially harder than last - but it is a fair process.

A silly statement like how many seconds - it would take to prove .... simply no experience with a real device.
First - a redirection again to prove our system instead of help and guide others....
Second;

It is not about "does it work" - that was level 2, - it is about "How", "Scalability", "NewTechnology", "Market", "ROI", "sustainability ", "reliability engineering", "Weibell passed modeling", "manufacturing", scientific proof,  and "good partnerships and business planning".

@ MC -You have "rested your case" from the beginning - no change, no learning, only insults and trash.

The only thing I have seen from you - was your negativity and attempt to change this forum so that it is about your thoughts - not the invention covered in this thread.

Bad form on this forum.
Good luck with you and your work.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 11, 2012, 06:33:55 PM
Meanwhile, the legitimate and fair question about work in vs. work out or average power in vs. average power out remains unanswered.  Some in "the flock" are clearly confused by these fundamental concepts.  Ironically, that is what this machine is supposed to be all about.

TK, if you ever were to visit Wayne, be sure to bring along a mechanic's stethoscope and listen in on the guts of this thing.  If you could record and run FFTs so much the better.

Quote
But even here you are stating it as a hypothetical.  Is this really your claim? If someone were to take a single one of your Zeds at a resting state, and inject 15 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid or water at 640 psi, will you really get 30 cubic inches at 640 psi back out

TK, it looks like you made a slip-up unless I am misunderstanding you.  "X cubic inches of an incompressible fluid at Y PSI" is actually a meaningless statement.  There is no energy stored in an incompressible fluid at a given pressure.  No comment from Mr. Wayne either.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 07:36:36 PM
MH,

 In case you forgot - until you show respect to others - as we discussed the last time you were here - don't expect me to engage.

Second - everytime you try to mislead people - one of us will set the record straight.

If you want to engage - respectfully, and with a question regarding your attempt to replicate, duplicate, or understand the function of our system.

Otherwise - Do not expect a "comment" from me.

If you want to twist the conversation to your topic of "proving our system to you" once again - as I have repeated time after time
- We have an excellent team for that. Not why I am here - and you have been told that repeatedly.

Stick to the work we are doing here -show a mite of respect to others, or do not expect engagement.

Good day.

@All, I try very hard to answer questions - I asked before - but I need to say it again - please ask single questions - I have very little time to sit and answer - multi quizzical questions get partial answers which give MH twists into accusations against me.

p.s. as I told MH last time he made these charges - if he throws a stink bag in the front, middle, or end of a question - it is just a stink bag.

Thank You

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 11, 2012, 07:37:21 PM

TK, it looks like you made a slip-up unless I am misunderstanding you.  "X cubic inches of an incompressible fluid at Y PSI" is actually a meaningless statement.  There is no energy stored in an incompressible fluid at a given pressure.  No comment from Mr. Wayne either.

A hydraulic accumulator is a pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure) storage reservoir in which a non-compressible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompressible) hydraulic fluid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fluid) is held under pressure by an external source. The external source can be a spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_(device)), a raised weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight), or a compressed gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas). An accumulator enables a hydraulic system to cope with extremes of demand using a less powerful pump, to respond more quickly to a temporary demand, and to smooth out pulsations. It is a type of energy storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage) device.
Compressed gas accumulators, also called hydro-pneumatic accumulators, are by far the most common type.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 07:47:04 PM
Spectacular!  From both sides.
 
Seriously, well done all.
 
I recommend everyone take a short time out.  Maybe an hour or two?
 
I'm gonna go line trim my yard.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 07:48:44 PM
To all,
I took the time to respond to the mass of accusations and disinformation,
The pattern is clear - Each time you make progress, the barrage of four or five pages of misdirection. And when those do not work, personal attack (I am not referring to TK).
It is clear to those who truly follow this thread - we are about getting to the bottom of questions.
M was right, and to add to his statement - the world deserves to know what we have.
I profit nothing from sharing - and I give up valuable time - but I respect your time - those who diligently seek the answers - so let's move on.
I understand a few of you have some really great work to share - I look forward to it!
I challenged this group with a 2K challenge Webby won -
I also offer Se3d 5K to build an education model with his molding and extrusion experience - I think he is about to collect ;-)
We have great things ahead of us - as M. said - this is not about us - I agree and add  - we need to avoid those that try to make it so.
Again - as we succeed - your lives will be improved for the better in many ways!
Wayne Travis.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 11, 2012, 08:08:01 PM
LarryC:

Quote
A hydraulic accumulator is a pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure) storage reservoir in which a non-compressible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompressible) hydraulic fluid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fluid) is held under pressure by an external source. The external source can be a spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_%28device%29), a raised weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight), or a compressed gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas). An accumulator enables a hydraulic system to cope with extremes of demand using a less powerful pump, to respond more quickly to a temporary demand, and to smooth out pulsations. It is a type of energy storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage) device.
Compressed gas accumulators, also called hydro-pneumatic accumulators, are by far the most common type.

Yes I fully agree.  A hydraulic accumulator is a form of mechanical energy storage, sometimes it can look exactly like a mechanical capacitor.  The problem remains as I stated it, "X cubic inches of a non-compressible fluid at Y PSI" tells you nothing at all about how much energy is stored in the hydraulic accumulator.  There is no energy stored in the non-compressible fluid itself, none.

The non-compressible fluid is just a passive component that makes up part of the hydraulic accumulator.  So the TK phrase I quoted where he compared two different volumes of non-compressible fluid does not tell you anything.  What is not known is the "path" that gets the fluid up to that pressure.  Without knowing the path you can't perform the integration and so you have nothing to go on.

Wayne:  You can try to demonize me all you want but my questions posted a few days ago did not attack anybody and were legitimate questions.  There was no "disinformation" or "misdirection" inherent in them.  In my opinion all that you are doing is demasking yourself when you do that so others can see you more clearly.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 08:11:00 PM
I recommend everyone take a short time out.  Maybe an hour or two?

Just to clarify for the majority of the world:
 
One to two hours of my US time is about 60 to 120 minutes of metric time.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 11, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
MH,
 
I do agree that this time round - I noticed improvement.

You referenced the lack of responses in the past to your questions - which were not respectful - I made it clear why I did not answer those questions:
And - I will not respond to questions laced with insinuations etc. - and that will still be my position to all.
You also referenced that "lack of response" to those "laden questions" as proof I was evading answering - you were very clear.
It was a clear misrepresentation of the facts.

Thank you for your efforts. I did notice you were not as rude as last time.

Are we ready to move on, to questions pertaining to the discussion? I am.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 09:08:13 PM
So, here in the US you can buy soda (Pepsi, Coke, etc.) in 2-liter containers made of PETE.  They appear to be about 4 inches (~101.6 mm) in diameter.  The vertical height of the straight walled section appears to be about 6 inches (~152.4 mm).
 
I think these can be as easy to find and work with as the tennis ball tubes that @neptune used.
 
They have the same problems though...  How to bond them into smaller cylinders?  What end cap materials to use and how to bond those?  Et cetera.
 
But they are (like @neptune's solution) very thin walled and easily available (at least here in the US).
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Cisco on August 11, 2012, 09:26:45 PM

Last Sunday in Post #1148, Wayne reported, "PhWest found a plastic bottle company that sold plastic bottles incrementally sized."
Neptune followed up with a request to PhWest for a ". . .link to the source of these incrementally sized plastic bottles. That on its own would facilitate more replications."  No response has been forthcoming.
PhWest, are you out there?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 11, 2012, 09:37:24 PM
@Mondrasek. Can I respectfully point out that the tennis ball tubes were in fact Webby1`s idea. My suggestion , as yet untried was tinplate , soldered together. The problem with tinplate is that it is not of course transparent.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 09:42:25 PM
@Mondrasek. Can I respectfully point out that the tennis ball tubes were in fact Webby1`s idea. My suggestion , as yet untried was tinplate , soldered together. The problem with tinplate is that it is not of course transparent.

Most definitely! Full credit for the tennis ball tube material solution goes to Webby!

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 11, 2012, 09:56:02 PM
@Tk. You ask the question "If someone were to take a single one of your Zeds at resting state, and inject 15 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid or water at 640 PSI , will you really get 30 cubic inches at 640 PSI back out."
        The fact that you asked this question demonstrates very clearly that you have not invested the effort to understand even the basics of this system.
 
1. Hydraulic fluid is never injected into a ZED, only water, and during set up, air.
2.Whatever is injected into a Zed, the input pressure
is in the region of 10 PSI max. Any more will result in blown skirts.
3.The only place in the system we find hydraulic fluid at 640 PSI , is in the transmission system between the ZEDs and the generator. The transmission uses conventional hydraulic components.
Please do your homework.

Really? Did you not see MrWayne's answers to my question? Here they are again:

Quote
Currently we are stroking 6 total inches in a stroke - and capturing 30 cubic inches of pressurized hydraulic fluid @ 640 psi
We stroke 3.7 times a minute.

And in another post:
Quote
Yet I watch as some argue that using 15 cubic inches @ 640psi to generate 30 cubic inches @ 640psi in the same time frame - is not overunity - or not using the right words to describe - that we have 15 cubic inches extra - every stroke - 3.7 times a minute.

So what part of my homework am I not doing? You seem to be contradicting what MrWayne is saying in those two quotes. Please "educate" me. What am I missing? The claim seems to be very clear: you put in 15 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid at 640 psi and you "generate" 30 cubic inches at 640 psi. Is that NOT what MrWayne is saying in the quotes?

Please tell me then what he IS saying. Where can these pressure and flow readings be obtained in the system?

And perhaps more importantly.... what happens to all that generated hydraulic fluid, and why doesn't the machine tear itself apart?

If I am misunderstanding something it is because the explanations given have been inadequate, and include statements like those I have quoted above.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 11, 2012, 10:09:39 PM
Meanwhile, the legitimate and fair question about work in vs. work out or average power in vs. average power out remains unanswered.  Some in "the flock" are clearly confused by these fundamental concepts.  Ironically, that is what this machine is supposed to be all about.

TK, if you ever were to visit Wayne, be sure to bring along a mechanic's stethoscope and listen in on the guts of this thing.  If you could record and run FFTs so much the better.

TK, it looks like you made a slip-up unless I am misunderstanding you.  "X cubic inches of an incompressible fluid at Y PSI" is actually a meaningless statement.  There is no energy stored in an incompressible fluid at a given pressure.  No comment from Mr. Wayne either.

You are misunderstanding me, evidently... because those pressures and volumes in my question came directly from MrWayne.
He said:
Quote
Currently we are stroking 6 total inches in a stroke - and capturing 30 cubic inches of pressurized hydraulic fluid @ 640 psi
We stroke 3.7 times a minute.
And
Quote
Yet I watch as some argue that using 15 cubic inches @ 640psi to generate 30 cubic inches @ 640psi in the same time frame - is not overunity - or not using the right words to describe - that we have 15 cubic inches extra - every stroke - 3.7 times a minute.

So I noted that the second statement seems like a hypothetical, and I asked if it was really the claim. How is that a slip-up?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 11, 2012, 10:19:29 PM
@Mondrasek. Can I respectfully point out that the tennis ball tubes were in fact Webby1`s idea. My suggestion , as yet untried was tinplate , soldered together. The problem with tinplate is that it is not of course transparent.

My solution is to look on the Internet for suppliers of clear plastic tubes in nesting sizes. For this work I would prefer polycarbonate to acrylic.

http://www.jcdanczak.com/our_products/subcat_16.html (http://www.jcdanczak.com/our_products/subcat_16.html)
http://www.k-mac-plastics.net/polycarbonate-tubes.htm (http://www.k-mac-plastics.net/polycarbonate-tubes.htm)
http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23791 (http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23791)
http://www.carrierplastics.com/polycarbonate_tubes.html (http://www.carrierplastics.com/polycarbonate_tubes.html)
http://www.interstateplastics.com/Clear-Polycarbonate-Tube-POLCE.php (http://www.interstateplastics.com/Clear-Polycarbonate-Tube-POLCE.php)

I think that 2 thousand dollars would certainly be enough to buy a set of nesting polycarbonate tubes of the required length, wall thickness and intertube clearances. With quite a bit left over for machine shop expenses.

Somehow I still feel that my own credibility as a builder and a cooperative correspondent is still being questioned. Here is a build that I did entirely on my own dime in an effort to help Mondrasek out a couple of years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 11, 2012, 10:37:20 PM
@TK.My post to you about doing your homework was not intended to be disrespectful. If I am honest, and I always try to be honest, I did not fully understand wayne`s post where he speaks of 15and 30 cubic inches of fluid at 640 PSI. It is just that you spoke about injecting hydraulic fluid or water into a ZED at 640 PSI. Wayne did not say that.
     The machine consists of a number of separate systems.
1.The ZEDs, which work at pressure of up to about 10PSI. These are mechanically linked to
2. A high pressure hydraulic system . So the ZEDs pump hydraulic fluid at high pressure into the accumulator. It does not tear itself apart, because from the accumulator, fluid is bled off to drive a hydraulic motor to drive an alternator. Also some fluid is used to drive rams which help to activate the transfer of water from one ZED to the other.
3. The only place we would find 640 PSI is in the hydraulic transmission system.
 I stand by the points I made in my previous reply to you.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 10:37:45 PM
TK,
 
Yeah, that is funny.  But OUCH man!
 
You had a great French phrase I believe for it?  My "Epiphany" that is.  You used it over on the "Village of the Banned?"  Do you remember the one I am describing?  I had to look it up and I thought it was spot on.
 
Seriously...  Your build skills are excellent. 
 
I'll pay for the WD40 and maybe some of the acrylic (I'm not rich) if you have a machine shop to work in.  And if you are willing to give us all a new TK build (seriously, RA is soooooo 15 seconds ago).
 
Cheers.
 
Mike Ondrasek
 
PS. My original "gravity latches" negated any issues with the magnets making contact and maintaining attraction to the "JK" wires.  Plus they allowed for the magnets to travel TWICE as far down the drilled holes (in your build) once past 3 o'clock! 
 
All of which means nothing if you do the math...  So once again, I apologize to anyone who believed in that idea.
 
The one thing I learned from that experience is that TK can build.  And test properly.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 11, 2012, 10:47:50 PM
TK:

Please look at my posting #1247 to LarryC.

I realize that the root for your statement comes from Wayne's comment:  "using 15 cubic inches @ 640psi to generate 30 cubic inches @ 640psi in the same time frame."

It's just not right.  We can't assume anything.  We can make a reasonable assumption that whatever the non-compressible fluid is pushing against is not returning a constant pressure.  So what is the force x displacement "pressure path" to end up with 15 cubic inches @ 640 psi?  We don't know.  Without knowing that we can't perform the P(x)dx integration where dx represents the infinitesimal displacement as we compress the fluid.  What is the effective area we are pushing with?   What is the effective area we are pushing against?

There is no energy content in 15 cubic inches of non-compressible fluid at 640 psi.  There are no valid units.   We are back to the same question.  How many joules of energy did it take to arrive at 15 cubic inches of non-compressible fluid at 640 psi?  We simply don't know.

Thought experiment:  You fill up a solid steel box with one-inch-thick walls with an interior that is 10 x 10 x 10 inches.   You close up the box with a one-inch-thick steel top that has a gasket and eliminate all the air and bolt it into place.  On one of the the walls of the box there is a tapped fine-pitched thread with a bolt inserted that terminates with a thumb wheel.

At the start the pressure of the non-compressible fluid is zero PSI.  Then you give the thumb wheel five clockwise turns and the end of the bolt slowly pushes it's way into the non-compressible fluid.

You end up with 1000 cubic inches of non-compressible fluid at 1000 psi.

Big deal, it means nothing.   It took very little energy to bring the non-compressible fluid up to 1000 psi.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 11, 2012, 11:19:01 PM
ATEOTD we are all interested in whether Mr Wayne has found a mechanical OU system that has the ability to self sustain itself [without loosing PE] & do external Work [Joules] - this is the same as saying that the Output Energy is greater than the Input energy in layman terms - off course all energy must be accounted for somehow.

Mr Wayne says he has competent engineers & advisers on his team - I have no doubt that most if not all of them are classically trained in physics & would have been scratching their collective heads to identify the apparent energy conundrum - they do have more information than the average thread follower & have probably narrowed down the 'suspect list'.

My initial thoughts still hold true to me - that if taken on face value that the dual ZED's work as described & that the system is OU, then I expect that a likely candidate for energy entering the system to balance the energy budget is from an ambient source.

I suspect that we would be looking at a type of heat pump or refrigerator analogue i.e. the air is compressed in the pods & due to compression the temp of the air increases - the liquid acts as a heat sink & the thermal energy is drawn away from the compressed air into the medium & ultimately into the surrounding ambient air around the machine - then when the pods are allowed to do work the compressed air expands & cools as per the ideal gas laws etc - thermal energy re-enters the system [heat flows from hot to cold regions] & the air coming off compression expands further giving augmented force amplification.

It seems like a classic heat pump scenario with adiabatic & isothermal phases where thermal energy does mechanical Work to my way of thoughts - ultimately a heat engine where the machine draws thermal energy from the environment & this is used to do Work.

Disclaimer: this is a hypothesis of operation to explain an anomalous energy gain in a self sustaining machine cited by others as factual.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 11:40:01 PM
Hi fletcher,
 
A great classical physics analysis and theory.  Glad to have your head in the scrum.
 
Just a side note question:  Are you in "town" for awhile or heading back out (away from the computer) soon?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 12, 2012, 12:30:11 AM
Thank you Larry,
All of our production goes into an accumulator -
And then we power the water moving system with a portion of that production.
Our input cylinder (lever arm) - is fed from the accumulator has a surface area of .998 inches - it travels 12 inches - yet we only supply pressure during the last 6 inches.
Our output cylinder is 4.995
 
It is not an inch for inch system - the lever arm travels (during the last six inches) 2 inches to produce a 1 inch stroke in the production cylinder.
and then the process repeats.
And we have some losses in the process so at the end of the day - 2 inches (consumption) at the lever arm gets us 5 inches production and after losses we end up with just about 2.5 inches gain - per half stroke.
Or a full cycle - we consume 12 inches of fluid - and produce 30 - loose 3 in the process - netting 15 at best.

Now we currently run 3.7 strokes a minute - net just 55 cubic inches a minute
 This was supposed to be a 40 watt demo and data collection system.
It is close - about 36watts.
Have a meeting
Later,.
Wayne  - typing in a hurry - so forgive me.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 12, 2012, 01:52:00 AM
Updates to simple as it gets proof  'Archimedes Pod versus Travis 4 Riser System' picture.
 
I'll take the green horse colors(4 Riser) for a race, as nobody with common sense would take the red horse colors(Archimedes)?
 
Wayne has previously stated that the number of Risers effect efficiencies. This should now be obvious that more riser would increase the 37" to 164" advantage and less Risers would decrease the 37" to 164" advantage.
 
Regards, Larry
 
PS: How long will it take for the deceivers to bury this one, with their babbling BS, just observes who tries and the fact that not one of them wants the Red colors?
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 12, 2012, 02:27:10 AM
Hi fletcher,
 
A great classical physics analysis and theory.  Glad to have your head in the scrum.
 
Just a side note question:  Are you in "town" for awhile or heading back out (away from the computer) soon?
 
M.

Hi M .. just in town for a short stopover & away again.

As you can see I am more interested in the energy budgeting approach than the actual mechanics because the Laws of Thermodynamics are over arching above Newtonian physics & mechanics - interestingly Bernoulli fluid dynamics is predicated on COE & makes no allowance for adiabatic cooling followed by isothermal warming, as I propose as a potential way for thermal energy to enter the "apparent" closed system.

I do find it curious that Mr Wayne & other insiders so far [unless I missed it] have not offered up any coherent theories about balancing the energy budget - I do not believe this is an oversight & it would be the main target of my inquiries if the mechanics demonstrated "apparent" OU & I was one of those convinced of what I was seeing - those same resident engineers & advisers [& Mr Wayne] must have formed some theories by now that could be shared here without compromising any patents etc so I don't know why that is not forthcoming, if it is so ?

On that note, & in the interests of resolving and/or replicating these claims, I would trust yourself & TK's build & analysis, if either of you were willing to put some time & effort into an independent build(s) - it would be appreciated by me especially, to help get to the bottom of this.

P.S. to test the ambient thermal energy input hypothesis the uninsulated control system could be tested against a thermally insulated system to see if the results varied significantly - the results, either way, would be a good clue to ruling something in or out.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 12, 2012, 02:57:24 AM
Excellent!
 
Thanks fletcher and seamus10n!
 
Sounds like the MOAC is needed?  TK, what say you?
 
I am assuming this test will require a miniature ZED system build since the MOAC would be very, very, very difficult to construct on the scale of the current ZED system?
 
About the "set up" question...
 
I go into auto manufacturing plants a couple times a week.  I see automobiles being assembled.  About 400 per shift per line, or 800 per day, per line.  Some assembly plants have three lines, so, about 2400 cars per day...
 
If you do not believe this please use Google Earth to look at the US state of Kentucky.  Before you even zoom in further than the borders of the state you will be able to see a dot just North of Lexington that is known as Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky (TMMK).  They have more acerage under roof than any other company in KY IIRC.
 
So, an automobile requires how many parts to be assembled?  And each of those parts requires how much energy to manufacture?  And so when I purchase that vehicle it is declared on the MPG (or KPL) rating that the "set up", or manufacturing costs, of the vehicle must be considered? 
 
Well then my Toyota Camry costs -.025 MPG when I buy it, no?  (Edited to add, I really drive a Chrysler.)
 
Seamus102, I know this is not an "apples to apples" comparison, so please don't take it as such.  It is only meant as a thinking point.
 
Sorry.
 
Back on topic.
 
So, where were we?
 
M.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 12, 2012, 06:51:05 AM
A question for you Mr Wayne.. Have you or your engineers accounted for this energy source in your calculations?

I wish I had read this earlier, I just had a meeting with the Engineers to review the Presentation they have prepared for Mark and his groups.

When we were reviewing the little 160% model 36watt model - and its design in comparison to the 10kw model which is over 800% efficient - I paused to think - if people can not grasp the 160% what are they going to do with the 800%? ???

So I asked them ....How does it feel to be so confident in a system that you were well educated to "know" was impossible? (as you remember I dealt with negativity all day on the forum - and to see those brilliant men in complete and utter confidence in the Physics was curious)  - they said "It feels pretty good!'

A little misunderstanding about our system - we have reduced the input cost - we do not get more out of the system than it could generate - The wrong question is "where does the energy come from" - the right question is "how did you reduce the input".

Larry has been doing an excellent Job showing how our layered system reduces the input. If you are looking for missing energy - you might not see it.

In our system - reducing the input while still producing within the capability of the system.

I know this is hard to swallow - that is why we have the big dogs working to prepare the world - as Mark explained - "it is a paradigm shift in the understanding of physics"

When Mark asked that same question last year in May - that was hard to explain - until you could wrap you head around these
Four things:
Our system is like a hydro pneumatic piston - we only supply input into the smallest diameter - yet we produce force from additive layers which continue to increase in diameter.

Second - we push down and gravity pulls down to generate an upward force - The upward force has no real weight value. (when you understand this point - you will understand why I say it is like we have a long lever we only have to move a short distance (Larry's Chart shows this today as well).

Third, the layering system increases the speed and along with point number one - increases the effectiveness of the Travis effect 11.1 times better than Archimedes' in time distance and mass.

Fourth - None of the energy used to push down is consumed - it is recycled every stroke - over and over.
So - it is design, gravity and system.

I hope this helps.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on August 12, 2012, 11:05:27 AM
almost 100 pages of pure garbage.
so far, no solid proof to prove the workings of this machine.
all of this could of been a lot easier and direct but now it's piling up into a mountain of shit.
a simple HD video showing ALL parts inside and out of this machine in operation could of saved us tons of time.
also a video showing the machine being put together one part at a time describing each part.
and having someone replicate your "over unity machine" by some dude and sending him 2,000 dollars doesn't prove anything either.
funny because many of us have seen this kind of mountain before and wont be the last either.

good day sir!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 12, 2012, 11:51:48 AM
@Mr Wayne. I am asking you personally to help clarify a statement you made earlier, which seems to have caused a misunderstanding between myself and others. Here is what you stated.
"I watch as some argue that using 15 cubic inches @640 PSI to generate 30 cubic inches @640 PSI in the same time frame is not overunity-or not using the right words to describe- is that we have is 15 cubic inches every stroke-3.7 times a minute."


I venture to suggest that you may have made a mistake when you wrote that. "Using 15 cubic inches to generate." Is that 15 cubic inches of water being injected into the ZED ? If it is, then it will surely not be at 640 PSI. If it is not the input to the ZED, what is it? I assume it must be the ZED input because it is the ZEDs that are OU, not the high pressure hydraulic transmission system.
    So for the sake of clarity, could you please help us here?
  Respect, neptune.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 12, 2012, 01:49:34 PM
No, it doesn't help and your engineers should be ashamed of themselves for believing it. I shall leave the argument at that and await proof that you have a working system.
Well, Enjoy yourself, lol.
Opposite and equal reaction - we just use what we push one way - and then let it push back - we pay for the loss in the travel.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 12, 2012, 02:11:05 PM
This is in conflict with this:

Overunity is a clear statement and it is something else then reducing input cost.
Reducing input cost means you improve the overall efficiency of a system but this is not the same as overunity.
Overunity means you get more energy out of a system then you put in.
The correct question then is: where does the extra energy come from.
If there is extra energy it has to come from somewhere.

Your words are in conflict.

To make things clear a system is overunity or it is not.
THere is no in between.
It cannot be overunity in 7 steps, it is OU or it is NOT.

Also, talking about 10 Kilowatt systems removes every doubt i have about this system being a fake.
You clearly have no understanding of how much 10Kw actually is.
That is about 10 water boilers ! are you INSANE?
The claims you make cannot be true, if you were to look at a system like your's producing 10 Kilowatts of power it would destroy itself within seconds, and the water will boil continuously, it will be vaporized in a few minutes and your unit would explode.
Here we go again.......lol

We have no input Zero, nada, none - we use our internal operating costs to calculate our efficiency - now - you can stand on your idea that overunity must be magical energy - but ours is not that kind of Overunity.

I am sure you know that if you do not have an input - and you produce extra net - massively in our case - well that is a good thing - tough to swallow - I grant you - but has it not made you pause for just a second that ours has been reported and verified multiple times by credible people as the .1% in contrast to the 99.9% failures at Overunity?

Our system has a super efficient input cost - I have been clear on this many many times - you forgot to quote all those statements - I wonder why?.....

 No I don't lol - you are just out to confuse people - I wish you used that energy to help mankind - and not try to rip them off from the Independence this machine is bringing.

Once again, ROFL.....

How could anyone ever discover anything with your limited mind....

I repeat - We do not use thermal energy - please read the patent - read the posts, get your hands wet - omg
Our Z.E.D. internal operating pressure is max 40psi, the capture method changes by output -

Our 100kw system uses a crankshaft..... our systems are quite, no emission, no fuel, independent and simple - maybe not to understand - but to build.

Why would you try to scare people?

We have talked about this all before several times?

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 12, 2012, 02:35:12 PM
almost 100 pages of pure garbage.
so far, no solid proof to prove the workings of this machine.
all of this could of been a lot easier and direct but now it's piling up into a mountain of shit.
a simple HD video showing ALL parts inside and out of this machine in operation could of saved us tons of time.
also a video showing the machine being put together one part at a time describing each part.
and having someone replicate your "over unity machine" by some dude and sending him 2,000 dollars doesn't prove anything either.
funny because many of us have seen this kind of mountain before and wont be the last either.

good day sir!

Thanks for checking in,

I see you never got your hands wet... that does make it hard for you..... I can see where you are coming from. wrong of course - but if you make your decision by the effort you have put into this - counting pages.... well --- Good luck.

Also - You may have been misled - I am sorry for that - I volunteered to help those who wanted to learn about the system.

Not to prove our system to you - would you seriously believe anything your read on the net as fact?
(I try very hard to stick to the facts because of people like MC, ME, who try to twist every word into wasted pages of garbage)

No of course not - I do not expect anyone to believe either - but if you are one of the people who do decide to get your hands wet - and then have questions - take a look at the patent - do a simple test of your own - or read on the replications of those you might trust.

If you trust no one - how could I help you?

You are correct about the garbage - I am glad it stays so that everytime you and others check in with a stink bag - it is recorded - it makes up about one third of the garbage on this thread.

I do not know about other threads - on this thread - garbage thrown by people who do not take the time to look for themselves.
Look for yourself - and you have a qualified argument - other wise you just toss a stink bag ...If you base your argument on the pile.... bad form....maybe you will see something that 44 other engineers missed.. it could happen.

@Ghost - have you seen one single reason posted here on why the physics of our design can not work? No - but you have seen a Dozen that have replicated the physics from the patent and agree.............

I see you have experience with failures. That is the way with ALL inventions - it is not proof of the future - but it is proof of the need and desire for a certain goal.

This invention is not about me - but I do have to lead the charge - this is the contribution I have to the world.

Vocal people like yourself could add very valuable contribution to the world if you took the time to research yourself.

Good Day,
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 12, 2012, 02:55:35 PM
@Mr Wayne. I am asking you personally to help clarify a statement you made earlier, which seems to have caused a misunderstanding between myself and others. Here is what you stated.
"I watch as some argue that using 15 cubic inches @640 PSI to generate 30 cubic inches @640 PSI in the same time frame is not overunity-or not using the right words to describe- is that we have is 15 cubic inches every stroke-3.7 times a minute."


I venture to suggest that you may have made a mistake when you wrote that. "Using 15 cubic inches to generate." Is that 15 cubic inches of water being injected into the ZED ? If it is, then it will surely not be at 640 PSI. If it is not the input to the ZED, what is it? I assume it must be the ZED input because it is the ZEDs that are OU, not the high pressure hydraulic transmission system.
    So for the sake of clarity, could you please help us here?
  Respect, neptune.

Hello Netptune,
I am sorry,  thought I did - reply 1262

In the model at our house - we use a hydraulic system to capture the buoyancy first - and then we use some of that captured and stored energy to increase the transfer of water between the Zeds -
 
On our system we only have to pay for the loss of the water's head during transfer - and whatever portion we leave in the Z.E.D
 
With loss in transfer and counting what we left behind - we consume (in this model) about half our hydraulic production.
Our hydraulic production is about 30cubic inches a full stroke / cycle.

Now - before MC posts another bag of stink - we have - like all systems, losses in every exchange - except the Z.E.D portion -
nine losses as I have stated before - with these losses - a third of our production is up and gone.

That leaves us with about a third of the excess to NET.

The good news is this - I built the Z.E.D. from the theory of operations I gleaned when I saw the Travis Effect, my engineers have optimized the design - our 10K system is not much bigger than my 36watt model.

Yet the losses do not increase at the same rate of production increases!

Once they understood how the system functions "OverUnity" they hit the floor running to optimize.

@Neptune, I keep seeing you try to encourage people to come and see - that is great, I love to share - Validation is coming - do not worry about that or the stink nags - how silly, and natural this will all seem in near future -

Resistance to change is as hard on some people as losing a loved one. Even my engineers went through stages of disbelief.

They were wise enough to make their decisions - in time - on the physical evidence.

The truth will prevail - it is just birthing pains we go thru now, some will come see the baby, some will wait for graduation.

Wayne Travis
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 12, 2012, 03:45:51 PM
Hi Wayne, and many thanks for your reply. So let me summarise what you said, as I understand it.
1.We are talking about the 36 Watt model that you have at your house


2.Let us define a cycle. We have 2 ZEDS, A and B , so at the start of the cycle A is down and B is up. A rises and B falls. Then A falls and B rises. This cycle repeats 3.7 times a minute.


3. During a cycle as defined above, a total of 30 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid is forced into the hydraulic accumulator by the rams [acting as pumps  Wayne calls these 5 inch diameter rams"Production Rams"] which are activated by the Zeds as they rise. The pressure in the accumulator is 640 PSI.


4 The pressurised fluid in the accumulator represents stored energy. This is then used in 2 ways. Part of it powers the hydraulic ram which help to power the water transfer between ZEDs.This ram is called the input ram or transfer assist ram, and has a diameter of one inch. That accounts for about 15 cubic inches, taking into account system losses.


5. The remaining 15 cubic inches of fluid is used to power a hydraulic pump, which in turn, drives an alternator connected to a load. The power dissapated in the load is approximately 36 Watts.
 
@Mrwayne. Could you please tell me if I got it right.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 12, 2012, 04:02:38 PM
Hi Wayne, and many thanks for your reply. So let me summarise what you said, as I understand it.
1.We are talking about the 36 Watt model that you have at your house


2.Let us define a cycle. We have 2 ZEDS, A and B , so at the start of the cycle A is down and B is up. A rises and B falls. Then A falls and B rises. This cycle repeats 3.7 times a minute.


3. During a cycle as defined above, a total of 30 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid is forced into the hydraulic accumulator by the rams [acting as pumps] which are activated by the Zeds as they rise. The pressure in the accumulator is 640 PSI.


4 The pressurised fluid in the accumulator represents stored energy. This is then used in 2 ways. Part of it powers the hydraulic ram which help to power the water transfer between ZEDs. That accounts for about 15 cubic inches, taking into account system losses.


5. The remaining 15 cubic inches of fluid is used to power a hydraulic pump, which in turn, drives an alternator connected to a load. The power dissipated in the load is approximately 36 Watts.
 
@Mrwayne. Could you please tell me if I got it right.
Hello M.

Yes your recap is correct -

Except Number four needs to clarify that the input ram and the production ram are not the same unit.

The production rams (one per Z.E.D)  is 5 inches in diameter, and the transfer assist ram is 1 inch.

I am afraid some might get that confused the way it was worded.

The input is used to increase the pressure flowing from the lowering Zed, to reach the stroking pressure of the producing Zed -
and then the process reverses.

Thanks,

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 12, 2012, 04:11:05 PM
Thermal:

We do not exchange heat - or do any form of exchange in that manner - When it is hot outside - or cold - the system does respond as expected - the accumulators nitrogen does expand a bit - but since the system is self regulating - it compensates automatically.
The speed and pressure we deal with are barely enough to measure that exchange - Our engineer said - it is less than one 90 degree elbow (in the plumbing) adds in resistance and loss to the system.


Wayne Travis
Misinformation deterrence.
Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 12, 2012, 04:31:18 PM
Here is an idea:  TK will go see Wayne, and Wayne will host (tolerate) his visit.
 
But it requires that TK get from SA TX up to OK.  He could drive, but it would be better if he was driven.  Anyone willing to help out with this part?  Oh, BTW, there will be a dog (mostly) that must accompany him as well.
 
Next, TK states that he needs to be paid.  I, personally, think he should just suck it up.  But I do believe we could get together as a group to meet that requirement if, well, required.  I seem to remember about $500 on the table for a trip that Webby has not accepted (yet)...  And there are others who would consider his fees much less than the report he would provide. 
 
But we can still wait on MD also.  So, any thoughts?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 12, 2012, 04:48:04 PM
I have now modified my last post [1276] to take account of Wayne`s  constructive criticism. Thanks.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 12, 2012, 04:52:50 PM
Here is an idea:  TK will go see Wayne, and Wayne will host (tolerate) his visit.
 
But it requires that TK get from SA TX up to OK.  He could drive, but it would be better if he was driven.  Anyone willing to help out with this part?  Oh, BTW, there will be a dog (mostly) that must accompany him as well.
 
Next, TK states that he needs to be paid.  I, personally, think he should just suck it up.  But I do believe we could get together as a group to meet that requirement if, well, required.  I seem to remember about $500 on the table for a trip that Webby has not accepted (yet)...  And there are others who would consider his fees much less than the report he would provide. 
 
But we can still wait on MD also.  So, any thoughts?
 
M.
Sounds like a good plan,
Thinking outside the Box.
 
Can he fly?

But I would not "Tolerate" as a host -  I would consider it an honor.
TK - if you can come - the only thing I have to hold back is our Optimizations, our contacts, and Business model.
The machine and its system is fair game.
@All,
I am a respectful man - it is Mark Dansie that went the full distance to check this out - so he will be given credit at the end of the day. For his bravery, his discovery - as the First Skeptic.
Thank you all,
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on August 12, 2012, 05:32:50 PM
Thanks for checking in,

I see you never got your hands wet... that does make it hard for you..... I can see where you are coming from. wrong of course - but if you make your decision by the effort you have put into this - counting pages.... well --- Good luck.

Also - You may have been misled - I am sorry for that - I volunteered to help those who wanted to learn about the system.

Not to prove our system to you - would you seriously believe anything your read on the net as fact?
(I try very hard to stick to the facts because of people like MC, ME, who try to twist every word into wasted pages of garbage)

No of course not - I do not expect anyone to believe either - but if you are one of the people who do decide to get your hands wet - and then have questions - take a look at the patent - do a simple test of your own - or read on the replications of those you might trust.

If you trust no one - how could I help you?

You are correct about the garbage - I am glad it stays so that everytime you and other check in with a stink bag - it is recorded - it makes up about one third of the garbage on this thread.

I do not know about other threads - on this thread - garbage thrown by people who do not take the time to look for themself.
Look for yourself - and you have a qualified argument - other wise you just toss a stink bag ...If you base your argument on the pile.... bad form....maybe you will see something that 44 other engineers missed.. it could happen.

@Ghost - have you seen one single reason posted here on why the physics of our design can not work? No - but you have seen a Dozen that have replicated the physics from the patent and agree.............

I see you have experience with failures. That is the way with ALL inventions - it is not proof of the future - but it is proof of the need and desire for a certain goal.

This invention is not about me - but I do have to lead the charge - this is the contribution I have to the world.

Vocal people like yourself could add very valuable contribution to the world if you took the time to research yourself.

Good Day,
 
Wayne

Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand, maybe I don't have the funds to get my hands "wet".
But one thing for sure is I hope you do have something here that actually works and is Over Unity.
Too many people have come and gone, only to leave us with nothing but a false claim, and even worst robbed us for what little we have left.
I hope you are real and not just another rerun of the same old story.
By the way your reply shows you know a little about our frustration, and this gives me  a bit of hope of what is left.

good day sir!



 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on August 12, 2012, 05:34:10 PM
I would also be willing to contribute to TKs travelling costs, though I think it likely that at the end of the day
TK would have to build the unit for himself to be totally convinced of over unity performance.

Hope he does build such a unit and proves that the Technology Works, at least then we might all know
how best to make a selfrunning one.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 12, 2012, 06:02:03 PM

Can he fly?


I believe he can soar.  Or at least did at one time.  So that might be an option.
 
Now the Chowyote is another question.
 
I doubt TK would want to put Maggie through the stress of such a short flight.  But I assume too much if I try to speculate what Al might want to do.  So I'll wait and listen.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 12, 2012, 08:27:54 PM
It is always difficult to prove that a OU system works and is indeed OU because people will be extremely sceptical.

In my opinion it is also impossible to calculate or to describe the "essential OU power generating part" using conventional formulas (conventional physics) because the OU part will violate conventional understanding. To describe the "essential OU power generating part" new formulas and a new theory will be needed.

But it is absolutely necessary that the inventor shows a machine that works over a long period (let's say at least a day) and puts out a considerable amount of net energy during that period continuously  (let's say at least about 50 Watt for 24 hours).

I will believe in Mr. Wayne's hydro system once a credible witness reports that she/he has seen the machine work for at least a day and that she/he measured the output during this period. (Since there seems to be no input, output measurement will be sufficient and of course it should be checked whether there really is no input).


This said, I do not understand why we have no reports of this kind so far. The witnesses who came forward in this thread only reported about the character of Mr. Wayne, but did not see the machine in a working state and could not do measurements.

It is also very difficult to digest why the web site of Mr. Wayne does not disclose such a trivial test (together with comprehensible measurements, e.g. net output of a machine over 24 hours, may be also a video).

Why should any one travel to Mr. Wayne's location as long as there is no machine running consistently with a measurable net output?

Why should any one try to replicate Mr. Wayne's machine as long as there is no machine running consistently with a measurable net output?
 
Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 12, 2012, 08:49:05 PM
Conrad,
 
First, thanks for the input.
 
Second, here is just one (my) idea for a response to your well stated post:
 
What if RIGHT NOW is the time when the ZED system is first being publicly displayed for our scrutiny?
 
What if all previous testing, builds, etc., were not documented and posted on the 'net?
 
What if the described and patented system was developed, tested, and scrutinized for several years before even the "inventor" was convinced enough that it was not a "pipe dream" and was ready to face the pubic?
 
Please do not take anything I posted as an attack, Conrad.  I deffinitely did not mean it as so and only want to hear your response to these "counter thoughts."
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 12, 2012, 10:07:20 PM
Conrad:

I think that you make a lot of good points.  To add to your thoughts let me share a few ideas.

There is no point visiting Wayne without knowing ahead of time what the power production will be and what form it will be in.  For example, supposing the claim is that system drives a generator continuously, and the generator output is 100 watts.  If that is the claim then fine, you now can ask what the output voltage and frequency is for the generator under load, and what the load resistor is.

Supposing the generator outputs a sine wave at 25 Hz, and with the load resistor connected to the generator output, the RMS output voltage is 50 volts.  So P = V^2/R, therefore R = V^2/P = (50 x 50)/100 = 25 ohms.

So, you need a 100-watt 25-ohm resistor to connect to the generator.  Let's assume you can go onto the DigiKey web site and find 5-ohm 20-watt white ceramic resistors.  They might be the size of a small chocolate bar.   So Wayne orders five of these resistors and solders all five in series and connects the resistor array to the generator output.   The string of resistors is suspended in mid air to allow for measurements and for convection currents for cooling.  Without proper cooling they will burn up.

When you arrive at the site you have a true-RMS multimeter.  You measure the resistance of the load resistor to confirm that it is 25 ohms and you connect it to the generator output and then start up the machine.

Once everything is running you can check things.  You measure the RMS voltage across the load resistor with your true-RMS multimeter and verify that you are measuring 50 volts RMS.  You touch each one of the resistors and verify that they are toasty hot.  You can hear the generator RPM and that gives you auditory feedback that the system is maintaining proper rotational speed and output voltage.

Then you camp out in front of the device for a while.  The best-case scenario would be for two people to camp out in front of the device and take turns sleeping.  We are not going to have a repeat of the fiasco where Sterling went to South Africa and saw a running device for 45 minutes and was "convinced" that it was real.  Then Mark Dansie visited with a full team and within a few hours it was found out that it was not real, it was all a fake.  Talk about a waste of time and serious money, all for nothing.

Note that in the past on this thread I asked about the form of the power output and how it was measured but that was never acknowledged or answered by Wayne.   It would be preferable if two people were to visit Wayne and camp out in front of the device (with tents - no kidding) where they could periodically spot check the load resistor.  That would be approaching the "real thing."  After a while you would not even need to use your meter.  Most of the time you could spot check the power output just by touching one of the 5-ohm resistors and feeling the heat production.

If I was going to cheat I would put some very large commercial compressed air tanks inside the device to power the system.  They are cheap and can store enormous amounts of energy.  So in my personal opinion, one day would not be enough time.  I think that two people would have to camp out in front of the device for a week or more.  You should also have a mechanic's stethoscope and use it periodically to listen in on the operation of the device.  Any anomalous sounds of air hissing outside of the normal operation of the device could be a valve opening and recharging the system with compressed air from a hidden cylinder.  Don't forget that this system is run by a microcontroller for all of the valve timings, and it would be trivial for the programmer to make a program that recharges the system every four hours from one of the compressed air tanks.

This is a proposed real way to test this system.  And if you are going to go visit Wayne to see "proof" that it works, proper due diligence would require something as comprehensive as I outlined above.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 12, 2012, 10:14:21 PM
Well said Conrad ..

M .. the 'plot thins' ;7)

It seems after reading todays comments that there is a subtle difference in interpretation of what OU actually means - in the traditional sense [perhaps that which we are used to thinking about] a certain Input energy produces a larger Output energy, after accounting for ordinary system losses & perhaps a load/work done by the engine - & an engine it is that Mr Wayne describes.

All engines either use a replenishable fuel source to convert to joules or they make use of a naturally occurring differential that the mechanism can exploit to self sustain itself & do Work [sometimes environmental in origin] - so far, AFAIK, there are no known exceptions.

In this case Mr Wayne describes a process of reduced Input energy which gives rise to a larger Output energy - this may appear as semantics - in effect what he describes is a process that restores ALL Potential Energy & meets ordinary system energy losses [i.e. is self sustaining] AND has capacity to do external Work each cycle.

My interpretation of Mr Wayne's responses & those of his engineers ['that they are comfortable with'] is that they have found a demonstrable way to disprove a fundamental physics principle - that is, the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle.

IOW's, that by pure mechanical means it can be proven that the Work in joules the system does to restore itself is less than the energy in joules [i.e. capacity to do Work] it produces - this indeed would be a paradigm shift in understanding of physics !

Before I would take that plunge I would isolate any & every potential input of energy source from the environment I could think of to make sure it is not a contributing factor - it is a given that there is no fuel source or augmented energy input from the pressurizing system that depletes over time [I think the engineers would be capable of determining that].

Lastly, we would be left with a major conundrum - what "fuels" this engine - AND where did main stream go so wrong in assuming that the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle was inviolate - AND are there any naturally occurring examples now that we know what to look for - ALSO, does this mean the Laws of Thermodynamics are also now tossed out ?

If Mr Wayne & his team are on the level all of those questions will need answering by some big brains.

P.S. also well put Milehigh - couldn't agree more for a true test !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 12, 2012, 10:39:44 PM
Fletcher:

Very interesting comments, but perhaps they are better left for a second-stage analysis to determine where the energy is apparently coming from.  According to Wayne it's a "workaround."

You stated Wayne's proposition correctly, "Mr Wayne describes a process of reduced Input energy which gives rise to a larger Output energy."

However, there is a problem.  I asked about the measurement of the reduced input energy and the measurement of the larger output energy corresponding to the cycles of the ZED.  Unfortunately all of the participants in the thread working with spreadsheets and Wayne himself apparently don't want to answer this question.  So we are stymied where a "free energy device" that is ostensibly based on a measurement of "reduced input energy" and a measurement of "larger output energy" per cycle is some sort of an obstacle that the participants in the thread can't seem to come to terms with.

So perhaps the best way to go forward is to avoid these issues and just do proper due diligence and measure the output power of the device over an extended period of time.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 12, 2012, 10:57:35 PM
I agree MH ..

That's why I have been patient in awaiting MD's response - he is nobody's fool - he will probably also be reading this thread as it develops & so all the skeptics comments may prompt him to look closely in certain areas he might not otherwise pay close attention to - I think he is very thorough though.

I also point out, as has been said before, that this exchange & response format here may not always be comfortable for either the skeptics nor My Wayne, but it will be a 'dry run' for what is yet to come for him - it also firms up descriptions & analysis into a logical & robust presentation that adds clarity to the arguments of both sides - therefore it has value to all.

In the mean time, if Mond or TK can build something to compare to the information given, or be free to report on a long run load test etc, it would also be valuable in looking behind the curtain for those answers - personally I don't want to rewrite the Laws of physics but if they need rewriting then so be it & more power to Mr Wayne's elbow & bring it on.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 12, 2012, 11:39:50 PM
Before anyone starts to make fun of my (obvious) lack of photographic skills:  Please note that this is from my cell phone.  Mommy has the good digicams with her and the "littles" on a trip at the moment.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 12:22:15 AM
I'm sure it does and i am sure you have a couple of those running as we speak.
I'm also sure you and your team are currently working on a 50 Megawatt unit.
That's comparable to a very high and very large windmill.

I have seen some powerful gasoline generators that run at 3000 rpm producing 2 kilowatt max.
I'm sure your Boyuancy machine runs faster then a turbine far exceeding 30.000 rpm to produce your 10 kilowatt output.

Keep talking like that Wayne, it certainly eases things up.
@ MC,
Please recall Our machine is for mass energy production.
3kw is too expensive per watt to build, sorry.
Keep doing what  you do best -
 
So will I.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 01:42:06 AM
Whoooah there, big fellas!

Thank you for volunteering me..... but I would like to have a little input in the matter!

First, I want to thank MrWayne for the invitation, and for not lumping me in with the "stinkbaggers".... I try to be skeptical in a reasonable manner, and generally won't start slinging stink until I'm quite certain of my "pitcher's mound" or I have to field stink that gets thrown at me.
Oklahoma hospitality is second to none... except maybe Texas hospitality!!
 :)

Second, thanks to Mondrasek for being the "instigator" of my involvement. I can tell that if I lived in his neighborhood, I'd have to keep my lawn mowed, for sure!!

Third, for a preliminary visit, I think that MileHigh's approach is a bit too radically doubtful. In a perfect world with perfectly compliant personalities it might be the way to go, but my take is this: If you are gonna try to fool me, I want to be fooled, first. Let me see your very best dog-and-pony, smoke and mirrors show. Then..... after you fool me, I'll tear it up, bring the tent and the xray machine and the colored dyes and transparent tube sections and so on and so forth, because I will then have some idea what to look for.

However I don't believe that MrWayne is trying to fool anyone---- I've suspended disbelief, remember?

So for a first visit by me, I'd want to see the normal demonstration, and be allowed to poke around non-destructively a little bit, just an investor's agent doing some due diligence, looking mostly at "face validity": does it do what it says on the box, not necessarily _how_ it does it. Some basic measurements of electrical parameters, some basic mechanical investigations, etc. just to get an idea what is up, what needs to be measured more formally, and where a "wedge" could be driven in to see how a perturbation is handled by the system.
The full-on skeptical teardown campout, BYOB would not be a polite first approach I don't think, but should be held in reserve. But, since the performance _as stated_ so far appears to be contrary to standard physics, and would, if true, imply that a lot of other stuff we think we know is wrong..... then, if it does do what it says on the box and the preliminary inspection sees no obvious mistake... or fake..... only then would the more "hostile" approach be appropriate or necessary. And of course if it _was_ fake, it's unlikely that such an approach would actually be permitted. That "other" TK, Sterling's South African genset, the Popper John story, etc etc .... all fakers resist real inspections and just do "demonstrations".

Fourth: some practicalities.
4a) I do have access, with some finagling, to the world's most precise civilian bulk calorimeter, MOAC.
However it is definitely NOT portable or easy to use (it takes about a week for it to "warm up" and stabilize before any accurate testing can be done) and it has an active test volume of about a cubic foot. It's really designed for cold fusion cells that have perhaps only a milliWatt excess power... yes, with care it can measure that precisely and accurately. But clearly it's not going to be applicable here, and building a huge one would not be possible.

4b) I don't fly commercially, I know too much about aviation for that. (google PPRUNE)
It's only around 400 miles from San Antonio to Chickasha, a straight shot up US 281, a pleasant day's drive. I do have some physical issues that make driving problematic at times, but I could probably do it OK. I certainly would NOT want someone else to drive me up there. Taking a bus or train is possible but less desirable than driving, because I really don't want to leave Maggie the feral chowyote behind. I hope MrWayne wouldn't mind having Maggie around; she can be tied up to my car and is perfectly happy that way as long as there's shade and water.

4c) Money. The love of money is the root of all evil. But the lack of money means inability to operate.
I'm told that my services come too cheaply, even some of my staunchest detractors tell me this. And in the past I've spent a lot of my own money and other resources on projects like this one. But unfortunately those days are gone, along with the money. I've calculated out an approximate cost if someone were actually to hire me at my daily consulting rate, plus expenses of course, for a visit like this. Two days travel, two days on site, lodging (Motel6, they allow dogs; no, sorry, professional ethics preclude me staying under MrWayne's roof as nice as that might be)  meals expenses etc.... comes to right around 2 grand. This is reasonable for a potential investor, thinking about cutting a big check to MrWayne, as an attempt at doing due diligence, caveat emptor, and so on. But how to justify that kind of expense for a report to an internet forum? It's just silly, much as I need the work and the money... it's just silly.


Now... a much better idea:

MrWayne has a small working model, does he not? At least that's what I thought. And even a single Zed is overunity... right?

I have connections at a very professional laboratory that looks for new physics, that evaluates devices like this without charge to the submitter _IF_ the thing looks to have "face validity"... it appears to do what it says on the box. And this lab gives ironclad IP protection to the inventor. So.... take the small device and ship it down to them and I will  "walk it through" the inspection, testing, and validation process, and let _them_ pay my fees, which they will do without difficulty (I hope). And maybe I'll even get more than four days out of it.


Another alternative, if the small Zed isn't available for some reason, is to send Webby some more money so he can purchase some nesting polycarbonate tubes from one of the plastic suppliers I linked earlier, and some machine shop expense money, and have him and a local machinist make up a "proper" (no offense Webby!) demonstrator with ruled reference marks and instrument fittings and so on. If the tennis ball tube model demonstrates the Travis Effect overunity... and it must, right, else why did he get the 2 large in the first place?... then the better constructed polycarbonate model will too, and it can be sent off to the folks I know with full confidence.

Ok.... there's my two bits.

Carry on.....



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 02:05:19 AM
Now.... some test protocol questions for Webby and the spreadsheeters working on single Zeds.

The device is precharged with whatever necessary, a known test mass is placed on the output riser or pod or whatever it's called: the output, and it's now sitting there motionless and ready to go, all cylinders and risers etc. sitting at some reference marks "A".
Right?

Now we take a spring scale rigged to read compression force. We push down on the input thingy using this spring scale to allow us to maintain some constant pressure (force) downward, and we press for a travel distance of some known value, say 5 units, on our scribed scales on the sides of the tubes. We have now done X amount of work (the spring scale force reading x the pushdown units).
Right?

We see the output thingy rising, lifting the known mass. We now have an output value for the work: the downward weight of the known mass (a force) x the lift distance. 
Right?

Now we relax the applied force to the input and allow the system to return to its equilibrium state.... which should be identical to the initial state.
Right?

Now we can find the ratio of the input work to the output work easily enough.
Right?


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 13, 2012, 02:23:15 AM
A little misunderstanding about our system - we have reduced the input cost - we do not get more out of the system than it could generate - The wrong question is "where does the energy come from" - the right question is "how did you reduce the input".

Larry has been doing an excellent Job showing how our layered system reduces the input. If you are looking for missing energy - you might not see it.

Wayne
The question is 'how do you reduce the input' and that is shown in the drawing, but most recent posters completely ignore it. What is your real reason? You don't even ask how I calculated these values. I do have a spreadsheet ready, but that would just be more proof and I suspect you don't want to see the proof.
 
It is so simple, there is 4 phases, Sink to Ready to Stroke, 3" Rise, 3" Fall, Ready to Stroke to Sink. The only phase that Archimedes accomplishes at the same speed is the 3" Rise. It is all about time. 4 Riser requires much less time in all other phases. So back to the simple formula, Power = (Force X Distance) / Time.
 
Regards, Larry
 
PS: At all with common sense and values the truth, it will be interesting to see how long it takes them to bury this one in their useless blabbering.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 13, 2012, 02:59:42 AM
Hello folks,

I have been lurking for many weeks while working on my simulator for a single layer single ZED demonstrator.  I must say that I have been a bit amused by the members thinking that they must somehow prove O/U or not for his existing machine.  I do not believe that Wayne needs or desires this kind of "help".  MD is in charge of that type of effort with much expense and preparation for each stage of verification.  There would be plenty of investors based on MD's approval of the technology, and follow-on testing would reveal the physics involved.

Duplication and testing of duplicates is more valuable than one more tear down of his machine.  What Wayne needs is independent replications that show O/U.  That will add more credibility to his device than anything else.  End of story.

Wayne has made himself available on this site to provide enough information for experimenters to build their own small models.  He even offered a bounty to keep the cost of the construction materials from being an obstacle.  He has been most gracious in inviting and hosting those who desire a visit to his shop.

I must also say that I have been very disappointed by the very poor manners displayed by some here.  Being a skeptic is good.  It keeps one from falling for scams, delusions, and bad math.  However, being disruptive and obnoxious and thinking the inventor owes more than his stated purpose of sharing is a hinderance for those who do want to proceed with experiments.  Enough said.

I will be releasing my document to this site in the next few days.  The document is an analysis of the principles and formulas that I am using in my simulation for this simplest of cases.  Successful verification of the simple case by competent skeptics will be followed by a more complex multi-layered case.  My approach stresses successful simulation to pave the way for robust replications.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 03:13:00 AM
LarryC:

Quote
4 Riser requires much less time in all other phases. So back to the simple formula, Power = (Force X Distance) / Time.

You seem to be implying that for one of the steps of the 4-riser it happens much faster so there is "more power."  What I believe that you are not getting is that then there is a "dead time" were nothing happens.  Am I correct?

To factor in the "dead time" you look at the entire cycle time, and then you get (Force X Distance)/Total_Cycle_Time to get the average power per cycle.

But if you want, you can simply factor out the total cycle time and just talk about the energy expended per cycle.  Each one of the four steps (I assume) either inputs or outputs a certain amount of energy during the entire cycle.  So discussing the energy required per step is sufficient.

Am I making sense to you?   To me you seem to be saying that if the 4-riser requires two seconds to do a cycle but the Archimedes requires five seconds to do the equivalent cycle then the 4-riser is "more powerful."  But if the total cycle time for the two methods is ten seconds and they both do the same lifting job then the average power for the whole cycle is the same for the two versions and nothing remarkable is taking place.

Can you do me a favour?  Pretend that someone starts reading the thread at this point and they will not read the previous 80 pages.  Can you explain what your diagram is post #1296 means in simple plain English?  Can you list the steps one by one and explain what happens in each step?   Can you calculate the energy required to do each step?

Honestly, I look at your diagram and I can't make head or tail of it.  Also just to repeat for emphasis, you talk about lifting a weight a certain distance for a given step.  Surely you can indicate the energy required per step?   If we assume that you are going to discuss one complete cycle, then we don't have to look at power at all.  Just the energy calculation for each individual step.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 04:13:46 AM
I am just going to share a few thoughts based on one of LarryC's earlier postings:

Quote
Simple as it can get proof. Apples to Apples.
 
The attached shows a Archimedes Pod of 30" diameter with retainer and a Travis Pod of 30" diameter with retainer. The Archimedes Pod is the height that it would take for it to have the same lift forces as a 4 Riser Travis System. The Riser are not shown as the water is only input into the Pod retainer.
 
Note that the Sink to Stroke water difference for Archimedes is 164, while only 37 for 4 Riser. Also note that the PSI levels are higher for Arch. than 4 Riser, this advantage is due to larger SI areas on the Risers.
 
Archimedes has to input 164" of water pushing against PSI from 5.43 to 11.33.
4 Riser has to input 37" of water pushing against PSI from 5.07 to 9.99 PSI.
Or Archimedes has to input 4.43 times as much water at the SI as 4 Riser for the same lift with a much increase load and unload time going from Sink to Stroke and Stroke to Sink.

If I understand correctly, the 4-Riser system will only have to input roughly one-quarter the water as a regular Archimedes system to do the same lifting job.  I am pretty sure that I am correct here but by all means please correct me if I am wrong.

Would it be fair to say that the 4-Riser is sort of like a four-segment telescoping antenna as it expands?

Assuming this is the case what the 4-Riser does for you is give you four times the lifting distance for every unit of water put into the 4-Riser as compared to the Archimedes system.   So LarryC crunches the start water pressure and the end water pressure and the water volume in his spreadsheet and it all looks really positive.

So if I am following this correctly, it's like the 4-Riser is kind of like a mechanical lever, but in this case the "lever" is giving you four times the lifting distance as compared to the normal Archimedes system.

If what I am saying is true, then I believe that there may be a problem with the calculations.

He is the gist of the problem:  If you are getting four times the lifting distance, then there is a price to pay for this "advantage."  Where you have to pay the price is in the "back pressure" coming from the weight you are lifting.  In the 4-Riser system the "back pressure" coming from the weight that you are lifting will be four times higher.

In other words:

Let's assume that we are going to lift one pound by one foot, and we are only going to discuss the "back pressure" that the one pound weight induces on the water inlet point of the system.   We are going to use simplified units.

To do the same lifting job of a one pound weight by one foot:

Archimedes:   1 unit of back pressure x 4 units of water = 4 "pressure-water-units."

4-Riser:  4 units of back pressure x 1 unit of water = 4 "pressure-water-units."

Note that the two calculations above represent the energy required to do the lifting.  You are pumping some water into the device which creates a displacement.  As you pump you are exerting a pressure which is a force.  So the two simplified calculations above represent force x displacement = energy.

In other words, with the regular Archimedes system or with the telescoping 4-Riser system, it takes the same amount of energy to lift the one pound weight up by one foot.

In other words, a telescoping 4-Riser is just a lever, and the fact that you get four times the lifting distance per unit of water means that you have to supply four times the water pressure to do the actual lifting.

If I am on the right track, I am suspecting that you are making a mistake in the estimates for your "start pressure" and "end pressure" for the 4-Riser system.  You are not accounting for the "lever effect" associated with the telescoping segments of the 4-Riser as they give you increased lifting distance, and increased back pressure from the weight.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 04:20:31 AM
@Larry: along with what MH said.... Power is NOT a conserved quantity, like work and energy.

(Too bad too..... or my TinselKoils would be so massively overunity that we could all go home and relax. I have input power of less than a kilowatt, and I have peak output currents of 8 amps... at well over 30 kV. Go ahead and calculate the COP of that one... using Power alone.)

Average power is better, as MH said, but "many is the slip between the cup and the lip" even using average power.

Work is the conserved quantity. (Same thing as Energy: force x distance, even the same units: Joules)

Was there something objectionable or wrong about my question set above? Did I misunderstand the nature of a "cycle"?

We start with a motionless precharged Zed, not counting the work necessary to set this up. We apply a known quantity of WORK, force times distance, both easy to measure, by depressing the input piston (or cylinder, same difference I think). We get out a known quantity of WORK at the peak of the cycle... again, force times distance, easy to measure. And we let the system relax back to the beginning of the cycle which is identical to the start of the cycle, all pressures and displacements the same.... otherwise it's not a cycle, right? Maybe we have to put in more WORK to get it back to the start: this counts as INPUT.
So.... what is this ratio in your spreadsheet simulation? Output WORK/Input WORK. That is the question (whether I suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune....)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 04:31:42 AM
Just a little side observation...

The skeptics like me and MH and Seamus10n are asking simple questions that require simple answers, from simple measurements made in simple ways. If I had a Zed or a set-up spreadsheet sim... I really think I could answer the questions, simply and clearly.

But we are getting complicated answers that are nearly uninterpretable, answers that don't include simple measurements, with units attached, combined in simple ways.

Maybe this is caused by the difference in training, education and experience of the people in the conversation, and is just a matter of "talking past" each other and we will eventually settle on a language and a methodology that we can all understand.

Or maybe it's not.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 13, 2012, 05:13:19 AM
We can discount any such analysis based on the knowledge of currently accepted physics if it shows that the system would break the laws of conservation of mass, energy  or momentum.

These laws are mathematically provable as being correct and have  been experimentally validated in every single case. (until now if this claim is to be believed).

If you are getting an overunity result by using any mathematical model that violates these laws then one thing is certain, your analysis is WRONG.

You'd better be prepared to bring to the table a theory that demonstates how and why current physics knowledge
is incorrect. It would necessarily show how gravity (perhaps just in Oklahoma) is not a conservative field.

As such, this claim can only be verified experimentally.  There is absolutely no valid mathematical model that can be constructed using known physics that would support it.

Sir, It is quite poor form on your part to cast dispersions on my work with a preemptive strike before you have even seen it.  How do you know what I have simulated?  Please hold your comments until there is something to comment on.  Then, if you are capable of analyzing my work properly according to the laws of physics, I will welcome your considered analysis.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 05:21:07 AM
LarryC:

More for you about your start and end pressure calculations.  It looks to me like you are factoring in the water head pressure but I am not sure if you have the back pressure from the weight factored in properly, like I said before.

Let's split the pressure into two parts.

There is the back pressure associated with the weight itself.  We can treat that as a constant.  I am going to assume that you can calculate the back pressure associated with the Archimedes system.  And of course the back pressure associated with the 4-Riser system is four times higher.

So you know the water volumes in cubic inches, and you know the PSIs for the two cases.   We can do something to make life really easy for you.  We can use energy units that are "CI-PSI."   Cubic inches times pounds per square inch.  Those are the units you are working with if I am correct.  So if you multiply that out you get (Cubic inches x pounds / square inch) = inch-pounds.   You notice that is a unit of energy, it's just a variation on foot-pounds.

Let's say for the sake of argument you use inch-pounds for all of your calculations.  It's perfectly valid.

If you are following me, you should be able to calculate the energy required to lift the weight in both cases, Archimedes and the 4-Riser, and they should be the approximately the same.  You just have to work out the back pressure associated with the weight in each case.

Let's call that your "Lift_Energy" - the amount of energy it takes to lift the weight a certain height.

Now, the other amount of work that has to be done is to push the water into the two types of cylinder and overcome the head pressure.  Be very careful and carefully examine the head pressure in the Archimedes vs. 4-Riser case.  Does the "lever factor" come into play here?  I am sure that you can figure it out.

For the work required in inch-pounds to fill the cylinder with water, don't be intimidated by the fact that the head changes as you add water.  You know the head rises linearly as you add cubic inches of water.  You know the start pressure in PSI, and you know the end pressure in PSI.  You have all of the information that you need.  This is a very simple integration of a ramp function.

The energy that you have to add to overcome the head is the ((End_PSI-squared x Total_Cubic_Inches)/2) - ((Start_PSI-squared x Total_Cubic_Inches)/2)

If the Start_PSI is zero then it simplifies to ((End_PSI-squared x Total_Cubic_Inches)/2).

Lets call that your "Head_Energy" - the energy it takes to pump the water into the cylinder as the head rises.

So, the total energy it takes to lift the weight is simply = Lift_Energy + Head_Energy.

This will apply for both the Archimedes and the 4-Riser setups.  You just have to carefully work out the calculations and you are done.  I think you have enough information on your end to boot-strap yourself and solve for the energy in both cases.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 05:27:17 AM
OK, so if a single (or dual) Zed has no real "input" cylinder or piston, and instead must be supplied with an injection of liquid to initiate a cycle... that is even easier. You simply arrange a "syringe" to inject your fluid. You monitor fluid pressure in the syringe, and you know the surface area of the syringe's piston. The pressure in the fluid and the piston area give you the force, the piston travel is your distance. Work in is thus again easy to measure. Work out is the lifted weight times the lift distance, again easy.

Please correct me here if I'm wrong.

And once again... for there to be a "cycle" the end state must be the same as the start state... so syringe again full, with its piston out, and the lifted weight back down. If it takes more work to reestablish this initial state, that counts as input.

Will see3d condescend to put his results in this form so that they may be interpreted by those of us who are straitjacketed by our educations?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 13, 2012, 05:44:48 AM
Am I making sense to you?   To me you seem to be saying that if the 4-riser requires two seconds to do a cycle but the Archimedes requires five seconds to do the equivalent cycle then the 4-riser is "more powerful."  But if the total cycle time for the two methods is ten seconds and they both do the same lifting job then the average power for the whole cycle is the same for the two versions and nothing remarkable is taking place.
Am I making sense to you?  LOL
Let's see, if the 4-riser is 2 seconds for a half cycle and Archimedes is 5 seconds for a half cycle, so the total cycle for the 4-Riser is 4 seconds and the total cycle for the Archimedes is 10 seconds. Where did you come up with the both being 10 seconds, liar? .
   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 06:02:51 AM
LarryC:

You have got to be kidding calling me a liar.  If you got what I said it really doesn't matter if the cycle time for the Archimedes system is different from the 4-Riser system.  To make your life simple you can look at the energy per cycle in both cases.

If one system does a full cycle faster than the other system you can address that issue later.  The thing to do is focus on the energy per cycle for each system.

I don't even know what the cycle times are for the two systems.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 08:49:10 AM
To the flock:

I am going to go out on a limb and make some "forward looking statements."

My gut feel is that I discovered the root explanation behind "a process of reduced Input energy which gives rise to a larger Output energy."  It's all explained in my previous postings.  You are looking at start pressure and end pressure for regular Archimedes and "Travis Effect" setups.  You are looking at how much water you need to use for each setup.

What you see is that the numbers are apparently showing you that you can do the lifting cycle with less energy with the "Travis effect" because you use less water and the start and end pressures are comparable to the standard Archimedes setup.

What you now know is that there is an error in the start and ending pressure calculations.  They are much higher for the "Travis effect" than you thought and when you calculate the energy needed to lift a weight for the Archimedes and the "Travis effect" setups they are approximately the same.

I think the other thing that you learned is that it's not really difficult to make energy calculations.  If you know the number of cubic inches of water that you are using and the required PSI you have all the tools that you need to calculate energy in inch-pounds.  The only "trick" is that when you are lifting a weight you can split the energy calculation into two separate parts and then add them together.  One part is the energy to lift the weight itself, and that's almost trivial.  And the other part is to overcome the head pressure, and if that goes up like a linear ramp as you pump cubic inches of water in, then that's trivial also.

Note that for those of you that have done spreadsheets, they are just a few simple steps away from becoming energy-based and in the "proper language."  The language that you have been using over the past 88 pages to evaluate these systems is frankly nonsensical.

So the message here is that if I am on track and this is resonating with some of you, then it's time to start thinking outside of the "Travis box" and speak up for yourselves.  I know that there is a peer-pressure phenomenon and it's very strong.  It can be stifling.  Just think for yourselves and you will be fine.  This is a place where you are supposed to be open-minded to all ideas.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 13, 2012, 11:35:39 AM
Mondrasek ..

Has anyone made an animation of one ZED in operation thru one cycle ? If they have perhaps they could share it again ?

See3d mentioned using a sim of some sort to support his case, to be presented in a few days.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
Please go.
I will too pay you.

Shipping doesn't seem right.
We need somebody on the spot.

Thanks... but.....

Work in, versus work out.

I would really like to see the answers to some of the simple questions that are being asked, before I make any travel plans.
I'm not much of a "people" person. I get along much better with dogs and machines than I do with people, as you can probably tell. I've been known to get up and walk out of meetings when I feel that I'm being snowed or talked down to or being subjected to inordinate obfuscation. I don't want to make anyone look bad, least of all me, and I don't want to embarrass myself or anyone else who is acting in good faith. So let's see if we can get any answers in the form of work in versus work out, before we pack me up in a box and ship me off to Oklahoma with a pressure gauge, a tape measure, and a DMM.

Time is money, and none of us have all that much of either one to be tossing them about in the wind.

Plus, isn't there a report from Mark Dansie coming soon? I have some confidence in him (not 100 percent... the only reason I even know who my daddy is, was that my momma told me so....)


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
I have seen Se3d's single layer,

He is brilliant and methodical - so if he says he will release - count on it.

His uses the physics to run the model - my terms.

I should in the next couple days -  If my animator can get it done quickly - release mine.

I have a wonderful 2D model cut away - really helps - I am having the optimizations and improvements taken out so I can release it legally (proper timing - patent attorneys...).

Se3d's is better for brains - mine is better for a general grasp of the whole system.

@ Larry,
Please don't argue with Seamus, he has made his stand - any physics that agrees with our claims is "WRONG"
I am not here to push my understanding on others' beliefs....Change is hard to deal with.

TK, my only argument with anything you have said - was calling Seamus a "Skeptic" - he proves he is not - by his predetermination. - Mark Dansie started out that way - He told me it would take less than two hours to determine where I was wrong, by theory or measurement - he determined I was not a fraud before he came.
But he took the time to look - and then made a hard decision - that is a "Skeptic."
Seamus - by his own admission - Antagonist at best.
To All,
I am not ignoring the question of energy - I know why that is pushed as the question - I have never stated and do not believe we are "creating" energy - the purpose of that attempt is not to understand - but to turn this thread to the topic of "energy creation" that is not the stated purpose of my interactions.

I am not here to help someone win their own argument - when I do not disagree with it. Pushing the argument into a corner is a standard tactic.
I could care less about the Energy - if it has Net at the end of the day.

To be clear:

It has been repeated here over and over my purpose is to help others replicate our system.

We capture a natural force - once believed "conservative" gravity - it is a tricky process - and it confuses many.

Probably why it is not in the text books already.

Yet - Our physics are solid as a rock - and yes they come from those text books - and every replication proves it -

It is true that the "Infinity error" is also taught in text books - I never claimed Gravity would last forever - I expect it to in my lifetime. If you can not see past the error of the "error" - lol oh well.

One last note on incorrect assumptions - Our engineers had the most trouble with the down stroke - it is Nonlinear as we have shown here before. Don't be mislead - by others stating it is.

Replications:

I will let Webby answer why he decided to build - but the fact remains - he did - no matter how convoluted and confusing the arguments get here - it can be done and has.

I have never limited my instruction to those "friendly" but I will not sponsor - mud Slinger's.

I loved the simple input output apparatus Webby built, I wish I had thought of it, very clever - I suggest you look into his design for yours.
I build a huge apparatus because I did not trust my fine measurement skills - and I did not want other people to have to question their own. It works - or it doesn't -build it and you will know.
I am not selling kits - Yet - lol we do have working models being built - so don't beat me up on that later - the universities are going to need the models to explain the shift in physics. The instructional has been under preparation by a third party for a few months.

Third party is how we let others come to their own conclusions - replication is the best way to understand.
Good luck to you all! This is a grand puzzle for O/U students old and new - with a twist - you can win.

Update on Mark's return:
We finished the modification to our energy capture system Friday - ten thousand dollars and a lot of work - but we are done. I  have not been this excited in months!

We will resume testing long runs on our system - and if the "fix" to our manufacturing variance works as planned - Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.

So wish us luck, and / or drop a prayer - extraordinary proof on its way!

Energy Independence - not energy creation lol

Wayne Travis
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 03:24:53 PM
Tk,

I was not referring to your question of input and output - on the Energy push.

 Honestly - i do not yet understand your question.

If you were asking Larry - please remember he is comparing Standard buoyancy to ours.

Personal note:

History is filled with attempts to defeat the conservative field of gravity - no success.

It is an illusion - that gravity is overcome by buoyancy
Where our system is different:

Gravity is predictable - or has a measurable effect on mass - in that use - Archimedes is right on the money.
Air and water have different mass / density.

Our Zed - in its simplest form - reuses the same mass over and over simultaneously - in an additive fashion.

Larry is showing that we can get the same effect of Archimedes in a much, much smaller mass - yet the field of gravity did not change - pressure differentials can result in movement - and ours combined.

Recap:
We do not just increase the buoyancy - we concentrate the measurable effect of gravity in a smaller space -

Larry's data is just showing the effect of that concentration.

It has some pretty cool side effects - such as reduced input - increased speed,
in my opinion - it is as if we have concentrated the force of gravity - by concentrating its effect over the same mass against the light mass (air).

With that under our control - we unwrap the Conservative field of energy (referring to gravity and buoyancy).

Every single part of our process is measurable- understandable - and repeatable.

Please forgive me of my layman nomenclature - i am not an engineer - just a blessed mechanical person.

If you are able to ask your question in layman's terms - I will definitely answer.

Thank you for your patience

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 13, 2012, 03:43:56 PM
@mrwayne. Thanks for that update. I am sure we are all hoping you get "all your ducks in a row" in time for MD`s visit later this month. It is very interesting that, for the first time I believe, you state that the machine draws energy from Gravity. I always thought that this was more likely than the theory proposed by some, that is was ambient heat.
      I am sure that we all look forward to seeing your animation, another tool to help us understand how it all works.
       Regarding Webby`s build. You seem to know a bit more about this than the rest of us, which is as it should be as you awarded the prize. I believe that few, if any , details have been published here as to just how his water injection apparatus works. He seems to use a vertical pipe full of water to provide the input pressure, but we have no details on how he allows water to exit the ZED for the downstroke. Perhaps he, or you, could tell us more. No doubt when he is ready, Weby will show his how he operates his ZED, and if he has got to that stage, how he measures input/output.
       More and more information is becoming available, and I am hoping that when I am in a position to do some building, after my eye surgery, things will fall into place.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 13, 2012, 03:46:06 PM
Mondrasek ..

Has anyone made an animation of one ZED in operation thru one cycle ? If they have perhaps they could share it again ?

See3d mentioned using a sim of some sort to support his case, to be presented in a few days.

None that are public that I am aware of.  Hopefully what see3d and Wayne are preparing now will be accurate and complete through an entire cycle.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 04:37:21 PM
I am sorry M,
This is my opinion - my engineers argue..
Gravity causes buoyancy, and in a combination of ways -  causes head pressure.
Our system just works out the relationship and maximizes the relationship difference and gravity's effect on two separate densities.
Our system would work with water and Mercury - no air  as well (actually Better).
I try to let people make up their own minds - but sometimes they get way off track.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 13, 2012, 04:48:26 PM
I posted last week that a square build was in progress and I did have some sheet stock and made a few practice glue joints. Testing those joints proved they wouldn't hold up long and I received a few PMs with concern for binding in the square config. Back to the board... I also checked all the links for acrylic sources and could not come up with the right sizes to build consistent .125 spacing and wall thickness; until I found eplastics.

I did a mill test yesterday to see how well I could cut consistent grooves in plastic and the results were quite good for a first attempt so... This morning I ordered material for a 4.25 x 12 ( 16" to 24" with the extensions ), 3 layer model. ( no where near $2000 )

Wish I'd started sooner, by the time I'm finished the official demonstrator and documentation will probably be out but I just couldn't wait... 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 13, 2012, 05:18:48 PM
I posted last week that a square build was in progress and I did have some sheet stock and made a few practice glue joints. Testing those joints proved they wouldn't hold up long and I received a few PMs with concern for binding in the square config. Back to the board... I also checked all the links for acrylic sources and could not come up with the right sizes to build consistent .125 spacing and wall thickness; until I found eplastics.

I did a mill test yesterday to see how well I could cut consistent grooves in plastic and the results were quite good for a first attempt so... This morning I ordered material for a 4.25 x 12 ( 16" to 24" with the extensions ), 3 layer model. ( no where near $2000 )

Wish I'd started sooner, by the time I'm finished the official demonstrator and documentation will probably be out but I just couldn't wait...

Great news, must have missed your original post. PM me if you need any improvement in the 'Travis Effect Material Take off Square Shape-4 Riser', like more than 4 Risers.
 
@Wayne,
 
Thanks, good explanations. And you're right, I should stick to my goal of helping those who want to learn to understand and not waste time with the deceivers. Unfortunately, I don't have your Christ like patience.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 06:01:00 PM

Great news, must have missed your original post. PM me if you need any improvement in the 'Travis Effect Material Take off Square Shape-4 Riser', like more than 4 Risers.
 
@Wayne,
 
Thanks, good explanations. And you're right, I should stick to my goal of helping those who want to learn to understand and not waste time with the deceivers. Unfortunately, I don't have your Christ like patience.
 
Regards, Larry
Patience yes, but not that much, all I can say is that when I accepted the responsibility of bringing the machine to the world - I would not waiver or be mislead - by those who would wish I did not.
I also witnessed the mistakes made by Rossi and Kwok - anger might fuel a few people - but to keep your ground  and character - patience is better - and the truth is the best.
I appreciate a good argument, when one really exists. 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on August 13, 2012, 07:30:21 PM

I'm glad to hear that there are coming some better explanations of the effect.
Last weekend I modeled for myself a complete cycle of 1 riser based on INVERSE Travis Effect which could lift 1kg over 1cm after  addition of 100grams of water BUT I needed all the energy produced to return back to the original state. I did not modeled n-riser yet.


One question to Mr. Wayne,
Is the Inverse TE considered full equivalent of normal TE. I'm asking as the Inverse TE does not use air.


with kind regards,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 08:43:49 PM
I'm glad to hear that there are coming some better explanations of the effect.
Last weekend I modeled for myself a complete cycle of 1 riser based on INVERSE Travis Effect which could lift 1kg over 1cm after  addition of 100grams of water BUT I needed all the energy produced to return back to the original state. I did not modeled n-riser yet.


One question to Mr. Wayne,
Is the Inverse TE considered full equivalent of normal TE. I'm asking as the Inverse TE does not use air.


with kind regards,
Marcel
Hello MT,
As you have observed - the system pushes as hard down as it does up in the single set up - a single layer has a reduced input as compared to Archimedes' - and you measure the equivalent of one full mass.
That mass is equal to Both the water you input and the hanging (fixed load) Just like Toms video did.
Adding layers without the separating walls and air gaps - does not equal to reusing the mass (which is critically important).
p.s. You should re post your picture it is right for a one layer system -
 
 
Now:
In the system just as mine multi layers - the force is both up and down - it might seem to be pushing down harder because the weight of the system is pushing down with the heads - but you pay for that on the way back up.
Operational note - we do not add air to the system after starting - only the initial set up - and we transfer water instead of air.

Cool thinking! I hope this helps - but always check for yourself - I could be wrong - I test eveything....

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 13, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
@MT. I am pleased to see that you are experimenting. Can I just point out a common cause of confusion. People often use the word MODEL. And they, themselves know exactly what they mean. Unfortunately this word is ambiguous, in that it has multiple meanings. At least three are applicable here.
1. A mathematical model, where mathematics is used to describe the action.


2.A computer simulation


3. A real world replication of a real world machine often smaller than the original, but mimicking some or all of its actions.


Some people talk of a physical model, but this could be the same as 3 above , or could be a theoretical proof base on Physics. So may I suggest that we use the term "Real World Model" when we mean 3 above. So tell us please exactly what type of model you are describing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 09:47:30 PM
I posted last week that a square build was in progress and I did have some sheet stock and made a few practice glue joints. Testing those joints proved they wouldn't hold up long and I received a few PMs with concern for binding in the square config. Back to the board... I also checked all the links for acrylic sources and could not come up with the right sizes to build consistent .125 spacing and wall thickness; until I found eplastics.

I did a mill test yesterday to see how well I could cut consistent grooves in plastic and the results were quite good for a first attempt so... This morning I ordered material for a 4.25 x 12 ( 16" to 24" with the extensions ), 3 layer model. ( no where near $2000 )

Wish I'd started sooner, by the time I'm finished the official demonstrator and documentation will probably be out but I just couldn't wait...

None of the tube suppliers I listed a few days ago would suit? Sorry.

http://www.jcdanczak.com/our_products/subcat_16.html (http://www.jcdanczak.com/our_products/subcat_16.html)
http://www.k-mac-plastics.net/polycarbonate-tubes.htm (http://www.k-mac-plastics.net/polycarbonate-tubes.htm)
http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23791 (http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23791)
http://www.carrierplastics.com/polycarbonate_tubes.html (http://www.carrierplastics.com/polycarbonate_tubes.html)
http://www.interstateplastics.com/Clear-Polycarbonate-Tube-POLCE.php (http://www.interstateplastics.com/Clear-Polycarbonate-Tube-POLCE.php)


You don't say whether you are working in acrylic or polycarbonate. Proper tool speeds and feeds, cutting angles, and lubrication/cooling are critical for success with plastics.
Normal twist drills will usually crack acrylics when coming out the back side. Special drills with steeper point angles are available for drilling plastics. A set in the usual fractional sizes is well worth the investment and can usually be obtained from the plastic supply houses or tool speciality shops.
I buy WD-40 by the gallon and use it for coolant-lube when cutting acrylic (plexiglas, acrylite, other brand names.) Kerosene is also recommended but I don't like the smell. Water works fine for polycarbonate.
The worst thing you can do is to use too fast speeds and feeds, overheating the tool. You won't know you've ruined a workpiece until... you've ruined it.
Make sure your tools are _sharp_, especially your thread-cutting taps,  and with the proper angles.

Good luck with your build.. I'm sure we'd all like to see some "work in progress" pix !!

(ETA: I see that you did mention acrylic. This would not have been my choice, because of its brittleness and shatterability. It is a slight bit easier to machine than polycarbonate, but in the long run the polycarbonate would be more durable, I think. But carry on.... do get some sharp-point drill bits if you are going to be drilling holes in the acrylic.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 10:02:24 PM
Tk,

I was not referring to your question of input and output - on the Energy push.

 Honestly - i do not yet understand your question.

If you were asking Larry - please remember he is comparing Standard buoyancy to ours.

(snip)


If you are able to ask your question in layman's terms - I will definitely answer.

Thank you for your patience

Wayne Travis

Well... that's fair enough, because honestly, I don't yet understand your explanations, either.

So...let's try it like this.

Do you have a single Zed, that shows the effect, the gain, the overunity, by lifting a known weight a certain distance, or providing a known volume output of liquid at a known pressure?
(This can be answered YES, or NO.)
If NO... then stop, because we have hit a contradiction: I think that earlier you (or someone) said that you did.

If the answer is YES.... then, does it start out,  motionless, at a position with pressures and volumes known, and wind back up at that same position, with the same pressures and volumes?
(Another YES or NO answer can be given.)
If NO... then stop, because we have hit a contradiction: we have not yet completed a CYCLE.

If the answer is YES.... then, what does it take to start it up and make it lift that known weight that certain distance, to the top of the cycle?
 
The answer to this last one I expect to be something like "We need to push down (or in) on a hydraulic ram" or "We inject a volume of liquid at a pressure" or something like that. Very simple.

OK, I have tried to make it easy for you to understand my questions so far. Will you please try to make it easy for me to understand your answers?

Once I understand the answers to this part, I might be able to understand the rest. You have to cut me a little slack, though... I am straitjacketed by my education and it takes me a little while to wriggle out of what I "think" I already know.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 13, 2012, 10:12:43 PM

To be clear:

It has been repeated here over and over, my purpose is to help others replicate our system.

We capture a natural force - once believed "conservative" gravity - it is a tricky process - and it confuses many.

Probably why it is not in the text books already.

Yet - Our physics are solid as a rock - and yes they come from those text books - and every replication proves it.

Wayne Travis


Thanks Wayne for the additional information.

Also to be clear - you & your team have taken the position that gravity is not conservative which allows for net work/load output capacity ?

My question is a rather obvious one I'm afraid.

Can the Single or Dual ZED configuration operate as you propose outside a gravity field ?

For example, by creating an artificial ersatz gravity differential thru the use of a rotational environment & inertia i.e. centrifugal forces ?

This is the constant angular velocity spinning space station analogy.

The implications being, if the answer is yes, that if an artificial gravity can be substituted for real gravity differential/field then Cf's/Cp's will also be viewed by you as non conservative forces by deduction.

This would mean IINM that the Travis Effect is NOT a gravity/buoyancy effect but a differential-field/buoyancy effect that can be used to create an engine to do Work because the TE mechanics allow for non conservative force generation ?

If the answer is no, then an engine based on the TE will not work in space or horizontally & only in a gravity field ?

I hope that makes sense.

P.S. I'm interested to hear if your engineers have the same explanation as you or a different one, & if so, what is theirs ?



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 14, 2012, 12:20:35 AM
@TK - Thanks for the comments on lubricants for the acrylic, well noted. I'm hoping my machining needs will be limited to some milling , a few holes in thicker stock, and one tapped hole in each of the plates. The mill test I did yesterday was in a piece of ABS ( I think, a softer, colored piece ) so I will do a practice cut or 2 in the sample set I ordered for testing.

A note on the sizes: A few sites offer .128 wall tubing in .250 steps up to 4.5 inch but if I'm figuring it right those sizes won't work in all all places. With a +- .005 tolerance it's even likely that a 4.250 piece will not slip over a 4.000 piece.
Here are the OD sizes I did order, all in .125 wall. They should be close to .125 spacing ( which is more than I'd like ).
4.375 - 4.000 - 3.875 - 3.500 - 3.125 - 2.750. I'm sure I didn't think it through well enough, we'll see if I'm up to it...

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on August 14, 2012, 12:50:57 AM
@MT. I am pleased to see that you are experimenting. Can I just point out a common cause of confusion. People often use the word MODEL. And they, themselves know exactly what they mean. Unfortunately this word is ambiguous, in that it has multiple meanings. At least three are applicable here.
1. A mathematical model, where mathematics is used to describe the action.
2.A computer simulation
3. A real world replication of a real world machine often smaller than the original, but mimicking some or all of its actions.
Some people talk of a physical model, but this could be the same as 3 above , or could be a theoretical proof base on Physics. So may I suggest that we use the term "Real World Model" when we mean 3 above. So tell us please exactly what type of model you are describing.
Hi neptune,
I'm afraid I'm not fitting any. Before weekend I felt like I need to internalize the effect using concepts I can understand. For me is inverse TE more intuitive to think about. I see it as a weight amplification system. Smaller amount of water results in a bigger increase of weight. I tried to model complete cycle how 1 riser could work. Attached are 4 drawings.


1. initial step -  lever is in balance. Left side 2kg weight, on right side is 3l bucket (30cm high, 10cm for each liter). Pod hanging from top take 90% of bucket volume. I abstracted from whether it is cylinder or square, water can take max 0.3l volume around pod. I think it is clear 0.2l makes right side weighting 2kg.
2. charging step - Lever is locked. Adding 100g(0.1liter) of water on right side at the top level of the pod! This is our input. Charged right side gets weight 3kg.
3. stroke step -  unlock the lever. Allow lowering right side by 1cm. This movement does work. I do not dare to calculate it but it is clear that there is disbalance of 1kg at 0cm distance on right side and this disbalance decreases to 0kg at exactly 1 cm distance. Water level decreases to the level in step 1.
4. closing loop step - now to get back to the charged step we need to apply force on left side over 1cm. Starting at 0kg and linearly increasing it to 1kg over distance 1cm. Producing step 3 makes force going from 1kg to 0kg, this step needs force going from 0kg to 1kg over 1cm, so inverse. I think it is clear that work done in step 3 equals work needed to be done in step4.


kind regards,
Marcel






Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Gwandau on August 14, 2012, 12:52:12 AM
Dear Mr.Waynes, allow me to adress this question to everybody involved in this discussion.

Guys, I watched a quite interesting video demonstrating an oddment in regard to Archimedes principle, if not an open violation.
Unfortunately I cannot find the youtube link, but I recall quite clearly the parameters involved in the demonstration.

Is this what it is all about, is this the differential employed by Mr.Wayne? :

regards,
Gwandau
 
The significance with this experiment becomes obvious when the minimum weight needed to keep the right cylinder down, still keeps the cylinder with greater air volume inside the left cylinder from rising. If anyone has an explanation for this oddity, please respond.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 14, 2012, 12:55:03 AM
Quote
Quote from: LarryC on August 13, 2012, 05:18:48 PM (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg331945/#msg331945)<blockquote>
Great news, must have missed your original post. PM me if you need any improvement in the 'Travis Effect Material Take off Square Shape-4 Riser', like more than 4 Risers.
 
@Wayne,
 
Thanks, good explanations. And you're right, I should stick to my goal of helping those who want to learn to understand and not waste time with the deceivers. Unfortunately, I don't have your Christ like patience.
 
Regards, Larry
</blockquote>Patience yes, but not that much, all I can say is that when I accepted the responsibility of bringing the machine to the world - I would not waiver or be mislead - by those who would wish I did not.
I also witnessed the mistakes made by Rossi and Kwok - anger might fuel a few people - but to keep your ground  and character - patience is better - and the truth is the best.
I appreciate a good argument, when one really exists
Wayne

Well, I am no deceiver, that's for sure.  And I made a really sound argument.  I think that it's too strong to deal with so pretending it doesn't exist keeps the buzz going.

Who is the real deceiver will all come out in the wash eventually.  I can predict with great confidence that not a single erg of excess or free energy or whatever you want to call it will be produced by one of these systems by December 31, 2012.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: phwest on August 14, 2012, 01:00:36 AM
Neptune,
Cisco I think you meant 1149.

No problem, I would think that by now some basic research would’ve be done on the net and coupled with creativity, would have led most attempting replicators to the following sites among the many.
So these maybe of interest if you haven’t found them yet:

http://www.specialtybottle.com/amberpetbostonroundplasticbottlesmi.aspx
http://www.specialtybottle.com/naturalplasticbottlesmi.aspx
http://www.sks-bottle.com/340c/fin19.html
http://www.freundcontainer.com/kautex-textron-plastic-containers-kautex-wide-mouth-leak-proof-plastic-jars-hdpe/p/v3977B01/
http://www.visipak.com/clear-plastic-tubing.shtml


Note the varying available diameters and types. Look around mix and match from different suppliers to get more options. It may shave you time making your own cylinders. You can still use the standard soda bottles to supplement sizes and the final external container 2L bottles and so on.
They go from less than a buck to couple a piece. You may try a request for a free samples when they are sold by the case.
The last link has the tennis ball tubes and associated products
If you dig deeper, wall thicknesses are in the .015”to .025’ area some maybe more.
Blow molding process. Most made of LDPE HDPE and PET, and if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, pressure stress/strain calculations, use the matl properties, hoop stresses, deformations etc,
The “pod” can also by made by the smaller ones Instead of machining a piece of metal. Use the smaller bottles, fill it with sand, and styrofoam grinds or whatever, to provide extra strength against collapse (highly doubtful) to get at  your desired buoyancy level your setup requires for the pod.

Tubing, can be from aquarium, or your local hardware store would have a variety of diameters and types. Sold by the foot for pennies. For tube fittings, just go to your local party store, get for 0.15$ the tube, about ¼” diameter 16” long thin wall with a movable flange on it, that they use for those helium balloons. Cut the tube to length use the flange or make your own for added handling strength and gluing surface, drill hole(s) on the bottle where you need access, or the bottle cup for the external water reservoirs some silicone, rubber glue…

The setup is small, so for accurate measuring of differential weights, visit your local pharmacy, ask for the graduated plastic syringes. You can get them for free one or two samples etc. You can measure and dispense water fairly accurately for increments down to tenths of a cc.

Stay creative, have fun.
I hope this helps
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 14, 2012, 01:07:06 AM
Gwandau:

Quote
Guys, I watched a quite interesting video demonstrating an oddment in regard to Archimedes principle, if not an open violation.
Unfortunately I cannot find the youtube link, but I recall quite clearly the parameters involved in the demonstration.

Is this what it is all about, is this the differential employed by Mr.Wayne? :

The setup on the right will have much more buoyancy and there is no violation.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Gwandau on August 14, 2012, 01:13:48 AM
MileHigh,
 
thanks for the response.
 
So even if the amount of water displaced by the right cylinder is less than the left cylinder, there will no difference in lift?
Excuse me for my ignorance, I always thought the Archimedes principle was depending on the displaced amount of fluid in relation to the weight
of the displacing object.
 
Gwandau
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 14, 2012, 01:26:31 AM
Gwandau:

In your example the fixed inner cylinder on the right could just as easily have been air and it would be the same thing and act the same way.

The real cause of the buoyancy is the air pressure pushing against the inside of the outer cylinder.  All of the air pressure pushing on the vertical walls of the outer cylinder provides no buoyancy because the air pressure is in a horizontal direction and it all cancels itself out.  The only thing that counts is the air pressure that pushes on the top of the inside of the outer cylinder.  That air pressure comes from the water pressure at the bottom of the tank.

You just have to look at the individual surfaces and the forces on those surfaces from the air pressure or the water pressure.  In the case of the setup on the right, the water pressure at the bottom of the tank becomes the air pressure inside the outer cylinder.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 14, 2012, 01:29:53 AM
Quote
I always thought the Archimedes principle was depending on the displaced amount of fluid in relation to the weight
of the displacing object.

This is a specific example that is simplified.  If you were to look at it in terms of surfaces and the water pressures and air pressures on each surface you will arrive at the same conclusion as the simplified example.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Gwandau on August 14, 2012, 01:53:51 AM
MileHigh and seamus102,

thank you for enlightening me, your descriptions were clear and elucidating.

regards,
Gwandau
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 02:00:17 AM
Well... that's fair enough, because honestly, I don't yet understand your explanations, either.

So...let's try it like this.

Do you have a single Zed, that shows the effect, the gain, the overunity, by lifting a known weight a certain distance, or providing a known volume output of liquid at a known pressure?
(This can be answered YES, or NO.)
If NO... then stop, because we have hit a contradiction: I think that earlier you (or someone) said that you did.

If the answer is YES.... then, does it start out,  motionless, at a position with pressures and volumes known, and wind back up at that same position, with the same pressures and volumes?
(Another YES or NO answer can be given.)
If NO... then stop, because we have hit a contradiction: we have not yet completed a CYCLE.

If the answer is YES.... then, what does it take to start it up and make it lift that known weight that certain distance, to the top of the cycle?
 
The answer to this last one I expect to be something like "We need to push down (or in) on a hydraulic ram" or "We inject a volume of liquid at a pressure" or something like that. Very simple.

OK, I have tried to make it easy for you to understand my questions so far. Will you please try to make it easy for me to understand your answers?

Once I understand the answers to this part, I might be able to understand the rest. You have to cut me a little slack, though... I am straitjacketed by my education and it takes me a little while to wriggle out of what I "think" I already know.
TK, I have a great deal of respect for you and the effort you have given to help and protect others
I said I will answer your questions about energy -
Be clear - I do not share on this site to try to convince anyone or to replace the "team in place" for our validation.
Your format is inappropriate for my stated and intended purpose here.
I will repeat what I have said - our current single unit is barely better than a hydraulic cylinder - you can measure the input and output  - we do not use weight - but volume and pressure. Yes - our three layer system is clearly overunity by itself.
In this small model - hooking the system together bumps us up by reducing the input further.
Oops dinner - more later.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 03:18:37 AM
Well... that's fair enough, because honestly, I don't yet understand your explanations, either.

So...let's try it like this.

Do you have a single Zed, that shows the effect, the gain, the overunity, by lifting a known weight a certain distance, or providing a known volume output of liquid at a known pressure?
(This can be answered YES, or NO.)
If NO... then stop, because we have hit a contradiction: I think that earlier you (or someone) said that you did.

If the answer is YES.... then, does it start out,  motionless, at a position with pressures and volumes known, and wind back up at that same position, with the same pressures and volumes?
(Another YES or NO answer can be given.)
If NO... then stop, because we have hit a contradiction: we have not yet completed a CYCLE.

If the answer is YES.... then, what does it take to start it up and make it lift that known weight that certain distance, to the top of the cycle?
 
The answer to this last one I expect to be something like "We need to push down (or in) on a hydraulic ram" or "We inject a volume of liquid at a pressure" or something like that. Very simple.

OK, I have tried to make it easy for you to understand my questions so far. Will you please try to make it easy for me to understand your answers?

Once I understand the answers to this part, I might be able to understand the rest. You have to cut me a little slack, though... I am straitjacketed by my education and it takes me a little while to wriggle out of what I "think" I already know.
TK,
Please send me a personal e-mail to mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I believe you are trustworthy - I do not have the time to bring you up to speed in this forum fashion - I will send you some info
to leap you ahead.
Your questions will be more to the point. You need to know and remove the hearsay.
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 03:26:13 AM
Thanks Wayne for the additional information.

Also to be clear - you & your team have taken the position that gravity is not conservative which allows for net work/load output capacity ?

My question is a rather obvious one I'm afraid.

Can the Single or Dual ZED configuration operate as you propose outside a gravity field ?

For example, by creating an artificial ersatz gravity differential thru the use of a rotational environment & inertia i.e. centrifugal forces ?

This is the constant angular velocity spinning space station analogy.

The implications being, if the answer is yes, that if an artificial gravity can be substituted for real gravity differential/field then Cf's/Cp's will also be viewed by you as non conservative forces by deduction.

This would mean IINM that the Travis Effect is NOT a gravity/buoyancy effect but a differential-field/buoyancy effect that can be used to create an engine to do Work because the TE mechanics allow for non conservative force generation ?

If the answer is no, then an engine based on the TE will not work in space or horizontally & only in a gravity field ?

I hope that makes sense.

P.S. I'm interested to hear if your engineers have the same explanation as you or a different one, & if so, what is theirs ?
Our system relies on the effect gravity has on separate density - a rotation system would increase the system on earth and work in space.

We have a rotational model - I not allowed to discuss it yet.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 03:46:05 AM
TK,
Please send me a personal e-mail to mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I believe you are trustworthy - I do not have the time to bring you up to speed in this forum fashion - I will send you some info
to leap you ahead.
The your questions will be more to the point you need to know and remove the here -say.
Wayne Travis
I'll be happy to do this... but only on the condition that I can share whatever you send me with the other forum participants if I think it's appropriate. Would that be OK with you?

I have no desire to know about your intellectual property at all, at this point, so please don't expect me to sign an NDA yet, and please don't tell me anything you consider proprietary. And I definitely do not need, at this stage, to understand _how_ it works, or to read long convoluted explanations of how it works ... I just want to know _at this point_  if it does what it says "on the box"... the title of this thread.  I simply want to know what goes in (energy, aka work) and what comes out (energy, aka work), averaged over a reasonable time period, like one full and complete cycle or a multiple of full and complete cycles, so that a claim of overunity-- what it says on the box-- can be supported with data. That much, I think, you could show or tell anyone without revealing your secrets. And I'm pretty sure that, were I in your position, I could do this in a reasonable time period... like a few minutes.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 14, 2012, 03:57:14 AM
Well Wayne - I am most definitely looking forward to MD's analysis or any competent detailed analysis for that matter - it will be interesting to hear TK's updated thoughts after an exchange of emails & information with you.

A rotary mode engine based on 'formerly conservative forces' of either gravity or inertia, or both, would indeed be game changing in all ways & a natural progression of the idea for you.

I also appreciate that you are trying here to foster independent replications of the basic setups, which I don't have the time for, rather than enter theory debates - it's however part of the process from going from science theory to science fact when new paradigms are proposed.

ATEOTD a working physical model, validated & replicated, foreshortens all arguments & distills all essence - so no matter to which side any of us currently lean in this discussion we all have a common ground of wanting science truth, & that is what we all look forward to.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 04:38:54 AM
Well, you made me do it. I got my hands wet, doing a simple experiment that led me to an interesting conclusion and discovery.

I have discovered virtual water! And it has virtual weight, too.
 ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjqBaH_NWU


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 14, 2012, 04:48:20 AM
I have discovered virtual water! And it has virtual weight, too. ;)

I am still laughing -- you made my day!
We all live in a virtual submarine...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 14, 2012, 04:48:21 AM
Bah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfTqrmnQuw
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 14, 2012, 04:55:44 AM
Well, you made me do it. I got my hands wet, doing a simple experiment that led me to an interesting conclusion and discovery.

I have discovered virtual water! And it has virtual weight, too.
 ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjqBaH_NWU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjqBaH_NWU)

Strange isnt it?  ;]   Now, if you second, displacement, glass had no weight, and was affixed to the first cup, just as it is in the vid, what would we see on the scale?

Mind boggling

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 14, 2012, 04:59:17 AM
Bah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfTqrmnQuw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfTqrmnQuw)

But that is just a magic trick M.  TK is showing something real. ;]

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 14, 2012, 05:14:50 AM
Well not so mind boggling. The weight of the stand with the glass holder is applied to the scale by displacing the water.  But displacing the water with a second empty glass fixed to the first glass, should only add the weight of the second empty glass. Right?

Like if you set it up the way you have with the stand, and have a way to bond the 2 glasses together while held in place and then removed the stand......

One might think that if the glasses were bonded together and the stand removed that the scale might show no difference, stand or no stand.

But I can see that even at the time of bonding of the glasses, that the stand is applying pressure to the scale, even if it is not the weight of the stand that is displacing the water after the glasses are bonded. After bonding, the weight of the stand is applied to the scale directly through the glass and the water is just additional weight.


Ah, so this is the why of the separate free floating chambers in the risers. Im getting an inkling of what is going on here.  Ill see what I can make of it.

Thanks for the vid T. ;]

MaGs

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 14, 2012, 05:16:06 AM
Quote
Strange isnt it?  ;]   Now, if you second, displacement, glass had no weight, and was affixed to the first cup, just as it is in the vid, what would we see on the scale?

It's all about giving head.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 14, 2012, 05:18:29 AM
If thats the way you want to look at it. :o

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 05:23:24 AM
I'll be happy to do this... but only on the condition that I can share whatever you send me with the other forum participants if I think it's appropriate. Would that be OK with you?

I have no desire to know about your intellectual property at all, at this point, so please don't expect me to sign an NDA yet, and please don't tell me anything you consider proprietary. And I definitely do not need, at this stage, to understand _how_ it works, or to read long convoluted explanations of how it works ... I just want to know _at this point_  if it does what it says "on the box"... the title of this thread.  I simply want to know what goes in (energy, aka work) and what comes out (energy, aka work), averaged over a reasonable time period, like one full and complete cycle or a multiple of full and complete cycles, so that a claim of overunity-- what it says on the box-- can be supported with data. That much, I think, you could show or tell anyone without revealing your secrets. And I'm pretty sure that, were I in your position, I could do this in a reasonable time period... like a few minutes.
Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model  -
IN -PUT = Each full cycle - 12-15 cubic inches of compressed fluid from the accumulator.
OUT - PUT = Same cycle - 28 -30 cubic inches of (same type) compressed fluid - pushed into accumulator.
The pressure depends on our desire no less than 500psi, no higher than 900psi.
Please remember the input comes from with in the loop of our system.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 14, 2012, 05:25:55 AM
@ TK,
 
Thanks for the laughs, excellent experiment.
 
But, I'm disappointed in your statement 'And I definitely do not need, at this stage, to understand _how_ it works'. It is a shame that you don't want to understand, because once you did, you would not have to travel anywhere as you would know how it works and could easily design your own system.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 06:40:04 AM
@ TK,
 
Thanks for the laughs, excellent experiment.
 
But, I'm disappointed in your statement 'And I definitely do not need, at this stage, to understand _how_ it works'. It is a shame that you don't want to understand, because once you did, you would not have to travel anywhere as you would know how it works and could easily design your own system.
 
Regards, Larry

Ah, you forgot the emphasis on AT THIS STAGE, and NEED.  Where, exactly, did I ever say that I did not want to understand anything? I generally say WHAT I MEAN, not what others want me to mean. Look carefully at what I said: I said that, AT THIS STAGE, I do not NEED to understand.

Why should I be made to listen to an obscure explanation of something that can't show me that it does what it says, first?

If I had never seen a bicycle, what would help me to understand it more: an explanation of how it worked, given in non-standard, non-engineering speak, or a video showing someone actually riding one? Once it's proven to me that bikes exist and can be ridden stably.... THEN tell me how, if I still need to know how.

But you will never convince me that a silly contraption like that can be ridden at 60km/h with a bunch of words.

Now... you and MrWayne aren't trying to convince me that there are bicycles... you are trying to convince me that there are _flying_ bicycles. (so to speak). So... right, I don't care how it flys and I don't need to know. First... convince me that it DOES FLY. And not by showing me tables of power-to-weight ratios, discussions of the Wright Bros, bumblbee flight, etc. SHOW ME THE SAUSAGES.

So far, no flying bikes, no sausages, and no energy input/energy output figures have been forthcoming.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 14, 2012, 06:42:43 AM

Strange isnt it?  ;]   Now, if you second, displacement, glass had no weight, and was affixed to the first cup, just as it is in the vid, what would we see on the scale?

Mind boggling

MaGs


Try it for real - perhaps TK will oblige if you are unable - we are talking about the "hydrostatic paradox".

Here is a variation.

Place two identical bowls half filled with liquid on separate scales [or do experiments in series with one scale] - both bowls & liquid have the same weight force on the scales.

Now lower the reverse riser into one bowl of liquid by hand or mechanically - read the scale measure of total force as the water level rises in the bowl [pressure is increasing] - note that you have to apply quite a force to depress the reverse riser - naturally, because the riser is not fixed to the bowl the forces will try to reach equilibrium & separate the riser & bowl & this is the force you feel.

Repeat with a fixed displacer/reverse riser.

P.S. I actually did this many years ago using a balance beam, pivot, & two identical buckets - I half filled the buckets so the system was balanced - then I lowered into one a object that displaced fluid & thus the water level rose in that bucket creating a greater water pressure on the bottom of the bucket than its opposite - my displacer & the bucket moved apart [bucket rotated downwards] to find equilibrium - the energy cost of forcing the displacer into the water was the same as the rotational energy gained IINM.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 07:16:21 AM
Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model  -
IN -PUT = Each full cycle - 12-15 cubic inches of compressed fluid from the accumulator.
OUT - PUT = Same cycle - 28 -30 cubic inches of (same type) compressed fluid - pushed into accumulator.
The pressure depends on our desire no less than 500psi, no higher than 900psi.
Please remember the input comes from with in the loop of our system.
Wayne
So from this description you are not making a cycle, back to the starting volumes and positions yet, are you? It seems that you have pumped out 30 cubic inches of fluid from the Zed but pumped in 15 cubic inches of fluid. Thus... there are 15 cubic inches LESS fluid in the Zed and 15 cu in MORE fluid in the accumulator than you started with. Right? If this is a full cycle... so this means you could now start at THIS POINT, and do it again, right?  Aren't you going to run out of fluid in the Zed after a certain number of these "cycles"? Or do you have to put in some more energy -- fluid under pressure -- somehow to reset the system back to the point where you started from?
If the first... you would seem to have a hydraulic fluid manufacturing plant, starting from nothing, making 15 cu in per squirt, filling up your accumulator. If the second... then you have not yet accounted for all the input work, have you?

(Conservation of Energy might be problematic... but surely everybody here believes in Conservation of Hydraulic Fluid... the stuff just does not come from nowhere and vanish back into nowhere, as much as we might like it to.)

"the input comes from within the loop"... sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.  INPUT is something coming in from the outside. If your device has NO INPUT, yet makes an extra 15 cu in of hydraulic fluid per cycle... well I think Mark Dansie could confirm that pretty easily; the accumulator will be overflowing pretty soon. Or if it's just moving 15 cu inch from one Zed to the other and back again, with no input, and producing useful power output, that too can be measured in terms of energy. (In what form? electrical? How about just torque on that hydraulic motor., something that can be measured unequivocally with a simple Prony brake or fancy electronic torque shaft sensors for example.)

You sure are making it hard for me to stay out of the "stink pitcher's bullpen" here, Mr Wayne. It looks like determining work in and work out in your system is not going to be a casual affair and it's pretty clear that continued questions about it are just frustrating you. I'm sorry for that.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 07:28:12 AM
@fletcher: Nice.... and logical. All forces have "two ends" after all.... the displacer is pushing down, and the bucket is pushing up, with the same force. Not just the same numerical value in opposite directions... but the _same_ force, actually pushing on them both from "both ends" trying to separate them. Which one actually moves -- accelerates, F=mA -- depends on what's pushing back against it, with what force. Motionless objects are not "forceless", rather they are in force equilibrium.
(The bold letters indicate vector quantities: they have direction as well as magnitude).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 14, 2012, 08:32:01 AM
TK:

You know the comedian Steven Wright.  One of his lines was, "You know that feeling when you are leaning back in a chair and all of a sudden you feel like you might fall over backwards? - Well I feel like that all the time."

You have ninety pages worth of Wayne describing the system but nobody truly knows how it works.  Wayne is here to "teach" people to replicate and learn how it works, but at the same time he has stated many times that he is going to protect his intellectual property and he won't tell you how it works.

I bet you if you were to ask Wayne for a schematic diagram that shows how this system is supposed to work he will refuse, it's his IP after all.  Even better ask him for a series of schematic diagrams, each one documenting where all the prancing fluids and swooshing gasses are for each step in the cycle.  I have to assume that he will refuse.  Yet at the same time he is more than happy to describe the cycles over and over in vague undefined terms, for ninety pages!  So what is he doing here "teaching" people how to replicate if he won't tell you how to replicate?   What is this business of endless streams of verbage demanding top-notch 3D visualization in your head, when it could just be diagrammed on paper?  How many people reading this thread can visualize what Wayne is describing in terms of all of the cycles and transfers of fluids and pressures in their heads?

What is all this talk of the fact that the system does not produce any energy juxtaposed with all of this talk that the system can output continuous power and change the world?  Those two conflicting statements have ping-ponged back and forth from Wayne about 20 times over the course of this thread.  It doesn't produce "free energy," it just uses less on the charge cycle and puts out more on the discharge cycle, and it's going to revolutionize the world and he can quote you the continuous power output from the device, harnessing buoyancy with a "workaround" - but it's not a "free energy" machine.

What is this business with discussions about cubic inches of a non-compressible fluid when nearly every single other person with an energy proposition or a free energy proposition works in joules and watts and work and power - the universally accepted scientific terms that are the bread and butter and currency of this web site - except for Wayne?

So what is really going on here?

Can you figure it out TK?   Because to me it feels like ninety pages worth of balancing on a chair about to fall over - or not about to fall over.  It's a self-balancing unbalanced chair.

It's all so simple, just read what Wayne posts in all its complexity and it will be as clear as night in the daytime.

Quote
Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
And then he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
He asks you how it feels
And he says, “Here is your throat back
Thanks for the loan”

Can you figure it out?  Can I sell you some cheese?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 14, 2012, 09:15:57 AM
MH .. we all have our own experiences - I was never able to find a 'workaround' to enable less Input energy than Output - Mr Wayne says he has found a workaround to this & that makes gravity a non conservative force - this forms the basis of a gravity-hydro engine.

Obviously my experiences & failures are not everybody's & Mr Wayne has a support team including engineers, so I have to speculate that they may know something I don't - their view & assertions don't conform to my world view & understanding of physics but it is never to late to learn if there is something to learn - that has yet to be determined & only the validators & replicators can provide that feedback I suspect.

I do believe that Mr Wayne is completely sincere in his beliefs & that is the motivation for his sharing what he can now.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 09:37:07 AM
@MH: Maybe ... we should all be made to wear ear phones.......

Something is definitely happening here but I don't know what it is....... do I, Mr.... er.... Wayne.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 14, 2012, 09:45:05 AM
From the web page http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives (see entry from August 13, 2012) we learn:

Presentation - we have moved our presentation (trial run) to this Friday at 7:00

May be Mr. Wayne will tell us after the "trial run on Friday" how long the machine worked and how much power it put out during it's working period?


From the web page http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives (see entry from August 13, 2012) we also learn:

a lot of very smart people are working hard for us and for their own curiosity

May be one of these smart people can tell us after the "trial run on Friday" two very simple numbers: continuous run time and approximate power output?


After so many pages of "guarded explanations" and "world saving promises" by Mr. Wayne it becomes frustrating and annoying. Yes, he has no obligation to disclose anything. But what is his message?

As far as I understand Mr. Wayne's message: "There is an OU machine, but I can not show you a working machine and I can not tell you how it works and I can not tell you how much net power it puts out, please replicate it."

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: Yes, I am frustrated and annoyed and my post is not nice.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 10:04:22 AM
OK, enough for the musical interlude already.

Fletcher said,
Quote
I do believe that Mr Wayne is completely sincere in his beliefs & that is the motivation for his sharing what he can now.

And that is my provisional stance as well, even though I agree with pretty much all of what MH has been saying. I believe MrWayne to be sincere and willing to help us "straights" understand his system, if that is really his goal. I might not be convinced that he is _right_ about what he's sincere about, but lots of people aren't, and I don't generally hold that against them.

MrWayne said,
Quote
I will repeat what I have said - our current single unit is barely better than a hydraulic cylinder - you can measure the input and output  - we do not use weight - but volume and pressure. Yes - our three layer system is clearly overunity by itself.
In this small model - hooking the system together bumps us up by reducing the input further.

So OK, can we please just for a moment concentrate on a single Zed that shows overunity, and not get sidetracked into talking about the full system with high pressures and accumulators and all that?  Let's be specific: let's only, for the moment, discuss the three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself.

When most of us on this site talk about overunity performance, we are talking about a system that outputs more energy than is input, averaged over a suitable time period. This is distinct from "power" or average power, which might seem like the same thing but really isn't.
Energy is measured, in the system most of us use, the SI, in Joules. The units of Joules are also equivalent to the units of Work, that is, force x distance.
Now... for your statement that "the three layer system is clearly overunity by itself" to be credible, that "overunity" part MUST involve some input-output comparison, a comparison of energies or work. Otherwise... how can you justify the "overunity" part of the claim? If you are defining it the same way most of us do, you have got to at least know the input and output energies. But... if you are defining it some other way, we need to know what that is and to agree that it is a valid definition for the purpose.

So... referring now ONLY to the three layer, clearly overunity by itself system....

Go ahead and set it up, you can have this for free. Now it's sitting there, precharged,  waiting to be started up. Right?
And the various pressures, water heights, cylinder positions and so on are known, can be measured. Right?
Now, you start it up and run it through a _complete cycle_. OK? A complete cycle means just that: everything back where it started from, ready to lather rinse and repeat.

How did you start it? How can you tell it's running, what happens at the "peak" of the cycle? And what is required to bring it back to the _identical start position_, including all pressures, fluid quantities, cylinder positions, etc so that it can start over? Describe this please, in your own words that you understand, and please tell us how you arrived at the "overunity" conclusion based on a single cycle, complete, of the three layer clearly overunity system.

Once you have described this in your own words, let's then see if we can translate that into the language of engineering: simply work in, and work out, in Joules.

Please notice that I am NOT asking "how" it does anything. I am just still wanting to know _what_ it does.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 10:31:38 AM
I am still laughing -- you made my day!
We all live in a virtual submarine...

and our friends
are all aboard
many more of them
live next door.....

(cue gurgling sounds....)
 :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 14, 2012, 12:47:34 PM
If I may; Mrwayne will correct if I'm wrong but I think this statement means that fluid is entering and leaving the output stage, not the ZED.
Quote
Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model  -
IN -PUT = Each full cycle - 12-15 cubic inches of compressed fluid from the accumulator.
OUT - PUT = Same cycle - 28 -30 cubic inches of (same type) compressed fluid - pushed into accumulator.
The pressure depends on our desire no less than 500psi, no higher than 900psi.
Please remember the input comes from with in the loop of our system.
Wayne
The ZEDs continue to contain the same volume of air / water. The "extra" 15 ci of compressed fluid is cycled through the hydraulic motor to generate electricity.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 03:49:06 PM
So from this description you are not making a cycle, back to the starting volumes and positions yet, are you? It seems that you have pumped out 30 cubic inches of fluid from the Zed but pumped in 15 cubic inches of fluid. Thus... there are 15 cubic inches LESS fluid in the Zed and 15 cu in MORE fluid in the accumulator than you started with. Right? If this is a full cycle... so this means you could now start at THIS POINT, and do it again, right?  Aren't you going to run out of fluid in the Zed after a certain number of these "cycles"? Or do you have to put in some more energy -- fluid under pressure -- somehow to reset the system back to the point where you started from?
If the first... you would seem to have a hydraulic fluid manufacturing plant, starting from nothing, making 15 cu in per squirt, filling up your accumulator. If the second... then you have not yet accounted for all the input work, have you?

(Conservation of Energy might be problematic... but surely everybody here believes in Conservation of Hydraulic Fluid... the stuff just does not come from nowhere and vanish back into nowhere, as much as we might like it to.)

"the input comes from within the loop"... sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.  INPUT is something coming in from the outside. If your device has NO INPUT, yet makes an extra 15 cu in of hydraulic fluid per cycle... well I think Mark Dansie could confirm that pretty easily; the accumulator will be overflowing pretty soon. Or if it's just moving 15 cu inch from one Zed to the other and back again, with no input, and producing useful power output, that too can be measured in terms of energy. (In what form? electrical? How about just torque on that hydraulic motor., something that can be measured unequivocally with a simple Prony brake or fancy electronic torque shaft sensors for example.)

You sure are making it hard for me to stay out of the "stink pitcher's bullpen" here, Mr Wayne. It looks like determining work in and work out in your system is not going to be a casual affair and it's pretty clear that continued questions about it are just frustrating you. I'm sorry for that.

What???
Output does not mean we take it out of the system.... are you playing with me lol
I will try one more time.
OUR PRODUCTION - is 28-30
Our INTERNAL CONSUMPTION is 15-18
With A NET of 12-15

Specifically concerning our "little model" - A single Zed needs 6-7 inches and it is a half stroke - a double Zed s requires 15-18
and one Zed produces 14-15, and the double produces 28-30
A cycle is One zed at the bottom of the stroke - the other at the top starting - and then returning to the same spot.
all of the presures inside The Zed return to the starting posistion.

@All
I meet with my engineers and I played "Semous tennis" with them from 4:30 -10:40
They gave me the current optimized model and its spreadsheets - and I threw my hands up and dramatically said:

"This is all bunk - how can you tell me with physics - that you have 800percent efficiency when physics says it cannot be done!!!! "You can not prove with physics that which can not be done in physics!!!"

Then I ignored the answer as they moved to the input and output and said "Impossible!!! Can't be done and I stomped my foot!!!"

And they turned and pointed at the Zed ten feet away and started to say just look......I said "trickery - you have hidden some secret compartment that with electro magnets .....helium.. something...some-thin pumps inside the plumbing....."

I continued "What about the FIRST LAW!!!!" they started to explain that we were not thermal - and that we have excess - black box - I interrupted ..... "WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM? ??? ??"

They started back at the Physics - and I shouted "ALREADY DISCOUNTED!"

They turned to explain the rational mind needed to realize we had achieved what is impossible.. I shouted "WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM!!!!!!!!"

"You Are playing Games, Stonewalling, avoiding the fact - DO YOU CREATE ENERGY? ??? ??"

One engineer said.... Yes... I Said Calmly - "no we don't......" he turned to the black box - Zed, the models, the physics, ...but these say we do...

I said "We don't - you have not yet fully explained where the energy comes from - the question we have to answer is NOT does it work - no one really cares about that  - they really want you to explain how you appear to create energy from nothing."

He said - we put nothing in and get power out - that is energy creation - I said "What are you not counting - that is inside the box even if you don't put it in..."

Another engineer said "Gravity - the system does not work without it, increasing the gravity would make it work better,"I interrupted "But gravity is a conservative field.... "

He said, "Our system turns up the effect of gravity" - another engineer said "you can't turn gravity off and on" he responded - "we don't we increase the effect of gravity with the reuse of the same displacement thru each layer - and then we relax... it is a ten to three exchange."

I said - "then account for it - show it, We have to educate the people - they do not want to know it works - they won't believe it, they won't listen until you can explain where the energy comes from" - one engineer chimed in - isn't that what Mark and Jim's team are going to do?

I said "Yes - but you need to have a working plausible - verifiable theory before they get here....The machine is good, the physics are good, the energy is real - now is the time to educate the world on what is missing in our texts."

Then I drew the system separated - and I gave a value to each separate mass (displacement) and then I combined them - and said - the only  thing that changed - is the mass was reduced by the number of layers - and we predict in the single layer based off that mass - you should be able to explain how recounting the same mass - at the same time - is pulling from the same field multiple times - our output increases directly proportional to the "presumed" mass repeatedly - even though it is only one mass for all layers.

I have excellent engineers:
Please remember - I never told them how it works or how to model, or how to optimize - that is their job - I gave them the working model and asked them to make it optimized and reliable  - on that same note.......
They had all the same skepticism as the rest of you - and the same excitement and joy once they understood..
They are excellent at their Job.

A point on our current model - it is barely overunity - I call it the little model - not due to its size our its output - but from its optimization - it barely works - We overcome 9 real losses to operate.
I built it - the minimum size I knew how. It cost a lot of money - I was under the idea that seeing was believing - that does not work - for the "Educated" they must know how.

It is too important to stand on a box and insist that people believe... they have to see the relationship.
 
Yes it does work - it is Overunity - unless you account for the gravity - and then you understand that it is not energy creation - even though we get energy from the Black Box.

At some point the "minds" will understand that we have a 10-3 system - our layering turns up the effect of gravity and then we relax to normal gravity - that is where our differential .....which does work.... and supplies our energy - comes from.

TK, we are not trying to teach you that bicycles can fly - but we are trying to teach you to "see" energy - that you can not "see"............I understand how difficult that is...Your term "virtual" was very clever.

The virtual water - in your wet hands - is compounded in the same space over and over as we add layers - our four layer system has virtually four cups of water in nearly the same space as your one cup demonstration...

I am glad you looked... I hope you begin to see.. I would love for you to know - your own search and hope was not in vain.

This is not about Wayne Travis - but about the future and our generations - it is very important you do not throw the baby away with the bath water because the virtual is hard to "See".

Thank you.
 
Wayne Travis

 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
Take some time to look at these:
The Patent has been available since May - and links have been posted here.
I hope this helps with the confusion.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 04:04:22 PM
And
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 04:05:42 PM
Also
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 04:08:35 PM
Internal of Zed left blank for focus on l hydraulic loop.
p.s. this was the original location of the Lever arm - we turned it horizontal because of air trapping in the cyclinder.
But the function is the same.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
Once again
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 04:16:27 PM
I posted these to help clear up the redundancy that the thread has to the input and output question.
We have nothing external coming in - as I have said before Normal calculations of input versus out put have to be re thought -
 
Internal input and external output can be measured.
 
Maybe this will help.
 
thanks Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 07:36:59 PM
MrWayne said,
Quote
I will repeat what I have said - our current single unit is barely better than a hydraulic cylinder - you can measure the input and output  - we do not use weight - but volume and pressure. Yes - our three layer system is clearly overunity by itself.
In this small model - hooking the system together bumps us up by reducing the input further.


So OK, can we please just for a moment concentrate on a single Zed that shows overunity, and not get sidetracked into talking about the full system with high pressures and accumulators and all that?  Let's be specific: let's only, for the moment, discuss the three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself.

When most of us on this site talk about overunity performance, we are talking about a system that outputs more energy than is input, averaged over a suitable time period. This is distinct from "power" or average power, which might seem like the same thing but really isn't.
Energy is measured, in the system most of us use, the SI, in Joules. The units of Joules are also equivalent to the units of Work, that is, force x distance.
Now... for your statement that "the three layer system is clearly overunity by itself" to be credible, that "overunity" part MUST involve some input-output comparison, a comparison of energies or work. Otherwise... how can you justify the "overunity" part of the claim? If you are defining it the same way most of us do, you have got to at least know the input and output energies. But... if you are defining it some other way, we need to know what that is and to agree that it is a valid definition for the purpose.

So... referring now ONLY to the three layer, clearly overunity by itself system....

Go ahead and set it up, you can have this for free. Now it's sitting there, precharged,  waiting to be started up. Right?
And the various pressures, water heights, cylinder positions and so on are known, can be measured. Right?
Now, you start it up and run it through a _complete cycle_. OK? A complete cycle means just that: everything back where it started from, ready to lather rinse and repeat.

How did you start it? How can you tell it's running, what happens at the "peak" of the cycle? And what is required to bring it back to the _identical start position_, including all pressures, fluid quantities, cylinder positions, etc so that it can start over? Describe this please, in your own words that you understand, and please tell us how you arrived at the "overunity" conclusion based on a single cycle, complete, of the three layer clearly overunity system.

Once you have described this in your own words, let's then see if we can translate that into the language of engineering: simply work in, and work out, in Joules.

Please notice that I am NOT asking "how" it does anything. I am just still wanting to know _what_ it does.

You are just simply not going to answer my questions here, are you.

I will ask you just one more time.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOUR THREE LAYER SYSTEM IS OVERUNITY?

What is the ratio of input ENERGY to output ENERGY , or equivalently WORK, in your three layer system that is clearly overunity BY ITSELF, and how did you determine this? If you cannot, or will not explain this simple claim of yours in unambiguous, simple terms.... then there is really no point in my continuing, because you are NOT being sincere, however much you pretend to be.

There, put me in with the stink slingers... and I'll put you in the "oddstuff, OUidiot" file.


Now, perhaps people are beginning to understand why I'm not just leaping up to drive up to Oklahoma. It is far too hot for snowjobs.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 08:07:18 PM
MrWayne said,
You are just simply not going to answer my questions here, are you.

I will ask you just one more time.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOUR THREE LAYER SYSTEM IS OVERUNITY?

What is the ratio of input ENERGY to output ENERGY , or equivalently WORK, in your three layer system that is clearly overunity BY ITSELF, and how did you determine this? If you cannot, or will not explain this simple claim of yours in unambiguous, simple terms.... then there is really no point in my continuing, because you are NOT being sincere, however much you pretend to be.

There, put me in with the stink slingers... and I'll put you in the "oddstuff, OUidiot" file.


Now, perhaps people are beginning to understand why I'm not just leaping up to drive up to Oklahoma. It is far too hot for snowjobs.
OK - your decision has been made.
As I said before - I have been wrong before - and against my wishes, I am again.
Good day.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 08:16:28 PM
TK you don't understand?

First he triples the force of gravity and the thing sinks until it hit's rock bottom, and then he turns the force of gravity back to normal and the thing rises again.
There is no energy needed to do this and you are always left with a +one force of gravity which is why the triple layer configuration is overunity by itself !
That part's clear enough.
The part I don't understand is what he does with all the extra hydraulic fluid he's generating. You inject 15 units to one Zed and get 30 back. He's said that many times, and that is supposed to be a full cycle for that Zed, right?
Quote
Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model  -
IN -PUT = Each full cycle - 12-15 cubic inches of compressed fluid from the accumulator.
OUT - PUT = Same cycle - 28 -30 cubic inches of (same type) compressed fluid - pushed into accumulator.
So you take 15 volume units of that hydraulic fluid and inject it to the other Zed and it returns 30 back. Now you have 30 cu in extra hydraulic fluid in your accumulator. Pretty soon you are going to have to start selling that off, or the barrels are going to be all over the back yard.

Or perhaps the ratio of 30/15 is for the two Zeds together. But if each full cycle takes 15 out of the accumulator and puts 30 back in... you still have the same problem: too much hydraulic fluid.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 14, 2012, 08:16:57 PM
I posted these to help clear up the redundancy that the thread has to the input and output question.
We have nothing external coming in - as I have said before Normal calculations of input versus out put have to be re thought -
 
Internal input and external output can be measured.
 
Maybe this will help.
 
thanks Wayne

Sorry, Mr. Wayne, it does not help. You say that "internal input and external output can be measured", so please tell us

how long the machine can run (by itself without human intervention)

and how much external output there is? (I understand that there is no input, so only the output has to be measured.)

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 14, 2012, 08:30:40 PM
Simple explanation of energy advantage.
 
Shown is 3 systems, each create a 7 Foot Water Head. Each system uses a 100# weight as force, but each applies that weight over different distances.
 
Half filled U shaped column reduces the distance to apply force. Each additional U shaped columns further reduces the distance to apply the same force.
 
It doesn't account for air compression, but a water, mercury wouldn't have compression and mercury weight advantage over water is 13.534 to 1.0. Thinking Travismobile.
 
Also, if the piston was removed after stroke, the 3 U version would re-balance first, the 2 U second and the 1 U last.

Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 08:39:04 PM
What are these items? Do they appear on any of the patent drawings or the other illustrations we have been given?


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 14, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
In order to clarify my question about the output of the Wayne-Machine I indicated on the drawing (supplied by Mr. Wayne) which output I would like to know.

As a bonus, Mr. Wayne could also tell us how long the machine can run without human intervention.

In simpler terms: is it running by itself? And when it is running by itself, how much energy is put out by the "Gen"?

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 08:57:37 PM
Sorry, Mr. Wayne, it does not help. You say that "internal input and external output can be measured", so please tell us

how long the machine can run (by itself without human intervention)

and how much external output there is? (I understand that there is no input, so only the output has to be measured.)

Greetings, Conrad
Hello Again Conrad - I still appreciate the wisdom you added last year - rough - but wise.
Short answer - it ran until we broke it back in November - we bled off the excess.
Short answer - the system was designed for 500watts - total - it took 300watts to keep running - we only have 36 watts after conversion to electricity.
More:
We bleed the excess off  through a hydraulic motor - which we use to turn a generator - which we then use to burn a light bulb.

This system was never built to be a continuous runner - but we try to satisfy that curiosity. I made the mistake of believing the engineers would believe the enginners........

Mark was here when we were running (November)
Before we added all of the data collection and systems to it - we ran well - just bleeding the excess off - until we broke several parts  due to the layman building and the pressures we were dealing with.

After Mark left - we moved it inside and worked to convert the self runner into a Data collection model.

Its sole purpose has been to compare the actual to the model - for our benefit. I regret this when someone want to come measure the input and output - it is harder now.

And - The change has been problematic - two reasons.

We added a hydraulic motor and generator instead of wasting the production - this added new losses - big losses (for a simple system).

And we learned that the accumulator nearly refused - to receive production and supply it at the same time - since the input and output were simultaneous - the production would divert to the lever arm and not to the accumulator - or the generator would speed up instead of pushing into the accumulator.

This has been the big delay - we think we have solved it - Good side - it has given our team more time - they have used it wisely.
Right now we are ramping back up to run - if possible - I am not convinced I can make the original system handle all of the additions that have been added to it.

It will serve to verify the Engineers data - it is perfect for that.
Lastly - If I had known the loop I have been thru - lessons learned so far - I would have had the system optimized first - from our original input output test model.

The delays would have been over long ago.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 09:10:20 PM
@LarryC:
In the left-hand drawing in your image..... is the tube on the right open at the top? If it's not.... how is it possible to achieve the final state with all the water in the right tube and the weight fully down? Especially if you are using mercury and water, instead of water and air?

If it is open at the top... then what about the other two systems? Are they open at the top, of the last tube, as well?

You say each system makes a "7 foot water head". That, to me, means that the final pressure, measured at the bottom of the weight where it contacts the water it's pressing on, is the same in all three cases. Am I interpreting this correctly?



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 09:14:02 PM
What are these items? Do they appear on any of the patent drawings or the other illustrations we have been given?
Simple - the Initialization system.
Not in the patent - for the Validation team only.
I will recap since this has been covered and gets tossed up again:
When we moved the system inside - from Mark's visit we spent $26,000 adding a set up system so that RIchard could program the initializations system.
We have - Separate from the Zed - except the program which controls the separate operation -
Water pump attached to every layer in the system
An Air compressor attached to every layer
and a Hydraulic pump attached to the accumulator - you will see that in the hydraulic drawing.
You see, when Mark was here I had to disassemble, drain and vent every component.
Then I used a standby generator, waterhose, and Log splitter pump to set the system up to the precharge condition - covered well in the patent.
Mark was a patient man, it took all day and into the night to perform this task.
p.s. So I had the team design an automation system so that the validation team could use it to measure the set up energy.
So now - we push a button and the system drains itself - vents itself - measures and displays every aspect within the system and then steps you thru a set up procedure to refill everything to the beginning run state.
Glad you asked - I meant to restate this again when a liar claimed that we pumped air and water and hydraulics in the system to fool everyone.
TK- you said you put me in the idiot file -
I respected you to answer ...
It was a lot of work and changes to install air and water pressure lines to every layer, chamber - there is a  pressure transducer on every line - we do use those during run to monitor the process.
I think the Engineers have the Initialization mapped - here is mine.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 14, 2012, 09:41:45 PM
@LarryC:
In the left-hand drawing in your image..... is the tube on the right open at the top? If it's not.... how is it possible to achieve the final state with all the water in the right tube and the weight fully down? Especially if you are using mercury and water, instead of water and air?

If it is open at the top... then what about the other two systems? Are they open at the top, of the last tube, as well?

You say each system makes a "7 foot water head". That, to me, means that the final pressure, measured at the bottom of the weight where it contacts the water it's pressing on, is the same in all three cases. Am I interpreting this correctly?

The last tube on the right of each system is open, and you're right a water mercury would require a different design.
 
You say each system makes a "7 foot water head". That, to me, means that the final pressure, measured at the bottom of the weight where it contacts the water it's pressing on, is the same in all three cases. Am I interpreting this correctly?
Yes.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 09:54:50 PM
All right, since you did me the courtesy of answering about the air compressor and the pump --- I'll ask you politely and directly one more time.

How is the ratio of input work or energy, to the output work or energy, determined for the three layer system that is clearly overunity itself?

Please tell me what the total input energy is to initiate and sustain a cycle, and what the total output energy is for a complete cycle.

What _numbers_ do you compare, to determine the clearly overunity performance of this system itself?

If you again say you put in 15 units of fluid and get 30 units back... I say again that it sounds like you are creating fluid from nothing, or that the cycle is not complete at this point, or that pretty soon the system will be empty and all the fluid will be somewhere else.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 09:55:43 PM

The last tube on the right of each system is open, and you're right a water mercury would require a different design.
 
You say each system makes a "7 foot water head". That, to me, means that the final pressure, measured at the bottom of the weight where it contacts the water it's pressing on, is the same in all three cases. Am I interpreting this correctly?
Yes.
 
Regards, Larry

OK, thanks. Now I have something I can test.

ETA: Before I do, though, let me ask another question.

If I put an outlet valve at the crossconnection between the first (piston) tube and the second tube, and pipe that into another, identical tube.... then open this valve when the piston is in the final fully depressed state, the water will run from the full tube through this valve into the new, empty tube. Right?
How high will the water rise in this new tube?

In the diagram on the left it would rise up until the two columns of water were at equal heights, I think.... but I can't quite picture what would happen in the third, righthand case.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 14, 2012, 10:08:58 PM
Thank you Mr. Travis for answering my question about the "Gen".

I think I understand now what is going on and I describe it in very loose terms:

1) When the " three riser system" is measured with pressure sensors at various points one observes higher pressures than in a conventional "Archimedes type system".

2) One also observes that the "three risers" rise higher than a simple riser in a conventional "Archimedes type system".

3) And finally more fluid is displaced in the "three riser system" than in a conventional "Archimedes type system".

From these three observation Mr. Travis concludes that there is OU.


And now comes the not so nice part:

If one wants to take advantage of these observations (of the alleged OU Travis effect) and one tries to build a machine, problems start to appear. The biggest problem is to get a useful net output. And this is to be expected, because the so called OU Travis effect is a misinterpretation of situations (pressure, height of movement, amount of fluid displacement) which appear at certain stages of the operation of the machine. But this alleged OU situations are cancelled out at other stages during the operation of the machine.

In simple words: at some stages of the operation one can measure "high values", but at other stages there will be "negative values"; resulting over all in the conventional values as observed in simple "Archimedes type systems".

Because the system is mind boggling and difficult to describe with rigorous mathematics an endless discussing ensues, specially when laymen are involved.


Therefore I always want to see a self running system which puts out considerable net energy for a longer time:

This would put aside all "theoretical discussions" and would force "scientists" (the establishment) to have a closer look. But exactly this "self runner with a considerable net output" eludes Mr. Travis since years.

Whenever a Travis-system is built the alleged "OU demonstrating measurements" can be done, but the machine does not self run and does not put out a considerable amount of net energy.

Because a Travis-system is rather complicated (and needs a many electric valves, sensors and electronics for self running), one suspects that the problems are caused by not enough sophisticated engineering. But in fact, the concept is the problem.


The misunderstanding:

Mr. Travis talks about measurements which for him demonstrate OU.

Observers (like me and other sceptics) want to see a self running machine which puts out a considerable net energy over a longer time (because that would put aside all speculation and all interpretations whether true or false).

Mr. Travis wants people to believe in his OU measurements (the Travis effect).

People want to see free energy pouring out of a working machine.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 14, 2012, 10:30:19 PM
If I put an outlet valve at the crossconnection between the first (piston) tube and the second tube, and pipe that into another, identical tube.... then open this valve when the piston is in the final fully depressed state, the water will run from the full tube through this valve into the new, empty tube. Right?
How high will the water rise in this new tube?

In the diagram on the left it would rise up until the two columns of water were at equal heights, I think.... but I can't quite picture what would happen in the third, righthand case.
Right about equal heights, and would be the same on the other two if you crossconnected between the fist and second on each. You would be removing the pressure created by the piston, so everything will slide back around.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 14, 2012, 10:35:46 PM
Thank you Mr. Travis for answering my question about the "Gen".

I think I understand now what is going on and I describe it in very loose terms:

1) When the " three riser system" is measured with pressure sensors at various points one observes higher pressures than in a conventional "Archimedes type system".

2) One also observes that the "three risers" rise higher than a simple riser in a conventional "Archimedes type system".

3) And finally more fluid is displaced in the "three riser system" than in a conventional "Archimedes type system".

From these three observation Mr. Travis concludes that there is OU.

Dear Conrad??

I can not believe you got all three of these wrong?

First - our system has the same Pressures as the Archimedes' in each layer respectfully to the additive head and to lift.
Several people have shown that here - is this just a misquote?

Second - Our system uses a short and fast stroke - over a long one. 11.1 times faster than a Archimedes' same lift and distance.
Larry has been banging the drum on this for a week.
Third- we use a microscopic amount of input volume to Archimedes' ?This is the key point of the Travis Effect......

You have been getting some bad info,  or I have done a terrible job.

Sorry Conrad - you need a clean sheet.

All 100 of us are not just wishing it were so...

Good day.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 10:51:40 PM
Right about equal heights, and would be the same on the other two if you crossconnected between the fist and second on each. You would be removing the pressure created by the piston, so everything will slide back around.
 
Regards, Larry

So in the one on the left, the water columns would equalize in the new tube and the receiver tube of the 2-tube system. So the water columns would both be at  the height equal to the piston travel, just like at the beginning but in different tubes. Right? (corrected the "half", sorry)

And in the one on the right, the water columns would also equalize between the new tube and the second tube of the 4 tube system?
At the same height of the piston travel? Or would it rise to the same height as in the 2-tube system on the left?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 11:09:56 PM
No quick response to that last question of mine?

 :-\


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 14, 2012, 11:11:18 PM
So in the one on the left, the water columns would equalize in the new tube and the receiver tube of the 2-tube system. So the water columns would both be at  the height equal to the piston travel, just like at the beginning but in different tubes. Right? (corrected the "half", sorry)

And in the one on the right, the water columns would also equalize between the new tube and the second tube of the 4 tube system?
At the same height of the piston travel? Or would it rise to the same height as in the 2-tube system on the left?
So in the one on the left, the water columns would equalize in the new tube and the receiver tube of the 2-tube system. So the water columns would both be at  the height equal to the piston travel, just like at the beginning but in different tubes. Right? (corrected the "half", sorry)
 
Right.
 
And in the one on the right, the water columns would also equalize between the new tube and the second tube of the 4 tube system?
 
Yes.
 
At the same height of the piston travel?
 
Yes.
 
Or would it rise to the same height as in the 2-tube system on the left?
 
No.
 
Regards, Larry
PS: Thanks for taking an interest.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 11:12:14 PM
Thank you for explaining, Larry. Sorry about that crossed post above.



So... work, or energy, is force x distance. In LarryC's example, in the first case on the left, we are applying a certain force (the pressure of the 100 lb weight) and we are using that force to move a column of water the length of the piston stroke. Right?

And in the third case on the right, we are applying that same force, and we are using it to move the (essentially) same column of water..... the length of the piston stroke.

We have attained the same pressures in each case... and the work input / work output _in each case_ balances.

But the work input in the case on the left is greater than the work input in the case on the right.

The system on the right neither takes in... NOR RETURNS... the same amount of work as the system on the left in LarryC's illustration, even though both systems are operating at the same "head" pressure. And it will feel different "by hand" because the system on the right only needs a small displacement to get to the full pressure, while the one on the left needs a "softer, longer" push to get to the full pressure.
 

Congratulations, you have just invented the lever.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on August 15, 2012, 12:17:12 AM
I congratulate everyone on a spirited debate, but unfortunately I think the fog remains as thick as ever.

However, I take issue with Wayne's posting #1364.

This one:

Quote
What???
Output does not mean we take it out of the system.... are you playing with me lol
I will try one more time.
OUR PRODUCTION - is 28-30
Our INTERNAL CONSUMPTION is 15-18
With A NET of 12-15

Specifically concerning our "little model" - A single Zed needs 6-7 inches and it is a half stroke - a double Zed s requires 15-18
and one Zed produces 14-15, and the double produces 28-30
A cycle is One zed at the bottom of the stroke - the other at the top starting - and then returning to the same spot.
all of the presures inside The Zed return to the starting posistion.

@All
I meet with my engineers and I played "Semous tennis" with them from 4:30 -10:40
They gave me the current optimized model and its spreadsheets - and I threw my hands up and dramatically said:

"This is all bunk - how can you tell me with physics - that you have 800percent efficiency when physics says it cannot be done!!!! "You can not prove with physics that which can not be done in physics!!!"

Then I ignored the answer as they moved to the input and output and said "Impossible!!! Can't be done and I stomped my foot!!!"

And they turned and pointed at the Zed ten feet away and started to say just look......I said "trickery - you have hidden some secret compartment that with electro magnets .....helium.. something...some-thin pumps inside the plumbing....."

I continued "What about the FIRST LAW!!!!" they started to explain that we were not thermal - and that we have excess - black box - I interrupted ..... "WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM? (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)) ??"

They started back at the Physics - and I shouted "ALREADY DISCOUNTED!"

They turned to explain the rational mind needed to realize we had achieved what is impossible.. I shouted "WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM!!!!!!!!"

"You Are playing Games, Stonewalling, avoiding the fact - DO YOU CREATE ENERGY? (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)) ??"

One engineer said.... Yes... I Said Calmly - "no we don't......" he turned to the black box - Zed, the models, the physics, ...but these say we do...

I said "We don't - you have not yet fully explained where the energy comes from - the question we have to answer is NOT does it work - no one really cares about that  - they really want you to explain how you appear to create energy from nothing."

He said - we put nothing in and get power out - that is energy creation - I said "What are you not counting - that is inside the box even if you don't put it in..."

Another engineer said "Gravity - the system does not work without it, increasing the gravity would make it work better,"I interrupted "But gravity is a conservative field.... "

He said, "Our system turns up the effect of gravity" - another engineer said "you can't turn gravity off and on" he responded - "we don't we increase the effect of gravity with the reuse of the same displacement thru each layer - and then we relax... it is a ten to three exchange."

I said - "then account for it - show it, We have to educate the people - they do not want to know it works - they won't believe it, they won't listen until you can explain where the energy comes from" - one engineer chimed in - isn't that what Mark and Jim's team are going to do?

I said "Yes - but you need to have a working plausible - verifiable theory before they get here....The machine is good, the physics are good, the energy is real - now is the time to educate the world on what is missing in our texts."

Then I drew the system separated - and I gave a value to each separate mass (displacement) and then I combined them - and said - the only  thing that changed - is the mass was reduced by the number of layers - and we predict in the single layer based off that mass - you should be able to explain how recounting the same mass - at the same time - is pulling from the same field multiple times - our output increases directly proportional to the "presumed" mass repeatedly - even though it is only one mass for all layers.

I have excellent engineers:
Please remember - I never told them how it works or how to model, or how to optimize - that is their job - I gave them the working model and asked them to make it optimized and reliable  - on that same note.......
They had all the same skepticism as the rest of you - and the same excitement and joy once they understood..
They are excellent at their Job.

A point on our current model - it is barely overunity - I call it the little model - not due to its size our its output - but from its optimization - it barely works - We overcome 9 real losses to operate.
I built it - the minimum size I knew how. It cost a lot of money - I was under the idea that seeing was believing - that does not work - for the "Educated" they must know how.

It is too important to stand on a box and insist that people believe... they have to see the relationship.
 
Yes it does work - it is Overunity - unless you account for the gravity - and then you understand that it is not energy creation - even though we get energy from the Black Box.

At some point the "minds" will understand that we have a 10-3 system - our layering turns up the effect of gravity and then we relax to normal gravity - that is where our differential .....which does work.... and supplies our energy - comes from.

TK, we are not trying to teach you that bicycles can fly - but we are trying to teach you to "see" energy - that you can not "see"............I understand how difficult that is...Your term "virtual" was very clever.

The virtual water - in your wet hands - is compounded in the same space over and over as we add layers - our four layer system has virtually four cups of water in nearly the same space as your one cup demonstration...

I am glad you looked... I hope you begin to see.. I would love for you to know - your own search and hope was not in vain.

This is not about Wayne Travis - but about the future and our generations - it is very important you do not throw the baby away with the bath water because the virtual is hard to "See".

Thank you.
 
Wayne Travis

I was going to abbreviate the quote but decided to leave the whole thing in to emphasize the point.  What is is?  Some imaginary dialog with engineers plucked from an Ironman script?  These fantasy scenes with "stumped engineers on a mission to save the world driven by their leader" do not advance the discussion by a singe iota.

I have been involved in engineering in one way or the the other for 25 years and what Wayne is describing in his fantasy scene is as far removed from the reality of working with engineers as it can get.  That posting is just pablum mixed with Soma to make the hard core believers comfortably numb again.  It's an attempt at social engineering.

We have to stick with reality.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 15, 2012, 12:33:55 AM
While we digest the 'laws of levers' TK has so aptly drawn attention to, which incidentally are used in hydraulic presses !

BTW, the air gaps in the systems Larry showed could be replaced with plain water - we are only interested in the net mass of water lifted a certain height - how much Work that took to raise its PE - a larger mass depressing the piston will do the Work quicker in all cases - IOW's the power Input is greater but the Work Done joules of energy doesn't change.

As a matter of interest, here is a 'Hyperphysics' page I found when MH was discussing a few pages back the projected output of the machine & comparing it to hot water cylinders.

In this case it shows the energy requirement [Work Done] to lift a mass of water giving it head & Energy of Position v's the energy requirement to raise the temperature of a mass of water.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/egex2.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/egex2.html)

The next two are Pascals Principle [scroll down to use the calculator & see how a hydraulic press works] & Hydrostatic Pressure [also scroll down to use the calculator].

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pasc.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pasc.html)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pflu.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pflu.html)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 15, 2012, 12:34:50 AM
Sorry MH,
You waste so much of my time.............. you don't know what you are talking about - again.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 15, 2012, 12:37:22 AM
Thank you for explaining, Larry. Sorry about that crossed post above.



So... work, or energy, is force x distance. In LarryC's example, in the first case on the left, we are applying a certain force (the pressure of the 100 lb weight) and we are using that force to move a column of water the length of the piston stroke. Right?

And in the third case on the right, we are applying that same force, and we are using it to move the (essentially) same column of water..... the length of the piston stroke.

We have attained the same pressures in each case... and the work input / work output _in each case_ balances.

But the work input in the case on the left is greater than the work input in the case on the right.

The system on the right neither takes in... NOR RETURNS... the same amount of work as the system on the left in LarryC's illustration, even though both systems are operating at the same "head" pressure. And it will feel different "by hand" because the system on the right only needs a small displacement to get to the full pressure, while the one on the left needs a "softer, longer" push to get to the full pressure.
 

Congratulations, you have just invented the lever.
Congratulations, you have just invented the lever.
 
Are you trying to mislead or just don't understand levers?
 
A level that would move 3.5' with a 100# effort force to create a 7 Foot head would have a longer distance from effort force to fulcrum than a second level that would only move 1.16' and would require a much larger weight to create the same 7 Foot head.
 
Also, you ignore the fact that after lift you would need to raise a 100# weight 3.5' with the 1 U and 1.16' with the 3 U. Why?
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on August 15, 2012, 12:47:38 AM
I have put users MileHigh, Seamus and Microcontroller on Moderation as they have trolling this
thread too much  !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 15, 2012, 01:01:07 AM
Quote from: Larry C .. Post #1776 Pg 92

Simple explanation of energy advantage.
 
Shown is 3 systems, each create a 7 Foot Water Head. Each system uses a 100# weight as force, but each applies that weight over different distances.
 
Half filled U shaped column reduces the distance to apply force. Each additional U shaped columns further reduces the distance to apply the same force.
 
It doesn't account for air compression, but a water, mercury wouldn't have compression and mercury weight advantage over water is 13.534 to 1.0. Thinking Travismobile.
 
Also, if the piston was removed after stroke, the 3 U version would re-balance first, the 2 U second and the 1 U last.

Regards, Larry



Larry .. Perhaps I don't understand 'head' like you do ?!

Do you mind explaining to me why you say all 3 examples in your drawing have the same 7 foot head ? - & pressure ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_head (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_head)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 15, 2012, 02:52:59 AM

Larry .. Perhaps I don't understand 'head' like you do ?!

Do you mind explaining to me why you say all 3 examples in your drawing have the same 7 foot head ? - & pressure ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_head (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_head)
Hi Fletcher,
 
I just picked 7 Foot off the top of my head. Could have been better and I may change and re-post.
 
Anyway 7' = 84", 84" X .036127 (Cu In weight of water) = 3.034668 PSI.
 
The SI of the water columns is such that the weight of the 7' water column would be a little less than 100#. Not important to me, so I'll let you figure that one out. Height * PI() * Radius * Radius * .036127.
 
The reason they all have the same head is because in 2 U and 3 U, the last water column is pressing up on the next air column and the next air column is pressing down on the next water column, etc. etc. They appear to the piston as a single column of water pushing up.
 
Regards, Larry
PS: This is not the Travis system, but it is a piece of the system broken out in an attempt to help increase the understanding.
 
@Harti, Thanks.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 03:03:18 AM
Yes, Stefan, I must protest as well.
Sorry... but I don't see any trolls. I see some people with genuine legitimate doubts and questions that aren't being sufficiently answered.

Simple questions like.... What was the reason that Mark Dansie wasn't completely satisfied on his first visit?  And my questions are the same as some of theirs too: what is the ratio of work out, to work in, and how is it known that the three layer system is clearly overunity itself?


Meanwhile.... I am once again operating completely without funding, scrounging stuff that I happen to have lying about.

In the LarryC case it's pretty clear that each individual system can only return the work that's put into it. The only question is whether or not the work in the third system on the right is the same as the work in the first system on the left.

Since the input force--- the weight of the 100 pound weight pressing on the piston... is the same in both cases (RIGHT?) but the travel is less in the one on the right, we know at least that the INPUT WORK isn't the same.
RIGHT? The force is the same and is constant in both cases: 100 pounds downward. (More correctly measured in Newtons but we'll let that slide for the moment.)
And the distance travelled is different. Therefore the product Force x Distance = Work is different, with the first system on the left making the greater product, since the distance through which the force has acted is greater. RIGHT?

SO the only question is whether the output work is different or the same. Since the system on the RIGHT cannot push up a water column to the same height, when released, as the system on the LEFT.... it should be clear that the work output available from the system on the right is less.
 
We don't even need any assumptions about pressures. All we need is to note that the input FORCE is constant and equal in both cases, the input DISPLACEMENT is less for the one on the right, therefore the input WORK is less for the system on the right.
Since the OUTPUT-- the return height, or the height of an additional column as in my thought experiment, is clearly LESS for the system on the right.... well... DO THE MATH (tm RA).

Now, the issue of the pressures. Is it a confirmed fact that the "heads" are the same in both cases? I don't know the answer to this myself... but I am preparing to measure it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8WYI7QCj0k

Now... Koalas really don't like to get their paws wet. We get all the moisture we need from the leaves we chew, or otherwise ingest, and the beers that we drink. Getting wet makes us cross and jumpy. Especially when there  is no reward in the offing. However, even without funding enough to buy lunch, and working with garbage materials, we are still proud of our workmanship.

May I please have some suggestions as to how to measure the "head pressure" in this system? I could put a basic improvised manometer on the bottom of the first receiving cylinder... but this whole system is a manometer anyway, so I'm not sure of the probative value of that, although I myself would accept its indications. Bear in mind that I am not about to go out and buy a sensitive pressure gauge. I do have on hand a very precise and accurate electronic force gauge for mechanical linear force, a Mark 10 Series 5, model M5-05, that cost "somebody I know" about a thousand dollars.... but I dare not get it wet !!

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 15, 2012, 03:12:20 AM
LOL!  Oh how I love this part of any good thread!
 
Thanks a million (peso?), TK!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 03:17:34 AM
LarryC says:
Quote
The reason they all have the same head is because in 2 U and 3 U, the last water column is pressing up on the next air column and the next air column is pressing down on the next water column, etc. etc. They appear to the piston as a single column of water pushing up.
Yes, I agree with that, at least until I can actually measure the pressures, but logically you are correct.

And how far did the piston push that single column of water up? The same distance the piston travelled down, right? Which, in the system on the right, is only 1/3 the distance of the system on the left. Right?

Work in = work out, minus losses, for each separate system.

Work for system on LEFT >> work for system on RIGHT.

RIGHT? Or not?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 15, 2012, 03:22:53 AM
Work for system on LEFT >> work for system on RIGHT.

Sorry, but I can't help myself here...
 
Larry is only describing the work IN with this demonstration.  And yes you are correct that Work for system on LEFT >> work for system on RIGHT.
 
M.
 
PS.  Sorry again if I stepped in your way Larry.  This is really a great discussion between you and TK and I'll try to butt out.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 AM
I have put users MileHigh, Seamus and Microcontroller on Moderation as they have trolling this
thread too much  !

Regards, Stefan.

The only way I would agree to do so is if the members hammer against an idea that they themselves have not built themselves, like TK and the Tar Baibies, or Poynts diligence one the sims and come to accurate conclusions. But if they are just going to preach text book theories and laws against something as complicated as Waynes device, without having full knowledge of the device, nor ANY experience with it, then they should keep to themselves until they do have this knowledge and experience, in order to even make a case against the idea.

Otherwise it is just hounding, bickering, useless posts. Trolls.

TK, I have a feeling will delve deep into this. I see he is still on the 'HUH?' side, but as others here have spoken as to whom they want to see more posts from and who not, this should be a good indicator. And the Not's are agreeably  not helping to figure things out, this is for certain. The Not's only post time/page wasting material. And animosity along with it. You can see it in the last few pages up to this one.

Wayne doesnt have to show anything. But he is and he has a nice, high, level of patience in doing so. Everyone deserves a fair chance to do their thing. But if their thing is to disrupt a thread with bias, and little knowledge of the device specifically in order to prove their case 'against' it, then most will agree that these posts are the least wanted.


With TK here, doing some serious questioning, while seriously trying to understand what is happening, there is no need for extra grumble and mumble about things that are well known or just insulting comments. They have know idea how this thing works exactly, and their posts show it. ;]

My local Plastics store (Plexi, etc) has lots of sizes of thin wall clear tubing(1/8 in). ;]

MaGs



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 05:27:56 AM

Sorry, but I can't help myself here...
 
Larry is only describing the work IN with this demonstration.  And yes you are correct that Work for system on LEFT >> work for system on RIGHT.
 
M.
 
PS.  Sorry again if I stepped in your way Larry.  This is really a great discussion between you and TK and I'll try to butt out.

Well, OK, then.... I guess we all agree that the Work, or equivalently the Energy... of the three systems LarryC presented are not the same and there isn't any magic happening. The fact that the "head pressures" are logically the same in all three cases is the Red Herring of the week. Pressure is not energy, it is not work, it is NOT a conserved quantity.

So I am afraid I don't get the point. Reduced work IN for the same pressure -- and reduced work OUT -- , with no other considerations deemed important?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTSMyKdKDR0
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Liberty on August 15, 2012, 05:28:57 AM
The only way I would agree to do so is if the members hammer against an idea that they themselves have not built themselves, like TK and the Tar Baibies, or Poynts diligence one the sims and come to accurate conclusions. But if they are just going to preach text book theories and laws against something as complicated as Waynes device, without having full knowledge of the device, nor ANY experience with it, then they should keep to themselves until they do have this knowledge and experience, in order to even make a case against the idea.

Otherwise it is just hounding, bickering, useless posts. Trolls.

TK, I have a feeling will delve deep into this. I see he is still on the 'HUH?' side, but as others here have spoken as to whom they want to see more posts from and who not, this should be a good indicator. And the Not's are agreeably  not helping to figure things out, this is for certain. The Not's only post time/page wasting material. And animosity along with it. You can see it in the last few pages up to this one.

Wayne doesnt have to show anything. But he is and he has a nice, high, level of patience in doing so. Everyone deserves a fair chance to do their thing. But if their thing is to disrupt a thread with bias, and little knowledge of the device specifically in order to prove their case 'against' it, then most will agree that these posts are the least wanted.


With TK here, doing some serious questioning, while seriously trying to understand what is happening, there is no need for extra grumble and mumble about things that are well known or just insulting comments. They have know idea how this thing works exactly, and their posts show it. ;]

My local Plastics store (Plexi, etc) has lots of sizes of thin wall clear tubing(1/8 in). ;]

MaGs

"Wayne doesn't have to show anything."

On the contrary, Mr. Wayne has to show everything if he is claiming over-unity and wants people here to accept his account and view of his device.  He is the sole source of information, and therefore he must provide actual data and proof of his claim if he wants anyone to accept it.  (He apparently desires this or he wouldn't be here on this site).  It is reasonable to expect a clear and concise explanation with examples of drawings that explain the operation and input and output measurements of the device.  It is reasonable for the people on this site to expect nothing less.  Especially since the device in question already has patent protection, there should be nothing to hide.  Those asking reasonable scientific questions have every right to do so, without being considered a "troll" and should not be silenced or moderated.  If moderation wins, the truth may be lost.

Liberty
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 15, 2012, 05:42:06 AM
SO the only question is whether the output work is different or the same. Since the system on the RIGHT cannot push up a water column to the same height, when released, as the system on the LEFT.... it should be clear that the work output available from the system on the right is less.
Misleading again, I have shown many time in different calculators and drawings. The Travis system Risers intersect and uses the pressures from each air column against each riser surface areas to produce lift. Please do your due dillegence and stop misleading.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 15, 2012, 06:11:54 AM
Hello all,

This is the link to my public ZED distribution folder:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P

A PDF document has just been uploaded.  It is too late tonight to generate a set of animation files.  That will have to wait until sometime tomorrow.  Text that appears in red are numbers and formula terms that are changed from my previous version.  They will only be red for a single significant version.

The purpose of this analysis is to present (for critical review), the theory and implementation I used for a simplified simulation of a single ZED machine. This is just a single layer version.  A 2+ layer simulation model will follow after this one is verified for accuracy.  No attempt was made to find the most efficient geometry for this.  It is known that other geometries had better simulation results, but it would be wasted effort to try to optimize this model before verifying that it is accurate.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 06:17:34 AM
Misleading again, I have shown many time in different calculators and drawings. The Travis system Risers intersect and uses the pressures from each air column against each riser surface areas to produce lift. Please do your due dillegence and stop misleading.
 
Regards, Larry

Are you claiming that I am wrong, that the work is not less in the system on the right? And when I say that there  is no energy gain evident in any of the systems you have drawn? Are you disputing that? And when I point out that the work involved in the righthand system is far less than the work in the lefthand system... is that misleading or wrong?

I don't think it is I who am misleading, Larry. You set up your system and your illustration to make it look as if there was some kind of advantage to the system on the right. But there isn't. A naive person might look at the pressures, forgetting that you are only showing a half-cycle, and also might assume that you are saying you get the same benefit from the system on the right as you do from the system on the left, but with less cost. I think your entire drawing is misleading... that's why I had _you_ explain it first.


Quote
The Travis system Risers intersect and uses the pressures from each air column against each riser surface areas to produce lift.


So?  What exactly does that prove? You take two identical systems, neither of which is "overunity" itself,  and "intersect" them and somehow... nobody has yet explained "what is measured to judge it"...  overunity performance emerges?  You are waving your hands, not explaining.

How is the ratio of input work or energy, to the output work or energy, determined for the three layer system that MrWayne tells us is clearly overunity itself?

Please tell me what the total input energy is to initiate and sustain a cycle, and what the total output energy is for a complete cycle.

What _numbers_ do you compare, to determine the clearly overunity performance of this system itself?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2012, 06:25:22 AM
"Wayne doesn't have to show anything."

On the contrary, Mr. Wayne has to show everything if he is claiming over-unity and wants people here to accept his account and view of his device.  He is the sole source of information, and therefore he must provide actual data and proof of his claim if he wants anyone to accept it.  (He apparently desires this or he wouldn't be here on this site).  It is reasonable to expect a clear and concise explanation with examples of drawings that explain the operation and input and output measurements of the device.  It is reasonable for the people on this site to expect nothing less.  Especially since the device in question already has patent protection, there should be nothing to hide.  Those asking reasonable scientific questions have every right to do so, without being considered a "troll" and should not be silenced or moderated.  If moderation wins, the truth may be lost.

Liberty

Show me the rule or the law that states MrWayne has to show anything at all, even though he has claimed OU?  He is not claiming a prize here. he is just talkin, and goin with the flow.  Who gives you the right to say how fast or slow that flow goes? Hmm?

Show me 10% of the 'moderated' members posts that shows that they have a good understanding of Waynes device that gives them the right to bash.

They dont. And until they do, they should pay attn, and if they want to know, they will do as Webby and Larry(and they agree so far) has and do some work, instead of insulting what the Not's know nothing about.

If you think its fare to let that crap go on, then open your own site, noholdsbarredposting.com

When they understand, what TK is trying to figure out, then yes, argue away. But before then is just trolling. Go ahead, ask one of those guys if they know exactly what is happening in Waynes device. If you get any 'real' answers, they would be interesting to hear, and compare. lol

Some people are of the understanding that there is nothing left to figure out in this world and that we are all just wasting our time here(just like you) and THEY NEED TO LET US KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT, EVERY SINGLE DAY.  >:( Yea, that sounds reasonable. Gimme a break.

MaGs

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2012, 06:29:24 AM
And after TK's last post, I know these Not's know nothing.

Not insulting you T. Just showing an example of the difficulty of getting the drift of this machine. ;] Its not a 1 day ordeal. ;]


MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 06:42:10 AM
And after TK's last post, I know these Not's know nothing.

Not insulting you T. Just showing an example of the difficulty of getting the drift of this machine. ;] Its not a 1 day ordeal. ;]


MaGs

All right then mags... perhaps you understand LarryC's system, and thus MrWayne's, better than I do. (I'll be the first to confess that I don't understand MrWayne's explanations, that is for sure.)

YOU explain to me how is the ratio of input work or energy, to the output work or energy, determined for the three layer system that is clearly overunity itself?

Please tell me what the total input energy is to initiate and sustain a cycle, and what the total output energy is for a complete cycle.

What _numbers_ do you compare, to determine the clearly overunity performance of that three-layer system itself?

Is it the 15 volume units in, and the 30 volume units out? And that is supposed to be one complete cycle back to a starting point so you can do it again.. and again... and again.... gaining 15 volume units each time, and putting it.......

Sigh.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 06:48:51 AM
So Mags, it appears that according to you, anyone can claim to have an overunity device, without providing evidence of the claim. I suppose that's true.

And of course, I have a pink invisible unicorn in my back yard, and he's hungry, so I had better go feed him.

What? You don't believe I have this unicorn? Why... because you can't see it? It's INVISIBLE, silly.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2012, 07:05:25 AM
I can understand why might think this is so, but one should not have quite so much disdain for the "textbooks"

If it were not for these very same "theories and laws" we would not have all the exceptionally powerful and accurate computer simulation code that allows us to analyse and design machines every bit as complex as a ZED is. Simulations that can provide a high degree of confidence that the actual performance will be very close to the predicted. This is proved in a multitude of fields of engineering.

'Theories' are just that, but it so happens these ones have been validated experimentally ad-infinitum and proved mathematically.

We don't  need to get our "hands wet" if someone claims an effect that would break these laws unless they can provide conclusive experimental data that shows it does. No such data has been forthcoming yet so we can be justifiably cautious in believing them.

In addition the mathematical models provided so far are demonstrably incomplete. They do not provide the simple measurements that are required to demonstrate that the energy in vs energy out results in a net gain.

Until that occurs I won'd be wasting time on experiments. I'd rather rely on theory.

I know exactly what you are saying Sea. Exactly.  And if you are well read, then you should know that there are things that we dont know about yet.

Think about it. You are here, for what?  If an OU device can be made, then the books have to be rewritten or added to. 'Or even taken away', like Tesla, substituted with Marconi, Bell, Edison,etc.

Until experimenters figure things out that havnt been figured out yet, by 'experimenting', exploring, taking advantage of individual levels of 'creativity', then we are just stuck with what we got. Same old, same old.  New things are figured out every day.

There just might be a few tricks out there that work if applied. Some ideas are already known by some Im sure. And the tricks that might work, may be complicated, such as Waynes device. So who is to say that anyone around here is going that extra distance into the unknown in order to achieve OU?


A reasonable person would not apply the pressures to claimants of OU devices. Saying that, what kind of persons would? Greedy? Suppression? Impatient? Atheist? What I say to them is piss off. What is your goal here other than to get the daily thrill of delivering some abuse. And for what? We are not on their lawn, or in their house.  Make sense?

Trols are generally not nice people. They will try to degrade your intelligence, or make fun of people that are bad at spelling, and a lot of the time its the same 'worthless' balony every day taking up page after page of nothing to offer except the smell of a used baby wipe. ;]

So whats wrong with sayin "Be Nice or there is the door. Your choice"  ? 

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2012, 07:11:32 AM
So Mags, it appears that according to you, anyone can claim to have an overunity device, without providing evidence of the claim. I suppose that's true.

And of course, I have a pink invisible unicorn in my back yard, and he's hungry, so I had better go feed him.

What? You don't believe I have this unicorn? Why... because you can't see it? It's INVISIBLE, silly.

THERES NO UNICORNS YOU IDIOT. PROVE IT MR, NOW!!!!.     ;)

Or, I could say, "sweet, got any pictures?"

I guess some people just dont get it.

Unicorn. How many watts in and out of the unicorn.?  I dont care. lol  ;]

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2012, 07:40:25 AM
All right then mags... perhaps you understand LarryC's system, and thus MrWayne's, better than I do. (I'll be the first to confess that I don't understand MrWayne's explanations, that is for sure.)

YOU explain to me how is the ratio of input work or energy, to the output work or energy, determined for the three layer system that is clearly overunity itself?

Please tell me what the total input energy is to initiate and sustain a cycle, and what the total output energy is for a complete cycle.

What _numbers_ do you compare, to determine the clearly overunity performance of that three-layer system itself?

Is it the 15 volume units in, and the 30 volume units out? And that is supposed to be one complete cycle back to a starting point so you can do it again.. and again... and again.... gaining 15 volume units each time, and putting it.......

Sigh.

"YOU explain to me how is the ratio of input work or energy, to the output work or energy, determined for the three layer system that is clearly overunity itself? "

Hey, Im just showing an example that if 'you', TK, have not got a grip on this in 24 hours, then these guys would need to spend as much time more or less as Webby or Larry to come to similar conclusions, and congratulations from Wayne to level 1. whats wrong with that?

And whats all this demand this and demand that?  Why should I give the gold to just anybody that thinks that kind of talk will get them results? What is that? Am I Egor? ;]

I suppose if I say I know how it basically works, I am under some requirement to divulge? Now I should be trolled to death for stating such. lol


I think you and Larry have a tiny bit of tension. Maybe if things were nicer, you guys might be on the same level by now.  Maybe, I dont really know.

I do know that larry is tired of Micro, and MH. So maybe some of that stuck, and you giving him the 4th degree is feeling much the same.  So maybe the answers you get are all that anyone thinks you deserve, so far. Ya cant earn it with GIMME NOW!! this aint Goodfellas.  ;]

I would like to see you figure it out.  I think you know that you will have to build it to see if things are different than what you imagine.  ;] Just like the SN device. Did you know it was going to be called a Super Nova and why, before you built it? ;] How could you? ;]

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 15, 2012, 08:14:35 AM

May I please have some suggestions as to how to measure the "head pressure" in this system?

I could put a basic improvised manometer on the bottom of the first receiving cylinder... but this whole system is a manometer anyway, so I'm not sure of the probative value of that, although I myself would accept its indications.


I'll put my spoke in as well - I also protest at Stefan's actions against the three - if I want cheerleading disciples I go to a football match where I can appreciate them - a discussion is about challenge & response [kept civil] - Wayne has made the claims, others are attempting to clarify the theory & protocol in its simplest form - enough said from me about that.

...................................................

Off the top of my head TK I would say you have two quick methods - you can probably think of others - the first the peizo as Mond said - I would suggest that a simple visual aid like a manometer tube for each section would give results to test the theory of all systems having the same or increasing head.

The idea is this - for each cylinder bore a hole near the bottom - insert a clear plastic tube & run it vertically to 7 feet - over the end of the tube that is inserted in the flow sections cover it with a water proof elastic membrane [like a balloon].

Set the system at rest then depress the plunger piston - if there is a substantial pressure increase in each progressive cylinder it will balloon out the membrane into the tubing interior [i.e. the membrane is a pressure transmitter but not a volume conduit].

When the piston is depressed fully [& the membranes are visually showing deformation, either the same, similar or vastly different for each section] then using a syringe add water to the manometer tubes until the membrane deformation reverses & goes back to normal - if this takes 7 foot of water at any time then the horizontal series system is analogous to a vertical column in pressure terms.

P.S. mark the water levels before allowing the membranes to move.

....................................................

Larry C's comments were relating to showing "a simple explanation of energy advantage"

Air is compressible - the far right tube is open to the air - the air gaps will be compressed slightly by weight of water - the compression acts like a spring - the mid sections may show a slight increase in localized pressure for height - however the overall column length of water & air will be foreshortened by that slight compression - so the last column in the right cylinder will not rise the full height of restoration.

P.S. If the mediums were changed to virtually non compressibles such as mercury & water as Larry has suggested then how does this theory of same head pressure [i.e. height] pan out for mixed densities other than a gas ?

ATEOTD I believe you are dead on - this is leverage principles where the effort in equals the load out - IOW's Input equals Output for each system but more sections models require lesser input for lesser output.

I still don't see the "energy advantage" that these models were supposed to show ?

If your experiments show anything vastly different than what I suspect then I will be most surprised & interested - good for you for giving them a go.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 08:41:37 AM
(snip)
I would like to see you figure it out.  I think you know that you will have to build it to see if things are different than what you imagine.  ;] Just like the SN device. Did you know it was going to be called a Super Nova and why, before you built it? ;] How could you? ;]

MaGs
No, I didn't, and in fact I was astounded that it worked at all, really, or that my little "tweaks" would be so effective. But there are no principles broken, nothing that will get me a team of engineers and a bale of cash to help me develop the Inductive Wireless Power System that will Eliminate the Need for Heavy Batteries and Expensive and Dangerous Supercapacitors in Electric Cars...or that would even Supply Power for On-Board Electrolysis, plenty of it, to run your ancient ICE-car on H2 gas from the water-filled fuel tank. No.... nobody is interested in stuff like that... even though I can demonstrate and prove every single claim I've made for it, anywhere anytime on demand....  because it isn't "overunity." Or at least I'm not saying it is.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2012, 08:42:56 AM
It would be evident to many that you are becoming dangerously close to your own definition of a troll.

Just stick to debating the facts. There have been many valid questions asked that are still not answered in a satisfactory way.

Na, Im anti troll.  ;]  As for unanswered questions, the smart ones are finding those answers for themselves.
And the ones that are not trying to find out for themselves, from what is given so far, what can i say?

Seamus, where are your charts? Where are your risers that dont work according to plan? ;]  Otherwise, what is to debate? You have no evidence thus far. Tell us what is being done wrong in Larry's charts. Rewrite them to show your side of the story. Make some risers and get out the bucket. ;]  Unless you have seen or built one yourself, how can you say you fully understand what is going on as a whole? You cant. You make assumptions based on rules. Your not seeing the whole picture, yet. ;]

Be cool, thats all. Have a bit of patience. As you can see, pressure isnt working to get answers. Thats for sure.

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2012, 08:53:04 AM
No, I didn't, and in fact I was astounded that it worked at all, really, or that my little "tweaks" would be so effective. But there are no principles broken, nothing that will get me a team of engineers and a bale of cash to help me develop the Inductive Wireless Power System that will Eliminate the Need for Heavy Batteries and Expensive and Dangerous Supercapacitors in Electric Cars...or that would even Supply Power for On-Board Electrolysis, plenty of it, to run your ancient ICE-car on H2 gas from the water-filled fuel tank. No.... nobody is interested in stuff like that... even though I can demonstrate and prove every single claim I've made for it, anywhere anytime on demand....  because it isn't "overunity." Or at least I'm not saying it is.


Your missing my point.   What I meant was, you were not expecting Super Nova mode. I looked at several vids on Yt of those loop devices and none of them had shown the Super Nova mode that yours did, ou or not.

Im making a similarity that you believe your only going to get what you expect from the build. So maybe if you build it, you might find more than you expect. ;]

Heck, I wanna see what you come up with. I think that your the greatest. ;]

Ill end this here.

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 09:03:17 AM
@fletcher
I like the idea of the membranes, a strong visual indication is worth a dozen numbers in boxes, IMHO. But... ultimately, the numbers in the boxes are how we engineer our reality, the stuff around us we take for granted every day.

You said,
"Larry C's comments were relating to showing "a simple explanation of energy advantage""

Yes, that is what I thought too, but we found out that there is no energy advantage, just a leverage to increase pressure... not energy or work. So I still don't get it. If there is no increase or advantage in _work_ or _energy_.... and the pressure advantage is happening at the middle, not the end of the cycle.... so what? What is the relevance of that, to a big, groaning machine that is supposed to run itself (until something leaks or breaks or needs to be modified) and make 36 extra watts (measured how?) beyond what it needs for self running?



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 09:08:40 AM
I'm not missing your point at all, Mags, I'm just making one of my own, on top of it.

Of course, serendipity favors the prepared mind. The only thing anybody will discover sitting in their figurative armchairs is how to get more comfortable. I learn something every day... whether I like it or not! However, there are far too many wild geese to chase, for me to spend time fishing after Red Herrings.

Peach, my friend. Er.... I mean peace.

 :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on August 15, 2012, 09:42:09 AM
I have put users MileHigh, Seamus and Microcontroller on Moderation as they have trolling this
thread too much  !

Regards, Stefan.
Often I just would like to filter out posts of certain people from a thread to get faster to the point. Is it possible Stefan? It would be nice to have such setting then I can choose who is displayed and get a more concentrated page.
regards,
Marcel 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 09:47:40 AM
Often I just would like to filter out posts of certain people from a thread to get faster to the point. Is it possible Stefan? It would be nice to have such setting then I can choose who is displayed and get a more concentrated page.
regards,
Marcel
Profile>Summary>Modify Profile>Buddies/Ignore List
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 15, 2012, 10:07:52 AM

@fletcher : I like the idea of the membranes, a strong visual indication is worth a dozen numbers in boxes, IMHO. But... ultimately, the numbers in the boxes are how we engineer our reality, the stuff around us we take for granted every day.

You said,
"Larry C's comments were relating to showing "a simple explanation of energy advantage""

Yes, that is what I thought too, but we found out that there is no energy advantage, just a leverage to increase pressure... not energy or work. So I still don't get it.

If there is no increase or advantage in _work_ or _energy_.... and the pressure advantage is happening at the middle, not the end of the cycle.... so what?

What is the relevance of that, to a big, groaning machine that is supposed to run itself (until something leaks or breaks or needs to be modified) and make 36 extra watts (measured how?) beyond what it needs for self running?


Agreed !

What I find astounding is that these sorts of examples are put up as gospel of something relevant by a seeming acolyte - Wayne gave it the thumbs up of showing something important in principle.

But ... a physical model wasn't put up with supporting data of an energy advantage but a spread sheet was - you [the skeptic & not on team Travis] have to do the real world build & test, & explain the data & conclusions that show NO energy advantage - anyone would have thought you put up the spreadsheet.

..........................................

Now I'll go back & find See3d's analysis of a ZED action & see if I can follow him.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 15, 2012, 10:38:55 AM

Hello all,

This is the link to my public ZED distribution folder:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P)

A PDF document has just been uploaded.  It is too late tonight to generate a set of animation files.  That will have to wait until sometime tomorrow.  Text that appears in red are numbers and formula terms that are changed from my previous version.  They will only be red for a single significant version.

The purpose of this analysis is to present (for critical review), the theory and implementation I used for a simplified simulation of a single ZED machine. This is just a single layer version.  A 2+ layer simulation model will follow after this one is verified for accuracy.  No attempt was made to find the most efficient geometry for this.  It is known that other geometries had better simulation results, but it would be wasted effort to try to optimize this model before verifying that it is accurate.

~Dennis


Thanks Dennis !

EDIT:

What sim program did you use Dennis ?

I'm used to talking of force as Newton's rather than pounds - in fact, using SI units because they are a coherent system.

I use WM - if I have time I will replicate a similar system to what you have shown, in WM [time is limited] - I am fairly confident that I can mathematically create the pseudo/faux forces required that will act exactly the same as real buoyancy force so that the sim is an accurate predictive tool.

P.S. I for one appreciate & understand the enormous amount of thought, time & effort you have put into this sim & presentation.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 15, 2012, 02:21:45 PM
Thanks Dennis !

EDIT:

What sim program did you use Dennis ?

I'm used to talking of force as Newton's rather than pounds - in fact, using SI units because they are a coherent system.

I use WM - if I have time I will replicate a similar system to what you have shown, in WM [time is limited] - I am fairly confident that I can mathematically create the pseudo/faux forces required that will act exactly the same as real buoyancy force so that the sim is an accurate predictive tool.

P.S. I for one appreciate & understand the enormous amount of thought, time & effort you have put into this sim & presentation.

Thanks Fletcher,
It can take more time and effort to build a good sim than a physical model.  However. it is orders of magnitude less work to make a change and optimize it for a build. 

I have been doing engineering work in pounds and inches since before there was any push to include metric in this country.  Using units I am used to keeps me from making stupid errors.  Also, since this is a mixed weight (gravity) and force system, I decided to do everything in the same weight measure for force to keep all units the same.  Just my personal choice, and some non-engineers may be able to follow better this way.

This sim was written in AmiBroker.  It is a stock market analysis program.  It had the most useful characteristics for writing the UI stuff I needed of any program I was familiar with. The language is "C" like.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 15, 2012, 03:18:27 PM
Well, OK, then.... I guess we all agree that the Work, or equivalently the Energy... of the three systems LarryC presented are not the same and there isn't any magic happening. The fact that the "head pressures" are logically the same in all three cases is the Red Herring of the week. Pressure is not energy, it is not work, it is NOT a conserved quantity.

So I am afraid I don't get the point. Reduced work IN for the same pressure -- and reduced work OUT -- , with no other considerations deemed important?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTSMyKdKDR0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTSMyKdKDR0)

Well I guess I assume too much if I think that Larry's post made a clear point.  It is clear to me probably only because of all the diagrams and calcs I've done on this system.
 
Let me try to explain a different way:
 
First, the diagrams that Larry showed are only a good explanation for the INPUT side of the ZED work analysis.
 
The OUTPUT side of a ZED is not drawn at all.  But please consider that the analysis of the Output system needs for you to consider the amount of buoyant force that can be produced by a given Head of water.  And then the distance that this buoyant force can work over (stroke) to create the Output work for comparison with the Input work.
 
It is agreed that the Input work of the single U system (left side) that Larry illustrated in post #1376 is greater (edited) than the Input work of the 3U system (right side).  However, the water Head pressure created and therefore the buoyant force *potential* of the two systems are the same.  Stroke height potential is not equal, just the buoyant force potential.
 
In the classical Archimedes float setup or the single U system it is known that the Input work only produces (at most) an equal and opposite Output buoyancy force potential.  I believe this is the explanation why a buoyancy device cannot be OU.  So Work In = Work Out.
 
But in the 3U system we have now reduced the Input work to achieve the *same* Output buoyancy force potential as the classical examples.  So Work In < Work Out is a possibility.  The next step would be to find a way to capture the Work Output while in this unbalanced condition?
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 15, 2012, 05:45:45 PM
This was sent to me to post by someone who wishes to remain anonymous for the moment.  FWIW:
 
This is nothing to do with how much force, just force flow.

If fluid under pressure is moved into the pod chamber the risers will rise.

If the risers are not allowed to rise then that fluid under pressure
will move the air and water columns within the risers and ring walls.

The changed air and water columns store that input value and can return
it at any time.

If fluid under pressure is continued to be moved into the pod chamber
and the resistance against the risers is maintained as such to just
allow the risers to lift but make no further change in the air and water
columns, then I can extract that resistance value.

If at the top of the lift the risers are held in place and the pressure
against the fluid in the pod chamber is reduced then the stored
potential in the air and water columns within the risers can be extracted.

The fluid under pressure can be manifested by raising a reservoir of
fluid a distance.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on August 15, 2012, 07:14:17 PM
Hello all,

This is the link to my public ZED distribution folder:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P

A PDF document has just been uploaded.  It is too late tonight to generate a set of animation files.  That will have to wait until sometime tomorrow.  Text that appears in red are numbers and formula terms that are changed from my previous version.  They will only be red for a single significant version.

The purpose of this analysis is to present (for critical review), the theory and implementation I used for a simplified simulation of a single ZED machine. This is just a single layer version.  A 2+ layer simulation model will follow after this one is verified for accuracy.  No attempt was made to find the most efficient geometry for this.  It is known that other geometries had better simulation results, but it would be wasted effort to try to optimize this model before verifying that it is accurate.

~Dennis

BRAVO!
Dennis - Your buoyancy simulation model is so well thought out and detailed! It is beautifully coded.
I like the way the split screen lets you compare water and air levels to the at-rest model at the same time.

The document has a good flow for all levels of readers. The engineers should be happy with all of the details in the formula pages yet the non-engineer can follow the detailed conceptual descriptions, graphs and animated models.
I agree with all of your conclusions on the last page.

LET'S GIVE DENNIS SOME FEEDBACK so we can move ahead to the multi-layered versions!   ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 15, 2012, 09:18:17 PM
@M, nice explanation.
 
The next step would be to find a way to capture the Work Output while in this unbalanced condition?
 It is coming.
 
@Dennis,  very nice.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 15, 2012, 10:16:54 PM
@M - Your anonymous contributor is quite a word-smith. He did a very clear job of expressing something Webby1 and Wayne have both mentioned a few times. I've been trying to design those same control elements into my test bed because I really think that is where a lot of the benefit of this technique comes from. Wayne's hydraulic cylinder and valves is perfect for that type of control but does suffer from friction losses that would probably kill a small model.

Great to have confirmation that I might be planning along some of the right lines.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 15, 2012, 10:27:25 PM
Hi All,

I just finished uploading 5 short animations (about 35 seconds each), to my public ZED dropbox.  They are about 3.8 MB each.  A low resolution video can be seen in your browser, but to get a good look, you will have to download them to your machine. 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P

One shows a zero layer system as a reference.  The other four are for the 1 layer system.  They go along with the simulator PDF description.

I have presented the animations that I thought would be helpful in understanding the simulation.  However, my simulator program is built modular enough that I can change any dimension, add or remove views, do multiple simulations at once, show different internal parameters on the graph, or list different parameters in the table.  I am open to requests for additional views that you think would improve the understanding of how this works.

I can also dial in a simulation for a physical model that someone else has built to compare simulation to real world.  I currently only have 1 layer simulated until it is verified before adding additional layers.  How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

One private comment I had questioned if because I am not showing an over unity case on 1 layer, does that mean that the ZED can not work?
No, what have done so far does not rule out a working ZED because:

1. My simulation has not been verified to accurately reflect the real world
2. The test case geometry presented is far from an optimum configuration
3. I must include the middle layers to see the contribution for each added one to the overall efficiency.

I plan on making this a friendly and robust process.  Skeptics are welcome to contribute to this effort.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 15, 2012, 10:41:52 PM
One more thing regarding my simulated test case.  There is no real setup involved.  When in the down state, all air pressures start at zero PSI from atmosphere.  I have the ability in the sim to preset the air PSI in each layer to a different value, but for the sake of a small model, I am running with the idea that the setup should be to add a fixed volume of water to the tank pockets, drop the riser into place, and put a rubber gasket screw into each layer vent hole while the riser is pushed down.  That is all.  All counterbalancing would be with external weights, like sand in a cup.  No rocket science here.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 11:28:11 PM
Uh-oh. Looks like somebody has an even better buoyancy drive than MrWayne. Quieter, smaller, and already making lots of electrical energy. And his explanation is simple enough that even Koalas can understand it.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2728359.shtml?cat=565
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 16, 2012, 12:05:09 AM
Uh-oh. Looks like somebody has an even better buoyancy drive than MrWayne. Quieter, smaller, and already making lots of electrical energy. And his explanation is simple enough that even Koalas can understand it.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2728359.shtml?cat=565 (http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2728359.shtml?cat=565)
Are you serious? How many time does that concept have to fail, before it is put to rest.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 16, 2012, 08:19:03 AM

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 05:27:56 AM

Well, OK, then.... I guess we all agree that the Work, or equivalently the Energy... of the three systems LarryC presented are not the same and there isn't any magic happening. The fact that the "head pressures" are logically the same in all three cases is the Red Herring of the week. Pressure is not energy, it is not work, it is NOT a conserved quantity.

So I am afraid I don't get the point. Reduced work IN for the same pressure -- and reduced work OUT -- , with no other considerations deemed important?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTSMyKdKDR0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTSMyKdKDR0)


Well I guess I assume too much if I think that Larry's post made a clear point.  It is clear to me probably only because of all the diagrams and calcs I've done on this system.
 
Let me try to explain a different way:
 
First, the diagrams that Larry showed are only a good explanation for the INPUT side of the ZED work analysis.
 
The OUTPUT side of a ZED is not drawn at all.  But please consider that the analysis of the Output system needs for you to consider the amount of buoyant force that can be produced by a given Head of water.  And then the distance that this buoyant force can work over (stroke) to create the Output work for comparison with the Input work.
 
It is agreed that the Input work of the single U system (left side) that Larry illustrated in post #1376 is greater (edited) than the Input work of the 3U system (right side).  However, the water Head pressure created and therefore the buoyant force *potential* of the two systems are the same.  Stroke height potential is not equal, just the buoyant force potential.
 
In the classical Archimedes float setup or the single U system it is known that the Input work only produces (at most) an equal and opposite Output buoyancy force potential.  I believe this is the explanation why a buoyancy device cannot be OU.  So Work In = Work Out.
 
But in the 3U system we have now reduced the Input work to achieve the *same* Output buoyancy force potential as the classical examples.  So Work In < Work Out is a possibility.  The next step would be to find a way to capture the Work Output while in this unbalanced condition?
 
M.


Hi Mondrasek ..

Since TK hasn't specifically replied to your explanations I will take the liberty.

First, before I go there, TK had a problem to test the relative pressures in the multi-tubes experiment [re Larry's spreadsheet], to see if indeed you guys were or were not correct about the multi-tubes having the same head [i.e. pressure] as the standard much higher vertical water depth single U tube that demonstrated equal Input_Output energy.

I gave TK a few quick potential methods to test the pressures - since sleeping on it two more rather obvious methods have come to mind - the first is a small stand alone mechanical dial pressure gauge dropped into the bottom of each U set in series [these are just spring loaded dials that register pressure] - then you can read the pressures at each stage for comparison.

The second came to mind with a bit more lateral thinking [excuse the pun] - if a hole is pierced in a tank of water the water will exit horizontally under pressure - the velocity of the water exiting will be the same velocity as water falling vertically from the meniscus to the hole, at the hole - this relationship is due to Pascal's law - therefore this is a 'one_shot' method of testing your theory of same head & pressure for all 3 systems - it means attaching a stop  that you turn on & off to test the relative horizontal distance each stream from each stage achieves compared to the 7 foot head single U tube.

..............................................

Now, onto your post & I'll keep it brief.

I believe you are erroneous in your assumptions about the 3 systems having the same buoyancy force potential & this stems from a wrong belief that all 3 systems have the same pressure head - they don't, head is a function of height all else being equal.

1. the systems you cite are open to air systems on the right side.

2. air can be compressed - when it is done so it acts as a spring storing PE - is has the capability to give back energy in equal amounts of KE, less losses. EDIT: as per a toy pressurized pump water cannon.

3. clearly for air to be compressed & then give back KE to water Work must be done on the air - this work is equal to the stored PE in the compressed air.

..............................................

General Comments & Observations:

It occurred to me last night that after having viewed Dennis's excellent pdk drawings that the ZED system [when taken in context of Larry's & your's defence of the multi_tubes systems] that I was recognizing an underlying theme I'd seen before I thought.

That was that Wayne appears to have all the essential elements of a 'force pump' & that it is cobbled with a buoyancy system.

I attach a couple of pics from an old text book of mine that I scanned today - they show an ordinary lift pump & the compressed air augmented force pump - notes in margins etc are previous reminders to myself over something at the time.

Note that physics as we now understand it says that the Work done Input [the Effort] to raise the water [by lift or force method] equals the Output energy [the Load], less friction losses.

I think TK's continued call for good data for a complete single ZED cycle analysis of claims is even more important now than ever.

I think it important to test the Larry tube theory of equal head gives rise to equal buoyancy force potential [Output] for reduced Input with multi-tubes, because it is a first principle for understanding the basis & accuracy of the ZED claims.

I do hope we skeptics can be proved wrong because we'd all be winners in the end after the dust had settled & the jaws closed.

Best -fletcher
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 16, 2012, 08:51:09 AM
Hi All,

I just finished uploading 5 short animations (about 35 seconds each), to my public ZED dropbox.  They are about 3.8 MB each.  A low resolution video can be seen in your browser, but to get a good look, you will have to download them to your machine. 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P)

One shows a zero layer system as a reference.  The other four are for the 1 layer system.  They go along with the simulator PDF description.

I have presented the animations that I thought would be helpful in understanding the simulation.  However, my simulator program is built modular enough that I can change any dimension, add or remove views, do multiple simulations at once, show different internal parameters on the graph, or list different parameters in the table.  I am open to requests for additional views that you think would improve the understanding of how this works.

I can also dial in a simulation for a physical model that someone else has built to compare simulation to real world.  I currently only have 1 layer simulated until it is verified before adding additional layers.  How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

One private comment I had questioned if because I am not showing an over unity case on 1 layer, does that mean that the ZED can not work?
No, what have done so far does not rule out a working ZED because:

1. My simulation has not been verified to accurately reflect the real world
2. The test case geometry presented is far from an optimum configuration
3. I must include the middle layers to see the contribution for each added one to the overall efficiency.

I plan on making this a friendly and robust process.  Skeptics are welcome to contribute to this effort.

As I see the situation:

- We have a concept (the Travis effect) which seems to describe a OU machine.
- Theoretical considerations (repeatedly presented by Mr. Travis and followers) seem to support the OU claim.
- Some experiments, some simulations and some calculations seem to support the OU claim.

On the other hand:

- The Travis effect is difficult to describe.
- The theoretical arguments may be flawed (because they do not take the whole energy flow into consideration).
- The experiments, the simulations and the calculations may be flawed (because they do not take the whole energy flow into consideration).

A way out of the endless discussion:

- Build a machine that works in the sense that it puts out "useful net energy" over a longer period of time.
- This would prove the concept empirically and would encourage "real scientists" (who have a deep understanding of hydraulics and physics) to have a closer look.

What I suspect:

- There is no working machine. (At least no proof of a working machine has been presented or reported by witnesses.)
- There seems to exist a machine (may be even several) but it is not self running and does not prove the concept in the trivial sense that "useful net energy" is put out for a longer period.

Greetings, Conrad

(Sorry, I repeat myself, but the discussion has become so convoluted, that I again wanted to present a "status check".)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 16, 2012, 01:46:55 PM
@see3d

Thanks for your hard work. I appreciate it.

(But it is cruel torture that you chose Imperial units rather than SI. I had to look up and check that water has a density of 0.036 pounds per cubic inch.)

It is interesting that the riser displaces a variable amount of water without itself varying in volume, because you are able to raise the water level around it by keeping it locked as you press up the piston from below. This variable volume of displacement is what varies the riser's buoyancy of course; the pressure of the water... its "head"... only affects buoyancy because it raises the water level around the riser. This of course depends on the volume of the water being pushed up by the piston, not its pressure. The addition of the partially airfilled spaces between the walls allows some of the input work to be stored in compression of the air pockets as the water level is pushed up by the piston, before the riser is allowed to rise.  It appears to me that the "buoyant force potential" depends on the water 'head' pressure, only in so far as this pressure changes the effective riser volume (the underwater volume) by raising the water between the walls by compressing the air pockets while the riser itself is locked. The water pressure raises the water around the riser; it's the increased water displacement that increases the buoyancy, not the water pressure per se.
The Inverted TE effect that I showed in my first video would then appear to obtain in the locked riser case. The total downward force that must be offset by the piston to push up includes the weight of the displaced water, so it increases as the water level rises around the locked riser.

The total work output is less than the total work input, when output work is considered to be the lifting of the weight on top of the riser. How could this be, if you are neglecting losses in your sim? It is because some of the input work is stored in the compression of the air pockets and/or the lifted water in the walls,  and is still "stuck" in there at the top of the cycle; this stored work is returned during the second half of the cycle as a necessary part of bringing all levels back to their original state. In other words, some of the input work is done on internal parts of the system, raising and lowering them; this work balances (neglecting heat losses due to the compression and expansion of the air pockets). The remainder of the work goes into lifting the external weight, and this work too is returned as the system goes through the second half of the cycle.

It is as if you are pushing up on a mass through a compression spring. You push up with a certain force, the spring compresses but the load mass doesn't move so you press up harder. Finally it does but it goes up a distance less than you have pushed up, because the spring has taken up some of the distance travelled by your input force. If you look at the lifted weight x distance, it appears that the work out is less than the work in, by the amount stored in the spring's compression. So the total work still balances, as it should.

I think.... I'm sure I'll be corrected if I've gone wrong somewhere in my understanding.

I have to admit... that I see nothing particularly remarkable happening in your sim; if any of the work from either the external lift or internal compression/lift is taken away and used elsewhere, the system cannot reset to the initial state without more input to balance the work taken out. Certainly I see nothing that would indicate that there is a "three layer system that is clearly overunity itself' (as MrWayne has said exists somewhere) being modelled-- and I know that was not (quite) your intent.

But...

If you had the exact dimensions and masses of MrWayne's simple threelayer system that is clearly overunity itself, would you be able to put those values into your sim and show us exactly how it works out to be OU?

OK, tear me up.
--TK
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 16, 2012, 03:05:38 PM
@see3d

Thanks for your hard work. I appreciate it.

...The total work output is less than the total work input, when output work is considered to be the lifting of the weight on top of the riser. How could this be, if you are neglecting losses in your sim? It is because some of the input work is stored in the compression of the air pockets and/or the lifted water in the walls,  and is still "stuck" in there at the top of the cycle; this stored work is returned during the second half of the cycle as a necessary part of bringing all levels back to their original state. In other words, some of the input work is done on internal parts of the system, raising and lowering them; this work balances (neglecting heat losses due to the compression and expansion of the air pockets). The remainder of the work goes into lifting the external weight, and this work too is returned as the system goes through the second half of the cycle.

It is as if you are pushing up on a mass through a compression spring. You push up with a certain force, the spring compresses but the load mass doesn't move so you press up harder. Finally it does but it goes up a distance less than you have pushed up, because the spring has taken up some of the distance travelled by your input force. If you look at the lifted weight x distance, it appears that the work out is less than the work in, by the amount stored in the spring's compression. So the total work still balances, as it should.

...But...

If you had the exact dimensions and masses of MrWayne's simple threelayer system that is clearly overunity itself, would you be able to put those values into your sim and show us exactly how it works out to be OU?


TK,

Thank you for taking a close look at my partial sim model.  Yes, you understand what it is showing for a single layer.  I understood that all the input energy was conserved in the internal air and water head pressures.  From a thermodynamic point of view (and I am no expert in this), even the heat of compressing the air is given back.  If it is dispersed into the surroundings, it will be reclaimed from the surroundings.  Since this is a static model, everything should be conserved except for static friction.

My intent is to understand the ZED from the ground up, not to prove anything one way or the other.  To start with the idea that it does or does not work is to be biased.  To be biased is to have cloudy vision.  I have suspended belief and disbelief from the start of my investigation for this reason.  Proof can only come from experiment, not theory.  Theory guides the design of the best experiments.

However, what I need is a critical look at the conceptual model of forces on which I based my simulation program.  This is not my area of expertise, and I am not sure I have it right in all the fine details.  It is not the easiest thing for me to figure out.

To your question about modeling Wayne's machine -- Yes, that is my plan after verification that a one, two, and three layer model is mathematically consistent and conforms to known principles of physics.  Comparing the simulated output to real machine measurements is critical for believability of the simulator.  Wayne's three layer machine is the most instrumented machine to date and is the current gold standard.  However, that does not preclude modeling and measuring other independent builds that can be translated into the geometry limitations of my simplified simulated model.

I am just now working on the mathematical relationships for the middle layers.  I think I have a handle on that now.  I plan on working closely with Wayne to model what he has now and proposes as the best configuration.  I approach my work with respect for all the hard work done by Wayne and his engineers.

A critical review of my work as it is now and as it proceeds through a logical progression will be educational for me and everyone else who cares about discovery of scientific truth.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM


What I suspect:

- There is no working machine. (At least no proof of a working machine has been presented or reported by witnesses.)
- There seems to exist a machine (may be even several) but it is not self running and does not prove the concept in the trivial sense that "useful net energy" is put out for a longer period.

Greetings, Conrad

(Sorry, I repeat myself, but the discussion has become so convoluted, that I again wanted to present a "status check".)

To All,

I have always enjoyed Conrad's wisdom, but I must respond to his disinformation again.

As has been reported here multiple times;
We had our PE certification of "concept" back in 2010.

Mark Dansie visited May/June 2011 and reviewed our input output model - and asked us to black box it.

November Mark returned and watched the system run and made his own video - that I posted last time our "friends claimed no one has seen it".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)

After that visit - facing the same uninformed skepticism - Conrad presents -

Mark asked us for Data collection - which we took that same model and upgraded.

Mark has also publicly attested to the expectation of our success multiple times.

Mark has reported repeatedly and here on this site.

He has called us the .1 success out of the 99.9% Failures.

We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit -

@Conrad, you have always been welcomed - but your pop In's with disinformation does not represent the content of this forum
and or the truth presented. I love your opinions negative or not - You ruin your credibility with the last three posts of
disinformation.

To All,

See3d has worked our physics from another direction than my own engineers - I look forward to his analysis with great anticipation.
I believe he has the ability to communicate in the Nomenclature needed for some in this group - please pay attention.

Thank you all for your help.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 16, 2012, 04:05:45 PM
Now, onto your post & I'll keep it brief.

I believe you are erroneous in your assumptions about the 3 systems having the same buoyancy force potential & this stems from a wrong belief that all 3 systems have the same pressure head - they don't, head is a function of height all else being equal.

1. the systems you cite are open to air systems on the right side.

2. air can be compressed - when it is done so it acts as a spring storing PE - is has the capability to give back energy in equal amounts of KE, less losses. EDIT: as per a toy pressurized pump water cannon.

3. clearly for air to be compressed & then give back KE to water Work must be done on the air - this work is equal to the stored PE in the compressed air.

@fletcher, what you wrote above is all true, of course.  For the "ideal" case that Larry illustrated he assumed that the air was a incompressible fluid.  His reasoning for this is that we could replace air and water in this setup with water and mercury, or any two liquids of different densities so that compression could be ignored.  In the ZED or Larry's illustrated case where any compressible gas is one of the two fluids used there would always be a decrease in the created buoyancy force potential due to compressibility.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Liberty on August 16, 2012, 05:02:51 PM
To All,

I have always enjoyed Conrads wisdom, But I must respond to his disinformation again.

As has been reported here multiple times;
We had Our PE certification of "concept" back in 2010.

Mark Dansie visited May/June 2011 and reviewed our input output model - and asked us to black box it.

November Mark returned and watched the system run and made his own video - that I posted last time our "friends claimed no one has seen it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)

After that visit - facing the same uninformed skepticism - Conrad presents -

Mark asked us for Data collection - which we took that same model and upgraded.

Mark has also publically and attested to the expectation of our success multiple times.

Mark has reported repeatedly and here on this site.

He has called us the .1 success out of the 99.9% Failures.

We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the teams next visit -

@Conrad, you have always been welcomed - but your pop In's with disinformation does not represent the content of this forum
and or the truth presented. I love your opinions negative or not - You ruin your credibility with the last three posts of
disinformation.

To All,

Se3d has worked our physics from another direction than my own engineers - I look forward to his analysis with great anticipation.
I believe he has the ability to communicate in the Nomenclature needed for some in this group - please pay attention.

Thank you all for your help.

Wayne Travis

Mr. Travis,

I am curious why after having a patent on your device, that Mark Dansie felt it necessary to "Black Box" your device and only showed a very limited video.  Isn't the purpose of a patent so that you have public protection so that you can freely show your device openly and the data of input and output to the public for marketing?   Are there parts of your device that are still under development that do not have patent protection?  Would your device (when stable) be suitable to power the electric motors on a locomotive in your opinion?

Liberty
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 16, 2012, 05:12:14 PM
 For those who understand the 3 U examples from my previous post, please see the attached.
 
 The first picture shows the same resting state Travis system as the 3 U with 0 Water Head. The second picture is 3 U at 0 and 7 for comparison. The third picture shows the same state Travis system as the 3 U with 7 Foot Water Head, except the Water Head is much larger for the Travis system as it has a pod of 72" X 30 Dia. as the Travis demo, but works basically the same as 3 U. All the Riser forces shown are due to the Travis system intersecting the air column pressures.
 
 The piston force is replaced by the rise in the water level between the Pod and the Pod retainer to bring up the water head at a much decreased cost.
 
Those who want to learn, take your time, first compare Travis columns, right side of Pod to 3 U until you realize they are basically the same. Then try to understand how the separate forces are generated in the last picture. For those that don't know, the Riser forces are calculated as Si X Psi. All the needed information is there.

 
 Notes:
 1. The Force, Psi, Dia. and Si values are from my calculator.
 2. The normal .198 for wall thickness and .25 for air/water gap are greatly increase in the drawings for visual clarity, but you should look at the Dia. text to understand the actual size.
 3. This is not the normal Travis system way to setup, just an example to compare to 3 U to understand how the air pressure in each U can be used to generate force with lower cost.
 4. Air compression is not considered, for my previous reason and it much easier to comprehend without it. It was a struggle to get some to understand 7 Foot Water Head on each without compression. I'll show actual compression on each channel later as all my calculators that show the water air channel levels account for air compression by SI of channel. But few have downloaded the calculators.
 
 
 Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 16, 2012, 08:39:20 PM
Wayne, I am sorry that you think I spread misinformation. I just say, that you will not be believed unless many people can see a working machine which puts out some net energy over a longer time. In fact this is the most trivial requirement of any OU machine and of course it is the most difficult thing to show.

On your web site you announced a test run for Friday 17th of August. May be you can report (after the event) accurately what one could see and the result of this test run, especially the net power output and the duration of the run.

"Verification" for most people simply means that an OU machine puts out "free power" (net power) for a longer time. One should be able to measure the net output and one should be able to see (by walking around the machine) that no power is put in which is not accounted for. A self runner would be helpful, because any human intervention will be suspect.

Once this "trivial verification" is possible for many people, you will be able to generate interest in the scientific establishment and in the serious business world. And if you want scientific recognition and recognition by serious investors you have to provide free machines for testing and verification.

I think that the "flying bicycle example" posted by TinselKoala was a very good way of putting it. If some one flies around me for some time with a "flying bicycle" I start to believe him, even without understanding how it works. If no one can be observed flying around in a bicycle, it will not be believed. One can never prove that a "flying bicycle does not exist", but one can prove that it does indeed exist by flying around people in this bicycle (even when its workings stay a secret).

In analogy, if you can provide a self running OU machine with a consistent net output, one will start to believe you. It would be even better if you could provide scientific institutions with free OU machines for inspection, you would be famous over night.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 10:10:26 PM
Mr. Travis,

I am curious why after having a patent on your device, that Mark Dansie felt it necessary to "Black Box" your device and only showed a very limited video.  Isn't the purpose of a patent so that you have public protection so that you can freely show your device openly and the data of input and output to the public for marketing?   Are there parts of your device that are still under development that do not have patent protection?  Would your device (when stable) be suitable to power the electric motors on a locomotive in your opinion?

Liberty
Black box is my term - it means having a machine you can verify has no external input. If it happens to mean something else - My apology.
We did that back in November - then the even harder examinations started.
There is more than enough information to build our overunity device - as many have replicated the physics of the system correctly - showing and affirming the fact.
Yes, we have improvements - those are under separate protection.
Our systems are big - but they do not have to be heavy - locomotion use would be down the road.
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 10:32:45 PM
Wayne, I am sorry that you think I spread misinformation. I just say, that you will not be believed unless many people can see a working machine which puts out some net energy over a longer time. In fact this is the most trivial requirement of any OU machine and of course it is the most difficult thing to show.

On your web site you announced a test run for Friday 17th of August. May be you can report (after the event) accurately what one could see and the result of this test run, especially the net power output and the duration of the run.

"Verification" for most people simply means that an OU machine puts out "free power" (net power) for a longer time. One should be able to measure the net output and one should be able to see (by walking around the machine) that no power is put in which is not accounted for. A self runner would be helpful, because any human intervention will be suspect.

Once this "trivial verification" is possible for many people, you will be able to generate interest in the scientific establishment and in the serious business world. And if you want scientific recognition and recognition by serious investors you have to provide free machines for testing and verification.

I think that the "flying bicycle example" posted by TinselKoala was a very good way of putting it. If some one flies around me for some time with a "flying bicycle" I start to believe him, even without understanding how it works. If no one can be observed flying around in a bicycle, it will not be believed. One can never prove that a "flying bicycle does not exist", but one can prove that it does indeed exist by flying around people in this bicycle (even when its workings stay a secret).

In analogy, if you can provide a self running OU machine with a consistent net output, one will start to believe you. It would be even better if you could provide scientific institutions with free OU machines for inspection, you would be famous over night.

Greetings, Conrad
Thank You,

I did see where you wrote misinformation, I thought to myself - how could you not know that what you wrote was not true?
 
It is hard enough in this field of discovery just to "present my findings" and then that kind of stuff is added..... - I will appreciate, and respect that you mean what you say. Thank you.

I do understand that everyone assumes big checks come rollling in - they also believe that with a running system - all questions will stop - both are wrong.

I do understand your guidance - and certain people have had the "thorough walk around the machine" - and they are not the type that comment on Forums.

They are the type that join and help in a good fight, the fight we face - to explain the contradiction that we have presented physics - both being able to prove our system and argue against it.

A big error many here make - is assuming I am trying to convince someone of my machine's ability.

I am not trying to convince anyone - some will check it out - and some won't - those that do - come to the same conclusion -
Some thing is amiss in the Law of thermal dynamics - or it needs an amendment.

We are working very hard on the data converted model that is where we are now.

I understand that for people to believe in flying bicycles - ......... they need to see - but seeing is not believing - I have been there since last May - it gives hope - but the data and the answers to physics follow the sighting.

Then that is followed by a whole new list of questions.

This has been a great adventure - I do not mind sharing my story, and the story of the team working hard here - in its own way - sharing here has brought new team members - after they replicated the machine or the physics - it has been a blessing.

Thanks again

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 16, 2012, 11:59:32 PM
Hi All,

While going through the calculations for the 2 layer sim, I found an error in the formula used in the 1 layer sim.  It was pretty glaring once I saw. it.  Unfortunately that one error ripples through later formulas.  I will post a new PDF version as soon as I work through the changes.  It looks like the efficiency will be improved:

PAGE 9)

1. Calculate the AirPSI in the Riser air pocket:

AirPSI = (InputForce - PistonStopLoad) / H0Area

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 09:24:38 AM
Good. I thought there was something funny about that one, but with all the hidden counterbalancing and the lack of computation of the internal work I wasn't really sure.

When you revise the sim, could you _please_ also account for the internal work, so that the total work "output" includes this internal work and its storage in the compression of the air and the lifted mass of the water? I can live with water density in pounds per cubic inch and hidden counterbalances and an unrealistically low-mass riser  ... but not accounting for _all_ the work seems ... well, it seems like an omission.

At the top of the cycle when the lifted weight is as high as it is going to get, there is energy (work) stored in the system still, and this work isn't fully accounted for, and it is necessary to reset the system. If you released the internal pressure at this point... the weight would fall... and then if you resealed the system... it would have less air/water in it than you started the cycle with, showing that this stored internal work is indeed necessary to reset the system to the starting point of the cycle, and if it is bled off in any way... it will have to be replaced by additional outside work to bring the system back to the starting state.
 

Also, it would be nice if MrWayne would  measure the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity itself" that he has somewhere, and give you those exact parameters to enter into your sim, so we could see how this clear overunity manifests itself in a simple system.

Your sim has contributed greatly to my understanding of what is happening here. I do hope your revision, including the internal work and MrWayne's starting parameters, will teach us all even more.


Hi All,

While going through the calculations for the 2 layer sim, I found an error in the formula used in the 1 layer sim.  It was pretty glaring once I saw. it.  Unfortunately that one error ripples through later formulas.  I will post a new PDF version as soon as I work through the changes.  It looks like the efficiency will be improved:

PAGE 9)

1. Calculate the AirPSI in the Riser air pocket:

AirPSI = (InputForce - PistonStopLoad) / H0Area

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 09:36:26 AM
@Seamus10n:

Did you happen to watch Mark Dansie's video that MrWayne recently linked? It's very hard for me to reconcile the running of that system, as shown in the video, with any kind of mechanical resonance. The periods (measured by the interclunk timing) are not symmetrical nor are they exactly equal from cycle to cycle (assuming two clunks per cycle of course); nor does the amplitude of the "oscillation" increase. In fact the constant amplitude of the oscillations seems to be part of the control loop or is fixed by the geometry and is at maximum from the very first cycle. (I find this fact interesting on its own.) However, it seems to me that the f0 of the system varies a bit in a systematic manner over the 4 minutes of the video. What do you think?

ETA: mechanical or hydraulic resonance needn't be super fast of course; the "water hammer" is an example of (destructive) resonance in an hydraulic system, commonly found in poorly planned domestic plumbing and relatively easily corrected by hydraulic/pneumatic inductor-capacitor analogues that you can buy at Home Despot.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 17, 2012, 11:48:35 AM
Referring to post 1376 on page 92 by LarryC. People have expressed doubts as to whether we can get the same head pressure from a number of layers in the diagram on the right as we would from a single tall column of water, and there has been talk of using submersible pressure gauges etc. Here is a very simple experiment to prove the point. Imagine we have the apparatus set up as in the right hand diagram. Now with the water levels as shown we extract the piston, and throw it away. The tube in which the piston fitted is now extended upwards to a hight of several feet. Now instead of depressing a piston with a weight, we pour water from a jug into the extended piston tube. We keep pouring until the water levels in the various U tubes move to the same position as happened when the piston was pushed down by the weight. At this stage, we find that the hight of the water column in the piston tube, is equal to the sum of the heights of the vertical columns in the U tubes. To me, this proves that the pressure of the column in the piston tube is equal to the pressure of the columns in the U tubes.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 17, 2012, 01:51:27 PM
Referring to post 1376 on page 92 by LarryC. People have expressed doubts as to whether we can get the same head pressure from a number of layers in the diagram on the right as we would from a single tall column of water, and there has been talk of using submersible pressure gauges etc. Here is a very simple experiment to prove the point. Imagine we have the apparatus set up as in the right hand diagram. Now with the water levels as shown we extract the piston, and throw it away. The tube in which the piston fitted is now extended upwards to a hight of several feet. Now instead of depressing a piston with a weight, we pour water from a jug into the extended piston tube. We keep pouring until the water levels in the various U tubes move to the same position as happened when the piston was pushed down by the weight. At this stage, we find that the hight of the water column in the piston tube, is equal to the sum of the heights of the vertical columns in the U tubes. To me, this proves that the pressure of the column in the piston tube is equal to the pressure of the columns in the U tubes.

Simple and brilliant, @neptune!  Now, can anyone send TK one more polycarbonate fluorescent light tube protector tube?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 17, 2012, 02:39:03 PM
When you revise the sim, could you _please_ also account for the internal work, so that the total work "output" includes this internal work and its storage in the compression of the air and the lifted mass of the water? I can live with water density in pounds per cubic inch and hidden counterbalances and an unrealistically low-mass riser  ... but not accounting for _all_ the work seems ... well, it seems like an omission.

At the top of the cycle when the lifted weight is as high as it is going to get, there is energy (work) stored in the system still, and this work isn't fully accounted for, and it is necessary to reset the system. If you released the internal pressure at this point... the weight would fall... and then if you resealed the system... it would have less air/water in it than you started the cycle with, showing that this stored internal work is indeed necessary to reset the system to the starting point of the cycle, and if it is bled off in any way... it will have to be replaced by additional outside work to bring the system back to the starting state.

TK,

Thank you for your response.

I will try to make it more clear what the Riser counterbalance is about in a picture for the next release.  Just imagine a rope up from the Riser up to and over a pulley with a counterbalance weight suspended from the other end.  It can also be visualized as a lever in reverse of the water counterbalance weight that I did show.  However, there is a buoyant force at the bottom of the Riser wall at the depth of the initial H1 and H2.  If in the design, this is large enough, it could offset the weight of the Riser, but I doubt it would in a 1 layer design.  Counterbalancing is is a practical problem with a simple solution.

The stored potential energy is shown in the graph when the WorkOut/WorkIn < 1.  I also have another graph that I did not think would be interesting that shows the stored potential energy added to the WorkOut/WorkIn. 

I considered it a practical waste to overdrive the input beyond lifting the weight to the limit stop.  Just as it is a waste to have the Riser weight counterbalanced to more than zero.  In a physical machine, I would try to keep these down to about 1% at each end of the stroke.  I will will try to better show the balance of all the unused potential energy.

In my model, there is no provision for using any excess potential energy beyond lifting the load weight.  It is all returned on the down stroke.  Perhaps that is easier to understand if I explain how I envision a closed loop:

On a ZED in the down initialized state, add a 1 pound output load weight and a 1 pound input weight.  After the output load weight is just raised to the top stop, remove it and the input load weight.  The ZED will return to the initial down state.  If the input weight has dropped less than the output load weight has risen, then the cycle can repeat forever.

Please keep the good questions coming.

Now, back to work fixing my calculations.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 17, 2012, 03:01:28 PM
That part's clear enough.
The part I don't understand is what he does with all the extra hydraulic fluid he's generating. You inject 15 units to one Zed and get 30 back. He's said that many times, and that is supposed to be a full cycle for that Zed, right?So you take 15 volume units of that hydraulic fluid and inject it to the other Zed and it returns 30 back. Now you have 30 cu in extra hydraulic fluid in your accumulator. Pretty soon you are going to have to start selling that off, or the barrels are going to be all over the back yard.

Or perhaps the ratio of 30/15 is for the two Zeds together. But if each full cycle takes 15 out of the accumulator and puts 30 back in... you still have the same problem: too much hydraulic fluid.


Yes, you have too much hydraulic fluid. So the excess fluid is then used to drive a hydraulic motor, which , in turn drives an alternator, feeding a load. That is where the "free energy" comes from.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 17, 2012, 04:30:15 PM
Attached is the third picture from my previous post with additional Psi pointer information.
 
This will be much harder to understand where the force and Psi are coming from than the 3 U water levels. If anybody has questions and they don't want to post here, please PM me.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 04:53:51 PM
Referring to post 1376 on page 92 by LarryC. People have expressed doubts as to whether we can get the same head pressure from a number of layers in the diagram on the right as we would from a single tall column of water, and there has been talk of using submersible pressure gauges etc. Here is a very simple experiment to prove the point. Imagine we have the apparatus set up as in the right hand diagram. Now with the water levels as shown we extract the piston, and throw it away. The tube in which the piston fitted is now extended upwards to a hight of several feet. Now instead of depressing a piston with a weight, we pour water from a jug into the extended piston tube. We keep pouring until the water levels in the various U tubes move to the same position as happened when the piston was pushed down by the weight. At this stage, we find that the hight of the water column in the piston tube, is equal to the sum of the heights of the vertical columns in the U tubes. To me, this proves that the pressure of the column in the piston tube is equal to the pressure of the columns in the U tubes.

And if it is demonstrated to be true, which I don't doubt, in this manner, what _then_ does it prove? Buoyancy does not depend on the pressure of the liquid, only on the mass displaced by the displacing object. In the system with a locked riser, increased "head pressure" causes the water rise and to wet more of the riser, effectively displacing more liquid. The pressure isn't affecting the buoyancy directly, and if the riser is free to float, it doesn't affect its buoyancy at all, as long as the riser's density (or equivalently the wetted volume) doesn't change.

It's an elegant demonstration, though, nothing wrong with that. If I had another tube I'd put it together in a minute. But I can't find any more of those polycarbonate light bulb protectors, they have been replaced by much weaker and flimsy tubes. Maybe one of those will work for this particular purpose but I wouldn't trust them for external pressure loads.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 04:58:13 PM

see3d said,
Quote
On a ZED in the down initialized state, add a 1 pound output load weight and a 1 pound input weight.  After the output load weight is just raised to the top stop, remove it and the input load weight.  The ZED will return to the initial down state.  If the input weight has dropped less than the output load weight has risen, then the cycle can repeat forever.
Really? If the input weight (that you have removed) has dropped less than the output load (that you have removed) has risen ... then the system is NOT reset to the beginning of a cycle with all levels and pressures the same as when started. Do you think that by bleeding off some pressure, doing work elsewhere, it will then be reset to the original state?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 05:04:26 PM

Yes, you have too much hydraulic fluid. So the excess fluid is then used to drive a hydraulic motor, which , in turn drives an alternator, feeding a load. That is where the "free energy" comes from.
Well, I've been told in no more clearer terms that my conception of operation like this is wrong. But... just in case it's not, you still aren't dealing with what becomes of the fluid... sorry, hydraulic oil.... after it goes through the motor. How and where does it get back into the Zeds, at what pressure, how is this pressure obtained etc etc.
And I believe that big thing with fins on it, being driven by the hydraulic pump/motor, is actually a generator, not an alternator, built for wind power systems. I don't know its exact specs... but I sure would like to.

ETA: Where, in the diagrams shown, does the extraction of 30 volume units happen, and the injection of 15 back in while diverting 15 thru the motor? After it goes through the motor it winds up in the reservoir. How does it then get back into the system?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 05:34:43 PM
Attached is the third picture from my previous post with additional Psi pointer information.
 
This will be much harder to understand where the force and Psi are coming from than the 3 U water levels. If anybody has questions and they don't want to post here, please PM me.
 
Regards, Larry


Why are you showing this confusing diagram, when there exists a three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself?

Quote
[cite]MrWayne[/cite]I will repeat what I have said - our current single unit is barely better than a hydraulic cylinder - you can measure the input and output  - we do not use weight - but volume and pressure. Yes - our three layer system is clearly overunity by itself.
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg332026/#msg332026 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg332026/#msg332026)

Why not diagram _that_ system, that is clearly overunity by itself, and let us know how the clear overunity was determined?

I've asked for this information once or twice before, in several ways. Is it an unreasonable request? I don't find it so at all.
Certainly, if I had made such a statement, I'd be prepared to back it up with real data, and I think everybody that knows me would agree that that is what I'd do.  If you can't diagram it for some reason, then just tell me please how the clear overunity performance was determined for that three-layer (single?) system.

And while you are at it, I am also curious about the single system that is better than an hydraulic cylinder (barely).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 17, 2012, 06:20:27 PM
Well, I've been told in no more clearer terms that my conception of operation like this is wrong. But... just in case it's not, you still aren't dealing with what becomes of the fluid... sorry, hydraulic oil.... after it goes through the motor. How and where does it get back into the Zeds, at what pressure, how is this pressure obtained etc etc.
And I believe that big thing with fins on it, being driven by the hydraulic pump/motor, is actually a generator, not an alternator, built for wind power systems. I don't know its exact specs... but I sure would like to.

ETA: Where, in the diagrams shown, does the extraction of 30 volume units happen, and the injection of 15 back in while diverting 15 thru the motor? After it goes through the motor it winds up in the reservoir. How does it then get back into the system?

TK,  in the picture below all the red hydraulic lines are filled with high pressure hydraulic oil.  All the blue hydraulic lines are filled with unpressurized hydraulic fluid that is also stored in a reservoir that is not represented pictorially.  You can see where each blue hydraulic line from the cylinder on top of each ZED and after the motor ends is the labeled "Res" for "reservoir.
 
To each of the three sections of the multichamber hydraulic cylinders above the ZEDs are two lines, one the high pressure red and the other the low pressure blue.  On each of these routes are also one way check valves.  So when a ZED is going up it is pressurizing the Hydraulic oil inside these cylinders.  That high pressure hydraulic oil can only flow through the red lines to the accumulator(s)(s).  The one way check valves make this the only open passage.  Then when the ZED is going down hydraulic fluid would be pulled back into those same hydraulic cylinder chambers above the ZED from the reservoir.  Again, the one way check valves make this the only open passage.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 17, 2012, 06:27:27 PM
Really? If the input weight (that you have removed) has dropped less than the output load (that you have removed) has risen ... then the system is NOT reset to the beginning of a cycle with all levels and pressures the same as when started. Do you think that by bleeding off some pressure, doing work elsewhere, it will then be reset to the original state?

TK,

My simulation starts with the Riser at the bottom stop and no input or output weights applied, atmospheric air PSI everywhere, no Pod head, no exit head differentials.  The riser has a NET weight of 0.01 pounds holding it against the bottom stop.  Therefore, removing the input and output weights at any point will return it to the initial state.  This initial state is very easy for me to analyze without a computer.

There is no provision for any fluid or pressure removal from the system as I have presented it.  Excess energy production would be removed from any excess differential in the movement distance of the input and output weights.  The potential excess output work would simply be a measure of the distance x weight.  From a practical point of view, there would be other more direct ways of removal of any excess.  For instance driving a crank from the linear motion of the Riser to spin a generator.  In that case, it would be equivalent to the input weight moving the same distance as the output weight, but with a heaver output weight.

Please don't complicate it.  It was reduced to this very simple form on purpose to aid in understanding.  Wayne's machine has a lot of moving parts.  It is beyond my ability to analyze it.  I am trying to work with this simple cartoon version so I can analyze and understand it, building it up from the most simple to the more complex, one step at a time.  If I am successful with this learning approach, you and others here will help me understand as I turn that understanding back around into an ever more complete simulation the will help others understand in an upward knowledge spiral.

Questions that you already know the answer to, but don't think I have explained well enough for others to understand are welcome.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 17, 2012, 06:57:14 PM
@TK. I described the "thing with fins" as an alternator. You insist it is a generator. The term generator as I understand it is a term that includes alternators and Dynamos. So all alternators are generators, but not all generators are alternators. Modern wind turbines are usually permanent magnet alternators with rectification on the output to provide DC. But if you still want to call it a generator, that is fine by me.
      Regarding your other question, well Mondrasek pretty well covered it . As the ZEDs rise, the hydaulic rams fitted to them act as pumps, one per ZED. They force 30 cubic inches of fluid into the accumulator. From there, half powers the hydraulic motor/generator, the other half powers the rams which push the convoluted bags to input water into the zeds. The low pressure "exhaust" from the hydraulic motor, and from the convoluted bag rams is returned to the reservoir.,
      You ask how does the hydraulic oil get back into the system from the reservoir. As each Zed falls, oil is drawn into the hydraulic-ram-used-as-a-pump mounted on top of the ZED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 08:06:27 PM
@TK. I described the "thing with fins" as an alternator. You insist it is a generator. The term generator as I understand it is a term that includes alternators and Dynamos. So all alternators are generators, but not all generators are alternators. Modern wind turbines are usually permanent magnet alternators with rectification on the output to provide DC. But if you still want to call it a generator, that is fine by me.
      Regarding your other question, well Mondrasek pretty well covered it . As the ZEDs rise, the hydaulic rams fitted to them act as pumps, one per ZED. They force 30 cubic inches of fluid into the accumulator. From there, half powers the hydraulic motor/generator, the other half powers the rams which push the convoluted bags to input water into the zeds. The low pressure "exhaust" from the hydraulic motor, and from the convoluted bag rams is returned to the reservoir.,
      You ask how does the hydraulic oil get back into the system from the reservoir. As each Zed falls, oil is drawn into the hydraulic-ram-used-as-a-pump mounted on top of the ZED.

I am not INSISTING it's a generator... I am REPEATING what was told to me, and what I've seen in units that are similar in appearance. You may note also that on MrWayne's  diagram it is called a GENERATOR.

You can argue semantics if you like, distracting from the main issue. The important distinction between a GENERATOR and an ALTERNATOR is that the generator can be driven electrically in a simple manner and will turn... just like a motor. Alternators with field coils and no PMs... much more difficult to make them motor along. Also... generator/motors will work fairly well even at low RPMs and torques. Alternators, not so much.

Please provide the part number of the unit in question, so that we can get some specs and see if it's a generator with PMs, that can be reversed into a motor, or an alternator with field coils that are more difficult.


Quote
You ask how does the hydraulic oil get back into the system from the reservoir. As each Zed falls, oil is drawn into the hydraulic-ram-used-as-a-pump mounted on top of the ZED.

But every body else who has answered this question is telling me that the oil is injected into the zeds -- or somewhere -- at high pressure. This does not jive with your description, which requires a NEGATIVE pressure, or suction. The reservoir is held at what pressure?

Oh... the first 15 units goes into the zed at high pressure and the rest which flowed thru the hydraulic motor/pump  is returned at low pressure, from the suction of the rams ... a process that requires INPUT WORK?



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 17, 2012, 08:11:21 PM
The ZED tanks contain air and water only.
The hydraulic (oil) system is external to the ZED(s).

Nothing is injected into or taken out of the ZED system once set up and operating.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 08:12:56 PM
@see3d:

I am complicating the issue?

OK, fine. I suppose my continued request for real data on the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself adds to the complications, doesn't it? Especially when the fact that we aren't being provided with this data or any other evidence that that _simple_ system is clearly overunity by itself, starts sticking out like  a sore thumb. It's pretty complicated to try to interpret that set of facts, all right.

And LarryC's posting of his most recent diagram is simplifying the issue. Uh huh.

OK fine, carry on.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 08:16:47 PM
The ZED tanks contain air and water only.
The hydraulic (oil) system is external to the ZED(s).

Nothing is injected into or taken out of the ZED system once set up and operating.

So when MrWayne says "we take out 30 cubic inches at (some pressure I can't remember) and we return 15 cubic inches at (almost the same pressure)" he is referring to the hydraulic system only. And the 15 cubic inches that drive the motor and are returned to the reservoir at atmospheric pressure. Right?
How exactly does that oil get back into the active system of rams? It appears that the answer is that it is SUCKED UP by the rams and squirted into the pressure side of the hydraulic system. A process that does not come for free.
Am I still wrong?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
mondrasek said,
Quote
Then when the ZED is going down hydraulic fluid would be pulled back into those same hydraulic cylinder chambers above the ZED from the reservoir.

Thank you. This is a process that requires work, does it not?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 17, 2012, 08:27:10 PM
@see3d:

I am complicating the issue?

OK, fine. I suppose my continued request for real data on the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself adds to the complications, doesn't it? Especially when the fact that we aren't being provided with this data or any other evidence that that _simple_ system is clearly overunity by itself, starts sticking out like  a sore thumb. It's pretty complicated to try to interpret that set of facts, all right.

And LarryC's posting of his most recent diagram is simplifying the issue. Uh huh.

OK fine, carry on.

TK,

My comment about complicating the issue is only in regards to my simulation.  I don't want to mix what I am doing with what anybody else is doing at this stage.  AFTER the simulation is regarded as an accurate description of the statics, THEN we can apply what we have learned to the other efforts.  To do so before that is a meaningless exercise bound to generate false conclusions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 08:38:11 PM
@mondrasek, thank you for your explanations. Let me see if I've managed to get it down yet.
So 30 units are taken out of the pressure side of the hydraulic system, and 15 of that are immediately injected back in at almost the same pressure, and the other 15 are diverted thru the hydraulic motor and wind up in the reservoir ( at ambient pressure ?). Then the hydraulic suction rams draw fluid back up out of the reservoir... and then on the next stroke reinject it into the pressure side? So then these particular rams are just functioning as pumps, they are not putting power into the mechanics, they are driven on both strokes and not driving anything but the re-injection of the oil back into the pressure side of the hydraulic system?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 17, 2012, 08:39:52 PM
@TK. All the information I have posted in reply to your questions is information I have gleaned from what mrwayne has already posted, and has been posted by me in a genuine attempt to help you understand the system. Re the alternator/generator, Wayne said something to the effect that it was designed for a wind turbine, and was chosen because it works at low RPM. Of course I do not have a part number/ specification. So from what I am told I naturally assumed it to be a permanent magnet alternator, as is the normal practice. Will it work as a motor? I do not know for sure but I expect that if it was fed with a 3 phase AC supply it would work as a synchronous motor, but that is not its purpose in this machine based on what we have been told.
        You asked at what pressure is the reservoir. In the hydraulic systems that I have experience of, the answer is atmospheric pressure. The reservoir has a filler cap to top up the fluid, and this is usually vented to atmosphere. I am not sure if the
reservoir is above, level with, or below the rams on top of the zeds which act as pumps, hereinafter referred to as production rams, that is Waynes terms. Let us assume worst case scenario and say below. In that case, yes a small amount of work would be needed to return the fluid to the system.
        Please bear in mind that I am engaged here in a genuine attempt to help you. If you would rather I desisted, just say so.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 08:43:08 PM
TK,

My comment about complicating the issue is only in regards to my simulation.  I don't want to mix what I am doing with what anybody else is doing at this stage.  AFTER the simulation is regarded as an accurate description of the statics, THEN we can apply what we have learned to the other efforts.  To do so before that is a meaningless exercise bound to generate false conclusions.

Oh, no, I think I understand what you are doing with the sim. You want "us" meaning the skeptics, to approve your sim as being correct mathematically and structurally, and then you will bring out the input parameters -- which you probably already have waiting in the wings --  that show overunity performance.

But I would like you to take a _real_ system that is simple and already confirmed to be clearly overunity by itself, by MrWayne and his engineers, and put +those+ parameters into your sim. If you get the same overunity result as MrWayne using the parameters from a Known Real System that is clearly overunity by itself, then we'll know that your sim is working right.

Right?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 08:49:28 PM
(snip) Let us assume worst case scenario and say below. In that case, yes a small amount of work would be needed to return the fluid to the system.
        Please bear in mind that I am engaged here in a genuine attempt to help you. If you would rather I desisted, just say so.
1) I believe the reservoir tank can be clearly seen in MrWayne's slideshow on the website. It's at the bottom of the system, underneath the electronic control box, isn't it? I don't have the photo in front of me right now, but isn't it the big rectangular box that has steel casters on the bottom but is slightly elevated off the floor by the framework of the apparatus?
2)Why should I rather you desisted? I need all the help I can get, to dig this hole deeper, and you are helping immensely.
3) Perhaps it is just a question of semantics, but in my hands-on experience, generators are DC devices and alternators are... well... AC devices.

MrWayne: may we please have the spec on the generator/alternator that appears in the photos?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 17, 2012, 09:14:08 PM
@Tk.
1.Having looked at the photographs on Mr Wayne` site, It would appear that the object to which you refer is indeed the hydraulic reservoir. That would mean that a small amount of work is consumed in drawing oil back into the production rams.
2. I am here to help you understand what is being claimed. If you want help with hole digging, I am not your man. I am here to help you make an unbiased assessment of the technology.
3.Rather than get involved in semantics, I prefer to rely on what Wayne has already said, and if you want to call it a generator that is OK. Perhaps Wayne will enlighten us as to the exact type of machine, and its specification.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 17, 2012, 09:32:17 PM
1) I believe the reservoir tank can be clearly seen in MrWayne's slideshow on the website. It's at the bottom of the system, underneath the electronic control box, isn't it? I don't have the photo in front of me right now, but isn't it the big rectangular box that has steel casters on the bottom but is slightly elevated off the floor by the framework of the apparatus?
2)Why should I rather you desisted? I need all the help I can get, to dig this hole deeper, and you are helping immensely.
3) Perhaps it is just a question of semantics, but in my hands-on experience, generators are DC devices and alternators are... well... AC devices.

MrWayne: may we please have the spec on the generator/alternator that appears in the photos?
I am sorry for the delay - very busy testing.
Several Points --
For TK

The drawing Larry has shown is the dimensions of my unit - do with it what you like.

Second - It is called a wind generator - from Windynations - 500watt A/C three phase. We rectify it to DC - the voltage locks into the CPU batteries. I have no idea if you can run it backwards - I assume so.

Normally a hydraulic motor can function as both pump or motor - until you drop below certain sizes - at least with this supplier - this particular motor can not be a pump.

The Reservoir for the return fluid is at the highest point in the system to avoid air trapping and suction.

See3D is going about this the right way - step by step - because poor Skeptics throw the baby away - over minutiae - like the cost of the oil returning to the reservoir - or the ambient temperature change effect on the accumulator.

Again: I am not here to convince you of anything - quit trying to force the issue - if you are not interested in learning - or you already know everything or you consider it a trick to show you step by step the understanding of the process - - you are free to move on.

For Seamus (3),

I think I understood part of what you stated - about seeing the potential - your conclusion is a bit premature - as See3d warned it would be if you jumped to the end too early. I am glad you are following his demonstration.

To the rest of you who answer the repeat questions - Thank you - Thank you very Much - I will comment if I see a wrong turn.

To those of you who would like to be on our Z.E.D. update list - Email Sandy at jwtravis5@peoplepc.com and ask - she will add you.

Thank you again, and in our future - a breath of fresh air - might just become a forgotten phrase - this is good.
Back to the Lab!
 
 Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 17, 2012, 09:53:14 PM
Oh, no, I think I understand what you are doing with the sim. You want "us" meaning the skeptics, to approve your sim as being correct mathematically and structurally, and then you will bring out the input parameters -- which you probably already have waiting in the wings --  that show overunity performance.

But I would like you to take a _real_ system that is simple and already confirmed to be clearly overunity by itself, by MrWayne and his engineers, and put +those+ parameters into your sim. If you get the same overunity result as MrWayne using the parameters from a Known Real System that is clearly overunity by itself, then we'll know that your sim is working right.

Right?

TK,

You are too funny.  I am not trying to lead anyone into a "trap".  How can I show a convincing O/U case when I don't even have the formulas right at this point by my own admission.  I would not be a very clever adversary now would I?  LOL

Besides, my ego is not big enough to care if I won.  My nature is more collaborative than competitive.

I am offering a different approach to learning how the ZED operates, myself included.  One that is based on math and scientific principles from the ground up.  I am being open and inviting anyone who is capable of contributing to this opportunity to do something constructive towards learning the scientific truth along with me. 

What I am doing with the single layer sim is what I had ask for from some skeptics on another site before I came here.  A couple of skeptics told me that it was a trivial exercise.  One said that he would generate the transfer curves for me.  Weeks later he said he had them but would not show me the pictures.  Do skeptics lie?  I then started my own effort to create the simulation for my own enlightenment before I replicate.  It is not a trivial matter as far as I can tell. 

I am not accustomed to blind replication.  I have been designing and building things for over 50 years (I started young with tin can robots and simple computers).  I generally do a paper design (or a CAD design now days) and do a math model if required.  I get to know what the tradeoffs are and get an intuitive grasp of them before materials are wasted.  I optimize in simulations rather than build a hundred prototypes.

I am looking to the capable skeptics and believers to help me generate a sim that is scientifically accurate.  That is my first goal.  I am sharing the process.  I have no hidden agenda other than the truth.  I have stated before that I am taking a neutral attitude -- neither trying to prove O/U nor trying to disprove it.  My goal is scientific accuracy in a simulation.

However, even if my sim is deemed accurate by consensus, and shows either O/U or not, it still does not constitute a proof of either.  The simulator is an attempt at a visualization of a theory.  A theory is not a proof.  If an experiment does not agree with the theory, the theory is bogas and has to be revised. 

You are right that the ultimate test of the sim will be how it matches up to experimental builds.  If it does not match, then either the experiment had bad measurements, or the sim is wrong.  Multiple experiments are best. 

The sim needs to start out being consistent with math and science first.  Then it needs to be compared to experiment. I could hardly put in numbers from Wayne's 3 layer ZED when I am still working on getting 1 layer accurate.
 
It would be good if you are able to help with the first objective of having a mathematically and scientifically consistent sim.  I can't imagine that would not benefit everyone.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 17, 2012, 10:15:57 PM
mondrasek said,
Thank you. This is a process that requires work, does it not?

Well I believe that depends on the actual relative heights (and the assumed gravity field) of both the hydraulic cylinders and the hydraulic reservoir. 
 
Seriously, professor, thanks for challenging us.  I believe we are making great progress because of it.
 
I'd love to engage more right now but am in charge of the little one.  But it looks like the rest of the class is in attendance.
 
Somebody wake up Hicks (er, um, I mean, Webby)!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on August 17, 2012, 11:14:15 PM
I am sorry for the delay - very busy testing.
Several Points --
For TK

A lot of members here have great respect for TK logic and due diligence when it comes to claims of over unity
So it is not just TK that your answering but the people like myself whos understanding of science is limited.
I say this now because I feel there is a slight resentment in your response, I do hope this is not the case
and you will continue to answer TK questions as best you can.

After all we're all looking for the same thing "Free energy that is self-running"

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 11:36:21 PM
@Tk.
1.Having looked at the photographs on Mr Wayne` site, It would appear that the object to which you refer is indeed the hydraulic reservoir. That would mean that a small amount of work is consumed in drawing oil back into the production rams.
2. I am here to help you understand what is being claimed. If you want help with hole digging, I am not your man. I am here to help you make an unbiased assessment of the technology.
3.Rather than get involved in semantics, I prefer to rely on what Wayne has already said, and if you want to call it a generator that is OK. Perhaps Wayne will enlighten us as to the exact type of machine, and its specification.



I am sorry for the delay - very busy testing.
Several Points --
For TK

The drawing Larry has shown is the dimensions of my unit - do with it what you like.

Second - It is called a wind generator - from Windynations - 500watt A/C three phase. We rectify it to DC - the voltage locks into the CPU batteries. I have no idea if you can run it backwards - I assume so.

Normally a hydraulic motor can function as both pump or motor - until you drop below certain sizes - at least with this supplier - this particular motor can not be a pump.

The Reservoir for the return fluid is at the highest point in the system to avoid air trapping and suction.

(snip)

Well.... can you blame me for being confused? The reservoir is on the bottom, the reservoir is on the top. I only see a reservoir on the bottom, but I'll take your word for it that there are components that aren't being shown.

"The drawing Larry has shown is the dimensions of my unit - do with it what you like."
I am asking for the dimensions and pressures of the simple threelayer system that is clearly overunity by itself. Is that what Larry's drawing represents? How is the clearly overunity performance determined for this threelayer system that is clearly overunity by itself?

This must be an unreasonable question, because nobody is answering it.  But as I said before, I don't think it is unreasonable at all, especially if one is attempting to explain a much more complex and apparently harder to measure system to a tree-dwelling leaf-eating bearlike animal.

Thank you for the name and rating of the generator you are using. I'll be looking up the actual specifications for the unit, like its preferred operating RPM and stuff like that there, just for my own reference purposes. It seems that there is sufficient flow of hot wind around here that I might be able to use a wind generator at home. If you would be so kind as to also specify the part number of the hydraulic motor, that would also be nice.

ETA: You've said, I think,  that the system makes 36 Watts of electrical power over and above that which is needed for the operation of the machine itself. How much is that? I  mean, how much of the generator's 500 Watts rated output at full RPM is actually being generated, and how much goes to running the machine?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 11:46:10 PM
Is this the PMA.... Permanent Magnet ALTERNATOR... that is being used?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1lC9eN0u60

I believe that a Wind Generator refers to the entire apparatus. The unit being turned by the wind power and used to produce electricity from it is an ALTERNATOR, using the manufacturer's nomenclature.

Sloppy language makes Koalas misunderstand what is happening. We are very literal critters.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 11:58:50 PM
@see3d: Touched a nerve, did I? Sorry. You are doing just fine, carry on. But I think that the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself would be very interesting to analyze, don't you? I especially would like to know how the clear overunity is determined. Does it run itself indefinitely too?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 18, 2012, 12:06:16 AM
@MrWayne: Is there some design reason that crossheads weren't used in your device? They would eliminate many of the side loads that are wasting power and making noise in your system, I think.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 18, 2012, 12:11:16 AM
The Riser's don't float up, they work like a pneumatic cylinder. See the first Picture. The attached drawing show how pneumatic cylinders using the same Psi and dimension replicate the Outer Riser and the next Inner Riser lift force.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 18, 2012, 12:12:06 AM
@see3d: Touched a nerve, did I? Sorry. You are doing just fine, carry on. But I think that the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself would be very interesting to analyze, don't you? I especially would like to know how the clear overunity is determined. Does it run itself indefinitely too?

TK,

Yes, I think it would be interesting to analyze, but first I need to create the tool that makes it easy to understand and analyze it in the way that makes me comfortable.  I make too many clerical errors in my hand calculations to trust any answer I get that way.  I also understand the limitations of small shoestring operations -- having been there and done that several times in my life.  I am looking to be a positive contributor to all this.  It is my nature to be helpful.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 18, 2012, 12:13:31 AM



Well.... can you blame me for being confused? The reservoir is on the bottom, the reservoir is on the top. I only see a reservoir on the bottom, but I'll take your word for it that there are components that aren't being shown.

"The drawing Larry has shown is the dimensions of my unit - do with it what you like."
I am asking for the dimensions and pressures of the simple threelayer system that is clearly overunity by itself. Is that what Larry's drawing represents? How is the clearly overunity performance determined for this threelayer system that is clearly overunity by itself?

This must be an unreasonable question, because nobody is answering it.  But as I said before, I don't think it is unreasonable at all, especially if one is attempting to explain a much more complex and apparently harder to measure system to a tree-dwelling leaf-eating bearlike animal.

Thank you for the name and rating of the generator you are using. I'll be looking up the actual specifications for the unit, like its preferred operating RPM and stuff like that there, just for my own reference purposes. It seems that there is sufficient flow of hot wind around here that I might be able to use a wind generator at home. If you would be so kind as to also specify the part number of the hydraulic motor, that would also be nice.

ETA: You've said, I think,  that the system makes 36 Watts of electrical power over and above that which is needed for the operation of the machine itself. How much is that? I  mean, how much of the generator's 500 Watts rated output at full RPM is actually being generated, and how much goes to running the machine?
The Hydraulic tank is in the upper right corner - barely see it in that shot.(top picture)
The lower Tank you are referring to has a green hose running into it - antifreeze - this is a reservoir but for the draining of the ZEDs during set up and testing. Antifreeze because it has a rust preventative in it - and to prevent the animals from drinking it.

TK, I have great deal of respect for you and others - when my communication does not satisfy the question - it is frustrating - to both of us - and then when you assert I am avoiding the question - we are both put out. I accepted the fact you placed me in your  Idiot file ;-)

To all - my claim has been substantiated long before sharing here - first party second party third party - with simple physics, with complex, with Power, Energy, and Force - and yes - it will require an amendment to the Laws - or an exception will have to be made for "Virtual Mass Utilization" - I really like that virtual comment TK.

I am a very open person, and I do not mind helping someone build a replication.

I am not helping copy my current system- it would be silly anyway - it is the least effective model we have.

If you want that kind of detail - you need to join our engineers - on our side - thank you.

Thank You, and kind regards

Wayne
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 18, 2012, 12:17:00 AM
@MrWayne: Is there some design reason that crossheads weren't used in your device? They would eliminate many of the side loads that are wasting power and making noise in your system, I think.

Because I do not know what a cross head is - the noise from our system is the bronze bushing in the Production cylinder - the last set had nylatron/plastic - no noise.
The clanking is both the two main valves clicking - and loose parts clanking.
I will ask my engineers what a cross head is, thanks.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 18, 2012, 12:35:14 AM
  tk,
 compression slows the flow.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 18, 2012, 12:48:36 AM
A lot of members here have great respect for TK logic and due diligence when it comes to claims of over unity
So it is not just TK that your answering but the people like myself whos understanding of science is limited.
I say this now because I feel there is a slight resentment in your response, I do hope this is not the case
and you will continue to answer TK questions as best you can.

After all we're all looking for the same thing "Free energy that is self-running"

I respect all people - I have respect for both the strengths and the weakness of others.

I am certainly not in a position to cast dispersions on others.

I presumed from the beginning that the members of this group were here for that - a brighter future, clean air, freeenergy.

On that note - here on this site - I have had to deal with many very angry people, many arrogant, many rude, and many that lie - for a motive beyond my understanding.

Since I began sharing our discovery maybe 33 pages of people trying to force, beat or pry something out of me to further their claims of disbelief.

They lump me in with all the previous failures - the frustration, anger, ignorance, belongs to those of the past - blaming me - is wrong.

The problem is - and will be to those people - I am telling the truth - verified by many now.

The independent replications are awesome - they are more powerful than anything I could say.

If I have a frustration - and I hope I don't - it isn't that people here are  not willing, intelligent, helpful, it is that some people demand and want things handed to them ..... hand outs don't work.

I have yet to have a person value the system I have - when it was handed to them.

I do understand that what I say seems like "claims" and that is presumed by some to think I am challenging them.

Well I have challenged some - check for yourself or have someone you trust help - those that do - win the challenge when they discover for themself.

Larry, Se3d and others are trying to help. TK is sharp - I admire that - I am not going to tell him how to do his work - nor will I allow him to direct mine. He is a good man, I have heard it from many.

p.s. I love TK logic as well - maybe he is already at the end - and is holding back - but until he represents to me an understanding of the basics - I am not interested spending the time on the external apparatus.

One thing should be clear to all -Hounding does not help me explain things better, and does not encourage me to help..... I am at a bit of a loss - so I forgive and move on.

Just as you say others are better at this than me too.

I am so glad, and feel blessed and honored that some of those that have replicated - have come and visited, and a few have
shared here.

Thank you for your comment - I will try to be more careful in my responses.

Remember - I answer more questions privately at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

Good night.
Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 18, 2012, 01:53:12 AM
The Riser's don't float up, they work like a pneumatic cylinder. See the first Picture. The attached drawing show how pneumatic cylinders using the same Psi and dimension replicate the Outer Riser and the next Inner Riser lift force.
 
Regards, Larry

Why is the floating object in see3d's sim called a riser, and why is it shown floating up? It rises due to floating, not due to pneumatic pressure, unless I am greatly misinterpreting his sim.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 18, 2012, 01:57:41 AM
  tk,
 compression slows the flow.
May I quote you on that? 

It certainly seems that in my air compressor, for example, the higher the compression, the faster the flow out the nozzle or tool or spraygun. On the other hand, within the flow itself, an increased flow causes decreased pressure in the flow. These two Italian guys named Bernoulli and Venturi figured this stuff out a couple of years ago, I think.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 18, 2012, 02:16:32 AM
Why is the floating object in see3d's sim called a riser, and why is it shown floating up? It rises due to floating, not due to pneumatic pressure, unless I am greatly misinterpreting his sim.

I called it a Riser, because it moves and the Tank does not move.  Since my initial state is sunk, it is also called a Riser, because the "power" stroke is rising up.  I guess I could have called it a sinker, since it sinks with no inputs.  I don't even remember if I picked up the term from someone else.  I would not call it a floater though... LOL.  What difference does it really make?  A rose by any other name.

There are two ways of looking at it.  Is it floating up, or a pneumatic cylinder?  This is a hybrid device.  It has aspects of both, and that is what makes it harder to understand.  Looking at the transfer curves, depending on the state, it could look like either.  That is part of my problem -- trying to make sure I have the theory correct much less getting rid of typos in my formulas.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 18, 2012, 02:16:44 AM
MrWayne: thank you again for answering.  No, you are not really in my "OUIdiots" file... you are still one level above that in the directory tree.
 ;)

Crossheads are used whenever a straight push needs to have some out-of-line motion at the end of travel. Perhaps the most familiar place we see crossheads being used are in railway steam locomotives, where the straight push of the piston needs to be sent off-axis to the driving wheel. It is sort of like an external wrist pin; it acts to relieve the side loads on the piston and cylinder and conrod packings by moving them to easily lubricated sliding guides.
Another improvement in geometry I was thinking might be useful for approximately the same purpose would be to adopt the shape of an oil pumpjack's head, which serves to change the straightline travel of the pumpshaft going into the well, into the arc motion of the jack's rocker arm without putting side loads on the pump shaft. I know you have plenty of pumpjacks around so you know what I mean here.


OK, so the hydraulic reservoir that is at or near ambient pressure is the small white one at the top, and its rams that pump fluid from it back into the pressure side are the two rams at the very top, also seen in that same image?
And that big tank at the bottom is a water tank, and there are no other reservoirs (except the pressurized hydraulic accumulator)?

And how does the hydraulic fluid get from the motor's outlet back up to that reservoir? Is there enough pressure in what is being supplied to the motor to drive it back up there or is it assisted in some way to get back to the reservoir which is much higher than the motor?

On another issue... I have been looking for the patent. I see some drawings from it, but I've been back through this entire thread and over both your mrwaynesbrain website and the PESN page and I can't find a listing for the patent. I probably just missed it... I am literally half blind these days, my left eye is failing... so could you please link to it again? And it is an actual, fully granted patent, right? Not "just" an application, I hope.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 18, 2012, 02:25:14 AM
I called it a Riser, because it moves and the Tank does not move.  Since my initial state is sunk, it is also called a Riser, because the "power" stroke is rising up.  I guess I could have called it a sinker, since it sinks with no inputs.  I don't even remember if I picked up the term from someone else.  I would not call it a floater though... LOL.  What difference does it really make?  A rose by any other name.

There are two ways of looking at it.  Is it floating up, or a pneumatic cylinder?  This is a hybrid device.  It has aspects of both, and that is what makes it harder to understand.  Looking at the transfer curves, depending on the state, it could look like either.  That is part of my problem -- trying to make sure I have the theory correct much less getting rid of typos in my formulas.

It doesn't have closefitting seals that don't allow fluids like air or water to pass, does it? It sure looks to me like it's floating and the pneumatic part is only raising the effective water level, and when the riser--your term-- is locked, the water rises up around it, effectively creating the same kind of "virtual water weight" that I showed in my first little video. Right? Therefore it is not a pneumatic cylinder, which requires sealing and does not allow water to come up past it. Nor is it some kind of hybrid. It is a floater; it rises because it displaces liquid, the amount of liquid displaced can be varied by locking it in place and pushing up on the bottom piston, and when it's unlocked it becomes a simple floater again, rising to the correct height , and with the correct buoyant force, for the amount of water its wetted volume displaces.
Right?

And I am afraid I don't understand how it is supposed to sink through water, since it has extended volume but only weighs, or is counterbalanced to weigh, 0.1 pounds in your sim.
Or was is only 0.01, I don't have it right in front of me.

There are roses that have thorns, and there are thornless roses. They might smell the same and be called the same... but you will find out just how different they are when you try to grasp one.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 18, 2012, 02:54:59 AM
It doesn't have closefitting seals that don't allow fluids like air or water to pass, does it? It sure looks to me like it's floating and the pneumatic part is only raising the effective water level, and when the riser--your term-- is locked, the water rises up around it, effectively creating the same kind of "virtual water weight" that I showed in my first little video. Right? Therefore it is not a pneumatic cylinder, which requires sealing and does not allow water to come up past it. Nor is it some kind of hybrid. It is a floater; it rises because it displaces liquid, the amount of liquid displaced can be varied by locking it in place and pushing up on the bottom piston, and when it's unlocked it becomes a simple floater again, rising to the correct height , and with the correct buoyant force, for the amount of water its wetted volume displaces.
Right?

And I am afraid I don't understand how it is supposed to sink through water, since it has extended volume but only weighs, or is counterbalanced to weigh, 0.1 pounds in your sim.
Or was is only 0.01, I don't have it right in front of me.

There are roses that have thorns, and there are thornless roses. They might smell the same and be called the same... but you will find out just how different they are when you try to grasp one.

Well it does not matter to me which way it is approached, as long as it gives the right answer.  I approached it from the point of view of forces rather than displacement.  One can be translated it to the other in practice.  I would like to see it calculated both ways, and both matching.  Tried that once, but had trouble with the displacement version.  If you show me the exact formula for your way, I will plug it into the sim program and see how it compares.

Sinking:  In the down state, there is no H0, so no buoyancy force on the pod.  There is some buoyancy force for the Riser wall that is sunk to the bottom of the H1-H2 water pocket. The Riser would in a practical sense have more than enough weight to sink, so it is counterbalanced to 0.01 pounds to just barely sinking (1% of the load weight).  It takes an input force (even without an output load weight), to raise it up.  Therefore, remove the input force, and it returns to the sunk state.  Here is the new picture I am adding to the PDF:
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 18, 2012, 03:05:14 AM
 tk,
 the reason air has high velocity is it has low pressure once it leaves tne nozzle.
 that is a principle they use in converting high pressure steam into tne rpm's of the steam turbine.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 18, 2012, 04:00:19 AM
Here is the problem I am having with my reworking of my formula:

I start with a riser locked down  and no input force.  I apply an input force and the piston will move up until it encounters an opposite force equal to the input force.  When the piston moves up, it forms head H0 which compresses the air.  I first determine the air PSI that will exert the same force over the area of H0.  I can see no way around this fundamental linear relationship, so this is where I start. 

AirPSI = InputForce / H0Area.
0.125 = 1.00 / 7.987

I reason that the H2-H1 head differential must also support the same PSI calculating from the exit back. 

H2 - H1 = InputForce * H1Area / (H0Area * H2Area * WaterWeight)
5.210 - 2.251 = 1.00 * 9.684 / (7.987 * 11.380 * 0.036)
2.959 = H2 - H1

The two formulas are linked by:
  The constant water volume of the H1, H2 Tank pocket
  The linear reduction in air volume with increased PSI

However, when I do an internal consistency check for the force at the bottom of the Riser wall, I get two different numbers depending if I calculate it from H2 or H1 + air PSI.  I have not found where my reasoning is incorrect yet. 
Calculated from the H1 side, I get 0.206 PSI at the bottom of the Tank. 
From the H2 side, I get 0.188 PSI at the bottom of the tank. 


I either have something messed up in my conceptual thinking, or I just have a typo in my formula that I have not found.

Here is the picture:
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 18, 2012, 05:48:14 AM
  see3d,
not on a pc but am asking this based on your answers, does one side have 10% more surface area ? if so, that could equalize force.
you know, psi x surface area woulc show the potential force of h1 & h2.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: derricka on August 18, 2012, 06:03:34 AM

...On another issue... I have been looking for the patent. I see some drawings from it, but I've been back through this entire thread and over both your mrwaynesbrain website and the PESN page and I can't find a listing for the patent. I probably just missed it... I am literally half blind these days, my left eye is failing... so could you please link to it again? And it is an actual, fully granted patent, right? Not "just" an application, I hope.

Found the patent, er, application:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=BfIPAgAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=wayne+travis&source=bl&ots=klAmREbeB3&sig=A1L1SPYXJ-do-TsHrO-VPGu2xPw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gQ0vULLoBITHrQG7nYHwBg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw

Just call me "document boy" from now on... ;D
P.S. Seeing as the other forum is down at the moment, how's the frequency counter troubleshooting going?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 18, 2012, 01:09:21 PM
MrWayne: thank you again for answering.  No, you are not really in my "OUIdiots" file... you are still one level above that in the directory tree.
 ;)

Crossheads are used whenever a straight push needs to have some out-of-line motion at the end of travel. Perhaps the most familiar place we see crossheads being used are in railway steam locomotives, where the straight push of the piston needs to be sent off-axis to the driving wheel. It is sort of like an external wrist pin; it acts to relieve the side loads on the piston and cylinder and conrod packings by moving them to easily lubricated sliding guides.
Another improvement in geometry I was thinking might be useful for approximately the same purpose would be to adopt the shape of an oil pumpjack's head, which serves to change the straightline travel of the pumpshaft going into the well, into the arc motion of the jack's rocker arm without putting side loads on the pump shaft. I know you have plenty of pumpjacks around so you know what I mean here.


OK, so the hydraulic reservoir that is at or near ambient pressure is the small white one at the top, and its rams that pump fluid from it back into the pressure side are the two rams at the very top, also seen in that same image?
And that big tank at the bottom is a water tank, and there are no other reservoirs (except the pressurized hydraulic accumulator)?

And how does the hydraulic fluid get from the motor's outlet back up to that reservoir? Is there enough pressure in what is being supplied to the motor to drive it back up there or is it assisted in some way to get back to the reservoir which is much higher than the motor?

On another issue... I have been looking for the patent. I see some drawings from it, but I've been back through this entire thread and over both your mrwaynesbrain website and the PESN page and I can't find a listing for the patent. I probably just missed it... I am literally half blind these days, my left eye is failing... so could you please link to it again? And it is an actual, fully granted patent, right? Not "just" an application, I hope.
Hello TK,
This is the reservoir - above all the hydraulics - With the sticker on it - it is not square because it used to be mounted inside our 7 foot wide 12 foot tall test model.

You can see a little white oil filter just below.

If someone has not linked you to the patent - Search under Travis Wayne S, It was released under the PCT.

Thanks Wayne

p.s.

Thank you for the Crosshead info - That would help - I will bring it up when the design team meets.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 18, 2012, 02:36:38 PM
Component comparison of pneumatic cylinder to Travis pneumatic risers in first picture.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 18, 2012, 02:40:10 PM
  see3d,
not on a pc but am asking this based on your answers, does one side have 10% more surface area ? if so, that could equalize force.
you know, psi x surface area woulc show the potential force of h1 & h2.

Very good Johnny,

You are on the right track.  By trial and error last night I found a factor I could use to make the internal PSI check consistent.  It was Factor = H2Area / H1Area.  Unfortunately, that violates my first assumption that the PSI must counter the input force: Air PSI = InputForce / H0Area.  So, I must reject the answer of  PSI = InputForce / ( H0Area * Factor ).  However, with the clue that it is off by that ratio, I will look to the formula further down stream that uses that same ratio in finding H1 and H2.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 18, 2012, 03:05:44 PM
Component comparison of pneumatic cylinder to Travis pneumatic risers in first picture.
 
Regards, Larry
Larry,
I stopped for a minute to rest/and/check progress on the forum.
I have to say- you are doing an excellent job giving visual representations.
The water surface is our hydro/pneumatic seal for our Z.E.D - a little less friction is not a bad thing  :)
Thank you,
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 18, 2012, 03:35:37 PM
Very good Johnny,

You are on the right track.  By trial and error last night I found a factor I could use to make the internal PSI check consistent.  It was Factor = H2Area / H1Area.  Unfortunately, that violates my first assumption that the PSI must counter the input force: Air PSI = InputForce / H0Area.  So, I must reject the answer of  PSI = InputForce / ( H0Area * Factor ).  However, with the clue that it is off by that ratio, I will look to the formula further down stream that uses that same ratio in finding H1 and H2.

Thanks for the suggestion.

   your welcome  :D
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 18, 2012, 06:33:24 PM
And now for something completely different...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 18, 2012, 06:47:52 PM
Thanks, MrWayne. I am learning a lot from you. The big reservoir was not obvious to me... I guess it would have bit me if it was a snake or something. Thanks for pointing it out. The little filter that I at first thought you were talking about didn't look nearly big enough.

Using the search terms you gave me, I found this application:

United States Patent Application 20120117957
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2012/0117957.html (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2012/0117957.html)

All I can find is this application. Can you please give me a link to the actual granted patent at the USPTO?


Here is some more information I found to be very interesting, lots of stuff I didn't know about patents, the PCT system, and patent applications.

http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/3037.html (http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/3037.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application)
http://www.legalzoom.com/utility-patents-faq/what-difference-provisional-utility-patent.html (http://www.legalzoom.com/utility-patents-faq/what-difference-provisional-utility-patent.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent)

From the last reference:
Quote
A patent is requested by filing a written application (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application) at the relevant patent office. The person or company filing the application is referred to as "the applicant". The applicant may be the inventor or its assignee. The application contains a description of how to make and use the invention that must provide sufficient detail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure) for a person skilled in the art (i.e., the relevant area of technology) to make and use the invention. In some countries there are requirements for providing specific information such as the usefulness of the invention, the best mode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_mode) of performing the invention known to the inventor, or the technical problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_problem) or problems solved by the invention. Drawings illustrating the invention may also be provided.
The application also includes one or more claims, although it is not always a requirement to submit these when first filing the application. The claims set out what the applicant is seeking to protect in that they define what the patent owner has a right to exclude others from making, using, or selling, as the case may be. In other words, the claims define what a patent covers or the "scope of protection".
After filing, an application is often referred to as "patent pending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending)". While this term does not confer legal protection, and a patent cannot be enforced until granted, it serves to provide warning to potential infringers that if the patent is issued, they may be liable for damages.[23][24][25]
For a patent to be granted, that is to take legal effect in a particular country, the patent application must meet the patentability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability) requirements of that country. Most patent offices examine the application for compliance with these requirements. If the application does not comply, objections are communicated to the applicant or their patent agent or attorney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_attorney) and one or more opportunities to respond to the objections to bring the application into compliance are usually provided.
Once granted the patent is subject in most countries to renewal fees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_%28patent%29) to keep the patent in force. These fees are generally payable on a yearly basis, although the US is a notable exception. Some countries or regional patent offices (e.g. the European Patent Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Patent_Office)) also require annual renewal fees to be paid for a patent application before it is granted.

Again, I want to thank you for being so forthcoming in your explanations to me. Sometimes I don't "get it" what people are telling me the first time, so I usually try to do a little research of my own, and I always learn a lot when I do.

EDIT: I also found this, that may be of some passing interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending

Quote
The marking of an article as patented when it is not in fact patented is against the law and subjects the offender to a penalty. Some persons mark articles sold with the terms "Patent Applied For" or "Patent Pending". These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited". [5]
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 18, 2012, 07:01:53 PM
@derricka: Thanks, I got it...
The HP8640B is fully operational now, thanks for asking.
Do you know anyone that needs one? I'll sell this one cheap, I just do not have room for it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on August 19, 2012, 12:07:01 AM
And now for something completely different...

OK M-
I'll bite.
Whatcha doing with the materials in the picture? Hmmmm.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 19, 2012, 02:49:22 AM
Dunno yet.  Just making something...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 19, 2012, 03:00:22 AM

All I can find is this application. Can you please give me a link to the actual granted patent at the USPTO?




Hello TK,
I understand it is not easy wading through all of these pages - The last time someone asked I shared the Progression of our patent "Application" it is a long process.
I have very good Patent attorneys taking care of it.
I do see your point in distinguishing between my patent - which is all the work our team and my attorneys put into it, and a "granted patent".
Rest assured - we are unique....recorded, filed and protected.
Our PCT has been granted, and we have sent those results to the US patent office as well.
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 19, 2012, 03:01:02 AM
Webby!
 
Please tell us about your latest tests?
 
Please?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: slapper on August 19, 2012, 03:55:17 AM
for some more references on patent protection i've uploaded some documents from and old patent attorney friend of mine.

even older than me. probably one of the most experienced patent attorneys i've consulted for.

Patent Reform Act (2011).pdf (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/509/#.UDBFSaO058E)
A Need To Protect (2011).pdf (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/510/#.UDBF9KO058E)

paul and i have had many discussions on the use of patents. i tend to lean toward the use binding agrreements, nda/nca's, and contracts and it puts me at odds with him once in a while. but he is a good guy to know and a good guy to talk to, for lawyer that is.

take care.

nap
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 19, 2012, 04:33:52 AM
All I can find is this application. Can you please give me a link to the actual granted patent at the USPTO?




Hello TK,
I understand it is not easy wading through all of these pages - The last time someone asked I shared the Progression of our patent "Application" it is a long process.
I have very good Patent attorneys taking care of it.
I do see your point in distinguishing between my patent - which is all the work our team and my attorneys put into it, and a "granted patent".
Rest assured - we are unique....recorded, filed and protected.
Our PCT has been granted, and we have sent those results to the US patent office as well.
Thanks Wayne
It's funny that you put scare quotes around "application"  and "granted patent" instead of around your patent.

But this Wiki says that only applications exist in the PCT, not "granted". The granting of the patent is the prerogative of the particular jurisdiction concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty
Quote
A PCT application does not itself result in the grant of a patent, since there is no such thing as an "international patent", and the grant of patent is a prerogative of each national or regional authority.[2] In other words, a PCT application, which establishes a filing date in all contracting states, must be followed up with the step of entering into national or regional phases in order to proceed towards grant of one or more patents. The PCT procedure essentially leads to a standard national or regional patent application, which may be granted or rejected according to applicable law, in each jurisdiction in which a patent is desired.
Darn those lawyers and their big words anyway. So confusing and so clear at the same time.
Now, Koalas don't always believe everything they read on the internet... but en.wikipedia.org is generally fairly reliable.

Please... .let us be completely clear. I am having a lot of trouble sorting all this out. I've been back through the entire thread and I see many references by you to a patent. I also see conradelectro and johnny874 talking about the same issues.

Do you have a granted US Patent or a granted Patent in any other country? I am talking about a granted patent, not an application, a provisional patent, an application that includes another provisional patent by reference, a PCT application, or anything like that.

Do you have a granted US Patent? Note: this is a simple question that can be answered by a single word.

It is actually illegal, I think, to claim that you have a patent when you do not -- especially when talking to investors or potential investors -- and "have a patent" means a granted patent, not an application for one or even a provisional one. In those cases you are supposed to say "patent pending" or "patent applied for" and both of these terms have restricted legal meanings as well and can't be used falsely. And if you are referring to the document containing all the hard work you and your patent attorneys did, that actual document is a Patent Application, not a Patent, until it is actually granted.

Now, LarryC in a post way back seems quite sure that you have something that is "approved". Is this the same thing as a granted patent by the USPTO?
Quote
False. The provisional application filed on Nov 9,2010 is under the Related S.S Application Date section of his standard Patent Application which was filed Nov. 9, 2011 and approved May 17, 2012.

http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg325025/#msg325025

But that latter date given by LarryC is the date of publication of the current application, as far as I can see. Can anyone give me, please, the actual link to the actual patent? LarryC's word "false" in the statement above is responding to johnny874's statement that there is only an application not a granted patent. SO you must have an actual patent, and surely the date listed is wrong? Since that's the date of your present application's publication, not an actual grant of a patent? Or is LarryC's "false" itself false?

Seriously, can you blame me for my confusion? 

If you do have a granted US or other country's Patent, please give us a link, and please accept my profound apologies for being so stupid. Koalas in general are not known for our intelligence and I seem to be somewhat of a freak. But please don't hold it against me.... just give the link to the actual granted US Patent.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 19, 2012, 05:32:02 AM
  Tk,
 Mind if I point out Mr. Travis' over sight ?
 If a cylinder has 10 sq. in. (25.4 sq. cm.) and is connected to a cylynder that has 5 sq. in. (12.7 sq. cm.), what can happen is the cylinder with 1/2 the area would have twice the pressure.
 If the pressure were equal, then it's static head would have twice the height.
 What needs to be remembered is that we are discussing a closed system.
 And this is where I say compression slows the flow, increases pressure and if discharged to the atmosphere would have a greater velocity which could perform work because of f = ma.
 If it's pressure were limited to
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on August 19, 2012, 05:39:09 AM
Hi,

I've been keeping up with this thread over the last few weeks and is very interesting, even if I don't understand it all! However, Google is your friend, and a US patent looks unlikely (see attached image from link given below), certainly from that application. Wayne has mentioned improvements, so maybe there is (are) as yet further unpublished patent/patent applications (that one took 6 months).

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair)
Application number: 13292954


Edit: Looking again though, that status is almost 6 months old... how long does it take the USPTO to get their a**e in gear!?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 19, 2012, 05:58:30 AM
Just to let everyone know that I have fixed my formulas so that they are now consistent.  It will take me another day to make all the corrections in the PDF and then I will republish it.  Whew!

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 19, 2012, 08:03:56 AM
Quote
Input 65g lifted 6 1\2 inches
output 1 lb 1 inch
recovery,,,, 1\4 inch drop in reservoir to start and continued until bac kto start point

Centimeters, Grams, Seconds. Or, Meters, Kilograms, Seconds.   Consistent, accurately measured units throughout.

How are you measuring your masses, or rather their equivalent downward forces due to gravity? To what degree of precision, to what accuracy. Are the reference marks on your tubes that you have shown, the reference marks you use for your lift? How and to what degree of precision, to what accuracy, are you measuring your heights?

I ask because INPUT WORK: 65 g lifted 6 1/2 inches... means to me that your "lift" measurement is accurate to the half-inch, or perhaps to the quarter-inch, and your mass measurement is accurate to the gram, or perhaps half a gram.
And your OUTPUT WORK: 1 pound one inch... means again that your weight is accurate to the ounce, or perhaps the half ounce, and your lift measurement is accurate to the half-inch, or perhaps quarter inch.

I am of course here talking about that mysterious topic called "significant digits" and trying to remind us all that our calculations cannot be more precise... or more accurate... than the _least accurate, least precise_ measurement that goes into them.  What are the "error bars" on your four measurements that will be used in the work calculation?

Gaah. I can't use these weird mixed up units. Do you mind if I convert to SI, at least?

65 g of weight = 65g x .009807 Newtons/g = 0.638 Newton
6 1/2 inches =~ 6.5 inches x 2.54 cm/inch = 16.5 centimeters = 0.165 meter
so input work = 0.165 meter x 0.638 N = 0.105 Joule
1 pound of weight = 454 grams force = 4.45 Newton
1 inch = 2.54 cm = 0.0254 m
so output work = 0.0254m x 4.45 N = 0.113 Joule
and there is some "bouncing" or whatever, the 1/4 inch variation that you describe on the "recovery" but I don't understand your description.

So by these rough measurements and calcs, not including that last 1/4 inch of something,  it appears that you are having an overunity result by about 0.113/0.105 = 1.08, about, when  the expected value would be 1, or maybe just a bit less due to losses.

If I've done the math right, that is. Please.... please everybody, check my work, it's hard to punch a calculator with Koala paws, we are better at hanging onto treelimbs.

But if any of your input values, or our roundings, are in error by 8 or 10 percent ... then so can our result be. Note that if I were to respect sig digs and round according to convention the result reduces to about 0.110/0.108 = 1.02 or even less.

So, since you have this intriguing result, but your measurements may not be that precise or accurate, I'd like to see the measurement repeated if you don't mind, weighing everything in grams and to the tenth of a gram, and measuring everything to an accuracy of a millimeter. This will require some special care on your part, care that is entirely justified in an attempt to confirm your extraordinary result.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 19, 2012, 08:15:31 AM
Aside: Precision and accuracy. Different things.

Precision is when all five of your shots go through the same slightly enlarged hole in the paper target.

Accuracy is when all five of those holes are actually on the center bullseye where you were aiming, not off in the corner somewhere.

They are separate things, separately controlled, corrected for, and measured. Using a millimeter ruler instead of one with  markings every  quarter inch will help with precision. Making sure you are starting your measurement from exactly the same place every time, and reading the markings consistently from the same viewing angle, and checking your numerical result by an independent measurement, all speak to attaining accuracy.

It should be clear that you can be precise as all get-out, but still not be hitting the side of the barn. And you can be very accurate... that is, every time you measure a foot, you get 12 inches... but you are not getting 12.000 inches by using that tape measure, are you.

So please, experimenters, strive for both accuracy and precision in your measurements, and don't try to overinflate the precision by using every digit that your calculator spits out. Your answer cannot possibly be more precise than your least precise measurement.

Also, when measurements yield results like Webby's that could be in the noise -- the imprecision/inaccuracy of measurement or apparatus vagaries, even temperature changes.... the experiment should be repeated multiple times, like at least 5 times, and the results from each trial averaged together to get arithmetic means and standard deviations. If the magnitude of the effect result is less than the standard deviation of the data, it is probably not reliable.

Finally.... sort of... .the issue of experimenter bias comes into effect. Is the measurement 0.51, or is it maybe 0.49, when the marking or needle is at 1/2? Ask two different observers, one whose theory depends on it being 0.49 and the other who likes 0.51, and you are likely to get different answers from the same trial. This is NOT a conscious process. It is called confirmation bias and is everywhere, we all suffer from it. The only way to control for it is first, to realize it exists and second, to take lots of measurements of different trials. Another way is to use a data-taker who has no stake or doesn't even understand the experiment but who can make the measurements accurately and precisely anyway.. and take lots of measurements of different trials. There are other experimenter biases as well, it's a fascinating subject and there are WIKI pages.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 19, 2012, 09:25:53 AM
@AmoLago: that looks like the record from the first application which was incorporated by reference in the second one I think. It can take two or three years to get a patent granted, but if it's granted the protection goes back to the original date of filing.

Here is the USPTO official application for MrWayne's patent:
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on August 19, 2012, 11:21:44 AM
Hi TK,

That document and the one I linked to are one and the same. In fact if you click on the "Published Documents" tab, there is a link to the same page. You can tell, even from the images you and I posted...
 Series Code / Serial Number = Application Number
 File Date = Filing or 371 (c) Date
 US Patent Application And Kind Code = Earliest Publication No.
 May 17, 2012 = Earliest Publication date.

Also from the link I gave (currently under maintenance at time of writing, grrr), clicking on the "Continuity Data" tab will give you a link to the Provisional Patent filed back in 2010, from which this patent is based. Plus, if you click on the "Continuity Tab" from that Provisional Patent, it not only gives you the link back to the application we're looking at from USPTO, but alos give you a link to the PCT (WIPO) patent...
Application Number : PCT/US2011/060036
Publication Number: WO/2012/064877

None of it actually says granted though.

You'll also notice that it you search the Patent Full-Text Database (http://patft.uspto.gov/), "Travis Wayne S" returns with the above patent from the "AppFT: Applications" database search, but there is no mention of Wayne in the "PatFT: Patents" database.

Wayne, if you're reading this, and you're convinced you have an actual issued patent, I'd suggest you have a quiet word with your patent lawyers and just double check.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 19, 2012, 01:26:12 PM
I have no idea at this time if Wayne has a full patent or not. It looks as if , as a minimum, he has applied for a patent. The nuts and bolts of his technology have been revealed. Frankly it is not important to me if a patent has been granted or not. Look at some of the ridiculous things that have been patented in the past. A patent is no guarantee that a thing works. I remember reading somewhere that there is a patent for a house without doors and windows. Entry and egress is by teleportation. "Beam me up Scotty." A granted patent is no guarantee that a thing works. Lack of a patent is no guarantee that a thing does not work.
        TK has talked about accuracy and precision in measurement. I have to agree with everything he says. On the other hand, Webby has just returned from a vacation, and probably quoted the first figures that came into his head. He probably has more detailed measurements on record that he can quote. I believe that Wayne said Weby had achieved a cop of 148%, but I may be wrong. Also Webby said that he built this rough model to help him learn to build a better one, and it is already giving him problems, even though it is the best replication built so far. Having said all that, Webby is more than capable of speaking for himself.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 19, 2012, 02:25:56 PM
Hi TK,

That document and the one I linked to are one and the same. In fact if you click on the "Published Documents" tab, there is a link to the same page. You can tell, even from the images you and I posted...
 Series Code / Serial Number = Application Number
 File Date = Filing or 371 (c) Date
 US Patent Application And Kind Code = Earliest Publication No.
 May 17, 2012 = Earliest Publication date.

Also from the link I gave (currently under maintenance at time of writing, grrr), clicking on the "Continuity Data" tab will give you a link to the Provisional Patent filed back in 2010, from which this patent is based. Plus, if you click on the "Continuity Tab" from that Provisional Patent, it not only gives you the link back to the application we're looking at from USPTO, but alos give you a link to the PCT (WIPO) patent...
Application Number : PCT/US2011/060036
Publication Number: WO/2012/064877

None of it actually says granted though.

You'll also notice that it you search the Patent Full-Text Database (http://patft.uspto.gov/ (http://patft.uspto.gov/)), "Travis Wayne S" returns with the above patent from the "AppFT: Applications" database search, but there is no mention of Wayne in the "PatFT: Patents" database.

Wayne, if you're reading this, and you're convinced you have an actual issued patent, I'd suggest you have a quiet word with your patent lawyers and just double check.
Thank You,
No - I am very clear where our patent stands - this discussion has been someone else's misunderstanding of my statements.
Since this is not part of the discussion of understanding the system - I would normally ignore it - but since it also is a natural step in the process of "Realization" I will cover it further.
Now:
This was TK's concern and question. I am learning from his efforts and questions - that is a gift from him and this site.

We are doing all of our due diligence - all of it - rest assured.

The patent question was hammered a while back - the last time it was claimed that anyone could file for $500 means nothing to have filed.....(my position was well understood and clear)  My response was the same as it is today - except I said our cost $38,000 - it is rising.

Then - an attack - not for clarity - I was attacked for only being in the application process as if that was nothing - it is true you can file a $500 patent for something that does not work, but when you have something that does - you better do it right.

I am sure most understand Patenting is a process and progression - as I said before - I will learn from this forum to be even  more careful. I do not think TK was trying to assert anything just digging for clarity.

Observation:
I also understand and have seen this many times now - The move from "does it work" to questioning the Patent always comes after "one" realizes the validity of our design - It is of course the first question interested partnerships ask - to protect their own interests.

Who wants to deal with an inventor if he does not have control of his own invention. It is also followed by some who might be unscrupulous - Sadly - part of due diligence - we are prepared for that as well.

Another point - legalese - I have not offered to sell anything here - and when a private question is asked - I carefully review the control and ownership - in all aspects - this forum is not the place for said discussions.

What I will offer in the discussion of  Ownership and control:
 
The inventorship has been clearly established: Travis, Wayne S.

The Proper and Due diligence has been properly processed in good faith and order. Time stamps - art work - and concept have been cataloged - as well as the rest.

This invention is unique - simple yet extremely complex  - it is not an improvement - it is not a reapplication of an old technology - original concept.

Finally - it works - it is not a Application in vain.

We are on track - the patent application has been accepted - and it is a process - a very expensive and long process.

And yes, our improvements are being taken care of properly and legally.

As I have said before - we have very carefully protected and researched the IP,
I have stated our position here, We are well covered.

 To All,
We have worked very hard to protect the invention so that we can make sure the Energy Device gets to the market.

Not to stop others from helping bring the technology to their respective areas - but to ensure we have legal grounds to partner
with Win - Win - Win organizations.

A win for the organization who manufactures, distributes - a win for the consumers - and a win for the investors.

We are also very well prepared to challenge anyone who tries to step on, or stop - our mission is to be the group you would love to do business with - to be supportive and to make it a poor business decision to try to side step us.

Some will anyway - so falls that part of the world.

Now worries - it is a world with plenty of energy needs.

We will bring this Clean Energy forward, you can see the lights and breath fresh air, soon.

Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 19, 2012, 03:08:28 PM

Now, LarryC in a post way back seems quite sure that you have something that is "approved". Is this the same thing as a granted patent by the USPTO?
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg325025/#msg325025 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg325025/#msg325025)

But that latter date given by LarryC is the date of publication of the current application, as far as I can see. Can anyone give me, please, the actual link to the actual patent? SO you must have an actual patent, and surely the date listed is wrong? Since that's the date of your present application's publication, not an actual grant of a patent? Or is LarryC's "false" itself false?

Your are correct in that I was mistaken in saying approved May 17, 2012, should have been publication date May 17, 2012.
 
But lets check Johnny's statement and my response:
 
Wayne,
 You have intentionally misrepresented yourself in this forum. That is plain wrong !!!
To wit, you have a provissional patent. This is not to be confused with an actual patent.
 What are the differences ? Namely a provisional patent requires no examination which you claim to
have been subjected to. Seriously, lying like that is not good. Would you like me to show you the post ?
 A provisional patent costs $110 and is given just for paying the application fee and submitting a 2 page form.
 The purpose of a provisional patent is to help inventors who might wish to market their invention while having
the protection of a PROVISIONAL patent. It requires no patent search, examination or any demonstration of
being an actual invention. The inventor(s) is given 1 year from I believe the filing date to convert the provisional
patent to an actual patent which would require going through the complete patent application process which you
claim to have done. Shame on you !

Johnny,
False. The provisional application filed on Nov 9,2010 is under the Related S.S Application Date section  of his standard Patent Application which was filed Nov. 9, 2011 and approved May 17, 2012.
You seem to be just looking to spin any point to attack Wayne.

 
I was correct in pointing out Johnny's false assertion that it was a provisional application.
 
Your statement:
LarryC's word "false" in the statement above is responding to johnny874's statement that there is only an application not a granted patent.
 
You should have stated 'provisional application' and not just the misleading 'application'.
 
Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: RebeLLz on August 19, 2012, 03:17:03 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 19, 2012, 03:22:31 PM
Your are correct in that I was mistaken in saying approved May 17, 2012, should have been publication date May 17, 2012.
 
But lets check Johnny's statement and my response:
 
Wayne,
 You have intentionally misrepresented yourself in this forum. That is plain wrong !!!
To wit, you have a provissional patent. This is not to be confused with an actual patent.
 What are the differences ? Namely a provisional patent requires no examination which you claim to
have been subjected to. Seriously, lying like that is not good. Would you like me to show you the post ?
 A provisional patent costs $110 and is given just for paying the application fee and submitting a 2 page form.
 The purpose of a provisional patent is to help inventors who might wish to market their invention while having
the protection of a PROVISIONAL patent. It requires no patent search, examination or any demonstration of
being an actual invention. The inventor(s) is given 1 year from I believe the filing date to convert the provisional
patent to an actual patent which would require going through the complete patent application process which you
claim to have done. Shame on you !

Johnny,
False. The provisional application filed on Nov 9,2010 is under the Related S.S Application Date section  of his standard Patent Application which was filed Nov. 9, 2011 and approved May 17, 2012.
You seem to be just looking to spin any point to attack Wayne.

 
I was correct in pointing out Johnny's false assertion that it was a provisional application.
 
Your statement:
LarryC's word "false" in the statement above is responding to johnny874's statement that there is only an application not a granted patent.
 
You should have stated 'provisional application' and not just the misleading 'application'.
 
Larry
Larry,
I do remember that conversation now: Who was that that made the fasle charges? The way you quoted it - I thought you were yelling at me lol.

I think the real question is:

If someone was interested in getting involved - to help Wayne and the ZED, are they helping the right inventor.

Asking TK is a hands off apporoach - yet they need to know what is the exact position of the protection - be it all forms of IP protection.

It is a business question: should not be covered "here" - in my opinion.

You are right - the last time this was brought up - it was an intentional misleading attack - and you corrected the attack then.

I believe TK is asking questions for others' sake - and brings clarity.

His drag-it-out-in-the-clear method - is dogmatic - just don't take it wrong.

Thank You
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 19, 2012, 03:36:16 PM
 mr. travis,
 bottom line is that I believe you are claiming hydraulic theory allows for over unity. it doesn't.
 even though you can generate a taller static head with more psi, psi times surface area would equal static heads that have the same potential to do work.
 a sinkable float would generate energy without accepting someone's word that when they manipulate a static head that it's a new discovery. it's not.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 19, 2012, 03:40:30 PM
mr. travis,
 bottom line is that I believe you are claiming hydraulic theory allows for over unity. it doesn't.
 even though you can generate a taller static head with more psi, psi times surface area would equal static heads that have the same potential to do work.
 a sinkable float would generate energy without accepting someone's word that when they manipulate a static head that it's a new discovery. it's not.
Thank you for being civil this round.
You are welcome to 'believe' - for or against.
Good day.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 19, 2012, 05:15:32 PM
  @All,
 a simple test anyone with 2 pressure gauges can do.
 Connect a 3/4 & a 1/2 inch tube (the 1/2 in. tube wil fit inside the 3/4 in. tube) and put water in them then cap them with the pressure gauges,
 Then pressurize th larger tube. You will see tbat the 1/2 in. tube will have more psi.
  Then multiply the psi by surface area for both tubes and you'll see they have the same answer,
 And as far as patents go, they're pretty much worthless if the invention doesn't work.
 And if Mr. Travis invention does work then maybe he could give a simple demonstration like I just posted and then send it to Stefan since everyone would accept his word for varifying Mr. Travis' claims.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 19, 2012, 06:25:25 PM
MrWayne, thanks for the reply, and I'm glad that you, at least, aren't misinterpreting my intentions like some others seem to be doing.

The patent discussion, from my part, isn't about the intellectual property protection, the filing dates, the difference between "provisional application" and "application" or any semantic argument like that. It is simply about getting straight answers to straight questions, and yes, drawn out not just for me but for everyone else whose vision might also be a bit cloudy when viewing the "fine print".

And I think Webby's work is fine, and certainly if I were doing it, I'd be reporting my best numbers, not a random set taken casually without controls, so I believe that he's doing the best he can do under the circumstances.

What my calculations show, IF THEY ARE CORRECT.... is that his gain is small, small enough so that minor imprecision in measurement and/or general experimental technique could account for the COP>1 finding.

And, since this is so very important..... the first demonstrated overunity work-producing device that doesn't need a battery or a big flywheel and can be made in an afternoon and demonstrated in anyone's lovely back yard garden -- no machining or fancy tools needed ..... and that would also overturn not just our ideas about buoyancy but also, like, the past 200 years of physics knowledge and require all the textbooks, from 10th grade on, to be rewritten.... sitting there on Webby's garden furniture, made out of tennis ball packaging tubes....

Well, we need to be absolutely certain that the measurements are precise, accurate, and properly obtained, as well as repeatable on demand, don't we?

And I myself would LOVE to be the principal or second author on the first scientific paper in a journal like Science or Nature or PhysRevB that brings the effect to the attention of real scientists around the world.

I should think that with 2 large to play around with, one could make a precise, rigid, easily measured, model that didn't leak and had some simple automated data collection capability. Certainly I could implement such a system.... I'd use a USDigital linear optical encoder setup to monitor heights to the half-millimeter, velocities and acceleration etc. of moving parts (3 or 4 hundred dollars), a good sensitive digital scale for weights (under 100 dollars), and something like an Arduino for automated data collection and recording (under 100 dollars), in addition to the basic apparatus made out of polycarbonate tubes from a plastic supply house (certainly less than 200 dollars). I'd borrow or rent a good force gauge like the Mark-10  M5-05 that I have sitting here gathering dust, get a couple of sensitive piezo pressure gauges ... And I'd have enough left over for a nice little vacation after I proved, repeatedly and well above noise floor, that I was making more work out than I was putting in. Did you know that Koalas are great bass fishermen? I'll bet you didn't.

But I realise that Koalas generally approach problems like this differently than most people on internet forums do.... it comes from living in a tree and eating eucalyptus leaves (which are a little hard to get in South Texas, believe you me).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 19, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
any working perpetual motion machine or overunity device would be able to run contiuously under it's power.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 19, 2012, 07:35:14 PM
@TK. I am probably one of those people who appeared to question your motives. However appearances can be deceptive. I have already said that I endorse your insistance on precise measuring methods. I would ask you to bear in mind that we are all different when it comes to abilities and resources.  When I say that, I am not complaining, just stating a fact. You obviously have measuring equipment, and probably machine tools, and the abilities to use both. My hope is that you will , sooner or later, be sufficiently convinced of the reality of this technology, to do your own build. I realise that you are involved in other things as well.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 19, 2012, 07:38:36 PM
any working perpetual motion machine or overunity device would be able to run contiuously under it's power.
[/quote
Whilst this would be the ideal situation, a machine does not have to self run, to prove OU. If it can be proved to be OU by a sufficient margin, a feedback loop can be added later.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 19, 2012, 08:34:12 PM
WHAT do you want me to talk about M.

Anything and everything you observe, measure, notice, etc., while poking your TBZED.
 
When you want to.
 
Sorry if I interupted any testing!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 19, 2012, 10:23:47 PM
Just saw this on a table upstairs and could not resist.

I hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend.

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 19, 2012, 11:58:38 PM
Grandma!! We've found you!! Please write, we miss you.
--Tinsel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 20, 2012, 12:06:42 AM
@neptune:

Thanks, and you are right. I don't mind tough and realistic challenges to my skeptical position and work; constructive criticism and real refutations of what I might say or believe or do are fully welcome and I +especially+ need others to check my maths... can you imagine working a calculator with claws like that?
You will eventually encounter my very own personal troll though, who manages to sully just about every thread I post in, yet is never able actually to refute anything with checkable facts, outside references or his own demonstrations.

I only lack one thing to be able to put my full skillset and resources onto this issue, and anyone who knows me will confirm that I do NOT need to be convinced of the reality of anything before I start building and investigating on my own. In fact, like Inspector Morse, I don't have theories... just questions.

-TK

(And.... like Inspector Gadget, another of my personal heroes ... I might have one or two tricks up my sleeve.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 20, 2012, 04:40:12 AM
@Webby, thanks for the description, it sounds like you are having fun.

But.... come on. You have on your table a device which has the potential to overturn hundreds of years of real scientific research and theorising, theories that have so far worked well enough to design sophisticated hydraulic systems and even submarines. But if MrWayne's device, and yours, actually make more work out than in, all that will have to be rethought, especially that fundamental law of thermodynamics that results in Conservation of Energy being taken as gospel all over the world and for many many years. Entire careers of scientists and educators will be rendered null and void, textbooks will have to be rewritten, and more. I don't think that a person who is not trained in the "hard" sciences like physics or engineering mechanics can fully realize what a truly revolutionary thing this is if it actually works.

So... it's pretty important, I think, to get good reliable and repeatable measurements from a known configuration of the apparatus, with good recordkeeping and so on. Any measurements must be as accurate and precise as the setup and our experience allows in order to know that we aren't fooling ourselves and so that this revolutionary system will be believed by others.
I wish I could tell you how to improve things to make them easier to measure. The very first thing I'd recommend is a good digital scale in the weight range you need. Even if it only measures accurately to a gram of precision, that will be better than what you are using. The scale I used in the "virtual water inverted TE" video cost about 20 bucks from Harbor Freight and is accurate to the gram, and I've got a mechanical Harvard trip balance with a calibrated precision weight set for comparison, so I do know the accuracy and precision of that cheapo scale are usable for this purpose. (The OHaus Harvard Trip Balance has a capacity of about 2 kilos and can weigh reliably down to the tens of milligrams if I hold my breath and use tweezers for the tiny weights. I found it at a Goodwill store, along with the precision weight set.... for twenty dollars. ) Next you might try the Dollar Stores looking for transparent plastic rulers with cm and mm scales in the school supplies section.

Thanks for doing the hard work and for your willingness to put yourself out there and sharing.

--TK

(Eta: a tenth of a pound is 45.4 grams, so a scale that's precise to the tenth of a pound still leaves a lot of room for error.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 20, 2012, 05:38:41 AM
Hi All,

While reworking my PDF today, I realized that I could combine some of the formulas and simplify the technical formula portion, so I am taking another day to make it easier to read, and also simplifying my sim in the process.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 20, 2012, 07:39:45 AM

Hi All,

While reworking my PDF today, I realized that I could combine some of the formulas and simplify the technical formula portion, so I am taking another day to make it easier to read, and also simplifying my sim in the process.

~Dennis


You were reading my mind ;7) - I had a chance to have a closer read of your pdf this afternoon - I have some clarifications required if you don't mind.

First some housekeeping :

1. Neptune .. you were correct IINM - Mr Wayne did say 148% advantage in Webby's build - he said it was from private correspondence between the two.

2. There seems to be some disagreement about whether the ZED is a pneumatic device or a buoyancy device, or both - both Mondrasek & Larry said in the multi U tube analysis that the mediums could be different density fluids like water & lower density oil or water & higher density mercury, rather than water & air, & show the same buoyancy potential & energy advantage in the output.

.....................................

My feeling is that if an internal air pocket is used then it will transfer pressure - at the same time it will compress its volume somewhat & store PE to be returned later as KE [the spring analogy] once the riser is released & as the head increases - this would be a partial pneumatic element - but we know the energy input to compress a gas & increase its density & pressure is equal at best to its output potential.

If different density fluids were used [virtually non compressible] then this pneumatic spring effect is eliminated & it is wholly a hydraulic/buoyancy device where pressure changes by an increase in head determined by volume transfer from piston water packet to riser cavity volume etc - this volume transfer determines the stroke length & variable power of the stroke, IINM.

It seems apparent that the current internal air packet can transfer pressure from the H2 height to the piston height & that the air packet pressure will be practically the same as the H2 head [this is the startup position of the cycle].

...........................

Generally in sim world it is convenient to know the mass of parts & the system CoM as a point mass equivalent - the work done joules to complete half a cycle [the drive portion] is the increase in PE of the CoM from the start datum - this is the input energy with no losses, viscosity etc, so it is optimal.

N.B. it appears in your sim diagrams that the H2 level is quite a way up the side of the riser wall indicating that the system is in equilibrium i.e. the riser is floating at this start position where upthrust equals apparent weight force.

The system should then reset itself back to datum levels & give back the joules of energy PE gained.

Further observations & comments needing clarification :

1. the work done to raise the piston is by providing a force N.B. pressure is force / area therefore force = pressure times area - so the input force could be provide by a hydraulic piston, for example, which is well known.

2. the H2 to piston head depth determines the pressure head.

3. as the piston is forced upwards the hydrostatic pressures internally change - not only are there upward pressures acting on the all the riser parts [some of these can be combined], but also as the H2 levels rises in height proportional to the volumes transferred, & the hydrostatic pressure acting downwards on the piston increases [this is the hydrostatic paradox] - this increase in hydrostatic pressure acting downwards must be overcome & included in the work done input [I didn't recognize it in your net force formula's & diagrams].

In conclusion FWIW I currently see this sim as fundamentally a hydraulic/buoyancy system because any air compression [i.e. reduction in air pocket volume] reduces the stroke height until that PE is given back & the air expands again.

I'll be looking into it more closely as time allows but these are my initial off the cuff comments.






Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 20, 2012, 09:05:41 AM
@Webby... thanks for your kind offer, but please don't consider sending me anything you've built. I can't handle that kind of responsibility! Golly, what if the world's only portable OU device gets dropped by UPS or something...

I'll tell you this though: if you have an easily portable system that you can set up on a table and demonstrate more work out than in, reliably and repeatably, no matter how small the gain as long as there  IS gain.... then I can "walk it through" at a laboratory that I know and trust, will full IP protection for you, MrWayne, me,  and so on. And a positive word from these people will go a long way.

So my advice would be this: get to building. Build a better, more stable system just like the one you've got now -- not too many design changes, since this design works, right? -- but without leaks and wall friction/interference, and test it by  making good precise and accurate measurements. When you see consistently more work out than in, and are confident that it will travel, I'll PM you the information about the lab and the personnel there and you, and MrWayne, can decide whether or not you want some official, hard-science types to confirm your discovery or not. My role will then only be that of the "arranger", all the testing and evaluation would be done by them. Am I talking about ETI? I could be. I could also be talking about SwRI: Southwest Research Institute, located in San Antonio.
https://www.google.com/search?q=southwest+research+institute (https://www.google.com/search?q=southwest+research+institute)

From the Wiki:
Quote
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), headquartered in San Antonio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio), Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas), is one of the oldest and largest independent, nonprofit, applied research and development (R&D) organizations in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). Founded in 1947 by oil businessman Thomas Slick Jr., SwRI provides contract research and development services to government and industrial clients.
The institute consists of 11 technical divisions that offer multidisciplinary, problem-solving services in a variety of areas in engineering and the physical sciences. More than 2,000 projects are active at the institute at any given time. These projects are funded almost equally between the government and commercial sectors. At the close of fiscal year 2011, the SwRI staff numbered 3,046 employees and total revenue was $581 million. The institute provided $6.1 million to fund innovative research through its internally sponsored R&D program.
A partial listing of research areas includes space science and engineering; automation, robotics, and intelligent systems; avionics and support systems; bioengineering; chemistry and chemical engineering; corrosion and electrochemistry; earth and planetary sciences; emissions research; engineering mechanics; fire technology; fluid systems and machinery dynamics; and fuels and lubricants. Additional areas include geochemistry and mining engineering; hydrology and geohydrology; materials sciences and fracture mechanics; modeling and simulation; nondestructive evaluation; oil and gas exploration; pipeline technology; surface modification and coatings; and vehicle, engine, and powertrain design, research, and development.
SwRI initiates contracts with clients based on consultations and prepares a formal proposal outlining the scope of work. Subject to client wishes, programs are kept confidential. As part of a long-held tradition, patent rights arising from sponsored research are often assigned to the client. SwRI generally retains the rights to institute-funded advancements.
The institute’s headquarters occupy more than two million square feet of office and laboratory space on more than 1,200 acres in San Antonio. SwRI has technical offices and laboratories in Boulder, Colorado; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Warner Robins, Georgia; Ogden, Utah; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Rockville, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Beijing, China; and other locations. The institute also provides environmental monitoring expertise at munitions disposal sites at the Umatilla Army Depot at Hermiston, Oregon, and the Pine Bluff Chemical Depot at Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
SwRI’s mission statement is, "Benefiting government, industry and the public through innovative science and technology." Two of its core values are independence and impartiality.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 20, 2012, 09:14:25 AM
@Webby... it sounds like what you are describing is a system where constants aren't, and variables don't !!


 ;)
(old science joke, sorry)

--TK
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on August 20, 2012, 10:48:29 AM
Verge Archemedia Labs Llc 
3708 Spicewood Springs Rd, Austin, Texas 78759
(512) 418-9988
 
 
and
 
 Overunity Laboratories Inc 8905 Bluegrass Dr, Austin, Texas 78759
(512) 342-0522
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 20, 2012, 02:35:06 PM
You were reading my mind ;7) - I had a chance to have a closer read of your pdf this afternoon - I have some clarifications required if you don't mind.
.....................................

My feeling is that if an internal air pocket is used then it will transfer pressure - at the same time it will compress its volume somewhat & store PE to be returned later as KE [the spring analogy] once the riser is released & as the head increases - this would be a partial pneumatic element - but we know the energy input to compress a gas & increase its density & pressure is equal at best to its output potential...

It seems apparent that the current internal air packet can transfer pressure from the H2 height to the piston height & that the air packet pressure will be practically the same as the H2 head [this is the startup position of the cycle].

...........................

Further observations & comments needing clarification :

1. the work done to raise the piston is by providing a force N.B. pressure is force / area therefore force = pressure times area - so the input force could be provide by a hydraulic piston, for example, which is well known.

2. the H2 to piston head depth determines the pressure head.

3. as the piston is forced upwards the hydrostatic pressures internally change - not only are there upward pressures acting on the all the riser parts [some of these can be combined], but also as the H2 levels rises in height proportional to the volumes transferred, & the hydrostatic pressure acting downwards on the piston increases [this is the hydrostatic paradox] - this increase in hydrostatic pressure acting downwards must be overcome & included in the work done input [I didn't recognize it in your net force formula's & diagrams].


Fletcher,

Thanks for taking a look.  I think your observations are along the same lines that I have been zeroing in on.  I think it will be easier to follow in my revision PDF that I should have updated later today.

I see the Piston transferring PE through H0 to the compressed air and through H1 to H2.  I think the net effect is that H0 and H1 heads are effectively stacked on top of each other as has been stated by others.  I think my latest formulas will represent the various internal heads and pressures in the system.

However, I have struggled with exactly which elements to include as net lift for the output.

I can now see the PSI of the water at the bottom of the Pod area as one.  The PSI of the water at the bottom of the Riser Wall area as another.  However, that gives a lift force that is less than a straight Archimedes un-convoluted riser.  The Riser air pocket area is not included, but somehow I think it needs to be.  If I include the raw airPSI in that area as part of the Riser lift, the total lift number becomes unbelievably large.

So my dilemma has been which potential areas of lift are to be included.  My current sim has every potential lift calculated and included on separarte lines so I can comment out each one to see the overall effect.  I have not found any combination that feels right yet.  Perhaps it is all in the stacking of the heads, and I will have to get into multiple internal layers before the ZED catches up and passes simple Archimedes.

You mentioned counteracting forces to the lift that you did not see me taking into consideration.  That was the basis of my original force calculations where I did not include forces that were relative to the Piston, but did include forces that were relative to the Tank.  This is the area that I think needs more conceptual work.

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Fluids/Hydrostatic_Paradox/Hydrostatic_Paradox.html

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: dgouttman on August 20, 2012, 05:13:57 PM
It has nothing to do with overunity nor with surface instead of volume;
Buoyancy is still concerned by volume: one should take the right system into account:
1/ without insert
2/ with insert

in 1/ the glass with small volume of air will naturally have a weak buoyancy.
but in 2/ the glass and the insert are partially forming a global system: so you should consider the global volume of moved water: by air + partially by insert, since there is a direct contact inbetween, without water anymore.
Then it is said that global application point of buyancy is the centre of gravity of moved water. It's correct as a resultant force, but if you consider each differential bit of external surface, then you see that a big part of the surface submitted to the buoyancy force is ...the glass. So, the glass has partially "stolen" the buoyancy force of the insert.
There is no magics nor overunity ! ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 20, 2012, 07:38:56 PM
It has nothing to do with overunity nor with surface instead of volume;
Buoyancy is still concerned by volume: one should take the right system into account:
1/ without insert
2/ with insert

in 1/ the glass with small volume of air will naturally have a weak buoyancy.
but in 2/ the glass and the insert are partially forming a global system: so you should consider the global volume of moved water: by air + partially by insert, since there is a direct contact inbetween, without water anymore.
Then it is said that global application point of buyancy is the centre of gravity of moved water. It's correct as a resultant force, but if you consider each differential bit of external surface, then you see that a big part of the surface submitted to the buoyancy force is ...the glass. So, the glass has partially "stolen" the buoyancy force of the insert.
There is no magics nor overunity ! ;)
Hello DG,
No "magic" is right!
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 20, 2012, 09:27:49 PM
First Picture: 3 U with water levels set to account for the air compression.
 
Second Picture: Calculated values for 3 U, with air compression calculated by SI of air channel.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 20, 2012, 11:47:07 PM

I have intentions to build a better unit, more precise and all that BUT I am hoping that other builders out there, and you know there are more,  will be willing to come forward with results in line with what I have.


Hello Webby,
My team is currently planning the build for our desk top self running water pump.
I would love to see your teams creativity with the ZED technology!
How about a new challenge for you and your team..a $5K ZED  challenge.
Specifically designed by your team to ease measurements of input and output.
Two single five or six layer systems will do, or a combined system.
It does not need to be transparent.
Weight of the riser is not an issue works as a counterbalance - steel, aluminum may be used.
The risers may all be attached to one lid.
The system needs to be able to be measured and have access to each layer (tubing both air and water).

Part two: $10K ZED challenge ----5 layer, dual Z.E.D. water pump.
 If your design team connects the system together for a self runner - I will double the 5K Challenge to 10K.
and each member of your team will receive a HER ownership certificate - valued at the current valuation and equal to the prize.

Five members max - pick them wisely.
 
Suggestions:
You do not have to beat our team - but time is important.
plan on 1/4 or 1/2 inch gaps between risers and ring walls - will work fine.
If you start with a pumping system and then size accordingly - a lot of time is saved.
The previous expectations apply - after a reasonable time of testing and reporting - you must send me the units, you are welcome to make an authorized extra set to keep for yourself.
Placard with your team members name and the name of the device Zydro Energy Device on all systems made.

What do you think? Up to it?

Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 20, 2012, 11:53:21 PM

Fletcher,

Thanks for taking a look.  I think your observations are along the same lines that I have been zeroing in on.  I think it will be easier to follow in my revision PDF that I should have updated later today.



Quote from: see3d

I see the Piston transferring PE through H0 to the compressed air and through H1 to H2.  I think the net effect is that H0 and H1 heads are effectively stacked on top of each other as has been stated by others.  I think my latest formulas will represent the various internal heads and pressures in the system.


Agreed - because of relative densities the H2 vertical height determines the pressure head in relation to depth to piston face.

If we assume that the starting configuration [when H1 = H2] is also when the system is in equilibrium [all forces are equalized] then this sets a datum to launch & calculate from - we have to make some assumptions - one would be that the H1 H2 water levels are equal & that there is a communication channel between these two water towers that allows the water to find the same level both sides of the riser wall divide - from that we can assume that the internal air pocket was once of greater volume & at atmospheric pressure but now it has a slightly lesser volume & its pressure is at least the same as the bottom of the H1 H2 towers [which is above 14.7 PSI or 1 atmosphere] - in essence the air pocket can be thought of as a flexible rod that transfers the pressure at bottom of H2 to top of H0 - N.B. if the air pressure were greater then we would not see the Bottom of H1 H2 & top of H0 at the same levels.

Effectively the air pocket is a pressure communication medium & the head height is calculated from the top of H2, IMO.

The conclusion is that for the riser to be in this position in the equilibrium state [with effectively water climbing the sides] then although the riser may be hollow its density is such that it raises the H2 level to where the cycle starts from [in equilibrium] - also that the pressure at ANY vertical height measured will be the same at any horizontal line taken in the system.

Quote from: see3d

However, I have struggled with exactly which elements to include as net lift for the output.

I can now see the PSI of the water at the bottom of the Pod area as one.  The PSI of the water at the bottom of the Riser Wall area as another.  However, that gives a lift force that is less than a straight Archimedes un-convoluted riser.

The Riser air pocket area is not included, but somehow I think it needs to be.  If I include the raw airPSI in that area as part of the Riser lift, the total lift number becomes unbelievably large.


See above - I would say that because of relative densities of the two mediums that we are only concerned with the H2 level for calculating pressure head height.


Quote from: see3d

So my dilemma has been which potential areas of lift are to be included.  My current sim has every potential lift calculated and included on separate lines so I can comment out each one to see the overall effect.  I have not found any combination that feels right yet.  Perhaps it is all in the stacking of the heads, and I will have to get into multiple internal layers before the ZED catches up and passes simple Archimedes.


See end comments below.


Quote from: see3d

You mentioned counteracting forces to the lift that you did not see me taking into consideration.  That was the basis of my original force calculations where I did not include forces that were relative to the Piston, but did include forces that were relative to the Tank.  This is the area that I think needs more conceptual work.

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Fluids/Hydrostatic_Paradox/Hydrostatic_Paradox.html (http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Fluids/Hydrostatic_Paradox/Hydrostatic_Paradox.html)


Hydrostatic paradox examples http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwparad.html (http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwparad.html) - what it means is that there are no free lunches - so if I increase head height by increasing water level height by moving only a small volume so that the system center of mass [CoM] doesn't change much at all I do increase the force [i.e. pressure] on the bottom of the tank/piston face in your sim - the effect of this doesn't seem apparent until one considers a system where a piston is used - the relative pressure levels felt at every vertical level will try to force apart two objects, one of which one is moveable.

...............................

General Comments:

Sims are very useful tools, for predicting outcomes, if constructed accurately - as you know their usefulness is many fold - mainly that once a sim is relatively accurate dimensions & other inputs can be changed at will & the outputs will fall out the bottom - this is way less time consuming than building multiple real world builds.

The other main advantage is that they can then be compared & normalized to a real world build so that the sims behaviour mimics the real world build closely making the sim a reliable predictive tool - then improvements in one can be retro'ed to the other in a leap frog progression.

They have one great advantage over real world builds & that is as you work thru the components & formula's & insight grows they can be simplified dramatically - simple is good - when they are accurate & you have confidence in the sim then complexity can be added.

In your case I can't immediately see how to simplify the setup further because you must have an internal air/lower density fluid pocket - however, as a step in the right direction of simple analysis you can make the assumption the the air pocket is a non compressible fluid the same density as air - then see if the sim behaves as you think it should & you have accounted for all the relevant forces contained in the pressures etc - you can add complexity later by changing the non-compressible pocket fluid to  compressible air [a fluid] & compare the sim outcomes for major differences - you can also add drag losses from vortices & eddy's & viscosity differences but they aren't that important just now.

The primary purpose here is to isolate the ingredient that allows for OU as Mr Wayne asserts is the case - to do that you have to test the systems integrity component by component - if it is the air pocket that makes all the difference then this will be self evident in the sim comparisons & you can delve deeper to find out why.

N.B. One of the easy ways to formulate buoyancy force is volume x density x - gravity acceleration - effectively this is a reverse approach where water volume displaced weight force is the upthrust force.

In more complex cases like you are looking at here this simple approach may not be adequate - buoyancy is actually a factor of sum of pressure forces on a submerged object less the effect gravity has on it downwards.

In the ZED sim the water pressure is artificially increased by moving only a small volume of fluid - so a different formula is required that calculates buoyancy force on pressure differential rather than the ubiquitous volume displacement usually used.

ATEOTD, Mr Wayne has said that the energy advantage comes for gravity not being a conservative force after all - we know that atmospheric pressure & air density is gravity dependent as is pressure of practically non-compressible fluids - so in essence they are both direct artifacts of gravity in traditional thought.

I know you have started from the position of having an open mind & you show that you are intelligent & capable to work this sim thru logically - I'm here to discuss that logic - perhaps there is such a thing as a free lunch after all ;7)

P.S. I'm not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, just simplify, identify & follow logic paths - on that note, to Larry, I only have dial up speed internet so I haven't been able to view any pics for a few weeks - I have to rely on good & clear verbal descriptions of what pics show, what the calcs were based on, & what the conclusions were.

Good luck Dennis !

P.S. there may be out there someone who knows of or uses a good sim program that can handle hydraulics & changing volumes & pressures who could replicate against your sim for comparison.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 21, 2012, 12:16:22 AM
Have vistors for several days. Today went to the new Infinity building at Nasa Stennis Space Center in southeast Mississippi right across the Louisiana border, and a tour of the Nasa testing facility. If you get a chance to go, it is well worth it. I've attached a picture of a statue at the entrance made of wood and metal parts from past missions and is 33 foot tall. It was very movating and inspiring. Enjoy.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 21, 2012, 12:33:26 AM
P.S. I'm not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, just simplify, identify & follow logic paths - on that note, to Larry, I only have dial up speed internet so I haven't been able to view any pics for a few weeks - I have to rely on good & clear verbal descriptions of what pics show, what the calcs were based on, & what the conclusions were.

You are missing a lot of understanding, if you cannot see the graphics. As the old saying goes, A picture is worth a thousand words. Please go to a Library, University, coffee shop, friend, etc. to get access. Your knowledge can be helpful and there is no way that my words can clear up what I am showing.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 21, 2012, 12:44:57 AM
Maybe you just need to try different liquids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1KXMsE2qk
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 21, 2012, 12:55:04 AM
Thanks for the advice.

I get what you are saying about the 3 U devices & that the last far right column of water is raised up - this 'leans' on the air pocket to the left [which was at 1 atmosphere & greater volume] & this ripples back to the piston face which has a comparable head pressure to the single U column.

The point that was being made at the time [by myself & TK in particular] was that this pressure head was useless in this format, that it didn't show an increase in buoyancy potential or energy advantage - that was because the piston was displaced downwards by a force [work done joules] & the net effect was that the far right column of water was raised - the WD Input not only had to equate to the raising of water mass but also to counter the change in PSI at the piston face - the actual Work Output that could be done by this system was exactly like a hydraulic jack [Pascal's Law re force multiplication, not energy/work multiplication] i.e. the pressure at the right side [not left] x distance of stroke.

Perhaps you could assist greatly in explaining how the forces & pressures should develop in see3d's sim so we could actually see how that energy advantage [OU] manifests into sim & real world reality by way of his force & pressure derived sim built with accuracy of formula's & logic.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 21, 2012, 02:35:32 AM

Perhaps you could assist greatly in explaining how the forces & pressures should develop in see3d's sim so we could actually see how that energy advantage [OU] manifests into sim & real world reality by way of his force & pressure derived sim built with accuracy of formula's & logic.

@Fletcher, you are at a significant disadvantage if you have a slow internet that makes pictures difficult to download.  I show my work and think almost exclusively in pictures.  You must be a very intelligent person to be able to get as much as you have without the pictures.  Were you able to download my whole PDF with pictures?

My sim baseline level sits at the bottom with zero H0, zero air pressure (atmospheric), and H1,H2 at the same level.  The riser is counterbalanced mechanically as is the piston and water in the pod area.  The system starts out in a "relaxed" state at the bottom with only a 1% of design output load weight sinking it.  It is a very easy state to understand as a starting point for the sim.  Then a design load weight of 1 pound is applied on top of the Riser.  Then an input force is applied to the piston via a 1 pound weight applied to a mechanical lever.  Life does not get much simpler than that for something to sim and physically measure  accurately.  I am really designing it as a science experiment for the purpose of easy accurate measurements.  Making a single ZED free run takes a little more Rube Goldberg mechanical ingenuity.

@All, I would be very happy to get additional math-a-magic formulas for improving my sim.  I believe I have the water heads and air pressures right now.  I need to get the lift forces correct next. 

I may have to do my own super simple 1 layer "tin can" build to check my sim against some real world measurements -- since nobody seems to have built a 1 layer test setup.  I am keen to get the super simple 1 layer sim correct before extending it to multiple layers.  The more layers, the harder it is to physically verify all the dimensions and pressures.  A 1 layer system can literally be done with tin cans or plastic bottles or a combination of both. 

I have my own independent build interests with Wayne, but I would be happy to use my "improved" sim to provide design optimization ideas for a build here.  That was always my intent in sharing what I am doing here.

I am going to take a little more time before finishing my PDF for release again.  There is a lot of work in regenerating all the pictures and animations which are no good if done with the wrong output force calculations.  I am in search for a bit more understanding about the proper concept for this output calculation.  Perhaps in another day I can feel more confident about what I have.  I would like it to be in the ballpark before a tin can build, so I can make it able to differentiate the various forces unambiguously.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 21, 2012, 02:36:31 AM
Some info from my risers.

dry weight     sink mass
90g             270g         outside
18g             294g
21g             196g
16g             143g
12g              85g         inside
      Totals
157g            988g

the sink mass was determined by placing each riser in an open container of water and filling a cup up, that was placed on top of the riser, until the riser just broke the surface of the water.

The max lift to date that I have had, and moved, is 1204g that was with 19 3\4 inches of "head" into the pod chamber.

Thank you for sticking to grams. I assume that your scale like mine reads to the nearest gram, that's fine with me. Can you also give a volume for the risers taken from measurements of their dimensions? This will be a crosscheck on the density information contained in your present data set.

Now, if I am understanding you  correctly, you are pushing the risers into the water until they are just fully submerged, holding them down with the weighted cup, and then weighing the cup to see how much weight is needed to hold them there? Is that right? So you are getting a measurement of the upward force of a just fully submerged riser. Right?

And I think that your risers are open on the bottom, right ? So that there is air trapped inside of them, and also that the volume of this trapped air will be variable depending on the external pressure, right? Like a Cartesian diver and _not_ like a sealed and constant volume. Am I still on track?

Could you please test one thing, and see if the depth of submergence has any effect on the "sink mass"? I mean, push the riser further under the water-- try to use a deep barrel or something like that--  with a thin rod (little displacement or buoyancy of its own) and balance the weighted cup in air on top of the rod, and see if the cup needs to be heavier or lighter to "sink" the riser or hold it down at your test depth. Don't forget to include the weight of the rod and its submerged volume -- I think this should be added to the dry weight and volume of the risers.

Also... how far did the 1204 g weight move, and how far did the water head drop when the weight was at its full travel?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 21, 2012, 02:48:51 AM
I'm trying to figure out a lowfriction lightweight way to keep risers and stationary walls concentric without adding drag and of course with allowing air and water to pass freely.  I'm envisioning something like a Teflon "star" or "gear" with teeth pointing out and in, like a ring, that can slip over the inner tube and ride between it and the outer tube smoothly with loose clearance, preserving the interwall spacing and keeping everything concentric.

I know how I'd do it if I had my shop set up, but I'm looking for ideas for something cheap or free, easy to make, and adaptable to most any design that people are working with.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 21, 2012, 03:05:39 AM
Hey See3d

Nice work. Does your simulation show the 'air' as compressible? Like when it is under pressure does it occupy less space, as compared to the water?

Thanks

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 21, 2012, 03:30:40 AM

Hydrostatic paradox examples http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwparad.html (http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwparad.html) - what it means is that there are no free lunches - so if I increase head height by increasing water level height by moving only a small volume so that the system center of mass [CoM] doesn't change much at all I do increase the force [i.e. pressure] on the bottom of the tank/piston face in your sim - the effect of this doesn't seem apparent until one considers a system where a piston is used - the relative pressure levels felt at every vertical level will try to force apart two objects, one of which one is moveable.

Fletcher,
Thanks for that link about the paradox.  In fact, I missed this in the currently released sim PDF.  It was the reason I had to rework the formulas.  I got caught in the paradox and tried to ratio the difference in area of H1 and H2 in the PSI calculations.  I fixed it without understanding this old paradox.  I had to rediscover it on my own through the math... LOL
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 21, 2012, 03:36:06 AM
I'm trying to figure out a lowfriction lightweight way to keep risers and stationary walls concentric without adding drag and of course with allowing air and water to pass freely.  I'm envisioning something like a Teflon "star" or "gear" with teeth pointing out and in, like a ring, that can slip over the inner tube and ride between it and the outer tube smoothly with loose clearance, preserving the interwall spacing and keeping everything concentric.

I know how I'd do it if I had my shop set up, but I'm looking for ideas for something cheap or free, easy to make, and adaptable to most any design that people are working with.

You might glue 3 or 4 thin triangle shaped vertical plastic strips to the outside of the riser or inside of the tank outer wall.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 21, 2012, 03:37:31 AM
Hey See3d

Nice work. Does your simulation show the 'air' as compressible? Like when it is under pressure does it occupy less space, as compared to the water?

Thanks

MaGs

Yes.  I also make the air darker grey the more it is compressed to see it happening.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 21, 2012, 04:29:59 AM

@Fletcher, you are at a significant disadvantage if you have a slow internet that makes pictures difficult to download.  I show my work and think almost exclusively in pictures.  Were you able to download my whole PDF with pictures?


Yes, I was able to download the pdf [it took some time] - whether I can see pics posted on the forum or not depends on the day & hour sometimes, especially when demand is high - currently my service is throttled right back because my month plan was exceeded some weeks ago - nevertheless I can usually see some of a picture [or none at all] so a descriptive of how formula's are made & conclusions reached in clear terms are appreciated to aid understanding.


Quote from: see3d
My sim baseline level sits at the bottom with zero H0, zero air pressure (atmospheric), and H1,H2 at the same level.  The riser is counterbalanced mechanically as is the piston and water in the pod area.  The system starts out in a "relaxed" state at the bottom with only a 1% of design output load weight sinking it.  It is a very easy state to understand as a starting point for the sim.  Then a design load weight of 1 pound is applied on top of the Riser.  Then an input force is applied to the piston via a 1 pound weight applied to a mechanical lever.  Life does not get much simpler than that for something to sim and physically measure  accurately.  I am really designing it as a science experiment for the purpose of easy accurate measurements.  Making a single ZED free run takes a little more Rube Goldberg mechanical ingenuity.


My purpose in labouring the point [sorry for that] about the system starting in equilibrium has everything to do with "previously understood to be" conservative gravity, the cornerstone of Mr Wayne's claims.

N.B. when a system where gravity is the prime mover is In Equilibrium of forces it is ALSO in its position of LOWEST Potential Energy - it can not get anymore 'relaxed' than that - if it can lower its system CoM even further it is not at equilibrium.

The only way that you can test whether your sim conforms to the real world is to build a model in that same position of lowest PE & check the water levels etc.

Then you can be confident that the system isn't 'loaded' in some way which would need energy to restore it to.

I don't think your sim needs counterbalancing of riser & piston water volume/mass - like I said any movement of the piston which lifts any portion above it will be given back later to achieve reset i.e. zero sum energy wise - however the WD to cause the piston & its load to rise can be quite easily found IINM.

.............................

TK .. a suggestion - ball bearings or bb's made of low density plastic in a vertical channel - or castor wheel analogues etc - basically something that allows both surfaces to slide past each other & maintain separation without much friction.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 21, 2012, 05:21:49 AM
I don't think your sim needs counterbalancing of riser & piston water volume/mass - like I said any movement of the piston which lifts any portion above it will be given back later to achieve reset i.e. zero sum energy wise - however the WD to cause the piston & its load to rise can be quite easily found IINM.


Fletcher,

Thanks for your continued inputs.  I can balance the system by loading pressures and heads or other arrangements of shifting water mass, but that is difficult for the initial setup and can change with temp and barometric readings.  My way to do the balancing externally, make it dead simple to adjust during the setup phase, and it also makes it possible to reduce the height of the ZED for the same output -- if my sim is giving me accurate results.  With more layers, that tradeoff might change.  I will have to wait and see.

It is true that setting it up my way is 1% more potential energy loss than the baseline needs to be and wastes 2% of the total potential work that could have been obtained in theory by overdriving it into the stops.  However it is much easier to have consistent mechanical repeatability by giving up that 2%.  That gives some mechanical tolerance and insensitivity to some variations in barometric pressure and temperature.

If 2% is all the O/U available, then that is not a design I would pursue for practical reasons.  We are looking for something with dramatic O/U to produce a large number of KWH in a parking lot space.  That should not be hard to measure even by eye.

I will try to get an updated version of the PDF out tomorrow, so you can see where I have taken the sim.  I will hold off on new animations until I can do more verifications.  I may do a tin can build first.

BTW, I did try a physics simulator program.  It was not a very good one.  Really more like a science educational toy, but it was free and easy to use.  It included mass, acceleration, water turbulence, cavitation, etc. However, it lacked the ability to have the dimensional precision I needed, and the Piston leaked water drops, and the Riser did not self center... LOL  That was the point when I decided to write my own to eliminate all the unwanted side effects.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 21, 2012, 05:50:09 AM
Hello Webby,
My team is currently planning the build for our desk top self running water pump.
I would love to see your teams creativity with the ZED technology!
How about a new challenge for you and your team..a $5K ZED  challenge.
Specifically designed by your team to ease measurements of input and output.
Two single five or six layer systems will do, or a combined system.
It does not need to be transparent.
Weight of the riser is not an issue works as a counterbalance - steel, aluminum may be used.
The risers may all be attached to one lid.
The system needs to be able to be measured and have access to each layer (tubing both air and water).

Part two: $10K ZED challenge ----5 layer, dual Z.E.D. water pump.
 If your design team connects the system together for a self runner - I will double the 5K Challenge to 10K.
and each member of your team will receive a HER ownership certificate - valued at the current valuation and equal to the prize.

Five members max - pick them wisely.
 
Suggestions:
You do not have to beat our team - but time is important.
plan on 1/4 or 1/2 inch gaps between risers and ring walls - will work fine.
If you start with a pumping system and then size accordingly - a lot of time is saved.
The previous expectations apply - after a reasonable time of testing and reporting - you must send me the units, you are welcome to make an authorized extra set to keep for yourself.
Placard with your team members name and the name of the device Zydro Energy Device on all systems made.

What do you think? Up to it?

Wayne Travis
Hi Mr Wayne,
 
Okay,  love game time. I am not a member of Mr Webby's team, but have a question as I am a friend of  Mr. Webby, will your team have access to your new improvements or will this be based on the current demo model specifications that we both understand? Just want to make sure we are on the same playing field.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 21, 2012, 06:00:59 AM
See3d .. LOL - soon you will be 100% percent confident of your sim, logic & the formula's, & that was your target IINM.

I've attempted to constructively cross reference your logic without seeing the actual volumes, masses & formula's you are using [I guess I could work them out from your data compilation but that would take valuable time].

The prize Mr Wayne & his team are so confident of having achieved is a paradigm changing one - one can never be to careful in checking for errors in formula's or logic, though this may seem redundant to some - a lot of credibility rides on it.

You are correct & the OU capability predicted is way above unity [large margin of error insurance] so a few minor aberrations or omissions isn't going to affect the results to much [the 80:20 rule] - if things were predicted to be much more close & marginal every detail would have to be accounted for accurately - this is why TK was questioning Webby's results when considering margin for error & scientific bias etc, because the results appeared to be possibly marginally significant at best & not demonstrably OU as was perhaps expected.

BTW - when your sim is complete to your standards I expect others to replicate your sim in other 'off the shelf purpose built' programs to compare results.

The new build challenges should also answer a lot of questions independent of Mr Wayne's own team building a desk top demonstration of a self sustaining pump well able to identify & measure input & output.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 21, 2012, 06:12:59 AM
Hi Mr Wayne,
 
Okay,  love game time. I am not a member of Mr Webby's team, but have a question as I am a friend of  Mr. Webby, will your team have access to your new improvements or will this be based on the current demo model specifications that we both understand? Just want to make sure we are on the same playing field.
 
Thanks, Larry
Hello Larry,
Our team is restricted to what is currently released - you have gleemed much already - I will offer suggestions and lessons learned if asked.
Teaming with Webby is between you two. You both have demonstrated talent, and self motivation.
If it is to be  seperate teams - I will give a certificates of ownership to the runner up if it happens that way.
Thanks!
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on August 21, 2012, 07:13:57 AM
Quote
BTW - when your sim is complete to your standards I expect others to replicate your sim in other 'off the shelf purpose built' programs to compare results.

This is what I've been hoping to do and I've been Google'ing like mad to find something that doesn't cost the earth. I'm only just getting in to this so this is probably old news.

But anyway, from what I've found, there are clearly heaps of games and sims out there for educating yourself on specific setups/systems/forces etc. I thought Google's SketchUp might do it, with SketchyPhysics (Newton SDK) plugin, but I struggled with it last night.

However, I've now come across Algodoo (previously Phun), at http://www.algodoo.com/wiki/Home (http://www.algodoo.com/wiki/Home). At 3 Euros I thought I'd give it a try and let others know of it for anyone who doesn't have a sim or hadn't heard of this one.

Looks like it should be a fun night.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 21, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
Algodoo/Phun is fun. I've got a couple perpetual motion machines that work in Phun. One is a gravity wheel and the other is powered by an overcentering spring. No tricks like hidden motors... they just work.


Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUlBqLM6Naw
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 21, 2012, 01:42:10 PM
@Mrwayne. On your website you say that there is to be a change of emphasis, and that you are now working on a simple basic table top model. I get the impression that you are still having problems with the data collection model, in that although it consistently demonstrates OU, it fails to meet some other criterion that you have set yourself, and for that reason you have not yet called in Mark Dansie. You may [or not ] wish to tell us more about that.
       I did say months ago that IMO a simple basic model would be more convincing to a casual observer, so this change of policy definately has a positive side. The new challenge is exciting, and I am sure there will be people who will rise to that challenge.
       One thing I found strange is this. Re the challenge model, I don`t think you gave any specification on the size of this model. And yet you say that gaps of a quarter or half an inch between ringwalls and risers will work OK. This is a bigger gap than in your Data collection model, yet I was envisaging a much smaller model would be built for the challenge. Could you please help to clarify this. I love the idea of a self acting water pump model, simpler than trying to generate electricity, and yet has a visible measurable output.
@See3d. I am intrigued by your idea of a one layer model. Please give more detail. Are we talking about  a pod and one riser?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 21, 2012, 01:47:43 PM
I tried AlgoDoo before I started my sim.  It was fun, but frustrating to try to make a realistic ZED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 21, 2012, 01:56:00 PM
@See3d. I am intrigued by your idea of a one layer model. Please give more detail. Are we talking about  a pod and one riser?
Were you able to download my PDF?  It has many details.
I am revising it today.  I will announce when the new version is available.
Yes, Pod and 1 layer in the riser.  Super simple.
  |''''|___|''''|  Riser
|__|_____|__| Tank
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 21, 2012, 02:12:47 PM
Oops. Looks like I forgot something...
 ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khZtoyjF4aA
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 21, 2012, 02:46:20 PM
@Mrwayne. On your website you say that there is to be a change of emphasis, and that you are now working on a simple basic table top model. I get the impression that you are still having problems with the data collection model, in that although it consistently demonstrates OU, it fails to meet some other criterion that you have set yourself, and for that reason you have not yet called in Mark Dansie. You may [or not ] wish to tell us more about that.
       I did say months ago that IMO a simple basic model would be more convincing to a casual observer, so this change of policy definately has a positive side. The new challenge is exciting, and I am sure there will be people who will rise to that challenge.
       One thing I found strange is this. Re the challenge model, I don`t think you gave any specification on the size of this model. And yet you say that gaps of a quarter or half an inch between ringwalls and risers will work OK. This is a bigger gap than in your Data collection model, yet I was envisaging a much smaller model would be built for the challenge. Could you please help to clarify this. I love the idea of a self acting water pump model, simpler than trying to generate electricity, and yet has a visible measurable output.
@See3d. I am intrigued by your idea of a one layer model. Please give more detail. Are we talking about  a pod and one riser?
Multi Question AHHHH my little brain.. just kidding.
The decision to do a parallel build - for a measureable system - is in case it takes much longer to wrap things up for Mark.
I have a lot the utmost respect for his teams bravery and efforts - and I am ready to wrap things up and move on to the next phase.

To be very clear - we are very overunity - it can be measured now - inputs and putputs - we are fighting external issues.

It started with fighting the check valves - remember when I said the capture system does not like to store and supply at the same time - well this is still and issue after the split of the accumulator - now we are bypassing the check valves to see if that is the issue.

We reduced the number of check valves - seemed to get better - we split the accumulators increased the pressure range - now we are bypassing the check valves - I will probably add pilot assisted spool valves - if it turns out to be the Check valve.

- we have 6750pounds of thrust and either the fluid does not go thru the check valve deign parameters - new blockage - sabotage lol - or we are bending the input shaft dead head - (cross beams needed) - the bypass today/tomorrow- will will tell us.

So - knowing we are having trouble with our hydraulic system - not the ZED - we entertained modification to the system - but decided since anew system might have as many issues - to split up - one team (and the challengers) to build the simple input out put desk top - to help our Presentations - or even better a self running system.

Bigger gap - we have done extensive work on the stroke and expansion capabilities of the layering system - it can handle larger gaps - which makes the system easier to build - and more output.

I personally would build the system a little larger than Webbys - if you are going for the $10K it is much more forgiving and has room to handle waste (losses) and better to control.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 21, 2012, 03:27:50 PM
I'm trying to figure out a lowfriction lightweight way to keep risers and stationary walls concentric without adding drag and of course with allowing air and water to pass freely.  I'm envisioning something like a Teflon "star" or "gear" with teeth pointing out and in, like a ring, that can slip over the inner tube and ride between it and the outer tube smoothly with loose clearance, preserving the interwall spacing and keeping everything concentric.

Haven't read to the end of the thread yet this morning, so please excuse me if this has already been mentioned:
 
Once the ZED is set up (initialized) you always have greater pressure in each inner annulus.  So the outermost annulus (water ring in this case) contains the lowest pressures.  The next inner annulus contains a bit higher pressure at each height when compared to the pressure on the outer side of a given stationary or riser wall.  So the system (once set up) is self centering.  I believe Wayne called this hydrostatic centering or something like that in the patent app.
 
This effect also allows for thin walled members since the relative pressures inside any annulus wall are small due to only slightly lower pressures on the outside of that wall at the same heights.
 
The only problem comes with a sealed Pod that is in the highest pressure zone of the ZED: the center Pod chamber.  So a material that can handle the pressures there is needed, or you need to pressurize the Pod internally to keep the maximum pressure differential on the Pod to a reasonable level.
 
If you keep the Pod bottom open the pressure differential issue is eliminated again, but you loose some lift due to air compression in the Pod.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 21, 2012, 03:30:29 PM
Yes, I was able to download the pdf [it took some time] - whether I can see pics posted on the forum or not depends on the day & hour sometimes, especially when demand is high - currently my service is throttled right back because my month plan was exceeded some weeks ago - nevertheless I can usually see some of a picture [or none at all] so a descriptive of how formula's are made & conclusions reached in clear terms are appreciated to aid understanding.

I've found that I can "right click" on just a picture and ask it to open in another window with great success when they fail to open in the actual forum page.  FWIW.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 21, 2012, 03:55:47 PM
Quote
I'm trying to figure out a lowfriction lightweight way to keep risers and stationary walls concentric without adding drag and of course with allowing air and water to pass freely.  I'm envisioning something like a Teflon "star" or "gear" with teeth pointing out and in, like a ring, that can slip over the inner tube and ride between it and the outer tube smoothly with loose clearance, preserving the interwall spacing and keeping everything concentric.

For a larger system and possibly even for what's being presented as model size I would consider an external alignment system like many industrial press applications use. With polished rods and recirculating bearings or Teflon sleeves friction could be quite low, and alignment accuracy very high.

A thought
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on August 21, 2012, 04:05:33 PM
Quote
I tried AlgoDoo before I started my sim.  It was fun, but frustrating to try to make a realistic ZED.

Disappointingly, this is my conclusion too. It seems to do a lot really well, and it's certainly fun and easy to use. However, there doesn't appear to be a way to handle pressure properly.

Guess it's back to the drawing board.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 21, 2012, 04:06:20 PM
@mrwayne. Thanks for that detailed report-fascinating and reassuring that things are still on track. Great news about wider gaps. That re-introduces the possibility of building from a wide range of "found materials" aka junk. Could well encourage more people to play around .
@See3d/Yes I managed to look at your material, but am only a bit basic when it comes to mathematics. Many thanks.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 21, 2012, 04:53:03 PM
na
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 21, 2012, 04:56:47 PM
MrWayne or others,

I am new to this thread and off course did not go through all the posts but I have a general question;
I read that the ZED has between 104 and 300% overunity depending of the number of layers but read also that there is no external input whatsoever not even compressed air so how is calculated the overunity?

it should be output/input but input is zero, so to what correspond the 100% if one layer gives 103%

tks

Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 21, 2012, 05:11:38 PM
@Parisd. I will have a shot at answering this. In order to lift, a Zed does need input, usually the injection of some water into the pod chamber. When the limit of lift [stroke] is reached, the contents of the zed are still under pressure. So as we release this pressure , we can make use of this pressure to partially pressurise another Zed. What corresponds to 100%? That would be  a simple Archimedes Buoyancy system.
  A two Zed system uses no external input , as the pressure is shuttled back and forward between the 2 Zeds. A percentage of the output power has to be used to aid this process.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: polln8r on August 22, 2012, 12:13:05 AM
Oops. Looks like I forgot something...
 ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khZtoyjF4aA

Interesting setup... difficult to tell what's going on through the dark green section. How does it work? And, hot glue's great for many things, but not so much for water-tightness (although, if you use enough it'll get you by ;)).


polln8r
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 22, 2012, 12:43:09 AM
It's a combination hydraulic-pneumatic system [like being mentioned on this thread except without buoyancy] - overall there's a net reduction in system PE i.e. the system CoM lowers over time - PE of water is converted to KE of water & height achieved [PE] for a portion of that water.

The system PE is restored when the water is added at the top of the bowl - a kind of hydraulic clock that needs rewinding.

Not OU but shows looks can be deceiving & a bit of fun by TK.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 22, 2012, 12:56:02 AM
@webby, thanks, I thought the risers were sealed at the top, I just woke up and I don't quite understand yet what you  mean by 'feed tube' in the context of the risers.

In my original mental picture I thought your risers are only open on the bottom, and I thought that increased depth would force more water up the bottom, compressing the air but also reducing the displaced volume and hence also the lift force, just like the Cartesian diver.

I'll have to have some coffee and think about your numbers.
Again, thanks for indulging a silly old Koala.
---TK


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 22, 2012, 01:12:00 AM
For a larger system and possibly even for what's being presented as model size I would consider an external alignment system like many industrial press applications use. With polished rods and recirculating bearings or Teflon sleeves friction could be quite low, and alignment accuracy very high.

A thought
Dale
I agree and that is the way I'd do it in a big, machined system... if it is necessary. But mondrasek reminded us that the patent application speaks of this automatic centering caused by the pressure distribution. I'm not quite able to wrap my mind around that one yet without some more experimentation, and I'm a little worried about capillary effects when wall spacing is small wrt wetted area. If you, say, float a 1-inch ID O-ring on the top of a tub of water, then put a 1/2-inch OD O-ring to float inside the first one, surface tension/capillary effect will cause the two to come together instead of centering concentrically, I think.

It may even be possible just to float some plastic spheres of the right diameter on the water surface "ring" around the annular walls. Like 5mm plastic bbs for airsoft guns. If they were, say, 0.5 mm smaller than the normal clearance they'd float in there like the balls in a bearing, and my intuition tells me that the water surfaces are going to remain near the centers of mass of the riser vertically, so just the single layer of spheres at the water surface won't make the riser "" or ride crooked, they should automagically be in just about the right place to provide clean and constant spacing separation between riser and fixed wall.

ETA: lol, the missing word in the "" quotes must be a forbidden forum word.  What crows at dawn, is also what a rooster or male pea... bird is called, and means "run crooked" and is also what you do to a rifle before you can fire it.... heh.....
Dirty he who dirty thinks.. .this forum has a dirty mind, because "" is forbidden, so is "", but many other really foul words are allowed like the "f" bomb, British nasties like b****r, even the German slang version of our English "f" bomb are allowed, but you dare not speak of the pea-hen's husband, and if you are going to the range for some target practice, be sure to un.... er, un......  well, just don't pull back the hammer until you get there.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 22, 2012, 01:29:49 AM
@webby:
That's interesting, I can't quite understand why that self centering would happen. Is there a difference in the area between two different sized circles, if they are concentric vs. wall-touching? If the area is different then I can understand the self centering effect, but I think the areas are the same, geometrically, and so for cylinders so would be the volume. I'm not confident of this though, I'll have to look in some geometry books or make some drawings, try to remember how to prove a Euclidian theorem... heh, with my ossified brain not likely. Maybe I'll just cut out some shapes and weigh them, that much I can still do.

When you were giving the riser dry weights and sink weights earlier I thought they were out of the system so the feed tube didn't come into play?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 22, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
@webby:
That's interesting, I can't quite understand why that self centering would happen.
Simple as it can get example of self centering.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 22, 2012, 03:45:49 AM
Hi All,

I was preparing to release an updated version of my simulator PDF document tonight, but that is not going to happen.  Just as I was finishing up, I realized that I had made a conceptual error in the sim.  I have to rework the formulas one more time -- again.

The road to success is a series of learning experiences that some call failures.  No, just "1000 ways not to build a lightbulb".

Back to the drawing board...

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 22, 2012, 04:08:21 AM
@LarryC: Thanks for your drawing. But please look down at the system from above, not at it sideways. As I understand it there are no balloons in there, but a cylindrical chamber filled with air and water. Will this still self-center? No balloons please unless they are in the actual device we are discussing.

ETA: I don't know, either way, I'd just like to understand how. It sure would be nice if it did self center, that would eliminate a bunch of design problems.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 22, 2012, 04:10:46 AM
For your amusement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2M05d8J8fU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8OVSPVKLBI


 :P
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 22, 2012, 04:16:14 AM
You asked for a test and asked a question, the one where my max lift was 1204g was done with the system assembled and using the feed tube and displacement piston for the input, the weights I gave for the  risers were with them out of the system.

Ah, Ok, I reread your post after a couple cups of coffee and now I get it, thanks.  I understood you used the full setup for the big lift, I just needed to know the input, and you gave me that, I think, if I can remember the weight that pushed the piston down.

And earlier you said something about a full riser sinking... does that affect your earlier sink weight measurements?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 22, 2012, 04:22:33 AM
@see3d: your attitude is admirable. The essence of the scientific method is the search for one's own errors, the attempt to refute one's own hypotheses, the unflinching examination of data no matter where it leads, even over the cliff of career destruction ( google HeLa Adam Curtis Documentary).
Keep it up and thank you for your hard work.... I know how difficult numerical modelling of physical systems can be.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 22, 2012, 04:34:22 AM
@see3d: your attitude is admirable. The essence of the scientific method is the search for one's own errors, the attempt to refute one's own hypotheses, the unflinching examination of data no matter where it leads, even over the cliff of career destruction ( google HeLa Adam Curtis Documentary).
Keep it up and thank you for your hard work.... I know how difficult numerical modelling of physical systems can be.

Yes, especially systems I didn't understand before I started.

Thanks for the kind words.

I have a personal motto:  Never give up!  How can someone be called a failure if he is still trying to succeed.  However, to give up is to admit failure.  I am allowed to refine my goals as I learn more though... :-)

Thanks for the video on the fountain.  Say, where did you find that human to do the grippy stuff for you on assembling it... LOL
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on August 22, 2012, 06:20:02 AM

It may even be possible just to float some plastic spheres of the right diameter on the water surface "ring" around the annular walls


Why not use some cheapie nylon rollers? A pair arranged vertically, repeated in a triangular or quad fashion (if viewed from top) should work, low friction, low weight.


Question: what is the desired mass target for actual risers themselves...weight wise...lighter is better, middling, or there some value they need to be optimally?


That is, should they be lighter than the water, or heavier, or neutrally buoyant...


Stated again, if sunk in the water sideways like a filled cup, assuming it is deep enough, they would a) float bigtime, b) float just under the surface, or c) sink fairly quickly d) sink like a filled Titanic.


rc

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Lakes on August 22, 2012, 08:31:44 AM
For your amusement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2M05d8J8fU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8OVSPVKLBI


 :P
Excellent demo.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 22, 2012, 11:40:05 AM
@LarryC, reference your diagram with the balloons. I can see what you are trying to show, but at this stage I remain unconvinced. IMO, for the diagram to represent reality, You would need to show a tube connecting the necks of the two balloons together. As shown , the balloons would cause centering, but in real life, as things go off centre, air is free to flow around the riser to the other side.


Regarding the centring issue generally,what is required depends on if we are using a stand alone Zed, or if it forms part of a more complex machine, for example a self runner. For a stand alone Zed just being used to lift weights, strips of plastic used as spacers could work.
        For a self runner, I would build it like the old beam engines[steam]. By using two parallel beams, one above the other, [Desaguliers Beams], the risers, which Wayne said may all be fixed together, would be forced to move up and down without cocking. They would actually move in a slight arc, but remember the stroke is short, and the beam  could be relatively long. By placing the beams fulcrum off centre, we could amplify the stroke length if desired. For a self runner I favour a crankshaft and flywheel setup.
      The fact that the risers move in a slight arc is less important now that Wayne has said that gaps can be up to half an inch.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 22, 2012, 02:38:27 PM
On the question of self centering.
I grasped the idea from our bearingless pond pump - it directs the water pumped around the free floating armature - best pump I ever had.
Also - I worked AT Anhueser Busch for 19 years (until I was funded for thisproject) - the most important bearings were Hydraulic - non - contact bearings - precise to .00001
Also - real world application our six foot Zeds - no guides - .20 gaps do not touch during operation.
The alignment with the output shaft and Final riser is important
Important to note - the inner pressure is always greater - so the alignment improves as you near the center.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 22, 2012, 06:55:31 PM
The feed tube is a long cylinder I attached at to the bottom of the unit and feeds the pod chamber, inside the feed tube is a close clearance piston so that when I push down on the piston the water is pushed up the sides of the piston raising the head, if you will and allowing it all to enter into the system through the pod chamber.
@Webby1.Can i ask you a few questions please.
1. I suppose you have thought of this, but is the piston in the feed tube neutrally buoyant? If not, and it tends to float, you are wasting energy sinking it.


2. Could you give your best rough estimate of how many cycles per minute are possible in a Zed of the size you built?


3. Wayne has said that in proposed very large machines he proposes to use a crankshaft. I, and no doubt others have thought of using a crankshaft in a small model.In using a crankshaft, a flywheel is desirable to carry the crank over the dead centres.  If the crankshaft turns slowly, as it must, we need to gear up the flywheel to run at reasonable RPM, to preclude the need for a large heavy flywheel.
 My question is this. From your observations, would you say that the pause at top dead centre and bottom dead centre can be short enough to avoid stopping the crankshaft at those points?


If I am thinking right, and we use a crankshaft, then it would be possible to operate the piston on your feed tube by a separate crank on the same crankshaft, having a larger "throw" than the crank connected to the ZED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 22, 2012, 11:18:42 PM


Question: what is the desired mass target for actual risers themselves...weight wise...lighter is better, middling, or there some value they need to be optimally?


That is, should they be lighter than the water, or heavier, or neutrally buoyant...


Stated again, if sunk in the water sideways like a filled cup, assuming it is deep enough, they would

a) float bigtime

b) float just under the surface

c) sink fairly quickly

d) sink like a filled Titanic.

rc


No one in the know seems to want to answer your question or it's been missed - I'll give some observations/comments for you to consider - I'm not sure whether you are talking about Webby's build or a single layer ZED build - I'll assume you mean a generic single layer ZED that see3d is simulating, & so I'll relate these comments to his simulation diagrams which you can find by downloading his pdf a few pages back.

If you start with the proposition that the ZED unit is at equilibrium [all forces are equalized] & that the riser is NOT latched, & that the system is not pressurized, then the volume density of the riser dictates where the water levels are up the side of the riser - incidentally, for an unpressurized system this will be the position of least Potential Energy.

Assuming that the riser is made of dense & strong material to reduce deformation then it is likely to be hollow with thin walls - the "Floatation Law" will decide how high the riser would be in relation to the surface [or apparent surface] of the water.

1. If the riser volume density is greater than the same volume of water then it will sink to the bottom.

N.B. there is still an buoyancy force so its apparent weight will still be significant - there will be no upthrust net force.

2. If the riser volume density is equal to the same volume of water then it will be neutrally buoyant [the same as having the same packet of water instead of the riser volume].

3. If the riser volume density is less that the same volume of water then it will rise in relation to the water surface level.

N.B.1. If the riser volume density is very low it would float above a water level with most of it visible above the water line - if its volume density is medium perhaps only 1/3 to a 1/2 etc would be visible - if its volume density is rather high but still less than water not much would be visible above the water line, like an iceberg.

N.B.2. The buoyancy force [using Archimedes examples] is the inverse of the gravitational force of the same volume of water - if the riser had no mass the upthrust force would be equal & opposite to the force of gravity acting on the same volume of water - then you subtract from the buoyancy force the gravity force acting on the actual mass of the riser [this is the apparent weight] - you are left with a NET upthrust force - this upthrust force is inverse & proportional to the riser density/mass, therefore more apparent weight means reduced upthrust force to use to do Work.

.................

What this means in the single layer ZED is that we don't have contiguous water surface levels - there is water rising up the sides of the riser.

We can deduce that the riser is at equilibrium, not under pressure, & that it has a medium buoyancy & therefore a medium upthrust capability.

Change the materials of the riser to change the mass & all those relationship reach a new equilibrium & Work capability, including water levels.

.................

Where it becomes important in the ZED is because it is purportedly not a true Archimedes buoyancy system - so what we see when the ZED is at the START of a cycle [i.e. in equilibrium & position of least PE] is water pressure levels & head developed - the head is from the meniscus of the outside water column adjacent the pod wall & open to ambient air.

The water pressure increases with depth from that datum [which moves upwards when the cycle is started & the piston does Work on the system] - the important bit is that water pressure has no shearing moment, IOW's, it acts at right angles to any & all surfaces.

So there will be an upward force [water pressure] on the underside of the riser [this pressure cum force is derived by apparent depth from head height] - there will be a greater water pressure cum force acting downwards vertically on the piston head, also derived from apparent water depth - N.B. there is no normal Archimedes water volume displacement to create this head depth but the pressures/force 'feel' & act as though there was. EDIT: i.e. the pressures developed mean that the piston has to do Work as though it were lifting an equivalent mass of water.

Remembering that as the piston does Work [expends energy] on the system the water head rises & since the riser is latched & released when the upthrust force is optimized, it will move upwards generating a useable force to do Work - then the system enters the second stage of the cycle & returns to equilibrium & position of least PE, to start over.

That's my take & hope it helps.

P.S. - the traditional science view says that the Work Done/Energy Input on the piston, which in turn pressurizes the air pocket & raisers the H2 water level, which creates the head [when the riser is in locked down mode], is the same Work Done/Energy as the riser upthrust capability in Work/Energy Output, less system losses of energy.

So we are trying to identify where the anomaly is that allows apparent OU if measurements are correct as reported by Mr Wayne - it would seem that it might be contained in the pneumatic portion of the system somehow, but then that fly's in the face of some contributors comments about different density fluids [non compressible] showing the same potentials which would seem to rule out pneumatic contribution as the cause.

The upshot being that more energy out than in, empirically proven, would prove that gravity [from which buoyancy is a considered a  downstream effect] is not conservative & that the laws of thermodynamics would need amendment IF no environmental energy entered the system - this would be a game changer at so many levels that its importance couldn't be underestimated.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 23, 2012, 01:23:19 AM
@fletcher: thanks for that walkthrough, it makes good sense to me. I hope mrwayne will tell us if he approves of the description too.

(I see that you also find that "virtual water" is important to the cycle !   ;)   )

So.. I think I'm getting near a single-layer TinselZed here, what do you think?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 23, 2012, 02:00:37 AM
The TinselZed looks good TK - actually I was hoping you'd do a test rig & report on its performance characteristics.

Then this will help the sim builders like see3d test the veracity of their sims & further check the logic.

P.S. BTW thanks Mondrasek for the tip a few pages back - you learn something every day  :D - I was able to right click Larry's image & view it on a clip board immediately in full, even though the original had frozen 1/4 completed.

Unfortunately right clicking TK's photo's didn't have the same result for some reason so I'm having to guess some of what you are showing TK  :( - can always wait for the vid later I suppose.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 23, 2012, 02:05:29 AM
tk,
 didn't you tell me the engineering books you know of say these things can't work ?
 yep, have to believe your posts to me were personal.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 23, 2012, 02:38:09 AM
What a day!

As you all know, my team has been trying to trouble shoot a system error for nearly six weeks now - OM gosh it was lot of work.

Our probelm was - in simple terms - when we turned up the production (and resistance) - the the system seemed to have hydraulic blockage meaning - we could not run for anything.....

Today , Robert suggested that one of the tie rods on our production cylinders was not torqued equally with the rest - so we loosened them and then torqued them as instructed - immediate next test "Blockage /stoppage" GONE - praise God, and thank you Robert...whew.

We are all pretty excited around here.

I have not been able to spend as much time - and have had a few distractions - but I will try to catch up and answer what "I see" that is not already answered by some of the group.

If I skip a question, please just ask it again.

Thanks Wayne
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 23, 2012, 03:03:05 AM
First question off the top of my head ...
 
Why the $5K and $10k Challenge?

I understand - good question - no .... it is not to overcome problems for us..No..... it is not to steal your improvements..
If you remember - the challenge was in using the current released information - I did not ask for improvements.

Final Answer:
We know it works - and we want you to know also.

The Money:
The Money, was donated to us by a good man - I want it put to good use. Please realize that no matter what i say - it is suspect - but third party replication - protects us all (that is very valuable).

The share certificates are from me - I very much value the 20% who actually do most of the work.

Many of you have expressed the desire to tests and mentioned funding - I am a probelm solver.

This challenge should take no more than a couple weeks.

If you build it five layers - it is hard to not get positive results.... A ton of variations work fine.

P.s. I keep my word.

I will re-post the challenge in the next day on my Web site.

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 23, 2012, 03:34:21 AM
No one in the know seems to want to answer your question or it's been missed - I'll give some observations/comments for you to consider - I'm not sure whether you are talking about Webby's build or a single layer ZED build - I'll assume you mean a generic single layer ZED that see3d is simulating, & so I'll relate these comments to his simulation diagrams which you can find by downloading his pdf a few pages back.

If you start with the proposition that the ZED unit is at equilibrium [all forces are equalized] & that the riser is NOT latched, & that the system is not pressurized, then the volume density of the riser dictates where the water levels are up the side of the riser - incidentally, for an unpressurized system this will be the position of least Potential Energy.

Assuming that the riser is made of dense & strong material to reduce deformation then it is likely to be hollow with thin walls - the "Floatation Law" will decide how high the riser would be in relation to the surface [or apparent surface] of the water.

1. If the riser volume density is greater than the same volume of water then it will sink to the bottom.

N.B. there is still an buoyancy force so its apparent weight will still be significant - there will be no upthrust net force.

2. If the riser volume density is equal to the same volume of water then it will be neutrally buoyant [the same as having the same packet of water instead of the riser volume].

3. If the riser volume density is less that the same volume of water then it will rise in relation to the water surface level.

N.B.1. If the riser volume density is very low it would float above a water level with most of it visible above the water line - if its volume density is medium perhaps only 1/3 to a 1/2 etc would be visible - if its volume density is rather high but still less than water not much would be visible above the water line, like an iceberg.

N.B.2. The buoyancy force [using Archimedes examples] is the inverse of the gravitational force of the same volume of water - if the riser had no mass the upthrust force would be equal & opposite to the force of gravity acting on the same volume of water - then you subtract from the buoyancy force the gravity force acting on the actual mass of the riser [this is the apparent weight] - you are left with a NET upthrust force - this upthrust force is inverse & proportional to the riser density/mass, therefore more apparent weight means reduced upthrust force to use to do Work.

.................

What this means in the single layer ZED is that we don't have contiguous water surface levels - there is water rising up the sides of the riser.

We can deduce that the riser is at equilibrium, not under pressure, & that it has a medium buoyancy & therefore a medium upthrust capability.

Change the materials of the riser to change the mass & all those relationship reach a new equilibrium & Work capability, including water levels.

.................

Where it becomes important in the ZED is because it is purportedly not a true Archimedes buoyancy system - so what we see when the ZED is at the START of a cycle [i.e. in equilibrium & position of least PE] is water pressure levels & head developed - the head is from the meniscus of the outside water column adjacent the pod wall & open to ambient air.

The water pressure increases with depth from that datum [which moves upwards when the cycle is started & the piston does Work on the system] - the important bit is that water pressure has no shearing moment, IOW's, it acts at right angles to any & all surfaces.

So there will be an upward force [water pressure] on the underside of the riser [this pressure cum force is derived by apparent depth from head height] - there will be a greater water pressure cum force acting downwards vertically on the piston head, also derived from apparent water depth - N.B. there is no normal Archimedes water volume displacement to create this head depth but the pressures/force 'feel' & act as though there was. EDIT: i.e. the pressures developed mean that the piston has to do Work as though it were lifting an equivalent mass of water.

Remembering that as the piston does Work [expends energy] on the system the water head rises & since the riser is latched & released when the upthrust force is optimized, it will move upwards generating a useable force to do Work - then the system enters the second stage of the cycle & returns to equilibrium & position of least PE, to start over.

That's my take & hope it helps.

P.S. - the traditional science view says that the Work Done/Energy Input on the piston, which in turn pressurizes the air pocket & raisers the H2 water level, which creates the head [when the riser is in locked down mode], is the same Work Done/Energy as the riser upthrust capability in Work/Energy Output, less system losses of energy.

So we are trying to identify where the anomaly is that allows apparent OU if measurements are correct as reported by Mr Wayne - it would seem that it might be contained in the pneumatic portion of the system somehow, but then that fly's in the face of some contributors comments about different density fluids [non compressible] showing the same potentials which would seem to rule out pneumatic contribution as the cause.

The upshot being that more energy out than in, empirically proven, would prove that gravity [from which buoyancy is a considered a  downstream effect] is not conservative & that the laws of thermodynamics would need amendment IF no environmental energy entered the system - this would be a game changer at so many levels that its importance couldn't be underestimated.
I am a little overwhelmed at the quality of this response -
So let me say a few things that popped in my head when trying to follow it.

The Neutral buoyancy question (for the riser) - normally - less weight means more output - that is in a traditional system - but our is Non- linear.

This means - a certain amount of weight - at the right range of the polynominal - is a great advantage - cheap to lift and valuable to sink - cost reduction in both directions. Loss of ideal output - but a great reduction in the cost of a less than ideal output.

The density of the water is also important - yet it is not the "expansion of the air"  where we operate the piston - or pull power out of the system - this is a mistaken understanding of our operation. - at the end of the up stroke - all the air is still compressed to the highest point - which is the same as the precharge compressed value - only we raised the height of the water below the pod to stroke - inch for inch - after precharge.
(side note - the air does expand - but while we are lowering - not rising - and not all the way - just until the weight of the risers equalize with the head).

We use the heavy density "water" to pressurize the lighter density air - and when the equilibrium of the load is met - we maintain this equilibrium to stroke.

The lighter density is what pushes up - if you could measure the density of the air - you would see that the force applied to the riser is minus the value of that density - it would be easy to measure in a mercury water set up.

Mercury More density) could replace the water, and Water could replace the Air (less density) and the system would work much better - not thirteen times better -  because water has more density than air (twelve times better would be a safe bet).

A mercury water system would not have expansion and allow for extreme control of the water levels during operation.

I hope this helps - it is important to understand that this system is a pressure diffirential system - casued by gravitys effect on density - the seperating walls redistribute where the diffirential is focused.
The mass "reuse" is what causes the ZED to be Over Unity ....TK's Virtual Mass is the begining of the real understanding.
It also answers where the Energy Comes from - hope to see you all their!

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 23, 2012, 03:46:55 AM
@Webby1.Can i ask you a few questions please.
1. I suppose you have thought of this, but is the piston in the feed tube neutrally buoyant? If not, and it tends to float, you are wasting energy sinking it.


2. Could you give your best rough estimate of how many cycles per minute are possible in a Zed of the size you built?


3. Wayne has said that in proposed very large machines he proposes to use a crankshaft. I, and no doubt others have thought of using a crankshaft in a small model.In using a crankshaft, a flywheel is desirable to carry the crank over the dead centres.  If the crankshaft turns slowly, as it must, we need to gear up the flywheel to run at reasonable RPM, to preclude the need for a large heavy flywheel.
 My question is this. From your observations, would you say that the pause at top dead centre and bottom dead centre can be short enough to avoid stopping the crankshaft at those points?


If I am thinking right, and we use a crankshaft, then it would be possible to operate the piston on your feed tube by a separate crank on the same crankshaft, having a larger "throw" than the crank connected to the ZED.

The rpm is pretty slow - 3.7 stroke per minute on our system.

One of my engineers wants to use a crankshaft -
I "flat top" my output - but with a crankshaft you can charge to ideal and capture.
The value - while the ideal decreases during stroke (this is how they get overunity out of  a single ZED).

So the crankshaft is better use of the size of the machine - but making it a little bit bigger and flat topping is easy to capture.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 23, 2012, 03:59:14 AM
Hey TK,
My very first pod was a glass mason jar - -- it was heavy and since the pod floats due to direct discplacement - a lighter pod turned out to be the best.

But you can measure the additive characteristics - the pod and your first riser pretty simply.

The Pod will "virtually" be a mass displacement for each layer after that.

If you account for all the virtual mass - in each successive layer - all the buoyancy - compared to Archimedes' displacement -will be accounted for.

Have fun!

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 23, 2012, 11:40:17 AM
tk,
 didn't you tell me the engineering books you know of say these things can't work ?
 yep, have to believe your posts to me were personal.
No, Jim, what I _suggested_ to you is that you take a look at one particular engineering textbook , the fundamental course in engineering mechanics, Beer and Johnston's "Statics and Dynamics" ... one that is used by many colleges of engineering, in its 9th edition, 2010, and I gave you the website for the Student Edition where you have access to just about the entire text. Did you look?
And I also think I reminded you and everyone else that violating the fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics is Big News, not some matter for internet forum chitchat and tinkering. If... that is... it is actually happening. Is that what you are referring to?

Yah, that's pretty personal, I guess.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 23, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
Hey TK,
My very first pod was a glass mason jar - -- it was heavy and since the pod floats due to direct discplacement - a lighter pod turned out to be the best.

But you can measure the additive characteristics - the pod and your first riser pretty simply.

The Pod will "virtually" be a mass displacement for each layer after that.

If you account for all the virtual mass - in each successive layer - all the buoyancy - compared to Archimedes' displacement -will be accounted for.

Have fun!

Wayne

Thanks, it is already fun. I'm just looking at the geometry right now and making several variants. Drinking lots of instant coffee ! This that I showed above will just be a single layer, if I understand the term. Pod, riser 1, ringwall, outer chamber wall. I made it so that riser2 can go, I hope, over the inner parts and between the ringwall and the outer chamber wall, making a 2 layer system. I haven't been able to find the right jar for riser2 yet though.

You think I am just clowning around, but I think that your Zed system -- or rather my variant of it, with the permanently sunken pod -- might actually work, to increase the air pressure in the input reservoir of my PerPump and drive the head even higher.... than the 8 1/4 measured inches it can already pump above the base of the input cup. Maybe. In my dreams, anyway.

Some more irrelevant irreverent video for your amusement: measuring the pressure head of the Fountain of Heron perpetual self-powered water pump, with several variants tested. You can already see one effect of the precharged TinselZed variant: the "gulping" that is caused by the variation in the internal water levels when I provide some back pressure as I make the head height measurement on that system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0P50ra2go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0P50ra2go)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 23, 2012, 12:11:59 PM
You think I am just clowning around,

No, not much ....   :o
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 23, 2012, 02:57:28 PM
Attached picture is to help the model builders and was created due to a question I received from a model builder. After you study it, you should realize what would happen if you press down on your model after rise before water release.
 
I am not building and do not need to be part of any team. I am assisting a couple of builders with data, so to be fair, I will assist others that PM. But first come, first serve.
 
This is close to scale, to see the relative volume difference between the 3" of water below the pod and the water gap between the pod and the pod retainer wall. So you may need to expand to see clearly.

 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 23, 2012, 03:42:00 PM
Attached picture is to help the model builders and was created due to a question I received from a model builder. After you study it, you should realize what would happen if you press down on your model after rise before water release.
 
I am not building and do not need to be part of any team. I am assisting a couple of builders with data, so to be fair, I will assist others that PM. But first come, first serve.
 
This is close to scale, to see the relative volume difference between the 3" of water below the pod and the water gap between the pod and the pod retainer wall. So you may need to expand to see clearly.

 
Regards, Larry
Thank you Larry,
You continue to show that you are a real team member!
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 23, 2012, 03:48:31 PM
Attention to those who are taking the TBZED $5k or $10K challenge,
Please e-mail me at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I have something to send to you.
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 23, 2012, 05:37:22 PM
P.S. BTW thanks Mondrasek for the tip a few pages back - you learn something every day  :D - I was able to right click Larry's image & view it on a clip board immediately in full, even though the original had frozen 1/4 completed.

Unfortunately right clicking TK's photo's didn't have the same result for some reason so I'm having to guess some of what you are showing TK  :( - can always wait for the vid later I suppose.

Hmm.  If you have only tried copying to a clipboard I would still try "copy link in new tab" or "copy link in new window."  Both of those should allow the internet to keep doing its "retry" for missing packets thingy I think.  Not sure how many retries a single "copy/paste" cycle will get you.
 
Cheers!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 23, 2012, 06:04:45 PM
Some more irrelevant irreverent video for your amusement: measuring the pressure head of the Fountain of Heron perpetual self-powered water pump, with several variants tested. You can already see one effect of the precharged TinselZed variant: the "gulping" that is caused by the variation in the internal water levels when I provide some back pressure as I make the head height measurement on that system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0P50ra2go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0P50ra2go)

Nice control tests.  So finally you route the "input" from the top of the fountain into the "Pod chamber" instead of into the outer annulus and you should have the now "corrected" TinselZED output to test by comparison.  If the TinselZED has more output in the "corrected" configuration, your Heron fountain "output" head pressure should increase?
 
Interesting.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 23, 2012, 06:36:31 PM
As I said few days ago I am new to the ZED device, curious but not catching up rapidly and have no or little access to the available videos (in SA even a fast internet connection does not allow watching Youtube.com unless in the middle of the night)

I have seen one simple demonstration of the Travis effect which I do not understand, the Archimede principle is not function of the height it is function of the volume of water displaced (this statement is not from me!), if it was function of the height then a thin and tall man with heavy bones would sink in water when in horizontal position and would just have to stand-up in the water to return to the surface. Its not working like this. The archimede force will increase only if the volume of the mass inserted in the water increases; our guy would have to pull out his belly to have a slight chance to float !

Now in the Travis effect demonstration video I have seen, the reason why it takes a heavier weight to keep the second cup under water is because we are compressing the air inside this cup and it is compressed until the air almost escape from the sides (this is a simple piston effect). As soon as the cup move few mm up the effect disappears, unless all the system moves together which is probably how it works. In such case of compressed air, the air volume decreases so the Archimede force decreases too, not what we expect. In addition injecting compressed air required a bigger effort (energy).

I am not saying that it  cannot work, I just dont catch it with the information I have. I believe the Archimede force is like a shielding to gravity, so I would not be surprised someone managed to shield then un-schield and recuperate potential energy this way. Just surprised this happen in 2012 !

To finish, I have seen mentioned large weight involved (thousands of pounds), but when one weight goes up an identical weight goes down so the global effort to move them can be close to zero.

Hope to catch up soon...

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 23, 2012, 07:07:04 PM
About the statements that buoyancy is dependent on the water height...
 
Officially, buoyancy is dependant on the weight of the water displaced.  But the weight of the water is the Volume x Density of the water.  And the Volume is (for a vertical cylinder like the Pod or Risers) Surface Area (of one end) x Height.
 
So if buoyancy is:
 
B = V x d  (where B=buoyancy, V=Volume, and d=density of H2O)
 
and V = (pi x r^2) x H (where r = radius of the vertical cylinder, and H=height of the submerged portion of the cylinder)
 
then:
 
B = (pi x r^2) x H x d
 
Now for a given cylindrical Pod or Riser:  pi, r, and d are constants.
 
So the buoyancy will change when the H (height of the submerged portion of the cylinder) changes.
 
In the ZED setup, we change the amount of water in the system below the Pod and Risers, and this effectively changes the H.
 
M.
 
PS.  Sorry not to include units and the proper way to show something "squared."  It is only because the former is too laborious at the moment and the later is something I do not know how!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 23, 2012, 07:53:00 PM
@Parisd. You say " when one large weight goes up, the other goes down." This is not exactly what is being claimed. In the case of a single Zed, as I understand it, when the Zed reaches the top of its stroke, a large percentage of the weight being lifted can then be removed, leaving sufficient weight to sink the risers as water is released from the pod chamber.
     Now consider Wayne`s large data collection machine. In stead of lifting weights, the effort of the Zes is used to compress hydraulic rams. These are used as pumps . They pump oil into a hydraulic accumulator. The pressurised oil represents stored energy. It is prevented from returning to the rams by one way valves. The stored energy in the accumulator is used for two purposes.


1 Part of the pressurised oil is used to help push water into the pod chambers of each Zed in turn.


2 Part is used to drive a hydraulic motor which turns an alternator to provide "free" output energy.


Hope this helps your understanding.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 23, 2012, 08:37:09 PM
@mondrasek,
Sure, surface x height = volume of a cylinder, I read that height only was important (not volume)

@neptune,
I would need to see a complete drawing or a 2D animation to have a better idea of what is one Zed what is 2 Zed connected and to see the complexity of the whole system, is it disclosed and available without going to Youtube?

Why store energy in pressurized oil, oil is like water not compressible, it can be pressurized but does not store energy. oil is probably used to transmit energy.

Tks for your previous answers.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 23, 2012, 09:03:55 PM
@mondrasek,
Sure, surface x height = volume of a cylinder, I read that height only was important (not volume)

@parsid, you may want to read my post again.  I said a lot more than what you quoted.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 23, 2012, 09:19:53 PM
@parisd. You need to spend more time studying the system. One Zed consists of an outer tank with ring walls inside, and a central floating pod, and a number of concentric risers shaped like inverted cups.


Pressurised oil only stores energy if stored in a hydraulic accumulator. {google it} In its simplest form, think of a balloon inflated with pressurised oil.  As you let the oil out, it emerges under pressure and could be made to do work . A practical accumulator consists, in one type, of a cylinder with a free piston inside . One end contains oil, and the other end contains pressurised nitrogen. Think of the nitrogen as acting like a spring.


Remember that the oil/hydraulic system is separate from the zeds, and just acts to convert the energy from the rising zeds into a rotary motion for the output alternator. There is no OU in the hydraulics, it is just a transmission system . The hydraulic rams-which-are-used-as-pumps, are pushed up by the zeds. They DO NOT push the zeds back down, that is done by gravity.


Hope you totally understand this reply. If not, please ask.


I understand that you can not access Youtube, but there are lots of diagrams in the thread[if you can access them] showing how the system works.


When a Zed is at the top of its stroke, the air and water inside are still under pressure. To lower the Zed we have to let out some water, which is under pressure, and can partly [50%] start to push water into the other Zed. The rest of the energy needed for this process is provided by a ram, fed from the hydraulic accumulator.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 23, 2012, 09:22:16 PM
Yes, H height of submerged portion of cylinder. Agree with that.



quote author=mondrasek link=topic=10596.msg333365#msg333365 date=1345748635]
 
@parsid, you may want to read my post again.  I said a lot more than what you quoted.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 23, 2012, 09:39:51 PM
No, Jim, what I _suggested_ to you is that you take a look at one particular engineering textbook , the fundamental course in engineering mechanics, Beer and Johnston's "Statics and Dynamics" ... one that is used by many colleges of engineering, in its 9th edition, 2010, and I gave you the website for the Student Edition where you have access to just about the entire text. Did you look?
And I also think I reminded you and everyone else that violating the fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics is Big News, not some matter for internet forum chitchat and tinkering. If... that is... it is actually happening. Is that what you are referring to?

Yah, that's pretty personal, I guess.

  you didn't suggest I read it, you said i had to REFUTE what you say. It applies as much to static heads which means you should be making the same refernce to mr. wayne which sounds like a Jim Crow log on.
 
  tinself kkoala, I do believe you are some who plays with words to play mind games with people. Like you said, you might have been willing to try the pendulum set up but you didn't like my attitude. The videos you posted show no mechanical builds. wrong person for it. Besides, you don't know me yet assume I am stupid because I wasn't fortunate enough to go to college like you.
 At least I am intelligent enough to realize in Mr. Travis' "invention" that the staic heads really have no value because the input air pressure detrmines their height. Since they are controlled by the in put energy, it's only the conversion of that into the second cylinder that matters. And as I mentioned, when trying to compress 20 cc of water into a cylinder of 10 cc, the staic head WILL be taller but the height can be reduced to increase pressure. Nothing new there but in this thread it's an invention worth putting considerable effort into. I would've done testing first.
 But then, bessler's wheel is a much better idea so will elave you to your forum so you, Alan and Bill can get rid of people you don't like just as they do at besslerwheel dot com where they say engineering doesn't allow for it either.
 By the way, check out the continuous flowing water thread, at the end of it is a design where water can keep a hydro machine running using static heads and gravity.
 Funny how you ignored a potentially successful design to sqy I'm stupid because I need to read books you've probably have only heard of.
         And btw, tell your friends to quit emssagibng me. it's funny how you say you don't pm other people when you want to go after someone.
 
                                                                                                                                                    bye                                 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 23, 2012, 10:37:19 PM

Nice control tests.  So finally you route the "input" from the top of the fountain into the "Pod chamber" instead of into the outer annulus and you should have the now "corrected" TinselZED output to test by comparison.  If the TinselZED has more output in the "corrected" configuration, your Heron fountain "output" head pressure should increase?
 
Interesting.
 
M.
Yep, and now I've completely revamped the system to incorporate a linked pod-riser. So now the pod is free to float and also carries riser1 along with it, with the innermost ringwall between them and sealed to the chamber floor. I've plumbed in a fitting at bottom center of the chamber, so anything coming in here goes into the space surrounding the pod and defined by the inner ringwall, and I've made a "sub base" to provide ground clearance for this fitting. I've also put a vent fitting in the top of this riser assembly so it can be vented then sealed. I put all this stuff together with clear RTV so it needs to cure until tomorrow before I get it wet. So the stationary unit is the outer chamber with the one ringwall sealed to the bottom, with the central fitting in the bottom. The moving unit is the pod-riser combo that fits into and over the inner ringwall.

So in the original fountain, the down tube goes directly from the input cup to the bottom reservoir. Water coming in raises the air pressure in this chamber, which communicates with the very top of the green input reservoir, increasing the pressure there, which pushes water up the pipette opening which is near the bottom of the green input reservoir. So.... if there is some increase in pressure for a given amount of input water, caused by the geometry of the "tinselZed"... which may now be an actual  Travis Zed by now.... it should show up as increased pumping head, and I believe the system is quite sensitive enough to be able to discriminate slight differences, if there are any. So the effect of even the single-layer Zed, if that's what I've got, could show up in the pressure head measurement at the top. I think. Maybe.

But even if it does, will this mean that the Zedated PerPump is now an overunity pump, in addition to being self-powered and perpetual ?    ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 23, 2012, 10:49:51 PM

  you didn't suggest I read it, you said i had to REFUTE what you say. It applies as much to static heads which means you should be making the same refernce to mr. wayne which sounds like a Jim Crow log on.
 
  tinself kkoala, I do believe you are some who plays with words to play mind games with people. Like you said, you might have been willing to try the pendulum set up but you didn't like my attitude. The videos you posted show no mechanical builds. wrong person for it. Besides, you don't know me yet assume I am stupid because I wasn't fortunate enough to go to college like you.
 At least I am intelligent enough to realize in Mr. Travis' "invention" that the staic heads really have no value because the input air pressure detrmines their height. Since they are controlled by the in put energy, it's only the conversion of that into the second cylinder that matters. And as I mentioned, when trying to compress 20 cc of water into a cylinder of 10 cc, the staic head WILL be taller but the height can be reduced to increase pressure. Nothing new there but in this thread it's an invention worth putting considerable effort into. I would've done testing first.
 But then, bessler's wheel is a much better idea so will elave you to your forum so you, Alan and Bill can get rid of people you don't like just as they do at besslerwheel dot com where they say engineering doesn't allow for it either.
 By the way, check out the continuous flowing water thread, at the end of it is a design where water can keep a hydro machine running using static heads and gravity.
 Funny how you ignored a potentially successful design to sqy I'm stupid because I need to read books you've probably have only heard of.
         And btw, tell your friends to quit emssagibng me. it's funny how you say you don't pm other people when you want to go after someone.
 
                                                                                                                                                    bye                               
Jim:
1) Please show where I ever said you were stupid.
2) There are plenty of mechanical and electromechanical constructions in my videos. The Mondrasek magnet-assisted gravity wheel is something I am particularly proud of, and my VanDeGraaff machines and Bonetti machines are truly... shocking.  My electrostatic Tesla Turbine is something that nobody has ever seen before. The Steorn Orbo replications Orbette 1 and Orbette 2 show what I can do with found junk and what I can do with my machine tools, lathe and mill. Just like when you were  criticising me for the textbook recommendation, you are simply wrong in your assertion that there are no mechanical builds in my videos. What there AREN'T is simple arrangements of levers and pulleys that do nothing. My machines work.... even the Mondrasek wheel would work..... with negative friction bearings. I have some on order, delivery expected sometime in 2053.
3) Going to college has nothing to do with being "fortunate". It has to do with motivation and hard work. Please show some respect-- as I said before, your world is designed and built by people who DID go to college and learned something there, and went on from that foundation to add to the sum total of human knowledge.
4) Those little squiggly red lines under your words are complaints from your spellchecker. Take a deep breath, slow down, and for goodness sake stop flaming me and blaming me for your inadequacies. If you think you've got something... shut up and build it, prove me wrong.

5)
Quote
Funny how you ignored a potentially successful design to sqy I'm stupid because I need to read books you've probably have only heard of.
Not only is that a lie, but I also resent it very much. I suggested to you that you look at the standard engineering mechanics textbook THAT I USED WHEN I WAS IN ENGINEERING SCHOOL at the University of Texas in Austin, working my way through school at my AIRCRAFT MECHANIC job, staying up late nights studying, and we used that text for two semesters; I worked many many problems and sat many many exams based on that text. For you to make the absurd statement that you do really makes me mad.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 24, 2012, 12:17:58 AM
  TK,
 So you had tyour friend remove some of your posts. What was it  Bill accused me of doing ?
Yep, deleting posts. But you don't know me and don't know engineering and on your youtube channel,
not one mechanical build. I wouldn't ask someone like you to help me on Bessler's wheel or anything else.
 Of course, Milkovic's pendulum is his as he has patented it.
 I do have better things to do. As you said, if I do what you say, then you'll consider aI know something college boy.
 Guess my mistake was serving in the military protecting your freedom of speech while losing mine.
 C'ya wouldn't wanna b ya.
 
 uh, tk, once someone messaged me on your behalf, it did let me know there is a group of individuals who do work together
and if for no other reason than to cause someone problems. And I do believe it possible that you and Bill pm'd each other
before posting in my thread. That way you could cast me in a bad light for thinking about pursuing an idea while being willing to give the patent rights to charity.
 I know AB Hammer pm'd people all the time because he wanted to take over my work. He knows opportunity when he smells it.
 So yep, there are vindictive people in here and you are one of them.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 24, 2012, 12:27:11 AM
But you don't know me and don't know engineering and on your youtube channel,
not one mechanical build.

Okay, this is embarrassing to say the least...
 
But NOBODY torments my tormentor!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE&feature=plcp)
 
I think you all will recognize the voice in the video.
 
Please take note of the Engineering that must have gone into this exquisite Mechanical Build.
 
For those of you who don't know, the wheel is turning on ceramic bearings.  Just because TK had those laying around in his tool box.  Or so he said at the time.  You can't trust marsupials.  Because they're fast!
 
Humbly yours,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 24, 2012, 12:38:25 AM
  m.,
 That's magnetic, didn't see any levers.
 
 @tk, I am wrong and you are right. I know nothing of engineeringt.
 After all, even AB Hammer told me he would teach my dad engineering if he had 4 years to learn from him. And those engineering books my dad gave to me to study are wrong. I consider the sourse. it is like oyu said, you know what you are talking abouty and that I have no education in engineering.
 And liek AB Hammer, you are also the best builder and if someone can kiss your guy's butt, then you might say, I'd build that for you but it's not a good enough idea.
 Did have a shop set up but that didn't stop my having to take a lot of crap. i think maybe when you can understand bessler's wheel which is hydraulic theory then we'd have something to talk about. But i am not like Mr. Travis who has a lot of money to spend trying soemthing that can't work.
                                       
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2012, 02:28:27 AM
You see no levers, Jim, because you do not know what a lever is, really.

There are arms and moments happening, Jim. Lever arms, lever moments, levers of varying lengths, torques, angular momentum. They are all over that machine.

Any overbalanced wheel moves --if it does--- by exactly the same way and principle that an unbalanced lever does.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2012, 02:34:39 AM
johnny874.
You are paranoid. None of your accusations of  people PMing each other to conspire against you are true. None of us are working for some evil cabal to suppress free energy either, that allegation is also a plain and simple lie, based on a delusion and promulgated by some people who have no idea what they are talking about.

No amount of proof will convince you either, not even Stefan's testimony about who pms whom with what... because you believe that our good and tolerant host is in on the conspiracy.

Yes... and he runs this website as a personal joke on people like you, Jim, doesn't he.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2012, 02:46:27 AM
So... if I may be permitted to get back on topic for a moment....

The Zeds go through a cycle, right, a complete cycle, gaining something for each cycle in terms of work/energy. Right? So... there is no law, is there, that the cycle has to start at the bottom, I think... it just has to wind up exactly where it started from, but that starting position could just as well be the top of the lift as the bottom of it. Right? As long as a complete cycle is performed, winding back up at the top.

And also, or maybe the same thing,  we could consider the "output" ... the great weight lifted a small distance... to be the "input" when running backwards. So you start at the top, use the great weight to push down the small distance which then causes the small weight to rise a great distance until you are back at the normal, bottom "start"position, then you continue through the second half of the cycle until the small weight (or piston) is down and the great weight is up again, an inverse cycle.

That destroys energy, or makes input work vanish... or something. 


Ahhh... I think I need another cup of instant coffee.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 24, 2012, 02:56:29 AM
Hmmm.
 
Okay, I'm in.  You propose a very interesting thought experiment to which I have no immediate answer.
 
Good on you and thanks.  I'll try to sleep on it and get back to you.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 24, 2012, 02:58:48 AM
@TK,  Right.  It does not matter where a cycle starts as long as it ends in the same place.  I like your running in reverse analogy destroying energy.  I have my head around the simulation again and cleared up my conceptual error.  Making quick progress towards another PDF release soon...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 24, 2012, 03:13:25 AM
So... if I may be permitted to get back on topic for a moment....

The Zeds go through a cycle, right, a complete cycle, gaining something for each cycle in terms of work/energy. Right? So... there is no law, is there, that the cycle has to start at the bottom, I think... it just has to wind up exactly where it started from, but that starting position could just as well be the top of the lift as the bottom of it. Right? As long as a complete cycle is performed, winding back up at the top.

And also, or maybe the same thing,  we could consider the "output" ... the great weight lifted a small distance... to be the "input" when running backwards. So you start at the top, use the great weight to push down the small distance which then causes the small weight to rise a great distance until you are back at the normal, bottom "start"position, then you continue through the second half of the cycle until the small weight (or piston) is down and the great weight is up again, an inverse cycle.

That destroys energy, or makes input work vanish... or something. 


Ahhh... I think I need another cup of instant coffee.
In our double ZED system if we let go - they equalize - this does not mean that both ZEDS are in the middle - but the heads inside the ZEDs are equal - one can be on the way up and on the way down.

The "Bottom" is never seen - the set up process is designed to have the lowest point - above the bottom - or else the pressure from the weight will drop.

And Yes - on the way up the Hydraulic load is the output from the changing the head - and on the way down - the weight causes the output of water pressure - transfer of the head.

It is a dual inverse process - both sides are producing in both directions.

The non linear function is due to the distribution of head in varying diameters (layers) of the ZED, the head distribution on the down stroke favors the smaller diameter - making the weight production (down stroke) more productive than the cost of the weight on the upstroke.

Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 24, 2012, 04:14:45 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 24, 2012, 05:00:24 AM
Quote from: TinselKoala

So... if I may be permitted to get back on topic for a moment....

The Zeds go through a cycle, right, a complete cycle, gaining something for each cycle in terms of work/energy. Right? So... there is no law, is there, that the cycle has to start at the bottom, I think... it just has to wind up exactly where it started from, but that starting position could just as well be the top of the lift as the bottom of it. Right? As long as a complete cycle is performed, winding back up at the top.

And also, or maybe the same thing,  we could consider the "output" ... the great weight lifted a small distance... to be the "input" when running backwards. So you start at the top, use the great weight to push down the small distance which then causes the small weight to rise a great distance until you are back at the normal, bottom "start"position, then you continue through the second half of the cycle until the small weight (or piston) is down and the great weight is up again, an inverse cycle.

That destroys energy, or makes input work vanish... or something. 


Ahhh... I think I need another cup of instant coffee.




In our double ZED system if we let go - they equalize - this does not mean that both ZEDS are in the middle - but the heads inside the ZEDs are equal - one can be on the way up and on the way down.

The "Bottom" is never seen - the set up process is designed to have the lowest point - above the bottom - or else the pressure from the weight will drop.

And Yes - on the way up the Hydraulic load is the output from the changing the head - and on the way down - the weight causes the output of water pressure - transfer of the head.

It is a dual inverse process - both sides are producing in both directions.

The non linear function is due to the distribution of head in varying diameters (layers) of the ZED, the head distribution on the down stroke favors the smaller diameter - making the weight production (down stroke) more productive than the cost of the weight on the upstroke.

Wayne



I realize your questions are mostly rhetorical TK - the cycle can start anywhere you like - like mapping a 4 stroke Otto cycle - it just makes more intuitive sense to start a cycle at equilibrium before fuel or forces are added to change the machine condition from static [equilibrium state] to dynamic.

Yes, what you propose is the norm - take a normal hydraulic jack/ram for example - a small force is applied to a small input piston area over a long stroke distance - this generates a pressure in the hydraulic fluid [pressure = force /area] - due to pascal's law the pressure is transmitted equally all thru the fluid - the pressure acts on a large piston area acting over a short stroke distance at the output end - since .. force = pressure x area .. the force is greatly magnified - it can be used to raise a masses PE like jacking a car.


BUT ... Work In [ f x d ] joules = Work Out of raising PE [ mgh ] joules - so you could just as easily reverse the system & apply a large weight force [with PE given to it by WD] to the Output end to reset the Input - zero sum energy game [not considering ordinary losses] in either 'cycle flow' direction as you propose in your thought experiment.

Where this becomes perhaps less obvious is when Potential Energy is raised by a system having Work/Energy done on it as described above - once the Output seen as increased system PE [e.g. raised mass or increased pressure] then that PE could be given back again to set the system to equilibrium [& positions of least PE] - IOW's, no Work/Energy should be required to reverse the cycle direction to return PE gained [other than covering system losses of frictions etc] N.B. WD joules were expended to give initial the mass PE.

What Mr Wayne describes does not fit any world view I currently hold because he seems to say he can raise system PE [pressure] with no Input Energy, once the system is given one-off initialization pressurization - And extract some of the PE as Work/Energy Output, then use the remainder PE to reset system to lowest PE equilibrium conditions again, & maintain system initialization pressurization - all using gravity & initial energy to pressurize the system - this is not a description of an engine as I know it, nor a zero sum energy game, obviously !

So ... I guess that's why I follow the discovery process of builds & sims - in the hope that new science & logical understanding will unfold of apparently paradoxical machines/engines which will educate me & alter my world view - OR ... that process reveals a logical error.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on August 24, 2012, 09:00:38 AM
Hi all,
thanks for your posts, you are triggering new thoughts...

Yesterday I was looking again at picture of complete ZED cycle. I noticed two new things for me.

First: in fully prechared step is pressure in inner container 8psi. After full stroke step there is still 8psi. New for me is that water is being added also during stroke not only dyring precharge step! Precharge step is clear it has two phases, first is equalization to 6.7 with other ZED then in second phase hydraulics increase this to 8psi.

Second: Where is water added. I always though  water is added only in inner cylinder under pod. But picture suggests watter added also in containers for second riser and third riser, see water level in 2nd and 3rd container after full stroke. I thought those 3 inner containers are completely isolated and only precharged to certain volume of water and air at certain pressure. Maybe just picture is not correct...

MrWayne can you please clarify this?

Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 24, 2012, 02:00:39 PM
@MT let me try to answer your questions. You are correct about the charging of the ZED having two phases.
Note that the waters in the two zeds are kept separate. Look at the pictures on Wayne`s website . You will see two convoluted rubber bags. They are linked mechanically so as one fills, it squeezes the other, causing it to emit water under pressure.So as one zed discharges, it is starting to inflate its rubber bag. This squeezes the second bag, causing it to inject water into the second Zed. This movement would stop when both Zeds are at the same pressure. But at this point a hydraulic ram, fed from the hydraulic accumulator, causes the process to continue.
     Water is only ever fed into a Zed at one point, the bottom of the pod chamber. You may have been confused by what I think are drain taps in the bottom of other compartments. These would be for set-up and maintenance.
          The rise in water levels in other water masses is due to the pressure of the water injected into the pod chamber causing air and water to move through the system towards the outside of the ZED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 24, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
Hi all,
thanks for your posts, you are triggering new thoughts...

Yesterday I was looking again at picture of complete ZED cycle. I noticed two new things for me.

First: in fully prechared step is pressure in inner container 8psi. After full stroke step there is still 8psi. New for me is that water is being added also during stroke not only dyring precharge step! Precharge step is clear it has two phases, first is equalization to 6.7 with other ZED then in second phase hydraulics increase this to 8psi.

Second: Where is water added. I always though  water is added only in inner cylinder under pod. But picture suggests watter added also in containers for second riser and third riser, see water level in 2nd and 3rd container after full stroke. I thought those 3 inner containers are completely isolated and only precharged to certain volume of water and air at certain pressure. Maybe just picture is not correct...

MrWayne can you please clarify this?

Marcel
Hello Marcel,
First - good question -
You are correct that once 8 psi is hit - we continue to add water - only to the pod in this model.
Water added after precharge is stroke volume - at the same pressure.

The water levels change in response to the increased air pressure - caused by the input of water into the pod - they are all connected via the layering system.

p.s. this is a very very old drawing - so they are conceptual - and need to be understood in that manner.
We now control the water levels and the reaction in our optimizations.
 
Thanks Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 24, 2012, 03:27:07 PM
@mrwayne. A quick question, and sorry if it has already been answered. In building a table top model of a Zed. is there an ideal ratio of Diameter to height? In other words,, is tall and narrow best, or short and fat?
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 24, 2012, 03:53:21 PM
@mrwayne. A quick question, and sorry if it has already been answered. In building a table top model of a Zed. is there an ideal ratio of Diameter to height? In other words,, is tall and narrow best, or short and fat?
Many thanks.
Good question;
Capture method:
Since the stroke length is determined by your flat topping the output - and the overlap of the ringwalls and Riser walls are reduced in this model during stroke - length is better.
If you are trying to capture the ideal and the lesser value during stroke - width is better.
Give and take:
A short wide model has a shorter stroke and greater lifting capacity -
A tall model has a longer stroke and or has more wiggle room.
A short model needs less precharge volume (assuming the Pod is the same size)
Additional consideration:
If I was doing short and fat - I would do larger gaps - reduce the pod size.
I recommend three times taller than the width of the average of the diameters - sounds funny - but it works pretty good as a starting point.
Mechanical function:
 - if you are using / stroking, or squeezing a pump - you can use a lever to increase stroke length (short and fat is fine) - as long as you designed the force to accommodate.
If you are pumping directly from the ZED, then you know the stroke length, and power needed
Close the loop: (assuming you have the power down)
You must have enough stroke length for precharge and stroke volume - my machine is limited by the pump selection - it could do much more if I had matched the system to its capability.
Thanks
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 24, 2012, 04:21:17 PM
@Mrwayne. Just what the doctor ordered as we say in the UK. That is great information that will benefit all who wish to replicate.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 24, 2012, 05:05:37 PM
Attached is information on how to calculate water height using sensor Psi for the non-transparent model builders. Information was gleaned from one of Wayne's calculator. The sensors do not have to be directly connected as shown. Other methods, such as combinations of different types of tubing to the sensors could be used.
 
Edit: Tubing from the bottom with an air column extended upward would allow for the use of cheaper air sensors, instead of water sensors.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 24, 2012, 08:58:41 PM
A test I did a while ago.

Using my 345g piston and a 680g lift mass.

Setup system so that the piston resting on the water holds the lift mass up just a little.

Place cup on top of piston and add 70g of water, piston sinks about 1\2 inch and the risers rise just shy of 1\8 inch, add another 70g of water to cup and piston sinks about another 1\2 inch and risers rise about another 1\8 inch, add another 70g of water and piston sinks to bottom and risers lift until blowout.

Reset the system but this time I hold the risers still and add about 120g of water to the cup on top of the piston, piston sinks about 3\4 inch, slowly allow risers to rise and the piston falls about another 1 inch and the risers lift over 1\2 inch but under 3\4 inch.

I tried adding more lift mass but the results were similar up to a point where I was not able to lift and any addition to the input just blew water out.

My conclusion is that the more potential stored under the risers the better the lift.
Well Done!
That effect become more dramatic with larger gaps ...
The idea of keeping energy in the system was counter intuitive to my Engineers - until they saw that test.
Keep it up!
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on August 24, 2012, 11:14:56 PM
The water levels change in response to the increased air pressure - caused by the input of water into the pod - they are all connected via the layering system.


Thank you MrWayne and Neptune for response. It is then as I expected.


Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 07:53:09 AM
In the short video from Mark Dansie linked a few pages back, the system is started by operating an electronic control panel. This panel is clearly active before the system starts running. So... please correct me if I'm wrong... the electric control system is running off of batteries that are charged and kept charged by the output of the 500 watt PMA . Right?   
I have been under the impression that the machine would run continuously until it was deliberately shut off. In other words, it could run unassisted by outside power for days, right?
Am I right about this?
Can we please know just what the maximum run time has been, so far, for the device that Mark D. shows in that last video? Minutes, hours, days?  How long has it run for, maximum, from starting it up by pushing the button, adding nothing, subtracting nothing but the electrical power used to charge its batteries, until it stops or is stopped?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 25, 2012, 08:57:17 AM
I like TinselKoala's replication of Heron's fountain.

Here you find a nice explanation of Heron's fountain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron%27s_fountain

The fountain in Tinselkoala's latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fYltvNPU0U (his nice contraption) has one more "chamber" at the bottom and a "riser"  in the chamber which would be the first (lowest, bottom) chamber in an original Heron fountain.

I would like to ask TK to explain a bit the differences between the original Heron fountain (e.g. as depicted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron%27s_fountain) and his set up. A drawing would be perfect. But I do not want to interfere with TK's ambitions to save the world and with possible future patent filings. I understand that TK has to safeguard his investment. It is much easier to save the world as a rich Koala. Koala's need a lot of Eucalyptus leaves every day. I wonder where he gets them from in the US?

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: The Wiki-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron%27s_fountain contains a hint at increasing the output pressure: "The fountain can spout (almost) as high above the upper container as the water falls from the basin into the lower container. For maximum effect, place the upper container as closely beneath the basin as possible and place the lower container a long way beneath both."
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 10:06:09 AM
Hiya TK,

Let me pair this question down to what it should be, without all of your inferences.

Wayne, can your system run without the battery.  Could you replace the battery with capacitors to run your valves and control circuits.

Oh,, by the way this has been answered. 
Due diligence may be required.

Did I touch a nerve? Sorry. I am "inferring" nothing, I am asking a simple question. The  machine obviously had some power to the control system before it started running. This power came from its internal batteries I AM ASKING, or was it supplied by the wire we can see in the video coming over from the top of the building to the top of the apparatus?
And I am asking what is the longest time the machine has actually run? I've been assuming it has run for days, but lately I'm beginning to think it has only run for hours, before it stops or is stopped for some reason. I AM ASKING these things because I either don't believe that they have been answered adequately or that they have not even been asked yet.
Who said anything about capacitors?  Capacitors? I don need no stinkin capacitors....
I'm just asking for another set of simple numbers.

And it's perfectly fine to me if it needs the battery to run properly. So does my car. I just want to know where the energy in the battery comes from. In my car, it comes from the alternator which is powered by the engine which is powered by the gasoline I put in.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 10:16:31 AM
@Conrad: Shh... pretty soon you are going to discover Heron's other invention.... the fire pump.... which sure looks a lot like a twin-zed system from the first century CE...

As the world will soon learn there are other ways than merely fiddling with spacing and heights to make a Fountain of Heron work better. A little. For a few minutes anyway.



Oh.... and I have them shipped in from northern California, by the bale. Almost out, too, got to re-order, thanks for reminding me. (One time they sent me some Tanna leaves by mistake.... too strong for me, I had to give them to Mummy....)


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 01:40:55 PM
Good Morning - TK
I see we are back to sending questions sent to you by others.....

Webby is right, this has been answered and answered. - might be good to confuse a newcomer.

This time though  - especially with the photo -  I would call dredging - looking for a dead body - or hoping something will stick.

Guilty until proven innocent - even if we have to dig a body up - a crime must have been committed - that is what your Friends believe - let them due their due diligence's.
To ALL:
The ZED can run completely without electronics - remember the only thing needed is a way to change direction of the hydro assist.

Starting and stopping the system is as simple as blocking the the flow at any point - and opening it - you can do it with a manual valve or electronic. - this is not a momentum system.
 
That model - the closed looped model from last November - was not running a Generator - and the energy to turn the directional valve and power the five sensors is discussed in Mark's Video - and yes that energy was accounted for.

As I shared before - Mark and I spent the entire day (before the video that is being referenced) completely evacuating the system - and completely resetting it - counting for every scrap of energy - even filling the tank with water.
He spent the next entire day going over the engineering and design.
P.s Mark is really sharp - these people who are discrediting him by these claims of extension cords - not so much...

When you see us walk up and start the machine - it was the next day - early in the morning - (yes we had run it that same night) it is just the camera did not record well in the dark.

The primary purpose of our Unitronics Human machine interface - was to track pressures during a run cycle.

Back to "The picture...."
 
The clear plastic bleed hose (you were told extension cord) attached to the other hydraulic cylinder.. I used for venting/bleeding air out of the hydraulics is close looped to the reservoir.
Originally I climbed on top of the ZED - carried a bucket and drained the air out of the system - after several messes - eventually I hooked up series of clear hose in a loop returning to the tank.
When I built the next system - I lowered the hydraulics to make it easier to trap and vent air - currently we do not have any air trapping in the system (YEAH!)

If you look at the "Tree" when Mark points it out - laughingly,  you can see the clear hoses better and the manual valves.
TK, Here is where I take offense to who ever is feeding you this clear and intentional lie - the photo you show is the only angle that makes the hose look like it is coming from the building - the same hose can be seen in several other shots as being connected to the other cylinder with more shut off valves between both ends. Please use your Koala brain to thinkabout that and the intention for a bit - you have defended these people several times - it is not good form.

My conclusion of this round - it is intentional misinformation being spread to you - and you shared it - thanks for clearing it up for others. I could be wrong - but it seems you are being used..... by an intentional liar.

The Laughable point - don't ya thing Mark would have Noticed a power cord running from the shop as your friend claimed?

p.s

The whole system was on a concrete pad - elevated about 24 inches off the pad with blocks to give access to the entire system.

@ ALL

I want you all to remember one thing:

I asked you to replicate and discover for yourself - I even offered to fund the experiments and have some, and will others.

At the same time three unprofessional men have vowed to try to take me down regardless... some call them skeptics even defend their attacks - I differ in that opinion.
A true "Skeptic" seeks the truth to protect all - these three men are spreading lies, you all know who they are. Currently they are trying to associate me with people of poor character.

I am praying for them, eventually they will learn that our system is real - in this world with a history of errors and scammers.
They will see the benefit our system has to the world, I hope they use the same energy to tell the truth.... I can hope for them.
 
@TK, I like skeptics, I was honored Mark came - when he told me that it would take him ..on average ..two hours to show me my error - I said - "I would rather know my error that to be misled - or to misled others". He did not - and he shared this with many others. We are still in testing - His final report will be out in due time.

I do understand that some men lie to support their vendetta.... I would appreciate you looking at them with the same eye... you do me.
Some men have done their due diligence - without due diligence - making conclusions is beneath the lowest position of a Skeptic.

Please help keep that important position - a true skeptic... one that can be trusted.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
In the short video from Mark Dansie linked a few pages back, the system is started by operating an electronic control panel. This panel is clearly active before the system starts running. So... please correct me if I'm wrong... the electric control system is running off of batteries that are charged and kept charged by the output of the 500 watt PMA . Right?   
I have been under the impression that the machine would run continuously until it was deliberately shut off. In other words, it could run unassisted by outside power for days, right?
Am I right about this?
Can we please know just what the maximum run time has been, so far, for the device that Mark D. shows in that last video? Minutes, hours, days?  How long has it run for, maximum, from starting it up by pushing the button, adding nothing, subtracting nothing but the electrical power used to charge its batteries, until it stops or is stopped?
No, - we did not run a generator back then.
No, that machine was not designed to run indefinatley - like Webby's model but bigger and then we close looped it - like the $10K  challnge I have right now.
 
That system was to account for energy in and out - in all forms - since none of the forms of energy "out" was used to produce electriciy - the battery would have died.
Yes, If the system used mechanical valves to change directon - it could have run until it broke - which is what we did - three times.
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released - tested and scrutinized which will begin when Mark advises we are ready.
A point for clarity - I designed the system from my theory to be 500 watts - so that after all losses I could generate excess power.
Next, the video of that model was to show the system running under its own power - and more importantly -  that the water and air put in the system during precharge -  did not get consumed.
It was a hard thing for people to wrap thier minds around  the idea that once the system was charged - no new energy needed to be put in to run continuously.
 
Thanks
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 05:46:29 PM
What is the longest time that the system has run?

What is the power source for the electrical panel in the video?


Two simple questions, nothing implied or inferred. Two simple questions, answerable by two simple declarative sentences.

"The electrical power running the panel and the controls in that video came from .......  and the wire that you indicate in the picture is ......".

"The longest we have been able to run for is ...... hours, or ..... days.".


Yet you choose to provide another half page of innuendo about me and my motives-- which you don't understand at all --- and you choose AGAIN to dodge the questions.

You have said that you have a simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself -- your own exact words. I have asked you REPEATEDLY how this clear overunity is determined for this simple system and what is the input work and output work for this simple clearly overunity by itself system. I have asked you this question about nine times now, and you have not deigned to answer.

And now it is clear that you are not going to tell me the longest running time, or where the electrical power comes from or what that wire is in the picture.

So I feel very free to make my own INFERENCES, from your lack of straightforward responses to these simple questions.

Simple questions, which, in spite of all your protests, you have NEVER answered.


OK, then tell me this much: Are you refusing to answer me because you don't know the answers, or because the answers might be embarrassing, or reveal too much, or perhaps they are just too MUCH TROUBLE for you to answer, about the machine that overturns hundreds of years of WORK by many other people, destroys thousands of careers, sets thermodynamics on its head?

Every time I ask a simple straight question that I think you should be EAGER and WILLING to answer..... you dodge it and start your attacks on my motivations and character, coming perilously close to the paranoia that people like johnny874 exhibit when challenged on their claims.

You can BET YOUR CYNICAL TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS that if I claimed to have what you have I'd be able and willing to answer these simple questions IN SIMPLE DECLARATIVE SENTENCES. Not paragraphs and pages of character attacks.... which only indicate that you either DO NOT HAVE the answers I request or that you DO NOT WANT to answer them for some reason. In which case, a simple declarative sentence to that effect would have sufficed.

Quote
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone,
Ok, that was an honest answer, so I will stop asking you for the all-important run data.




How would everybody respond if I refused to tell you how long my Perpetual Water Pump runs for? It runs for a LONG time..... and the larger and taller the reservoirs the longer it will run. With NO electrical input power at all, not even to start it. But no.... I'll not give you the critical information you need to determine if it's worth overturning science or not..... just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain at all.

ETA: Your allegation that somebody is "feeding" me or telling me things to ask you about is a great insult to me.  But I'm used to being insulted when I start asking the right questions. Just like Chief Inspector Morse.... when somebody doesn't want to discuss something, that makes me want to discuss it all the more.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 06:10:36 PM
Quote
The Laughable point - don't ya thing Mark would have Noticed a power cord running from the shop as your friend claimed?

The laughable point right now is that you seem to be claiming that it _did_ have external power for the control system.... you say this one had no generator, no batteries charged by its own running.... but you are also saying that Mark would have noticed the power supply cord if there was one.

So where does the power for the control system come from?  It's another simple question that you find hard to answer with a simple declarative sentence: "The power for the control system and sensors in that unit comes from the shop, it comes in by the yellow extension cord " or whatever "that can be seen here" pointing it out in a photo.

You KNOW I'd do this much for you, I hope.

And just because several people see the same holes in your story does not mean that they are working together in some big conspiracy against you. The only information about you and your system that I have been "fed" is that its longest run time so far has been a few hours.... and that information came from somebody you have had on-site -- NOT from one of my skeptical "friends", whoever they are. And I've asked you directly if this information is correct or not.... and your answer is that you will not share run data.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 06:19:51 PM
TK,
I must be tired - because your questions have been answered.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 06:34:38 PM
@Conradelectro:

Koalas aren't very good at supplying drawings of our work. We prefer to show things more graphically using pictures and videos. Some people don't like the shaky camera but it's the best I can do.... all the other people in my grand conspiracy seem to be "virtual" in that I never see them and they are never around to help me to do anything useful like hold a camera. They only show up on payday.... wait.... there aren't even any paydays to worry about these days, so I don't even get to see them then, never mind.

The difference between my PerPump and the standard Fountain of Heron self-powered water pump is that I have incorporated a single-layer (I think) TinselZed in the lower chamber. I call it a TinselZed because the floating Pod displacer and the first Riser1 are locked together so that they lift simultaneously, and I think this is different from MrWayne's Zed which has a free pod separate from any riser, although it does push up on the innermost riser when it floats.
The only inlet to the lower chamber is to the bottom center, that is, to the pod chamber defined by the inner ringwall sealed to the bottom of the main chamber. When the pod/riser is in place there is a thin layer of water between the pod and the ringwall, and another fatter layer between the ringwall and the riser skirt, and then between the riser skirt and the chamber wall another fatter layer of water. All three layers have surfaces that vary in height with reponse to the pressures inside, in just the same manner as the Zeds do with unlocked floating pods in MrWayne's system, if I am understanding that system correctly.
I've found that with just the right amount of "precharge" water in the operating TinselZed chamber, the operation of the pump is somewhat enhanced over that found with no "working" parts in the TinselZed chamber.

So... I have made a table-top self-powered water pump that will pump an 8 inch or greater head, which uses a modified Zed to enhance its pumping ability. This pump will run indefinitely, as long as its input reservoir is kept filled and its output reservoir is emptied. There is a small amount of useful power that can be extracted from the fountain portion by running it past an overshot wheel, for example. This "excess" power could be extracted over the entire time that the pump runs, could be accumulated in batteries or capacitors, or used to lift a small weight.

A test of this pump, showing the action of the modified Zed working to enhance the output flow, can be seen in this irrelevant video on my YT channel here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU

No... I am not claiming any "prize" even though I think I've fulfilled the letter if not the intent of MrWayne's cynical challenge. I've spent no money at all on this project, unless you count the amortized cost of the instant coffee. My consumption has gone up since I've started this work !

What I have shown, I believe, is that there is some effect on internal pressures caused by the operation of the TinselZed and that this effect seems to enhance my PerPump's ability to pump.  Take that or leave it, for whatever it is worth to whomever can use it. Me... I'm pretty well done with being insulted for my efforts to understand what is going on here.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 06:43:58 PM
TK,
I tire of your effort to ask questions outside of the bounds of my limitations and then asserting a nefarious motive. I have put up with it to allow you time to do your due dilligense.

 Since you first came to this page - we have repeated I am not here for an armchair review of our equipment.

The offer was - If you want to participate - get your hands wet. I will not be in the business of telling you how to think or observe the repeatable characterstics of our ZED technology.

Each time you rant about how I avoid your questions - let me be clear - and respectful - you were told in advance - stay on topic - badgering and head gaming is not effective. Thank you.

Your questions and comments give me cause for concern.

What is your motive for coming to a discussion where I am sharing how to build a  ZED and trying to turn the topic into a review of our Hard earned research and data collection?

From my poor memory:
You have asked about our input and out put
then Energy
then the patent
then the sensors
then the pumps
then the batteries
The run data
You show - two photo misidentifying a hose connect to the other ZED and assert it was a power cord from the lab.
You were shocked at our initialization system.
You also said you would keep nothing confidential.
you have thrown me away into the idiot file and picked me back out on to the rim.
And you have not persisted on diverting the subject to your personal desires - to find something "secret" within our system.
You have warned that you may file the scientific papers before others..
Now - Exactly what do I owe you?

Who told you that you have a right to hard earned work, discovery and effort - just because it is free energy?

Thank you and good day.

p.s.
And I do not need to know anything about your pump, it is cute. I hike to the top of the mountains to see natural springs - at the top of the mountain...pretty cool.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 25, 2012, 07:02:09 PM
Have you all seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1KXMsE2qk&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1KXMsE2qk&feature=plcp)

Does not work with water...but works with beer.  Who knew?

Obviously it is temporary but.....pretty cool to see.

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 07:17:46 PM
TK,
I must be tired - because your questions have been answered.
Wayne

I have been completely through this thread several times and I have not been able to find your answer to this question here:
In your simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself-- your exact words -- how is the clear overunity determined, and what is the input work and output work for that simple system that is clearly overunity by itself?

If you've answered this question before PLEASE give me a link to the answer, if you don't want to write a short paragraph answering it again. You have here made a claim about a simpler  system than your large, difficult to analyse one, and I am just asking you to support your rather amazing claim.

And those other questions I've been asking that you say you've answered before.... do you mind if I summarize what I understand to be the answers?

How long has it run for, maximum?  Answer that I believe: A "few hours".

What supplies the power for the control system in the short video from Mark D. a few days ago? Answer that I believe: The same mains supply that supplies all your home's and shop's electrical power.

I don't know where this power comes into the system... you say Mark would have noticed an extension cord.... well, where DOES the power come in then, if not by the "thing" I indicated in the frame from the video? I'm sure Mark would have noticed if there was NO power cord but the thing still lit up anyway.....

Please correct me if I am wrong about these things. It's easy to do... simple declarative sentences of the form "The power cord for the controls is ..... " .
You have said that you aren't going to share the run time data.... OK, I'll stop asking about that, if you stop claiming that it runs for hours or days without giving the actual numbers.

At least we finally did get an answer to my earlier question that took you so long to come right out and answer .... you have a patent application filed with the USPTO, not a granted patent.... yet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 07:23:10 PM
The laughable point right now is that you seem to be claiming that it _did_ have external power for the control system.... you say this one had no generator, no batteries charged by its own running.... but you are also saying that Mark would have noticed the power supply cord if there was one.

So where does the power for the control system come from?  It's another simple question that you find hard to answer with a simple declarative sentence: "The power for the control system and sensors in that unit comes from the shop, it comes in by the yellow extension cord " or whatever "that can be seen here" pointing it out in a photo.

You KNOW I'd do this much for you, I hope.

And just because several people see the same holes in your story does not mean that they are working together in some big conspiracy against you. The only information about you and your system that I have been "fed" is that its longest run time so far has been a few hours.... and that information came from somebody you have had on-site -- NOT from one of my skeptical "friends", whoever they are. And I've asked you directly if this information is correct or not.... and your answer is that you will not share run data.
TK to date 
All "Holes in the story" have been self imagined.
As I said before - We deal with the truth here - not imagination and speculation..
Wayne
Good day.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 07:43:51 PM
TK,
I tire of your effort to ask questions outside of the bounds of my limitations and then asserting a nefarious motive. I have put up with it to allow you time to do your due dilligense.

 Since you first came to this page - we have repeated I am not here for an armchair review of our equipment.

The offer was - If you want to participate - get your hands wet. I will not be in the business of telling you how to think or observe the repeatable characterstics of our ZED technology.

Each time you rant about how I avoid your questions - let me be clear - and respectful - you were told in advance - stay on topic - badgering and head gaming is not effective. Thank you.
Who exactly is ranting? Perhaps you need to check the definition of that term. I am asking questions that you have NOT answered adequately.
Quote

Your questions and comments give me cause for concern.

What is your motive for coming to a discussion where I am sharing how to build a  ZED and trying to turn the topic into a review of our Hard earned research and data collection?
You are claiming something that is contrary to hundreds of years of scientific research and experimentation and that is inconsistent with the major system that is used to understand and engineer the world around us. You should be able to support that claim against any and all comers... IF IT IS TRUE.
Quote
From my poor memory:
You have asked about our input and out put
then Energy
And you have not answered properly.
Quote
then the patent
The PATENT APPLICATION, you mean....
Quote
then the sensors
Please show where I have ever asked about your sensors.
Quote
then the pumps
then the batteries
I have asked you how the batteries get their charge, yes.
Quote
The run data
You show - two photo misidentifying a hose connect to the other ZED and assert it was a power cord from the lab.
Two photos? And I  misidentified something? I ONLY ASKED ABOUT IT, what it was, and I only showed one photo that I can recall. Please show where I ever asserted that it was a power cord from the lab. A question is not an assertion.... calling my question an assertion is... er... well, Mr Wayne, it is a statement that is untrue, and we have a name for those statements here south of the Red River.
Quote
You were shocked at our initialization system.
Shocked? Did I say that? Really? Where? Please point it out where I said I was shocked by your initialization system.  For the record, the only thing I find "shocking" about your entire system is the evident cost of it.
Quote
You also said you would keep nothing confidential.
What I told you was that I would not carry on back-channel communications with you unless I could share the information you gave me publicly. I also said -- in a personal communication -- that if you engage me in an official manner I would be happy to sign and abide by an ironclad NDA. Thank you for not mentioning this in your present flame.
Quote
you have thrown me away into the idiot file and picked me back out on to the rim.
And you have not persisted on diverting the subject to your personal desires - to find something "secret" within our system.
You have warned that you may file the scientific papers before others..
Now - Exactly what do I owe you?
You owe me the straightforward and unvarnished TRUTH.... and you owe this to the world, and most of all to yourself. As far as scientific papers go... you have shown neither any science nor any respect or understanding of it. What I do with what I learn with my own apparatus and on my own time.... is my own business, and I'll share it with whomever I please and write whatever I like about it. You can rest assured of one thing, though: what I say and write and show will be the truth, and it will be testable by anyone with the ability to test it for themselves. I won't be claiming patents when I don't actually have any, for one thing.
Quote
Who told you that you have a right to hard earned work, discovery and effort - just because it is free energy?
You have not demonstrated any free energy to anyone's satisfaction who knows how to measure energy or work. You've had lots of opportunities to do so and you dodge them every time, with flames like this that simply attack your sincere questioners and divert attention from the real issues: How long has it run for, where does it get its electrical power, how is the clear overunity determined for the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself.
Quote
Thank you and good day.
More sincerity? You are welcome, and I hope you have a good day too. I intend to, myself.
Quote

p.s.
And I do not need to know anything about your pump, it is cute. I hike to the top of the mountains to see natural springs - at the top of the mountain...pretty cool.

The natural springs at the top of the mountain ( in southern Oklahoma...) may or may not work by the same principle as Heron's Fountain. I doubt it, myself. But what about your large reservoirs, compressible bags, water flows, and air chambers? Does anyone really understand how they work? I doubt that too, especially since no one has yet shown just where any "free energy" enters the system, since all of the individual steps are underunity due to losses, and many of them are in fact quite lossy indeed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 07:50:05 PM
@Pirate
... I knew !    ;)

Now the question is "which beer works the very best".

My current favorite is Shiner Wild Hare ale.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 25, 2012, 08:30:05 PM
I am trying to understand the principle of the ZED but difficult especially with this wind of negativity, if the ZED is fake we will all discover it soon or later and leave one after the other one.

I just watched the MrWayne videos Travis effects videos 1, 2, 3 and 4 (yes I am far behind all of you...) and I can say from these videos that the Travis effect is nothing else than a piston effect on a gas (as clearly mentionned in one of those 4 videos), the larger mass compress the air in the cup (the right located cup has not reached the bottom of the aquarium), nothing new, as soon as the compression is removed the effect disappear. The air compression energy is provided by the mass itself. Only the latest (I believe Travis effect video 4) is interesting, but we dont know the energy spend by the air compressor to fill the cup on the right of the aquarium compared to the one on the left, this is essential information.  Poor videos introduction to the ZED.

Hope to understand the ZED principle with better drawings or explanations. So many pages to read.

What is mainly missing in this thread is some physics (with no numerical values) to explain the phenomena, it seems to be all based on the Archimede force, with so many scientists and engineers having seen it, build it or think at it, something should have come up, all I find are numbers and values in mm, pounds, PSI or whatever, they are sometime difficult to measure precisely like the air pressure in the 2 cups.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MIdone on August 25, 2012, 08:35:53 PM

Hello mrwayne, TinselKoala and all.

Like some others I too have been observing this discussion out of curiosity. 
Some observations:

Trying to be unbiased; mrwayne did say the power source of his control panel on his device in the pics & video, is a battery.  Charged by his machine. -which was said to put out a total of 36 watts.   He also said:  ..."our 10K system is not much bigger than my 36watt model."(post1275) don't know if that means he built one or just on paper


When Mark Dansie. was there, (with the machine that was outside) mrwayne alluding to that it ran over night, and pressure readings were the same the next morning.  It doesn't appear that there was any charging devices run by that machine to charge the battery then.  When it was rebuilt inside his building, it does show charging equipment there run by his machine.

Mrwayne said his machine will run (when in working condition) until he decides to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself.  I think this is what mrwayne means when he says he clearly has over unity.

Mrwayne said he has funded money, so he must have convinced someone.  He's also dishing it out.  Webby was given $2k on his claim of a 145% efficient experiment.

This is all very incredible!

***************************

Reasons why a rational person would still question:

The promise of Mark Dansie. to do a long run test investigation was delayed, (near the beginning of this tread), and now seems to be indefinitely delayed or dropped.  Mrwayne's last long run test of last weekend must have failed, so Mark Dansie was again called off.

Mrwayne has now taken a different direction.  He is going to build a demonstration machine to prove his over unity claims and has offered $10k to anyone who also can.
So clearly; right now, he does not have a machine to demonstrate his claims. -otherwise he wouldn't have to build one now, or pay others too.

My simple mind says this is what should have been built at the start, before you dump time and money into constructing a building size machine.

Webby didn't have clear measurements and results to prove overunity.  If he did, it should be easy to copy by any scientist to prove it also.

**************************

I'm not attacking anyone; there are just common sense observations.

I wish the best to all!




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 25, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
Hi webby
The suitable item that occupy 90% of the volume inside the cup does not lift with the cup and this is why that cup losses rapidly its ability to lift the mass. is this correct up to now? So the travis effect work only on small distance like the 1" of your example. I start to understand, what still surprise me is that the air pressure is same in both cups.


I love it when people compare apples to hand grenades :)

Simple evaluation of the basic effect should be viewed more in this way:

2 identical cups 5 inches tall 4 inches in diameter with vertical walls, 1 cup has its interior space occupied by a suitable item so that it has 1\10 the open volume.  Place a balance tube between the top of the 2 cups, this keeping the pressure values the same.  Fill the 2 cups with air, with the pressure being the same between them the air pocket will progress down the water column inside the cups to the same level, this level will be the bottom of the cups.

One cup will use 1\10 the air at pressure to reach this point as compared to the other cup, conclusion: it has taken 1\10 the energy to fill one cup as compared to the other.

Both cups have the same ability at this point to "lift" the same mass, so now the cups are allowed to lift the mass.  One cup losses it ability to do so rapidly and so for it to continue the lift more energy must be used to fill it with more air, if we limit the "lift" to 1 inch then the amount of relative energy I must add will be 1\5 more for that cup, so to move the same mass the same distance in the same time one cup requires 30% of the energy the other cup needs.

No energy has been created, it has been used more efficiently.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 25, 2012, 10:08:20 PM
Can we all just settle down for a minute?
 
Wayne, I think TK said your system did in fact appear to increase the output of the PerPump for a portion of the cycle....
 
TK, please lay off the instant coffee so late in the day (I'm LIT on diet Pepsi again myself...).  It creates an aggressive Koala when we know you are really soft and cuddly (and have very pointy dangerous claws and teeth!).
 
Personally, I want to see more TinselZed experiments.
 
It's the only way to be sure.  (come ON!   Somebody gets what movie my "lines" keep coming from!?!)
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 10:35:25 PM
@mond: I do get them .... "believe it or not"....    ;)

@parisd: Are we sure that the air pressure is the same in both cups? I've suggested connecting them with a thin tube at the tops, to make sure that they are, and see if the Travis Effect persists. Has anyone done this little experiment?

@MIdone: So thank you for making it clear. Let me summarize so that we can be sure that I've got it straight. The machine in the video that we are talking about, outside there. The control panel and other electrical circuits were powered by  internal batteries, but there wasn't any electrical generator or other "output" from the overall system on that unit, and the energy in the batteries came from some external charger. Right so far?

Please note -- everyone -- that I am not implying... or hoping that anyone else will _infer_ that I find anything wrong or suspicious about this. I am just trying to get the phenomenology straight... what it is that I am actually seeing as opposed to interpreting from descriptions and so on. What does the device actually _do_ as opposed to what the theory says or what the inventor expects will happen when it's fixed properly.

And the longest observed run, unpowered and unresupplied with anything, has been "overnight". Right?

I say my PerPump "will run (when in working condition) until I decide to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself." (MIdone's words). Not only that, I've demonstrated that it will run, several times, at least until it breaks down, springs a leak or runs out of water. May I then claim that this is clear overunity performance? If not.... why not?

I don't even have a battery. Is that why not, since we already know that all overunity machines must have a battery?

 :-\
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Hello mrwayne, TinselKoala and all.

Like some others I too have been observing this discussion out of curiosity. 
Some observations:

Trying to be unbiased; mrwayne did say the power source of his control panel on his device in the pics & video, is a battery.  Charged by his machine. -which was said to put out a total of 36 watts.   He also said:  ..."our 10K system is not much bigger than my 36watt model."(post1275) don't know if that means he built one or just on paper


When Mark Dansie. was there, (with the machine that was outside) mrwayne alluding to that it ran over night, and pressure readings were the same the next morning.  It doesn't appear that there was any charging devices run by that machine to charge the battery then.  When it was rebuilt inside his building, it does show charging equipment there run by his machine.

Mrwayne said his machine will run (when in working condition) until he decides to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself.  I think this is what mrwayne means when he says he clearly has over unity.

Mrwayne said he has funded money, so he must have convinced someone.  He's also dishing it out.  Webby was given $2k on his claim of a 145% efficient experiment.

This is all very incredible!

***************************

Reasons why a rational person would still question:

The promise of Mark Dansie. to do a long run test investigation was delayed, (near the beginning of this tread), and now seems to be indefinitely delayed or dropped.  Mrwayne's last long run test of last weekend must have failed, so Mark Dansie was again called off.

Mrwayne has now taken a different direction.  He is going to build a demonstration machine to prove his over unity claims and has offered $10k to anyone who also can.
So clearly; right now, he does not have a machine to demonstrate his claims. -otherwise he wouldn't have to build one now, or pay others too.

My simple mind says this is what should have been built at the start, before you dump time and money into constructing a building size machine.

Webby didn't have clear measurements and results to prove overunity.  If he did, it should be easy to copy by any scientist to prove it also.

**************************

I'm not attacking anyone; there are just common sense observations.

I wish the best to all!
Thank you for the clarity.
A couple of points:
The System we had running last Nov - Marks second visit -  we ran it that night after the complet evacuation of the system and reset - no that system was not allowed to run all night - the battery was not being chargered back then and it would have stopped
What I did say - barring mechanical failure - and having mechanical (latching) valve to switch flow directions - it would run continuously.
I call it overunity - because it has no input - that one overcame six mechanical losses and we had to bleed off the production in order to keep the pressure regulated -(low).
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator - and it took us three months and $60,000 dollars to find out that our multisection Ram - hydraulic cylinder had improper tightened Tie rods - which resulted in the outer housing of the cylinder to bend during high pressure.
He and the rest of the validation team have been patiently waiting.
Next - The direction change and the small model build in house was in response to feed back from Our Engineers ZED presentation.
They decided they wanted more than pointing at the machine.
The $5k and $10k challenge is to end the BS that others are trying to make stick on our real machine.
Webby's work is great - he and his team are going to do better. I am glad to help.
Lastly - the size of the system - before we knew why it worked - we knew what worked and so we built to that understanding - now we know why and how to optimize - our 10K system is much smaller than if we used the original theory.
Much much improvements has been made since  - even our Data collection model.
As I have stated here before - we do have many people replicating the physics - and visiting - and without any help from me - models they send - agree with what our engineers show.
I want to thank you for your research - well done, good thinking and good opinions.
I hope this clears the mud a little.
Wayne Travis
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:53:25 PM
To All,
I am going to begin selecting ignore in our options tab to people who intentionally misdirect the conversation toward their own goals.

So if you see a question that is worth repeating - please restate it - if you like.
Thank you Very much -

@ZED Replication teams -
We have four official teams working on the desk top model - fantastic!
In consideration of the time and effort - All four will receive Share certificates - of HydroEnergy Revolution.
Please share your photo's of your process from time to time.

@All,
I will be focusing on our validation now that our blockage was repaired - but I will answer questions as the come - at least an hour a day.

Thank you all who have suffered thru this last round.

God willing, we will bring Clean Energy to the World - and the Independence it brings.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 26, 2012, 12:08:08 AM

I say my PerPump "will run (when in working condition) until I decide to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself." (MIdone's words).

Not only that, I've demonstrated that it will run, several times, at least until it breaks down, springs a leak or runs out of water.

May I then claim that this is clear overunity performance? If not.... why not?

I don't even have a battery. Is that why not, since we already know that all overunity machines must have a battery?

 :-\

No cigar TK, sorry  ;) .. you need to complete the cycle & lift ALL the water back to its original PE's [that's additional Work Done] i.e. it must be able to replenish system energy losses & replenish system PE & then this would be OU performance.

It would be showing indisputable OU if it could do external work [like turning a gen etc] on top of the work to cover losses & lift the water masses back to their original positions - that would be a free energy engine that proved gravity was not conservative.

So far you have captured some of the energy of falling water that was previously given PE when you lifted it into position to start the machine [kinda like a ram pump uses a percentage of the water & its KE] - but you need to refill the 'gas' tank as it stands now - somehow you need to close that loop to claim OU performance.


............................


Mr Wayne's team should have their new model ready possibly before the 4 replication teams since they have the advantage of familiarity I would think.

This is a process that leads to a result & it is that result I am most interested in because it should bring forth independent information as no one is following a set of blue prints supplied by Mr Wayne & his engineers - I would expect all teams results/performance to eventually align & have repeatable consistency after some tweaking suggestions from Mr Wayne's engineers if initial results are significantly different.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 26, 2012, 12:35:23 AM
 Attached is the ‘Travis Water Height calculator based on Outer Retainer Water Drop 4 Riser’. It has been modified for better clarity and handles small models better. Data was added (top right of first picture) based on Wayne’s comment that the model should be 3 times taller than the width of average of diameter.
 
It does not have any VBA modules, so it should work well with any spreadsheet software.
 
If you don’t have sensors in your model, the calculator can be used to predict the water levels and Psi’s at Partial Pre-Charge and Full Pre-charge.
 
The Gap value is for all gaps, air/water channels and below Riser/above Retainer. Does anybody need it separate for below Riser/above Retainer as it would make the model less distorted if a large air/water channel was used?
 
Note that these smaller models with larger relative Gaps have several advantages. Has a much better force advantage over the Hydraulic (peach line) due to a higher Riser diameter increase ratio. The ‘% of Pod change’ values (top of second picture in blue) are improved due to lower compression. Between those two and the 4 U advantage in this case, the OU should be obvious.
 
I will next be working on a 5 Riser version.
 
Regards, Larry
 

PS: Wayne thanks, for the ignore suggestion, works great. The constant aggravation factor with very little or no value towards the goal, is not worth reading.
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 26, 2012, 02:39:37 AM
Attached is the ‘Travis Water Height calculator based on Outer Retainer Water Drop 4 Riser’. It has been modified for better clarity and handles small models better. Data was added (top right of first picture) based on Wayne’s comment that the model should be 3 times taller than the width of average of diameter.
 
It does not have any VBA modules, so it should work well with any spreadsheet software.
 
If you don’t have sensors in your model, the calculator can be used to predict the water levels and Psi’s at Partial Pre-Charge and Full Pre-charge.
 
The Gap value is for all gaps, air/water channels and below Riser/above Retainer. Does anybody need it separate for below Riser/above Retainer as it would make the model less distorted if a large air/water channel was used?
 
Note that these smaller models with larger relative Gaps have several advantages. Has a much better force advantage over the Hydraulic (peach line) due to a higher Riser diameter increase ratio. The ‘% of Pod change’ values (top of second picture in blue) are improved due to lower compression. Between those two and the 4 U advantage in this case, the OU should be obvious.
 
I will next be working on a 5 Riser version.
 
Regards, Larry
 

PS: Wayne thanks, for the ignore suggestion, works great. The constant aggravation factor with very little or no value towards the goal, is not worth reading.
Very Nice Larry and thanks for helping everyone.
The best part is - you only show the upstroke  :)
On the "ignore" I tried very patiently - at some point you have to make a decision.
Keep up the good work!
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MIdone on August 26, 2012, 03:48:25 AM
@mond: I do get them .... "believe it or not"....    ;)

@parisd: Are we sure that the air pressure is the same in both cups? I've suggested connecting them with a thin tube at the tops, to make sure that they are, and see if the Travis Effect persists. Has anyone done this little experiment?

@MIdone: So thank you for making it clear. Let me summarize so that we can be sure that I've got it straight. The machine in the video that we are talking about, outside there. The control panel and other electrical circuits were powered by  internal batteries, but there wasn't any electrical generator or other "output" from the overall system on that unit, and the energy in the batteries came from some external charger. Right so far?

Please note -- everyone -- that I am not implying... or hoping that anyone else will _infer_ that I find anything wrong or suspicious about this. I am just trying to get the phenomenology straight... what it is that I am actually seeing as opposed to interpreting from descriptions and so on. What does the device actually _do_ as opposed to what the theory says or what the inventor expects will happen when it's fixed properly.

And the longest observed run, unpowered and unresupplied with anything, has been "overnight". Right?

I say my PerPump "will run (when in working condition) until I decide to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself." (MIdone's words). Not only that, I've demonstrated that it will run, several times, at least until it breaks down, springs a leak or runs out of water. May I then claim that this is clear overunity performance? If not.... why not?

I don't even have a battery. Is that why not, since we already know that all overunity machines must have a battery?

 :-\
TK, it looks like mrwayne has answered those questions in his post, and corrected me saying that it did not run over night.  So oher then what we see in the video, I don't know of any statements of observed run times.

I think if you are interested enough; and confident enough with the claims and what information there is in this discussion and patent application; you could be the first one to build a continuously self-running, working ZED demonstration model to stop the BS,  -and when you send it to mrwayne for examination, he will give you a prize of $10,000  Or you could shoot for the $5,000 prize.

His challenge is in Reply #1552 on: August 20, 2012, 11:47:07 PM, and he says you don't even have to beat his team who are switching gears to build one. 

or...

patiently wait and see if the movie comes out; produced by Mark Dansie.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 26, 2012, 03:55:18 AM
@fletcher: no probs, mate, I agree with you completely.   ;)

Let's just make sure we hold... er... everybody to the same standard, OK? 

I mean..... if my PerPump machine springs a leak or is stopped for some other reason than it ran out of water, before it ran out of water, then we still don't have a fully complete cycle, do we?  I mean, imagine this. We are doing a run and after some time ... the machine stops, so we look at the precharge water and air pressure and we see it's decreased. What do we conclude... OH, yeah.... we conclude that it sprang a leak somewhere, and that if only it didn't leak the precharge would remain and it wouldn't stop.

Makes sense to me. My car is the same way. It stops.... so I look in the gas tank and see it's empty. Darn.... must have a leak.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 26, 2012, 04:01:34 AM
@midone - welcome to the group - I'm a newbie too.
Great posts.
Careful how you feed the bears; cute, cuddly and VERY creative - but they bite  :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 26, 2012, 04:18:53 AM
TK, it looks like mrwayne has answered those questions in his post, and corrected me saying that it did not run over night.  So oher then what we see in the video, I don't know of any statements of observed run times.

I think if you are interested enough; and confident enough with the claims and what information there is in this discussion and patent application; you could be the first one to build a continuously self-running, working ZED demonstration model to stop the BS,  -and when you send it to mrwayne for examination, he will give you a prize of $10,000  Or you could shoot for the $5,000 prize.
You can't be serious. What if what I build doesn't run? I could be holding my mouth wrong, I could be using the wrong color water.... I could have a 60 thousand dollar torque wrench problem.
Besides, my PerPump is already just as continuously running as anything we've seen. Do you not think I could make it run overnight, before it springs a leak or runs out of water, by giving it very large, elevated reservoirs that I am allowed to precharge?
I don't want MrWayne's money, at all, and at this point I wouldn't take it if he offered it to me. And there is no way that I'd take thousands of dollars for a bunch of glued together discarded plastic packaging, anyway. If he wants to give away money so badly, let him give it to his local no-kill animal shelter or spay-neuter program, in the name of Eureka Archimedes.
Quote

His challenge is in Reply #1552 on: August 20, 2012, 11:47:07 PM, and he says you don't even have to beat his team who are switching gears to build one. 

or...

patiently wait and see if the movie comes out; produced by Mark Dansie.

Enjoy.
Yes, thank you, I have seen that. Pretty funny. Even if his team makes the first selfpowered water pump using zeds as specified, he will still award the money to another independent team that makes one later.  Quite an incentive, isn't it? To me it means that his team doesn't have now and has never yet had a small working model of their operating principle, and they are hoping someone will help them develop it. I've noted that 10,000 dollars is very cheap for such a device. If I had one it would be worth a million, instantly, and a billion by the end of 2012, and onwards from there.

And as far as waiting for the movie... I note your use of the word "IF".   

Let me ask YOU something, there, MIdone, since you seem to be a talker and MrWayne has probably put me on his ignore list.
If YOU had a device that really truly overturned physics, thermodynamics, and engineering principles and created energy out of "nothing", even at the low excess rate of 36 Watts..... how exactly would you handle getting it to market, getting it "validated" or confirmed?

Wouldn't you be worried about the people that go around blowing up laboratories and stealing notebooks and prototypes, the MIBs who assassinated Nikola Tesla and stole his notes, the Big Oil people who have a great stake in keeping things as they are, the Mossad, who are known to steal what they want that might be of military significance, the people who "rifle" computers at a distance to steal data and images...... the Agents of Suppression of Free Energy, in other words? Moray, Tesla, Meyers, Papp... there are literally hundreds of cases in the literature of suppression of free energy technologies, and many of them weren't nearly as good as what MrWayne's got. By discussing it here on this forum.... aren't you practically sending out invitations?

So I've just got to wonder.... why are we discussing this here at all? Why isn't Mr Wayne sequestered in his very own laboratory at Boeing or LLNL, working for our Government on this project that has clear national security implications?

I mean... I certainly got YOUR message: you want ME to stop discussing it here.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on August 26, 2012, 06:24:09 AM
@midone - welcome to the group - I'm a newbie too.
Great posts.
Careful how you feed the bears; cute, cuddly and VERY creative - but they bite  :)

Yes, welcome MIDone! Good to see more newbies!

Wild animals are unpredictable and may bite the hand that tries to feed them.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MIdone on August 26, 2012, 08:00:55 AM
Tk, you seem to be taking this ZED discussion seriously.
I have been observing it, and kind of just testing the waters now by repeating things already stated in this discussion to see the reaction.  My suggestion to you was not completely serious, because I knew by your logic displayed here you probably wouldn't start building one.  It was a bit facetious.
At the same time, I tried to point out things mrwayne already had answered that you may not have read.

At the beginning of this discussion mrwayne said several times that he was not here to prove his machine was overunity, (in his own mind he just knows it is, because of whatever he and his team decided).  I believe he said he was here just to show this effect he named, and how it is used in his machine.  He has done that, but has not proved overunity with the information presented.  He wants people to take his word that it's overunity, and build it. 
What's makes a person decide to do that without mrwayne showing a working one, and wave that important aspect by???...he convinced them, maybe by just repeating that it's clearly overunity enough that some want to believe.  Some are convinced, because he presents himself as being convinced.  There's that mystery of 'what if?'
This is what rings the bell to a lot of us as being an illogical reason, because the reality of hard evidence has not been presented.  There are extraordinary claims, but we have not be presented the proof.

I may be wrong; but technically, I don't recall mrwayne himself ever saying that he has a continuousely self-running, *WORKING* ZED that demonstrates overunity. To him, he is sure at times something has worked.  He was working on getting it working; for Mark Dansie to really dig in and test.  He said he could get it working because it was just mechanical problems.  Assured people that he could get it working because it was just mechanical problems.  Has plenty of money to get it working; but that wasn't working.  Old ZED isn't doing what ZED's are suppose to do.

I also stated a serious common sense observation that should make a rational person still question this stuff, that no one has seemed to pick up on.  Accept maybe you just now.  -This change of gears because Old ZED has got some Gremlins.

What I stated in my first post that should be obvious and now very clear to people; is that right now mrwayne does not have a working machine that can demonstrate overunity.  If he did, he would not be now shifting gears to build a working machine to demonstrate overunity, to end what he calls BS -in his post, (TK, I was just repeating what he thinks is BS).  Or trying to get someone in this discussion to build one for him, to send him to demonstrate overunity, for a prize of $10k.  This really shows a sign of reaching out, to get out of a mess.

In my mind, as an inventor, this is what you would do yourself.  Before you spend tens of thousands on a building size machine. Before you file for a patent on it.
What happened here, is what is called 'jumping the gun'.

I don't want to aggravate people by stating these things anymore.  If people want to experiment, it's no problem to me.  Something will always be learned.
If someone builds something that actually works that Mark Dansie is waiting to really test, great.  Something caught this professional skeptics attention.

So enjoy.

Thanks for the welcome guys, and as I said before I'm just making some observations.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 26, 2012, 09:35:12 AM
TK: Never claimed that, you misread me. I beleive Travis effect is a piston effect so pressure should be higher. I read it was equal and was surprised of that.


@parisd: Are we sure that the air pressure is the same in both cups? I've suggested connecting them with a thin tube at the tops, to make sure that they are, and see if the Travis Effect persists. Has anyone done this little experiment?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 26, 2012, 09:45:48 AM
@webby: You think you've got problems... I have to unscrew the jars and pour out the water, to start mine over !
But in your case, I thought that was what the second unit was supposed to do... as the first one reached top dead center, or maybe just before, the second one starts mashing back down on the first one to drive it back to the start state. So the second one's cycle starts halfway thru the first one's cycle. For my PerPump it's a matter of keeping the input and output flows constant so that the floater doesn't hit the stop but is dynamically stable halfway up. It's not a cycling system but more like balancing on a basketball.
 ;)

@MIdone: Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure, though, that MrWayne has avoided making the direct claims, though. Until yesterday I thought the thing had been observed to operate for days... that is the impression I got, somehow, from the statements that have been made by various people. The specific fly in the ointment that you've pointed out... yes, I've thought that too, from the instant the news was out. I am reminded very strongly of Steorn, Orbo and the SKDB cult-club trying to solve McCarthy's problem for him.
But in spite of all this I still believe that MrWayne himself is sincere..... but mistaken, perhaps a little self-deluded, or perhaps even himself the mark in a long con being played by someone else.

It's clear to me that they have excellent technical assistance.... the welding is great, the hydraulics and pneumatics all look great, all of that very professionally and expensively done by people who knew what they were doing. But some of the problems that have been reported, and the lumbering, groaning, uneven operation of the machines we have been shown indicate a certain lack of ... something, I don't know what.... at the design level just above the actual construction of the machine. This sixty thousand dollar overtorque issue is a case in point, although I don't have enough detail to be able to evaluate just what happened and how to prevent, say, an innocent replicator from having the same problem.

@seamus 10n: I do believe that the Wright brothers flew many kites and tethered gliders, even invented the wind tunnel to test models during the years that they were developing their silly invention. They even soared, in unpowered gliders, making sustained flights in the updrafts at Kill Devil Hill, and learned how to fly and how to control their airframes. Only after they had lots of success with kites, wind tunnel models, tethered gliders, and actual soaring gliders, did they finally hang a motor and some propellers on their best glider design and exhibit it to the world.

Exactly backwards from the present case, it seems.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 26, 2012, 10:49:18 AM
na
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 26, 2012, 11:47:51 AM
@Parisd. The answer to your question is in the quote from MT. Pressure stays at 8psi, because water is being continuously injected into the pod chamber during the time that the riser is lifting.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on August 26, 2012, 01:54:43 PM
Parisd and Neptune,
The 2 pdf attached might clarify and answer your query with regards to stroke displacement.
It is also the criteria on how to determine the distance of the stroke (at the design stage).
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 26, 2012, 02:32:23 PM
Good Morning,
 
Just read all of the recent analysis's of my methodology and some humorous theories.

Let me clear a few things up, my methodology is simple -my methods are of a teacher - blessed with the understanding, patience, and concern for others.

From my years it is clear - not many things handed to you are kept valuable - but things worth keeping are worth earning.

This Invention has value far beyond any pot of gold, and claim to fame, any one man (wrong motives have been asserted) - the most value this machine represents is the education that will follow - and the new field of discovery that will bloom from it.

That Frontier is the end to what we labored here - it is worth and the reason we accepted ridicule, and very unprofessional treatment.

It is understandable - there is not a two hour movie showing the history of the invention - it is not on NetFlix - and so speculation is normal at this overlapping time of times. Discussing what should of been and what shall be - when it is happening...

It took four and half years to develop this system - and it is getting better every day - it worked a long time ago.
Now with respect - If I had been handed this machine complete - I would have never understood it at all.

If you "who speculate" had been privy to those four years - you would not only be supportive - you would do like so many from around the world are doing - you would be flying down here to be a part of it.

The reason to be on this site - "Some here have shown a willingness to learn".

Giving and serving the minds of others is what true educators do, and when others dive in - thier effort expands my ability to see the complexity from another angle -to see what others see is a gift - and helps to sharpen my ability to teach others.

The difficulty I have had in this discussion - is some of other students - as brilliant as they might be - are not the teachers of this subject - namely the ZED technology.

They choose instead to be the self appointed fraud detectors - just one wish I had - they should have become students first. How can they play policeman if they do not know the system. Very frustrating from both sides I am sure.

A physcologist wrote me and asked if I minded him following the story --he suspects that the internet has created a new paradigm in discovery - it could be the reason for so few inventions - I suppose that if edison had to deal with "the trolls" would he have tried 1000 times?
Teaching /sharing - is not a waste of anyones time, and when it comes to Good Engineers - rarely does one grasp the ZED technology the first time thru. Entering this with patience is a must.
We waited until we were far enough along that others negativity did not matter - and that is what seperates us from a lot of the inventions that end in error.

As Se3d said - (paraphrased) If someone thinks this system is simple - they have no idea what they are talking about..

And I personally say - Teaching is very much worth the effort - when you care for others.

One last thing - I have never charged for any class I ever taught, never charged a speaking fee, never charged for a lecture - and I have almost always supplied the teaching tools - That is part of my methodology.

And the "Why" do I do it - What would you do if you held one of the most promising technologies to help the suffering of mankind - run to investors - hide it in a lab - if you are a man of character - you would suffer indignations in order to bring it to the world.

It is the example my Saviour has demonstrated to me.

Wayne Travis

p.s
To all, My many thanks for your efforts to learn the ZED technology, do not fear, or be misled, it is not a waste of time or effort.
 
 
Learning something "Truly New" is at least as hard to teach - as it is to learn - thank you for helping me.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 26, 2012, 02:57:50 PM
Hi Wayne.My understanding of where you are at right now. You have resolved the big problem that has been bugging you with the issue of the bolts/tie rods. So now you are back on track with your test programme, and when you are satisfied with the results, you will schedule another visit by Mark Dansie.
    Question. In view of the above, is your team still continuing with the desk top demonstration model?
    You seem to be in the mood to talk philosophy today.So here is a philosophical question for you. Many of your team members are hard sceptics, and originally came to disprove the technology. Then they saw something that changed their minds, and stayed to become part of the team.
     The big question is, what was it that they saw that changed their minds? The answer probably varies from one man to another. Perhaps you could give us one or two examples?


Respect, neptune.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 26, 2012, 03:51:24 PM
Hi Wayne.My understanding of where you are at right now. You have resolved the big problem that has been bugging you with the issue of the bolts/tie rods. So now you are back on track with your test programme, and when you are satisfied with the results, you will schedule another visit by Mark Dansie.
    Question. In view of the above, is your team still continuing with the desk top demonstration model?
    You seem to be in the mood to talk philosophy today.So here is a philosophical question for you. Many of your team members are hard sceptics, and originally came to disprove the technology. Then they saw something that changed their minds, and stayed to become part of the team.
     The big question is, what was it that they saw that changed their minds? The answer probably varies from one man to another. Perhaps you could give us one or two examples?


Respect, neptune.
Hello Neptune, yes we are back on track.

No, the Demo Challenge is "On" - it has nothing to do with our validation delay - that was an assumption - not from me.
Our engineers decided that a very simple model would be helpful for their demonstration to the validation team.

As I saw the usefulness of the model they wanted and I was gifted the prize money - same time - one plus one = the opportunity to fund the ZFC.

You guys and gals are in ZFC - (ZED First Class) - your work will help teach generations - do you see the value in that? It is well worth the effort and funding.

Little Philosophy I learned - A wise man plants a tree that he might never be able to climb, so that others might be able.

One gift of encouragment I have over everyone else - Good Men and Women from around the world are sharing their OM Gosh moments with me - those will be in book, or movie lol.

The common term I hear - is goose bumps suddenly ran up my arms..... when the gravity of the discovery hit...pun intended..

As far as why others follow - that is as big a questions as why people who are very educated and do not think Free energy is possible - spend time on an Overunity web site?

I will leave that to the Others for now.

Thanks, Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 26, 2012, 06:48:52 PM
I appreciate being included on the back Chanel conversations,, I would like to be included in ALL of them,, thank you.

TK,

What kind of coffee do you like?? I will send you some if you simply will take a moment before you post,, you like instant? Starbucks has there
Iced Via caramel that is fabulous.   Send M your info and I will send you some.

NOW,, children stop with all this garbage.

I have seen an anomaly,, I am playing with it and I am trying to tie it out.

None of this stuff that you are putting up here is helping me in getting there,, so if you are Not BUILDING, please ask questions that those of us that are MAY be able to answer.

TK, I have not been able to come up with a test that allows me to back the system up,, I have to over compress the risers with mass to start the reverse lift process,, HOW can *I* get rid of that problem.

MH,, yes what is needed is all the final data,, but if that can not be given then what may I be able to give you to get past this issue?? or at least move on to the anomaly that is in the room.

So, HELP ME HELP YOU, quit with all this stuff and give ME guidance.

 
Hi Webby1. In the quote above you are addressing TK, but as you posted this publicly, I feel it is appropriate to comment. What exactly do you mean by "back the system up", and "the reverse lift process".Exactly what problem are you trying to get rid of ? Do please clarify.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 26, 2012, 08:53:51 PM
Hello Webby,
You are discovering the production difference between the up stroke and the down stroke.
The up stroke is captured by lifting a weight - and the process was Precharge first and then lift volume added.
The down stroke is pre charge out first (free flow) - and then pressure and flow out from the remaining weight.
The process is not a complete reverse.
Also
If the input load is still on - you have full head even after your lift - pushing the other ways like pushing a spring from both directions - only their is only so much give.
Very cool mind bender - output removed - still full power in the spring....................this is important.
If you wanted to lift the original input weight .....lift that weight directly and measure how much it weighs as the heads retract - that is measureable hint hint.
Lots to observe and learn here I promise -
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 26, 2012, 09:13:12 PM
@Webby1. Thanks for that clarification. That`s a start as now I understand what the problem is. Sadly at this stage I do not know the answer, but the more readers who fully understand the question, the greater the likelyhood of an answer.
     One way to look at it is this. Use the "divide and conquer" technique. The problem has to be either in the Zed itself, or in your input pump. Is it possible to disconnect your input pump? Or build a copy of it? If it is replace the Zed with a balloon and use the pump to pump water into the balloon,. Put the balloon under one end of a small lever[half a see-saw], and put a weight on top of the lever. So the balloon and lever now takes the place of the Zed. Do you still have the same problem, or not ?
    OK, its a crazy theory, but it is something else to try.
     Maybe Wayne has a theory?
Sorry, Mrwayne beat me to it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 26, 2012, 10:16:14 PM

As far as why others follow - that is as big a question as why people who are very educated and do not think Free energy is possible - spend time on an Overunity web site?

Thanks, Wayne


Skeptics who don't believe in 'something for nothing' in energy terms [like harnessing conservative gravity] can still believe in potential for free-energy technology & engines derived from this.

For a layman any free-energy technology's modus operandi might be generically thought of as OU, hense the legitimacy of spending time on an Overunity web site.

The subtle difference between OU & free-energy is sometimes missed - an engine that uses a differential or gradient derived & harnessed from nature to cause asymmetric torque would be free-energy but since the environment is providing the energy 'top up' it would not be OU.

The world is not a dearth of such devices, in fact they are very common - solar, wind, water & tide power, barometric pressure & temperature/thermal devices etc - each has a natural cycle where the energy is provided by the environment for the basis of a free-energy engine, but they are not 'closed system' OU as you would describe it, using conservative forces - they are 'open systems' that do not invalidate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Hence there is a much greater statistical probability of finding free-energy thru harnessing an environmentally occurring force cobbled to a mechanical device to exploit it than finding OU from conservative forces in a closed mechanical system.

That's why skeptics of OU spend time at a free-energy web site.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 26, 2012, 10:41:05 PM
I agree wholly,

If you have read my letter on my web site - you understand where I stand on that same issue.

I would say that our ZED is a possibly a hybrid - at least mentally until fully understood.

Yes it appear to be a Black box supplying power - but if you remove one key ingredient - it does not work.
Gravity.

And if you turn up Gravity - our system works better.

The hybrid part comes in when gravity effects what is inside the box - naturally.

Now, when I shared this last time - an argument was made that Gravity was a Conservative field.

This is the point of our ZED, we have found a work around - the conservative field.

A very effective "work around" Gravity is our wind - just a little more predictable.

Thanks for your input.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 27, 2012, 12:02:41 AM
@webby: Ah, I understand now. It's not that you can't push down, it's what happens when you do . Yes, this is a problem in my TinselZed in the PerPump too, but in my case it's caused by the restricted travel of the riser/pod I think. When it hits the top stop there is still plenty of pressure coming in so it "blows the skirt"... I think that's the right term.  You can see this in my output stream as a periodic fluctuation as the wasted pressure bubbles out beneath the riser's wall.
Just like in a Stirling cycle engine, it appears that the volumes and pressures have to be matched carefully and a bit of "inertia" or flywheel effect is needed. And I think that what MrWayne is describing is a sort of "overcenter" effect, where the system has to be driven that last little bit to get it past some compression or resistance before it springs back to the start of the cycle. Maybe. I'm having trouble with my translator these days.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 27, 2012, 12:14:09 AM
Quote
  I have to over compress the risers with mass to start the reverse lift process,, HOW can *I* get rid of that problem.

@Webby1 - THANK YOU for that comment ! - It may have greatly improved my understanding of the system by making me think about a comment of ( I think yours ) and several of Wayne's.

"Control the POD and you control the system." - Was that you? Deserves much more consideration... When you mentioned pressing down on the risers it made me review Wayne's test bed and remember that his "down-stroke energy input" is applied to the.... POD! by applying hydraulic up force to the convoluted bag of the sinking ZED ( at the same time down force is applied to the convoluted bag of the rising ZED ) - forcibly transferring the "post free-flow" pressure from the falling ZED to the one being readied to rise.

In a latter post you did comment that the POD had sunk but that the risers were still up. Is it possible your whole rig is too light? That sounds like the air is decompressing too much and not allowing the differentials to realign to the down position.

Maybe this starting to really make sense, maybe I'm just nuts. It "feels" like it's coming together for me....

Dale

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 27, 2012, 12:14:56 AM
back the system up,, make it go in reverse, use the risers to lift my piston.

Simple thought would be that the system should be able to work in both directions, it does but only sort of.

When the lift stops and the piston is down and risers up I can push on the risers and move them down and that lifts the piston, but when I do that I get to a point very quickly where I am compressing the risers to the point of blowing air out from underneath them, if I try and balance the system nicely and push slowly I see the risers go down before the piston goes up.

So, in one direction of operation I can measure the masses, measure the distance of travel and all that, in the reverse condition the values so far are not the same and I am trying to get to a point where the numbers can be compared and viewed correctly. 

Why am I needing to add force to the risers to lift the piston when the system is in a state of balance?? Why do the risers change a little when lift stops?? Why is the lift head higher than the holding head?? these are the things I am currently looking at.

@webby1, this is the most intersting observation that I've seen posted in quite a while.  Please let us know what more you learn about this apparent anomaly.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 27, 2012, 12:23:17 AM
Might as well watch something entertaining, while we are waiting for more demonstrations from visitors or replicators or whomever.

PerPump v 2.2 pushes over 13 1/2 inches of water head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3UGTyc36f4

I used top secret information leaked (no pun intended) to me by C...........o and incorporated it into the PongChamber, which nearly doubled the output power performance of the self-powered tabletop water pump.

"sorry about the light" and the shaky camera work... the silly thing wouldn't start at first, and then the down tube came unplugged, and then I had my marks on the wrong side of the measurement tube. But I finally did get a measured 13 1/2 inch head above the fountain outlet, and also showed the nicely increased internal pressure afterwards. This pressure could probably be used to push down on the TinselZed of another pump, resetting it, if you had somebody smart enough to figure out the valvulation required.

Koalas don't do valvulation, much, except electronically.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 27, 2012, 12:37:51 AM
@webby, if I may...
Quote
Why am I needing to add force to the risers to lift the piston when the system is in a state of balance??
Perhaps it's that "overcenter" thing, where you need to do what the hydraulic assist does in the big boy.
Quote
Why do the risers change a little when lift stops??
Perhaps you have a small leak of gas or water. That's what caused it in my TinselZed.
Quote
Why is the lift head higher than the holding head?? these are the things I am currently looking at.
Leaks, overcenter effect against an air pocket, or just timing: the system gets to settle a bit, walls expand or contract maybe.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on August 27, 2012, 01:50:36 AM
TK,
 
Thank you for keeping on station.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Fred Flintstone on August 27, 2012, 05:00:21 AM
I've watched the youtube fish tank videos. Is it possible, that the Travis Effect, shows that 10% of the air will lift 10% of the distance?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
Hi all
i have not visited here for a while so I am sorry I did not see your emails sooner.
I have respect for many of you (Milehigh and TK) and would never lock swords with you unless I have a death wish.
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this. However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
My observations some time go on a visit was it could hold pressure and keep operating for a limited time. I believe the longest run is 4 hours.
I was impressed by many of the people working with Wayne and thought it has a chance. But I will not say its real until a two day run followed by a team of very qualified engineers and scientists.
Many of you have called for me to call it a scam or busted but to be honest I am not qualified to debate the physics or mechanics. History is saying it can not happen, the engineers and scientists I have spoken to are divided.
I had advised Wayne not to debate matters in forums like this, just get on with it and get it running long enough so all inputs could be accounted for. i see no use in long debates and endless rhetoric. I am not sure Wayne is fully qualified to answer the questions but he does have some bright engineers on his team.
So I am just going to sit back and see if the day comes when I get the phone call to come down.
My other reason for as some of you put it you have gone soft on this, is it is sometimes about the journey. There is a lot of people involved at all levels and the journey is sometimes more important than the destination. Is it folly? I do not know but in depressed times in a rural community where this is coming out from it has brought a lot of happiness and good will from all walks of the community. Sometimes it is important to believe in things and I think the benefits can be measured in many ways.
However have no fear, I am still on my game in all other areas, busting an average of 10 technologies a month lol. (I hate my job as I always just once one would work)
So all those who wrote to me, thank you and your views are noted and I agree in most cases. To Wayne, just get on with the demo.
As I stated before, I have no time frame but as time goes on confidence will diminish. I have not signed of but at this stage a think a little more breathing room is warranted.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 27, 2012, 06:05:35 AM
Mark, thanks for all your hard work.... keep an open mind, let it all hang out...    ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF7YLcoRbFA
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 27, 2012, 12:05:32 PM
@Webby1 - THANK YOU for that comment ! - It may have greatly improved my understanding of the system by making me think about a comment of ( I think yours ) and several of Wayne's.

"Control the POD and you control the system." - Was that you? Deserves much more consideration... When you mentioned pressing down on the risers it made me review Wayne's test bed and remember that his "down-stroke energy input" is applied to the.... POD! by applying hydraulic up force to the convoluted bag of the sinking ZED ( at the same time down force is applied to the convoluted bag of the rising ZED ) - forcibly transferring the "post free-flow" pressure from the falling ZED to the one being readied to rise.

In a latter post you did comment that the POD had sunk but that the risers were still up. Is it possible your whole rig is too light? That sounds like the air is decompressing too much and not allowing the differentials to realign to the down position.

Maybe this starting to really make sense, maybe I'm just nuts. It "feels" like it's coming together for me....

Dale
            One problem that seems to occur, is that I fail to understand, in laymens terms exactly what is being said in some posts. Maybe it is just me,and this is intended as a constructive criticism.
So if I understand the above correctly, once the Zed reaches the top of its upstroke, we need to actually "suck" some water out of the pod chamber, to initiate the downstroke., rather than just allow the water to exit under its own pressure. Or to say the least, until the downstroke is started, we can not expect the outgoing water to do any "work" as in lifting pistons, or helping to charge a second Zed. Anyone agree/disagree?
   
  Understanding how it all works. Some people have a eureka moment. For me it is a series of smaller eureka moments. Last night, for the first time, I understood how the concentric risers form a greater area of lift in a small space. One step at a time...
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 27, 2012, 12:31:48 PM
One small step at a time is MrWayne's stated intent so I'd say you are on the right track  :)

I still have a ways to go...
To attempt to answer your question: Take a look at the full cycle image again. This particular question deals with the case where one ZED is at full stroke and the other is "at rest". Neither is at 0 pressure but one is at a higher pressure than the other. I think at this stage the output hydraulics are locked so neither outer riser can move.

First, a valve opens allowing pressurized water from the higher pressure ZED to flow back into the CB ( convoluted bag ) forcing it up, this action starts to compress the CB of the lower pressure ZED "free flow". Neither of the outer risers is moving but the pressures in the POD chambers are equalizing and the differentials in both are starting to change some.

Once the pressures equalize as much as they can, additional down force is applied to the CB of the ( still lower ) pressure ZED. This doesn't "suck" water from the ( soon to be sinking ) ZED it just lowers the pressure more.

At some point ( not clear yet ) after the differentials in the ZED being "charged" go positive, the riser control releases and allows them to move. The weight remaining on the risers of the sinking ZED keeps the internal air compressed. I don't think the risers ever separate and if they do, not by much.

The down force on the CB of the ( now stroking ) ZED, combined with the load, keeps the internal differentials "ahead of the curve" until the end of the stroke.

Very elegant, but complex, cycle.

And again - I may be WAY off still and if I am maybe MrWayne will catch and correct - and I'll learn more....

Dale   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MIdone on August 27, 2012, 12:40:46 PM
.... I am not sure Wayne is fully qualified to answer the questions but he does have some bright engineers on his team.

Thanks Mark for giving an update and that info of maybe a 4 hour run time.  Your opinion was why I have been following this discussion.

From what I understood from mrwayne, is that HE is ‘The Teacher’, -the master of the ZED.  And the followers of the ZED are the pupils.  So he should be able to answer  a few questions regarding his invention if he wants people to help him resurrect the ZED.

***************************


If I run some current thoughts by, would mrwayne and friends consider something that I don’t think anyone has brought up yet?

What ran across my mind is the density of the water and/or antifreeze mix Old ZED is first pre-charged with; and that density changing as it ran.

From what I understand, ZED is emptied, and all his workings checked.
It is then charged up with air pressure and fluid levels.
Now maybe it runs for couple hours before it stops.
...but, the pressures readings and levels are still the same when it stops.

What if, when it is first charged up, the water is saturated with dissolved O2/air.
As it is run, the dissolve O2/air is slowly being separated out, which would be gradually change the density of the water, which in turn would be changing the buoyancy.
This changing bouyancy, because of changing density, is what is making it operate for a short time until the O2/air is all separated out.

***

Applying varying pressure, as in the workings of ZED, to a water saturated with dissolved O2/air, is going to squeeze the O2/air out at different rates. And density and bouyancy will also change.

When you are charging a tank or lines with rushing water, it can get it saturated with dissolved O2/air.  It’s the work that the little pump in a fish tank does.


Just thought this might be something to consider.

-Life really is better when you have a sense of humor ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 27, 2012, 12:59:36 PM
One small step at a time is MrWayne's stated intent so I'd say you are on the right track  :)

I still have a ways to go...
To attempt to answer your question: Take a look at the full cycle image again. This particular question deals with the case where one ZED is at full stroke and the other is "at rest". Neither is at 0 pressure but one is at a higher pressure than the other. I think at this stage the output hydraulics are locked so neither outer riser can move.

First, a valve opens allowing pressurized water from the higher pressure ZED to flow back into the CB ( convoluted bag ) forcing it up, this action starts to compress the CB of the lower pressure ZED "free flow". Neither of the outer risers is moving but the pressures in the POD chambers are equalizing and the differentials in both are starting to change some.

Once the pressures equalize as much as they can, additional down force is applied to the CB of the ( still lower ) pressure ZED. This doesn't "suck" water from the ( soon to be sinking ) ZED it just lowers the pressure more.

At some point ( not clear yet ) after the differentials in the ZED being "charged" go positive, the riser control releases and allows them to move. The weight remaining on the risers of the sinking ZED keeps the internal air compressed. I don't think the risers ever separate and if they do, not by much.

The down force on the CB of the ( now stroking ) ZED, combined with the load, keeps the internal differentials "ahead of the curve" until the end of the stroke.

Very elegant, but complex, cycle.

And again - I may be WAY off still and if I am maybe MrWayne will catch and correct - and I'll learn more....

Dale
Dale, you are right.

And we never go to vacuum or Zero -

We do not actually have a riser control during operation - we do for set up - but during operation - the total resistance - the weight of the system and the hydraulic resistance (the upstroke output) is the natural riser control.

When the head (differential) reaches the point to lift - the input to stroke becomes a process of maintaining the differential.

To all - on another portion - the point I was trying to make yesterday concerning Webby's reverse question :

In a single ZED set up with a weight as the input - the cost of the input weight needs to be calculated in the whole cycle.

I am sure this is forth coming - the end of the stroke would be with the input weight back in the raised position -
With that in mind - what was the cost to raise the weight?

It is not the full value of the weight - because as you went to return it - the differential in the head helps to lift it.

So the cost of lifting the weight is the true cost of the weight - now compare that to the out put - and you are under way to understanding the ability of a single ZED.

We use that effect in the dual ZED to have a nearly continuous output. Or faster cycle times.

Good questions and good work.
Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 27, 2012, 01:28:14 PM
Quote
We do not actually have a riser control during operation - we do for set up - but during operation - the total resistance - the weight of the system and the hydraulic resistance (the upstroke output) is the natural riser control.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 27, 2012, 02:17:58 PM
Hi all
i have not visited here for a while so I am sorry I did not see your emails sooner.
I have respect for many of you (Milehigh and TK) and would never lock swords with you unless I have a death wish.
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this. However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
My observations some time go on a visit was it could hold pressure and keep operating for a limited time. I believe the longest run is 4 hours.
I was impressed by many of the people working with Wayne and thought it has a chance. But I will not say its real until a two day run followed by a team of very qualified engineers and scientists.
Many of you have called for me to call it a scam or busted but to be honest I am not qualified to debate the physics or mechanics. History is saying it can not happen, the engineers and scientists I have spoken to are divided.
I had advised Wayne not to debate matters in forums like this, just get on with it and get it running long enough so all inputs could be accounted for. i see no use in long debates and endless rhetoric. I am not sure Wayne is fully qualified to answer the questions but he does have some bright engineers on his team.
So I am just going to sit back and see if the day comes when I get the phone call to come down.
My other reason for as some of you put it you have gone soft on this, is it is sometimes about the journey. There is a lot of people involved at all levels and the journey is sometimes more important than the destination. Is it folly? I do not know but in depressed times in a rural community where this is coming out from it has brought a lot of happiness and good will from all walks of the community. Sometimes it is important to believe in things and I think the benefits can be measured in many ways.
However have no fear, I am still on my game in all other areas, busting an average of 10 technologies a month lol. (I hate my job as I always just once one would work)
So all those who wrote to me, thank you and your views are noted and I agree in most cases. To Wayne, just get on with the demo.
As I stated before, I have no time frame but as time goes on confidence will diminish. I have not signed of but at this stage a think a little more breathing room is warranted.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
Thanks Mark, and I do respect your advice -
I have tried not to engage in the debate - but to share - it is difficult to separate the two.
This has been a valuable learning experience for me, so much so that I do suffer long.
It will not be long now - so all the time past will be forgotten - the effort and results will not be forgotten.
Thank You
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: cyber19 on August 27, 2012, 06:59:11 PM
Just a thought, if I understand correctly, for those looking for build material. These are graduated plastic beakers that you can probably cut the upper pour spout section off with a razor blade by rotating on a turn table.   

Plastic Beaker Set - 5 Sizes - 50, 100, 250, 500 and 1000ml

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OA1VY6/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&smid=A37SSOMGWCKVU1
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 27, 2012, 06:59:14 PM
Attached is the 5 Riser and a updated 4 Riser version files. They both have a new 'Gap Above Ret. / Below Riser' value. I added this because the previous way of using the Gap for both air / water column and above ret. / below riser causes a distortion effect with the larger relative gaps on a smaller model.
 
The attached picture shows output from the Idea Section of the 5 Riser and below is a 4 Riser. Again, the hydraulic is increasingly losing the battle as the number of Risers go up. The Riser + Ret. Diff. values are very interesting. Note how 25.135 is the same  for Riser 5, Retainer 4 and Riser 4, Retainer 3 even though the Accumulated PSI values are not the same. This is due to the fact that the SI's are the same, but the total difference in pressure below and above the Riser is the same. They are the same all across but at the end of the 5 Riser it has the additional 72.65 value being added. Layers Rule!
 
@Neptune,  Congratulations.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on August 27, 2012, 07:13:31 PM
Just a thought, if I understand correctly, for those looking for build material. These are graduated plastic beakers that you can probably cut the upper pour spout section off with a razor blade by rotating on a turn table.   

Plastic Beaker Set - 5 Sizes - 50, 100, 250, 500 and 1000ml

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OA1VY6/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&smid=A37SSOMGWCKVU1

Cyber19 - Welcome!
Nice find but also look for a set where the height of all beakers are equal. I believe that would replicate the risers more accurately.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: cyber19 on August 27, 2012, 07:29:32 PM
Cyber19 - Welcome!
Nice find but also look for a set where the height of all beakers are equal. I believe that would replicate the risers more accurately.

You could vary the cut below the spout to make the height equal on all if that is the only issue.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 27, 2012, 08:46:24 PM
A few thoughts on building materials. For experimentation, a Zed needs to be transparent. After some thought, I feel that the best chance is to build risers and ringwalls from scratch, as this gives a better chance of achieving the ideal hight to diameter ratio. Wayne said that the best compromise is that the average diameter of the risers should be about one third of the hight, so this is relatively tall and thin. A good material for models would be the type of plastic used to make large soft drink bottles, but preferably bought as a flat sheet. Anyone know a source?
      Look on Ebay at "Compass cutters." less than $5. Then all you need is patience and a good glue.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on August 27, 2012, 09:09:08 PM
Rideout Plastics sells sheets in .010 and .020 pretty reasonably.
I ordered 3 of my largest tubes from them.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 27, 2012, 09:42:59 PM
Having a Zed machine running 2 days instead of 4 hours is not relevant to proves or not OU, then after 2 days someone will ask for 2 weeks.


What is important to know is the reason why it stoped after 4 hours, is it because of a known or suspected hidden source of energy depleted or is it due to a conception problem (like a leak, an equipment failure, an pressure drop, too much friction or whatever else which IS NOT jeoperdizing the perpetual movement of the ZED if adequately corrected even if too costly or to complexe to solve at mrwayne scale.


So, to whoever can answer with certitude, what made the ZED to stop after 4hours?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 27, 2012, 09:58:13 PM
Having a Zed machine running 2 days instead of 4 hours is not relevant to proves or not OU, then after 2 days someone will ask for 2 weeks.

Hello parisd.  The importance of 48 hours under load is that Mark Dansie thought that amount of time would exhaust all possible sources of potential energy, which would prove that the ZED is a net energy producer.

Of course skeptics will want more right up to the point where they become a commercial reality.  However, Mark Dansie has set this as the hurdle for his team of expert engineers and/or scientists to spend the time and expense to understand and certify its operation.  This would lead to very large investments and commercialization.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on August 28, 2012, 12:51:13 AM
Important note for model builders, attached is Wayne's Bag Plumbing picture. Note that the input is reduced by pipe size and gate valve allowing adjustment of the input flow and the larger pipe size outlet flow is unrestricted. Should help with piston return. Check valves are cheap see  http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=489&clickid=redirect (http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=489&clickid=redirect)
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Gwandau on August 28, 2012, 01:13:31 AM
Mr Wayne,

I would like to hear your opinion of the gravity harnessing invention depicted below, since it seems to be using quite similar parameters to extract energy from gravity, even if this device is based upon a rotating system and depicted in a quite simplified sketch. Unfortunately this sketch is all documentation there is left from this once fully working gravity engine.

(This invention by the late Arno Werner was generating a dokumented excess output compared to input, and the scientists visiting Mr. Werner were openly confounded. As I recall from the TV program about him here in Sweden, the COP was very small due to the limited size of his prototype, and I remember him mentioning a German company willing to get involved in the construct of a bigger one. But unfortunately he died before being able to develope a more efficient prototype.)

Gwandau
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 28, 2012, 05:22:04 AM
Mr Wayne,

I would like to hear your opinion of the gravity harnessing invention depicted below, since it seems to be using quite similar parameters to extract energy from gravity, even if this device is based upon a rotating system and depicted in a quite simplified sketch. Unfortunately this sketch is all documentation there is left from this once fully working gravity engine.

(This invention by the late Arno Werner was generating a dokumented excess output compared to input, and the scientists visiting Mr. Werner were openly confounded. As I recall from the TV program about him here in Sweden, the COP was very small due to the limited size of his prototype, and I remember him mentioning a German company willing to get involved in the construct of a bigger one. But unfortunately he died before being able to develope a more efficient prototype.)

Gwandau

Hello Gwandau,
I do not feel qualified to make a statement about the device.
best wishes.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 28, 2012, 05:47:00 AM
Important note for model builders, attached is Wayne's Bag Plumbing picture. Note that the input is reduced by pipe size and gate valve allowing adjustment of the input flow and the larger pipe size outlet flow is unrestricted. Should help with piston return. Check valves are cheap see  http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=489&clickid=redirect (http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=489&clickid=redirect)
 
Regards, Larry

The amount of flow out must equal the amount of flow in, over a complete cycle, right? The same quantity flows out during half the cycle, as flows in during the other half of the cycle, right?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wizkycho on August 28, 2012, 12:21:11 PM
Hi all !
 
Effect is real, Free energy and overunity capable but shere size and complexity is issue
Proof through the roof for sceptics and such that supress FE. well done !
keep up the good work or even better join something more powerfull, smaller, easier to build:
- FDM by Igor Knitel
 
Igor Knitel
Perihelion Labs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 28, 2012, 01:22:49 PM
Important note for model builders, attached is Wayne's Bag Plumbing picture. Note that the input is reduced by pipe size and gate valve allowing adjustment of the input flow and the larger pipe size outlet flow is unrestricted. Should help with piston return. Check valves are cheap see  http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=489&clickid=redirect (http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.aspx?catid=489&clickid=redirect)
 
Regards, Larry
Hello Larry,
And very good point,
We gained a stability and control - by metering the inlet - You could sink as fast as you want - but you would give up exhaust pressure (if you move faster then the heads can keep up - as the other layers tried to catch up).
The input - or the up stroke - can be put in too fast and too powerfully - the load is hit to hard or the production moment can be overrun.
When we hit it too hard - you can see a pressure spike of 15 - 20 psi - in a system that has a max head pressure of 10.4. - kind of a dead head against a soft head...
And the water will shoot over the walls.
Restricting the "inlet only" - allows you to control the input speed - without metering restricting the exhaust - allowing you to dial in the speed to match your load.
Larry and All,
It may not be necessary depending on your input selection - We use hydraulic unrestricted fromthe production - when combined with the exhaust pressure - it can move pretty fast -
Any restriction is a loss - you have room for it - but I suggest being creative on your input - that can solve it also.
Now, Once you do have your "speed to load" set right - it is no longer an issue.
Good work.
p.s. - for the Challenge-  the system does not have to be transparent - cool that way - but I did not require that.
Transparent does give you more to ponder.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 28, 2012, 04:57:14 PM
MrWayne, see3d or others:

- What made the ZED to stall after a 4 hours demonstration
and
- From where would come the potential energy that could last up to 2 days ?

Hello parisd.  The importance of 48 hours under load is that Mark Dansie thought that amount of time would exhaust all possible sources of potential energy, which would prove that the ZED is a net energy producer.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 28, 2012, 08:39:16 PM
@Parisd. Why did the Zed stall after four hours. We have not been told, but it could be any number of things. Remember we are talking about an experimental prototype, so things can suddenly jam, work loose, spring a leak etc. Reliability comes with time, and alpha and beta testing. Having said that, I was not there of course.


Mark Dansie`s job is, among other things, to detect fraud. So by asking for a two day run, he is eliminating
some of the obvious ways that the thing could be faked, such as hidden storage batteries, hidden compressed air tanks and so on. Two days is a period chosen more or less at random, as a balance between a realistic time period, and spending the rest of his life there. Whatever time period is chosen, there will be those who say it is not long enough.
 That is my attempt to answer your questions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 28, 2012, 09:35:37 PM
MrWayne, see3d or others:

- What made the ZED to stall after a 4 hours demonstration
and
- From where would come the potential energy that could last up to 2 days ?
To@,
I understand why these questions are important - but they do not reflect the topics that our advisory team is willing to discuss at this time.

Our immediate focus is to resolve the external issue we created during our last upgrade.

We will be providing clear and accurate information regarding the principle of our operation and design, and our ability to use
Gravity as a non conservative field - if this is the advice of our Validation team.

I am sorry, but the Questions that "assume entropy" of an energy source do not yet understand our system.

It is not in our best interest to engage in debates at this time.

Thank you for your interest.

Wayne Travis
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 28, 2012, 10:39:48 PM
Classic.

Let me translate into English:

"We are happy to tell you everything except what you actually need to know to evaluate our system. Right now we are still trying to figure out why it still won't work as predicted by my theory. If you still have questions involving thermodynamics and the fundamentals of physics as they relate to our apparatus, you are by definition too stupid to understand the answers, so please go away."
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 28, 2012, 11:08:19 PM
You know, I just thought of a great way MrWayne could improve his credibility, even to the point of convincing an ignorant Koala like me.

Get over to Norman, to the University of Oklahoma's College of Engineering's School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, in Felgar Hall.
http://www.ou.edu/content/coe/ame/research.html
Find some grad students looking for a thesis project and offer THEM a ten thousand dollar grant, not to make a selfpowered pump, but rather to go over MrWayne's system with a fine tooth comb, and they get the money IF and ONLY IF they can _disprove_ MrWayne's claims.

Should a highly motivated group of bright engineering students at one of the best schools in the nation FAIL at this task.... that will do much more for MrWayne's credibility than anything else that might be accomplished here.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 12:36:43 AM
To All,
This is a very important discovery, it is very exhilarating and exciting to be in this field of research and development.
We feel very blessed, and look forward to sharing with the world.
Our Group has been very Glad to share with those of you who have and are taking the time to experiment with the design.
History will quickly forget the effort and resistance to what we have achieved - and so I let it pass in this time as well.
If any of you are convinced by "scrutiny" I understand - and we never asked you to "believe" but to seek for yourself.
The physics are very clear. It is awesome.
 
Do not fear, nor worry of our falter - we have the solution this and many generations have longed for - thank you for being a part of it.

Wayne Travis
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 29, 2012, 01:21:23 AM
It is clear that an impasse has been reached in information sharing & conclusions drawn.

For a few days now I have decided the only credible way forward is for the independent replicators to build their models & report in the performance & relevant data that the skeptics have been asking for.

Remember that IF the challenge participants are officially part of Mr Wayne's payment challenge then Mr Wayne owns the device which must be sent to him to collect the fee - I assume he doesn't own the information & intellectual property gathered from the process or that would be included in the 'contract' - I assume that if your device is not OU then you won't be sending it nor collecting the fee i.e. the fee is a 'success fee'.

Mr Wayne, in an earlier post, advised groups to also build a second parallel device to keep for themselves - this would be good advice IMO - I presume that all participants in the challenge are free to discuss their builds & performance findings without being muzzled - I also assume that they are free to discuss any theory about where extra energy comes from IF the devices are self sustaining.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2012, 03:58:10 AM
@seamus10n: Look at it this way. Gravity is like a wind, everybody knows this, a wind of gravitons. Right? So you put your windmill into it and let the wind... the gravitons rushing past .... turn your mill. If gravity can provide power maybe it does it like the wind. After all, gravity seems to act like a wind in other ways, by pushing things around and into each other. And you can't see the wind, or gravity, you only know them by their effects on ordinary matter. Right?
So if MrWayne's machine was extracting power from gravity somehow, in analogy to the windmill.... wouldn't we expect gravity or the force of gravity to be reduced above, or maybe below, MrWayne's running machine? Or at least disturbed, and if we are taking a detectable amount of power out of gravity we should be able to detect the disturbance caused by this removal. Right?
So I think it's important to know if anyone has noticed balance problems, queasyness, or lightheadedness, especially when working directly above or below the major masses of the system when it's running. If you drop a wrench, does it fall more slowly?
It's a wonderful thing, being ignored. It allows one considerable creative freedom, not to mention lots of opportunity to sneak up on people.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on August 29, 2012, 06:46:41 AM
So if MrWayne's machine was extracting power from gravity somehow, in analogy to the windmill.... wouldn't we expect gravity or the force of gravity to be reduced above, or maybe below, MrWayne's running machine? Or at least disturbed, and if we are taking a detectable amount of power out of gravity we should be able to detect the disturbance caused by this removal. Right?


Well that's simply ridiculous reasoning, and needless sarcasm. But since you mention wind, the following is likely more than anybody needs to endure.  ;)


@PeopleOftTalkingAboutThemselvesAsKoalasInThirdPersonAreSomewhatDisturbing


Here's what I have observed. Long time back, you sure seemed outright happy to bring yourself forward to the situation as representative of some big money financial backers, or other scale-it-on-up type of money, that is, up until basically you were told "sorry, not interested."


Now lately, it sure seems you've decided to engage in an alternating friend of the court then enemy of the court passive aggressive skeptic-athon.


Should Wayne answer these simple questions with simple answers? Sure. Don't know why he does not. Milehigh and others have a good point about that. Should be simple. Why isn't it stated? Don't know. Sad to see it's like that, because it's not hard to articulate. Seems to me if one had a machine that worked, be easy enough to say.


Then again, if one has something working, they'd also not care what anyone else thought, and why should they?


Then again, why the heck not tell all about it down to the kilogram?  Don't know. 


History is on the side of the skeptics, so nobody should be upset at the skeptics.


However Wayne has this on his side as to the doubters... their thinking something doesn't work doesn't change that fact that a working something works, if it works.


Now either way, some of you keep on distorting the gravitational angle entirely, enjoy making mockery of the notion that something can provide extra energy on the way down at the same time it lifts a similar something else up. Maybe that's true and this thing is a big pump that's so balanced it seems to work otherwise. Maybe it's like a pre-charged bubble level and that pre-charge is the bubble and when you pop enough over to the other side, there goes that weight back up again...ready to come back down again once you reshuffle that level's bubble back over to the other side.


Don't know.


Seems the thing moves the mechanical advantage around hydraulically, and is basically a hydraulic fulcrum mover. And when you get things reset as to the topside gravity helper weight on one side, you still have extra left to use on the other side to enjoy some fun it seems. Then you restart the cycle...


No gravity lost. Just levers and fulcrums moving about in a smart way (I guess).


But nutty talk about gravity being "used up" is just that.



Assuming it works:


Here is how you can use gravity like the wind, metaphorically


Imagine a cylindrical weight with a hole in it, and vertical axle through it. It has a ratchet like a hand clamp, otherwise it would fall forever, this axle is infinite. So imagine you can un-click its 'lock', and let it drop a set distance each time. You can use that drop for work. You have 'quantized' the gravitation acceleration a bit. But metaphorically speaking that wind is still blowing, because if you un-click the lock again, well it's going to drop again. Never going to stop, even if it has to crush a car underneath it to stop first, assuming the forces are large enough in comparison to the car.


Nobody would dispute this. Wayne has his weights set up in a similar manner. Not too light, not too heavy. Just right for the job, so it seems. Enough to provide the lift of the other via the mechanical/buoyant ZED advantage, and enough to provide a little extra oomph. Yet not too heavy to make it impossible given the forces available.
 
In the case of the ZED, these are two switchable, reversible "layered levers". Where people lose the mental picture is that what they think of lifting a weight back up, is relatively speaking from a point of view, just each side of the weights on each axle un-clicking a notch here and there.


Back and forth they would go, first one, then the other. On down those invisible axles, forever. you don't use up any wind, you are getting it back each time you "lift" the weight back up. You are able to lift the weight back up from the other weight due to mechanical buoyant advantage. You are able to do this because the ZED provides a fulcrum of sorts, and because that advantage is more than the lift needed to 'reset' the other, you can repeat.


So it seems.


Stated again, imagine you have two weights on a seesaw with a movable fulcrum. That movable fulcrum is the ZED buoyancy/displacement advantage and other transfers via the switching system.


 Weight 1 can easily lift Weight 2 a certain amount, because the fulcrum is offset (multi-layer ZED). The system is 'pre-charged' so the other pressures and things are now pre loaded, adding a little help. This help is not lost, it can be re-shuffled to the side doing the work, as needed. Imagine a level with a bubble inside. You can tilt it to an fro. The bubble provides lift to some degree, but it not lost. Shuffle it about. There's something, no?
 
Now it sure would be easier if somebody just stated some facts and numbers so one doesn't have to guess so much, but alas, doesn't matter. 


And I'm just a web person so none of this matters either. Wayne, please ignore the master debaters and get on with it as best you can.


I do hope The Colossus of Chickasha is real.   :-\


PS thanks to Fletcher a while back for answering my question(s), and thanks for the thread for indulging a gravitational windbag. Sadly, this one never runs out of words.
 
 [Edited for typos]
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2012, 07:25:14 AM
Well, Artist-Guy, if you want to criticise me you should at least get your facts right. I don't "represent" anybody here except myself. What is true is that if you convince me, and if I can convince some other people that I know.... not represent...... your little tabletop perpetual water pump based on a 5-layer Zed system will be worth a lot more than ten thousand dollars. But the fact that there is no granted patent...... just wound up making me look bad in the first instance, since I took the word of people that there WAS a patent and passed that.... now known to be bogus.... information down the line. Bad form for me, not checking facts thoroughly.
And now it seems that a lot of other stuff that I believed, initially, because I was told..... also isn't ...er.... ah..... exactly corresponding with reality.
No continuous runner. Not even overnight. Maybe not even four hours. No patent. No working scale model.

So, since I'm on the ignore list for asking the hard questions.... like how is the clear overunity determined for the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself..... and how long precisely was the longest run time..... and what charged the batteries for the unit Mark Dansie showed in that last video..... and since my constructive suggestions aren't being taken seriously.... I feel a bit freer to point out that this Emperor's new clothes are rather ...er..... transparent, if not downright invisible.

Where are the teams of engineering grad students, promised a large reward if they DO find something wrong with the claimed overunity performance? Instead we have teams of overunity aficionados working with glue and scissors and old packing materials, trying to make a tabletop selfpowered water pump to prove that MrWayne is right and win that same reward... a pitifully small reward for something that would do what it is asked to do.

Come on.... please think for just a minute. You have cracked the nut, and sitting there on your kitchen table, nary a leak, is a water pump that runs itself,, and makes enough power to turn a little turbine or even power a Kelvin waterdrop ES HV generator. And it runs and runs and is clearly overunity by itself. So you phone up MrWayne and collect your plaque and your ten thousand dollars. Right?

Riiiight.

Me.... I'm phoning some "friends of ours" and getting a million bux for it right away, and a billion by the beginning of 2013. If the MIBs from Big Oil don't assassinate me first. Mr Wayne can sue my estate for infringement.

(BTW... this isn't "sarcasm". It is a variation on the reductio ad absurdum. )
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 29, 2012, 07:39:20 AM
Well, Artist-Guy, if you want to criticise me you should at least get your facts right. I don't "represent" anybody here except myself. What is true is that if you convince me, and if I can convince some other people that I know.... not represent...... your little tabletop perpetual water pump based on a 5-layer Zed system will be worth a lot more than ten thousand dollars. But the fact that there is no granted patent...... just wound up making me look bad in the first instance, since I took the word of people that there WAS a patent and passed that.... now known to be bogus.... information down the line. Bad form for me, not checking facts thoroughly.
And now it seems that a lot of other stuff that I believed, initially, because I was told..... also isn't ...er.... ah..... exactly corresponding with reality.
No continuous runner. Not even overnight. Maybe not even four hours. No patent. No working scale model.


Was that multi million dollar deal something that Wayne was interested in?
I must have missed it if there was a possible deal as you suggest. Unless its all just coming out now.


 MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on August 29, 2012, 08:02:23 AM


Me.... I'm phoning some "friends of ours" and getting a million bux for it right away, and a billion by the beginning of 2013. If the MIBs from Big Oil don't assassinate me first. Mr Wayne can sue my estate for infringement.



Well why would your friends give you a million dollars if you dont have a patent? ;]

Would they just hand over the cash for the table top teeter totter without hesitation?

Maybe if they are that good of friends, they might just give you a million, just to be friendly. ;]  Then step up to billions in 2013, because they simply love you. lol. ;]

No patent and your swingin by a thread just like anyone else.

And wouldnt this thread be sort of dated proof that you intended to steal the idea?

Cmon T, whats the big deal? The guy has a way that he wants to do things, and he has every right. Patent pending is a substantial thing to have. It means you were there first. Its got teeth. And patenting these days, its who comes first. And dats it. ;]

Wrote my own provisional. $75.   Know a lil bit. ;]

MaGs

MaGs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on August 29, 2012, 10:12:03 AM
So, just what is it about the nature of gravity that you are missing?..  Objects with mass have gravitational potential energy related to their position relative to other masses. Move an object 'up' against gravity and it gains potential. Move it 'down' and it loses potential. The amount of work required to move the object 'up' is always the same or more than can be recovered by letting the object return to the original position.

There are no exceptions to this rule, no matter how smart a system of 'levers and fulcrums' you might devise.




Is that still true when you have a bubble of "preload" extra kick being shuffled about? And buoyancy helping the lift with weird displaced virtual mass going on (maybe?)? Probably. But nobody knows. Maybe that we still don't is on purpose. Don't know. Maybe it's all been for the local 'journey' that Mark mentioned. Don't know.


As I said, history is on the side of the skeptics. By the time your screen name is Seamus105, I am sure it all will have been settled.  ;D

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on August 29, 2012, 10:40:46 AM
Well, Artist-Guy, if you want to criticise me you should at least get your facts right. I don't "represent" anybody here except myself. What is true is that if you convince me, and if I can convince some other people that I know.... not represent...... your little tabletop perpetual water pump based on a 5-layer Zed system will be worth a lot more than ten thousand dollars.


You mentioned being the middleman and getting rich and that to me suggested, logically, that you are a broker representing some serious kind of somebodies.


#324 TinselKoala
" I can tell you this: if it is self powered, truly, and uses gravity and buoyancy to sustain operation.... I can set you up solid, my man, solid. I'll get rich from being the middleman, but you will get hugely so rich you cannot imagine it, and the world will be a better place very quickly."


I do understand the frustration of asking simple questions, and not being able to get simple numerical answers. That's the lone big red flag I have personally. But I read all this for entertainment mostly, with a believe it when I see it attitude as befits all the hoaxes I see on these forums all the time.
 
Quote
Where are the teams of engineering grad students, promised a large reward if they DO find something wrong with the claimed overunity performance?


I think that's a fine idea, using the local college to debug and prove or disprove it. However if somebody thinks they have the answer of all answers, I am not sure they'd be open to that for monetary, or other reasons of concern. Alas. 
 
Quote
Me.... I'm phoning some "friends of ours" and getting a million bux for it right away, and a billion by the beginning of 2013. If the MIBs from Big Oil don't assassinate me first. Mr Wayne can sue my estate for infringement.

(BTW... this isn't "sarcasm". It is a variation on the reductio ad absurdum. )


What's the input to output power on a reductio ad absurdum?  ???   ;)
 
rc

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2012, 02:07:26 PM
Ah, I see the source of the confusion.  No, if there's no "product", I can't be any kind of middle man, can I. But if there is a product and it's being bandied about on an internet forum, then there is no reason why I can't bring it to the attention of some friends of ours, and there's no reason why they wouldn't be grateful to me for doing so, in the only way that matters. This is quite a bit different from me "representing" anyone.  And the protection offered by a patent _application_ only extends retroactively if the patent itself is finally granted.

Is this an announcement of my intent to rip off somebody's intellectual property? Really?  REALLY?  Well....then I have to ask, just what property are we talking about anyway? You had better keep your invisible flying pink unicorn tightly locked up because I just might rip that off too.

Since when has a patent protected anyone with a truly revolutionary invention with national security and world-changing implications anyway? Are you saying that the conspiracy theorists are wrong?!?  No MIBs, no government sequestering of patents, no Big Oil assassins working to keep us enslaved?

There are circumstances where I would be officially representing someone in matters of this nature, but those circumstances are as likely to come about as an Oklahoma blizzard.... in August. And the fact that I once said to someone that there was a patent, when there really isn't..... well, that seems to reflect poorly on ME. Imagine that....  I, a bystander, get censured and scorned by my friends for saying that there is a patent when there isn't. But it's OK for the claimant to do it.



The input to a reductio ad absurdum is "the way things are". And the output is some contradiction that is so glaringly absurd that one can see that there is something badly wrong with "the way things are" or at least the way that they are represented. Like a working free energy machine sitting in a barnyard in southern Oklahoma, without attracting a lot of attention from, say.... DARPA, Mossad, the Chinese, or even those bright grad students over in Norman. And the power of the output is multiplied by each absurdity revealed.

Yep, let's hope that patent gets granted in a hurry, so MrWayne and his intellectual property will be safe.

The University of Oklahoma' s College of Engineering's School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in Norman is the mere "local college"? Well, we grads of the University of Texas might think so but I'll bet a bunch of those students in Felgar Hall would disagree.

@Mags:
"No patent and your swingin by a thread just like anyone else."

Ah.... no. "No patent, but you've got a working model that does exactly what you say it does"..... I'll put that up against a "patent" with no working model behind it any day of the week. The first person to show up with a working model of a free energy device wins the big prize, patent or no patent and no matter whose name is on the patent application.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on August 29, 2012, 03:09:20 PM

 
@TK
Quote
The University of Oklahoma' s College of Engineering's School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in Norman is the mere "local college"?


Why would you take the word local to mean 'mere' as in lesser, or incompetent or something? I meant local to the project. Local is same state, since I'm several away.


 I was agreeing with you that it was a good idea to have a college look at it. Yet even when agreeing, that is made into something contentious. Hmm.


 :o   ???
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 03:23:39 PM



Is that still true when you have a bubble of "preload" extra kick being shuffled about? And buoyancy helping the lift with weird displaced virtual mass going on (maybe?)? Probably. But nobody knows. Maybe that we still don't is on purpose. Don't know. Maybe it's all been for the local 'journey' that Mark mentioned. Don't know.


As I said, history is on the side of the skeptics. By the time your screen name is Seamus105, I am sure it all will have been settled.  ;D
Hello Artist,

Many have been taught that gravity and Mass are intrinsically linked - just as Archimedes' volume and buoyancy is misinterpreted to confirm - the misinterpretation is to transpose that observation and assume it holds true in all possible scenarios.

Our System proves they are not linked - Gravity is not limited or controlled by Mass - or density - instead Mass and density are controlled by gravity. Our system shows that Gravity can also be utilized in the absence of mass.

As long as the wrong understanding persists - that Volume/density - is the limitation of taking advantage of the gravity - one Will not understand our system - nor the impact of the discovery.

It time - I do believe that from the measurable physics of our system - it will be understood that we utilize Gravity "internally" at greater than external "mass" values - an awakening of understanding of how and why our system works - will be realized.

It can be said many ways - such as we utilize the force of gravity with less mass, or that we or we have virtual mass and utilize its effects.

But if you are limited in observation to the capture of gravity - and limit it to a single mass - you will not understand our system, or understand why our efficiency rises in an additive fashion within those layers..

I have said it is simple to see - but not simple to understand - one has to compare the lift forces of (Internal Mass usage) buoyancy - as Larry and Dennis have shown, and compared that to the External total mass of the ZED to see that either mass was missing to account for the buoyancy - Or that our current understanding of gravity has some loop wholes - or both - maybe a few more ideas  ;) not authorized for release (and with People making threats - it is clear and proper due diligence).

The key point - Gravity utilized in our system is not dependent on actual Mass  :)

Thanks for the clear comments.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 29, 2012, 04:51:13 PM
A quick note.  I just tried using my pod and only the outside riser, I have played with different setups but did not bother to measure and since I did that yesterday for 4 risers and pod,, that was what I was using, leaving out my first riser to help with air blowing under the skirt,,

ANYWAY, my max lift like that was only 463g, compared to 730g with 4 risers.. this is the whole weight of the outside riser and added mass.

Edit:

Something struck me as odd, so I went outside and re-did some stuff.

outside risers can hold 324g
outside riser weighs     90g
lift was                462g

I will go measure displacement of pod and its weight.

Pod is partially full of water but it has a lift of 42g.

So should that not be 324g - 90g + 42g = 258g
and                         463g - 90g = 373g
So                         373g - 258g = 115g from where??

Maybe my math is wrong.
Hi Webby1.I have made no secret that I am not brilliant at mathematics. This is not surprising as I am only a retired truck driver, but I am not completely dumb. I have been struggling to understand the above post, and I suspect so were several others but were afraid to ask.


So as I understand it you are just using the outer riser and the pod.You say "outer risers can hold 324g. " I guess you meant to say "outer riser [singular] can hold 324g. So I assume that the outer riser if placed in a tank of water will require a weight of 324g to sink it. This riser itself weighs 90g



The pod can lift 42g


Then you say "So should that not be 324-90+42=258". My calculator gives 276
324 is the net upthrust of outer riser
90 is weight of outer riser
42 is the net upthrust of pod.


and 463-90=373
463 is the total lift [stated earlier as 462]
90 is the weight of the outer riser


so 373 - 276 =97


Therefore 97 grams unaccounted for.




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 29, 2012, 05:44:07 PM
Hi Webby. Yes I am quite sure that we are all interested in the why, rather than exactly how much. I just wanted to be quite sure on what you were saying , rather than criticising your calculations. As it looks like I will be waiting a while for surgery, I have started to make a model of my own, although it will be a slow process. All I have done so far is the pod.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 29, 2012, 06:03:25 PM
MrWayne, Excuse me... Asking why the ZED stalled in 4 hours does not reflect what you are willing to discuss.

This is an essential information, from now no one should waste his time or money trying to replicate your device without you giving this information. You are entertaining dozen of fans in this thread with hope of OU, they deserve an answer.

You probably have arrived to the point where yourself after years and lot of $ spent have realized that there is no OU in your machine, just something that last hours a bit like the long pendulum of the London science museum.

I read that the additional layers increase the global efficiency from 104% to 300% from where come the additional 196% from the outside layers?? I dont understand all of the ZED as you have figure.

You have top scientists and engineers (read one hundred) that advise you. What means "top", they must have figure long ago what is the physics behind the ZED, a ZED is not rocket science; Archimede force, some simple fluid mechanics, a first year university student in physics or engineering should be able in a 2 weeks project to put on the table the physics involved and say yes or no if there is OU in a ZED. I cannot imagine that after years and $ you dont have this physics formula in your hands, if you dont show us, it is easy to figure why ...

It was so simple to tell us what was the problem to keep credibility something like "look guys, it stall because water leaks at one valve and water pressure drop fast" then we have an explanation (true or wrong) for your first failed demonstration that does not comprise the claimed OU.

Desapointed



To@,
I understand why these questions are important - but they do not reflect the topics that our advisory team is willing to discuss at this time.

Our immediate focus is to resolve the external issue we created during our last upgrade.

We will be providing clear and accurate information regarding the principle of our operation and design, and our ability to use
Gravity as a non conservative field - if this is the advice of our Validation team.

I am sorry, but the Questions that "assume entropy" of an energy source do not yet understand our system.

It is not in our best interest to engage in debates at this time.

Thank you for your interest.

Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
MrWayne, Excuse me... Asking why the ZED stalled in 4 hours does not reflect what you are willing to discuss.

This is an essential information, from now no one should waste his time or money trying to replicate your device without you giving this information. You are entertaining dozen of fans in this thread with hope of OU, they deserve an answer.

You probably have arrived to the point where yourself after years and lot of $ spent have realized that there is no OU in your machine, just something that last hours a bit like the long pendulum of the London science museum.

I read that the additional layers increase the global efficiency from 104% to 300% from where come the additional 196% from the outside layers?? I dont understand all of the ZED as you have figure.

You have top scientists and engineers (read one hundred) that advise you. What means "top", they must have figure long ago what is the physics behind the ZED, a ZED is not rocket science; Archimede force, some simple fluid mechanics, a first year university student in physics or engineering should be able in a 2 weeks project to put on the table the physics involved and say yes or no if there is OU in a ZED. I cannot imagine that after years and $ you dont have this physics formula in your hands, if you dont show us, it is easy to figure why ...

It was so simple to tell us what was the problem to keep credibility something like "look guys, it stall because water leaks at one valve and water pressure drop fast" then we have an explanation (true or wrong) for your first failed demonstration that does not comprise the claimed OU.

Desapointed
Hello P.
I have only five minutes - so let me answer first questions, and then respond to the statements that are not accurate.
I am here to help those willing to put effort into understanding the system - not to have anyone validate our system.
We are very confident in the second Part, and convinced of the capability of those trying.
Second - We have brilliant people helping, visiting and checking us out on a regular basis - and to Date - only one - who refused to show ID and Refused to agree to certain respects - has been turned away.
Yes they number over 100 - yes many are very educated and skilled.
Yes we have extremely respected people for the Validation process.
Finally - I quote the very conservative efficiency - very conservative.
Actually, I have shown how and why - it was ignored after four pages of shirt ripping by some.
I am disappointed that the answers to your questions - such as we ran four hours tops till we broke the machine - three times and then rebuilt it stronger and now work to get the system up and running is translated by you into "stall" not OU, and disappointing - do you think we are not kicking but here to give you what you think you deserve - a fully functioning running machine.?
Lastly - over five minute rats - Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it  over and over - turning it into a fully functioning system is a chore. We did not build thesystem originally to be anything more than a input output measurable system - it still is - but now we are adding fully functionability to the complete system - I hope you can see where your suppositions are disappointing.
Sincerely - excited and happy to share - just stay on focus.
Rome was not built in a day.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 29, 2012, 08:47:10 PM
Well, I have not been to secret, and so I do not confuse myself, I need to explain a few things about my invention.

It uses multiple channels of water to transfer energy to the same number of air pockets, each air pocket is sandwiched between two pistons, the layered pistons apply a direct upward force on a hydraulic cylinder.

Each channel of water increases the "Head" and thus increases the pressure in the air pocket - to be clear each air pocket has a different amount of air pressure increasing in succession.

Since the greater pressure is in the lowest, each piston has a greater force than the one above it.

Now, this upward action of this set up is not much different than the same action you would get from a pneumatic cylinder.

10 psi on a 1000 inch (squared) piston will roughly lift 10,000 pounds - so will my design.

The main difference between my system and that cylinder is the down stroke, after the load is removed, the input is allowed to vent, my design keeps that exaust  pressure at exactly half of the input.

In our photo's you will see two Z.E.D.s that is because we use the exhaust pressure from on side to supply half the fuel for the other.

You can guess the net gain...

More tommorrow, it is late.

mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

www.mrwaynesbrain.com (http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com)

   Mr. Wayne,
 Thanks to pirate88719 and TinselKoala, now know that what you claim to be as The Travis Effect is nothing
more than Heron's Fountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron's_fountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron's_fountain)
 
                                                                                                      Bye
 
edited to add; the first chamber has 14 psi of air pressure acting on it. Simply means it uses hydraulic theory to increase the water's pressure with each successive chamber. Sound familiar ?
 And to think, the biggest complaint people have against me is people like AB Hammer and his friends don't like me. But Alan always did say he should have any invention that comes out of this forum because he has a family to feed. I thought that's what his armoring was for but have found working openly only allows opportunity for clever people.
 Think I will take my money, you know, patent my invention which will work but is not very interesting.
 Well, anyway, I hope you have a nice day.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 08:51:12 PM

   Mr. Wayne,
 Thanks to pirate88719 and TinselKoala, now know that what you claim to be as The Travis Effect is nothing
more than Heron's Fountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron's_fountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron's_fountain)
 
                                                                                                      Bye
Sure - thank you.
I will add you to the list.
Good bye.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on August 29, 2012, 09:10:31 PM
Sure - thank you.
I will add you to the list.
Good bye.
Wayne

  came back so I could delete it. to late I guess. Still, for the crap I've taken for no reason, just have to wonder.....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 29, 2012, 10:18:21 PM

Sincerely - excited and happy to share - just stay on focus.

Rome was not built in a day.

Wayne


But it burnt down in a night.

LOL - sorry Wayne - couldn't resist the windfall moment to drop in a one liner  ;D


Sincerely, good luck to you & the replicators with the build projects - I am looking forward to the results.


Final dignified acceptance of new physics understanding that would shake the foundation of the world is a series of often hard won, sometimes feral, skirmishes for intellectual real estate, fought for in every laboratory & garage, one at a time - until there is no more high ground to take & flags to teardown, & hearts & minds to defeat.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 11:39:00 PM
But it burnt down in a night.

LOL - sorry Wayne - couldn't resist the windfall moment to drop in a one liner  ;D


Sincerely, good luck to you & the replicators with the build projects - I am looking forward to the results.


Final dignified acceptance of new physics understanding that would shake the foundation of the world is a series of often hard won, sometimes feral, skirmishes for intellectual real estate, fought for in every laboratory & garage, one at a time - until there is no more high ground to take & flags to teardown, & hearts & minds to defeat.
Perfectly funny!
 
Thank you!
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MIdone on August 30, 2012, 03:23:41 AM

Mrwayne, it looks like you just updated your website.

http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives

"...I talked to Mark - and he is like the rest of the world - "ready for the delays to be over" Remember that the model I have - was from my theory - before the engineers improved upon it - it is tough to get it to show what it was not designed for - full and continuous run - it works perfectly to show input and output - and the Free Energy.
I have promised that if our team does not meet our objective due to the original design and changes we made in this system - we will quickly divert our efforts to the optimized smaller model.;....."

***************

If you are wise and still think you have free energy to show, why not go back to the extreme basics and try to do a simple demo model of what you paid webby to do.  But with clear and exact measurments for all to see.  Then go from there.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 30, 2012, 07:25:18 AM
Johnny, please stop with the flame war posts here. 

Thank you,

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on August 30, 2012, 07:46:28 AM
Hey Se3d,

How's things going with your new updated simulation?

I've a couple of questions for you on the vid's currently online. I don't really understand everything that's going on, so bare with me, these may seem a little dumb but I'm bold enough to ask in just case they aren't.

1. In video 3, it appears that as the piston rises, the riser is slowly sinking. Is that correct? If so, I can only assume this is because the buoyant force from H1/H2 is slowly reducing as the riser rises out of that chamber. But is that enough to cause the "sinking" that is apparent? What am I missing?

2. What is the density you are using for the riser. Does it matter? Would this make a difference to the overall output force in the simulation, i.e would something less dense make the system more efficient by producing more output force?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 30, 2012, 12:22:29 PM
And I think I might have challenged you to describe the effect clearly in a way that used standard physics terminology.  This is absolute rubbish.  How can anyone believe such illogical ranting?
Seamus, Seamus01, Seamus02, Seamus03 -
You have skirted moderation - You have proven you can sling mud and make insults.
Make a factual claim or try to learn the system.
I ask - How can you not see the capabilities of the ZED technology - it has been handed to you in at least four separate forms?
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 30, 2012, 01:45:09 PM
Mrwayne, it looks like you just updated your website.

http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives)

"...I talked to Mark - and he is like the rest of the world - "ready for the delays to be over" Remember that the model I have - was from my theory - before the engineers improved upon it - it is tough to get it to show what it was not designed for - full and continuous run - it works perfectly to show input and output - and the Free Energy.
I have promised that if our team does not meet our objective due to the original design and changes we made in this system - we will quickly divert our efforts to the optimized smaller model.;....."

***************

If you are wise and still think you have free energy to show, why not go back to the extreme basics and try to do a simple demo model of what you paid webby to do.  But with clear and exact measurments for all to see.  Then go from there.
Wisdom.............
Here is some wisdom regarding the "Change" process
 
We started with the "Basics" - PE certification that our design would provide NET (Free Energy) -
The world would not believe - treated us like  - dirt - threatened us for daring to challenge 1000 years of understood facts...
...........
The next "Basics" - measurable input out put system that proved our system -
The world would not believe - called us con men for continuing to dare to challenge 1000 years of understood facts...
............
The next "Basic" - Closed loop system self running and sustaining system -
The world would not believe - called us delusional and mocked us for the gall to challenge 1000 years of understood facts...
.............
The next "Basic" - Data collection of the entire system
Which we have been working on - and the world claims we have nothing, how dare we, how delusional - how illogical...
.............
The future "Basic" - Scalability
Which will be an optimized system - smaller putting out more power than our large model (respectively).
Do you think then the world will believe..........
.................
Here is the result of Wisdom of "Basics"...

A few have accepted our Free Energy claim because of the  PE certification (and their own replication of the physics),

Some have been assured with the input and output measurement (and their own replication of the physics),

Many were excited to see the closelooped running system (after careful and certain inspection),

None of this has changed the worlds position - that we dare to challenge the Past -

The Delema we face here with this discovery is this -

The World is shouting at us - We just want the "Basics"  and the "Basics" will NEVER be enough.
..............................
We push on and persevere because - the world cannot stop us - it is not "Our Energy" that keeps us climbing out of this pit of entropy worship - the energy comes from the pure "Will" for True Independence"  it is the sound crying from the World and the Souls on it.
..............................

The Next "Basic" - We are welcoming the reviews and critiques from the respected and honored institutions and minds of the world.
My experience with the past make me question if they will be brave enough to face the world in its error -that it can't be done.
Challenging the past is the essence of progress in the world, I hope they will.
............................
The final Basic - which we need no approval from the world for - which is the core of HER direction - to install our completed  ZED's where Independence is already realized - where no one can stop us - with the people.

The world can catch up later, the science can adapt when it is ready, the science of our system will be Honored in time.

The only difference is how much longer it will take to reach and spread the technology - if science would do its Due diligence's - the world could have the Technology and Independence right away.
......................

This is the "Basics"
with wisdom regarding our system - "Acceptance and then progress" - that is not the "way or history" of world changing innovation.

"Sooner or Later" is reality - (people will see receive the benefit of our technology - it will be faster if the world will accept the technology - yet we who know will carry it on our shoulders until the world does - steady and true - is the sure way way to win against a world that has taught every highschool-er on up - they will never see Independence.

Thanks for your encouragement - rest assured - we will not fail and we know what we are doing, and where we are going.
The entrenchment has lost its hold  ;) Not by our strength but by the strength of the truth that supports our discovery.

In 119 pages - not one person has offered a single fact relating to our device to disprove it - other than entrenched dogma - "it can't be done"- which our "Basic" technology proves is "Old School" - we are just inviting them to learn - the "New School" is being built by those who have been brave enough to rise above the fray.
I hope they all join in - but that would not be the wisdom to expect.

Yes - they have picked on single parts - picked on the supporters - picked on he inventor - all of that means nothing - I forgive them - it is not as though it is working for them  ;) , or against us.

No one has nor can disprove the simple physics - not with complex, not with anger  - because ours are more accurate - they cover an anomaly - the old school did not know of.
Independence is coming, the lines are just being drawn - it is not "who still thinks the world is flat" but instead "who wants to sail around the world and make new and greater discoveries."

We are working hard - with God's help - to make sure you get to see it in your lifetime.


Thank You
Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 30, 2012, 02:25:09 PM
Hey See3d,

How's things going with your new updated simulation?

I've a couple of questions for you on the vid's currently online. I don't really understand everything that's going on, so bare with me, these may seem a little dumb but I'm bold enough to ask in just case they aren't.

1. In video 3, it appears that as the piston rises, the riser is slowly sinking. Is that correct? If so, I can only assume this is because the buoyant force from H1/H2 is slowly reducing as the riser rises out of that chamber. But is that enough to cause the "sinking" that is apparent? What am I missing?

2. What is the density you are using for the riser. Does it matter? Would this make a difference to the overall output force in the simulation, i.e would something less dense make the system more efficient by producing more output force?

Hi AmoLago,

I have been working hard to make sure I have all the physics details on the updated simulation mathematically correct.  There are a couple of twists that may have escaped many casual observers.  I just have one last formula to iron out before I can release it.  It is easier to know what it should be, than to translate that into a simulation formula.

1.) I just reviewed all my released videos.  I could not see any case where the riser sank while the piston rose.  Perhaps you should advance it frame by frame to make sure. 

2.) The density of the riser material is not a factor, since it is counterbalanced. 

All the videos will have to be redone with the new PDF release. 


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MIdone on August 30, 2012, 06:23:33 PM
Mrwayne,

Yes, we all understand that you & team are working and spending time and money and effort on your device.

You explained well all of the frustrations you feel from doubts pointed at what you SAY.
But the remedy to that is very simple.

Take---the focus---off---of---YOURSELF.

Put the focus on measured facts.

Like webby is still trying to do.

Form a simple experiment like webby.

********
Two masses; one elevated (Mass #1) for input, one mass to be elevated (Mass #2).

At the start:
the elevated mass (Mass #1) has a potential energy according to the height,  (PE= g x m x h)
the mass to be raised (Mass #2) has a potential energy of ‘0’, because it is bottomed out.

---then the elevated mass is released and energy is put through your system and comes to a stop.

At the end:
Mass #1 now has a potential energy of ‘0’, because it has now bottomed out at the end of it’s travel.
Mass #2 has been raised a certain distanced and now has potential energy. (PE= g x m x h)

Compare the input potential energy measurement to the resultant potential energy measurement.

***************

Forget trying to tell people with talk and just point at the experiment and measurements.  That's what people wanted at the start of this discussion.

That’s how simple this can be if you really have something.  Just show this, just like webby is trying to do.  He’s not afraid.

Once you did this and shows 145% efficiency, or whatever, the focus would not be on YOU and what you SAY.   But on the experiment and shown measured facts. 

You could get rich by just selling this experimental kit....


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 30, 2012, 06:39:49 PM
I have received pages 13-14 of ZED for dummies, I unfortunately don't have the rest of the ebook. From these 2 pages and help from 1 member I have tried to figure how the additional external layers could bring additional efficiency and quite a lot as I read from 104% to 300% increase from 1 layer to 5 layers.

Please guys correct me Asap if I misunderstood how work those layers and bring additional lifting force, here how I see it:
Initially all air spaces (from 1 to 5) are at same pressure, it could be above or below atmospheric pressure, I would say it is at atmospheric pressure. From layer 1 to layer 2, surface 2 separe air space 1 from air space 2 and the air pressure increase in air space 1 is faster than in air space 2 ( air space 2 is less pressurized because of the water column that form between the 2 layers). The pressure being lower on air space 2 than air space 1 this create a net force going up helping to lift the Zed. same applies from layer 2 to 3 and from 3 to 4 and finally from 4 to 5 (assuming we stop at 5), the 5th air space is at a lower pressure than the other but remain above its initial pressure that I assume to be atmospheric. I dont see anything else from all these layers to helping the lifting of the Zed.

Waiting for feedback (i.e did I get it all wrong) before to make my conclusion on the efficiency of those layers. Tomorrow probably. I prefer to have a kind of theoritical understanding first, instead of jumping blind in fabricating one Zed.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 30, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
Mrwayne,

Yes, we all understand that you & team are working and spending time and money and effort on your device.

You explained well all of the frustrations you feel from doubts pointed at what you SAY.
But the remedy to that is very simple.

Take---the focus---off---of---YOURSELF.

Put the focus on measured facts.

Like webby is still trying to do.

Form a simple experiment like webby.

********
Two masses; one elevated (Mass #1) for input, one mass to be elevated (Mass #2).

At the start:
the elevated mass (Mass #1) has a potential energy according to the height,  (PE= g x m x h)
the mass to be raised (Mass #2) has a potential energy of ‘0’, because it is bottomed out.

---then the elevated mass is released and energy is put through your system and comes to a stop.

At the end:
Mass #1 now has a potential energy of ‘0’, because it has now bottomed out at the end of it’s travel.
Mass #2 has been raised a certain distanced and now has potential energy. (PE= g x m x h)

Compare the input potential energy measurement to the resultant potential energy measurement.

***************

Forget trying to tell people with talk and just point at the experiment and measurements.  That's what people wanted at the start of this discussion.

That’s how simple this can be if you really have something.  Just show this, just like webby is trying to do.  He’s not afraid.

Once you did this and shows 145% efficiency, or whatever, the focus would not be on YOU and what you SAY.   But on the experiment and shown measured facts. 

You could get rich by just selling this experimental kit....
Webby is doing a great Job, thank you.
Any of you could do the same, good luck!
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 30, 2012, 07:04:26 PM
I have received pages 13-14 of ZED for dummies, I unfortunately don't have the rest of the ebook. From these 2 pages and help from 1 member I have tried to figure how the additional external layers could bring additional efficiency and quite a lot as I read from 104% to 300% increase from 1 layer to 5 layers.

Please guys correct me Asap if I misunderstood how work those layers and bring additional lifting force, here how I see it:
Initially all air spaces (from 1 to 5) are at same pressure, it could be above or below atmospheric pressure, I would say it is at atmospheric pressure. From layer 1 to layer 2, surface 2 separe air space 1 from air space 2 and the air pressure increase in air space 1 is faster than in air space 2 ( air space 2 is less pressurized because of the water column that form between the 2 layers). The pressure being lower on air space 2 than air space 1 this create a net force going up helping to lift the Zed. same applies from layer 2 to 3 and from 3 to 4 and finally from 4 to 5 (assuming we stop at 5), the 5th air space is at a lower pressure than the other but remain above its initial pressure that I assume to be atmospheric. I dont see anything else from all these layers to helping the lifting of the Zed.

Waiting for feedback (i.e did I get it all wrong) before to make my conclusion on the efficiency of those layers. Tomorrow probably. I prefer to have a kind of theoritical understanding first, instead of jumping blind in fabricating one Zed.
This is an old picture - but the head acts the same.
The Addative head is responsible for the pressure at each level.
I can send the whole book - if I have assureance you will not allow it to be distributed.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on August 30, 2012, 07:36:19 PM
Based on your attached drawing on previous post, we are supplying air (no color on drawing and at 122PSI) not water and what lift the green cylinder seems to be the compressed air. I was far away to imagine it like this. Tks.

This is an old picture - but the head acts the same.
The Addative head is responsible for the pressure at each level.
I can send the whole book - if I have assureance you will not allow it to be distributed.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 30, 2012, 08:01:34 PM
Based on your attached drawing on previous post, we are supplying air (no color on drawing and at 122PSI) not water and what lift the green cylinder seems to be the compressed air. I was far away to imagine it like this. Tks.
This was an old picture - we moved from moving air to moving water last year - the point of the picture was to show the additive head towards the center.

The pressure is 12.2 Psi not 122

We no longer move any air directly and this is only one side of the Zed - so If you do not consider both - and the relationship - as in a full cycle you will have incomplete Data.

Welcome,
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 30, 2012, 08:15:34 PM
@MIdone. In your last post you describe a simple test where a falling weight causes a second weight to lift .
That in itself is not enough because you only described only half a cycle. After all we can lift a weight up, and recover energy as we lower it, so raising and lowering a load weight takes very little net energy.
 We need to take into account how much of the load weight we need to leave on the lifting platform to return the machine to its starting position. Hope that makes sense.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MIdone on August 30, 2012, 08:43:31 PM
Neptune, I am talking about potential energy measured in joules before and after that one action.  The way potential energy is measured PE=m x g x h.

If before the action one mass has the potential energy of 1 joule, and the other has 0, the total potential energy of the system =1 joule.

If after the action the first mass has now 0, and the second mass has now 1.5 joules, the total potential energy of the system now =1.5 joules

That would be enough to show access energy as know to the science formula.

Of course, no one has demonstrated this as fact, though webby is trying.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on August 30, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
@MIdone. I have to politely disagree with what you are saying. I could build a "black box" to do exactly what you are asking. At the bottom would be a small platform and another platform at the top. I place a 100g weight on the platform at the top.Then I place a 10g weight on the bottom platform. The 10g weight and its platform drops half an inch. The top platform instantly rise 2 inches, and is prevented from falling by a ratchet.
Does this pass your test?


The bad news is , that hidden inside the black box is the mechanism from a childs toy gun. The lower platform operates the trigger, releasing the spring which raises the 100g weight 2 inches. The even worse news is that I now have to use a force of 250 g over a distance of 2 inches to recompress the spring,replace the energy lost to friction, and reset the machine to its starting point.


So you must analyse a machine over one complete cycle, and return it to its start position.
Do you agree or disagree?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MIdone on August 30, 2012, 09:29:08 PM

I understand what you are saying neptune.  I'm talking about everything being out in the open and about the total potential energy of the system before and after.  Whatever moves would have to be considered; they would be part of the masses. Like water levels.

But you are right that in order to convince a person who cares less about formulas, that bringing everything back to the first state, plus spitting water up is what would matter to them.

Thanks
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 30, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Neptune .. MIdone is correct - in your example of the black box you would not have accounted in your energy budget for the PE of the spring & the work done joules to compress it [WD = f x d] - after system losses there would be a net loss of joules.

Parisd .. my 2 cents.

I believe this will probably turn out to be a measurement/interpretation error by Mr Wayne & his team - having said that this is the fun of doing experiments & garnering good data along the journey.

I will give you a clue where that measurement error might be occurring, IF there  is one.

It has to do with Pascal's principles & enclosed hydraulic systems - pressure is transmitted undiminished in an enclosed system & Wayne's system is a mixture of buoyancy & hydraulics, all under pressure - often pressure & force are confused which is unfortunate - so IMO a force is generated & magnified [it has to do with area ratio's] due to Pascal's principles - because it is basically a hydraulic system the force is multiplied in the system which is seen/interpreted as buoyancy potential increase to lift mass - but if, as some might know, when you take that magnified force output & add it to the weight force of the system fluids & compressed air you get a high internal force figure - when this is converted back to pressure [pgh] & then you recalculate the height potential [h] by rearranging the formula to find hypothetical 'h' i.e. Static Pressure = F / A = pgh therefore h = P / pg you may find the calculated 'h' doesn't match the heights of fluid & air in the actual system - this is an anomaly.

In short the Pascal force multiplication is added to the weight force of the system & by some math is converted to a system pressure which deduces a different 'h' than actual.

The upshot is that there appears a potential to lift virtual mass because of the force multiplier effect & the pressurized system.

The trouble is in 'normal world' that for both hydraulics & buoyancy to do work [f x d] then the Effort to Load [work done] ratio is zero sum energy wise i.e. f1 x d2 joules = f2 x d1 joules, less losses.

JMO's at this time - I watch with interest.


........................

See3d .. I don't know what formula's you are working thru but one comes to mind as a possibility.

That might be for a fluid drag formula to take account of viscosity - a simplified one I might build & use would be say ...

Coefficient of Drag 0.36 [change this factor as desired]

Viscosity Drag = Cd . 1/2 . density . velocity squared . area               i.e. Vd = Cd.0.5.1000.v^2.A

Where 1000 is density of water, v is velocity of riser etc, A is area of riser etc.

You would need to include an IF statement in the formula in your sim to account for changing directions & velocities of fluids i.e. viscosity dampening works up & down.

Here is a simple formula I quickly built & would consider using.

Input[Cd]*0.5*1000*if(Output[velocity].y1<0,Output[velocity].y1^2,Output[velocity].y1^2*-1)*0.01

Considerably simplified for a generic sim could be this stripped down one i.e. adding a viscosity dampening effect to buoyancy fairly similar to above in behaviour.

Input[Cd]*if(Output[velocity].y1<0,Output[velocity].y1^2,Output[velocity].y1^2*-1)*100

P.S. viscosity represented as a force is a small system energy loss but probably should be included for sim accuracy & to dampen oscillations.

The density figure has to be adjusted to say 1.225 kg/m^3 for air at 1 atmosphere etc - Vd = 0.36.1/2.p.v^2.A  where p = density
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on August 31, 2012, 12:55:24 AM
Hi AmoLago,

I have been working hard to make sure I have all the physics details on the updated simulation mathematically correct.  There are a couple of twists that may have escaped many casual observers.  I just have one last formula to iron out before I can release it.  It is easier to know what it should be, than to translate that into a simulation formula.

1.) I just reviewed all my released videos.  I could not see any case where the riser sank while the piston rose.  Perhaps you should advance it frame by frame to make sure. 

2.) The density of the riser material is not a factor, since it is counterbalanced. 

All the videos will have to be redone with the new PDF release.

Hi Se3d,

Thanks for the update, great to hear to the sim's coming along nicely.

With regards to my point 1., maybe it's only an image rendering thing as opposed to what's actually going on, but here's what I see.

At the start of the cycle, the riser is at it's natural floating point i.e. I'm thinking that if the piston didn't move it would just sit there as is. Throughout the whole cycle, the riser is never locked or stopped in any way to restrict movement. Also no weight is added or removed.

At the start, lowest point, I can see that the riser is partially submerged, looks like about 30%. However, by half way through the cycle, highest point, it is now about 60% submerged.

So to my eyes, the riser has sunk about 30% of it's height.

Or am I just confused!?

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 31, 2012, 02:20:27 AM
Hi Se3d,

Thanks for the update, great to hear to the sim's coming along nicely.

With regards to my point 1., maybe it's only an image rendering thing as opposed to what's actually going on, but here's what I see.

At the start of the cycle, the riser is at it's natural floating point i.e. I'm thinking that if the piston didn't move it would just sit there as is. Throughout the whole cycle, the riser is never locked or stopped in any way to restrict movement. Also no weight is added or removed.

At the start, lowest point, I can see that the riser is partially submerged, looks like about 30%. However, by half way through the cycle, highest point, it is now about 60% submerged.

So to my eyes, the riser has sunk about 30% of it's height.

Or am I just confused!?

Amo

Hi AmoLago,

Yes, as the piston goes up, it raises the head around the pod, which increases the output force.  When the riser hits the top stop, it can not rise any further.  However, if the piston continues to rise, the water head around the pod continues to rise and increases the pressure against the top stop.  The actual physical location of the riser should never go down as the piston is going up.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 31, 2012, 03:07:32 AM

See3d .. I don't know what formula's you are working thru but one comes to mind as a possibility.

That might be for a fluid drag formula to take account of viscosity - a simplified one I might build & use would be say ...

Hi fletcher,

I only wish I was smart enough to be doing fluid dynamics in my simulator. 

My simulator is quite modest as are my capabilities in this type of math.  I am only dealing with a static 2D model in my simulator.  This will actually be a best case simulation of the ZED, as no frictional losses are included.  The worst case senario would be 100% efficient.

The actual problem I am working on has to do with coming up with algorithms that do not require an overly large amount of iteration to find a solution to multiple interacting variables.  I am also not an algebra or calculus genius.  I feel like I am rediscovering all the math and physics principles from the ground up... LOL

I will give you a taste of what I am working on (and it is my last problem to solve).  I start with a single layer, single ZED sunk to the bottom stop and at a low energy state.  I place a too heavy to lift weight on top of the riser, then apply an input force to the piston.  I have worked out pages of formulas that describe the relationships between the water heads, air pressures and volumes, and forces at every point of interest.  I ended up finding it easier to solve the problem using a binary search technique for this first step where the ZED is pressurized, but the riser is not allowed to move.  I increase the internal energy of the ZED until it is producing a back force in the piston equal to the input force applied to the piston.  That puts the ZED into its fully energized state.  It takes about 24 iterations to get an answer to the max precision of my simulator (IEEE 32 bit float).  All the relationships can be reduced to Y = mX + b form.  If I wanted to put more effort into it, I could probably figure out a quadratic form to make it a single pass.  So much for the easy stuff.

Next, I want to allow the riser to move up a specified amount and rebalance all the internal relationships.  This is the tricky part.  When I move the riser up, it affects everything.  There is no one thing that stays as a constant (except the input force which is non-linear to the rest once the riser moves).  With no single known internal variable to work from to calculate the others from, I am stuck with iterating in a circle until the system is settled.  Then after I am in a settled known state with the riser in a fixed position, I can then do a binary search like before to get the internal state to match the input force again.

So I am working on getting the kinks out of my math and doing many internal relationship calculations for internal consistency checks for verification.  I understand what I want to do, it is only getting from the dynamic geometry I can see in my mind to a formula and algorithm in the simulator that is slow going for me. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on August 31, 2012, 04:26:41 AM
Dennis .. I can't offer too many sage words of advice because every sim is built from the ground up & you have to know the package & the constraints intimately - sometimes I make quick & dirty force approximations of something i.e. sacrifice some accuracy for expediency or function, if its not a show stopper or has minimal influence on outcomes - later in the run testing stage I debug it if needed or upgrade the formula(s) for more realism etc.

In your case it sounds like you have accounted for the major constituents of Inputs & Outputs - it should be good enough to give a fair representation of what happens in a single ZED cycle - that's when any advantage in sim world should show thru or not - if it does then accuracy can be retro-ed into the sim etc.

I should add that I am mighty glad it is you building this sim from the ground up & not me, LOL.

I just get to sit back & puff on my wisdom pipe from time to time [all care & no responsibility] while you do all the hard work  8)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on August 31, 2012, 05:49:14 AM
Hi AmoLago,

Yes, as the piston goes up, it raises the head around the pod, which increases the output force.  When the riser hits the top stop, it can not rise any further.  However, if the piston continues to rise, the water head around the pod continues to rise and increases the pressure against the top stop.  The actual physical location of the riser should never go down as the piston is going up.

Hi See3d,

Thanks for indulging me. I know this isn't a forum for beginners as such, but I'm just really interested and want to be involved (if I can!) :)

I can see that if the pod/riser is locked or hits the top, then any force applied by the piston will raise the head. This is why I looked mostly at video 3 (that's ZED_1_Layer_Spring1, just in case they're ever displayed in a a different order for some reason!?), which doesn't appear to have any locking or "topping out".

So from your explanation, was my original assertion correct then?

The ability of the piston to raise the Head around the pod/riser in the main chamber (or from another point of view, the apparent decreasing buoyancy force of the water applied to the pod/riser), must come from the decreasing buoyancy force / increasing gravitational force being applied to the "wings" of the pod/riser in the H1/H2 chamber as the "wings" are being lifted out of the water.

Because the "wings" are being lifted out of the water,  the whole pod/riser no longer has the equilibrium of the gravitational and buoyancy forces applied to it and so slowly sinks to back that equilibrium, as is shown by the pod/riser sinking, or conversely as the piston raising the head.

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on August 31, 2012, 06:03:48 AM
Hi See3d,

Thanks for indulging me. I know this isn't a forum for beginners as such, but I'm just really interested and want to be involved (if I can!) :)

I can see that if the pod/riser is locked or hits the top, then any force applied by the piston will raise the head. This is why I looked mostly at video 3 (that's ZED_1_Layer_Spring1, just in case they're ever displayed in a a different order for some reason!?), which doesn't appear to have any locking or "topping out".

So from your explanation, was my original assertion correct then?

The ability of the piston to raise the Head around the pod/riser in the main chamber (or from another point of view, the apparent decreasing buoyancy force of the water applied to the pod/riser), must come from the decreasing buoyancy force / increasing gravitational force being applied to the "wings" of the pod/riser in the H1/H2 chamber as the "wings" are being lifted out of the water.

Because the "wings" are being lifted out of the water,  the whole pod/riser no longer has the equilibrium of the gravitational and buoyancy forces applied to it and so slowly sinks to back that equilibrium, as is shown by the pod/riser sinking, or conversely as the piston raising the head.

Amo

You might not understand what the "spring" video is showing.  It starts with the ZED fully energized with an input force and up against the top stop.  Then it shows what things look like if you put your hand on top of the ZED riser and force it down to the bottom stop.  The input force is still applied all the time.  So the transfer function is just showing how stiff and linear the "spring" force is.

I would not spend a lot of time with the old videos though.  The will have to all be revised as I discovered some errors in the simulation that I have been working on correcting.  Of course, the errors resulted in the entire system being one order higher function than I originally thought it was, so the formulas got much more complicated.

I think I have made some good progress tonight in getting it figured out -- just have to look for a few clerical errors in the formulas now.  :-)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on August 31, 2012, 07:21:29 AM
You might not understand what the "spring" video is showing.  It starts with the ZED fully energized with an input force and up against the top stop.  Then it shows what things look like if you put your hand on top of the ZED riser and force it down to the bottom stop.  The input force is still applied all the time.  So the transfer function is just showing how stiff and linear the "spring" force is.

I would not spend a lot of time with the old videos though.  The will have to all be revised as I discovered some errors in the simulation that I have been working on correcting.  Of course, the errors resulted in the entire system being one order higher function than I originally thought it was, so the formulas got much more complicated.

I think I have made some good progress tonight in getting it figured out -- just have to look for a few clerical errors in the formulas now.  :-)

Hi See3d,

Awesome, thanks.

Can't wait for the new stuff.

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on August 31, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
I think it is time to make my second post (to-date) to share my observations and findings in context with this tread and Wayne’s invention. It appears to me from what I see,  that several members are totally inflexible, lockjaw, unmovable, a drama environment that would only wastes my time to participate in and the reason for no frequent postings.
Wayne as the tread owner and object inventor determines and controls the information flow.  I do not want to expand on what MUST be released on this forum or for what purpose,  Wayne has clearly stated his objective.  It is sure your right to disagree and walk-on.

As the tread has been advancing it is clear that,
1.. The buoyancy device appears apart from a clever compact lift device quite ordinary at first sight
2..  There is no apparent over-unity visible apart from a large force which transforms into energy with a very short stroke.
3.. The video’s show certain aspects of the device but not the actual over-unity.
4.. The Zed device appears like a slow groaning mammoth and raises more questions than answers.
5.. The over-unity answer is quite ambiguous and unsatisfactory for all (lazy) skeptics.
6.. You will not be spoon-fed, even if you blatantly reject the invention.

The points you might have missed or did not register,
That the inventor discovered something monumental after years of hard work and logical reasoning and brain teasers that are all consuming (you might not know what I mean). It is clear that he is not going to release exact and complete detailed information to anyone without you showing some entitlement to this information.

1.. Notwithstanding the inventor’s desire to share his invention, he will protect his core discovery and improvement to maintain a business advantage.
2.. The information to the invention details and associated discoveries, including over-unity is within the compendium of piece meal information bits that have been shared in the forum.  It is just a question for you to connect the dots.
3.. That to understand the invention and underlying principles, your effort will be required to connect these dots, by pondering, by discussion, by getting your hands dirty or wet and primarily getting your brain exercised. You need to earn it.
4...Wayne has been true to this word to handle more intimate detailed technical question off-line.
5.. And remember, you play with Wayne, he also plays with you in ways that are not directly apparent.  Become serious rather than standing on the sidelines and throw fast and quick conclusions. A diligent and serious approach will change things on this tread. Effort must flow bi-directional.

What can I attest to,
The bulky and non-impressive looking Zed system is a Pandora treasure box, filled with gems. I have been steadily discovering many interesting and clever details.
Last night I unearthed the big over-unity diamond, I knew it was there for quite a while but I couldn’t see it due to the flawless properties that blended in with the water. Finding and understanding the exact process of over-unity in this system is a real eye-opener.  It would be an insult to just tell you about it because of its simplicity.  A Troyan Horse, you can not see it directly but need to discover

I can only commend you to do your open minded due diligence and you will be richly rewarded.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 31, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
To @ll,

Michel is exactly right - in everything he stated. Well Done.
Michel's timing is good.

With some help from a Engineer traveled from Switzerland - we are beginning to see success out of our Data collection Model.

With my permission - the Switzerland Engineer is going to share his complete model with Larry C - that model has the complete process mapped.

This should give Se3d a comparison model and others help in understanding the process.

@ Replicators - I must close the entrant to the Replication Challenge - If you have not notified me of your intent - do so Immediately.

Please post as you will and your observations and discoveries - Good Hunting!

Email me privately when you are ready.
 
@All,

I have welcomed you all, to those who have visited, got your hands wet, wrestled through the mind teaser - you have joined in the process of discovery - you are a part of histroy - Well Done, well done indeed.

Yes, this is an Exit Letter, I must notch up the level of professionalism to move forward.

Enough of you have the understanding to continue without me - I will still be available for the private messages.

mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

I also post weekly updates on:

hydroenergyrevolution.com (hydroenerg@yrevolution.com)
 
 
Those Getting their hands wet are discovering what I am able to share.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 31, 2012, 03:59:38 PM
There is no 'overunity diamond' to be unearthed here. All that is apparent is Mr Waynes increasingly desperate and illogical explanations as to why the machine is not in a fit state to pass validation, and those excuses are starting to wear thin.

It's time to admit you got it wrong and this (or for that matter any other gravity/buoyancy device) cannot ever lead to overunity energy production. All the math, thermodynamics and physics theories and experimentation for the last few centuries have said so.
Seamus,
Get your hands wet - or walk on.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 31, 2012, 04:07:52 PM
To All replicators.
 
I just had a meeting with the visiting Switzerland Engineer -

He asked that I direct your models in such a manner - so that you do not encounter issues our later models resolve.

Very Wise.

If you will be using Water and Air - please limit your models to four Risers - three will be enough to make your observations.

Equalized Gaps - or equalized volumes will both work just as well with-in 10% of each other.

Second - a dual ZED system is highly encouraged - it has a 50% efficiency advantage over a single system.

Good Building!

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 31, 2012, 04:14:56 PM
Anyone besides me thinking "Archer Quinn" at this point?




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on August 31, 2012, 04:37:08 PM
Anyone besides me thinking "Archer Quinn" at this point?

I do not want to go into character comparisons, but I am sure we have reached a crucial point in this thread.

High strangeness, high weirdness, little credibility.

Swiss engineers? I am a bit disappointed. Nowadays one goes to the Chinese when help is needed. Involving the Swiss or other ancient folks from Europe is so outdated.

It becomes interesting, but not in a technical sense. A hands on course in sociology and human psychology.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on August 31, 2012, 06:17:25 PM
Anyone besides me thinking "Archer Quinn" at this point?

Yes, with bells on, how many times,

"I've done it, it works"

"oops technical issues"

same old story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiU2V_gZvfE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiU2V_gZvfE)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 31, 2012, 06:40:04 PM
Yes, with bells on, how many times,

"I've done it, it works"

"oops technical issues"

same old story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiU2V_gZvfE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiU2V_gZvfE)
That is funny.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on September 01, 2012, 07:46:44 AM
Anyone besides me thinking "Archer Quinn" at this point?
The "Sword of God" roll on to the 20th of September, that's just what we need.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 01, 2012, 08:52:18 AM
Ah, the old, old story. (quote from Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy)

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 01, 2012, 11:56:13 AM
Conrad, so much unjustified arrogance about nationalities !


Swiss engineers? I am a bit disappointed. Nowadays one goes to the Chinese when help is needed. Involving the Swiss or other ancient folks from Europe is so outdated.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 01, 2012, 02:08:16 PM
GoOod MoOorning, Isaac. Glad you're gone. May you now bless the drought areas with your abundant rainfall.
 
Been out of power since Tuesday night. Just wanted to pass on a few pictures of the hood during Isaac.
First Picture: Dunt dum, dunt dum.
Second Picture: Hum, where did that dog go.
Third Picture: From my rear deck. Looks bad, but no problem, everbody is up on pilings.
 
Will take some time to catch up. Got some new understanding with the time off, will be passing along later.
 
Regards, Larry   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: pminnie on September 01, 2012, 04:38:44 PM
  I was really hoping there was going to be a result here as Mark isn't easily fooled. This has become a case of no news is bad news, I fear.
Anyone know of what became of James Kwok? James's idea seemed very much along the same lines.
                                           John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 01, 2012, 05:17:55 PM
  I was really hoping there was going to be a result here as Mark isn't easily fooled. This has become a case of no news is bad news, I fear.
Anyone know of what became of James Kwok? James's idea seemed very much along the same lines.
                                           John.
Hello John,
Don't be misled by the false assumptions made by some:
We are going strong -
We will be reporting here -
Mark has not been fooled - he is very good at smelling a rat, and recognizing success -
None of James' design have in common with this one but water and a tank -
Current Facts:
Teams are replicating the Zed's as we speak -
More PE's have certified our process as OU - they have traveled from around the globe - for their own desire to know - not that we asked - we just welcomed.
Our system will be evaluated by Mark and his team - and the results will be shown - at the time they are ready.
The Unprofessional environment made by a few -does not lend to protecting our integrity - so while the replications are under way - we will rest.
As I said before - The last Engineer left this morning - a member of our team and is sending his spreadsheets to Larry.
I expect Larry to share when he is ready.
Thanks - no news just means we are very excited and getting busy - no time to help others by being a mud target.
Thanks John.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 01, 2012, 07:36:41 PM
GoOod MoOorning, Isaac. Glad you're gone. May you now bless the drought areas with your abundant rainfall.
 
Been out of power since Tuesday night. Just wanted to pass on a few pictures of the hood during Isaac.
First Picture: Dunt dum, dunt dum.
Second Picture: Hum, where did that dog go.
Third Picture: From my rear deck. Looks bad, but no problem, everbody is up on pilings.
 
Will take some time to catch up. Got some new understanding with the time off, will be passing along later.
 
Regards, Larry
Good to know everyone is OK.
 
So what?  Do you live on an alligator ranch!?!  Did they escape their enclosures?  I mean, that is the excuse for wild animals loose in Ohio.
 
'Gators don't want no trouble, right?  Probably just as freaked out about the change in the environment as humans are...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on September 01, 2012, 09:21:05 PM
Larry -

Glad you made it through Isaac. I've seen a lot of gators, but none ever swimming around my yard!!

Good luck with the cleanup and getting the power back on.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 02, 2012, 03:12:36 AM
To ALL,

This is the official closing of the TBZED challenge entry window.

If you have already messaged me, good building!

I answer question each morning Central time USA.
Good luck, and get wet!
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 02, 2012, 10:40:14 AM
Hi all,


I have one question see picture below.


Simplifications:
1. air is not compressible, always keeps volume
2. red riser have infinitely small weight

Step 1 is initial situation. Riser have no lift, there are 4 units of water in left and 4 in right side. Pressure inside of riser is the same as outside = 1atm.
Step 2. Adding 2 units of water. Since air is not compresible this action will push water in column 2 and 11 down by one unit and also raise columns 1 and 12 by one.

Question: what is the lifting force F after step 2? Equivalent weight of 4 units of water or 20units?

Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 02, 2012, 11:15:47 AM
Should that have read "4 units or 2 units" instead of 20 units?

Second question: Through what distance will that lifting force act? That is, how high will the riser rise before the water levels in and out are again equal?

(I like the simplification of incompressible air. It makes it a bit easier to see what's happening.)

But wait a minute.... you must have the riser locked down at first, otherwise it will simply rise up from the air pressure and the water columns will remain the same height. The only way the pressure from the input water can be transferred to the water columns is if the riser can't move, and if it's weightless then it must be restrained.
So in your experiment then, you are unlocking the riser after injecting the water... under pressure..... and then asking with what force it will try to float up, right?
And I'm asking how high it will float before the water levels are equal again.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 02, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
So the water columns will be equal again once the weightless and free riser has risen, right? And since volume is conserved, the two units of volume added to the central column's eight units will raise the riser's 10 unit width by 1/5 unit, I think. So you will have essentially the lift buoyancy of 4 units of displaced water initially, but the riser only needs to rise 1/5 unit to equalise everything again.

Ok, tear me up, how am I going wrong?

(I think I see where the "20" came from now... but I don't think that's a right answer.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 02, 2012, 01:23:14 PM
Hello TK,
thank you, I forgot to say in step 2 is riser locked but you figured it out already. I was just curious to know what pressure it can produce by using compartements as in ZED. It seems to me also that only 4. I'm trying to understand how the lift pressure builds up by adding second riser to a one riser model. Have lunch now, I'll be back...
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 02, 2012, 02:40:04 PM
Marcel,

You cannot start with the assumption that air is not compressible. Air is compressible and if you want the air to be pressurised it need to be compressed, this is the equation of perfect gas P1V1=P2V2 valid at constant temperature, so to double air pressure in a closed system you need to reduce its volume by half.

Water is not compressible, if in a closed system (but with no air trapped in) it can easily be pressurized, in the Zed water has an atmosphere of air on top, so to pressurize that water you also need also to compress the air on top of it, this require a certain amount of water to be injected (all depending of the volume of air displaced by water). So the vertical force F on the horizontal surface doesnt come for free, it comes from the compression effect.

I have not yet figure how additional layers bring more efficiency.


Hi all,


I have one question see picture below.


Simplifications:
1. air is not compressible, always keeps volume
2. red riser have infinitely small weight

Step 1 is initial situation. Riser have no lift, there are 4 units of water in left and 4 in right side. Pressure inside of riser is the same as outside = 1atm.
Step 2. Adding 2 units of water. Since air is not compresible this action will push water in column 2 and 11 down by one unit and also raise columns 1 and 12 by one.

Question: what is the lifting force F after step 2? Equivalent weight of 4 units of water or 20units?

Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 02, 2012, 07:17:15 PM
Neptune .. MIdone is correct - in your example of the black box you would not have accounted in your energy budget for the PE of the spring & the work done joules to compress it [WD = f x d] - after system losses there would be a net loss of joules.
That was exactly my point. I had not accounted for the energy budget of the whole cycle, AND NEITHER HAD MIdone.

Parisd .. my 2 cents.

I believe this will probably turn out to be a measurement/interpretation error by Mr Wayne & his team - having said that this is the fun of doing experiments & garnering good data along the journey.

I will give you a clue where that measurement error might be occurring, IF there  is one.

It has to do with Pascal's principles & enclosed hydraulic systems - pressure is transmitted undiminished in an enclosed system & Wayne's system is a mixture of buoyancy & hydraulics, all under pressure - often pressure & force are confused which is unfortunate - so IMO a force is generated & magnified [it has to do with area ratio's] due to Pascal's principles - because it is basically a hydraulic system the force is multiplied in the system which is seen/interpreted as buoyancy potential increase to lift mass - but if, as some might know, when you take that magnified force output & add it to the weight force of the system fluids & compressed air you get a high internal force figure - when this is converted back to pressure [pgh] & then you recalculate the height potential [h] by rearranging the formula to find hypothetical 'h' i.e. Static Pressure = F / A = pgh therefore h = P / pg you may find the calculated 'h' doesn't match the heights of fluid & air in the actual system - this is an anomaly.

In short the Pascal force multiplication is added to the weight force of the system & by some math is converted to a system pressure which deduces a different 'h' than actual.

The upshot is that there appears a potential to lift virtual mass because of the force multiplier effect & the pressurized system.

The trouble is in 'normal world' that for both hydraulics & buoyancy to do work [f x d] then the Effort to Load [work done] ratio is zero sum energy wise i.e. f1 x d2 joules = f2 x d1 joules, less losses.

JMO's at this time - I watch with interest.


........................

See3d .. I don't know what formula's you are working thru but one comes to mind as a possibility.

That might be for a fluid drag formula to take account of viscosity - a simplified one I might build & use would be say ...

Coefficient of Drag 0.36 [change this factor as desired]

Viscosity Drag = Cd . 1/2 . density . velocity squared . area               i.e. Vd = Cd.0.5.1000.v^2.A

Where 1000 is density of water, v is velocity of riser etc, A is area of riser etc.

You would need to include an IF statement in the formula in your sim to account for changing directions & velocities of fluids i.e. viscosity dampening works up & down.

Here is a simple formula I quickly built & would consider using.

Input[Cd]*0.5*1000*if(Output[velocity].y1<0,Output[velocity].y1^2,Output[velocity].y1^2*-1)*0.01

Considerably simplified for a generic sim could be this stripped down one i.e. adding a viscosity dampening effect to buoyancy fairly similar to above in behaviour.

Input[Cd]*if(Output[velocity].y1<0,Output[velocity].y1^2,Output[velocity].y1^2*-1)*100

P.S. viscosity represented as a force is a small system energy loss but probably should be included for sim accuracy & to dampen oscillations.

The density figure has to be adjusted to say 1.225 kg/m^3 for air at 1 atmosphere etc - Vd = 0.36.1/2.p.v^2.A  where p = density




@Fletcher. You totally failed to understand my post. I was totally aware that my black box example did not allow for the spring recompression in its energy budget. My purpose was to show MIone that he had only analysed half a cycle of the ZED, and thus made the same mistake as I deliberately made in the black box example.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 02, 2012, 09:49:18 PM
MT .. Mr Wayne has categorically stated that the system would perform equally well using two incompressible fluids of different densities, so your example for analysis purposes of considering air as non compressible is valid.

He also said that a compressible gas is not the 'secret' ingredient for why it is OU in his view - as has been pointed out by Parisd gases follow the ideal gas laws [within reason] of a direct trade off of volume & pressure i.e. they are inverse in ideal conditions - this means that energy used to compress a gas is stored as PE in the gas, & after some internal losses where temperature/heat might enter or leave the system [minimal in a short time frame; search adiabatic & isothermal legs of a carnot cycle] - therefore the compressed gas will give back the PE as KE - this is the perfect spring analogy that many have talked about.

TK is correct IMO - the riser is locked & the fluid has to have more & more work done on it to enter the riser chamber as the pressure inside builds - but what is important is that the non compressible air will displace the fluid raising the head - to see the relationships clearly you have to work with volumes rather than 2d areas - the upshot is that any volume injected into the riser chamber has an energy cost - although the fluid head rises & does create more pressure the buoyancy/lift potential is 'short lived' & directly related to the volume injected which displaces an equal volume of fluid etc.

Some further thoughts to consider - pressure & force are two sides of the same coin but only one does Work - internally the thin wall of fluid is pushed upwards which raises the head - static pressure of a fluid = pgh in N/m^2 - if we assume the fluid has a density of 1000 kg/m^3 & g is 9.81 m/s^2 then it is easy to calculate the pressure in Newtons per meter squared [Pascals].

The buoyancy force is related to displacement volume - in your example you assume that the riser is virtually massless - this means that the buoyancy force = -mg N's of the volume displaced - in this case we have to use a 'virtual' volume [because the pressure is increased by the high thin head i.e pgh] - since the riser has next to no mass we can neglect weight force of the riser which would counter the buoyancy force.

So, we have a net upthrust force [buoyancy force less weight force] based on a virtual volume displacement due to high head [pgh = static pressure] - the penalty is that as soon as you release the riser to do Work [ f x d ] it has a very short stroke length - this is because everything is volume dependent [just like Archimedes].

N.B. Static Fluid Pressure = pgh   in N/m^2    or         Vpg / A          i.e   Ahpg / A = pgh       &     P = mg / A     

P = F / A  in N/m^2   ...   F = P x A in N

So now Pressures can be converted to Forces & Forces converted to Pressures.

Note: Forces x Distances do Work - Pressures do not.

Edited to add units.

   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 02, 2012, 10:10:42 PM
Now this *is* Pod racing!  (Cheesy, eh?  But the best I could come up with.)
 
TK?  Please let me know what you think about the build.  TRUST ME!  I am not happy with it at all!  Maybe build 7.0 or so will not be so embarassing.
 
But WE do what we can, because we can, and we should (or must?)...
 
M.

PS.  @fletcher, Thank You for spending time on this thread.  You are a Gentleman.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 02, 2012, 11:11:16 PM
I have put a LOT of work into trying to simulate a single layer single ZED.  I finally felt that I had all the equations worked out describing the relationships of volumes and forces between the different internal structures.  I put everything into the sim yesterday and hit the go button.  It spit out an answer that was self consistent, but it was not the answer I was expecting.  I have spent a day going over it in my mind and can not find anything wrong with the result, so I am going to throw it out here for comment.  I have attached a screenshot of my simulator input/output result.

The simulation is based on applying an input force to the piston at the bottom, then finding the riser position that balances the internal heads and pressures.  The input force is stepped from 0 to 2 pounds in 108 steps to generate a transfer function curve.

The interesting thing is what happens to the air pressure as the Pod moves up. 

1. Initially, the Pod head and air pressure increase linearly (increasing the lift), until the total lift is more than the 1 pound output load. 

2.  When the Pod starts to move up a little, it increases the air chamber volume.  This drops the air pressure.  The piston and Pod head have to move up to balance the input force.  However, the increase of the Pod head, increases the buoyancy force.  This places less importance on the air PSI as a lift force, so the air PSI decreases as the Pod head increases.  This can be seen in the 10x Air PSI curve in the graph.  If the stroke is long enough, the air PSI can actually reverse from being a lifting force, to being a sink force to keep everything in balance.  This is also evident when the Exit Head is lower than the Middle Head.

3.  Once the upper stop has been hit, then any increase in input force once again results in increasing the air pressure.

I never expected to have the internal air pressure in a situation where it was hurting rather than helping lift the output weight.

If anyone has a clear single layer ZED already built, it would be easy to check to see if this is what is actually happening.  Slowly feed the water into the Pod chamber and observe if the outer head increases until the pod starts to move up, then decreases until it gets to the top. 

If the outer head keeps going up the whole time, then I have some more head scratching on the simulation formulas.

Can anyone help with this, or do I have to cobble something together to make this observation?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 03, 2012, 12:23:08 AM
Dennis .. debugging & checking suggestions.

You could try simplifying your sim to check to check basic hydraulic facts - then add back complexity later.

Make a copy of your sim & simplify it by making air non compressible & give the riser the same mass density as the fluid so there is no buoyancy force.

Check that the sim follows well known hydraulic rules based on Pascal's Laws - i.e. that pressure is transmitted undiminished in a fluid in an enclosed system - this means the head must not change & only the riser rises i.e. treating it as a hydraulic ram.

In your case your Input Force is applied to raising the piston - that Force will raise the riser with a force proportional to the areas.

i.e. hydraulic leverage is a force multiplier but Work Done In & Out energy remains the same - that is, hydraulics is a form of leverage of trading force & distance & pressure is linear.

N.B. the hydrostatic paradox will show internal pressures consistent with pgh from the top of the piston to fluid height - this does not effect the force multiplication effects of area ratio's.

Once this is working as it should then add back complexity to the sim - first by adding buoyancy force by making the riser less dense than the fluid - let the head rise again & become an open system.

Next make air compressible again.

Optional extras - adding viscosity drag to add some frictional loses.

Check against real build results & tweak as you are doing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 03, 2012, 01:26:43 AM
@All,
 
Wildew has pointed out an error in my spreadsheets that have the Channel SI Calculation section at the bottom, this was taken from part of a shop floor spreadsheet. Checked with Wayne and he passed me the Swiss Eng's spreadsheet and he had it corrected. The error correction will make hydraulic looks even worst, not happy news for the closed minded skeptics, so I'll just be correcting and sending updates later.
 
In my short review, I find the Swiss Eng's spreadsheet extremely impressive. Those who have made fun of his existence should be very careful. History will be recording what you are stating and I guarantee, that you will be the ones made fun of later.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 03, 2012, 01:38:33 AM
@mondrasek: Looks good to me, man! ..... better than I expected, better than I could have done. I'd have a mess of fingerprints and tear-drop cross sections. I'm amazed that the lap joints came out so well. Could you detail for us, please, your gluing method and materials? (I know you told me already but maybe the rest of the readers might like to know too.)
Have you done any pressure testing? I'm worried that the open ends of the tubes won't hold their shapes without a reinforcing ring at the open end (a half-inch ring of the same material?, doubling the wall thickness and with the lap join 180 degrees opposite the tube's lap seam). Also, what is your inter-tube spacing, and have you been able to test for the self-centering phenomenon yet? I have a feeling this effect, if it happens, depends on capillary action and will happen mostly with small interwall spacings relative to the system's characteristic length. I am hoping to be surprised here, though, because it would make things a lot easier from a builder's standpoint.

@see3d: I think, if I am understanding you correctly, that I have actually experienced the effect you describe in the single-layer Zed I have in my PerPump v.2.2. The pumping pressure seems to me to behave like you have described, when I have the starting water levels in the Zed chamber just right (apparently just enough to allow the riser to make a gastight seal between the ringwall and the outer chamber, a 1/4 inch or so.) Even in my crude system, I think I'm seeing both the enhanced pressure and the negative pressure effects, due to the volume changes as things move around. I don't have a way to lock my riser/pod combo except by varying its weight (buoyancy at a given displacement) to make it heavier so it stays down longer, and my range of motion is limited to under an inch, but even so, I see the effects on the water output that correspond to what you are seeing in the sim, if I am understanding your description. I interpret this in my PerPump as a force multiplier, like a hydraulic lever, that trades off increased pressure for shorter pumping time... in other words, less volume pumped at a greater pressure. I reported this effect and demonstrated it in a couple of videos last week sometime, but nobody around here seems to pay much attention to Koalas any more -- even if one of them does have a self-powered table top waterpump demonstrating the active Zed principle in action by pumping 13 1/2 inches of water head above its outlet fountain.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 03, 2012, 02:10:54 AM
Dennis .. debugging & checking suggestions.

You could try simplifying your sim to check to check basic hydraulic facts - then add back complexity later...

fletcher,  Thanks for all your suggestions.  That is the route I travelled to get to my current point.  When redoing my sim, I went back to just a zero layer system.  That gave me some new insights that I could carry forward one step at a time to the one layer system (although without the complexity of the friction).  I don't ever expect to take the sim that far, because it is not needed for my purposes of defining an optimal static design.  Building a working model would be easier... LOL

I added one formula at a time and substituted it for an alternate form to see that the sim gave identical results before moving on to the next relationship.  I did the sim starting from the Pod Head going forward, then from the output head differential working backwards.  I was not satisfied until things works the same with either set of formulas and that some other formulas just used as consistency checks were happy.

As far as the incompressible air, I did look at that.  In other words, using light oil instead of air, and giving it zero weight, or alternatively upping the density of the water to compensate.  I would just use the same formulas that describe the action of the water pockets again.  However, it was not really needed for my model.  As far as the final result goes, the air PSI changes so little and so does the corresponding volume, that it might as well be a liquid.  THe PSI changes by +/- 2% and so does the volume.  To me, it just means that Wayne is right, and a water/mercury ZED would be like a air/water ZED in a practical operation.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 03, 2012, 02:42:19 AM
@see3d: I think, if I am understanding you correctly, that I have actually experienced the effect you describe in the single-layer Zed I have in my PerPump v.2.2. The pumping pressure seems to me to behave like you have described, when I have the starting water levels in the Zed chamber just right (apparently just enough to allow the riser to make a gastight seal between the ringwall and the outer chamber, a 1/4 inch or so.) Even in my crude system, I think I'm seeing both the enhanced pressure and the negative pressure effects, due to the volume changes as things move around. I don't have a way to lock my riser/pod combo except by varying its weight (buoyancy at a given displacement) to make it heavier so it stays down longer, and my range of motion is limited to under an inch, but even so, I see the effects on the water output that correspond to what you are seeing in the sim, if I am understanding your description. I interpret this in my PerPump as a force multiplier, like a hydraulic lever, that trades off increased pressure for shorter pumping time... in other words, less volume pumped at a greater pressure. I reported this effect and demonstrated it in a couple of videos last week sometime, but nobody around here seems to pay much attention to Koalas any more -- even if one of them does have a self-powered table top waterpump demonstrating the active Zed principle in action by pumping 13 1/2 inches of water head above its outlet fountain.

TK, Thanks for reporting that.  Here is the thing that I missed in my first sim that I have included now, which makes it make sense to work this way:

The pod is not going to move up unless the "spring" force between the piston and riser is equal to the output load.  Just like if you had a stick with a spring on the end of it and you had a bowling ball sitting on platform with a hole under it.  When you first push the stick with a spring up under the ball, the ball will not move until your spring has compressed to the force of the weight of the ball.  Then it will move up one-for-one with the stick movement.  Of course, the stick "feels" the whole weight of the ball.

In my ZED sim model, there are two springs.  One spring is the Pod Head as a normal buoyancy type force plus the air PSI, making the head seem higher (or lower if negative PSI).  The other spring is the air PSI x the Pod Head area.  The two interact, but do not have the same mx + b factors.  The water head has more gain than the lift from the air PSI, because it has to move further to make up for the volume expansion of the air as the Pod moves up.

The net result is that for my sample model, I have a peak work transfer efficiency of about 65% at around 1/4 inch of riser movement -- which is well before the air PSI turns negative.  So a short stroke is going to be better.

Playing around with the dimensions, I can see a taller and thinner gap and wall model getting up to 85% efficiency.  Keep in mind that this is yet an unproven sim model, and only one layer.

So far, in my sim, everything is consistent with what Wayne said was the direction for a small table top system design point.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 03, 2012, 02:47:33 AM
see3d, I do not have a locked pod to riser, but when I run with an oversized pod the risers will sit on it when in the down position, right now I am running the pod very lite and so it takes very little water into the chamber to make it lift, but even set up this way the pod does not stay stuck to the riser until enough water has been added to make it stay there, it will go up then settle for a moment while the risers are still moving and then lift up back into the riser.
Webby, that is interesting.  It may be the same effect of a negative force, but uncoupled to the Pod in the middle of the operation.  That bears watching carefully.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 03, 2012, 03:48:43 AM
@see3d:
Hmm. OK, so you have a single layer Zed that can probably attain a transfer efficiency of 85 percent.... By transfer efficiency you mean the ratio of work output to work input?  I'm assuming you do for the moment.

So ok... now can the single layer Zed then be treated as a "black box", like an internal pod, which then allows the second layer to be calculated in the same way as the first?

What I'm trying to understand is how a nested five layer system of 85 percent efficient modules can ever attain an efficiency greater than one.

(0.855 = about 0.44)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 03, 2012, 04:13:39 AM
@see3d:
Hmm. OK, so you have a single layer Zed that can probably attain a transfer efficiency of 85 percent.... By transfer efficiency you mean the ratio of work output to work input?  I'm assuming you do for the moment.

So ok... now can the single layer Zed then be treated as a "black box", like an internal pod, which then allows the second layer to be calculated in the same way as the first?

What I'm trying to understand is how a nested five layer system of 85 percent efficient modules can ever attain an efficiency greater than one.

(0.855 = about 0.44)

TK, a single layer is not the same transfer equation for the next layer.  This is the overhead layer to get things rolling.  If the single layer math pans out in the sim, then I bump it up to a 2 layer sim.  I think 3+ layers will all use the same general function, but I am not sure if 2+ would be the same, so I will play it conservative and just add one more layer as a special case first.

I am not extrapolating my single layer result to a future result, and I don't advise anyone else to do that, because it isn not valid.  I am following my painfully slow step-by-step method to understand the ZED from the ground up.  I will leave it to others to judge the final performance from constructed models.  I am so slow and methodical about my methods, that I am sure others will be way ahead of me by just taking the shortcut of building something first.  When I build something, I want to know that my first model will work well before I start.  The methods I use to build are dependent on the design criteria from a sim model.  That is not to say that there is not real value in doing rapid prototypes to test certain theories -- because I do that too, when needed, but they are pretty ugly... LOL

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 03, 2012, 05:30:39 AM

@see3d:
Hmm. OK, so you have a single layer Zed that can probably attain a transfer efficiency of 85 percent.... By transfer efficiency you mean the ratio of work output to work input?  I'm assuming you do for the moment.

So ok... now can the single layer Zed then be treated as a "black box", like an internal pod, which then allows the second layer to be calculated in the same way as the first?

What I'm trying to understand is how a nested five layer system of 85 percent efficient modules can ever attain an efficiency greater than one.

(0.855 = about 0.44)



TK .. I don't understand the 'work transfer terminology' either ?  - And I also currently can't see why nesting risers will make any difference & should lead to well over OU ?

......................

See3d .. I would have thought the obvious way to test efficiency in [& integrity of] the sim [assuming it has no losses] is to calculate PE start & top of cycle ? - Energy Input into the piston should equal the PE gain at any vertical height cross section after start - no where should it exceed 100% ? - this applies to releasing the riser to do work as well.


N.B. In the single riser layer ZED sim PE + KE joules gained should never exceed joules of energy input [ f x d ] - if it does at any position then OU is being indicated then & there IINM & gravity would not be conservative.

P.S. for those following the piston raising PE of fluid while riser is locked down is doing the same job of injecting fluid into the riser chamber under pressure I believe.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 03, 2012, 05:55:06 AM
Unfortunately we all know that air is compressible and making such false assumption would make laugh a high school student, with false assumptions you will be able prove anything you wish to prove, lets be rigourous !

MT .. Mr Wayne has categorically stated that the system would perform equally well using two incompressible fluids of different densities, so your example for analysis purposes of considering air as non compressible is valid.

/quote]
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 03, 2012, 06:06:11 AM
Unfortunately we all know that air is compressible and making such false assumption would make laugh a high school student, with false assumptions you will be able prove anything you wish to prove, lets be rigourous !
In my simulation, the compressibility is so slight that it makes little difference to the operation.  First learn if you are talking about a first order issue or a second order issue in the particular application.  If you want to prove a point, do it with numbers to show what difference it will make.  If you are looking at 300% issues, then 3% issues can be ignored.  I do not know the answer for a multiple layer system yet, so I would not make such a statement.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 03, 2012, 06:22:42 AM

See3d .. I would have thought the obvious way to test efficiency in [& integrity of] the sim [assuming it has no losses] is to calculate PE start & top of cycle ? - Energy Input into the piston should equal the PE gain at any vertical height cross section after start - no where should it exceed 100% ? - this applies to releasing the riser to do work as well.

N.B. In the single riser layer ZED sim PE joules gained should never exceed joules of energy input [ f x d ] - if it does at any position then OU is being indicated then & there IINM & gravity would not be conservative.

P.S. for those following the piston raising PE of fluid while riser is locked down is doing the same job of injecting fluid into the riser chamber under pressure I believe.
Fletcher, I do calculate some of those things also, but they are meaningless at this point to me.  I shared the parts I want to have verified by others experience.  I will share more details when I am sure they are more true than false.  No point in wasting time discussing things before their time -- it just invites fruitless speculations about things that have a high probability of being wrong anyway (due to my lack of mathematical skills).  One step at a time.  This is my learning experience, not my teaching others.  Besides, I am really only interested in how high I can lift a 1 pound weight with a 1 pound input over the same travel -- work in, work out.  Simple ideas for my simple brain! :-)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 03, 2012, 06:37:24 AM
Yes, I can understand your approach of physical verification against model behaviour.

I was suggesting that cross sectional analysis of PE + KE v's Work Done is highly indicative that your formula's are indeed correct or near enough to not matter - if something is way out of kilter then it would be cause for concern & looking closer at the formula.

One thing you should be prepared for Dennis - that is, that criticism will rain down whether the sim [or sonsofsim] shows OU or does not - on one hand you will get comments about not capturing the true effect rigorously therefore not a reliable predictor of behaviour - And, on the other hand, that should it/they show OU that the formula's need work or that a sim that follows physics laws can never show OU.

That's why I admire your determination to accurately model a simple system first which matches real world behaviour & extrapolate the evolution thereafter with more sims from a solid first principles foundation.



 

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 03, 2012, 09:16:07 AM
Hi Seamus,
Home delivery...Piza hut does it...most take-outs do....why is the OVER-UNITY ZED not on the home delivery menu....
Do not despair!......here it is.....
Since you are hungry and have been repeating the same thing over and over. Let me fix you your favorite sandwich, I will prepare it for you and bring it to you on the couch. What I will not do is spoon feed it you. If you like some more cheese or mayo on the sandwich, you will need to get yourself from the fridge. Remember that you need to get off the couch for that.
There will be no further interaction from me beyond what is provided below, OK.

For more details, try to understand what is written and explained by Wayne in the previous 12x pages. Also an effort to understand an XLS worksheet, would help you. Especially for you, I laid it out in normal text format. I could have added some pictures but I think I should leave this for some other time (follow Barney's advice).

Example;We have a nested lifting device, 4 layers that share the same water displacement volume space but each have their own water column. We can control the total daisy chain water column from its bottom section 'which is the pod area'.
We have it setup that for the limited stroke length only. To stroke we inject water into the pod area to lift the head, that will also rise the heads in the above layers until we have 8psi, then we follow the stroke movement with displacement water for the pod area so it has a base to rise on. The risers have sufficient balanced water in the U-bend for the stroke length without impacting the head heights.

Sample Specs
Total lifting area (risers + pod)= 26031cm2
Control lift area (pod)  = 4902

Lift efficiency ratio = Total Lift Area/Pod area
                                 =  26031/4902
                                 = 5.31

Pod efficiency ratio = Pod area / Total Lift area
                                 =  4902/26031
                                 = 18.8%

Virtual displacement water for stroke 3” or 7.5cm
Virtual volume = Displacement volume  - Pod volume
                         = 195.23 – 36.78
                         = 158.5 Ltrs
** The virtual water is non existing water that plays a role as real water as per standard Archimedes

Pod volume ratio = pod volume/displacement volume
                             = 36.76 / 195.23
                             = 18.8%
** Pod volume and efficiency ratio’s match

Note: Do not be fooled that this makes this clever layered lifting device over-unity, all what is demonstrated in the figures above is how much less 'displacement' water we need than Archimedes.  There is a penalty for the weightless non-existing water.  Also do keep in mind that energy is calculated by nature in the 'displacement water weight' and not in the "water of the heads", the heads are a mediator and must be considered as a overhead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL OUTPUT = (RiserWeight + Load) x 3”
                                 = (1000 + 2000) x .075mtr
                                 = 75 + 150
                                 = 225 KgMtr

NET OUPUT = Load
                        = 150 KgMtr

RECYCLED OUTPUT = Riserweight
                                          = 75 KgMtr


GROSS INPUT = Recycled + Add-on costs  (input referenced to zero level)
              = 198 + 99
              = 297 KgMtr 
** Gross Input figures include adjustment for pressure down to zero level reference  (8 psi = 5.62 Mtrs)

GROSS EFFICIENCY = Output/Input  (absolute efficiency)
                                         = 225 / 297
                                         = 75.7 %

REAL EFFICIENCY = Load output/ Add-on costs   (Effective operational efficiency)
                                   = 150 / 97
                                   = 155 %
** Real efficiency is the load output received minus the cost we need to pay

Please Note: Figures should be accurate within a 5-10% margin either way.   The figures  listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device. No overheads incurred by mechanical or other losses have been included.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 03, 2012, 11:49:05 AM
What are all these numbers from Marcel? They seem almost deliberately designed to obfuscate what should be a simple and clear measurement and calculation.

Here are the facts and numbers we need:
Position of all moving parts at the start of one cycle.
Input work, or energy, from outside the system, over the complete cycle.
Output work, or energy, delivered to an outside load (or loads, see below), over the complete cycle.
Position of all moving parts and fluids at the end of the cycle: should be the same as at start.

Example:
Start: All risers and pod bottomed out, water levels even at height x, load mass of ML sitting on top of the output riser at height H0.
Something is injected into the system, a fluid. To aid calculation, this injection is done by depressing a piston of area AP through a stroke of SP with an average force of FP. This piston, cylinder and plumbing are considered external to the ZUT (zed under test), so the work done by depressing the piston is input work to the ZUT.
At the end of the injection, we pause and allow the system to settle, then we measure HL, the lifted height of the load mass. This gives us an output work value.
Then we go to the input piston and _pull it back out_, or allow it to come out "on its own", with some assist if necessary, until the same volume of fluid is withdrawn from the ZUT. This "assist" could be in the form of pushing down on the lifted output mass or by pulling out on the input piston. Any work that we do here to restore the initial state must also count as input work, though. Ideally the piston will come out on its own with the same force and stroke as the original input as the lifted mass sinks back to H0.
End: Everything is back where it started from: one complete cycle, nothing added nothing taken away.

With the numbers AP, SP, FP, ML, H0, and HL we would be in a position to calculate some actual efficiency numbers that meant something and that might allow us to discriminate between a simple hydraulic lever system, and the discovery of Water 2.0.

Where would excess energy be manifested in such a system? Well, hopefully we are not claiming the creation or destruction of matter, so "conservation of volume" applies: there won't be extra water or air beyond what we started with and the resultant pressures and positions will be the same. So excess energy must appear in some parameter of the lift or input piston stroke. It could be that the mass is lifted extra high, so that the simple output work is greater than the input work depressing the piston. It could be that the input piston is pushed back out with excess force for the same distance, as the lifted mass descends in the second half of the cycle, working against a different load. (I'm not sure if this wouldn't violate conservation of volume, though.)

@seamus10n: Hey, virtual water is no more -- or less -- ludicrous than centrifugal force. I've measured them both myself in various systems, and found them both very amusing, convenient sometimes, hilarious even, but certainly not ludicrous.   ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 03, 2012, 01:59:49 PM
Garbage. Any engineer worthy of the title would take one look at this idea and dismiss it out of hand. There is absolutely no valid mathematical analysis based on known physics that could validate this device. This is because any such simulation would have the conservation of energy mass and momentum as the starting point. By definition this will not lead to an overunity result.

As such it is up to those claiming it works to present solid experimental evidence that it does. That is something that has not been forthcoming as yet.
Circular logic must prove itself, lest we accept the illogical as true, or that something has been left out of the ring.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 03, 2012, 02:24:31 PM
Seamus & TK,
You appear to be and live the USA and so is the inventor.  This would mean that you would be more akin in understanding each other than I would. The inventor could help me quite fine and I could understand him fine, notwithstanding that I come from and reside on the other side of the world.   I could understand his invention quite fine after doing some homework on his prompting that that would oil the wheel, why is he not able to do that with you two is my question?

*  Here are the facts and numbers we need: ....give me...give me
I think the basic issue might lie with the understanding and expectation certain people have with the forum.   Certain people just want blueprints so they can built/replicate, others want animations, video...ect.
The inventor was clear on what he wants to share on this forum, sure this did not match all our or your wants....He initiated the topic to share what he wanted to share to a defined extent, that is clear by now.  The shared information is sufficient to draw further conclusions from with some effort from the reader side.  Give me...give me..is too easy.

*  Demonstrating where and when the energy arises out of no-where would.
I omitted this on purpose, since the inventor did not show it directly,  I will not show it either (although it has been said where to find it.  You know what to do,

From where I come from, we have saying that describes certain people, very much alike to a overcast sky.

Regards, Michel




:
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 03, 2012, 02:49:42 PM
155 % efficient?  So can I ask why this device does not appear to produce energy for more than 4 hours at 36 watts peak. (by my estimate about the same amount of energy in the 'pre -charge' based on the volumes , masses and initial displacements mentioned so far.)

Ludicrous appeals to the notion of "virtual water" won't help here. Demonstrating where and when the energy arises out of no-where would.

Seamus, I do not take it lightly that the Discovery of the ZED system counters much you believe and have been taught.

I felt the loss, eventually - like the many of us - you will be excited for the benifit this will bring to the world.
I think this Giraffe video does a good job of showing the stages of dealing with loss - pretty funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Z3lmidmrY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Z3lmidmrY)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 03, 2012, 03:30:09 PM
I'm amazed that the lap joints came out so well. Could you detail for us, please, your gluing method and materials? (I know you told me already but maybe the rest of the readers might like to know too.)
Have you done any pressure testing? I'm worried that the open ends of the tubes won't hold their shapes without a reinforcing ring at the open end (a half-inch ring of the same material?, doubling the wall thickness and with the lap join 180 degrees opposite the tube's lap seam). Also, what is your inter-tube spacing, and have you been able to test for the self-centering phenomenon yet?
Step 1.  Acquire two liter diet Pepsi product.
 
Step 2.  Save some of the diet Pepsi for lunch and pour the rest of that crap down the drain.
 
Step 3.  DO NOT remove the label!  It is the only chance you have to make one of the end cuts straight.  Use it as a guide for scissor cuts while removing the ends.
 
The label glue and remnants comes off with mineral spirits and a lot of scrapping since the label material is a pretty good shield for the mineral spirits.  PITA.
 
So the entire system OD will be one complete two liter section which is ~4.25" dia.  The next smaller cylinder (Outer Riser) is made by cutting another two liter cylinder along it's length with a skill knife and straight edge.  Once cut you will find that it wants to roll up even smaller, and usually not very round.  So far NO two bottles have been the same.  Again, PITA.  But every once in a while the stresses in the material do make a fairly round shape.  I scored a line at 1/2" from the cut and sanded where the lap joint will be.  Then the glue...
 
I had told you of the Threebond plastic cement, but that was wrong.  It is actually a Loctite product and NOT recommended for the primary joint!  Instead, I now am using a product called GOOP.  It is a clear and flexible contact type cement that you apply to both sides of the lap joint, wait a couple minutes, and then join.  It drys by solvent evaporation, so I hold the assembly together with some little neo magnets that I seem to have EVERYWHERE in my garage now.  I move the magnets around while it is drying to help even out the glue.  The neos will squeeze it all out from directly underneath themselves and leave a void if they are not shifted during the set up time.
 
Excess GOOP peals off from the edges of the seam very nicely, but it take a lot of effort!  I run a bead of the Loctite plastic cement along the edges of the seam inside and out to smooth and guarantee the seal.  That stuff dries fairly hard and not as rubbery as the GOOP or silicon.
 
End caps are .10" lexan from LOWES.  I score and snap close to round using a compass and skill knife.  Final rounding is against an orbital sander that is held on it's side on the edge of my work bench.  Again, a major PITA, but a fairly round disk can be made with some patience.  These are roughed with sandpaper along the edges and bonded inside similarly roughed up cylinders with GOOP again to make the Pod and Risers.  I've been running a bead of the Loctite on the inside to double the seal and stiffen the joint as it makes a good fillet.
 
The Pod bottom has a 1/4" hole in the center to allow for air to be circulated to dry the glue that holds it in place on the inside.  I blew air inside with a ball inflator needle on my little air compressor a couple times during it's cure time until the vapors were no longer obvious.  Then I sealed the air hole with silicon.  And yes, I did do this by first chilling the Pod in the freezer and applying the silicon to it while it was cold (I let it cure in the freezer until it had skinned as well).  So now at room temp it should have positive pressure inside to hopefully assist with keeping it air tight.  It is currently at the bottom of a full 5 gallon bucket for testing.
 
The only other pressure testing has been to fill things with water and look for leaks.  I've been overly generous with the sealing materials and hope for the best, but this is still a lousy choice of materials!  But it is cheap!
 
Some day I'll break down any get a mini lathe...
 
Subsequent smaller cylinders were all made by removing 1/2" increments of material from the two liter PET before creating the lap joints.  So they are all nesting with 1/2" differences in circumference.  Except for the Pod, none are perfectly round on their open ends.  So they touch in the dry fit testing, but still slide smoothly against each other, so I am hoping for no problems.  I have no idea if any hydrostatic centering will occur and do NOT believe it would have enough force to round out the deformed cylinders anyway.
 
M.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 03, 2012, 05:00:57 PM
If the air volume in space one is pressurized from 4 PSI to 8 PSI then its volume has to be reduced by half, so half is not negligable even if the volume of air in space 1 is probably quite small, this is the law of ideal (perfect) gas (PV=NRT ) or boyle's law (P1V1=P2V2) and air is much much closer to an ideal gas that to an incompressible fluid.

Now let see what would happen if we replace the air by an incompressible fluid (liquid) of a lower density than water, then the space 1 pressure can be increased immediately, (i.e no need to inject a certain volume of water to compress a gas by half its volume to go from 4 to 8 PSI). The pressure will be transfered from that lower density space 1 to water column between layer 1 and layer 2 then to lower density space 2 and then to next space (no 3) and having identical pressures in all spaces meaning same force on both sides of surface 1, both sides of surface 2, surface 3 being at 8PSI (or whatever pressure) minus atmospheric pressure, the multiple layers effects seems to be lost and we are not anymore in the conditions described in Wayne ZED. (the above is assuming a 3 layers only)

Note that even with a compressible gas like air, with the understanding I have of the ZED, there is no added value from the vertical forces on the multiple horizontal surfaces (S1, S2, S3), the reason is that S1(P1-P2) + S2(P2-P3) + S3(P3-Atm) is identical to S1(P1-Atm) (all surfaces being practically same or to be very accurate if only 1 layer then S1 can be = S3) so the improvement of efficiency comes from something else than the vertical forces and from what I dont know. Anyone? I asked Wayne but still don't get it.

Sorry if I used only few numbers.

In my simulation, the compressibility is so slight that it makes little difference to the operation.  First learn if you are talking about a first order issue or a second order issue in the particular application.  If you want to prove a point, do it with numbers to show what difference it will make.  If you are looking at 300% issues, then 3% issues can be ignored.  I do not know the answer for a multiple layer system yet, so I would not make such a statement.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 03, 2012, 05:19:02 PM
If the air volume in space one is pressurized from 4 PSI to 8 PSI then its volume has to be reduced by half, so half is not negligable even if the volume of air in space 1 is probably quite small, this is the law of ideal (perfect) gas (PV=NRT ) or boyle's law (P1V1=P2V2) and air is much much closer to an ideal gas that to an incompressible fluid.

The 4 and 8 PSI values are GAGE pressures.  The equations you are stating all require ABSOLUTE pressures.  So:
 
4 PSI (gage) = 4  + 14.7 = 18.7 PSI absolute
 
8 PSI (gage) = 8  + 14.7 = 22.7 PSI absolute
 
where 14.7 is an accepted value for atmospheric pressure.
 
The volume of air is not reduced by half as the pressure changes from 18.7 PSI to 22.7 PSI.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 03, 2012, 06:37:02 PM
You are correct I am not used to PSI and was thinking we used absolute pressures, but still air cannot be considered as incompressible. Does the rest of my post make sense ?

 

The 4 and 8 PSI values are GAGE pressures.  The equations you are stating all require ABSOLUTE pressures.  So:
 
4 PSI (gage) = 4  + 14.7 = 18.7 PSI absolute
 
8 PSI (gage) = 8  + 14.7 = 22.7 PSI absolute
 
where 14.7 is an accepted value for atmospheric pressure.
 
The volume of air is not reduced by half as the pressure changes from 18.7 PSI to 22.7 PSI.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 03, 2012, 07:12:55 PM
You are correct I am not used to PSI and was thinking we used absolute pressures, but still air cannot be considered as incompressible. Does the rest of my post make sense ?

I think the rest of your post makes sense.  Sorry that I can't give you an answer to your questions though.  I became stuck with my own analysis once the air compressibility and lift required an iterative or higher math solution.  So I was never able to find the OU myself.  Instead I look at the tools from LarryC and see3D and wait for more. 
 
And I wait for glue to dry...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 03, 2012, 08:52:17 PM
@Mondrasek. Re your post 1853. This is without doubt a very practical and informative post for model makers.
People in different parts of the world may have to experiment with different glues and   materials that are available locally. One thing I figured out is that the top caps of the risers do not need to be transparent. So alternative materials could be used here, including thin plywood if it is treated with a waterproof paint or varnish.
        In the past, I have used a cheap bench grinder as a substitute lathe when making plywood discs. I cut the disk approximately to size using a fretsaw or band saw. I then drill a suitable hole at the centre and mount the disc in place of the grindstone. I then take a long rasp, and placing one end on the bench, bring the middle of the rasp against the revolving disc. Naturally. i wear goggles. For safety reasons, you do this at your own risk, but it works for me.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 03, 2012, 08:54:48 PM

Hi,
thank you for responses and posts, I'm learning from it.


My previous model for inverse travis effect (1inverse riser) showed no OU. Advice was to go multi riser system similarly as ZED, reuse mass etc


So I created the following model and would still call it 2riser. I think see3d would name it one riser but name is not important now.


Model is 2D but it can be mapped on a 3D model with cylinders.


I used following simplifications:
- air in below text should be replaced by icompresible weightless fluid lighter than water. I agree with parisd that air IS compressible but it just makes calculations more complex and since we can use icompresible fluid why not make things simpler if it helps and simplification is valid.
- risers have negligible weight
- compartements have negligible thin walls
- no losses


1. picture shows starting situation, risers are locked. There is inner compartment with the pod(1th riser) and 2 units of water. In the outer compartement containing 9 units of water on each side is floating 2nd riser. Air pressure above 2-riser but also air pressure in inner compartement are the same = 1atm. Under 2riser left side are 6 units of air and 6 on right side.
Total lift force of risers is 6 units. 2riser contributes 0 and the pod 6.


2. Precharging, risers are still locked - injecting 2 units of water in the inner compartment (at its bottom) raises water in 1 and 12 column by one.
Total lift force 16. The pod contributes 12 units and 2nd riser 4.


3. Stroke - risers are allowed to lift up one unit distance. To keep internal pressure the same(real ZED keeps pressure in inner compartment also the same 8psi), 10 extra water units need to be injected. Most of this water (6 units) is needed to fill space under rising pod.
Total lift force after stroke is 22. Inner pod contributes 18 and 2riser 4.


So work that can be done using this model equals lifting force caused by 16 volume units of displaced water over one unit distance. In fact lifting force increases from 16 to 22 over one unit distance. Water injected at bottom = 12 units.
Now I'm trying to answer the question: is the work done enough to inject 12 units of water at bottom and by this close the loop? Webby1 said some posts ago we can use builded pressure of water from stroke step and lead it to another 2 riser. I assume equalization would fill first 6 units in another 2riser. Question (restated) is then: is the work done enough to inject only 6 (not 12 units) of water and close the loop?


I have a feeling that it can but think at the same time that feelings have no place here, just facts.


thanks,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 03, 2012, 09:22:57 PM
Quote
But my own position is that I'd want to avoid people wasting their time on overunity concepts that don't work.
Until you can provide either solid experimental evidence or a plausible theory on why gravity acts in a non conservative way in this device then I think it is a reasonable stance to take.

Seamus & TK,
As watchdogs that qualify over-unity examples with a plausible theory that will waste no-body’s time,  see below ONE of the MINOR Zed OVER-UNITY aspects that should have woken up the dog that was watching !

 I re-arranged some of the measurement details somewhat to make it stand out more. Reduced the pod area to 50% of the outer lift layer area. The idea is to illustrate Wayne's strategy &  logic towards over-unity, not by creating energy, but by reducing costs (governments could learn something here). The point here is not to explain where the energy is coming from and how this impacts the sacred laws and re-arranges what we new before. The point is that the logic flow is sound and it produces results.

Sample Specs
Total lifting area (risers + pod)= 26031cm2
Outer Layer 4 area = 5500 cm2
Control lift area (pod)  =  2750 cm2 (50% of outer layer area)
Layers = 4 + pod


Lift efficiency ratio = Total Lift Area/Pod area
                                 =  26031/2750
                                 = 9.46

Pod efficiency ratio = Pod area / Total Lift area
                                 =  2750/26031
                                 = 10.5%

Virtual displacement water for stroke 3” or 7.5cm
Virtual volume = Displacement volume  - Pod volume
                         = 195.23 – 20.62
                         = 174.6 Ltrs   (cm3 -> Ltr)
** The virtual water is non existing water that plays a role as real water as per standard Archimedes

Real  displacement water for stroke 3” or 7.5cm
Total Volume to rise 3” = Outer Lift area x stroke length
                                       = 5500 x 7.5
                                       = 41.2 Ltrs    (cm3 -> Ltr)
** The real displacement water must be provided at the appropriate pressures for each layer. This is offset in the energy balance. The water is effectively shared in the same way the air spaces are shared by all layers.  As a quick calculation, the balance of energies would be unity  (if we ignore the heads)

Actual used volume for for stroke 3” or 7.5cm ( using pod only)
Total Volume to rise 3” = Pod Layer area x stroke length
                                       = 2750 x 7.5 
                                       = 20.6 Ltrs    (cm3 -> Ltr)
** Here we use the pod area for stroke displacement water injection. Supported by sufficient balanced water in the U-bend for the stroke length. The pod area is 50% of the largest lift outer area. This reduces our water and input costs by 50%
                 
Energy used = 20.6 x 5.62 = 115.7 KgMtr   (8psi = 5.62 mtrs)
Potential energy gained by lifting  3000Kg for 7.5cm @ 8psi = 225KgMtr

NET EFFICIENCY =  225/115.7 = 144.5 %
OVERUNITY by 44.5%


Note: This is only one of the minor optimizations towards over-unity in the Travis Zed. The major optimization trump card is way more simple in its setup but because of it more ingenious and more beneficial 
Do not be fooled by the first sight and your first impressions of this set of inverted cooking pots. There is way more cooking going on here than you think.

Please Note: Figures should be accurate within a 5-10% margin either way.   The figures  listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device. No overheads incurred by mechanical or other losses have been included.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 03, 2012, 11:39:14 PM
I've corrected the SI calculation sections on the attached spreadsheets and showing the results from each in the first picture.
 
The last two results are from the System Rise water height calculator to show the force before a rise and after a three inch rise, they are the same. It is accomplished by increasing the water level between the pod and the pod retainer wall during the rise. The total force is different from the 3 Riser at the top because the Pod water level was reduced and replaced with air pressure to maintain the water head in the Risers. This has been explained many times, but some just keep implying that there is no force over distance values.
 
For the real anal, use the System Rise water height calculator and start with a rise value of .00001 and press the Adjustment button, wait 10 seconds for the number to quit spinning. Record the force results. Continue incrementing by .00001 until you reach 3 inches. Please report back in a month with your results. I'm sure you will remember next time before implying again.
 
Regards, Larry   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2012, 12:21:37 AM
Why can you mathematicians not answer the simple questions, without all this obfuscation?

You start at the bottom, precharged however. DON'T TELL ME THE DETAILS of the precharge, I will take your word for it AS LONG AS IT REMAINS IN THE SYSTEM AND IS THE SAME AT THE END OF THE CYCLE. You have some "load mass" sitting at some initial height and this mass and this height you will tell me.

You use an external piston and cylinder and plumbing to apply A KNOWN AMOUNT OF INPUT WORK by injecting your desired quantity of water into the chamber surrounding the pod. All I need to know here is the surface area of the piston, the stroke length, and the average force exerted on the piston to push it in for the stroke length.

You then measure the HEIGHT of the LIFTED WEIGHT sitting on top.

You have now completed ONE HALF CYCLE. The input work can be compared to the output work at this point, without all the complications introduced by Marcel and Larry. But you aren't done, because perhaps your precharge has boosted the output, so for TOTAL work balance you need to return to the initial state EXACTLY.  So now you compute the work in the second half of the cycle: Your lifted load mass becomes the "input" and your injection piston travel is now your "output".  If the system returns to the initial state on its own, just from removing whatever force you are holding the piston in, you are done. If you have to put in extra work, either by pulling out the piston or pressing down on the lifted weight, this counts as input in the total work calculation. If the input piston pushes out with more force than you took to put it in initially, averaged over the full stroke, then this difference counts as output work in the total work calculation.

Please use measurements from an actual system. Made-up numbers and complex calculations only serve to muddy the waters.

So, will one of you numbers crunchers please just give the values that will allow actual calculations of work in and work out, total?  This should be very easy to do, and the only time that it has actually been done, by webby some days ago, the calculation I performed on the given data indicated an "ou" value that was in the "noise floor" or the margin of error in the measurements.

The fact that there is so much reluctance to give the required numbers in an easily interpretable form indicates to me that there must be some reason for not doing so. Perhaps, using the measurements and calculations that I would like to see used, you don't get such big overunity numbers.

In fact Michel's given OU number is so embarrassingly great that he has to remind us, over and over, that losses aren't being included... as if losses in a wellconstructed system would prevent the OU from several layers from building up drastically.

So let's break it down again.
MrWayne has said that he has a simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself. These are his own exact words. And I have asked over and over, how is this clear overunity measured IN THAT SYSTEM, and what is the ratio of input work to output work for this simple system that is clearly overunity by itself?

All that is needed to answer these questions properly is to set THAT SYSTEM up with an external piston and cylinder that can be used to apply a known input work, and do a few simple measurements of the work put in and the work gotten back out. Webby is nearly doing this with his system.... the two thousand dollar set of tennis ball tubes.... but not quite. In the only experiment he reported that is "almost" this simple, I got a numerical answer that was "positive" but not by much, in the noise floor of the measurements.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 04, 2012, 03:24:02 AM

Actual used volume for for stroke 3” or 7.5cm ( using pod only)

Total Volume to rise 3” = Pod Layer area x stroke length
                                       = 2750 x 7.5 
                                       = 20.6 Ltrs    (cm3 -> Ltr)

** Here we use the pod area for stroke displacement water injection. Supported by sufficient balanced water in the U-bend for the stroke length. The pod area is 50% of the largest lift outer area. This reduces our water and input costs by 50%
                 
Energy used = 20.6 x 5.62 = 115.7 KgMtr   (8psi = 5.62 mtrs)

Potential energy gained by lifting  3000Kg for 7.5cm @ 8psi = 225KgMtr

NET EFFICIENCY =  225/115.7 = 144.5 %

OVERUNITY by 44.5%


Note: This is only one of the minor optimizations towards over-unity in the Travis Zed. The major optimization trump card is way more simple in its setup but because of it more ingenious and more beneficial.

Regards, Michel

TK .. I agree with your objective approach to method, measurement & data collection 100%.

Just a side note about Mr Sunsets last contribution.

I get 194 % Net Efficiency based on his figures i.e. that's OverUnity by 94 % [give or take 5-10% margins of error & no losses] - re 144.5 %, but I don't want to seem trivial.

I also have a little problem in comprehension just near the end - he says, I think, that the systems input is 20.6 liters of fluid which raises the PSI from 0 to 8 PSI - then he uses a head justification of 5.62 m = 8 PSI.

AND ... 8 PSI is indeed 5.62 m thereabouts - so he seems to be saying, I think, that 20.6 liters [kg] of fluid is raised by a height of 5.62 m = 115.7 kgm = 1135.72 joules Input Cost ["Energy Used"].

Yep, that looks ok - the trouble I'm having is that 8 PSI at 5.62 m head means that 20.6 liters [kg] would only raise its PE by half that distance because Static Pressure = pgh = 1000 kg x 9.81 m/s^2 x 5.62 m = 55.132 KPas = 8 PSI [i.e. fluid depth 5.62 m], while an equivalent column of solid would have its CoG half that distance [i.e. 2.81 m] since density is uniform.

So was the potential raised 5.62 m or 2.81 m ? If 5.62 m is correct for the "Energy Used" calc the 20.6 liters would have to be raised 5.62 m to get 115.7 kgm or 1135.72 joules & this doesn't seem to match the head statement of 8 PSI at 5.62 m.

If the former even 194 % looks paltry.

Or maybe the hydrostatic paradox is coming home to roost - higher pressure means more work done to force a fluid into the system, especially if you want to force it in at a lower level & take it out again - I can only think that the major trump card lies in volume changes beneath the risers but then we all know pressure is scalar & pushes up & down & that's what the paradox is about ?

I hope you get straight answers this time, especially from the spreadsheet kings.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2012, 04:13:36 AM
Yes, well, this part
225/115.7 = 144.5 %
is certainly wrong; my calculator agrees with fletcher's when I do the division 225/115.7 and gives me closer to 1.94, or 194 %. An embarrassment of riches, as I said before.

But garbage in, garbage out, anyway. Where do the numbers come from in the first place?

Now, when I was addressing see3d about nesting systems, perhaps I wasn't using the right image. You have a single layer Zed, analyzed to give ... what, now, 194 percent OU? So you take this system and call it a POD.... and use it as a pod in a second Zed constructed around it. So now you have a two layer Zed, the inner one analyzed to give 194 percent OU and the outer one, constructed just the same only bigger and with an active OU Zed inside it instead of an inert pod. So the outer one should also give an OU percent boost as well, right?

So by the time you've gotten to 5 layers, you have 1.945 = about 27 1/2. You've even beaten Rosemary Ainslie.... with a COP of over 27. It will take some mighty groaning huge losses... to what, heat?... to keep your usable output down to 36 watts.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 04, 2012, 05:03:42 AM
No no no - the 194% was not a single riser & pod - it was a 4 or 5 layer model by the look of the picture that went with Mr Sunsets math   ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2012, 06:05:37 AM
No no no - the 194% was not a single riser & pod - it was a 4 or 5 layer model by the look of the picture that went with Mr Sunsets math   ;)
Ah, I see... but so what? It can still be put into a "black box" or rather a black cylinder, and called a "superZed", can't it .... then it can be used as the riser in the center of an outer superZed...... etc. etc.

I mean, I can certainly stack levers, or water heads in a loopy hose, in this way. Why not Zeds? If a Zed layer is OU, and a nest of five Zed layers is even more OU, why can I not nest some nests of Zeds and get even _more_ OU?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 04, 2012, 06:33:37 AM
That would be the Rushin Egg ZED.

Why not, yes, you can stack levers & loopy water heads - Pascal's hydraulics multiplies force doesn't it !

What we [& I mean that in terms of all not yet convinced] should understand is that we are not supposed to fully understand - the exception is see3d building his sim from the ground up & taking an impartial view & hopefully sharing his findings where the Inputs & Outputs can be questioned - he is prepared to let the chips fall where they may - we are supposed to build & make our mistakes along the way, & learn from those.

Your call for the obvious OU 3 layer single ZED with relevant empirical information & Input & Output data capable is the logical way forward - you may have to wait for the replicators or Mondrasek to finish first.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2012, 07:34:01 AM
That would be the Rushin Egg ZED.

Why not, yes you can stack levers & loopy water heads - Pascal's hydraulics multiplies force doesn't it.

What we [& I mean that in terms of all not yet convinced] is that we are not supposed to fully understand - the exception is see3d building his sim from the ground up & taking an impartial view & hopefully sharing his findings where the Inputs & Outputs can be questioned - we are supposed to build & make our mistakes along the way, & learn from those.

Your call for the obvious OU 3 layer single ZED with relevant empirical information & Input & Output data capable is the logical way forward - you may have to wait for the replicators or Mondrasek to finish first.

Sure, you're right. But what if they don't find OU? That would just prove that they didn't understand the principle and didn't build correctly, wouldn't it? Building an overunity device on your tabletop is evidently sort of an "entrance exam": Only those who can do this, or simulate it with a complex chain of spreadsheet reasoning, are allowed into the inner sanctum.

There is more "back channel" communication happening on this project, between the various participants, than in any other thread I can think of. You've got all kinds of compartmentalized information being shared by pairs and triplets of people through PMs and emails, not necessarily overlapping.... nobody, not even MrWayne, knows the full extent of this hidden layer of Zedspeak happening behind the scenes of the open-source forum thread.  It's veritably Steornish in its onion-like layering and pungent odor.
The closed circle of table-top waterpump contestants is a virtual clone of Steorn's SKDB cult-club. I wish them the best of luck.... and I'm sure that if one of them is actually successful they will sleep on it for a night or two, letting the real implications set in, before they decide to inform MrWayne and collect their measly ten thousand dollars and special trophy plaque for solving his problems for him.

One reason I am so skeptical of the spreadsheet modellers and the engineers who MrWayne says confirm his claims, is that "I have been here before" in a manner of speaking. I am talking about the work of P Graneau and his claim of overunity water arcs. He had a math model based on standard conservation of momentum, he had perhaps thousands of experimental trials, reams of data, years of research, papers published in physics journals and his model made sense. Only problem was that experiments never showed the actual  7-fold increase in energy his model showed should be there. Why not?  Welllllll.... it was because of this: even though his _model_ was correctly executed, and consistent with conventional physics, and looked valid on its face, and returned internally consistent results..... it was the wrong model. In the final end, a more complex model based on underwater shock fronts turned out to describe the existing data and make predictions consistent with experimental results... and showed no overunity. Moral of the story: Your spreadsheets and drawings could be themselves correct and consistent, all ducks properly marching in line..... and they could still be wrong. Epicycles.
And the only way to tell the difference between epicycles and a more correct model is to refine the input data. Part of this is to gather the _correct_ data in the first place, to the proper degree of precision necessary. Another part is to analyze the data correctly... using the right model. Yet another part is to see if your model can predict future data gathered under different initial conditions.... this is a robust test of a model, and this is where Graneau's program -- along with many others -- broke down.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 04, 2012, 07:51:37 AM
Just think for a moment, why do I take the trouble to post ?,  Why did Wayne take all the trouble he did ?
Answer; To share something that could possibly help you, open a new horizon for you.

You guys are brilliant ! in showing your insolence.  I agree you need to question scrutinize what is posted but you do it at the cost of understanding the intend of the communication.
The reason might lie in the fact , you ‘do not want to understand’ because ‘you are not looking for understanding’, I assume this might not be intentional
Your main purpose appears to be, how many holes you can shoot into any posting. Making for a pretty nice on-line gaming activity.
 
My applogies for the calc error  "225/115.7 = should be 194% " (writing postings near midnight doesn’t improve accuracy).  144 or 194 doesn’t impact the core intend of the posting. The figures are merely illustrative to the underlying purpose of the posting, to show where and how some over-unity can be had. The values shown are only important in their relationship value, not in their absolute value. The other details like layers ect only have importance in the relative dimensioning on which the number are based.
I am describing a concept principle, not a model blueprint for building

What was the purpose of my posting ?
One of the many ways cost savings are used in the Zed to show how OVER-UNITY. The layered device that is in principle not over-unity can made over-unity by the manipulating the area ratio’s and the process used to initiate lift.

Limitation “Please Note” on the bottom of the post,
**  “The figures  listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device.”

Let me allow you to consume my time, just for one more  time only .

1.. Fletcher - Yep, that looks ok - the trouble I'm having is that 8 PSI at 5.62 m head means that 20.6 liters [kg] would only raise its PE by half that distance because Static Pressure = pgh = 1000 kg x 9.81 m/s^2 x 5.62 m = 55.132 KPas = 8 PSI [i.e. fluid depth 5.62 m], while an equivalent column of solid would have its CoG half that distance [i.e. 2.81 m] since density is uniform.

Answer: I though that I was clear enough in my posting. If it only lifted half the distance, there would be no point for me to make a posting. To understand how 20.6 ltrs does the job of raising 3000kg for 3”, you will need to use your imagination & visualization and play it out bit by bit, this might take you some time.
The pivot lies in the ratio between the Outer Layer and the Pod area. A pod area as big as the outer layer surface would be “unity” if we ignore losses. As you make the pod area smaller than the outer layer, the outer to pod area ratio will becomes your advantage over ‘unity’.
There are pre-requisites we need to satisfy. That is stroke distance. Since we inject displacement water only into the pod area, the risers must be pre-provisioned sufficiently to support the stroke distance (so they do not run dry). The criteria will be lift force (pressure) and stroke distance.

2.. TinselKoala - But garbage in, garbage out, anyway. Where do the numbers come from in the first place?

Answer: The figures are merely illustrative to support the description and discussion of a concept principle. They are not intended to serve as a model blueprint for building. The values shown are only important in their relationship value, not in their absolute value.
I want you to see the point, not to tell you how much it is going to ..give me…give me..

PLEASE NOTE: This is not the main energy gain conundrum of the Zed,  the ingenuity by Wayne to achieve the main caveat will blow your mind.
Finding it yourself is important to really appreciate and relate to the discovery. To get a taste what the inventor went through to arrive at this point and the feeling he must have had at the point of discovery. To discover the trick to fool nature.

If you think you have seen it all already,  it may be best that you keep your silence.
The world needs people that reach beyond the limits to advance mankind.

Regards,  Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 04, 2012, 08:24:22 AM

Moral of the story: Your spreadsheets and drawings could be themselves correct and consistent, all ducks properly marching in line..... and they could still be wrong. Epicycles.

And the only way to tell the difference between epicycles and a more correct model is to refine the input data. Part of this is to gather the _correct_ data in the first place, to the proper degree of precision necessary. Another part is to analyze the data correctly... using the right model. Yet another part is to see if your model can predict future data gathered under different initial conditions.... this is a robust test of a model, and this is where Graneau's program -- along with many others -- broke down.


I, at least, agree with you & have little faith in spreadsheets, in & off themselves - actually spreadsheet programs are fine & I use them, it's the modelers that can be the weak link.

I am much more impressed with robust simulations & real world POP experiments that can leave no room for doubt by the rigorous nature they are conducted & examined - it is a given that the modeling that follows should then be highly predictive but built around actual data.

I will trust the process underway to come to some sort of firm conclusions - either way it pans out will be a good result from my perspective.

Michel .. thanks for the reply - you won't be offended if I await actual data from the replicators & long run test before I'm swayed - I don't need to relive Mr Wayne's eureka moments for myself - I'd be too busy trying to rewrite the laws of physics to accommodate non conservative gravity loophole you speak about.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on September 04, 2012, 10:03:18 AM
jesus fucking christ!

it should be obvious by now that this system will never work!
data shown is shit!
videos and images shown, shit!
no solid proof has been shown!
expecting us to have faith that this system works and going along with it is absolutely unacceptable!
this system will never go open source! and if it does I bet that will be the time we find out it doesn’t work!

this type of shit will not end here, there will be others so get use to it!
eventually someone (or group of people) will come along and will actually open source their over unity/free energy discovery.
but until then we will have to deal with shit like this!

and if i’m wrong in the end, well then I apologize in advance! seriously. ;)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 04, 2012, 01:07:11 PM
Quote
Quote from fletcher
Michel .. thanks for the reply - you won't be offended if I await actual data from the replicators & long run test before I'm swayed

Fletcher, Thank you for a decent and meaningful response.
No, I will not be offended, I understand your reservation and I appreciate your response that you understood my comms and that you require further investigation to make up your opinion.
To me this means that you are doing your due diligence on your part instead of dismissing it outright like some/most of the other members on this forum without producing any validation on their part why a certain logic is illogical or wrong, except for a few high flung statements pulled out of their back pocket or science manual.

Example post, how not to respond: (from ghost)
          jesus fucking christ! 
          it should be obvious by now that this system will never work!
          data shown is shit!
          videos and images shown, shit!
          no solid proof has been shown!

Seamus,
No.. That statement makes no sense. Either some part of the cycle results in an energy gain or it doesn't . Your explanations show leverage is possible but leaves out how and where the actual energy gain occurs. Show where that happens or stop wasting our time

No.. That statement makes no sense.
**  Please expand your statement, why doesn’t it make sense. I though I explained it simple and well enough.

Either some part of the cycle results in an energy gain or it doesn't .
**   The energy gain was clearly demonstrated together with the source that created the gain in a logical fashion.
You may explain why this is so impossible in a progressive logical rebuttal. It is clear that you have difficulty to understand this but if you do not provided more details why you can not get your head around this. I can not help you.

Your explanations show leverage is possible but leaves out how and where the actual energy gain occurs.
 ** I showed a net energy output that was more than we put in. And I showed how we came to that point.
That is where a clever guy like you comes in. You can make a clear analysis why the example given in post #1861 can not work as stated.  Or tell me what produces this magical energy, or better said how can it be possible to demand a discount from nature within the bounds of the known laws. I can only tell you, I do’ this and that’ and look, I get this for free..  Believe me it is still a puzzle for me too. I do not claim that I know all. I am on a discovery tour. A bit like Columbus, he should have been in India or China but he was somewhere else outside the boundaries of what was known. Seamus, you got the ball. This is what the forum should be all about to be of any value.

Show where that happens or stop wasting our time.
** Yes, show us what happens, I did in earlier post, it is now your turn to make a meaningful contribution that will advance the train of logical reasoning, so we can ALL come out successful for the good of all of us and the world.

Lets be a team and stop hiding,

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 04, 2012, 05:47:13 PM
The pivot lies in the ratio between the Outer Layer and the Pod area. A pod area as big as the outer layer surface would be “unity” if we ignore losses. As you make the pod area smaller than the outer layer, the outer to pod area ratio will becomes your advantage over ‘unity’.
Michel, Thanks for your little insight nugget.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 04, 2012, 06:23:10 PM
Yes, I can understand your approach of physical verification against model behaviour.

I was suggesting that cross sectional analysis of PE + KE v's Work Done is highly indicative that your formula's are indeed correct or near enough to not matter - if something is way out of kilter then it would be cause for concern & looking closer at the formula.

One thing you should be prepared for Dennis - that is, that criticism will rain down whether the sim [or sonsofsim] shows OU or does not - on one hand you will get comments about not capturing the true effect rigorously therefore not a reliable predictor of behaviour - And, on the other hand, that should it/they show OU that the formula's need work or that a sim that follows physics laws can never show OU.

That's why I admire your determination to accurately model a simple system first which matches real world behaviour & extrapolate the evolution thereafter with more sims from a solid first principles foundation.
fletcher,  I may grumble a bit when it looks like you want me to do more work, but I appreciate you inputs on my sim.  I take them all with due consideration. 

Yesterday, I spent most of the day trying to make a plot for the energy in vs potential energy out, or captured inside.  I broke down every individual change in pressure or head inside the ZED and all actual work done.  I then tried to show every combination that could be taken together.  I could not get anything that looked even close no matter how I played with the combinations.  That is when it dawned on me.  I was never going to be able to make it make sense using that approach. 

My whole simulation is based on balancing the input force with an internal state that creates an equal and opposite force on the input.  I was avoiding using the input forces and direct "push back" forces in all my formulas, because I knew that was going to show 100% by definition.  Yet that was the only calculation that could be used.  Either that or I am way off base in my relationships between the internal geometries.  Otherwise, I would have to show that I am creating and destroying virtual water on demand.  The real test will have to come from matching up the sim and actual build results

Lacking any further inputs from builders, I will push forward with completing my revised PDF with new animations. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 04, 2012, 06:47:33 PM
@ ALL BUILDERS,

I am quite interested in having measurements from tests that I can duplicate in the sim by adjusting the sim dimensions to match your models.  Please PM me with any details that you would not want to share publicly yet.  I don't care if it shows O/U or not.

I have been thinking about how to take measurements of the heads in a clear ZED.  The way I am leaning towards is to mount a LASER pointer on a right angle stick that can slide up and down on a fixed vertical post, wall, etc.  A poor man's height gage!  I happen to have a LASER pointer that puts out a line rather than a dot, which might make it easier to see.  The other thing was to get some colored plastic floating beads to put into each head to make the level easier to see, or a cutout sheet plastic ring might be a better way.

The needed data other than the ZED dimensions is the water heads at the beginning (down), the heads when the pod starts to lift, the heads at about half stroke, and the heads at the top of the stroke (just at the top stop if you have one).  The data would only be used to verify the accuracy of the sim, not to be shared by me.

My sim is currently limited to a single layer, but I will add more layers in time.  So, even if the model has more layers in it today, The data would be useful to me to evaluate the next iteration of the sim. 

TIA,
Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 04, 2012, 07:04:43 PM
Hi Dennis
If nobody else is that that point yet, I may be able to give you a hand by the end of the week.
I should have a single layer demo available to work with by then.
It will be 8" OD x 12" tall with clear .125 walls and .125 gaps.
Any assistance I can provide.

I'd already planned to work from the outside in, taking as many measurements as I can along the way.
It's set up to be 5 risers and a 2.5" pod fully assembled.
Clear, single top plate so it will be pretty simple to monitor what's going on inside - for better or worse :)

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 04, 2012, 07:27:41 PM
.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 04, 2012, 07:47:54 PM
Red-Sunset said


The Pivot lies in the ratio between the outer layer and the pod area. A pod area as big as the outer layer surface would be unity, if we ignore losses. As you make the pod smaller than the outer layer, the outer to pod area ratio will become your advantage over unity.
 
1. The pod is a cylinder. By pod area , do we mean the area of one end of that cylinder?


2. As it would be physically impossible to have a pod with an area as big as the surface area of the top of the outer riser, and still fit the pod inside he riser , can we assume that this is a theoretical question?


3. So making the pod area smaller than the area of the top of the outer riser, is advantageous in terms of gaining OU. Is there, therefore an "ideal" pod to outer ratio,  Or can we enlarge this ratio to an absurd extent, and still gain? Can Red_Sunset, or anyone please answer these questions?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 04, 2012, 08:49:00 PM
Hi Dale, that would be great.  I am actually interested in more than one set of inputs from different models, since the measurements from different people will vary in accuracy, and the sim might have an error that does not show up in all configurations.  Having measurements from you as you add layers would be a real bonus.  The more, the merrier. :-)

PS.  I put in the rough measurement into my sim for 8 x 12 size with 0.125 walls and gaps.  It spit out that to get a 1.28 inch stroke it would need about 10 pounds of input and output force to be at an efficient operating point.  It would be a lot different if the pod was not as large as shown.  I have not put the ability to vary the wall and gap sizes independently in the pod area or exit areas yet.  I will do that soon -- as if anything I ever do can be considered "soon"... LOL.  Here is a picture of my sim output.  I am sure your setup will be somewhat different, but it is a data point for consideration.

Thanks,
Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 04, 2012, 08:59:53 PM
Red-Sunset said


The Pivot lies in the ratio between the outer layer and the pod area. A pod area as big as the outer layer surface would be unity, if we ignore losses. As you make the pod smaller than the outer layer, the outer to pod area ratio will become your advantage over unity.
 
1. The pod is a cylinder. By pod area , do we mean the area of one end of that cylinder?


2. As it would be physically impossible to have a pod with an area as big as the surface area of the top of the outer riser, and still fit the pod inside he riser , can we assume that this is a theoretical question?


3. So making the pod area smaller than the area of the top of the outer riser, is advantageous in terms of gaining OU. Is there, therefore an "ideal" pod to outer ratio,  Or can we enlarge this ratio to an absurd extent, and still gain? Can Red_Sunset, or anyone please answer these questions?

Hi Neptune,

If I understand your question, it is possible to have an exit head area that is larger or smaller than the pod area or pod head area without doing anything absurd (I just put that into my sim both ways).  If the whole last layer "air" area is used, then it is even an easier ratio to achieve.  The geometry is not constrained.  As far as the exact definition of terms by Red-Sunset, he will have to confirm that.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 04, 2012, 09:16:29 PM
Seed3,
Your Zed drawing is interesting and a bit different to what I imagined. what is the dark blue, gray, light blue and what is the orange rectangle at bottom?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 04, 2012, 09:25:01 PM
Neptune,
1. The pod is a cylinder. By pod area , do we mean the area of one end of that cylinder?
** By “area” we mean “lift area”, on which pressure forces act to generate lift

2. As it would be physically impossible to have a pod with an area as big as the surface area of the top of the outer riser, and still fit the pod inside he riser , can we assume that this is a theoretical question?
**  Quite an interesting interpretation, it definitely does mean that he pod must fit inside the outer riser otherwise the outer riser would become the inner riser. This also means that the Travis buoyancy device is by default over-unity.

3. So making the pod area smaller than the area of the top of the outer riser, is advantageous in terms of gaining OU. Is there, therefore an "ideal" pod to outer ratio,  Or can we enlarge this ratio to an absurd extent, and still gain? Can Red_Sunset, or anyone please answer these questions?
** There are quite a few other design considerations that come into play that need to be looked at, changing the lift area ration affects the lift force. Smaller area, more OU but lower force. You will need to run this through xls to get a better feel. I have not done that

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 04, 2012, 09:33:32 PM
Seed3,
Your Zed drawing is interesting and a bit different to what I imagined. what is the dark blue, gray, light blue and what is the orange rectangle at bottom?
parsid, you must have missed my posted link to my public ZED folder with a PDF description of the ZED drawings used in my sim.  Here it is again.  This is where I will post my updates to the PDF and animations.  These are about to be updated, as the current ones are wrong in the details, but it will give you an idea of what it all means.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on September 04, 2012, 09:33:38 PM
Seed3,
Your Zed drawing is interesting and a bit different to what I imagined. what is the dark blue, gray, light blue and what is the orange rectangle at bottom?

The labeled diagram for the simulations is on page 2 of his original pdf document.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 04, 2012, 10:22:52 PM

parsid, you must have missed my posted link to my public ZED folder with a PDF description of the ZED drawings used in my sim.  Here it is again.  This is where I will post my updates to the PDF and animations.  These are about to be updated, as the current ones are wrong in the details, but it will give you an idea of what it all means.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P)


Parisd .. I believe you are viewing a split screen representation i.e. half images of a ZED in the before & after phases of half a cycle, for comparison.

The orange rectangle at the bottom is a Piston that an up force is applied to - the center orange Riser is locked down initially so it can't move - the Piston pushes up the water volume beneath the Riser [N.B. the dark blue shells are the Pod walls & never move] - water volume [calculated on circular areas x heights for volumes] is forced to rise up the inner side of the Riser - this displaces the grey area of air [the air gap] - the air in turn pushes the water columns [as seen in the sim] down & up on the outside - so the air gap is just a low density fluid that for the purposes of a sim transmits water pressure.

As the outside water column rises the head pressure rises - this is proportional to the volume of water in the Piston chamber that is forced to bypass the locked down Riser - this raising of head [measured from the outside water column height to the top of the Piston face] creates the Buoyancy force the Riser experiences - this buoyancy force is real & is proportional to the 'virtual' volume displacement of the Riser + Riser 'legs/rings'.

Note that :

1. the Piston must do Work to raise the mass of Piston + Piston chamber water + NET Pod & Riser columns water - this means there is an increase in system PE achieved by Work Done.

2. as the head increase is proportional to the volume exchanges the Static Pressure [i.e. pgh where p = density] increases on the Piston face - so in essence as the head increases rapidly for a small volume input the Static Pressure increases also - since Pressure is Force x Area & Force = P / A we can see that a larger & larger force opposing the Piston is generating - this 'counter' force is also 'virtual' volume dependent.

P.S. the Piston 'feels' like it has to lift the virtual volume equivalent in real mass, even though the actual volume real mass is considerably less.

3. at some point the Riser is released [in the sweet spot] & net upthrust force [buoyancy less gravity force] causes the Riser to gain PE & also increase the PE of the Load mass - of course while moving they both have KE.

4. the displaced virtual volumes are now reduced [lowers the water PE somewhat] & the system is top of cycle & in equilibrium again, as before the Piston was forced to move upwards [the Piston in the sim is to represent water injected into the ZED proper] - the system returns to starting positions & Potentials when the load is allowed to move the Riser, Water & Piston back down to their original positions & volumes etc.


N.B. At this stage it looks like the opposite action of depressing an ordinary float into a tank of water - i.e. the force to depress the float is the same NET cycle force as raising the Piston & contents etc, IMO.

I'm sure see3d will correct any misconceptions I may have.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 04, 2012, 11:18:51 PM
... this displaces the grey area of air [the air gap] - the air in turn pushes the water columns [as seen in the sim] down & up on the outside - so the air gap is just a low density fluid that for the purposes of a sim transmits water pressure...

...Note that :

1. the Piston must do Work to raise the mass of Piston + Piston chamber water + Pod & Riser columns water - this means there is an increase in system PE achieved by Work Done...

I'm sure see3d will correct any misconceptions I may have.
fletcher, thanks for providing parsid with that detailed description.  A couple of points for the above quotes:

The sim does model the compression in the air.  The grey color gets darker as the PSI increases.  It is not an absolute scale though -- I adjust a parameter to match the particular sim max pressure.  Also, if the air pressure becomes negative, the color takes on a red tint.

On point 1. above:

My sim model is based on counterbalancing the piston, water, and riser mass.  That only leaves the output load weight in the equation, so it is much easier to model.  This is not cheating though as a physical model can easily be set up this way.  It should actually perform better for a single ZED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 05, 2012, 12:07:04 AM

fletcher, thanks for providing parsid with that detailed description.  A couple of points for the above quotes:

The sim does model the compression in the air.  The grey color gets darker as the PSI increases.  It is not an absolute scale though -- I adjust a parameter to match the particular sim max pressure.  Also, if the air pressure becomes negative, the color takes on a red tint.

On point 1. above:

My sim model is based on counterbalancing the piston, water, and riser mass.  That only leaves the output load weight in the equation, so it is much easier to model.  This is not cheating though as a physical model can easily be set up this way.  It should actually perform better for a single ZED.


Yes, duly noted about the compressible gas variable - Mr Wayne & Mr Sunset have said that incompressible fluids of lesser density work just as well - for the purposes of understanding a single layer ZED as you have represented it it would make very little difference [hardly any air PSI/volume change I think you said] to think of it as a low density non compressible fluid.

It begs the question which I have thought about before & I'm sure others have also - why not just have water replace the air gap ? - the answer seems, it appears to me, that the same density water in place of the air gap might well act as a syphon as water wants to flow to lower areas by cohesive bonds i.e. reduce its PE - therefore it might try to pull water volume into the Piston Water Chamber - for some reason they don't want this effect so use a lesser density fluid.

On your second point Dennis - yes, I well remember that was your objective - which goes back to my comment about leaving the Pod & Piston stationary & applying a force to sink the Riser + Load [the reverse ZED sim i.e. changing the reference frame] - measure that Work Done against the Work Output i.e. when the Riser/float is released it springs upwards with load on board - if it jumps out of the water & then falls again to find floatation equilibriums then the height it jumped to above the settled equilibrium water height is PE gained & a demonstration of its OU potential / or not ?

EDIT: TK speculated a few pages back that perhaps capillary action had a part to play in the normal ZED & that was why Mr Wayne suggested that gaps & walls be a fine as practical but didn't work so well with larger gaps etc, IINM ?

It also might explain why the need for a optimal cycle sweet spot & limited working stroke distance to show OU, again IINM about that requirement.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 05, 2012, 01:55:43 AM
...TK speculated a few pages back that perhaps capillary action had a part to play in the normal ZED & that was why Mr Wayne suggested that gaps & walls be a fine as practical but didn't work so well with larger gaps etc, IINM ?

It also might explain why the need for a optimal cycle sweet spot & limited working stroke distance to show OU, again IINM about that requirement.
Based on the preliminary sim results that I shared, the sweet spot being limited to a short stroke is caused by the destruction of virtual water with longer strokes (relative to the total height). 

I love that term "virtual" water.  To me, that is just the imaginary head added to the head via extra air pressure.  The PSI of the air gets added to the weight of the water times the height of the water head.  As such, a negative PSI causes the destruction of virtual water... LOL

The sweet spot is after we have created some virtual water, and before the rising stroke destroys more than we created.  It is a negative feedback loop.

That is why it is important to me to have a careful real world check on the sim to verify this mechanism.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 05, 2012, 03:08:50 AM
Quote
  I am actually interested in more than one set of inputs from different models, since the measurements from different people will vary in accuracy, and the sim might have an error that does not show up in all configurations.
Bad form on my part.
I didn't intend to come across as saying my numbers would be the best but I can see how it might be taken that way. I'm really hoping to see anyone that's building something be able to demonstrate averages that are useful.
Back to the shop for a bit then calling it a day.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 05, 2012, 04:55:49 AM
The sweet spot is after we have created some virtual water, and before the rising stroke destroys more than we created.  It is a negative feedback loop.

I wanted to point out that I do realize that it would be stupid for me to build my sim model and operate it in a mode that had negative air PSI when it is so simple to avoid it.  If for some reason I wanted to have a long stroke in this short ZED, then I would just open an air valve at the top of the ZED when I got down to zero PSI as it approached the top of the stroke.  With the air valve open, the operation of the ZED reverts to a zero layer for the Pod area (Buoyancy only), for any additional input force.  Since my starting and sunk PSI is zero (with no input force or load force applied), I could just remove the output load, then the input force, and the Riser would naturally sink back to the bottom.  This can all be mechanically sequenced in a small model.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 05, 2012, 07:32:51 AM
My whole simulation is based on balancing the input force with an internal state that creates an equal and opposite force on the input.  I was avoiding using the input forces and direct "push back" forces in all my formulas, because I knew that was going to show 100% by definition.  Yet that was the only calculation that could be used.  Either that or I am way off base in my relationships between the internal geometries.  Otherwise, I would have to show that I am creating and destroying virtual water on demand.  The real test will have to come from matching up the sim and actual build results
Hi see3d,
your expectation of 100% is valid. You should not get more than that. Yesterday evening I finished calculation of input/ output energies on my model #1860 and got 100%. Energy needed to inject water (at bottom of column 3) to precharge and during lift step is my case 16. I got 16 by subtracting energy after step 3 (29) from energy after step 1 (13).  Also Michel said ZED by itself is in principle perfect unity. It is how it interacts with outside makes him over 100%. That statement from Michel is contradicting what Mr Wayne said that 3riser is consistently overunity but I see it now with all respect to Mr Wayne and his team as a small of diversion.
regards,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 05, 2012, 07:53:52 AM
Hi all,
The key is in the use of another ZED! ZED by itself have perfect unity. The trick is that you inject volume V of water into it using energy A. He performs work producing energy B. And A=B. But you still have water at potential in it! Think about it! Look at water levels in after lift of step.

You just need to feed it another ZED2. This will get precharge step of ZED2 done completely and Lifting step partially for free! To fill the rest of water you still need energy C. But C is definitely less than A. In ideal I would say 50% less. Still ZED2 produces energy A and its waters can feed ZED1 closing the loop.

I hope this will open some eyes. I understood it this morning 5am and still thinking about its implications. Show me other system that you inject something (water) into it, it does work and still return water that can perform some work and by "accident" same water can be fed to another system starting its lift. Veery clever. Maybe Bessler figured it out how to do it without water.
Starting a bit to regret my recent investment in solar system.

big thanks Mr Wayne,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 05, 2012, 08:54:41 AM
The key is in the use of another ZED! The trick is ................................

Marcel,  Congrats !

I can hear the pennies dropping around us.
It for sure needs a BIG THANKS to MR WAYNE

This is what Wayne has been saying all along, the markers are spread all over these pagesbut he got shot down. because he shared his hard earned work unselfishly,  but the greedy wanted more...more...give...(what a world we live in, they will kill to get something for free)
I hope the deaf of those days are unblocking their ears and will be forthcoming soon with a highly needed apology.

Like Wayne said, explore and you will find, follow the dots.  The prize is too big to be given, it has to be earned.
You are well on the way. do remember you found only one of them, the Travis effect pod is a treasure trove of multiple gems that took some brilliant thinking by a fine inventor.

PS: An Einstein quote that fits,
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds

Regards,  Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on September 05, 2012, 09:24:15 AM
Hi all,
The key is in the use of another ZED! ZED by itself have perfect unity. The trick is that you inject volume V of water into it using energy A. He performs work producing energy B. And A=B. But you still have water at potential in it! Think about it! Look at water levels in after lift of step.

You just need to feed it another ZED2. This will get precharge step of ZED2 done completely and Lifting step partially for free! To fill the rest of water you still need energy C. But C is definitely less than A. In ideal I would say 50% less. Still ZED2 produces energy A and its waters can feed ZED1 closing the loop.

I hope this will open some eyes. I understood it this morning 5am and still thinking about its implications. Show me other system that you inject something (water) into it, it does work and still return water that can perform some work and by "accident" same water can be fed to another system starting its lift. Veery clever. Maybe Bessler figured it out how to do it without water.
Starting a bit to regret my recent investment in solar system.

big thanks Mr Wayne,
Marcel

After more than a year of strange claims and weird contributions by the ZED proponents, this is the first statement making a bit of sense.

All the talk about "pressure"!

Now we learn, the OU argument hovers around a pressure to be found in a system after water has been injected.

We learn, that the energy put in by injecting water is equal to the energy put out by rising a weight. (Well, what else did you expect?)

We learn, the mysterious "overpressure" then has to be fed to an other ZED. This explains the need to switch electric valves in an orchestrated manner.

Now, it has to be carefully studied what this "over pressure" really means and whether it can really do work.

May be TinselKoala can find this "overpressure" in his rig? (TKs rig is the only one that seems to be clearly specified and he seems to know what he is talking about, in stark contrast to the ZED proponents, whom it took more than a year to state a bit more clearly what they claim.)

And the ZED proponents could finally show how and where the water is pumped in and how and where they measure this "overpressure" after the weight (the risers) reach the final position.

The ZED proponents could finally define what "one stroke" of a ZED really means:

- Where are the risers before the water is pumped in?
- Exactly where is the water pumped in?
- Where are the risers after the water is pumped in?
- How is the movement of the risers constricted?
- Where exactly is the "over pressure" measured after the water is pumped in?
- Where is the "over pressure" led out to an other ZED?

Please answer these questions by help of a one, two or three riser system, whichever shows this "over pressure". A drawing would be extremely helpful. It would be helpful to show this with the least complicated system of risers. It would be helpful to explain how exactly the movement of the risers is constricted.

Why did we have to wait more than a year to learn the most basic things about a ZED? This is why I do not like this thread! This is strange! This is weird! This is not the right way to present an OU claim! I call this double talk! And I almost have no hope that we ever get clear and comprehensible answers!

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: Yes, I am annoyed. One year of discussion for nothing. ZED proponents speak up or shut up. We can not talk about a system that is not clearly disclosed. If you do not want to disclose it, then say so.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 05, 2012, 09:51:39 AM
................................................  Also Michel said ZED by itself is in principle perfect unity. It is how it interacts with outside makes him over 100%. That statement from Michel is contradicting what Mr Wayne said that 3riser is consistently overunity but I see it now with all respect to Mr Wayne and his team as a small of diversion.
regards, Marcel

Hi Marcel,
I think the contradiction comes from having different viewing angles or it was said in a different context.
There is the view of the Zed just as a "Layered buoyancy device" or as a "Complete System", this makes a difference.
To make it perhaps more confusing, most of the physical references made in previous pages were about the demo model version (which is already an old version zed).  A lot has been learned by Wayne's team in the meantime and from what I gather and certain things that I deduced myself, several improvements can be made which changes the capabilities of the device that make it different from the old one.
The theoretical advantage of the layered buoyancy device increases as the number of layers increase, there is no doubt about that. The statement of "perfect unity" was maybe only 98% correct, the purpose was to clarify the detail that made it "over perfect unity". 
Understanding comes from analyzing, to understand the pod, you need to look at all details within, all parameters that conspire or contradict each other, surface ratio's, pressure ratio's ...ect. and observe their relationships as you change one parameter, watch the response changes in the others, the key is to find mutual beneficial relationships and optimize those to bring the cost down. Do not focus on trying to create new energy, try to demand the greatest discount for your energy purchase. You cannot stay focused on one point only, as you analyze more from within, the familiarity will unfold the whole picture to you in due time.
The sim should assist a great deal in that and maybe reveal some new dynamic ratio changes
Also be very clear on the understanding of buoyancy, a clear view of standard & paradox Archimedes relationships is very helpfull
Good luck, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 05, 2012, 09:59:33 AM
................................................
P.S.: Yes, I am annoyed. One year of discussion for nothing. ZED proponents speak up or shut up. We can not talk about a system that is not clearly disclosed. If you do not want to disclose it, then say so.

Conradelektro, 
This saying should say it all

Give a hungry man a fish and he will eat for a day,  teach him how to fish and he will never go hungry again

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 05, 2012, 10:59:24 AM

Based on the preliminary sim results that I shared, the sweet spot being limited to a short stroke is caused by the destruction of virtual water with longer strokes (relative to the total height). 

I love that term "virtual" water.  To me, that is just the imaginary head added to the head via extra air pressure.  The PSI of the air gets added to the weight of the water times the height of the water head.  As such, a negative PSI causes the destruction of virtual water... LOL

The sweet spot is after we have created some virtual water, and before the rising stroke destroys more than we created.  It is a negative feedback loop.

That is why it is important to me to have a careful real world check on the sim to verify this mechanism.

--------------------------------

I wanted to point out that I do realize that it would be stupid for me to build my sim model and operate it in a mode that had negative air PSI when it is so simple to avoid it.  If for some reason I wanted to have a long stroke in this short ZED, then I would just open an air valve at the top of the ZED when I got down to zero PSI as it approached the top of the stroke.  With the air valve open, the operation of the ZED reverts to a zero layer for the Pod area (Buoyancy only), for any additional input force.  Since my starting and sunk PSI is zero (with no input force or load force applied), I could just remove the output load, then the input force, and the Riser would naturally sink back to the bottom.  This can all be mechanically sequenced in a small model.


Hi .. I can't really imagine what you are conveying here - is this property of negative PSI you observe in your sim peculiar to compressible air or would it still happen with non compressible fluids ?

It appears to me that the 3 gaps form a system like a barometer which is a weight of fluid in a tube with a vacuum at the top - I talked about it being a type of syphon before but it has properties of both perhaps.

I would look closely at your transfer volumes & ratios between each concentric gap - obviously as fluid or air transfers from a gap of least radius to the the next of larger radius the same volume transferred will fill less of the next gap volume which is larger [assuming gap sizes are constant] - this variable transfer rate & gap volume is probably already factored in your sim but could be what is causing your pressure findings ?

One method to test this in the sim is to recalculate the gap sizes/volumes so that the same volume is transferred consistently [& transfer rate] from gap to gap as radius increases etc.

Just some thoughts.


---------------------


Yes Conrad .. some of this does seem very strange for an open source site - especially not giving a schematic to work to for the builders - it almost invites failure IMO.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 05, 2012, 12:04:29 PM
Yes Conrad .. some of this does seem very strange for an open source site - especially not giving a schematic to work to for the builders - it almost invites failure IMO.

Gents,
You surprise me in several ways,
I thought this was a forum where members can share information on a common interest topic on their own terms in the OU domain. They can reveal information to the limits set by themselves and are not obligated to any request or inquiry to reveal data that is still considered restricted from their viewpoint.
I looked around on this site to find a definition or guideline on "what can and what can not be posted", "how a topic should be handled", I couldn't find anything.
Questions
** Where does the definition "open source site" come from ?
** What says it is an obligation to give a schematic to work to for the builders
** Where does it say that anything must be build to start of with,  what about a theoretical concept development discussion ?
** Where does it say all must be revealed, meaning any partial disclosure, no matter how juicy is not allowed?

Let's get some perspective here.
The invention revealed here (let it be a limited disclosure) is owned by a company with it's main business asset being certain intellectual property surrounding the Zed system.  Lets assume it was General Electric to introduce a new novel concept, do you think they would provide you the blueprints and test data ? ( let throw it the summary analysis with it). I do not think so.

What is the alternative?
The alternative would be, no information whatsoever about the Zed apart from a distant article in a newspaper.  Be happy to receive what you got and "do not look a gifted horse in the mouth".
This is the way the inventor wanted to reveal is invention and his OU concept. It obviously didn't match your high home-delivery expectations, but I am sure there are many more out there who were very happy with the info and the level it was delivered at.  If the concept didn't make sense to you in this forum, than obviously was not meant for you at this point in time. 

Regards, Michel


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 05, 2012, 01:20:49 PM
Naah Michel .. the currency I deal in is facts - I don't like them sugar coated & wrapped up - patent applications protect your rights.

We will have to agree to disagree about your 'delivery strategy' & the motivations will remain unknown till the end.

Right now this saga is following a pattern - a few good men are trying to get to the bottom of this.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 05, 2012, 01:29:54 PM
Hello Webby,
My team is currently planning the build for our desk top self running water pump.
I would love to see your teams creativity with the ZED technology!
How about a new challenge for you and your team..a $5K ZED  challenge.
Specifically designed by your team to ease measurements of input and output.
Two single five or six layer systems will do, or a combined system.
It does not need to be transparent.
Weight of the riser is not an issue works as a counterbalance - steel, aluminum may be used.
The risers may all be attached to one lid.
The system needs to be able to be measured and have access to each layer (tubing both air and water).

Part two: $10K ZED challenge ----5 layer, dual Z.E.D. water pump.
 If your design team connects the system together for a self runner - I will double the 5K Challenge to 10K.
and each member of your team will receive a HER ownership certificate - valued at the current valuation and equal to the prize.

Five members max - pick them wisely.
 
Suggestions:
You do not have to beat our team - but time is important.
plan on 1/4 or 1/2 inch gaps between risers and ring walls - will work fine.
If you start with a pumping system and then size accordingly - a lot of time is saved.
The previous expectations apply - after a reasonable time of testing and reporting - you must send me the units, you are welcome to make an authorized extra set to keep for yourself.
Placard with your team members name and the name of the device Zydro Energy Device on all systems made.

What do you think? Up to it?

Wayne Travis


If you read the last paragraph, Wayne is recommending gaps of one quarter to one half of an inch, and that in a table top model. To me, that says that capilliary action plays no part in the working of a ZED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 05, 2012, 02:07:58 PM
@Conradelektro. In your last post , you asked a number of questions. Most of these questions have been previously answered, but I will try to answer them again.
 1. Where are the risers before water is pumped in? See post number373 on page 25, which shows the Zed at various points through the cycle.


2Where is water pumped in? Through the bottom of the pod chamber at the centre of the base.


3. How is the movement of the risers restricted? In wayne`s current model, it is restricted by mechanical stops, as the production rams [hydraulic rams used as pumps,] reach the end of their travel.


4.Where are the risers after the water is pumped in? They are at the uppermost point of their travel, restrained mechanically.


5 .Where is the overpressure measured? It could be measure at the water inlet at the bottom of the pod chamber.


6. Where is the overpressure led out to another Zed? From the same point that it was pumped in previously, see [2]


I have done my best to answer your questions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 05, 2012, 02:17:58 PM
Hi .. I can't really imagine what you are conveying here - is this property of negative PSI you observe in your sim peculiar to compressible air or would it still happen with non compressible fluids ?

It appears to me that the 3 gaps form a system like a barometer which is a weight of fluid in a tube with a vacuum at the top - I talked about it being a type of syphon before but it has properties of both perhaps.

I would look closely at your transfer volumes & ratios between each concentric gap - obviously as fluid or air transfers from a gap of least radius to the the next of larger radius the same volume transferred will fill less of the next gap volume which is larger [assuming gap sizes are constant] - this variable transfer rate & gap volume is probably already factored in your sim but could be what is causing your pressure findings ?

One method to test this in the sim is to recalculate the gap sizes/volumes so that the same volume is transferred consistently [& transfer rate] from gap to gap as radius increases etc.

Just some thoughts.
fletcher, 
This negative PSI state is because of the expanding air volume created by the upward movement  of the Riser.  It is independent of the type of fluid.  I am still in context from the weekend and only refer to the sim model I have shown, not what others have shown.  I know it is hard to keep track with individual threads being interspersed on this site.

I only have one air gap in my single layer model as shown. 

All sim calculations take into consideration the differing areas and volumes of the rings and one key consistency check is the the total volume of the water did not change after any calculation of fluid transfer between H1 and H2.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 05, 2012, 02:18:23 PM
It sure doesn't sound like capillary action is a likely candidate Neptune.

But this is a process of elimination until nothing further can be eliminated or discounted from the equation - remember, no one wants to tell us what their theories are about where the proposed excess energy comes from [ah humm .. excuse me, discounted cost of input energy gleaned from non conservative gravity].

Once you've eliminated the impossible you are left with the improbable.

That is assuming that there is any discounted energy input cost to be found - I don't take that as a given or statement of fact at all.

Eventually the build teams will report in & see3d will get his ZED sims working to his satisfaction & checked against real data - then we'll have a real chance to tell fact from fiction.

More power to their elbows so we can move onwards & upwards - maybe who knows, guys like MT might ditch their solar for a HydroEnergyRevolution house hold unit in a years time.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on September 05, 2012, 02:28:42 PM
(snipped)


patent applications protect your rights.

(snipped)



If one reads much on the topic by Don Lancaster, one might think that patents only provide you a right to sue somebody. And pay out a lot of money doing it, and still not win. He's not a big fan (http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.shtml) of patents.


They offer no real protection he believes, other than guaranteeing you the right to spend up to $250,000 or more per violation to defend them, depending on situation and the pockets of the other party, who may seek to spend you out of the patent, or simply void the patent (he says this is quite simple for most), and other horrors. For example they can just outright copy it, and others can too, and by the time you are done defending it, and suing each and every other party copying it, they can alter it and patent their "improvements" of your technology as well.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 05, 2012, 02:38:07 PM
Thank you all who have put forth the effort to understand the system -
Leadership is often..... better realized than explained.
Please remain respectful - as the pennies drop - great work and sharing.

From the postings and discussions - I see three of the stages of discovery have been answered.
It would be safe to share this tid bit - the next four are solvable - Let this be an encouragement to you - You have afforded effort to a challenge that has a successful end.

You who have afforded the effort - prove yourselves to be of the Pareto effect - the 20% - and yes that shows that you merit extra consideration now and in the future.

Learning is a process - this invention is a new frontier, the innovation will bring countless blessings.

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on September 05, 2012, 02:47:34 PM
(snipped)


Learning is a process - this invention is a new frontier, the innovation will bring countless blessings.

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution.com


Wayne, I sure hope this is all you say and more, because the world could use some really good news like this.


But let's say naysayer worst case comes to pass (not saying it's the case, just saying if it does after all the testing) and you've instead created some "only" 98 percent efficient something that almost works by itself and quits 4 hours later, or longer, over time.


Seems to me, paying 2 percent input energy cost all day long is a far better thing than anything we have now for power making. Why would that not be 'revolutionary' as well?


rc

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 05, 2012, 02:52:26 PM
@Fletcher.I do not blame you or anyone else to take the attitude of leaving no stone unturned-that is what I understand by"due dilligence". However if someone proposes a theory, and I have seen evidence to the contrary, I feel the need to point it out.


 You know, there is something else bugging me. The current consensus of opinion seems to be, one zed alone is or can be 100% efficient, but we need two zeds working together to achieve OU. We gain OU by using the "exhaust" of one zed to partly charge a second Zed. I see the logic of that.
       However, from that we can see that when the zed has completed its upstroke, and done work, the contents of the zed are still under pressure. So in a one Zed machine, instead of just releasing that pressure and wasting its energy,we could store at least some of that energy, and use it to partly recharge the same Zed.It could be stored in a "poor man`s hydraulic accumulator", that is a balloon, or even a vertical water column.
     So suppose that at the start of the downstroke , the exhaust pressure of the zed is 10psi. WE connect it to the said accumulator. The accumulator fills until the pressure equalises at say 6 psi. We then release and waste some more pressure from the zed until its pressure falls to precharge pressure at say 2 psi.
   Then , at the start of the upstroke we connect the accumulator to the Zed to partly recharge it. Thus saving part of the energy needed to recharge it.
     Owing to the complexity of valves etc, it would probably be easier to use two zeds. But nevertheless, this would be a way to gain OU with a single Zed. Does this make sense to anyone, or am  losing the plot?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 05, 2012, 03:57:57 PM

Wayne, I sure hope this is all you say and more, because the world could use some really good news like this.


But let's say naysayer worst case comes to pass (not saying it's the case, just saying if it does after all the testing) and you've instead created some "only" 98 percent efficient something that almost works by itself and quits 4 hours later, or longer, over time.


Seems to me, paying 2 percent input energy cost all day long is a far better thing than anything we have now for power making. Why would that not be 'revolutionary' as well?


rc
It is a funny thing - the Grant Committie - told me that if I would repackage and present our system as 79% they would be all over it - so I see your point, yet I am a man of honor.
Say it as it is (respectfully) and let the chips fall.
Yes, this is world changing - mechanical free energy - Nature provided a way for us to protect it - from us while benefiting us - a win win in my book.
 
Thank You
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 05, 2012, 04:04:49 PM
Please think hard about this. If one ZED has "excess exhaust energy" that can be fed to either another ZED (or an accumulator as you describe), then that SINGLE Zed must be OU in and of itself if the cycle is to be self running.  It is a complete falsification to say that this exhaust can be fed from one ZED that is not OU of itself  to another ZED that is not OU of itself and end up with an OU result.

Seamus,

Please think again hard about this.  You approach the whole process in a too general sense, with too generalized conclusions, you missing the details. There is a catch 22.
Similar to the layered ratio of some posting ago, it is all in  the nondescript details, I am sure you are still studying that one,
Talk your time, I will be only a post away

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 05, 2012, 04:08:39 PM
Please think hard about this. If one ZED has "excess exhaust energy" that can be fed to either another ZED (or an accumulator as you describe), then that SINGLE Zed must be OU in and of itself if the cycle is to be self running.  It is a complete falsification to say that this exhaust can be fed from one ZED that is not OU of itself  to another ZED that is not OU of itself and end up with an OU result.

MR Wayne hinges part of his working principle on this falsehood.

I firmly believe ALL of this 'exhaust' needs to be fed back to the ZED just to reset the state of it back to the begining of the cycle. This results in NO increase in NET energy.

The same is true of the layering effect. This acts to reduce efficiency, not increase it as there are more losses involved with more moving parts. Note that layering WILL increase the leverage , but not the energy in the system.
OK........
Well, I think you need to think that out a bit more.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 05, 2012, 04:21:00 PM
Naah Michel .. the currency I deal in is facts - I don't like them sugar coated & wrapped up - patent applications protect your rights.
We will have to agree to disagree about your 'delivery strategy' & the motivations will remain unknown till the end.
Right now this saga is following a pattern - a few good men are trying to get to the bottom of this.

Hi Fletcher,
When it comes to the Zed OU concept,
No problem that 'you disagree' ,  you need to do your diligent verification process as any wise man will do.
I will not qualify for you what should be sufficient or not. We all went through the same process, so take all the time you need.

When it comes to what is shared
I still believe that it is the prerogative of the topic owner to release what he wants to release. In the same way the reader can accept or reject, investigate and learn from what has been presented.  What happened on the forum site was something way beyond common respect and should not be tolerated (because certain people could NOT get exactly what they wanted)

Time will tell us the good news,  Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 05, 2012, 04:55:55 PM
See3d, Tks for the link.

In your ZED there are no surface 1 surface 2, ... which exist in Wayne Zed, I initialy thought that the vertical force on these surfaces were helping to lift the riser.

These surfaces are quite large (a disk of larger diameter than the pod itself in Wayne drawing, a small annulus in yours). Is your drawing according Wayne latest drawings?

I discover riser legs in your drawing, interesting.


 
parsid, you must have missed my posted link to my public ZED folder with a PDF description of the ZED drawings used in my sim.  Here it is again.  This is where I will post my updates to the PDF and animations.  These are about to be updated, as the current ones are wrong in the details, but it will give you an idea of what it all means.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 05, 2012, 05:12:00 PM
@Fletcher.I do not blame you or anyone else to take the attitude of leaving no stone unturned-that is what I understand by"due dilligence". However if someone proposes a theory, and I have seen evidence to the contrary, I feel the need to point it out.


 You know, there is something else bugging me. The current consensus of opinion seems to be, one zed alone is or can be 100% efficient, but we need two zeds working together to achieve OU. We gain OU by using the "exhaust" of one zed to partly charge a second Zed. I see the logic of that.
       However, from that we can see that when the zed has completed its upstroke, and done work, the contents of the zed are still under pressure. So in a one Zed machine, instead of just releasing that pressure and wasting its energy,we could store at least some of that energy, and use it to partly recharge the same Zed.It could be stored in a "poor man`s hydraulic accumulator", that is a balloon, or even a vertical water column.
     So suppose that at the start of the downstroke , the exhaust pressure of the zed is 10psi. WE connect it to the said accumulator. The accumulator fills until the pressure equalises at say 6 psi. We then release and waste some more pressure from the zed until its pressure falls to precharge pressure at say 2 psi.
   Then , at the start of the upstroke we connect the accumulator to the Zed to partly recharge it. Thus saving part of the energy needed to recharge it.
     Owing to the complexity of valves etc, it would probably be easier to use two zeds. But nevertheless, this would be a way to gain OU with a single Zed. Does this make sense to anyone, or am  losing the plot?


In the above quote I described a "thought experiment" of a way to improve the efficiency of a single Zed. I now realise that whilst the theory is valid, there is way to achieve the same thing in a far more simple way.
Consider a single Zed, used to lift a load . The input water is supplied by a simple plunger type pump, and the plunger is depressed by putting a weight on it . Suppose force x distance on the input = force times distance on the output. 100% efficiency[disregard losses.] Now when we come to raise the weight on the plunger to cause the risers to fall, we find that the work necessary to do this is less than expected. Why? because as the pressurised water goes from Zed to input pump, it is helping to lift the weight. [Wayne previously told us this in a cryptic sort of way, by saying something like "look at the cost of lifting this weight" .] So in effect, the input pump takes on a secondary function by acting as a hydraulic accumulator. When we lift the plunger weight, we are inputting energy for the next upstroke of the risers, pod and load.
But we are doing this at REDUCED COST. Is this making sense to anyone, or am I talking garbage?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 05, 2012, 05:17:27 PM
See3d, Tks for the link.

In your ZED there are no surface 1 surface 2, ... which exist in Wayne Zed, I initialy thought that the vertical force on these surfaces were helping to lift the riser.

These surfaces are quite large (a disk of larger diameter than the pod itself in Wayne drawing, a small annulus in yours). Is your drawing according Wayne latest drawings?

I discover riser legs in your drawing, interesting.
parsid, My drawing is not the same as Wayne's in the details.  Mine is simplified to make it easier for the math to simulate, and designed for a small table top demonstration.  I try to be self consistent in my terminology, but it may not perfectly match what others call things.  For instance, some have separate risers for each layer.  I only have one Riser-Pod combination part for any number of layers in the sim.  I call the whole moving part a Riser, and refer to the Pod as the inside most closed bottom cylinder feature of the Riser.

It can be confusing when 5 conversations are going on at once in a single thread.  I hope this helps clear thing up for you.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 05, 2012, 08:38:38 PM
Dont be too happy with efficiency close but below 100%, 98% efficiency does not mean we need 2% input to run it, it means 2% of the input is lost. 100% is a usual thing, a simple electric heater is 100% efficient all the electrical energy is transformed in heat. If you lift a mass with a fluid, no viscosity to fight, no friction, no heat generated, you should expect exactly 100% efficiency (i.e all the energy you put in lifting the mass becomes available as potential energy for this mass), but where do we go with that ?

We have to look and explain the more than 100% claimed for the ZED and I have not seen it explained by equations up to now, I have seen numbers (1 layer 104%, 3 layers 160%, 6 layers 300%) no physical explanation only spreadsheet with small portion of equations and lots of numerical values difficult to verify and guess what like probably most of you I have not taken the time to verify any of them.

We should avoid numerical values and demonstrate OU by maths and physics equations. I have not tried to understand the 104% of a simple layer ZED but I am trying to understand how external layers give an additional 196% (if 6 layers), these are just columns of water and air compressed on top of them, they cannot bring any extra efficiency certainly not 196%, unless someone explain us how (not with numerical values, please).

I am more septical today than few days ago (was open especially after reading about the Archimede anomaly that says "you can lift a mass with less water that the volume of the mass").

The ZED by itself does not seems to be a sophisticated machine, if there is OU so easily capturable, it would have been done since centuries.


Wayne, I sure hope this is all you say and more, because the world could use some really good news like this.


But let's say naysayer worst case comes to pass (not saying it's the case, just saying if it does after all the testing) and you've instead created some "only" 98 percent efficient something that almost works by itself and quits 4 hours later, or longer, over time.


Seems to me, paying 2 percent input energy cost all day long is a far better thing than anything we have now for power making. Why would that not be 'revolutionary' as well?


rc
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 05, 2012, 09:13:57 PM
if there is OU so easily capturable, it would have been done since centuries.

Airplanes and Penicillin DO seem so simple now,, don't they...  :)

Different Subject: One thought recently made me chuckle a bit; the whole "conservation of gravity bit" - I'm not a scientist or engineer but if Newton's laws of gravity were in any way shape or form based on having an apple fall out of a tree.... What energy source raised the apple to that dangerous elevation?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 05, 2012, 09:21:26 PM
an apple fall out of a tree.... What energy source raised the apple to that dangerous elevation?

Hi Dale,
I would venture to say that the apple transformed light (sun) energy to gravitational energy
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 05, 2012, 09:34:41 PM
Wayne had previously mentioned that the Risers could be bolted together and wildew recently stated he would have a single top plate. Say what?
 
So attached is a single top plate zed example. The size of the air/water channels are exaggerated for visual clarity. Can't call it a 3 Riser anymore, must be a 3U. Sounds familiar  ;D
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 05, 2012, 10:35:44 PM
Hi Dale,
I would venture to say that the apple transformed light (sun) energy to gravitational energy
Michel

2 points Michel  :)

Now that thunder cloud carrying a million gallons of desalinated seawater, WOW is that some potential !
They both have energy cycles and we have found ways to extract energy from them without causing the world to disintegrate. I don't see this one as being all that different. With energy from the sun powering those it's easy to comprehend "where the energy comes from".

One day I'll better understand the full energy cycle of this machine too.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 06, 2012, 12:01:09 AM
I'm a few pages behind but wanted to report that my three layer (Pod and two risers) is functional and I've been able to play with it a bit today.  Also got some time with it yesterday, but that was mostly for leak and functionality testing.
 
First thing I can say is I wish it was instrumented!  Even with a fairly clear and relatively simple three layer setup it is difficult to see where the water and air levels are.  I think I might need to tint the water slightly...
 
My ZED is up on a little stand.  Below the stand is a Tee fitting that was glued to a central hole in the bottom of the Pod chamber.  One remaining branch of the Tee goes by a short section of clear tubing to a valve.  I use this valve to bleed off the ZED water pressure, or to insert air into the bottom of the Pod chamber.
 
The other remaining branch of the Tee goes to the cap of a 20 oz soda bottle.  The bottom of that bottle is cut off and a hanger loop is attached so I can hang it on one of the racks beside my work bench above the ZED.  So it is simply a funnel to allow water into the bottom of the Pod chamber.  Just like a beer bong...
 
I've been having fits trying to find a sequence of adding pre and load weights, add water and air, locking the system, etc., that may lead to a repeatable process for charging.  But I have no mass scale at the moment and I think my pre&load weights equal a sum way too close to the ideal at the moment.  So it is very easy to blow skirts (not fun) or flood the top of my outer riser.  On that last point, I have no outer riser head extender (yet) and now see much more reason for that particular feature.
 
I've only got a couple days left before a week long vacation/adventure, so I doubt I'll be able to report anything more substantial any time soon.  But I wanted to pass this along to those who it might benefit and will do my best to answer any questions by forum or PM.
 
This is by far the weirdest acting contraption that I have ever built.  So thank you, Wayne, for that alone!
 
M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 06, 2012, 12:11:25 AM
I think the contradiction comes from having different viewing angles or it was said in a different context.
There is the view of the Zed just as a "Layered buoyancy device" or as a "Complete System", this makes a difference.
To make it perhaps more confusing, most of the physical references made in previous pages were about the demo model version (which is already an old version zed).  A lot has been learned by Wayne's team in the meantime and from what I gather and certain things that I deduced myself, several improvements can be made which changes the capabilities of the device that make it different from the old one.
The theoretical advantage of the layered buoyancy device increases as the number of layers increase, there is no doubt about that. The statement of "perfect unity" was maybe only 98% correct, the purpose was to clarify the detail that made it "over perfect unity". 
Understanding comes from analyzing, to understand the pod, you need to look at all details within, all parameters that conspire or contradict each other, surface ratio's, pressure ratio's ...ect. and observe their relationships as you change one parameter, watch the response changes in the others, the key is to find mutual beneficial relationships and optimize those to bring the cost down. Do not focus on trying to create new energy, try to demand the greatest discount for your energy purchase. You cannot stay focused on one point only, as you analyze more from within, the familiarity will unfold the whole picture to you in due time.
The sim should assist a great deal in that and maybe reveal some new dynamic ratio changes
Also be very clear on the understanding of buoyancy, a clear view of standard & paradox Archimedes relationships is very helpfull
Good luck, Michel


Hi Michel,
I'm still amazed that way how to achieve OU is clearly presented on this forum. After all these years. Personally I always wanted to understand an OU device and tell others how simple it is with no strings attached. Then for me this is sort of mission accomplished. I need to set new goals on what I would like to do with it now. You know it is like you would like to have something for long you do not believe it is possible (just hope it is) and suddenly you just get it. And honestly it got me by surprise. I though I'll never be here BUT here we are.

I was excited so I tried to explain the concept (with a simple Archimedes pod) to couple of colleagues. They could understand that reusing of potential but then got into doubts about how a pod can perform work and still water beneath it keeps potential. One was over concerned about losses. Maybe I just overwhelm them with details. All of them then continued in business as usual,  I wonder whether somebody will come back to discuss it again.

About what to disclose:
I can understand a skeptic that tried to understand and analysed tens of ideas before ZED and is so disappointed/fed up with them not working that expects full disclosure of yet new idea somebody claiming is OU before he gets from his chair. Hopefully now even such sceptic understands it is worth it.

thank you all,
Marcel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 06, 2012, 12:50:08 AM
Hi Marcel .. what is stopping you from posting a few photo's with explanations & arrows showing things etc ?

A few posts back you made the comment that a single layer ZED showed unity [100% I think you said] i.e. work input equaled work output, & you expected that.

Then immediately you said the unit still had potential [energy] that could be used to pre-charge another unit so an estimated reduction in input cost of estimated 50% & back & forth & so on.

This unity comment would now seem a contradiction - if the unit has additional potential after one complete cycle it can't be 100% because you haven't accounted for the raised potential in pressures or whatever.

Webby1 & Mondrasek are happy to post photo's with explanations of their finding as they progress forward - when you get over you euphoria perhaps you could find the time to post a pic or two ?

A complete logical cycle sequence would be good including pre-charge etc if there is any - thanks in advance.




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 06, 2012, 12:56:12 AM
I think I might need to tint the water slightly...
 
On that last point, I have no outer riser head extender (yet) and now see much more reason for that particular feature.
 
M.

Thanks for the update and the "warning" M.
No provision for extensions on mine at the moment either...

On the "tinting": Since I should have access to each water chamber I've considered adding some form of colorant (different colors) to each after getting the water volumes set. Not sure what might work without staining yet, need to look in to that.

You have fair sized gaps? Any chance of putting "floaters" into the riser / wall spaces during assembly?

Have fun!
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 06, 2012, 01:11:19 AM
To Replicators -
Wall extension will not hurt - and for later expansion of the system they help.
But you will find - after you work through the set up, practice, and stroke (up and down) - you will lower the water volume in the outer layer.
p.s. if you try to stroke to far - overflow will continue to be an issue.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 06, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
Well the tint worked pretty well.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 06, 2012, 02:15:16 AM
Looking good, mond!

A couple LEDs inside the inner pod, a few clear plastic rulers from the dollar store or WalMart, a spring fish scale and a simple lever system to make it read "push" instead of "hang" when you want it to.... and with your input piston.... or simply an elevated "IV bottle" type means of obtaining a known head pressure for injection...... and you are ready to make some meaningful measurements.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 06, 2012, 06:16:54 AM
.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 06, 2012, 08:38:24 AM
Seamus,
Quote
I realise such abstactions might be difficult for people who only think in terms of concrete physical devices with real dimensions. The good news for them is you don't need to
I would guess that is where we differ, if I can not visualize it, I have problems to deal with it. The number analysis in a previous posting was based on a process flow that originated from a visualization based on known physics principles that represented the actual build and working model in Wayne's lab.

I think the following statement is why we diverge
Quote
The 'general' approach works without needing to analyze any specific configuration of a device at all.
If we always look with the same eyes and use the same approach, we will always see the same thing or the same experience. This is not a fertile environment for innovation. 
Could you agree that a different or new angle could make us see something we did not see before, often just a simplification of a more complex problem will do that. Once this "new" is seen (visualized, recognized, discovered)  we can still process it in the known traditional way.

*1 - If you do not agree, we have no need to discuss anything further.
*2 - If you agree, you would see why I would have an issue with your statement

I believe the reason that you are on this forum and still following this topic, is that deep down there is a faint believe of possibility of the impossible. We can complement each other, I got the looks, you got the brains.
I would guess that you are a mathematically inclined and would have modeled the zed system in numbers.  Can you share your math findings in a post ?

A look at the Zed process flow,
It all has been said and described before by Wayne, but let me expand zed process flow from one of Wayne's posting's, from a few months ago. Maybe this is easier to read with understanding

1.. The layered buoyancy device has the ability to stroke (go up) with great force and short stroke.
2.. We stroke @ 8psi, "we start and finish @ 8 psi".
3.. The lifter was held at the preparation stage before stroke and also at the top of the stroke.
4.. The lifter is loaded with RiserWeight and Payload
5.. We stroke @ 8psi
6.. At the top of stroke we remove the payload
7.. The lifter remains under the duress of 8psi. that is still the same force to lift the riserweight + Payload if the travel would allow it. it can not travel further up because it is held by a stopper
8.. So the lifter can only go down,  to let it go down we pull the water plug at the bottom of the Z#1 water column, this is connected to the other zed (#2) pod area (z#2 water column bottom) and like any U bend, the water levels will equalize over both zeds.
9.. After equalization, the stroked lifter remains up, it did not descend, we need to help it
10.. So we pump water over to #2, it needs water in any case because we intend to make it stroke later (the zed in see-saw)
11.. While we pump, the zed#2 lifter remains stopped (locked)
11.. At a particular point,  zed#1 will come down to its initial start point (the lifter was only prevented from rising further, not from descending)
12.. With Z#1 at its starting point we keep on pumping to make z#2 stroke
13.. This half process cycle ends with Z#2 stroke completed and Z#1 at its starting point

As your positive contribution to this topic, 
Please model mathematically what happens in this process (z1 stroke to z2 stroke) for both zed and please share it in a post
You can choose any model, doesn't matter if not optimized, the principle wouldn't change,
Prerequisite:
When it comes to energy,  invested energy to start with is one Zed at "equalization" and one at "full stroke"

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 06, 2012, 08:49:45 AM
Hi Marcel .. what is stopping you from posting a few photo's with explanations & arrows showing things etc ?

A few posts back you made the comment that a single layer ZED showed unity [100% I think you said] i.e. work input equaled work output, & you expected that.

Then immediately you said the unit still had potential [energy] that could be used to pre-charge another unit so an estimated reduction in input cost of estimated 50% & back & forth & so on.

This unity comment would now seem a contradiction - if the unit has additional potential after one complete cycle it can't be 100% because you haven't accounted for the raised potential in pressures or whatever.

Webby1 & Mondrasek are happy to post photo's with explanations of their finding as they progress forward - when you get over you euphoria perhaps you could find the time to post a pic or two ?

A complete logical cycle sequence would be good including pre-charge etc if there is any - thanks in advance.

I'm quite busy last days, I'll see what can be done later.
 
For the start please read my post #1860 with 2D model there are three steps.
 
Then calculate whats is potential energy of water after each step in risers. Initial, precharge and stroke.
This is your input. Hope you will see work done equals energy needed to do precharge and lift step.
But still after work is done water has still potential to do some work, risers are full!
 
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 06, 2012, 12:44:35 PM
Do not forget that not only are the risers still full, but the total head pressure is the SUM of the number of risers, giving more potential energy than you might think.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 06, 2012, 02:10:52 PM
Hi,
I showed this to my colleagues.
 
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 06, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
@MT. OK, let us be clear what your diagram is saying.


In Zed one on the left , water is pumped in under pressure . Energy consumed is A


Zed One rises, lifting a load. output energy is B


A=B, so Zed, in this ideal case is 100% efficient.At the top of the stroke there is still potential energy left in the system, which is exported to Zed Two.Call this D . This partially charges Zed two.


To complete the input of Zed Two, we need more energy,C. This energy is part of the output of Zed one, which is fed back.


So the input to a Zed is in two parts, the exhaust from its partner [D] plus extra energy from the output [lift] of its partner.


Is that a reasonable summary of what the diagram shows?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 06, 2012, 03:03:48 PM
So the input to a Zed is in two parts, the exhaust from its partner [D] plus extra energy from the output [lift] of its partner.
Is that a reasonable summary of what the diagram shows?

Exactly. And C < A, always. Usable energy remainder is in fact whats left of B after feeding C. Maybe somebody have a better diagram, this is how I see it.
thank you,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 06, 2012, 03:38:24 PM

A look at the Zed process flow,
It all has been said and described before by Wayne, but let me expand zed process flow from one of Wayne's posting's, from a few months ago. Maybe this is easier to read with understanding

3.. The lifter was held at the preparation stage before stroke and also at the top of the stroke.
11.. While we pump, the zed#2 lifter remains stopped (locked)


Hi Michel
Great post with I clarification. (unless I misunderstood your post)
Wayne stated a couple days ago that the risers are not locked after the initial setup. During normal cycling their motion is only constrained by the stops at both ends of travel and the load itself.

After thinking about that response a bit it made a lot of sense too; holding the risers down while water is flowing in would take more energy than necessary because the head pressure would keep climbing.

We need to cause the masses to shift with the least amount of effort possible.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 06, 2012, 04:04:56 PM
Hi Michel
Great post with I clarification. (unless I misunderstood your post)
Wayne stated a couple days ago that the risers are not locked after the initial setup. During normal cycling their motion is only constrained by the stops at both ends of travel and the load itself.

After thinking about that response a bit it made a lot of sense too; holding the risers down while water is flowing in would take more energy than necessary because the head pressure would keep climbing.

We need to cause the masses to shift with the least amount of effort possible.
Dale
A perspective point -
They are locked mechanically during set up, and by load during stroke, and by weight of the system during sink.
(Sink does not occur until enough head is transferred to the other ZED so they are locked naturally during stoke).
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 06, 2012, 04:11:26 PM
Hi,
I showed this to my colleagues.
 
Marcel
Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 06, 2012, 10:41:33 PM
@  All ..

There is a lot of talk of extraneous PE after a ZED cycle.


Seamus makes the point well that to be OU, Potential has to be raised, & he gives the easy to visualize example of water spontaneously flowing uphill as he eloquently puts it.


I will simplify it even further for clarity, also drawing on a simple visualization thought experiment to see a pattern or energy flow.

................


If two different density materials/objects are mixed together & one of those is a higher density fluid, then the lighter density material will rise to the surface - this is buoyancy - the buoyancy is a result of a pressure differential below the object & above it - IOW's the pressure below is greater than above when looked at in force terms [ F = P x A ].

The fluid has pressure because it has mass & due to gravity's acceleration on that mass - that pressure increase with depth is linear - if we artificially increase the pressure conditions by doing work on a fluid [ Pascal's principles ] the pressure changes with depth are still linear & the buoyancy force still the same.

That's a simple explanation of why things float.

.............


Here's an even simpler visualization of buoyancy.


When two materials/objects of different densities are mixed together gravity acts on them both equally wanting to pull them down - the more dense fluid will find its way downwards while the lighter density object finds it way upwards - the more dense material always flows to a position beneath the less dense material & this is what forces it upwards.



After they have separated the Center of Mass [ CoM ] of the original homogenized mix has been lowered - i.e. the system has lost PE i.e. the separation is a natural event that allows the system to find its position of least PE.

The system had a higher PE at the start of the thought experiment because work had been done on it to cause the mixing & raise the CoM because of that mixing - the beginning of the cycle was when energy was put into it in the mixing of materials & raising of the system PE [ this is a factor of mass distribution ].

At no time do materials separate in a gravity field so that more dense materials sink underneath less dense materials and RAISE the PE of the system.

Happy hunting !


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 06, 2012, 11:34:10 PM
A couple LEDs inside the inner pod (snip)...

That statement alone has had me smiling every time I've had a chance to think about it since I read it yesterday!  It is completely fitting for an OU device to have an LED in it somewhere, right?  Good stuff.  And thanks!
 
What would you propose that could fit inside the Pod that could be turned on externally, sealed, etc?  I was thinking a surface mount LED with a tiny JT and battery on a board that could fit through the 1/4" hole in the bottom of my Pod (before sealing).  But how to turn it on and off?
 
You KNOW we can't use wireless power transmission for reasons you have shown in other threads!
 
This idea is completely off topic, but hilarious (to me at least)!  So I'd like to see a mock up or concept description of what a Koala would do.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 06, 2012, 11:51:07 PM

What would you propose that could fit inside the Pod that could be turned on externally, sealed, etc?  I was thinking a surface mount LED with a tiny JT and battery on a board that could fit through the 1/4" hole in the bottom of my Pod (before sealing).  But how to turn it on and off?
 
You KNOW we can't use wireless power transmission for reasons you have shown in other threads!
Why does your pod have to be sealed on top?  Could you have an open hole on top? 
Could you use a read switch to turn it on with a small magnet that you set on top of the pod if sealed, or just a small switch on top?
Shine a light down from the top and just have a small piece of mirror at a 45 deg angle inside the pod.

I think it would be more fun to have  a reflective 45 deg cone inside the pod that shines light all around from top illumination.  So many possibilities!  ;-)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 06, 2012, 11:52:33 PM
Attached is the Simple Zed to Zed Flow.
 
No Flow - Valve closed
Free Equalization Flow - Valve open
Hydraulic Assist - Since the Zed water columns start equal, the input cost will be to change the actual Water Head between Zed's from 0 to 3.4 PSI. Edit: OU out the wazoo, for those who understand.
 
I used 8.4 as specified in Reply 963 by Wayne:
'Our pressure is:
Minimum 5.0,  8.4 max, and 6.7 post free flow.
Since the true input cost to each side it the diffirence between these pressures and the Max - this is very important.'


 
Regards, Larry
 
PS: The actual system doesn't transfer the water, since each retains it's own water supply. It just transfer the force to move each Zed's water supply.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 07, 2012, 12:57:45 AM
p.s. if you try to stroke to far - overflow will continue to be an issue.

I will say that I can confirm the overflow issue.  I am not 100% sure of the cause, but it could be, as you say, due to stroking too far.
 
It is definitely another weird phenomenon that I would not have predicted from my "understanding" of how the system should act. 
 
I understand better now why Webby has been playing with his embodiment of a ZED for so long and still reporting new observations.
 
To all:  I will not say a ZED is OU or not.  But it is definitely a very unique construction that exhibits behavior that I could not have predicted.  Take that as you will.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 07, 2012, 01:19:16 AM
Why does your pod have to be sealed on top?  Could you have an open hole on top? 
Could you use a read switch to turn it on with a small magnet that you set on top of the pod if sealed, or just a small switch on top?
Shine a light down from the top and just have a small piece of mirror at a 45 deg angle inside the pod.

I think it would be more fun to have  a reflective 45 deg cone inside the pod that shines light all around from top illumination.  So many possibilities!  ;-)

Heh!  My limitations are only due to scale of the system and technique as far as I know!   So you are right, D, that there are other ways that I have not even considered.  And that is EXACTLY why I would toss such a wonderful idea out for group input.
 
Seriously, things have again become, well, a bit serious, on this thread.  So I'd like us all to lighten up a bit and have some fun.  Please ignore if you feel you must.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 07, 2012, 01:38:55 AM
Seriously, things have again become, well, a bit serious, on this thread.  So I'd like us all to lighten up a bit and have some fun.

Excellent idea M. !

I'm getting close to having an assembled "something" to play with and M's and Webby's experiences using water head / flow appear to be similarly challenging. See3d's piston that can be better controlled is more in line with Wayne's bag system but I'm at a bit of a loss trying to come up with a garage / shop solution. It does need to be measurable and that's making me think harder. Ideas?

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 07, 2012, 02:04:13 AM
Hi,
I showed this to my colleagues.
 
Marcel
So the Zeds aren't "transitive" then? Are the two Zeds different, so you couldn't take the one on the right and put it where the one on the left is?

Because if A=B in the first Zed,  and D is cycled around between the Zeds..... then why doesn't C =B as well...... that is, C must equal A. So if C+D = A.... then therefore.... D = 0.
If the two Zeds are the same, and a cycle is being performed, it seems to me that this must be true.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 07, 2012, 02:15:13 AM

That statement alone has had me smiling every time I've had a chance to think about it since I read it yesterday!  It is completely fitting for an OU device to have an LED in it somewhere, right?  Good stuff.  And thanks!
 
What would you propose that could fit inside the Pod that could be turned on externally, sealed, etc?  I was thinking a surface mount LED with a tiny JT and battery on a board that could fit through the 1/4" hole in the bottom of my Pod (before sealing).  But how to turn it on and off?
 
You KNOW we can't use wireless power transmission for reasons you have shown in other threads!
 
This idea is completely off topic, but hilarious (to me at least)!  So I'd like to see a mock up or concept description of what a Koala would do.
 
M.
I'd use some low-power cmos chip logic and a photodiode to make a switch that could be actuated by a laser pointer from outside. In the LED-off state, the power consumption could be made quite low, microwatts probably. I'd install a gastight port big enough to get the thing into wherever it belongs in the first place, rather than stuffing it through a quarter inch hole. But if that were really a design criterion, it could still be done with a long skinny PCB and SMDs and button cells. Koalas prefer DIPs, though.

But another idea that may even be better is to illuminate from below, through a clear base. Then you don't need to put anything in your pod, just position your bright LEDs below the structure to illuminate your desired areas, like your line gauges and your menisci.

And for those who are using tubes with a substantial wall thickness, you could try edge-illumination. If you shine the LED into the edge of the plastic, sometimes internal reflections will result in the whole piece glowing gently in the color of the LED.

ETA: Personally, I would have no objection to the use of my wireless power transfer system to illuminate a clear plastic Zed system from within. Unless of course you can make water climb walls with an 800kHz alternating magnetic field.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 07, 2012, 02:31:55 AM
See3d's piston that can be better controlled is more in line with Wayne's bag system but I'm at a bit of a loss trying to come up with a garage / shop solution. It does need to be measurable and that's making me think harder. Ideas?

Dale
I show a piston because it is easier to understand the exact mathematical relationships for a simulation.  However, it is really supposed to be modeling the bags, which can be compressed without the friction loss of a piston seal. 

OTOH, just raising a big fat water bucket to different heights with a siphon tube going into the bottom is too easy to ignore.  It may or may not be the final configuration you want, depending on your goals, but for first time measurements to prove out the best operating point, it just does not get any easier than that.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 07, 2012, 03:19:37 AM

I show a piston because it is easier to understand the exact mathematical relationships for a simulation.  However, it is really supposed to be modeling the bags, which can be compressed without the friction loss of a piston seal. 

OTOH, just raising a big fat water bucket to different heights with a siphon tube going into the bottom is too easy to ignore.  It may or may not be the final configuration you want, depending on your goals, but for first time measurements to prove out the best operating point, it just does not get any easier than that.


The ideal is to inject fluid at the level just beneath the pod chamber IINM - in the sim the piston is pushing with a large head on it because it looks like there is plenty of volume to spare, IINM - the important bit is that enough volume must be transferred  to raise the water level up the sides & any more work than that is not required.

The lower in a tank you try to inject fluid the harder it is because of the pressure at your entry point [pgh] - think of it this way - if I have a tank of water & I puncture it at the top, middle & bottom of the sides the water will stream out horizontally a distance proportional to pgh which is depth, not mass or volume.

So ideally an injection point just below the pod riser has least resistance [force] to the force [work done] you provide to do that.

This is why some members have been asking WHERE are the entry & exit points.

P.S. the bag is a piston of another variety.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 07, 2012, 03:47:05 AM
...in the sim the piston is pushing with a large head on it because it looks like there is plenty of volume to spare, IINM - the important bit is that enough volume must be transferred  to raise the water level up the sides & any more work than that is not required...
In the sim, the volume of water is a calculated geometry to be just enough to fill the Pod chamber to the top with the stroke at the top.  No water was harmed or wasted in the construction of this sim... LOL

Because all the water is counterbalanced in the sim, the total amount of water becomes irrelevant as far as input pressure goes.  100% of the input pressure gets transferred into the Pod head. 

A "U" shaped tube going into the bottom of the pod water chamber will always balance out with the water in the pod head.  Which also makes it easy to measure the pod water level from outside the ZED.  Just pour water into the outside "U" tube until it reaches the desired water level inside.  A drain at the bottom of the tube would let you lower the water level inside.

However, I thought it would be easier to just raise and lower a bucket (or glass) of water to the level you wanted to have the water head inside.  You don't even have to put a hole in the bottom.  :-)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 07, 2012, 05:03:02 AM
Quote
However, I thought it would be easier to just raise and lower a bucket (or glass) of water to the level you wanted to have the water head inside.  You don't even have to put a hole in the bottom.  :-)

Maybe that's the secret of the Zed..... With no inlet and no outlet, everything is conserved, and you just tap off some of the energy of motion to turn your alternator. ;)

Actually, the elevated bucket, or rather cylindrical container, elevated to the necessary height (or...even easier, pressurised with compressed air to a known pressure) makes the perfect piston and push-force application system, I should think. You have no problems with piston-cylinder friction or sealing. All you need to do is know the area of the cylinder's cross-section and the pressure and the "stroke" or difference in the water heights in the cylinder, and you've got your perfect pressure injector, easily quantifiable in terms of work input to the Zed, and easily valved off to keep whatever it applies from backflowing.
This is the same thing that the bag does, I suppose, only the bag doesn't need to be elevated. The bag would seem to be harder to quantify in terms of work input, though.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 07, 2012, 05:16:55 AM

In the sim, the volume of water is a calculated geometry to be just enough to fill the Pod chamber to the top with the stroke at the top.  No water was harmed or wasted in the construction of this sim... LOL

Because all the water is counterbalanced in the sim, the total amount of water becomes irrelevant as far as input pressure goes.  100% of the input pressure gets transferred into the Pod head. 

A "U" shaped tube going into the bottom of the pod water chamber will always balance out with the water in the pod head.  Which also makes it easy to measure the pod water level from outside the ZED.  Just pour water into the outside "U" tube until it reaches the desired water level inside.  A drain at the bottom of the tube would let you lower the water level inside.

However, I thought it would be easier to just raise and lower a bucket (or glass) of water to the level you wanted to have the water head inside.  You don't even have to put a hole in the bottom.  :-)


Yes, that sounds easy & quantifiable for a real world test.

Then just calculate the work done to lift the water to the desired height from the outlet height & voila you have the joules of energy to raise the PE of the water.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 07, 2012, 05:47:37 AM
Actually, the elevated bucket, or rather cylindrical container, elevated to the necessary height (or...even easier, pressurised with compressed air to a known pressure) makes the perfect piston and push-force application system, I should think. You have no problems with piston-cylinder friction or sealing. All you need to do is know the area of the cylinder's cross-section and the pressure and the "stroke" or difference in the water heights in the cylinder, and you've got your perfect pressure injector, easily quantifiable in terms of work input to the Zed, and easily valved off to keep whatever it applies from backflowing.
This is the same thing that the bag does, I suppose, only the bag doesn't need to be elevated. The bag would seem to be harder to quantify in terms of work input, though.
Measuring the small air pressure differentials in a table top system might not be that easy. 

In my previous example of raising a glass of water, I made an error.  The water level in the glass includes the virtual water in the pod head (i.e. the air PSI). 

The total input work is a direct measurement of the glass area x distance raised x water weight per unit volume.  Raise the glass until the pod just starts to rise - epsilon.  Then put a load weight on the pod.  Raise the glass higher until the pod just rises again and measure the distance required.  That is the spring loss of the system.  Then raise the glass further to make the pod stroke to the top.  That is the direct output work -- weight x stroke.  The input to do that is as I said before. 

I think I got that input math right.

With a bag, you just add weight on top of it and see how much you added and far it drops to get your desired outputs.  I think that is the most direct measurement of input work.


 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 07, 2012, 06:36:23 AM
LarryC,

In your attached drawing, only the first 2 steps can work. How can we use the hydraulic assist to use the lower pressure Zed to pressurize the higher pressure Zed?

 
Attached is the Simple Zed to Zed Flow.
 
No Flow - Valve closed
Free Equalization Flow - Valve open
Hydraulic Assist - Since the Zed water columns start equal, the input cost will be to change the actual Water Head between Zed's from 0 to 3.4 PSI. Edit: OU out the wazoo, for those who understand.
 
I used 8.4 as specified in Reply 963 by Wayne:
'Our pressure is:
Minimum 5.0,  8.4 max, and 6.7 post free flow.
Since the true input cost to each side it the diffirence between these pressures and the Max - this is very important.'


 
Regards, Larry
 
PS: The actual system doesn't transfer the water, since each retains it's own water supply. It just transfer the force to move each Zed's water supply.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 07, 2012, 10:17:26 AM
There is a lot of talk of extraneous PE after a ZED cycle.
Seamus makes the point well that to be OU, Potential has to be raised, & he gives the easy to visualize example of water spontaneously flowing uphill as he eloquently puts it.
Happy hunting !

Hi Fletcher,
You and Seamus are soooo close, you are seeing but not recognizing the energy conundrum.
The water doesn't flow uphill, only a charged-up supply is maintained charged and is recycled with great advantage which gives you the appearance of an uphill flow, the net effect is the same.

I regret not able to tell you outright the answer, self discovery was the intend of the inventor in this tread.
Sawing the seeds for inventive thinking.  Making people think for themselves, instead of copycatting.
Innovation requires independent and out-of-the-box thinking, possibly someone here can take the principles of this invention to new unforeseen heights, then it would have served a purpose. Blueprint copying is China.  I though most of the members here live in the western world, the home of invention and innovation since ........ Or have we given up on that and intent to position ourselves behind China

I hope some new seeds can also be sawed for people in general to start thinking for themselves, instead of just eating and believing whatever is said on TV or news media as the gospel truth. Especially in the upcoming American election which appears to be a done deal before I has begun.

That was quite a mouthful, couldn't resist,
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 07, 2012, 11:11:24 AM
Well Michel .. what I've been thinking for quite a while is this.

Given that the inventor has made 3 prototypes with lots of professional support & is in the external validation process, I have no doubt that he is sincere in his beliefs & that he has a very supportive family, friends & team.

That aside, & I'm not in the business of crushing dreams, but I am interested in the truth.

The truth will be revealed whether his beliefs were well founded or not by the process underway at the moment - if he has an OU device that uses buoyancy & a unique combination of channels etc then this will unfold, one way or another.

My learning says that gravity is the cause of buoyancy - heavy things fall down & IMO pressure doesn't change the buoyancy or relative density environment unless you are talking about the cartesian diver example already mentioned previously - I accept that the inventor says that buoyancy force isn't increased by a ZED but I do have trouble with the concept of reduced energy input or that gravity is not conservative.

The reason is that you use a pressurized system - it is very easy to hide true energy use, at least for a while, & even if unwittingly - I have been aware IINM that for the two ZED system that Mark Dansie came to inspect, that one ZED wasn't behaving properly, which was subsequently sorted out after the event - but with two ZED's of not equal performance & capability in a symbiotic pressure trading relationship the possibility exists for ambiguous results which might not be self evident - added to that that the engineers on board hadn't anticipated or adequately addressed good input & output gathering methods in three prototypes when the technology touted as game & world changing would go under the microscope with just these questions first & foremost on investigating minds.

The upshot is that the two ZEDs in question were 'equalized' IIRC & this is how it should be for another test of any duration - the dual ZED testing relies on machines of equal ability & capacity sharing a resource to give this reduced energy input that is touted - there should be no delay to this test that I can see.

Having said that whilst a one layer purportedly doesn't show OU [I think that was said by Wayne] multiple layers do - two multilayer systems do not have to interconnected so the builders, whether publicly here, or in private, will be able to determine the input & output energies required.

When that information is in I will reflect on what my beliefs are, or were, & how appropriate they were in hindsight - in the mean time I await real world empirical results that unambiguously answer relevant & important questions about multi layered ZEDs.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 07, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
Hi all,
 
I noticed error in calculation of work out from my 2D model. I said you should get 100% efficiency while it is 50% and something, far from ideal. My apologies.
 
This error leads me to think whether is COP of 100% achievable in single ZED in reality. I remember Michel saying 98% is max pls correct me if I'm wrong. With how many layers we get 98% A 1000, 10000? It is interesting question at least for me.
 
It seems like adding more layers increases ZED EnergyOUT/EnergyIN efficiency and OU is got via recycling the exhaust. This theory is supported by recommendations that we should go at least 3, 5 or even 8 layers.
 
I tried to model different dimensions for pod, gaps and got different EnergyOUT/EnergyIN numbers. I'm just starting to see the complexities of cooking in the pans and it is even more interesting...
 
thank you,
Marcel
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 07, 2012, 12:01:13 PM
So the Zeds aren't "transitive" then? Are the two Zeds different, so you couldn't take the one on the right and put it where the one on the left is?

Because if A=B in the first Zed,  and D is cycled around between the Zeds..... then why doesn't C =B as well...... that is, C must equal A. So if C+D = A.... then therefore.... D = 0.
If the two Zeds are the same, and a cycle is being performed, it seems to me that this must be true.
@TK.I see the logic of your thinking,.However, have you taken into account that A is part of the set-up[never to be repeated ] cost? I can not express this mathematically, but if you think about it, you will understand what I mean
C on the diagram is the input to Zed two. It is less than A, because it is supplemented by D.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 07, 2012, 02:04:57 PM
Gents,

It appears to me that this discussion can not achieve anything near over-unity

Fletcher, Seamus, MT,
It looks to me looks that this discussion can never lead to anywhere good, the least over-unity,  because you guys appear so preconceived, by needing everything into the latest details presented to you and then you will dispute and be unbelieving without giving any serious counter argument.

I can appreciate a logical counter argument,  I have been trying to steer towards it but I am not getting it here.

I presented some overview and flow figures in previous postings that played out a theoretical positive over-unity scenario.  You have been given the HW measurements, flow volumes, pressures, working details and processes, these have been described all over these pages but there is nowhere any counter analysis with  figures that contradict or show the flaw that is presented.

The only thing that I see is " can never work, why who knows...."  or there are generalized arguments referring to the conservation laws and water can not flow uphill or we wait for the validation.  You starting to look naked on these pages, poor I say...

Lets advance and say that the validation reports "all is legitimate & OK & OU". What will you have then, you still wouldn't know more than you have today.  Or am I missing something ?, please enlighten me

I could finish the cycle with putting everything on the table, but this is not my place to do that, I leave that to the master of this invention

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 07, 2012, 02:41:19 PM
To All,

Several times now I have seen a accidental aversion to the replication mission here - unintentional - but will confuse people later.

The single ZED's purpose is not to make a running machine, that is the use of a dual system.

It is possible to take a single ZED and have a recapture method of the system (instead of another Zed) and reuse that energy to supplement the next stroke - be very clear - this is not the best use of the ZED.

(A single Zed leaves out one of the four principal operations of the system - this group has yet to uncover one of the "Diamonds" - the shifting of the center of gravity during the Free Flow process. - This is for a later lesson).

On my instructions concerning the current replications: The point of using a three or four layer ZED - is to reach a point that Buoyancy/gravity - is as effective as a standard hydraulic cylinder - for the pV and - on a second note...to simplify the control of the air and water.

More layers adds complexity to the design - we have overcome these issues - we had to invent multiple ways to control the water and air (differential in layers larger than four).

At this stage of the learning process - being the person with the most experience - it is my opinion and our engineers' - to hold that issue off - or it will add complexity and slow the learning of the ZED system.

The Replication Challenge for a single ZED - was to show and report your findings - Just as Webby did - with a more stable and measurable set up.

Since I do not wish to be the director of "observation" - I leave that method and value up to the replicators.
A single system (105%) has only a paper value - you have nothing to give - but a dual system (160%-190%) leaves you room to make mistakes - have losses - and to feel confident in your construction.

Important Note: I have told no one "What" to expect to see - this is the Joy of discovery - not to be stolen- do not make the implications of an expectation - other than physical reporting of personal findings.

The single system only demonstrates half our system and it is much harder to utilize - can it be OU, yes - the right direction to head - no, good for measurement - and understanding - yes.

See3d is designing a single Zed "a teaching model" - perfectly fine - Now... if you want to blow Overunity .... with a practical application ..... you better use a dual system.

Next Note:  The replication challenge for the DUAL system - is for a running system - reason is simple you have a lot more extra to play with - I want our teams to win - duh.

Good luck Teams - Thank you for the private progress reports - sharing here is encouraged - but up to you.

Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 07, 2012, 05:07:49 PM
Okay, this is stupid, but I could not get it out of my head.  I was stuck at home for a bit anyway and was (again) chuckling to myself about the LED lighting...  Like I have any LEDs!  I don't (except inside working devices).  Or so I thought.
 
I happened to notice an old 3 LED mini flashlight that I inherited from someone who bought it and said it didn't work.  So a few minutes later and you have the picture below!  And the real beauty of this lighting scheme is the power!  Its an old Toshiba laptop power brick regulated through a DC/DC buck/boost converter.  And even hooked up with alligator test leads.
 
I hope this cracks you guys up as much as it does me!
 
Seriously though, I have not made it to the store to get a digital mass scale, so no real testing to be done anyway.
 
Cheers,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 07, 2012, 05:33:08 PM
In your attached drawing, only the first 2 steps can work. How can we use the hydraulic assist to use the lower pressure Zed to pressurize the higher pressure Zed?
Thanks for the question. My statement:
Hydraulic Assist - Since the Zed water columns start equal, the input cost will be to change the actual Water Head between Zed's from 0 to 3.4 PSI
 
Please see the attached picture. Water weight is .0361 pounds per cubic inch and creates a force of .0361 PSI. Water Head in this case is the difference in height between the two columns of water. The example on the left with the equalized columns has 0 PSI or 0 Water Head. For the example on the right, if the Hydraulic cylinder pushes down the left column 1 inch, this causes the right column to rise 1 inch and the difference is 2 inches or (.0361 * 2) or .0722 PSI or a 2 inch water head. So the Hydraulic cylinder had to use a force that went from 0 PSI to 0.0722 PSI. Because of gravity, your input cost only needs to account for the height difference in the two columns.
 
Hope this helps. Please excuse for stating facts that you allready know, but others are also learning.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 07, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
Test data from previously shown model:
 
The lift mass is a 2.5lb free weight of unknown accuracy.  The mass is used during the "lift" and then removed during the "sink" portions of a cycle.  There is an unknown preweight that is never removed along with the mass of the Pod and Riser construction as well.
 
This experiment was run several times to verify that the measurements were at least "close" to prior runs.  But all measuring apparatus are very far from precision instruments.  Also, there is some stiction in the ZED model, but I tried to compensate for that by always loading from the same side (ie. all readings were taken after coming from a lower pressure/height up to the previous alignment marks).
 
Data (as it is):
 
Mass lifted:  ~2.5 lbs
ZED stoke: ~ 11.5 mm.
Water removed and introduced again to obtain repeatable(ish) stroke as measured by a "rain gage" from my yard: ~87.5mm.
Overall change in the head in the elevated fill tube during the cycle is ~ 190 mm.
 
Now I have no idea which (if any) of those measurements I should have skewed higher or lower to prove anything one way or the other, so I think the data is pretty objective.  Please send questions before revealing any results so you don't taint my objectivity.
 
Let me know what else you want/need for now. 
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 07, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
Here is another of those questions you probably did not know the answer to, but were too embarrassed to ask. Well I am not too embarrassed, and I dont mind being thought of as the village idiot if that makes people happy .


Question. In earlier diagrams of the Zed,we see that the risers are separate items , with an air gap between their tops or lids. But now, Wayne says that we can have all the risers sharing a common lid. { see post1922 on page129 for a diagram . } So now, if we take the outer riser as an example, compressed air was lifting the entire lid of the riser, in early diagrams. But in the later "common lid design" , lift is restricted to a narrow annulus between the outer risers wall, and the wall of the next riser. So how come we get the same lift with a much reduced lift area? the air pressure is the same.


My answer. The air in the gap between the lid of the outer riser and the lid of the next riser. gave extra lift. But this extra lift was cancelled out by that same air pocket pressing downwards on the lid of the next riser.


Anyone agree/disagree?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 07, 2012, 09:31:07 PM
My answer. The air in the gap between the lid of the outer riser and the lid of the next riser. gave extra lift. But this extra lift was cancelled out by that same air pocket pressing downwards on the lid of the next riser.
Yes, that is right.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 07, 2012, 09:32:12 PM
My answer. The air in the gap between the lid of the outer riser and the lid of the next riser. gave extra lift. But this extra lift was cancelled out by that same air pocket pressing downwards on the lid of the next riser.
Anyone agree/disagree?

Neptune,
The same lift ?? yes and no,  it all depends on the layer ratio,
Before the outer layer was the biggest lift area with the LOWEST pressure, now the outer area has a way smaller area with the same low pressure, the center pod area will become the largest area with the HIGHEST pressure. This means that the pod will produce the most lift and control the lift. I would imagine that the control will become more sensitive and possibly more difficult since the buffering up the water column will be way less than before
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 07, 2012, 09:58:09 PM
Data (as it is):
Mass lifted:  ~2.5 lbs
ZED stoke: ~ 11.5 mm.
Water removed and introduced again to obtain repeatable(ish) stroke as measured by a "rain gage" from my yard: ~87.5mm.
Overall change in the head in the elevated fill tube during the cycle is ~ 190 mm.
I think the volume of water in your rain gage per mm height would be needed -- to get the mass.  There may be more dimensions needed to calculate the work input.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 07, 2012, 10:21:32 PM
I think the volume of water in your rain gage per mm height would be needed -- to get the mass.  There may be more dimensions needed to calculate the work input.

Yeah, I was considering that before posting.  But I "assumed" that a rain gage must be some kind of standard.  Like, 1" in the rain gage means 1 in^3 of water.  And so 1 cm in the rain gage means 1 cm^3.  I guess I can double check the scale on the side with a tape measure pretty easy.  And if it turns out to just be a "relative" scale, I can get the ID for volumetric calcs.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 07, 2012, 10:35:13 PM
LarryC's drawing above shows water flowing from one unit to the other as a result of the hydraulic assist.

But earlier he said,
Quote
Regards, Larry
 
PS: The actual system doesn't transfer the water, since each retains it's own water supply. It just transfer the force to move each Zed's water supply.

How is that drawing compatible with that statement? Just what is being transferred between the Zeds, and how is it being transferred, if no water is transferred? Just what is the physical nature of this "D" that is being recycled in the diagram that shows A=B and C=B,  but A not equal to C?

And now it appears that MrWayne is telling us that a single Zed system, no matter the layers, can't be all that efficient.... 105 percent? Easily in the measurement noise floor, just like when I ran the set of good numbers from Webby.


@mond:
Looks great, I see that illumination from underneath works quite well.  You could try different color LEDs, positioned to illuminate the different internal layers from underneath. You might get lucky and be able to have different colors in the different layers due to diffusion and internal reflections. Or it could just mix into a mess... but it will still look nice sitting next to the LavaLamp, anyway.

I like your data set, but can you please describe in painful detail just how a "trial" is conducted and just how repeatable the start and finish positions are, etc. And yes, I believe we need the cross sectional area of your input cylinder rain gauge... or if it's one of those silly tapered ones..... some other means of determining the mass (or volume really) of the total water you inject and recover during a trial. (The mass is important to find the pressure but it's the volume, I believe, that does the work in the Zeds.) This, combined with the pressure computed from the elevation of the center of mass of the raingauge water, will allow an input work figure to be calculated.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 07, 2012, 10:56:54 PM
On another note,would I be the only one assuming that Red_Sunset and Mr Wayne are one and the same person?
Your powers of observation need some serious sharpening if you are confused about that... LOL
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 07, 2012, 11:11:30 PM
I have upgraded my simulation to allow different wall thicknesses for the Tank and the Riser rings.  I have also added the ability to specify the gap at the Pod and the Gap at the exit to have different values than the middle gaps.

I have put in some extreme ratios into the sim and got results that were close to, but not quite believable, so I must investigate the formulas some more. 

These modifications to the sim should help me match to actual build measurements for verifications.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 07, 2012, 11:22:36 PM
@TK. Water exits a Zed and enters a convoluted rubber bag or bellows. This is mechanically linked to a second bag, so that as the first bag expands, it squeezes the second bag. Thus the exhaust of the first Zed helps to charge the second Zed . When equilibrium is reached, and the pressures in the two Zeds are equal, this expanding and squeezing would stop. But is then it is forced to continue by a hydraulic ram powered from the systems hydraulic accumulator . So the waters of the Two Zeds are kept separate.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 07, 2012, 11:38:22 PM

On another note, would I be the only one assuming that Red_Sunset and Mr Wayne are one and the same person?


Hi .. nahh .. Michel's enjoying red sunsets in Saudi Arabia.

http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/our-guest-book

Public Information - I guess that is what See3d's cryptic comment is about.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 07, 2012, 11:42:40 PM
So the foundations of the laws of conservation of energy along with centuries of experimental validation of those are not sufficient  logic for you?

On another note,would I be the only one assuming that Red_Sunset and Mr Wayne are one and the same person?

LOL - What a compliment - I am not nearly as smart as Red_Sunset....
Seamus - You really should listen to him - your credibility is tanking as you hold fast against what is clearly presented.
(well it tanked when you were moderated and you came back - now you make it worse)
As I said when you began this campaign against us - you are going to be embarrassed - please - for your sake - get your hands wet -
If you won't do your own work at least notice that Red Sunset can speak your language -
To be clear: Learning something new is not the "embarrassment" - it is your continued assertion that you have the authority of all knowledge of the universe with your incorrect conclusions, assertions and unwillingness to look.
Man can't fly - so that man in his flying machine must be a fraud - we have been through this before.
I will be very glad when you and the three others realize you have been wrong in your claims against me.
I see that a valuable resource has been given to you.
Until Then...... good day.

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 07, 2012, 11:58:20 PM
I like your data set, but can you please describe in painful detail just how a "trial" is conducted and just how repeatable the start and finish positions are, etc. And yes, I believe we need the cross sectional area of your input cylinder rain gauge... or if it's one of those silly tapered ones..... some other means of determining the mass (or volume really) of the total water you inject and recover during a trial. (The mass is important to find the pressure but it's the volume, I believe, that does the work in the Zeds.) This, combined with the pressure computed from the elevation of the center of mass of the raingauge water, will allow an input work figure to be calculated.

Each "run" is started at a full lift and with FULL LOAD (+ ~ 2.5 lb weight) at a position in which the single ZED is at a witness mark (eyeballed from the Outer Riser rim) while under support from (I guess) the water pressure and "pre-load" that was previously introduced to that single ZED.
 
So I guess I must back up and explain the pre-load... 
 
I have introduced water and air (into the bottom of the Pod chamber) several times through the apparatus you can see in the pics (sorry I can't post vids).  I have learned that having too much air or too much water causes "skirt blows" as I try to cycle repeatably.  So I have lowered the stroke and adjusted the air and water until I can repeatably perform the same cycle without the above mentioned problems.
 
So, in other words, I have run this test cycle "up and down" too many times to count.  And if the amount of air in the system or the amount of stroke (Hi Wayne!) is too much, you blow skirts.  So I have repeatedly run this test while adjusting the air and water (in the outer most ring) until it will repeat without blowing bubbles (skirt blow), etc.
 
I have marked the input tube water height with masking tape and a fine "sharpie" when the ZED is at the top of it's lift (eyeballed, of course).  I then remove the ~2.5 lb free weight.  Then I vent water from the bottom of the "system" through the valve shown in the pics.  I vented that fluid into the "rain gage" for those gross observations that I posted earlier.
 
Without the the added mass of the 2.5 lb "load" I let the system vent until it has dropped the previously reported distance.  Again, I must let it drop a bit further than that and then cause the system to rise up to that data measurement line because stiction is an issue.  This is done by supplying some of the previously vented water back into the system prior to measuring that "volume."
 
Once everything is at "equilibrium" at the bottom witness mark (that I marked previously with another "sparpie" and have been trying to replicate with this "cycle") I make sure the vent valve that is allowing water (and pressure) to escape the Pod chamber is closed.
 
At this point the reverse is easy (thank God!).  I slowly (only because my gaps and input tube Reynolds friction forces may cause unexpected reactions if you don't go slow) reintroduce the collected (and measured in the rain gage) water that was required for the above described cycle.
 
Please let me know what else you might need.
 
M.
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 08, 2012, 12:07:52 AM
Sorry, I forgot...
 
The rain gage reads between 40.12 and 41.92mm on the ID with the verniers.  It's made out of glass and from China...  I have no idea what the real volumes would be down at the bottom.
 
Is this why I need a digital mass scale?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 08, 2012, 12:23:02 AM
Please find attached a picture from the 'Travis Water Height calculator based on Outer Retainer Water Drop Single Top 5 U. So it is a single top plate with 5 U's. Also added a few new fields:
1. At J3 Pod Retainer Water Drop value, as I realized that some may not know to take the Pod Retainer water height from the Ideal section and subtracting the Pod Retainer water height from the Outside Ret. Water Drop Section to know how much to drop your pod retainer water height to meet that PSI and lift value.
2. In the Channel Si Calculation section at the bottom the values for Total Water Volume and Total Water Volume Weight in Lb was added as requested by a replicator.
 
Those who are working with a single top 5 U please review and let me know of any problems.
Also, If any want a single top 4 U or 3 U please PM.
 
@Neptune,
 
I totally disagree that you are the village idiot. Your insight and wisdom has been very helpful to me and others.
 
I find your bravery to post in the face of the hostility, antagonistic, dogmatic and mind game attitudes of some, very admirable. From the PM's to me that is the reason we don't have many more posting directly here.
 
Thanks, for your excellent response to TK and feel free anytime.
 
Regards, Larry 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
@TK. Water exits a Zed and enters a convoluted rubber bag or bellows. This is mechanically linked to a second bag, so that as the first bag expands, it squeezes the second bag. Thus the exhaust of the first Zed helps to charge the second Zed . When equilibrium is reached, and the pressures in the two Zeds are equal, this expanding and squeezing would stop. But is then it is forced to continue by a hydraulic ram powered from the systems hydraulic accumulator . So the waters of the Two Zeds are kept separate.
Thank you, that is the way I thought it was plumbed. So what is the point of LarryC's drawing that shows water being transferred between his simplified Zeds? Gratuitous obfuscation?

It seems to me to be a rather different system than what you are talking about. And I thought, from somebody's description earlier, that it was this "excess" water or its pressure, translated through the mechanics and the hydraulics, that provided the hydraulic "assist" in the first place? It still seems that all explanations eventually fall back to "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". I'm still worried about how, if A=B and C=B, yet C =/= A.

And I'm also worried about the system that wasn't working right, the asymmetric system in the video from Mark D... If a single Zed is only 105 percent efficient and the two Zeds weren't working symmetrically.... how you can possibly get OU from the pair? If they both need to be able to make 105 percent OU for the combo to make 160 percent, or whatever the number was.... and one isn't working up to its full 105 percent... and in fact is considerably below that from the sound of things in the video..... how does the other unit make up the difference, if it, working alone, could make 105 percent? Not only do the Zeds not seem to be transitive, but they also seem to be able to read each other's minds and make up for deficits in their partners.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 12:31:52 AM
Sorry, I forgot...
 
The rain gage reads between 40.12 and 40.92mm on the ID with the verniers.  It's made out of glass and from China...  I have no idea what the real volumes would be down at the bottom.
 
Is this why I need a digital mass scale?
 
M.
Well... you can calibrate the raingauge without a digital scale, can't you? Got a syringe somewhere that's marked in mL?

By the way, I have a Sartorius 1106 lab scale that I will sell cheap. It's had some wear and tear, a replaced power switch, but works fine. 200 g range, 10 mg resolution. I also have a Mettler H10 analytical balance, in good condition, some cosmetic rash but fully functional. 160 g capacity and resolution below one milligram. This will cost a bit to ship properly but I'll also let it go cheap. Make an offer if interested.

However for the present purposes a simple "Chicago Electric" Chinese digital household scale, for twenty bux from Harbor Freight, would be sufficiently accurate enough I think. And a good fisherman's spring scale that could be modified to read pushes instead of pulls, by a simple lever system, would also be useful to the experimenters here, I think.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 08, 2012, 01:32:58 AM
Well... you can calibrate the raingauge without a digital scale, can't you? Got a syringe somewhere that's marked in mL?

Okay.  I might be able to do that.

However for the present purposes a simple "Chicago Electric" Chinese digital household scale, for twenty bux from Harbor Freight, would be sufficiently accurate enough I think. And a good fisherman's spring scale that could be modified to read pushes instead of pulls, by a simple lever system, would also be useful to the experimenters here, I think.

I know, alright?  I've checked it out on-line a couple days ago.
 
But I'm supposed to be on vacation.  You know, that one week a year you can just relax?  But so far it has not been a stellar start.  I've got 680 miles to drive in the morning and the wife and child are not even home from "perparing" yet.  So I'm a bit stressed on the front end of my supposed relaxation time so far.
 
Please switch to decaf for the moment.  I only posted what I did in an effort to help with what I could while I could.  I'm not happy with the resolution or the accuracy of any of it.  Just thought it would be better than posting nothing for the next week.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 01:37:02 AM
@Mond: Ok, thanks for the description, almost there with the detail. How is the water reintroduced from the rain gauge to make the upstroke? You have to elevate it from the position where it received the water from the downstroke?

It seems that the work output value is clear from your single dataset: Going in the lifting direction, you are lifting a mass of M of through a height increase of H against a force of G... so you have an increase in the PE of your lifted mass of MGH. (using caps to distinguish from input energy).

And your input.... let's just go by the position of the center of mass of the "slug" of water (no pun intended) in the raingauge before and after the recovery and injection of the water from it.  Say your gauge is empty enough so the CofM of the water remaining is at 2 cm above the bottom, and when you recover the water from the sinking of the big mass the CofM of the gauge water is now at 8 cm above the bottom, for a height gain of h = 6 cm, and a mass of m grams, against that same force of g. So the change in PE of the input can also be measured, apparently fairly easily.

So, a series of multiple, similarly conducted trials that yield an average and a variance (mean and standard deviation) of the input and output PE values would be nice to see. If your fingers don't get all wrinkly and make it hard to type, that is.

ETA: Decaf? DECAFFF????? Surely you jest. I'd just as soon drink.... water. (yechh...)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 08, 2012, 01:57:21 AM
So the CVS 5ml syringe rings out at about 50ml (yes, ten fills) to about 37 mm in the raingage (conservatively low reading).
 
And with your other investigative direction...  I am bleeding off water from the bottom of the Pod center tank.  And then RAISING it to pour into the "funnel" that drains down into my input water tube.
 
Is that raising PE?  I think that is a valid argument!  Either way, do you want a measurement?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 02:34:37 AM
OK....So raingauge itself is at a fixed height supported on some kind of stand? With a tube and valve leading to the bottom inlet into the pod chamber of your Zed?

OK... so start with M in the full up position (call this HM) and some small amt. of water in the gauge. Mark the CofM of the water in the gauge, height h=0. It's OK, I think, to neglect the water in the tube at this point.
Now open your drain valve and let M sink and settle, collecting the water expressed in your cup or whatever. Close your valves. Weigh this water and record the weight. Lift up the cup of water using a hydraulic forklift, chain hoist, a jetpack, or your hand and arm. Pour the water into the rain gauge. This will raise the level of the rain gauge's water CofM by some amount to height h=hW. Measure this amount and record it.
Now open your valve to allow this water to run back into the Zed pod chamber, raising the M mass from height H=0 to height H=HM. Record.
Lather, rinse, repeat 20 times to get good data for stats. Make a data table; crunch to means and SDs, calculate PEs and deltas. Report.

How can you even think about taking a vacation at a time like this? You are about to provide the first, really solid, empirical energy input/output numbers from a tabletop overunity buoyancy device. Other than Webby's, of course. Can you beat the 102 percent or so that I calculated from Webby's single data point?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 08, 2012, 02:50:27 AM
How can you even think about taking a vacation at a time like this? You are about to provide the first, really solid, empirical energy input/output numbers from a tabletop overunity buoyancy device. Other than Webby's, of course. Can you beat the 102 percent or so that I calculated from Webby's single data point?

Ha!  Okay, old man.  Remember when I said this is not my baby to birth?  THAT is why I can still go on vacation (I hope).
 
My "build" (as it is) and my "data" (as it was) is only presented to answer questions for anyone who wants something more touchy-feely that the word play in the forum.
 
Mom and child are home and safe now.  So I've got to give up the fight for now and a few days.  I hope to be on-line in NC by Monday.
 
Sweet dreams.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 08, 2012, 04:02:53 AM
Thanks Mike .. have a great time - I know you won't even give this discussion board a further thought  ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 08, 2012, 05:32:47 AM
Hi .. nahh .. Michel's enjoying red sunsets in Saudi Arabia.

Hi Fletcher,
Naaa...h, unfortunately no Red Sunset's in Riyadh, the dust makes the sun go down at ~25dgr altitude in a milky haze.
The name Red_Sunset was taken from the red sunset in Chesapeake Maryland, early last July while being on a sailboat we delivered to Georgetown on the Sassafras river in Chesapeake bay coming from the San Blas islands in Panama and loosing our mast in a storm 30 miles SW of Key West in the Florida Straits.
That was the time when you had an heatwave reaching 104dgrF. in Virginia / Maryland.  Using the internet at sundown and seeing the stupid unconsidered attacks on Wayne, I created this name to reply in support of him. But there was some issue with the name confirmation, soit was not used at the time. It just happened to be a beautiful impressive sunset at the time, the reason for the name.
What have we achieved since then, the same old mucky dialog, and I think I will do the same thing than Wayne.Leave the tread.
Because the people can not advance because they can not help themselves, because they do not want to be helped. A lost cause. Better get on with developing improvements for the zed, bigger output for smaller size.
Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 08, 2012, 06:57:54 AM
Thanks for that Michel - I'm in Fiji , so plenty of red sunsets but the name was taken.

That's one option you can take - leave I mean, & concentrate on improving performance of the ZED - just perhaps, now you have a better appreciation of the uphill battle to convince people that you have something so special that it is world changing.

A lot of that credibility is earned & comes from moving on two fronts simultaneously - having rigorous data collection & scientific method, that is indisputable, even to the most entrenched person reading this thread - that means a good versatile & adaptable model.

The second, especially for a mechanical system like this, is to use simple Newtonian mechanics which is even preferable given most understand it - that's why most skeptics here will concentrate on either a gain in Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy full cycle which would prove beyond doubt that gravity is not conservative.

I don't think there is any need to delve into Bernoulli fluid dynamics of fluid flow or Reynolds numbers etc & other higher order considerations of fluids & pressures - a simple 'it has so much work put in to it & it raises the PE thus' is usually a sufficiently detailed explanation IF the results conclusively back this up - you don't even have to close the loop because it is self evident that the loop could be closed.

Wayne said at the beginning that he had studied Rossi's E-Cat release & I think Steorn or was it ... well it doesn't matter, & had learned from that experience, yet even with his & yours proclaimed goodwill intent it has been tough going though not unexpectedly so IMO - what you do learn at public forums like this has more to do with human nature than anything else - this is an obstacle to overcome for yours or any new release of free-energy that might eventuate.

Probably the most interesting thing from my perspective is that HydroEnergyRevolution Inc has publicly plotted its course & set its sails, no going back in the box - in time [& I'm very patient] everything will come to light [I'm not prejudging that outcome] - nothing will be hidden except for improvements & developments in train & yet to be patented etc - at that time, not to distant future, all this apparent 'slow trawling out of information & you are bad boys for asking' will seem irrelevant - I understand why you guys are doing this re: "teach a man to fish & feed a man etc", & to give yourselves some insurance by spreading the word - usually that's done hard & fast & effectively & the teaching comes later.

Anyway, whatever you do it has actually mostly been a pleasure - I don't think you'd make a good teacher though & I'd probably be a bad pupil - don't particularly like authority etc  ;) - may the sand not blow up your skirt.

P.S. these are just my opinions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 08, 2012, 07:42:35 AM
Gents,
Goodbye until there is a drastic change in this forum
I have nothing to gain or loose for being on this forum and I can no longer justify my time to be here
I start to be bothered by questions such as,
Why am I here ? taking time typing explanations, some philosophy ...ect,  to what purpose? when I can be spending my time on a better and more productive purpose. I think I have full-filled my obligations in context with this forum (as repayment to previous gains)

What puzzles me on this forum, 
What do you die-hard members want out of this forum?
Why do certain member behave, respond, the way they do?
Why give...give..give.., some members can not even search 2 pages back for the answer, so why repeat?
What do the notable emotions indicate ?
Why do milehigh, microcontroller, Tinselkaola sent me multiple private mail? 
Why are they angry ?, is it a tantrum because they can not get what they ultimately want ?
What is their ultimate objective ?
They can be in control to satisfy their own frustration in a academic way, why do they take the chosen path ?
The forum is only 1/2 inch away of the final and main principle of OU, but you do not want to engage, why?
The mathematician seamus has still not shown one number to support his rejection, why ?
Why does seamus not prove in a detailed way why conservation prevents OU in the Zed ?
I am sure Seamus has done the analysis privately, why does he not share it online ?
What is Seamus objective ?
I am sure that Seamus, TinselKoala and several others understand exactly the principle of OU in the Zed, why do they want to frustrate others to know it ?
As a forum, how do you grow logical reasoning that leads to creativity ?
Do people want to understand a clever technique that exploits physics to great benefit?
Do people just want short term benefit for own gain, like a quick rip-off the creation of someone else ?
How much importance do the test values have with understanding vs understanding the concept working principles ?

If you want to create something new you have to come up with a new idea. New idea's are based on new things, revolutionary new idea's are based on new things that were not possible before. Invention and innovation is usually based on new idea's, new angles and techniques in a step-stone fashion. In order to make the next step in this process, you need to understand the previous step.  If not, the process is at risk to fail on the first hurdle.  Too my amazement, certain people will build this Zed device without understanding the pivotal technology principles that underpins its working. Maybe they hope it will reveal itself in due time, what is very possible but the risk is high. Logical reasoning leads to understanding as they are critical ingredients to avoid failure.

The cycle of life is giving in order to receive, a lesson of life that is very well understood by Wayne.  Make no mistake, we can ALL learn more about Zed's and the physics that underpin it,  that is why positive engagement is mutual beneficial.  This story is far from finished.

All the best for the time being,
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Fred Flintstone on September 08, 2012, 08:01:45 AM
Quote
Goodbye until there is a drastic change in this forum
Don't let the door hit you in the butt!
Just FYI... If I never read this stupid forum again... NOBODY WOULD CARE! Why do you think that anyone cares if you login and read these messages?
Reading these posts is just something to pass the time...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 08, 2012, 09:07:11 AM
Thanks for that Michel - I'm in Fiji , so plenty of red sunsets but the name was taken.
Anyway, whatever you do it has actually mostly been a pleasure - I don't think you'd make a good teacher though & I'd probably be a bad pupil - don't particularly like authority etc  ;) - may the sand not blow up your skirt.
P.S. these are just my opinions.

Hi Fletcher,
Sorry missed your mail while busy with others, Nooop Fletcher, I thought you were the best pupil on this forum.
I am not teacher, I am usually way more patient in teaching someone, but I have no time for someone who is not prepared to make an effort to learn or understand what is being thought. For a student that shows he wants to know and makes an effort, I will go all the way without limitation to help.
I agree with your analysis on methods to introduce new concepts.  There is a lot to be said for going on a forum to introduce a concept like this, I personally do not believe this is the best vehicle to do an introduction for this invention. Although it gave Wayne a good taste of the variation in reception can be expected from the academic and business worlds, I am sure that was what he was after.  What is the best introduction ? I think is a good question, a good working model that produces ~ 1kwh running for a week at a strategic site like a mountain top feeding a rotating search light would make an impression.
I believe like in sailing, preparation is everything,  any concept depends on communication of understanding, certain concepts require way more visual than words to describe it, and throw into the mix inventive methods that work their way around basic physics laws, you need a good thesis to support these claims.
To present it through this forum, I do not think you can get away with  the reverse process "tell and then show',  that requires too much of the average mind,  it needs a "show than tell". 

To help my investigations, I have been doing a write-up in order to formalize and structure all information relating to the Zed with my own deductions. This document is taking shape like something alike to  "Zed for dummies" or the " Zed riddle explained" and is still in progress. By moving away from the forum, I should get more time to spent and finalize this.

I have always been receptive to a good creative idea, doesn't matter which science. The zed intrigued me, and initially I thought the same thing what you guys say on the web with the difference that I dug in deep, I wanted to understand where the OU entered the picture. This takes time to clearly understand these processes and connect the dots (I am in communication and project management, not in hydraulics)  Wayne provided from time to time in addition to the forum some pointers along the way by request, it took a lot of sleeping over it, visualizations and simplifications of design...ect, but the penny dropped eventually.  The realization of discovery is just too sweet.  I have never build one, but the theory is sound and none of the individual processes violate the conservation law, sounds weird but that is how it is.
If you approach the issue from the conservation angle, you will be blind enough not to see it, analyze NOT to see it, do it step by step, do not overlook any part of the setup and you will see.
If you or seamus only presented to me your conservation analysis, I could have pointed out where the conundrum is, and you and we and I would have advanced.  Even if you would be able to refute it in a logical argument that would be indisputable, I would accept being wrong.  Although I do believe that Wayne has a working model to support it,  that should reduce the possibility of a refute.

PS; We can be firm in our beliefs so long it doesn't close (shutdown) our brain, that is when the trouble starts. I see this tooo often.

Go well and hopefully our paths cross again, Michel


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 09:08:07 AM
Just to set the record straight there, RED_SUNSET.... the PMs you got from me are ALL REPLIES to emails that other people sent.

Have you ever gotten a PM from me that wasn't in that category?  IN FACT... going through my "sent" file... I save every PM that I send.... I see only one PM from me as a reply with you in the cc list, and ZERO PMs from me directly to you. It's possible that I may have deleted or forgotten to save something so... if you have a PM from me directly to you.... please feel free to post it publicly so all can see what you are complaining about.

You were included in the cc's for those emails out of courtesy, I think.... and now you want to make it seem like I am bothering you or hounding you with PMs, like some people do.

But is that really the case? 


I don't really expect an answer, just more rationalization.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 08, 2012, 10:10:46 AM
Gents,
Goodbye until there is a drastic change in this forum
I have nothing to gain or loose for being on this forum and I can no longer justify my time to be here
I start to be bothered by questions such as,
Why am I here ? taking time typing explanations, some philosophy ...ect,  to what purpose? when I can be spending my time on a better and more productive purpose. I think I have full-filled my obligations in context with this forum (as repayment to previous gains)

Hmm, thats pity (and I mean it), I like you insight, different angle than MrWayne and also that you took a bit of moderator role here. But if you think you should do it, then you should do it. Things said here should not be taken personally although I agree it is sometimes difficult.

Such a forum is very unefficient way to exchange information. I work in IT and have many colleagues in India. You can guess how much misunderstandings we had on both sides. Even by use of video, emails, chat and phone. And here is just chat somtimes pictures if somebody finds time to draw it. We miss a lot of non verbal comm (if not all).

respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 08, 2012, 10:58:04 AM
Oooops, a slip of the pen in my previous mail
Please replace,
PS; You can be firm in your beliefs so long it doesn't close (shutdown) your brain, that is when the trouble starts. I see this tooo often.

With
PS; We can be firm in our beliefs so long it doesn't close (shutdown) our brain, that is when the trouble starts. I see this tooo often.

Tinselkoala,   I have no problem with you sending me a personal mail, I just question your objective,

I didn’t do a forensic on the mail received, only the headline what said,

from:    Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com harti@harti.com

date:    Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM
subject:    New Personal Message: Re: trolling again in the ZED thread
mailed-by:    harti.com
 :
 Important mainly because of the words in the message.

You have just been sent a personal message by TinselKoala on Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com.

IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 11:09:36 AM
TK,,

Man do you ever just do or mean one thing???

PM me with your address and I will send you some of this iced via coffee, it is good.

Lets have fun with some simple stuff,, I like simple.

Charge and discharge.

Sometimes. Let's just say that lately, I am especially "tetchy" about people saying things that just aren't true, about me or my work or my behaviour on this forum.

And I don't see how it could get much simpler than the way Mondrasek is doing it; I'm not clear enough on your system yet to see if your piston is likely to be better than his elevated water in the rain gauge.

Noo, no thanks on the iced coffee. I like mine lukewarm, and grey, with kreamie.

 ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 11:24:55 AM
@Red_Sunset:

Here's the header from my "sent" mailbox for the PM you are referring to. Why didn't you include the full address list? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question.

Quote
   Re:  trolling again in the ZED thread  « Sent to: hartiberlin (http://www.overunity.com/profile/hartiberlin.2/), neptune (http://www.overunity.com/profile/neptune.4158/), fletcher (http://www.overunity.com/profile/fletcher.6533/), mondrasek (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mondrasek.7703/), MileHigh (http://www.overunity.com/profile/milehigh.20740/), conradelektro (http://www.overunity.com/profile/conradelektro.22881/), mrwayne (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mrwayne.25139/), microcontroller (http://www.overunity.com/profile/microcontroller.26898/), Red_Sunset (http://www.overunity.com/profile/red_sunset.60531/), seamus103 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/seamus103.62828/) on: September 05, 2012, 05:24:45 PM »

This was a reply to a PM sent to us all by, I believe, MileHigh.

Just as I said. You question my objective? I question yours, right back. 

I directed a couple of sentences to you directly in that PM. I was responding to some points with what I felt, and still feel, is a perfectly valid concern: the fact that you seem to "know it all" but you yourself haven't "gotten your hands wet" as far as I can tell ... but no skeptic has credibility unless they do get their hands wet, apparently. And the fact that your calculations are "too good" to be true... once the math error is corrected you have an embarrassment of overunity riches and the question becomes now....where did it all go? In other words, I think your calculations are suspect, not based on actual measurements of a real system, and not even measuring the right properties to answer the Big Question anyway.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 08, 2012, 01:11:19 PM
Hi,
just created a model of dual system (0 layers) reusing exhaust. Also drawed expected water levels and pod positions for all steps. Needed 2hours to draw it  :)   Each square is air or water. If water than it = 1kg. Each square is 10cm=0.1m high.

I decided to not post yet complete energy in/out calculations as I'm not sure how to calculate work done while injecting water.

In Precharge step 8 liter if water is injected in the inlet. Columns 1 and 22 are connected so water rises 4 stories  high in both.

Have 2 questions:
1. What is the potential energy of water in both columns
Ep = m*g*h = 1 * 10 * h

EpColumn1= 4 + 3 + 2 +1 = 10
EpColumn22= 4 + 3 + 2 +1 = 10
Ep = 20  is this correct?

2. Is potential energy gained under ideal equal to the work done?
I think yes for precharge step. What do you think?

respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 08, 2012, 01:28:14 PM
@RED_SUNSET
I for one have found your input helpful and I also agree with many of your frustrations. This is a rather different group than any of the other forms I'm a member of, ALL forums have a distinct personality. Personal choice to remain a member or not. And if I'm the person that has you puzzled because I "build without understanding" - sorry, don't know any other way.

That does raise a point I find both amusing and confusing; a year from now, if this plays out to the point of modifying / amending / adding to certain rules of physics... Any one with an interest will be able to study the principles, theories and dynamics all at once . The entire documentation will be available with the diagrams and examples well defined and illustrated for the simple minded like me.

I have not once complained about the way this is being handled now or demanded answers or proof. I've asked several questions and done my best to understand the answers. I fully intend to continue "being me" to the end.

Won't be the first time I've taken a "risky" approach to solving a problem and I often DO find the solution.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 08, 2012, 02:48:33 PM
@Red_Sunset. I do hope you will find the time to pop in now and then. IMO your contribution has been very valuable. Regarding building without understanding. As Wildew says, that is the only way for some of us. Then there who build thinking they understand all, but do not. I say, full marks to those who at least try to build, whatever their level of understanding. They are bound to learn something, and in the process may teach the rest of us.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on September 08, 2012, 03:10:15 PM
Michel
Why? [your post 1996]
I like to think of it as a Balance....
besides ..    the experience builds muscles and keeps us grounded in reality !
 
Very true your observation about sharing..... "giving it away" to keep it !!
 
On to whom so ever much is given much is required!!
 
thx
Chet
 
PS
 
Secrets don't change things ,they just cause resentment and reinforce the status quo.
If you believe you understand the mechanism at work here?
 
SHARE.............{its good for the soul!:,}
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 08, 2012, 06:08:34 PM
I am running with 4 risers now and am back to using a reservoir that I raise and lower for the input.
webby1,
The description you give is generally consistent with my expectations, based on my simulation. 

You say you have a 4 riser system.  However, I believe it can be a 1, 2, 3, or 4 riser system just by leaving out the water in the outside water pockets.  That leaves the free air able to go to any inner riser you want as the last one.

An interesting experiment would be to measure the difference in operation between a 1, 2, 3, or 4 riser system, keeping everything else the same -- assuming you don't blow the skirt of the last one.

If you have the time to make some measurements in a 1 riser configuration, I could use those to help verify my simulation.

Let me know if you would be willing to do that.

Thanks,

Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 08, 2012, 06:57:32 PM
An interesting experiment would be to measure the difference in operation between a 1, 2, 3, or 4 riser system, keeping everything else the same -- assuming you don't blow the skirt of the last one.
It would be indeed interesting, it is also not clear to me how adding layers helps here. I think it helps increase COP of device  so for same amount of water injected you get more work out but I still need to prove it in numbers. I'm bit stuck in calculating work done for injection of water from bottom.
respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 08, 2012, 07:44:58 PM
I will do what I can to help.  I need to know what the setup needs to be...
Thanks webby,

I can input any dimensions into the simulation for a single riser ZED at this point. 
I would have to know the exact diameters of your parts (or average if not quite round):
    Pod
    First Tank ring ID or OD, and wall
    First Riser ring ID or OD, and wall
    Exit Tank ring ID
    Internal Heights of parts
    The gap at the top and bottom of the walls when at the bottom most position
    The riser/pod combined dry weight

My sim usually starts with:
    The Pod at the bottom
    Water just touching the bottom of the Pod, or as deep a needed to make it start to float
    Zero air PSI
    Pocket water at about 75% of the way up the total riser height

However, I can adjust things in the sim as needed.

The measurements taken would be for a load weight that gives a meaningful stroke without blowing the skirt:
    3 water heads and riser stroke for each of the following -- the amount of water added would be calculated from the Pod head:
        When the Pod first moves off the bottom
        1 or 2 partial stroke points.  These could not be averaged, so must be just individual single point observations
        At the top of the stroke

Averaging several measurements at the bottom (just lifting), and top (just touching top) of stroke would help with accuracy.

I would have to back calculate the actual input force and air PSI from the geometry and internal states.  I would in essence play with inputs to the sim to match the observations.

Thanks,
Dennis





Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 08, 2012, 07:47:49 PM
So the Zeds aren't "transitive" then? Are the two Zeds different, so you couldn't take the one on the right and put it where the one on the left is?

Because if A=B in the first Zed,  and D is cycled around between the Zeds..... then why doesn't C =B as well...... that is, C must equal A. So if C+D = A.... then therefore.... D = 0.
If the two Zeds are the same, and a cycle is being performed, it seems to me that this must be true.


@TK, let us take another look at the Diagram By MT. This is my analysis. Figures quoted are just examples.Losses are ignored.
Let A = 12 units of energy.
B= 12 units.
C=6units-  .These 6 units come from the B above Zed one, leaving 6 units as output.
D= 6units which are added to C to form the total input to Zed Two.
That makes sense to me . Does it make sense to you?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 08:01:04 PM
@MT: Thanks for your drawing, I know how hard "simple" computer graphics can be.  I think you are right about the PE change being equal to the input work, this is as it should be.

However.... you are showing water flowing from one "simple zed" into the other. We've been told several times that this isn't the case in the actual device. The water flows out into an external bag for one zed and each zed has its own bag, and these bags are pressed on, or they press back against, some mechanical/hydraulic leverage system, I think, right?
There must be a reason for this, otherwise the simplification you have shown would have been used in the real device. I don't know what difference it makes but there must be one, and if we keep ignoring the bags in our sims and sketches we might never understand what the bags are actually for.

@Webby: You've described the perfect system for getting actual work in/work out measurements, using your elevated reservoir, going up and down to get the water in and out of your zed and making the load mass rise and sink.

When you repeat the cycle, do you find that you are lifting and lowering the elevated reservoir the same amount each time? (This is an important question, not just from the standpoint of repeatability of a cycle. If there is excess energy being created, or evolved or whatever.... where does it go to, in your system?)

So, if you've got a repeatable setup, and the practice in making it work, you could take some measurements, like I suggested for mondrasek. Load and "prime" your plumbing so that you have a little water left in the elevated reservoir at the end of the input, so you can get a good measurement of the overall quantity being transferred. Then do the cycles, raising and lowering the reservoir to the required height smoothly and quickly, and holding it there until the water is transferred. If we know the amount of water and the heights of the centers of mass of the "slug" of water in the reservoir at the bottom and the top, we can calculate the input work, I think, if I am understanding your arrangement correctly. I think we can neglect the water that remains in the plumbing tube from the elevated reservoir to the zed input port.
So it's as if the reservoir you are raising and lowering is the "bag" and you are providing pressure by manipulating the head height, instead of pressing on the bag with levers, I think, right?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 08:35:57 PM

@TK, let us take another look at the Diagram By MT. This is my analysis. Figures quoted are just examples.Losses are ignored.
Let A = 12 units of energy.
B= 12 units.
C=6units-  .These 6 units come from the B above Zed one, leaving 6 units as output.
D= 6units which are added to C to form the total input to Zed Two.
That makes sense to me . Does it make sense to you?
No, not quite.
Let A = 12 units, fine.
B1 = 12 units, also fine--- until the next step.

C = 6 units.... from the "B above Zed one, leaving 6 as output." so 6 are in C, input to Zed two, and six are in B1, the output, right? So we've input twice the amount of energy units than we get in this Zed's B output, and half of this input energy is actually going over to the second Zed. Right? Half of our input 12 units winds up in B1 and the other half winds up in C, going into Zed two.

D = six units which are added to C..... six units coming from where? Out the side of Zed One? Or from B1, leaving nothing in B1?  Where does this D come from, if not from the "D" that is coming in from the left side, the recycled D from Zed two?

I agree that C+D should equal A. But you are either using the same D to add to C in the second zed that you have input into the first Zed before the cycle, or you are making it from nothing. Or.... it is equal to zero _in this schematic_, which makes more sense to me. In other words, I see no mechanism for any gain in what has been described in this sketch. Not only that, you seem to be left with only six units in B1 unless you add D to them, no matter where D comes from ....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 08, 2012, 08:49:43 PM
Quote
From TK
There must be a reason for this, otherwise the simplification you have shown would have been used in the real device. I don't know what difference it makes but there must be one, and if we keep ignoring the bags in our sims and sketches we might never understand what the bags are actually for.
One good reason for this is a continually over looked principle of the system.
It's frequently stated that once the riser of one ZED has lifted, the cycle is reversed by pressing down on the riser - This is incorrect
It was also discussed just a few pages ago.....
Once the free-flow ends, the process of transferring water from the POD of one ZED to the POD of the other is assisted. VERY important point.
Are there other ways? Sure, but I can't think of an easier one.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 08:57:01 PM
@Webby: I'm really not sure of the importance of the timespan of lifting; I just thought that "instant" would be simpler from a calculation point of view but from a work standpoint it shouldn't make any difference. Until we get into power issues, that is, which is the rate at which work is done, distinct from the quantity of work.
But it sounds like you've got the procedure down, and the skill to do the repeatable measurements.

Running your numbers:

25 g water, 26 inches from rest to lift: input
600 g removable mass, 15/16 inch lift: output

converting to metric,
26 inches x 2.54 cm/inch = 66 cm
and
15/16 inch x 2.54 cm/inch = (15 x 2.54)/16 = 2.4 cm

So input work is proportional to 25 g x 66 cm = 1650 g-cm
and output work is proportional to 600 g x 2.4 cm = 1440 g-cm
for an efficiency of 1440/1650 = 0.87 or 87 percent, a perfectly reasonable figure.


Please check my work, and if I've made any wrong assumptions or errors let me know so I can correct them. And thanks for the clear reporting!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 09:00:34 PM
@Wildew.... you are right mostly I think, but we have been told that there is no water transferred between the Zeds, just force, apparently, between the bags: as one fills the other is squashed, but there isn't any interchange of the actual water.
I think. It would be nice to be clear on this point, especially in the sketches, sims and thought experiments. Sometimes oversimplification can lead one astray.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 08, 2012, 09:03:37 PM
Quote
From MT
It would be indeed interesting, it is also not clear to me how adding layers helps here.
I was going over one of Larry's spreadsheets for the umpteenth time and finally let something sink in that's been mentioned many many times.....
Guess I'm just as guilty as many for not seeing something the first, or second, or third time.
The pressure and lift values for the innermost riser are the highest of the five, WT?
Oh yeah, DUH, being so accustomed to standard hydraulics I just wanted to "see" that the riser with the greatest area would have the greatest lift, CRAP!
What to the other risers accomplish? They provide resistance against the incoming fluid ( frictionless hydraulic cylinder ) so the pressure in that inner-most riser will be the highest. Two forces there too, hydraulic lift from pressure and buoyant lift from displacement.
The other risers DO also contribute to lift from both pressure and buoyancy so all parts are contributing in multiple ways.
No wonder the math guys are having trouble......

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 08, 2012, 09:10:12 PM
Quote
TK I think. It would be nice to be clear on this point, especially in the sketches, sims and thought experiments. Sometimes oversimplification can lead one astray.
Wholeheartedly agreed!
Maybe sketches should show a different colored separation between masses of water there. From thought experiments, a mostly frictionless cylinder of sorts. Energy calcs should also take into account the force required there to stroke. I believe roughly 30 percent of the stroke output from one ZED is applied there to cause the opposite one to stroke.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2012, 09:11:52 PM
@Webby: Now, "lift efficiency" is one thing... but is there any other usable output where excess energy could make an appearance? How about some extra pressure, that could be bled off to a second Zed somehow, like by compressing a bag or helping with a hydraulic assist? It seems to me that this is what the "extra" work claims boil down to, as in the sketches and drawings above.

I don't really see how any excess pressure could be in there at the end or during a cycle, without the creation of excess matter, and I really _really_ hope we aren't going to be claiming that. And I don't see how it could be used without "bleeding it off" somehow, removing it from the system. Otherwise it's just a spring, returning what you put into it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 08, 2012, 09:13:22 PM
@TK. The main question you are asking me, is where does D come from.
After a Zed has lifted, the contents are still under pressure, and the water heads are raised. The "load weight" is then removed from the Zed, leaving sufficient residual weight to cause the Zed to lower its pod and risers. At this point, water under pressure exits the Zed. The energy in this pressurised water is D. So , in a sense a Zed has two outputs, B, and D.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 08, 2012, 10:15:28 PM
Nothing against MT's diagram, as it is easy to understand for most, but Michel (Red_Sunset) diagram has much more detail if you want to understand the Zed Flow.
 
In the first picture Michel's diagram is broken out from the original document for ease of your discussions.
The second picture is the original document sent by Wayne and created by Michel.
The third picture is of the Bag and Lever Arm.
 
The hydraulic cylinder assisting the bags used as Hydraulic pumps is the chosen method used by the Zed engineers. It's location is optimal, but it is not important that bags be used in any simplified diagrams, only that there is a hydraulic pump with hydraulic assist indicated. The purpose of a simplified diagram is to reduce the complexity and increase the understanding. Including the full Bag and Lever Arm setup is contrary to the concept of simplified.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 12:54:05 AM
@TK. The main question you are asking me, is where does D come from.
After a Zed has lifted, the contents are still under pressure, and the water heads are raised. The "load weight" is then removed from the Zed, leaving sufficient residual weight to cause the Zed to lower its pod and risers. At this point, water under pressure exits the Zed. The energy in this pressurised water is D. So , in a sense a Zed has two outputs, B, and D.
Uh huh... and by your explanation, what is left in B is only one half of A, because you have taken D out and moved it to add to C..... So what is left in B and the D add up to the original full B which is equal to A. But you are adding the D from the other Zed to the first B to make up the difference. Doesn't this then remove it from the recirculation cycle? It still seems to me that you are trying to use the same chunk of energy twice somehow, both taking it out from B to use in the other zed but putting it back in _from_ the other zed, and the only way this can happen as you have described it is for extra pressure to come from somewhere. And if the geometry is the same at the beginning and the end, extra pressure can only mean extra mass, extra material.

And you can't just magically "remove" the load weight, can you? Doesn't this "removal" require work input? What is a full cycle if you do not reset back to original positions with everything? You are doing something to "remove" the load weight. Just latch it at the top and let the riser sink away from it? How does it get back down then, do you just drop it?

You still have to explain how you start with one geometry and pressure, go through a cycle and wind back up at that exact same configuration, but with excess pressure. The extra matter has to come from somewhere. You can't have the same geometry with two different pressures, unless there is more compressible matter in one of them. If it is your "D" that you are recirculating, there is no gain there because it comes from the other Zed's B output, by your description. Just like squeezing a partially filled balloon and watching the compressed bubble squirt from one end of the balloon to the other.... it's not going to get any bigger on its own.

----------------------------------

Let me tell you a little story.

Three travellers check into a motel. The newly hired night clerk says "I'm not sure what the rate is for all three in one room; just give me 30 dollars and I'll send the bellhop up with your change."
So each of the travellers gives the clerk a ten dollar bill. So the clerk has collected thirty dollars, and the travellers go to their room and settle in.
Later, when the night clerk has checked, he finds that the room rate is only 25 dollars a night, so he gives the bellhop five ones and sends him to the room to give our travellers their change back. But the bellhop figures, well, there's no way to give five dollars evenly to three people, and they don't know the difference anyway, so he'll just give them one dollar back each... three dollars.... and pocket the two dollars as a tip. So he does that.

Now, each traveller has given out ten dollars and gotten back one. So each of the three travellers has spent nine dollars. Three times nine is 27. And the bellhop has two dollars in his pocket. 27 + 2 = 29. Yet there were thirty dollars to begin with. Where is the other dollar?



The point of this story is that "creative accounting" can be used to clear things up... or to muddy the waters and make you look in the wrong place for your quantities and operations.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 09, 2012, 03:25:11 AM
@Webby1
When M gets back from vacation and I hopefully have a leak free assembly to work with ( man it's hard watching glue dry )
Maybe we could come up with a common cycle reporting method that would make it easier to compare notes / results ?

The "exhaust" is what is driving many questions and is an area I really want to try to measure.

What I'm considering: ( and it sounds like M has done similar )
- System set up and riser weight / input head balanced ( starting point )
- Risers loaded with an additional weight to lift ( and probably held at the starting  point )
- Input head raised X inches by adding a measured amount of water OR lifting the container until the load is lifted to its upper limit.
- Load removed ( in a hydraulic system, a check valve can accomplish this... )
- Bring the input container / head back to the starting point.
- Measure the amount of water than flows back out of the pod chamber and the riser sink distance ( if any - this is the recapture )
- The big question: How far BELOW the starting point does that container need to go before the risers sink...
And how much of the potential of the lifted load will it take to get the input back up to the starting point ?

The question I hope to be able to answer for myself..... soon enough
Dale
 



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 07:19:52 AM
When the risers are at top of lift they are held in place by a full stop, they can not rise any further, thus removing the load does not change the internal charge value of the ZED, this pressure with fluid volume MUST exit the ZED to allow the risers to sink.
Right, no problem, except "removing the load". When the risers hit the top stop... is that what is meant by "removing the load?" Because if the pressure is enough to hold them against the top stop they can't "feel" the load at that point, can they? I mean you could physically remove the load and the riser couldn't tell the difference, as long as the riser doesn't itself move, right?
Anyway, I'm not clear on just what is meant by "removing the load". At first I thought you meant actually reaching out and taking it off physically and moving it somewhere else until the riser is back down, then replacing it. But that can't be the case, because that involves work that has to be accounted for somehow. But now I realise that when the riser is against the top stop it no longer "feels" the load, it's now feeling the stop, so you could think of the load as being removed, even though the equivalent pressure is retained by the stop restricting the riser's motion.
Anyhow, do you mean just taking the load off physically once the riser is at the top stop?

Quote

Why waste the force that was put into the system?

To make the lift energy must be input to the system, I think we agree on this.

When the system is at full lift and the risers are held from rising any further there is still pressure and fluid in the system that was added.

I think this is where things are NOT in agreement.

To not have the pressure and fluid volume trapped within the ZED would mean that it has somehow disappeared into nothing, a clear violation of the laws as we understand them so it must still be there, and it is.

And yet you apparently believe it can be used somewhere else without disappearing or being used up somehow... but ok for now.

Quote

With this left over piece of the input the system can release it and have it do work, that is what is happening but the force left over is not by itself able to make a lift happen on the second ZED, so force is added to that force so that a lift can happen, but the force needed to be added to make the lift is the lift force minus the left over part, less than the initial input.

The first lift, the very first one, is at a total cost of input, then when using the left over force from the lift cycle it reduces the cost to ME but not the cost of lift, it still takes the same amount of force to make the lift, but since some of the force is coming from the first ZED that is a savings to ME.
You cannot actually _use_ that trapped pressure anywhere without discharging it. Think of a compressed spring. You can compress it, let it expand, recompress it, and so on, recycling the same energy back and forth, losing just a tiny bit to heat each time. But to actually USE that stored energy in compression to do something else... like compress a different spring.... some of the compression of the first spring must be "bled off". Transferring it to the other spring gets you nothing though, it just partitions it so that neither spring compresses as far as before.  To use this trapped compression energy for anything other than bouncing back and forth, it has to decrease the energy that is bouncing back and forth.  And your trapped pressure at the top is just like this spring system, only complicated enough to make it unclear.
You can substitute two springs for the zeds in every explanation I've seen so far, springs and levers.  You start with two compression springs, side by side vertically, relaxed and extended. You plop an input weight down on one of them and the spring compresses. When it hits bottom you lock it there with a stop, so it now feels the stop and not the input weight. You then "drop the bottom" out of the first spring with a see-saw lever that is linked to the second spring bottom, which pushes it upwards. So now you have half the compression of the first spring gone over to compress the second spring up half-way. Now it only takes half as much work on top of the second spring to compress it fully. Right? So you do this "assist" and now you "drop the bottom" of the second spring halfway and your lever compresses the bottom of the first spring back up, and now your first spring is fully compressed again.... for free. So now you've removed your first input weight and so when you unlatch the first spring's top it jumps back up to the fully extended position, and you are ready to start the cycle over again... the first spring is reset to start, but the second spring is still half-compressed. So you remove the weight, unlatch it at the top and let it spring up, and you can siphon off the energy from this springing up to turn your generator or better yet, to provide the "assist" to the first spring when it needs it.  And you don't even have to get your hands wet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 07:26:24 AM
@wildew
I think what you are describing is good.

Quote
- The big question: How far BELOW the starting point does that container need to go before the risers sink...
And how much of the potential of the lifted load will it take to get the input back up to the starting point ?
Yes. Could that amount _below_ be considered the "assist" input that's needed to get the risers to sink all the way? Sort of a negative work "input" to the output side?
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 09, 2012, 08:24:07 AM
Dear Tinselkoala,

Your private mail can make a positive contribution to this forum. The reason for posting is that I like the latter part of your mail, way better than the beginning part. That is the positive outlook we need on this forum to take it to the next level.
It is not really different to the math teaser your wrote (the motel with the 3x$10 and the 3x9=27),  post #2029, I enjoyed that one) and that highlites how a reference perspective is so important to understanding. And validation must be done from different angles to confirm the reality or point out the parallax.

Your reference, your viewing angle >> your understanding.
I have been living for a while in the middle of the Middle East, due to the difference of culture and religion, the world is seen here from a totally different angle than when using the reference of culture and religion from the west. From a viewpoint of understanding (different to agreeing), you can not understand the middle east using the West reference or visa versa.

The discussion about the Zed come pretty close to the same, certain members believe very strongly in the gospel laws of thermodynamics, and that is good, because these laws are true. Are they true to the exclusion of everything else is the question here?, in the same way, is one religious exclusively true to the exclusion of all other beliefs or do they all conspire to the same objective and have much more in common than in difference ?  The same can be applied to the political parties, shouldn't both democrats and republicans have the same good well being interests for all citizens at heart. "Belief" has an absoluteness that is polarizing because it encompasses all human feeling, emotions, survival drive, existence ...ect.  in the strongest possible way.

Beliefs instilled at youth (growing/forming time) will influence your views until death, they will always follow you in stronger or weaker forms. By teaching thermodynamics as an absolute doctrine, we do pre-empt unconsciously the possibility of the discovery of solutions,  exceptions or work-arounds that can overcome the conservation laws. That we have not observed exceptions doesn't mean they exist, by believing they CAN NOT exist, we will never observe them. That is pretty much the reaction to Wayne's Zed invention.

The most important teaching of Einstein is the "dimension of perception on how you see things" depends on "the reference position you have/take".  The simple simple Zed has a lot in common with that definition, although you would never say so on face value and by keeping a fixed earthly position you will never see it.

Lets now hypothetically assume that Wayne's invention does not work, no OU. What did we loose by refusing to explore and understand his invention. Quite a lot !,
There is no denying that he came up with some brilliant idea's on how to utilize buoyancy.  The road to the ultimate invention is paved with stepping stones, only the persons how step the steps will reach the gate of revelation. There is no elevator or magic jump you can take to bridge the divide to the solution. You need to master each step to be able to master the next one. Progress takes logical thinking, analysing ..ect this includes building prototypes for verification of correct understanding, there is a reverse path that is harder, longer and more costly, let the prototype teach me the understanding.

My message: 
YOU HAVE NOTHING TOO LOOSE BY POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT.
YOU HAVE EVERYTHING TO GAIN BY POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT.
YOU HAVE MORE TO LOOSE WITH OBJECTIONS "OU CAN NEVER BE", BEFORE ANALYSING AND PRODUCING A STRUCTURED REBUTTAL.
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, TAKE YOUR TIME TO THINK HARDER AND LONGER. (you will be rewarded)

And I think TK, the last part 'yr objective' in your mail confirms the above, do the analysis and you will see. You will not be disappointed even if you disagree

Quote
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com <harti@harti.com> wrote:
    You have just been sent a personal message by TinselKoala on Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com.
    IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.
    The message they sent you was:

    I'd mention, for comparison, not just Steorn, but also the Magnacoaster setup, and the Witts ministry's claims of devices, Michael Brady (Perendev), Szabo's EBM, Joseph Newman, for just a few examples of what MH is talking about. All these people have actual hardware of some kind, they've all been in the "business" for years, some of them have the same kind of testimonials from engineers, the same videos showing working devices, the same kinds of patent applications, or even granted patents. (Of course Brady also has his jail term for his trouble.)  The SKDB "developer's club" of Steorn is mirrored perfectly in MrWayne's case in the groups of people working behind the scenes with extra "knowledge" and promised rewards.
    There is one thing that does distinguish MrWayne's case and that is that he is awarding some money for various tasks. I hate to seem so hard headed, but I really do hope that Webby got the promised money, the check cleared and all that. I don't remember any big announcement or celebration when he received it. And I still think that the offer of ten thousand dollars, for a tabletop demonstrator of completely new physics and the first known large-scale violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, and maybe Newtonian mechanics too..... is a short-sighted and cynical attempt to get something that actually works, nearly for free... because MrWayne doesn't actually have anything that does what it says on the box, yet. Does he?

    What's my objective? I really REALLY want to see something different, that does work, that does solve energy problems, that does advance science and our understanding of reality. Wasting time and creativity on projects that have no hope of working, that may be the product of an idee fixe or a shared delusion -- or worse -- is contrary to that objective, and I hate to see intelligent and creative people doing it. Meanwhile, I keep looking, and I'm astounded by the patterns I see.
    Cheers--- and thanks MH for staying interested enough to keep in the mix.
    --TK
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 09, 2012, 08:52:31 AM
@Webby: Now, "lift efficiency" is one thing... but is there any other usable output where excess energy could make an appearance? How about some extra pressure, that could be bled off to a second Zed somehow, like by compressing a bag or helping with a hydraulic assist? It seems to me that this is what the "extra" work claims boil down to, as in the sketches and drawings above.

Webby, Tinselkoala,

I shouldn't any longer be here, but seeing what is unfolding is too frustrating to watch and to let it go on unchecked.
If you carry on this way, you will be building, discovering something totally new, that could be better than the Zed, quite possible.

But if you want to discover the Zed ?
Follow the telltales that Wayne left on this forum, you will discover all the detail.
Wayne NEVER lied or tried to deceive, he was truthful in what he disclosed. It might initially appear like Nostradamus writing but answers to emailed questions always made me say, oooh yes, I remember you mentioned this before in the forum.
For understanding, question everything what is disclosed with, "why" "where" "how" "what for"

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 09, 2012, 09:13:19 AM
........................................... I'm bit stuck in calculating work done for injection of water from bottom.
Marcel

Marcel,
It purely depends in what units you want to work.  I like simplicity,
I see metric as the easiest water since water was the reference unit for the weight system/volume system.

Weight and volume units,  1000cm3=1dcm3=1ltr=1kg
Distance expressed in "meters"
Pressure expressed in height 1psi= 70cm = 0.7 Mtrs   (example 8psi = head of 5.6 mtrs)
Energy expressed in "KgMtrs"

The energy required to deliver 10ltrs (10kg) water @ 5psi = 10 x (5 x .7)= 35KgMtrs,  The pressure injection of these 10ltrs of water @ 5psi, is the same as taking these 10ltrs of water to a height of 3.5 mtrs.  Visualize it like what Webby did by using a long vertical tube to generate pressure instead of using a pump.

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: polln8r on September 09, 2012, 09:47:04 AM
If you carry on this way, you will be building, discovering something totally new, that could be better than the Zed, quite possible.
Concept Twist:

Bessler Wheel using little ZedS that reset themselves as they rotate around; using the Travis effect to shift the masses. You'd have to have pairs of them at each point, or perhaps some sort of two-way double-Zed.

polln8r
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 09, 2012, 09:59:46 AM
Concept Twist:
Bessler Wheel using little ZedS that reset themselves as they rotate around; using the Travis effect to shift the masses. You'd have to have pairs of them at each point, or perhaps some sort of two-way double-Zed.
polln8r

You bet, the fat lady hasn't sang yet on this ZED concept, no matter what has been said to the contrary.
The doors are still wide open, the Grand Opera is to begin......
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ionizer on September 09, 2012, 10:35:09 AM
The fat lady didn't sing in 130+ pages i wonder if she can sing at all.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 09, 2012, 01:11:43 PM
The fat lady didn't sing in 130+ pages i wonder if she can sing at all.

I wonder too, It looks you are confused who is going to be the singer here on this forum. 
She came on stage but she was booo...oo off the stage.  She is now only pointing you in the direction of the song.
If you like to the hear the song, you better start singing.

She has booked a new venue for her performance, singing she will, do not doubt it

Today, after more than 2 months, I had again a look at Wayne's early disclosures in this forum. I was so surprised to the details released and surprised that it took me that long at the time to see his point. He was to my surprise more than clear in conveying the working and principle of the Zed. The full solution description is there, go back and extract all Wayne's posts (only his) and read them sequentially. Time clarifies your mind.

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 09, 2012, 01:32:04 PM
@TK. REMOVAL OF THE LOAD.
 As you know I am not the worlds greatest mathematician, but sometimes I do have a sort of intuitive grasp of concepts, and the ability to explain it to others. I have talked about this before.
  Imagine I show you a black box overunity machine. During a complete cycle it lifts a load weight 1 inch, and then lowers it back down again. To me it would seem that all I have done is given that load weight additional potential energy, and then wasted or extracted that potential energy. Net output = zero.


Now I show you a different machine. It also lifts a weight 1 inch. The weight is then moved sideways at low or zero cost, and the platform descends to its start point. Then I roll another weight sideways onto the platform. So after a number of cycles we have lifted a number of weights onto a shelf that is 1 inch higher than the "Weight storage shelf." Work has obviously been done.


In Wayne`s machine, the Zeds are not used to lift weights, but to compress production rams, which are hydraulic rams used as pumps. On the upstroke the Zed feels the weight of the resistance of these rams, as fluid is forced into a high pressure hydraulic accumulator.
As the Zed moves down, tthere is little if any resistance from the ram, as it sucks low pressure fluid from the reservoir to refill itself. We have effectively removed the "weight" or resistance.
Make sense to you?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 04:32:09 PM
@neptune: Sure, what you've said makes sense, but it's not equivalent to what's going on here, is it. In your first machine, you are taking the output out of the system and storing it in your elevated weights. I think you will agree that a continuing input of energy is required in this case, since you are not recycling anything, just lifting and storing weights, and there's no magic in a simple hydraulic lift. The elevated weights each have their PE increased by exactly the amount of elevation, each time, right?

In the second, MrWayne, machine you are keeping the "output" in the system, and it's equivalent to your "zeroeth" case: up, and down, just split into two, antiphase portions each half as high. There is still no mechanism for extra work or energy to enter the system, and only losses as "output" so the system will quickly stop, just like a bouncing ball does ...unless, just as in the first case, you supply it with energy from outside on a continuing basis. Each cycle still has only the PE it started out with and splitting part of it off to "help" the other Zed only reduces the "output" of the first Zed by the same amount, and you are still doing the same thing as in the "zeroeth" case, just bouncing a ball.

Just like my spring system described above. Nobody has commented on that one.... yet it "seems" to be just as overunity, just as free work producing, as the twin Zed system.... and for the same reasons, using part of the "output" of one spring to "assist" the compression of the other.

And nobody has jumped in with an explanation of where the missing dollar went in the Whirling Dervish Motel example yet either. I figured people would be all over that one, which shows how misdirection and complex accounting can lead to false conclusions, even when it's clear where all the input numbers come from.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
I see that Red_Sunset has reproduced one of my responses to one of the sets of PMs circulating in the "back channel" of this thread. And he appears to be commending my last paragraph. OK, let me expand a bit.

I, for one, would be _ecstatic_ if anyone could prove me, and the other skeptics, to be wrong about things like MrWayne's violation of the laws of thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics. Do you think it pleases me to see people wasting their time, misdirecting other creative people, giving false hopes and spinning their wheels? No, it does not.

It would be the best thing in the world, changing just about every aspect of life, causing a great revolution in science, for MrWayne, for example, to be proven correct and his system developed to its full potential. You might even wind up with a tiny twin TinselSpringZed powering your cellphone, who knows. I certainly wouldn't tuck my tail under my belly and climb a tree in shame, I'd be running to my nearest real laboratory to get in on the ground floor of the real science revolution it would cause.

But what would the reaction be, from the _believers_, if it could be shown that MrWayne is mistaken somehow, that his system doesn't work and really _really_ cannot work, as some of us "know" is the case already. Would they just shrug their shoulders, accept the facts and move on? Or would they be terribly disappointed, denying that they have been refuted, clinging to the fixed idea that drove them in their delusions in the first place, making new improved versions (that still don't work) and slinging sacks of stink at the skeptics?

Here's something else that Mile High had to post by PM, since he's not allowed to post here and is on so many ignore lists, just like I am:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY_kd46RfVE
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: vince on September 09, 2012, 04:56:20 PM
@TK

3 men Pay $10 each for $30 room
Room only costs $25
Room attendant give each man back $1 so they only have paid $9 each
Room attendant pockets $2
3 times $9 = $27, minus $2 kept by attendant = $25, which is cost of room

Your right, it all depends on how you look at things

Vince
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 09, 2012, 05:22:01 PM
Since Vince beat me to the $$ exchange I'll expand a little on Neptune's example.
First, to show that things can even be looked at correctly in many ways, back to the money...
The hotel had $25, the bell hop had $2 and each of the travelers had $1 - 25+2+1+1+1=30
Same thing said slightly different.

Netune's example: Instead of lifting one weight, lift 6 smaller ones. And lets pretend that part of the system reset involves pushing down on a plunger that is at the same height as the output at that part of the cycle. 6 weights go up 1 inch - 4 are rolled away from the system as output. 2 are rolled on the plunger and descend back to the starting point. (  and yes, as part of the lift cycle, that imaginary plunger, without weight on it, raises back up... )

Final note: Yes, if this whole project ends up being proven wrong and the fallacy exposed, I will take my model and place it on a shelf as a reminder to not be fooled so easily next time..... and move on with no regrets.
Dale 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 09, 2012, 06:00:35 PM
TK.You provided a link from MH to a youtube video, which he posted on the back channel. You did not post my response to it, so I will paraphrase it here.


The video tells the story of A woman doctor, Alice Stephens who developed a theory that childhood cancers could result from X-rays in pregnant women,
. This flew in the face of Received Wisdom. She enlisted a sceptic collegue to prove her theory wrong .He failed to do so and in time [20 years] her theory was accepted as fact. Very interesting, but I could not see the relevance to this thread.


Then I remembered this guy who lived in Chickasha Oklahoma USA. I forget his name, but he had a theory that flew in the face of Received Wisdom. He enlisted sceptics, to prove him wrong, but they could not do so. Are we seeing a pattern here?


When discussing my examples, you compare the Zed to a hydraulic lift. You are partly right.But this is a hydraulic lift that can be 100% efficient , and still have usable energy within it at the top of the stroke. This energy does not need to be used to complete the cycle.
 
What would be my attitude if mrwayne was proved wrong? I would be disappointed, yes. I do not discount the possibility that he could be wrong. Right now, based on evidence from all sources, I believe he is right. My attitude is to give it a year from now.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 08:04:38 PM
@webby: So how come when I ran your last set of numbers I got a perfectly ordinary COP of around 85 percent or so? Is there enough "extra" there to assist another Zed, also 85 percent itself, and wind up with OU?  You are robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and vice versa, and there is still no mechanism for gain evident to me, and the actual numbers I'm seeing sure don't support Red_Sunset's embarrassingly large OU... in fact they seem perfectly ordinary, as I've said.

I'd still like to see data from the simple, three layer system that, according to MrWayne, is clearly overunity by itself, no second Zed needed apparently. We've never had a full description of this "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (MrWayne's exact words).... so I'm guessing "simple" and "by itself" mean that it's a single Zed, like yours, but with only three layers. If this is clearly OU by itself.... then why isn't yours? And.... how was the clear overunity determined for that simple system that is clearly overunity by itself? What is the ratio of input work to output work for that simple system, clearly OU by itself?
Knowing that would be helpful, don't you think?

Look... it's been weeks now since we've been discussing this. I am absolutely certain that I myself could have ordered plastic tubes, received them, cut, polished, plumbed and assembled them into a double Zed system by now, with bags and levers and everything, and made measurements on it, in that time. I mean, in that same time I've built the several different versions of the self-powered tabletop waterpump incorporating the TinselZed in a functional way; I've done underwater wireless electrolysis for buoyancy control; and I've debunked a couple of electromagnetic hoax demonstrations, in addition to doing several other demonstrations, as well as monitoring this thread and fielding time-consuming questions and proposals from mysterious lurkers who are watching this thread without ever posting in it. The only reason I haven't done the "full Monty" on this system myself in that time is because I'm flat broke, and I don't believe that accuracy and repeatability can be obtained with free garbage materials, although I am impressed with your results and Mondrasek's build. (And I know that my results, if negative, likely would not be accepted anyway.)

The point I am trying to make here is this: if it's so easy, and the math sims indicate such large OU results, like the (corrected) value from Red_Sunset's last model..... and the actual device is so simple to construct, compared to something like, say, a double Scotch Yoke air motor that runs on 2 psi or even a Mondrasek wheel .....  where are the sausages? By now there should be a few complete systems returning real data that show positive OU results. But yours is the only and best one so far.... and the results are ordinary, not earthshaking, and the better the measurements get (over the two sets... heh....please do more) the less efficiency is indicated (from 102 percent or so the first set, to 85 percent or so for the latest set.)

My hypothetical spring model used, as far as I could make it, the same sequence of events and the same partitioning of "output" and "assist" as the explanations I have been given for the Zed system. Even a see-saw lever. So why isn't it expected to be OU too?

I expect to hear about results from the builders.... soon. In fact I am wondering why we haven't been hearing more results. How long does it take for glue to dry, anyway? Perhaps there are results..... but perhaps they are not "good" enough to share publicly, although I'm sure that PMs have been flying in the back-channel.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 08:14:45 PM
Quote
By claim of this invention it does not fit within the standard model, and your spring analogy is standard model so either it does not work as an analogy or is not complete, and it is the not complete part that we are all trying to fill in.

Many people believe in what is sometimes called "Ibison's Principle"... which is that a "standard model", like circuit sims, physics sims, analyses using conventional assumptions about CofE and CofMomentum, magnetic field software,  and so on, can _never_ actually model or validate a true "overunity" or free energy system... because they are based, from the beginning, on the assumption that the fundamental laws can't be violated.

I think I am one of these people, and that is why I don't trust spreadsheets or mathematical models, or even traditional engineering statics-dynamics modelling based on Newtonian mechanics, when applied to alleged OU systems.  Invariably, when such models or sims report OU or some such anomalous results, it is found that there are errors in assumptions, input data or the sim's own internal calculations. Conversely, the sim might report ordinary behaviour when a real system could be "in fact" OU.  Since the numbers, run on ordinary methodology for finding work and energy, seem to indicate no OU in your small model, yet OU is claimed for the overall system... clearly something is wrong somewhere. So... show me the sausages. Where is the self-running, tabletop demonstrator? Is it that the skills of the replicator teams just aren't up to the task of gluing a bunch of plastic tubes together? Too busy with family and household chores to work on Water 2.0, which might even solve the riddle of how the Pyramids were built? Maybe mondrasek can give them some tips when he returns from vacation.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on September 09, 2012, 09:05:19 PM
TinselKoala,
because it's clearly bullshit and does not work, that's why.
its been weeks, lol expect months, possibles years if they don't disappear by then like the others...
this is why non-open source free energy technologies should not be considered if you want to replicate or even just know how it works inside and out.
because 99% of the time you will end up with something like this thread, pure shit!
sorry i've just seen this way too many times. i have zero tolerance and patience for non-open source free energy technologies claims.
look we are not getting any younger and time is just flying by, i hope at least one open source free energy technology will make it to the general public before i die, all we need is one anyway, one that is not so expensive or complex to make, one that can at least power a small home. until that happens we are left with this kind of crap.
and if i ever discover a way to produce true free energy i will post here and all over the internet immediately!
free energy technologies will never commercialized, at least not under current corrupt governments ruining the world.
the zed will never go commercial, remember this!
man this is frustrating...
going to sleep now. try to anyway.

have a day day people!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 09, 2012, 09:11:29 PM
Many people believe in what is sometimes called "Ibison's Principle"... which is that a "standard model", like circuit sims, physics sims, analyses using conventional assumptions about CofE and CofMomentum, magnetic field software,  and so on, can _never_ actually model or validate a true "overunity" or free energy system... because they are based, from the beginning, on the assumption that the fundamental laws can't be violated.

I think I am one of these people, and that is why I don't trust spreadsheets or mathematical models, or even traditional engineering statics-dynamics modelling based on Newtonian mechanics, when applied to alleged OU systems.  Invariably, when such models or sims report OU or some such anomalous results, it is found that there are errors in assumptions, input data or the sim's own internal calculations. Conversely, the sim might report ordinary behaviour when a real system could be "in fact" OU...
TK,

The beauty of a sim, once verified against a model or three, is that dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of combinations can be explored in the build space.  This can be done at a tiny fraction of the time and expense of actual models.  The best case scenarios can be found which allow a targeted build with the best chance of success.  A sim can also be replicated at a fraction of the cost of a good model, so many parallel explorations can take place by different people.  The downside of a sim (as I well know), is that it can take an order of magnitude more time to initially create than building one model.

What a shame if it were falsely proven to not work because of a bad design point in the model.  And what a shame if it were pursued after a model failure, because there were doubts about having picked the right dimensional ratios.  I believe a sim is the shortcut to discovering the truth of the matter. 

I have put considerable time into this sim direction because I believe it is the best course, but it has to be augmented by a few real models being built to verify it.

This is where we can all be in agreement:  We all want the indisputable truth, so that our future efforts will be in a fruitful direction.  Working constructively together is the best way to get there.  Even if this particular device is a failure, the collaborative working relationships and learning can be worth the efforts that went into the discovery of the truth.  A lot of efforts and millions of dollars are put into college projects around the world that find nothing new, but hone the skills of the student.  They are not considered a waste of time.

It is the negative attitudes of some who think it is their misson to save the world from bad ideas that would shut down this dream that motivates many to learn new skills.  The road to success is often strewn with many failures, correction, "learning experiences". 

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 09, 2012, 09:58:38 PM

Marcel,

It purely depends in what units you want to work.  I like simplicity, I see metric as the easiest water since water was the reference unit for the weight system/volume system.

Weight and volume units,  1000cm3=1dcm3=1ltr=1kg
Distance expressed in "meters"
Pressure expressed in height 1psi= 70cm = 0.7 Mtrs   (example 8psi = head of 5.6 mtrs)
Energy expressed in "KgMtrs"

The energy required to deliver 10ltrs (10kg) water @ 5psi = 10 x (5 x .7)= 35KgMtrs,  The pressure injection of these 10ltrs of water @ 5psi, is the same as taking these 10ltrs of water to a height of 3.5 mtrs.  Visualize it like what Webby did by using a long vertical tube to generate pressure instead of using a pump.

Michel


Marcel .. what Red proposes is technically correct, @ 5 PSI.

Basically it can be analysed two ways.

1. what is the energy of 10 kgs dropped free fall for 3.5 meters i.e. mgh, which equals the PE of 10 kgs at 3.5 meters.

In this instance we imagine the water entering the bottom of the ZED chamber - then all we have to know is that the water content will rise height 'h' by area 'A' - so without losses the PE of 10 kgs will exactly equal the raised PE of the vessel.

2. the second way is to use Bernoulli's fluid equations - what these say, paraphrased, is that the same packet/volume of water dropped from the same height of 3.5 meters will have kinetic energy of 1/2mv^2 = mgh or 1/2pVv^2 = pVgh.

The thought experiment that goes with this is a packet of water dropping from a height of 3.5 meters will have so much KE & that is the same energy as required for it to enter the chamber against the water pressure & 5 PSI - this is why you can calculate the horizontal distance a jet of water shoots from a ruptured tank if you have a large surface area & know the height, because both have the same KE & you can calculate the velocity by reducing mgh = 1/2mv^2 to v = sqrt2gh.

What does all this mean in the context of the ZED & Red's helpful hints ?

That the ZED by design requires a volume of water to be squeezed up the sides of the Pod/Riser so a lot less volume creates a larger pressure head [ P =pgh ] - that means our normal mgh calcs aren't so useful - what you have to consider is that as you raise the 'h' by injecting fluid you increase pgh = P which also has to be overcome with force x distance - so you chase your tail - you inject fluid & the PSI increases, you inject some more & the PSI increases some more - and because you are squeezing it around the Pod/Riser [less volume for more head] the PSI at entry point increases rapidly - this has to be overcome.

The upshot IINM is that you have to keep lifting the input height of the 10 liters of water higher & higher than the 3.5 meters to get a stroke completed [ i.e. more energy required ] - IMO, the only way to determine the input energy is f x d taken by experiments to see the true relationship - this will also account for any viscous & drag losses without complex equations.

Just my opinions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on September 09, 2012, 10:11:36 PM
I watched the video that TK re-posted from Mile High. It is a testiment to determination and having the proper balance/diversity of thoughts to challenge but not stifle, and support but not worship.

It also reminds me of one of my friends - Wayne. He might have been a little crazy suggesting that he could make energy. We all know what happens in most of these stories. So he hired a professional mechanical engineer from a local electric co-op to prove himself wrong. The engineer's job was to prove the energy device did NOT work.  The engineer probably thought he would politely watch, explain some basic physics, collect his fee and be home in time for dinner. He was sure that with science on his side that the device could easily be disproved. Instead, they argued and argued. Did Wayne fire him for arguing or disagreeing with him. No. And so they continued to argue.

The engineer is Kevan Riley. I have met him. Wayne and Kevan are indeed the "Odd Couple" (old US TV show). In fact I understand they still argue and call each other stubborn as they continue to develop the ZED today.

Wayne then decided that in addition to a local expert he would try to get the best international expert/skeptic on Free Energy he could find, to prove that his concept and machine did NOT work. He contacted Mark in Australia and offered to fly him over to the US and examine his machine. After several visits the skeptic declared " I am totally convinced that the device self runs and produces excess power."

At that point Wayne opened up his device to doubters or supporters across the world to come see his invention. If you traveled to Chickasha and signed the NDA, he would give you a review of the IP and the machine.

Then into the internet forums... 

Inviting challenge is a strength that I have seen Wayne embrace.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 09, 2012, 10:52:09 PM
@Greenhiker. Nice review of that video. I said much the same thing, but you were better able to explain its relevance by referring to people you know and have met. I was amazed that Milehigh drew our attention to it. He seems to have drawn different conclusions from it than you or I.
       When it comes to moving forward with experiments, we all play our part using whatever skills and experience we have.I would not know a sim if it jumped up and bit me. But I can see that See3d is right in all that he is saying, and that sims are the answer for optimisation. At the moment I am spending a little time using primitive tools and recycled materials. I am just experimenting to see what would work and what would not as regards construction. At least I am learning. I have little money but lots of time, so it keeps me busy and occupied if nothing else.
      Respect to the pioneers like Webby and Mondrasek. If they succeed then it will motivate others to spend time and money.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 11:01:21 PM
@see3d: No argument from me; sims, like any other tool, are useful for what they are designed for. And like many tools they can also be "bent" into different service, like using your knife for a screwdriver.
I'd also like to point out that I myself very rarely tell people that they should not bother even building or trying their ideas.... although if they are old and moldy and unoriginal as rotten cheese I will sometimes try to do so. Far more often I might say that the idea won't work but the inventor should definitely build it, if only in order to _prove me wrong_. In fact I've issued that very challenge several times in this forum before.... and I don't believe anyone has done it yet. Let's hope webby or mondrasek or someone else will come up with actual numbers from a working model that will finally prove me (and, incidentally, all thermodynamics textbooks) wrong, and we can all retire and go home and watch the revolution on the internet. ETA: And, of course, let's hope that the plastic model's behaviour can be simulated or modelled in the spreadsheet.

@GreenHiker: The last I heard from or about Mark Dansie was that he was NOT totally convinced " yet ". I can't speak for him, but after all, he was supposed to be doing another site visit with "reinforcements" and that visit had to be postponed indefinitely because some new problem kept... and I believe is still keeping.... the device from running itself for more than 4 hours... the longest reported run that I am aware of. I don't think he'd be bothering with all that, nor experiencing this delay if he were bothering with it, if he were totally convinced as you allege. So it appears that your set of "facts" and mine are at variance. Of course, we know which set I'm going to be believing, until I'm given some evidence to the contrary. For example, I understand that site visitors get the whole, confusing spiel, certainly... but do they get to see a machine run itself overnight?

@Webby: I have already said how impressed I am with your build and your cooperative attitude. Like mondrasek says, my humor is an acquired taste and many people just don't get it or have enough patience to deal with it. You seem to be holding up well, thanks for that.
I wouldn't worry about the minor flaws you have listed, as long as you can get repeatable results. This is why it's important to do a number of runs, say 20 or so,  under the exact same conditions, so that simple statistics can be run on the collected results. If we can get a low variance (technically a small standard deviation with respect to the value of the mean) that will mean that you and your device are performing consistently and reliably. If that can be assured, then systematic sources of constant error can be tracked down and eliminated, or even compensated for mathematically and left in place.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2012, 11:09:43 PM
 
Quote
my number 3 riser likes to suddenly shift over to one side and get stuck, even with the other risers off it does not move back very easily,,, that is a strange thing but it happens.
Actually, this is the behaviour I expect with small gaps and no mechanical separation/alignment system, and this is why I have been suspicious of the "self-centering" that has been claimed. I'd like to see that self-centering demonstrated by itself somehow, since I think surface tension and capillary effect will do what you have described: reduce the gap on one side until the cylinders are touching, and keep it there.

It could also be a result of having the center of mass of the riser above its center of pressure, making it unstable when "upright" so that it wants to tip over and stay tipped over, once it's high enough. You could try reducing the weight of the top somehow and moving the weight to the bottom skirt, keeping the same weight and volume overall.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 10, 2012, 12:04:01 AM
Marcel .. what Red proposes is technically correct, @ 5 PSI.

Basically it can be analysed two ways.

1. what is the energy of 10 kgs dropped free fall for 3.5 meters i.e. mgh, which equals the PE of 10 kgs at 3.5 meters.

In this instance we imagine the water entering the bottom of the ZED chamber - then all we have to know is that the water content will rise height 'h' by area 'A' - so without losses the PE of 10 kgs will exactly equal the raised PE of the vessel.

2. the second way is to use Bernoulli's fluid equations - what these say, paraphrased, is that the same packet/volume of water dropped from the same height of 3.5 meters will have kinetic energy of 1/2mv^2 = mgh or 1/2pVv^2 = pVgh.

The thought experiment that goes with this is a packet of water dropping from a height of 3.5 meters will have so much KE & that is the same energy as required for it to enter the chamber against the water pressure & 5 PSI - this is why you can calculate the horizontal distance a jet of water shoots from a ruptured tank if you have a large surface area & know the height, because both have the same KE & you can calculate the velocity by reducing mgh = 1/2mv^2 to v = sqrt2gh.

What does all this mean in the context of the ZED & Red's helpful hints ?

That the ZED by design requires a volume of water to be squeezed up the sides of the Pod/Riser so a lot less volume creates a larger pressure head [ P =pgh ] - that means our normal mgh calcs aren't so useful - what you have to consider is that as you raise the 'h' by injecting fluid you increase pgh = P which also has to be overcome with force x distance - so you chase your tail - you inject fluid & the PSI increases, you inject some more & the PSI increases some more - and because you are squeezing it around the Pod/Riser [less volume for more head] the PSI at entry point increases rapidly - this has to be overcome.

The upshot IINM is that you have to keep lifting the input height of the 10 liters of water higher & higher than the 3.5 meters to get a stroke completed [ i.e. more energy required ] - IMO, the only way to determine the input energy is f x d taken by experiments to see the true relationship - this will also account for any viscous & drag losses without complex equations.

Just my opinions.
Hi,
Should say I'm overwhelmed by number of posts in last 1.5 day. Had couple of hours time today available but used much of it to just follow what others are saying. Yeah it was nice sunny day in nederland, here you better use or you sit another 2months inside.

I'll be short, day is nearing end

@webby1, TK
thanks for posting numbers so TK calculated 85%. After work done with such 85% efficiency, there is still water in risers. Can you guess how much work you can get out of it?
You also posted some indications how pressures behave under 1, 2, 3 or 4 risers. If I remember correctly you mentioned pressures increases with each added riser. This would suggest more work can be done with same input. I need to reread your post ...

@TK
Man, you can speak a lot  :)  About your post about springs, just scanned it, will read it again. For me is spring (sort of accumulator) similar to lever with a weight on one side. ZED is different. If you have a can with archimedes pod in it. You add water doing work, pod rises doing work but water is not spent and it can still flow out and do work D. You  may say this extra work D is just energy not spent in rising pod, hopefully calculations show how it is.

@TK, neptune
There was discussion about the ABCD diagram, it is just ideal case. Neptune looking at it as I do from ZED point of view, TK from logical where it I agree it does not make sense. In reality I think 100% cannot be achieved as there are losses. Losses make B smaller. Can that smaller B than finish fillup C of second ZED? I think they achieved it.

@Michel, fletcher
Thank you for response. So you are saying I can use PE to calculate work done to get water in at bottom. So I'll show what my problem is. See attached picture.

PE in precharge step is (4+3+2+1) * 2 = 20
PE after rise (5+4+3+2+1)*2 + 20*1 = 30 + 20 = 50

Now since pod is displacing 80l of water from precharge to end of stroke, it can raise 80kg (ok in reality should be something 79.99kg but lets think ideal) over 10cm=0.1m , work done 80.
Ein = 50
Eout = 80 ? WTF (hope you are not offended by use of this word)

Cycle can be repeated by just draining water which causes pod to fall down.

I hope you see my problem? I'm getting OU in just a simple pod experiment but there is something not correct, it is just too good to be true. I do not see what. Probably something as in the TK story about the night clerk.

respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 10, 2012, 12:46:01 AM
MT .. I suggest you throw your weight in behind Dennis & help him calibrate his sim for a one riser pod initially.

He is correct - when his sim is a reliable predictor of ACTUAL behaviour then it is a very flexible & powerful tool, just like any other bench top tool.

Then he will be able to sim multi-layer riser pods & you can find out a glance what your true inputs & outputs are because the inputs will be fields that have to be entered - the outputs will be self generated.

P.S. part of building a sim is the very laborious task of putting in the correct formula's & interpreting & implementing them correctly.

This can only be tested by debugging the sim i.e. logic testing it for variance from a real world counterpart, or preferably a number of real world counterparts.

P.S. TK had the idea of using a simple lever to find f x d - this can also apply to using a hydraulic lift or modifying the see-saw approach by using a Pearcellier linkage to turn a curved path into a straight path but this is more complex in some ways.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 10, 2012, 01:50:59 AM

MT .. I suggest you throw your weight in behind Dennis & help him calibrate his sim for a one riser pod initially.

He is correct - when his sim is a reliable predictor of ACTUAL behaviour then it is a very flexible & powerful tool, just like any other bench top tool.

Then he will be able to sim multi-layer riser pods & you can find out a glance what your true inputs & outputs are because the inputs will be fields that have to be entered - the outputs will be self generated.

P.S. part of building a sim is the very laborious task of putting in the correct formula's & interpreting & implementing them correctly.

This can only be tested by debugging the sim i.e. logic testing it for variance from a real world counterpart, or preferably a number of real world counterparts.

P.S. TK had the idea of using a simple lever to find f x d - this can also apply to using a hydraulic lift or modifying the see-saw approach by using a Pearcellier linkage to turn a curved path into a straight path but this is more complex in some ways.


Perhaps the simplest way to measure the input accurately is to use a Roberval Balance - the weights in the diagram replaced with simple sliding mechs so that the pressure point on the bottom of the ZED does not change.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 10, 2012, 04:04:27 AM
Hopefully this doesn't get buried on the bottom of a page -- maybe one of the numbers guys can help me out a bit.
I've had a bit of an issue with raising / lowering a cylinder for the input because of the volume transfer involved and experienced it as expected today doing my first setup tests with one riser.

OH - and after 1 day of cure time I had a major leak, cleaned it up, reapplied RTV and gave it 2 days - now; on to testing just 1 riser after 3 days ....

Simplified: Take 2 containers with a hose connected to the bottom of each - just simple open top containers.
Make it easy, 1 has half the area of the other and the empty container weights are also 1 unit and 2
Container 1 weighs .5 lb and has a volume of 1 cup per inch of height
Container 2 weighs 1 lb and has a volume of 1 pint per inch of height
They are both 6" tall and are half full, sitting on a flat surface with a tube from the bottom center of one to the other.
Raise the smaller container 2 inches, how much "work" was done ?

Honest question, would love some feedback
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on September 10, 2012, 04:11:42 AM
@GreenHiker: The last I heard from or about Mark Dansie was that he was NOT totally convinced " yet ". I can't speak for him, but after all, he was supposed to be doing another site visit with "reinforcements" and that visit had to be postponed indefinitely because some new problem kept... and I believe is still keeping.... the device from running itself for more than 4 hours... the longest reported run that I am aware of. I don't think he'd be bothering with all that, nor experiencing this delay if he were bothering with it, if he were totally convinced as you allege. So it appears that your set of "facts" and mine are at variance. Of course, we know which set I'm going to be believing, until I'm given some evidence to the contrary. For example, I understand that site visitors get the whole, confusing spiel, certainly... but do they get to see a machine run itself overnight?

TK -
I don't pretend to speak for Mark either. That quote was from Mark's statement on Wayne's homepage. (It was the quickest quote for me to find.) I believe he has said he will not "certify" it until after the two day run.
I don't think our facts are at odds. Wayne said on his site that Mark was tired of the delays. Everyone including me wants to see Mark certify it ASAP.

I don't speak for Wayne either, but from the "Current Objectives" posts on his website, I don't believe Wayne's goal was to get a self runner to the public in the shortest amount of time possible. For a number of weeks on Wayne's updates, the sub-title was something to the effect of building partnerships. One could assume that his efforts were being divided at that point between building his team and developing the Data Model. At present though, there are 4 independent groups in the challenge, plus the experimenters (Mond, Webby et al?), as well as Wayne's tabletop unit team (Kevan and Matthew) and the Data Model team working to get longer runs. Last month we had one horse in the race, now we've got 6 or more. I am optimistic that we all will have answers soon.

Tom
   

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 11:15:59 AM
Hopefully this doesn't get buried on the bottom of a page -- maybe one of the numbers guys can help me out a bit.
I've had a bit of an issue with raising / lowering a cylinder for the input because of the volume transfer involved and experienced it as expected today doing my first setup tests with one riser.

OH - and after 1 day of cure time I had a major leak, cleaned it up, reapplied RTV and gave it 2 days - now; on to testing just 1 riser after 3 days ....

Simplified: Take 2 containers with a hose connected to the bottom of each - just simple open top containers.
Make it easy, 1 has half the area of the other and the empty container weights are also 1 unit and 2
Container 1 weighs .5 lb and has a volume of 1 cup per inch of height
Container 2 weighs 1 lb and has a volume of 1 pint per inch of height
They are both 6" tall and are half full, sitting on a flat surface with a tube from the bottom center of one to the other.
Raise the smaller container 2 inches, how much "work" was done ?

Honest question, would love some feedback
Dale

It's an interesting problem. At first I thought you had discovered overunity already.

Here's how I reasoned. I use the 2-dimensional side-view simplification and the fact that the water levels in the two vessels should be the equal after the lift, since water "seeks its own level".

You have the mass of lifted water and the mass of the lifted vessel. Is this right? Are you saying that the vessel weighs 0.5 pounds and the water in it also weighs a pound a pint, or are you assuming the vessels are weightless? ETA: I see that the vessels have the weights 0.5 and 1.0 pound, separate from the weight of the water, right?

And the total volume of water is conserved, and Potential Energy is mgh, where g is the force due to gravity, a constant, and so can be neglected during the calculation and put back in when we need real units. So let's just call the PE equal to mh, the mass times the height, and look at the change in PE, which is equivalent to work.

And the mass of the slugs of water in the vessels can be considered to be at the height of the center of mass of the slugs for the PE calculation, and the water in the connecting tube can be ignored.

OK so far?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 11:45:38 AM
Anyway, using the assumptions I made  in the 2-d model, I get 51.4 ounce-inches, or 3.21 pound-inches total work input. It turns out that the water in the lifted container has the same PE at the end as at the beginning so you are just lifting the container's weight here, and lifting the water in the other chamber. The water's PE in the other chamber is increased. So it might "look like" you are lifting the water that is still in the first container for free.

For the container you've lifted 8 ounces 2 inches, for 16 oz-in input work
For the water, the work is found by PE final - PE initial (neglecting the "g" term)
For the lifted chamber the PE  initial is 24 oz x 1.5 inch = 36 oz-inch and PE final is 13.3 oz x 2.7 inch = 36 oz inch, roughly, for a net change of zero
For the non-lifted chamber the PE initial is 48 oz x 1.5 inch = 72 oz-inch and PE final is 58.7 oz x 1.83 inch = 107.4 oz-inch for a net change of 107.4 - 72 = 35.4 oz-inch
and a grand total of 35.4 + 16 = 51.4 oz-inch of work....

A naive calculation might say, well the container is eight ounces, and the water in it is twentyfour ounces, so that's thirtytwo ounces, and you are raising it all 2 inches, so that's 64 ounce-inches of work.
But you aren't really raising all twenty four ounces a full two inches because of the increased surface area in the second container and the fact that the water levels will equalize.

OK, tear it up, where did I goof.

ETA: I drew a 2-d representation on graph paper and eyeballed the quantities from that, so don't expect great numerical accuracy. I might be a few percent off.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 12:17:44 PM
So.... am I really the only one staying up late?

Anyway, the 35.4 value for the PE change in the second chamber probably should be 36 even, accounting for my eyeball errors. Then it's tempting to say, well, OK, counterbalance or eliminate the weight of the first container. Now the work input is zero, right? Since the PE of the water in this chamber before the lift, and after the lift, is the same, so no net change in PE so no work is done.

Yet the "output".... the water rise in the non-lifted chamber..... is that same 36 ounce-inches... which we got for free, since we didn't do any work lifting the first chamber and the water in it.

RIGHT?


Where did the missing dollar go, in the Whirling Dervish Motel?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 10, 2012, 12:20:57 PM
@TK - yes, I think, correct so far.
@Webby1 - No layers here, just two very simple containers of water that are different diameters.

It's easy to say lifting .5 lb 2 inches is the same as 1 lb 1 inch ( I didn't include the time factor, so add in 1 second ) takes x joules.
Where it gets sticky is that the volume of water being lifted is changing during the lift because it's flowing through the tube - equalizing.
Not so much change in 1 second so in that case, most of the 8 fl oz would need to be factored into the lift.

I think I came up with an acceptable solution for now but am noting that this could end up being a bit of a deviation error. I started thinking I would measure the distance the cylinder moves up but that is a worthless number. I'm going to add a scale to the side of the cylinder and only measure the height change of the water in it for now.  A larger cylinder would help some too. Real sizes are 2.5" ID cylinder for input and a 7.75" ID "tank".

Here's a quick pic of where I'm at
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 12:46:46 PM
Time doesn't enter into the calculation of the work in Joules. The rate at which you do work or "expend" Joules is Power, not energy. So if you do a certain amount of work in one second, that's x Joules per second, or x Watts of power average during that second. If you do that same work in ten seconds, you are still doing the same number of Joules of work but your average power is now 0.1x Watts. Power isn't conserved, energy is. The same amount of energy or work in Joules could be performed in a second or in an hour. You need a lot more power to do it in a second instead of an hour, though. So force x distance gives you an energy or work result, and energy / time gives you the power, or the rate at which the work is done.

ETA: that looks very nice, by the way. Is it me, or the camera, or is it really tilted on the base just a bit?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
I know what you mean though... if you lifted instantly you would be "working" lifting the whole mass of the water along with the container. But imagine that the tube is the same diameter as the lifted container. Then the time lag to equalize is much shorter.

So I think that to do it right, and not get confused about inertia, acceleration and so on, we should assume a slow enough lift that the water levels stay about the same height as each other during the lifting. Not so fast that the lifted vessel's level gets ahead, and not so slow that your arms get tired, but reasonably slowly. A bigger connecting tube might help.

ETA: the fast lift "stores" some energy in the excess head in the lifted tube, and this energy can be recovered as the water drains back to level during equalization once the lift height is reached. That's why it takes more work to do a fast lift and that's where that work goes: into storage as the difference in head heights before equalization.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 10, 2012, 01:00:40 PM
Neither are sitting perfectly flat.
That is / was a quick setup, mainly to get a feel for how things need to be arranged.
First item is a label for the "Tank" as per Wayne's request.
Then a real stand instead of stacks of scrap lumber
And relocating the screw-jack holding the little input cylinder lower so I can increase the volume of water in it.
M. and Webby were right, even with just 1 riser and 3 water levels it's tough to really "see" what's going on.
After adding a couple more of the risers ( all the same length ) it will be nearly impossible....

Thanks for the compliment
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
OK, so the problem will be to see where the water levels are within all the layers. I would suggest the following, if possible. Try to find or make some transparent line gauges. You could lay them out with a graphics program, print them onto transparency film and cut them out in strips, glue them right to the individual tubes, staggered around the circumference so they don't block each other's view. Then use some kind of different colored "floaters" like tiny little plastic beads from the crafts department at WalMart. Just a few or even one in each gap space will show where the surface is, and the color coding will help tell them apart, and the line gauges will allow a reference for both the water level and the height of the floating parts.

Oh, ETA: and I'd suggest not discarding or neglecting data just because you don't think it's useful now. I think you should measure everything you can, even the ambient temperature of the air and the water temperature. Heights of all moving parts before and after lift, certainly.

ETA 2: a laser pointer, aimed around in there at various places, may make things stand out where you couldn't see them before.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 10, 2012, 03:33:17 PM
Some good suggestions in those last few posts TK.
All noted.
Thanks
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 10, 2012, 03:45:12 PM
I'm a few pages back in the thread still trying to catch up, but I wanted to post the reply below before I forgot where this was...
 
OK... so start with M in the full up position (call this HM) and some small amt. of water in the gauge. Mark the CofM of the water in the gauge, height h=0. It's OK, I think, to neglect the water in the tube at this point.
Now open your drain valve and let M sink and settle, collecting the water expressed in your cup or whatever. Close your valves. Weigh this water and record the weight. Lift up the cup of water using a hydraulic forklift, chain hoist, a jetpack, or your hand and arm. Pour the water into the rain gauge. This will raise the level of the rain gauge's water CofM by some amount to height h=hW. Measure this amount and record it.
Now open your valve to allow this water to run back into the Zed pod chamber, raising the M mass from height H=0 to height H=HM. Record.
Lather, rinse, repeat 20 times to get good data for stats. Make a data table; crunch to means and SDs, calculate PEs and deltas. Report.

TK, what you describe is not necessary, IINM.  The fact that I am removing water by allowing it to vent from the bottom of the Pod chamber is only due to the construction of the test system.  In this case, yes, the vented water must be raise to be reintroduced into the fill tube.  And that water is required to be vented in order for the ZED to sink and return to the initial pre-lift starting condition.  However, the venting of the water could also have taken place directly from the top of the water in the fill tube and at that same level if the system was designed for that more difficult venting option.  And if vented from the top of the fill tube it is clear that the vented water does not need to be raised or lowered (change of PE) to do so.
 
I believe the total of all input energy required to cause the previously described output is defined by the water volume and change in fill tube water level head that was reported.  Please let me know if you disagree.
 
I think that what can be confusing in this case is that I vent "high pressure" water from the bottom of the Pod chamber.  That pressure is lost from the system (and not accounted for) when this is done.  So that energy must be reintroduced by raising the vented water before reintroduction.  When we consider venting at the same level the water is introduced as input there is no difference in the pressures and no energy is lost.
 
Thanks and good morning from Corolla, North Carolina!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 10, 2012, 05:20:10 PM
This is a problem that needs to be given very careful thought to arrive at the right answer.
Here is a thought experiment that is an equivalent. Imagine a tall cylindrical tank with a valve in the side wall near the bottom.The tank is 12 inches tall and is filled . Problem. How do we remove the top 2 inches of water from the tank, and then replace it, using least possible energy. We could open the valve and run the water into a vessel at floor level, then raise that vessel to the top of the tank and pour the liquid back into the tank. Or we could attach a hose to the valve, with its open end 2 inches below the top of the tank, and place the vessel just under the hose outlet. We then open the valve and fill the vessel. This time we only have to lift the vessel a small distance to pour its contents back into the tank. And we did not have to add extra plumbing to the tank to achieve this.
        Another half formed idea is this . Fill and empty the Zed simply by lifting and lowering a water reservoir connected by a flexible hose to the Zeds input. If we lift it with a pulley and weight, measuring input is easy. Just some random thoughts...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 10, 2012, 07:02:10 PM
This is a point of discussion, can the venting be used and still have the risers sink.

I can't see why not.  The water definitely needs to be vented out and it is under pressure.  The water pressure is a function of the volume of water in the ZED.  By reducing the volume of water (venting) the pressure is reduced.  And reduction in one or the other or possibly both causes the Pod/Risers to sink.
 
What I have observed is that when I want to vent back into the reservoir with the smallest needed drop that the rate of descent is slow for both the risers and the reservoir, where as the lift I can do much faster.

I am venting by releasing water directly from the bottom of the Pod chamber through a valve.  If I open the valve wide, the water in the input tube drops very rapidly and outpaces the drop of the Pod/Risers.  And if I close the vent valve while the water levels are in this unbalanced state then the water level in the input tube will rise again as the ZED drops and the system reestablishes equilibrium.  The faster drop in the input tube is likely because there is much more flow restriction in the ZED and it's water entrance/exit path.  If I open the valve a slighter amount I can watch the ZED Pod/Riser and the fill tube water levels drop smoothly and at a balanced rate.
 
Rise and sink rates appear to me (so far) to just be a function of the efficiency of the input/output plumbing and the internal ZED flow rates.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 10, 2012, 09:48:18 PM
@Webby. Cryptic words from Wayne about two months ago.[cant find it now]


     "Keep stroke short. Will explain later. Trust me."


Make sense?
 




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
@mond: why can't you just take your outlet "drain" from the top two inches, and plumb it directly into the bottom inlet, and have it flow around perpetually, extracting work from a little turbine wheel on the way? That is, I believe, essentially what you are proposing, with the complication of doing the work extraction a little more remotely.
Quote
When we consider venting at the same level the water is introduced as input there is no difference in the pressures and no energy is lost.
And there is also no work that can be performed by the water in this way.  You are proposing letting water run out.... which MUST occur from a region of higher pressure to a region of lower pressure, otherwise no flow. And then you are proposing letting water run back in at the same pressure and volume..... not physically possible, I don't think.
Besides, I thought the input water had to be introduced at the center bottom. You are actually removing it under pressure from the bottom, lifting it up -- and pouring it back _into the bottom_ by pouring it into the top of the input tube which is plumbed to the bottom of the chamber, right?
 

Nobody is working through the numerical problem that wildew presented? It's an interesting exercise, took me an hour to do it, several pages of sketches and figuring, and I learned a few things on the way to an answer. Did I do it right? "yes, I think, correct so far" is pretty much all the feedback I've gotten on this interesting problem.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 10, 2012, 10:26:08 PM
@TK,
 
I've made no attempt to manufacture a complete miniature self running (dual) ZED system.  I have only constructed a single three layer ZED for testing of the input energy vs. output energy ratio as so many times has been requested and stated as necessary.  And I posted one admittedly hurried and sloppy data point prematurely just for those that wanted to try and make that calculation.  Why have you or anyone else not done so?
 
I have posted measured input values.  Are they not enough to calculate input energy?
I have posted measured output values.  Are they not enough to calculate output energy?
 
The input causes the extra ~2.5 lbs of "load" mass to lift.  This "load" mass is to simulate the hydraulic rams that produce the pressurized hydraulic oil that is accumulated in Wayne's system.  This "load" is then removed and not used while the system is reset to initial start conditions.  I think it is a pretty good first test of the model I have built.  Don't try to pretend that the model or the test is anything more or less than it is, please.
 
Could you please just run the numbers or do you just want to pick at it/me?  I'm on vacation, remember?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 10, 2012, 10:50:17 PM
Sorry for the delay in getting these to you,, I will play more and see if I can get at least an average value,,,

The numbers as best as I can get them.

I can not measure the retainers, my calipers do not fit down past the extender.

Riser diameter is between 38.7mm and 38.85mm
Riser height is between  124.57mm and 125mm
Weight is 22g (I have superglue a washer on top)

Pod diameter is between 27.09mm and 27.2mm
pod height is between   91.95mm and 92.17mm
weight is 18g

Pod chamber volume is 84ml
first gap between retainers is 32ml (this one is not used)
second gap is 43.8ml

Pod chamber WITH pod inside and held down is 28ml.

material thickness is .19mm to .22mm

Only a few runs so far but the numbers are strange and I am having to hit the base a lot and hard to shake things down.

Added mass on riser 55g lift 20mm
reservoir fluid 30g lifted 165mm

added mass on riser 75g lift 20mm
reservoir fluid 27g  lifted 153mm

forgot to add that the setup likes to change itself but I am trying to use a centered water to air start position.
Webby,

Thanks for measuring this.  It will take me some hours to translate this to inch/pounds units and set up an initial standardized sim model for it.  I will let you know if I am missing anything or have questions as I proceed.

Even though all my geometry inputs are in inches, I can probably add a button that converts the output tables of the sim to mm/g without too much trouble.  Or should it be cm/kg to get a better match to inches and pounds?

Thanks again,
Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 10, 2012, 11:16:17 PM
AND darn it any way,, here my numbers are getting converted into metric so I give metric and you want them in SAE.
Gads!  If your measurement tools and you are used to working in SAE, then by all means report them in SAE.  Let others who want them in metric do the conversions.  The reason I say that is because you are more likely to make a clerical conversion error to different units than you measure and it might not be caught by others.  I add a second error possibility when I convert them back to your original units, and I am pretty bad about making clerical errors, transposing digits, etc.  I will still look into having a metric output button though, because that is just a one time cost for me.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 01:08:51 AM
@TK,
 
I've made no attempt to manufacture a complete miniature self running (dual) ZED system.  I have only constructed a single three layer ZED for testing of the input energy vs. output energy ratio as so many times has been requested and stated as necessary.  And I posted one admittedly hurried and sloppy data point prematurely just for those that wanted to try and make that calculation.  Why have you or anyone else not done so?
 
I have posted measured input values.  Are they not enough to calculate input energy?
I have posted measured output values.  Are they not enough to calculate output energy?
 
The input causes the extra ~2.5 lbs of "load" mass to lift.  This "load" mass is to simulate the hydraulic rams that produce the pressurized hydraulic oil that is accumulated in Wayne's system.  This "load" is then removed and not used while the system is reset to initial start conditions.  I think it is a pretty good first test of the model I have built.  Don't try to pretend that the model or the test is anything more or less than it is, please.
 
Could you please just run the numbers or do you just want to pick at it/me?  I'm on vacation, remember?
 
M.
Getting a little "tetchy" there, are you? I don't think I'm "picking" at you at all. I am responding to what you posted, and pointing out that you can't drain water out without a differential in pressure, and you can't drain water out and put it back in at the same point at the same pressure and still get work out of it,  which is what it appears to me that you have suggested in your post.

If I am not understanding you... don't PICK AT ME, just explain what you mean.

When you first described your apparatus I thought that the water went INTO the chamber itself at the bottom center, just like the Zeds and just like I have been told is correct. Pouring it in your fill tube at the top, letting it run down and then come into the chamber at the bottom, is not the same as pouring the water into the chamber itself at the top.

You are on vacation, I remember. What am I on? I'm strictly on my own time and my own dime.

Why haven't I made a measurement model of my own? I think you know the answer to that. Why haven't I run a calculation on your numbers like I did with Webby's? Perhaps it's because I am still not clear on what your numbers are and just how they have been gathered. Perhaps I'm not happy working with "sloppy and premature" data points. Are you going to make me look back through the thread, to find and decode the numbers you would like me to multiply together and compare? Or would you just list them again, or perhaps even do the calculations yourself.  I'm not averse to calculations.... it seems that perhaps I'm the only one that actually ran the numbers on wildew's nice little problem... but I really cannot recall seeing numbers from you that I could easily interpret and work with. Maybe I missed them, and maybe instead of flaming me, you could just point them out again, with explanations in one of the languages I actually understand.

And while you are at it, maybe you or somebody else could give me comparable numbers on MrWayne's simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself.

Or maybe not.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 01:19:33 AM
On units: if you use Imperial units, it's easiest to use ounces and inches, or pounds and feet, and not mix them like "ounce-feet" or "pound-inches". 

If you use "metric" please use either SI, which is kilograms meters and seconds, or cgs, which is centimeters grams and seconds. The very best is SI because then you can use the named units of energy and force like Joules, Newtons, and so on, but for small weak systems cgs is fine.

Conversions are relatively easy to do, for example:

1 pound (force)  foot = 1.35581795 newtons meter

and here's a calculator that will do any unit system conversion you need:

http://www.unitconversion.org//unit_converter/energy-ex.html





Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 01:21:15 AM
A cycle isn't complete until all parts and pressures and so on are back to the start state. If you have moved up and then back down and all your physical parts are back where they started from AND you still have excess pressure somewhere in the system, more than you started with.... please let me know right away.

And in the MrWayne Zeds, some energy IS expended to reset the system, by the hydraulic assist applied to the bags. It's not resetting just from the weight alone. In my way of thinking the assist is making up for losses; in the official Zed way of thinking, this is what you do with the extra energy or work produced by the first zed: you use it to help reset the second zed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 11, 2012, 01:31:48 AM

@mond: why can't you just take your outlet "drain" from the top two inches, and plumb it directly into the bottom inlet, and have it flow around perpetually, extracting work from a little turbine wheel on the way? That is, I believe, essentially what you are proposing, with the complication of doing the work extraction a little more remotely. And there is also no work that can be performed by the water in this way.  You are proposing letting water run out.... which MUST occur from a region of higher pressure to a region of lower pressure, otherwise no flow. And then you are proposing letting water run back in at the same pressure and volume..... not physically possible, I don't think.


Besides, I thought the input water had to be introduced at the center bottom. You are actually removing it under pressure from the bottom, lifting it up -- and pouring it back _into the bottom_ by pouring it into the top of the input tube which is plumbed to the bottom of the chamber, right?
 

Nobody is working through the numerical problem that wildew presented? It's an interesting exercise, took me an hour to do it, several pages of sketches and figuring, and I learned a few things on the way to an answer. Did I do it right? "yes, I think, correct so far" is pretty much all the feedback I've gotten on this interesting problem.


TK .. saw your post so thought I'd whip up a quick pic regarding your last paragraph.

I used metrics because I'm used to them & they are SI - instead of using different volumes I used the same volume containers & starting volumes of water in each [same principle] - blue water in left vessel becomes green water in right vessel after transfer - you can see the sum of the PE's above each twin set - the pic flows from left to right as you would read across a page in incremental steps [for expediency] until all water is transferred.

The objective is to show the transfer of blue water from one vessel to another [connect tube not shown] by lifting the left vessel contents - the container mass itself can be ignored because it could be counter balanced so all we are interested in is the volume & weight transfer.

It occurs as a series of incremental steps - the left contents are lifted an incremental step height - the water flows from left to right container [water always finds its own level & flows downhill] - both water columns readjust heights i.e. the blue sinks a little, the right rises a little, until water levels are equal - then the process repeats until all blue water column is transferred across to become green water column.

At the conclusion of the process the PE is doubled, so WORK must have been done on lifting the blue water so that it could run downhill to become green water in one container - the amount of Net WORK/ENERGY is the same as the gain in PE.

In reality, if the lifting is done very slowly there will appear to be no incremental steps & the water just flows across but in fact work is being done so that it can run downhill even if very slowly.

To view it another way the blue water packet could have been raised quickly so that its bottom was level with the top of the green container - that's a lot of work done as it has raised the PE considerably - then the water could flow across until the right vessel was full & the left empty - the difference in work done/energy in this scenario & final resting PE's at equilibrium is energy lost to viscous & drag forces of fluid dynamics - IOW's the KE of the steep flowing water, after accounting for losses, does not equal the extra PE put into raising the left container to create that gradient of fall & therefore velocity for KE of flowing water.

Bottom line - Work is done just as you predicted to transfer water across by lifting one container.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 11, 2012, 02:17:36 AM
When you first described your apparatus I thought that the water went INTO the chamber itself at the bottom center, just like the Zeds and just like I have been told is correct.

The water DOES go into the Pod chamber (ZED central chamber that houses the Pod) itself at the bottom center. 
 
Pouring it in your fill tube at the top, letting it run down and then come into the chamber at the bottom, is not the same as pouring the water into the chamber itself at the top.

What?  At what point anywhere did you think I would or should pour water into the chamber itself at the top?
 
The water is poured into a fill tube that allows it to run into the Pod chamber at the bottom.  The purpose of the fill tube is to allow for the rise in water in the tube that creates the increase in pressure of the water and overcomes the pressure in the ZED so that it will enter it from the bottom.

I don't know if we are having some confusion with terminology or if my descriptions and photos have caused some misunderstanding of what I have made, measured and posted.  Does anyone else know where the disconnect is?
 
M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 11, 2012, 02:50:05 AM
@All contributing replicators,
 
 
Bravo, for the excellent exchange of information, it is most enjoyable to us non-replicators. You are a great example of people from around the world working together to accomplish a common goal. Keep in mind, there is an army of people behind you cheering for your success.
 
 
With much respect, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 11, 2012, 04:55:20 AM
To view it another way the blue water packet could have been raised quickly so that its bottom was level with the top of the green container - that's a lot of work done as it has raised the PE considerably - then the water could flow across until the right vessel was full & the left empty - the difference in work done/energy in this scenario & final resting PE's at equilibrium is energy lost to viscous & drag forces of fluid dynamics - IOW's the KE of the steep flowing water, after accounting for losses, does not equal the extra PE put into raising the left container to create that gradient of fall & therefore velocity for KE of flowing water.

Bottom line - Work is done just as you predicted to transfer water across by lifting one container.

Hi Fletcher,

I was thinking about moving water from one tank to another last night and how to reduce the required work required to do it. Just to stress again at this point that my understanding is very limited and unlike Neptune, I really am the idiot in the room :)

Looking at your post, I'm wondering if you were to give the green tank some "Virtual Water", does this make a good difference in reducing the work required to generate the final PE? From watching TK's video, it seems that with "Virtual Water" you could generate the same 250kg of weight in the green tank, but you wouldn't need anywhere near the starting 125kg of blue water to get there.

I realise that you could not use all the PE generated by the 250kg in the green tank using this idea over an entire distance moved because as work was done in some way the weight caused by the "Virtual Water" would reduce rapidly. But if you say only needed to raise 50kg of blue water over the distance of, from the looks of your drawing, 0.5m, (which I believe means you're doing 25kgm of work), and from this if you could generate an average from the green tank 250kg down to 25kg over the same 0.5m by lowering the green tank away from the "Virtual Water", which I guess averages to 137.5kg over .5m, does than mean you do 68.75 kgm?

Then, to return the the drawing to the initial state, I don't think you'd need as much work again, as you could move the "Virtual Water" up out of the way, then lowering the blue tank and raising the green tank (which would require 25kgm). The water would level out in to the blue tank again and once the moves complete, re-lower the "Virtual Water" back into the green tank to it's original position.

So Input = 25kgm lift blue)+ 25kgm (lift green after stroke) = 50kgm + lowering of empty blue tank + raising and lowering of "Virtual Water"
And Output = 68.75kgm

I assuming I've got this wrong and have again mis-understood something, but then again, just in case I haven't...

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 11, 2012, 06:16:34 AM
On units: if you use Imperial units, it's easiest to use ounces and inches, or pounds and feet, and not mix them like "ounce-feet" or "pound-inches". 

If you use "metric" please use either SI, which is kilograms meters and seconds, or cgs, which is centimeters grams and seconds. The very best is SI because then you can use the named units of energy and force like Joules, Newtons, and so on, but for small weak systems cgs is fine.

Conversions are relatively easy to do, for example:

1 pound (force)  foot = 1.35581795 newtons meter

and here's a calculator that will do any unit system conversion you need:

http://www.unitconversion.org//unit_converter/energy-ex.html
TK,
I would like to comply with your request, but I don't like setting myself up for failure.  I wanted to keep all units consistent.  Inch and Pounds are the only least common denominator units because of PSI.  Feet is a totally unworkable unit for things smaller than a car.  No measuring scales work in decimal fractions of feet.  I only have one work output which is in inch*pounds.  Conversion to foot*pounds is just divide by 12.  I think I choose the right units to keep out of trouble with mixed units.

For metric, I don't really care, because it is just a single output conversion in the display routine.  However, cgs would more closely match the output field sizes.  I suppose that ml would be the volume that matches it as a cm^3.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 11, 2012, 06:24:13 AM
Does this help?

Riser 1.5235 to 1.5295
riser 4.904  to 4.921

pod   1.0665 to 1.071
pod   3.6205 to 3.629

pod retainer 4.856
inside pod retainer 5.0155

lift .787

reservoir lift with 55g +on riser 30g water height 6.5065
reservoir lift with 75g +on riser 27g water height 6.0235

material thickness .0075 to .0085
start position of riser was resting on retainer as per you sim.

Webby,

Thanks.  I put in the numbers that seem to match, but I don't think I understand the retainer ring placement and how that corresponds to my sim model.

Riser diameter is between 38.7mm and 38.85mm -- Riser 1.5235 to 1.5295 -- 0.763 in R
Riser height is between  124.57mm and 125mm -- riser 4.904  to 4.921 -- 4.913 in
Weight is 22g (I have superglue a washer on top)
Pod diameter is between 27.09mm and 27.2mm pod   1.0665 to 1.071 -- 0.534 in R
pod height is between   91.95mm and 92.17mm pod   3.6205 to 3.629 -- 3.625 in
weight is 18g
pod retainer 4.856 in
inside pod retainer 5.0155 in
Pod chamber volume is 84ml -- 5.126 cu in
first gap between retainers is 32ml (this one is not used) -- 1.953 cu in
second gap is 43.8ml -- 2.673 cu in
Pod chamber WITH pod inside and held down is 28ml. -- 1.709 cu in
material thickness is .19mm to .22mm -- material thickness .0075 to .0085 -- 0.008 in
Only a few runs so far but the numbers are strange and I am having to hit the base a lot and hard to shake things down.
lift stroke .787 in
start position of riser was resting on retainer as per you sim.
Added mass on riser 55g lift 20mm -- reservoir lift with 0.121#  0.787 in
reservoir fluid 30g lifted 165mm  + on riser 0.0661# water height 6.507 in
added mass on riser 75g lift 20mm -- reservoir lift with 0.165#  0.787 in
reservoir fluid 27g  lifted 153mm  + on riser 0.0595# water height 6.0235 in
forgot to add that the setup likes to change itself but I am trying to use a centered water to air start position.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 11, 2012, 07:10:49 AM
Quote
You have just been sent a personal message by see3d on Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com.
IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.
The message they sent you was:
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 11:22:16 PM
The thing I want to point out, though, is that it makes no difference, really, whether the _skeptics_ take the "right way" or the "wrong way", except in the degree of ruffled feathers and wasted time involved. What really matters, and what is really Really important, is that the _claimants_ take the right way of proving their claims. And in my opinion that is not being done here. In fact, what is being done so strongly resembles other scams and fakes and mistakes that we all know about, that it is really rather uncanny...
--TK

MileHigh, MicroController, TinselKoala, See3d,.....ect

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM the PM  ADDRESS LIST >>

You are clogging up my intray with unwanted Junk Mail. The mails appear to repeat your frustration for not being able to figure out the Travis buoyancy device and associated OU capability.  Come to accept your own belief, and put it to rest that this OU device is obvious not in your league, so please let it go.
Allow me to do my own exploration, investigation and validation. I vaguely understand your position and I am fine with it.
I DO NOT NEED your ongoing malware opinions, neither am I interested any longer in your frustrations on what Wayne 'has' or 'doesn't have', neither what he 'should' or 'should not' have done or given you,  your desires, your wants, what the world did wrong to you....ect. 
So please stop advertising your shortcomings in my intray by removing my name from all your PM.

I thank you in advance, regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 11, 2012, 07:26:05 AM

Hi Fletcher,

I was thinking about moving water from one tank to another last night and how to reduce the required work required to do it. Just to stress again at this point that my understanding is very limited and unlike Neptune, I really am the idiot in the room :)

Looking at your post, I'm wondering if you were to give the green tank some "Virtual Water", does this make a good difference in reducing the work required to generate the final PE? From watching TK's video, it seems that with "Virtual Water" you could generate the same 250kg of weight in the green tank, but you wouldn't need anywhere near the starting 125kg of blue water to get there.

I realise that you could not use all the PE generated by the 250kg in the green tank using this idea over an entire distance moved because as work was done in some way the weight caused by the "Virtual Water" would reduce rapidly. But if you say only needed to raise 50kg of blue water over the distance of, from the looks of your drawing, 0.5m, (which I believe means you're doing 25kgm of work), and from this if you could generate an average from the green tank 250kg down to 25kg over the same 0.5m by lowering the green tank away from the "Virtual Water", which I guess averages to 137.5kg over .5m, does than mean you do 68.75 kgm?

Then, to return the the drawing to the initial state, I don't think you'd need as much work again, as you could move the "Virtual Water" up out of the way, then lowering the blue tank and raising the green tank (which would require 25kgm). The water would level out in to the blue tank again and once the moves complete, re-lower the "Virtual Water" back into the green tank to it's original position.

So Input = 25kgm lift blue)+ 25kgm (lift green after stroke) = 50kgm + lowering of empty blue tank + raising and lowering of "Virtual Water"
And Output = 68.75kgm

I assuming I've got this wrong and have again mis-understood something, but then again, just in case I haven't...

Amo


Hi .. the short answer is I don't believe so - but I stress it is very difficult to read someone else's thoughts on paper & interpret them correctly & accurately without a flow diagram to follow - it can easily get misconstrued or misunderstood on a technicality.

For you convenience I have included another diagram - sequences 1 thru 3.

The first is the same as before i.e. two tanks half full - you can see there CoM [CoG] & identical heights & PE's.

The next is cutting out all the incremental lift steps of the previous & just lifting the blue water high enough that ALL will transfer to the second tank & become green water.

N.B. for the exercise we assumed that there were connecting tubes from bottom of each tank - it could be just as easily a tube from bottom of blue tank feeding in the top of green tank - where it becomes important is that water will always find its own level, it will always run down hill losing PE, and Pressure does not do work but force does - as such Pressure will 'flow' from high to low - this is why we imagine the tubes from beneath the vessels so that there is always a downhill flow & Pressure [head] in blue tank to green tank [pgh] is higher than the Pressure [FORCE] required to enter the bottom of the green tank.

The last shows the CoM & sum PE after the transfer which is twice the original sum of the PE's.

N.B. you will see that it is far lower than the PE of the blue tank in sequence 2.

So, we did some WORK on the blue tank to lift it to get a water flow & Pressure gradient - the water did flow & a new PE joules was established less than the work done/energy we expended - where did it go ?

It went into the KE of the flowing water as it transferred [velocity] & to losses of drag & viscosity - the KE of the water was used in pushing against the Pressure at the bottom of the green tank, so it is fully accounted for.

We are interested in the NET energy situation of before & after.

.................


There seems little doubt that any lift will cost energy.

Mr Wayne's hypothesis is based not on increasing the lift potential so much as reducing the energy costs of input.

Gravity causes both buoyancy & Pressure in fluids, they are downstream effects to excuse the pun - density always remains the same regardless of Pressure & no one is disputing this - since the buoyancy doesn't appear to me to be greatly different, if at all, if not less, for a multi layer pod/riser then the only thing left by process of elimination is Pressure to look at closely.

IINM Mr Wayne has said that he believes that the Pressure development is NOT linear, whereas conventional science says it is, precisely because it is a derivative of density which doesn't change with depth [assuming normal fluids] & neither does gravity's acceleration from which it is dependent.

What see3d is attempting to do is build a model [sim] from the ground up approach using first principles to find just where this 'variable' might be that MR Wayne believes makes all the difference.

So far I have not come across it - but then again that's why I support see3d's approach - somebody may learn something in that process, good or bad depending on your perspective - the point is to logically trace it thru to a conclusion backed up by real world results to test against.

............

EDIT:

The reason why it is said & believed by most that gravity [the constituent of Pressure & density] is conservative is based on a simple resolution of equations - they are important equations.

PE = KE

mgh = 1/2mv^2

v^2 = 2 x m x g x h / m

v = sqrt 2gh

Note that it doesn't include mass, volume, or time - all you need to know is h & g to find velocity.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 09:09:16 AM

The water DOES go into the Pod chamber (ZED central chamber that houses the Pod) itself at the bottom center. 
 
What?  At what point anywhere did you think I would or should pour water into the chamber itself at the top?
 
The water is poured into a fill tube that allows it to run into the Pod chamber at the bottom.  The purpose of the fill tube is to allow for the rise in water in the tube that creates the increase in pressure of the water and overcomes the pressure in the ZED so that it will enter it from the bottom.

I don't know if we are having some confusion with terminology or if my descriptions and photos have caused some misunderstanding of what I have made, measured and posted.  Does anyone else know where the disconnect is?
 
M.
What you are describing is how I understood your device to operate, and that is where the disconnect is.
The disconnect is in this post here , #2080, where you say this:
Quote
TK, what you describe is not necessary, IINM.  The fact that I am removing water by allowing it to vent from the bottom of the Pod chamber is only due to the construction of the test system.  In this case, yes, the vented water must be raise to be reintroduced into the fill tube.  And that water is required to be vented in order for the ZED to sink and return to the initial pre-lift starting condition.  However, the venting of the water could also have taken place directly from the top of the water in the fill tube and at that same level if the system was designed for that more difficult venting option.  And if vented from the top of the fill tube it is clear that the vented water does not need to be raised or lowered (change of PE) to do so.
 
I believe the total of all input energy required to cause the previously described output is defined by the water volume and change in fill tube water level head that was reported.  Please let me know if you disagree.
 
I think that what can be confusing in this case is that I vent "high pressure" water from the bottom of the Pod chamber.  That pressure is lost from the system (and not accounted for) when this is done.  So that energy must be reintroduced by raising the vented water before reintroduction.  When we consider venting at the same level the water is introduced as input there is no difference in the pressures and no energy is lost.

Here it appears that you are claiming that you can vent from the top of the pod chamber and reintroduce the water at that same level without pressure changes, or that you can let this water drain down and go into the pod from underneath, float it up, and then have more pressure at the top that you can use to drain water out.... etc. You seem to be saying that you can open the pod chamber at the top, vent the water out allowing the device to sink, then reintroduce this water at the bottom or wherever making the pod float up again.... over and over without adding additional energy. This is why I said that you could just put a tube between the top and bottom and a little turbine in there....

If you are saying that you "vent from the top of the fill tube" by "extracting" water at that level and then putting it back in at that level after things have sunk  .... you are lifting water, by doing that, and it is disingenuous to imply that you would not be, and I know that you wouldn't do that, so you must mean something else. You cannot have flow of water unless you have a pressure differential. For water to come out of the fill tube at the top, you have to provide pressure from within, suction from without, or a lower place for it to run into. For this removed water to be reintroduced into the same height in the fill tube, it must again come from higher pressure than where it is going: it must be pushed, or pulled, or lifted and allowed to flow downhill.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 09:18:47 AM
MileHigh, MicroController, TinselKoala, See3d,.....ect

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM the PM  ADDRESS LIST >>

You are clogging up my intray with unwanted Junk Mail. The mails appear to repeat your frustration for not being able to figure out the Travis buoyancy device and associated OU capability.  Come to accept your own belief, and put it to rest that this OU device is obvious not in your league, so please let it go.
Allow me to do my own exploration, investigation and validation. I vaguely understand your position and I am fine with it.
I DO NOT NEED your ongoing malware opinions, neither am I interested any longer in your frustrations on what Wayne 'has' or 'doesn't have', neither what he 'should' or 'should not' have done or given you,  your desires, your wants, what the world did wrong to you....ect. 
So please stop advertising your shortcomings in my intray by removing my name from all your PM.

I thank you in advance, regards, Michel

I find this to be incredibly insulting.

And yet it is completely typical behaviour from a "true believer" who finds that his delusion is seriously in question by rational investigation. It reminds me of the Christian bumper sticker that reads, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it", on the back of an oversized pickup truck with a gunrack and a loud stereo.

What you have shown us so far, Red_Sunset, is actually the single largest identified math error in the thread, and also the single greatest overunity results when that error is corrected... so large in fact that it implies that MrWayne isn't going to have to heat his barn this winter, because the self-running Zed is losing so much of its overunity efficiency in heat losses.

What you haven't shown us is any evidence for overunity. With your numbers, a ten year old child with a hacksaw, some super glue and sandpaper could win MrWayne's ten large in a long afternoon on the kitchen table, and have it cleared away by suppertime.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 09:37:14 AM
My system resets by the weight alone.


(snip)

but...

Just a small note that probably has been missed.

26 inches is higher than the "head" the system can handle with only 4 risers.

My 26 inch lift of the reservoir is its total movement, I have to lift it 13 inches above the riser tops to make the lift, and to overcome the stick problem with the risers and retainers I am using a "trick" to get the risers down the rest of the way by lowering my reservoir below the risers by 13 inches and SUCKING them down the last 1\4 inch or so.

I did that so that I did not need to beat the system with my pliers to shake the risers loose from the retainers, once down I could raise the reservoir back up 10 inches every time without raising the risers without the 600g mass added and have it bounce in place.

My conclusion is that if I did not have the stick problem then I would need to move the reservoir 16 inches for lift and sink.

Since I have not removed\repaired the problem I can not verify if that is the case so I left it at 26 inches of total movement.
This doesn't sound like resetting with weight alone, and I'm not convinced it's all caused by your sticking problem.
I see nothing wrong with using some kind of vibrator to keep things from sticking. Set up a little buzzer to shake things enough to keep them freed up. But playing with the numbers like this makes them useless for calculation. I don't think you described it this way when you first gave the numbers for me to calculate with.

In addition I see that the point that is being measured as "lift" is ambiguous. Wildew's little problem should have shown us that it is the Center of Mass of the lifted and sunk water slug that is what is to be measured, and the differences in the height of the center of mass of the water in the moving reservoir is what goes into the work difference calculation, not the position of some fixed reference point on the container. The simplification of closing the valve, so that the water level doesn't change during the lifting itself, may also have an effect on the work calculation.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 09:51:20 AM
@fletcher: wow, that was a lot of work, and very nicely done too. Thanks....
But in your last picture, shouldn't the center of mass symbol in the third, final state read "250 kg" and not  125?

In your first series of images you have it as 250, and I think the PE calc uses that value, so no problem there, but that "125" is puzzling in the last set.

@see3d: Is it possible to compute and display a "break-even" line on your transfer graph set? I think you know what I mean, a line or point where, if your data exceeded that, it would indicate overunity or excess energy performance. I know that this information can be extracted from the data you show, but it would be neat to see it as a line on the graph too.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 11, 2012, 10:25:05 AM
I find this to be incredibly insulting.
..................... With your numbers, a ten year old child with a hacksaw, some super glue and sandpaper could win MrWayne's ten large in a long afternoon on the kitchen table, and have it cleared away by suppertime.

TinselKoala,
Sorry if I came over a bit strong !
I have no problems with your opinions, deductions...ect. I know them. You are entitled to them,
All I want, is not having to face them unsolicited,  keep them on the forum. 
Live and let live,  Peace my friend !
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 11, 2012, 10:56:30 AM

@fletcher: wow, that was a lot of work, and very nicely done too. Thanks....
But in your last picture, shouldn't the center of mass symbol in the third, final state read "250 kg" and not  125?

In your first series of images you have it as 250, and I think the PE calc uses that value, so no problem there, but that "125" is puzzling in the last set.


LOL, absolutely correct TK - mind fade when doing others things, forgot to update the visual but the mass was correct for the calcs - I could change it out but there won't be a test on it - guess I buy the first beer  :'(
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 11, 2012, 11:05:36 AM
  I'm willing to wager anyone up to 50 thousand US dollars that this device will not produce a single Joule of overunity energy. This would be as measured by a suitably qualified and mutually agreed validator (and with a time limit of 1 year as I don't want to grow too old before I can collect your cash...)    Are you in...

Seamus,
No my man, I do not need your money, I am sure one of the replicators will be happy to relieve you from it.
It only highlites how much your outlook is of the mark. The over-unity forum is not a competition site, neither a betting site. Neither I am right and you are wrong or visa verso. For me it doesn't even matter if it is OU or not,  what matters is what I learned and that I grew

I really feel sad how so much misunderstanding can sprout forth on such a simple technical subject.

Let me re-verbalize the challenge at the start of the topic
Guys,  I put this multilayer buoyancy device together, connected it in a see-saw fashion and a bit of tuning here and there, to my surprise it runs by itself and I can even take some power off to light a lamp.
Here are the details on how it works and measurements of my demo system that I put together,  I share it with you here on the forum so you can possibly learn something from it to.
When it comes to numbers, I can only give you generalized data, since I am planning to put it into production, I have registered for a patent already.  I have some theories on where the OU comes from but I am not 100% sure, I know it is input cost savings that made the most effect.
He asks the forum, What do you think ?

Forum's reply
We can not look at this without you giving us all the internal test data. If we do not get it, then for us it doesn't work and you are lying.  This is a fraud. You do not have a working device.....ect.   You better tell us, so we can give our blessing. A polarization

What was expected
Let me have a look at this,  let me figure out what novelty is being presented here.  How does it work exactly, where do the over-unity gains come into the picture and how are they achieved.
Here is a counter argument, researched and based on the info conveyed, here is the reason why you can not claim over-unity. If the model does work, then we are missing some data here.

Expected end result, 
Confirmation of a misunderstanding in a process, procedure, calculation...ect
Confirmation of a new technique that works its way around conservation.
or something else would be revealed

But what did we get
Members bumbling with inferior plastic models that can not confirm anything.  A confirmation of the theory would produce enough assurance to invest for a proper model to be made.
The forum is now becoming a betting place to put leverage behind a technical position.....interesting
Some member saying ......&%$####$&)(***

Adieu!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 11:11:33 AM
@Red_Sunset: what you are posting is an automatic email notification that you get from the forum when you have a PM inside the forum. You can disable that notification and then you won't get unsolicited emails. You can also put any forum member on your "ignore" list and then you won't see their posts in threads nor will you see PMs from them unless you specifically override the setting.

Profile>Account Settings>Modify Profile>Notifications, Ignore List

I really don't understand how anything I do or say could possibly prevent you from doing exactly as you like, though, and I'm puzzled as to why you seem to think that it could.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 11, 2012, 11:29:39 AM

Profile>Account Settings>Modify Profile>Notifications, Ignore List
I really don't understand how anything I do or say could possibly prevent you from doing exactly as you like, though, and I'm puzzled as to why you seem to think that it could.

Thanks, didn't know the feature existed.
You possibly have more powers than you think !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 11, 2012, 04:09:43 PM
If you are saying that you "vent from the top of the fill tube" by "extracting" water at that level and then putting it back in at that level after things have sunk  .... you are lifting water, by doing that, and it is disingenuous to imply that you would not be, and I know that you wouldn't do that, so you must mean something else. You cannot have flow of water unless you have a pressure differential. For water to come out of the fill tube at the top, you have to provide pressure from within, suction from without, or a lower place for it to run into. For this removed water to be reintroduced into the same height in the fill tube, it must again come from higher pressure than where it is going: it must be pushed, or pulled, or lifted and allowed to flow downhill.

Okay, TK, I see where you are coming from.  I think the disconnect is that I was trying to describe something using a theoretically ideal scenario and you are focusing on practical test setups.
 
I did mean "vent from the top of the fill tube by 'extracting' water at that level."  And in an ideal scenario that means the water being vented does *not* need to be raised or lowered, only moved to the side.  This could be accomplished by opening a (theoretical) drain hole on the side of the fill tube at an infinitesimally small distance below the top of the fill tube water column.  That drain hole would have to drop as the water level in the fill tube drops.  The vented water is then collected in to another container that is also lowering as the drain hole lowers and the water in that container rises.  To reverse the process and reintroduce the water, the process, well, reverses.
 
This is similar in concept to what fletcher diagrammed in his analysis of wildew's thought experiment.  If run through a full cycle of empty and fill, and with infinitely small steps and drain hole diameters, it shows that no energy is required to remove and reintroduce water in the fill tube.  My point was that we can ignore the fact that I vent from the bottom (loosing pressure from the system), then raise that water to another height and reintroduce it, from the energy balance for now.  Of course a real system will have losses greater than the zero losses in the theoretical.  But it should not be a barrier to analyzing the current input energy vs. output energy ratio from my measurements.
 
BTW, I didn't see where I was getting "tetchy."  I apologize if I came off that way.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 11, 2012, 04:34:03 PM
Hi .. the short answer is I don't believe so - but I stress it is very difficult to read someone else's thoughts on paper & interpret them correctly & accurately without a flow diagram to follow - it can easily get misconstrued or misunderstood on a technicality.

Hi Fletcher,

Hope you don't mind, but I've modified your second posted image to indicate what I'm trying to explain as I thought a same starting base would be better.... hopefully it'll do at least a thousand words!

I'm not sure that the final PE is correct, but from what I've gleaned from other posts, and TK's "Virtual Water" video, this is what is going on in my head as to what could happen. Am I wrong?

If not, then from Step 3 in the image, I guess you can....
   1. Unlock whatever is holding the pod in place. If the pod is buoyant, I assume it's movement could be used to do work???
   2. Lower the currently empty blue tank on the left hand side back to it's starting point. Would this take all that much work???
   3. As the blue left tank lowers back to it's starting point, the water would naturally flow back until the water is back at the starting point.
   4. The "pod" would also sink back to it's starting point as the water level dropped and could be locked again and the process restarted.

I guess the question is, that is if this in any way reflects any kind of reality, is can you get more output more from the releasing of the pod than is required to lift the water in the left container.

Also, if the layering adds head height, then does that mean the the blue water tank on the left of a layered system would have to be lifted as far? If not, then that I guess that reduces necessary input too.

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 11, 2012, 09:14:02 PM
A cycle isn't complete until all parts and pressures and so on are back to the start state. If you have moved up and then back down and all your physical parts are back where they started from AND you still have excess pressure somewhere in the system, more than you started with.... please let me know right away.

And in the MrWayne Zeds, some energy IS expended to reset the system, by the hydraulic assist applied to the bags. It's not resetting just from the weight alone. In my way of thinking the assist is making up for losses; in the official Zed way of thinking, this is what you do with the extra energy or work produced by the first zed: you use it to help reset the second zed.
You said "In the official Zed way of thinking, this is what you do with the extra energy or work produced by the first Zed: you use it to help reset the second Zed.
 
Wrong. In the official Zed way of thinking, you use ONE THIRD of the extra energy or work produced by the first Zed, to help reset the second Zed.


That is not exactly the same thing now, is it?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 09:19:52 PM

Okay, TK, I see where you are coming from.  I think the disconnect is that I was trying to describe something using a theoretically ideal scenario and you are focusing on practical test setups.
 
I did mean "vent from the top of the fill tube by 'extracting' water at that level."  And in an ideal scenario that means the water being vented does *not* need to be raised or lowered, only moved to the side.  This could be accomplished by opening a (theoretical) drain hole on the side of the fill tube at an infinitesimally small distance below the top of the fill tube water column.
Maybe I misunderestimated you. You can add up a whole bunch of infinitesimally small distances and get "zero".
Quote
That drain hole would have to drop as the water level in the fill tube drops.  The vented water is then collected in to another container that is also lowering as the drain hole lowers and the water in that container rises.  To reverse the process and reintroduce the water, the process, well, reverses.
Exactly. What part of "lifting water" wasn't clear? You are describing a process of draining water from a high place into a low place, and then _raising it back up_ again to drain it back in. Just because in your thought experiment you are using "infinitely small" increments.... they do not equal zero. And just because you are doing it infinitely slowly, the energy (or work) involved does not vanish !! Is this to be a freshman calculus review?
Quote

This is similar in concept to what fletcher diagrammed in his analysis of wildew's thought experiment.  If run through a full cycle of empty and fill, and with infinitely small steps and drain hole diameters, it shows that no energy is required to remove and reintroduce water in the fill tube.  My point was that we can ignore the fact that I vent from the bottom (loosing pressure from the system), then raise that water to another height and reintroduce it, from the energy balance for now.  Of course a real system will have losses greater than the zero losses in the theoretical.  But it should not be a barrier to analyzing the current input energy vs. output energy ratio from my measurements.
 
BTW, I didn't see where I was getting "tetchy."  I apologize if I came off that way.
 
M.
Apology accepted; after all, when a porcupine encounters a koala, strange things might happen. But come on...... you are adding infinitesimals and getting zero for an answer and that's just wrong, Mr. ZENO.
We'll never get anywhere, that way....

 ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 09:25:46 PM
You said "In the official Zed way of thinking, this is what you do with the extra energy or work produced by the first Zed: you use it to help reset the second Zed.
 
Wrong. In the official Zed way of thinking, you use ONE THIRD of the extra energy or work produced by the first Zed, to help reset the second Zed.


That is not exactly the same thing now, is it?

I stand corrected, thank you.
But as far as I can determine, ONE THIRD of zero is still.... well..... zero. Since we have already been told, and we have seen in sims and calculations, that a single Zed by itself is under unity, meaning there is no extra energy or work produced by the first Zed, it can only be recycling that pesky "D" that's coming in from the second Zed....
So in the Koala way of thinking, at least, one third of zero is close enough to zero to call it "exactly the same thing".
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 11, 2012, 09:26:53 PM
@Webby1. I know that you initially built this model more as a "feasabilty study" than as a serious measurement model, but nevertheless, you seem to have learned an awful lot from it, and have shared that information with all of us. I understand that you are probably considering building a "Mark Two" model in the fullness of time.
      I am not quite sure that I fully understand your last paragraph. It would seem that you now have two inlets, one for air and one for water. where are they situated relative to each other, please?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 09:41:18 PM
@webby: thanks for the straight answer; I don't believe we actually got it in so many words before. That allays one of my doubts, and I'm always happy for that.

I see nothing at all wrong with having to lower the movable reservoir to create a "suck" to reset things, as long as they stay reset when you bring the reservoir back to the "ground plane" or zero height reference and the Zed stays "reset" and doesn't hop up or something. But maybe it would, if there is excess pressure in it... this might actually be a good test to perform, if you know what I'm trying to describe.
Also I hope you get the point that the "heights" that matter are the heights of the centers of mass of the water in the reservoir, relative to the "ground level" zero, below and above it.

This sounds like a simple experiment to do, but the more I think about it the more tricky it seems, in order to get useful and consistent data. Don't worry, you have my great respect for what you are doing. We will eventually evolve a procedure that works, to give usable data that can't be picked apart by some random tree-dweller.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 11, 2012, 10:52:25 PM
I am guessing you missed or I forgot to include the part where I can not measure the retainers diameter, my calipers do not fit inside down past the extender, so I thought I would give you the volumes that fill each one to maybe set the net thickness of the retainer to match, not sure if that maters for the lift, but it might for the flow of air and water.

Edit to add:  I am not using my number 1 riser so the the first gap is filed with water, and since I can not measure it I thought that the volumes would allow you to figure out how "thick" that space is.
Hi Webby,
Sorry about the long delay in responding.  I lost my system hard drive on my main computer this morning and I have been in debug and recovery mode all day.  I will respond as I catch up to each post so I don't miss anything.

I think the problem is I don't have a picture of where each dimension is in your model, because I don't have any diagram of your model -- like the sim cross section I showed.  Retainer rings?  I dont have anything called a retainer ring in my sim midel.  Which item would correspond?  I think your risers are not attached to each other, so that is probably where some of my confusion comes in. 

Providing volumes was a good idea.  I just need to have the sketch that identifies where each volume is, so I can calculate it correctly for the model.

TIA in advance for your indulgence.  My apologies if you have already posted the information, and I missed it.  If so, please point me in the right direction.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 11, 2012, 10:59:39 PM
@see3d: Is it possible to compute and display a "break-even" line on your transfer graph set? I think you know what I mean, a line or point where, if your data exceeded that, it would indicate overunity or excess energy performance. I know that this information can be extracted from the data you show, but it would be neat to see it as a line on the graph too.
Of course it is possible, and I do compute a graph with that on it.  However, until I have a sim that produces results that match the real world builds, it would be irresponsible of me to publicly show that graph, as a number of people would see it as proof of one sort or another -- after all , computers don't lie.  I have already corrected a number of math formula errors in the sim since I started.  I am sure there are some more hiding in there yet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 11, 2012, 11:06:43 PM
Hi guys,
sorry for jumping into discussions.


I would like to share something important.


There is OU in ZED and I can prove it now. For evidence I modeled single pod in cylinder (0 layer ZED) and calculated the work the pod can deliver and also work done while injecting water at bottom.
I think this is another OU aspect (diamond as MrWayne calls it) of Zed tech next to the aspect of exhaust reuse (the still discussed ABCD diagram).


So how to get it?
Remember still the travis effect video? 2 cups under water, air in between, pretty much feelable resistance when air is around the pod? Now take the cups out of water and dry your hands you wont need to get them wet again  ;)  Place cup on table and pod into it. Hold pod for while you pour water inbetween cup and pod until water reaches the top of the cup. This is precharge. Now stroke step. Release pod and allow it travel e.g. 1cm. Water level falls down quickly but you add water to the top again. My OU claim is when you have right gap and right dimensions of pod versus cup you will spent less work putting water in then the work done by the lifting pod.  Putting water from top is lossy as first you need to raise it and it falls down. Injecting water from bottom is tricky in the sense that water injected increases water head at bottom against which you need expend work while injecting new water. But it is solvable.


So what would you say of COP 3.41
for the cup of diameter and height 1m and pod diameter 0.98 m (1cm gap) with height 0.9m. Stroke length 10cm.


stay tuned...


respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 12, 2012, 12:21:00 AM
Hi,


attached is spreadsheet calculating work spent and work done for particular dimensions of pod and cylinder. You can play with values and see what COP you get.


Work spent is calculated in iterations. Each iteration calc work needed to lift existing water over certain height + work needed to insert new water over the same height. More iterations = more precision. Currently have 10 and 30. Results converge to a certain value. Using too much iterations have on other side also negative  effect as rounding error gets bigger and bigger.


So OU is reality, hope it is clear now. Do not know how to make it clearer. If you find some bug in sheet pls let me know. I'm confident results are accurately representing reality but of course cannot guarantee 100%.


So seamus your 50k offer still valid?  ;)


respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 12, 2012, 12:38:18 AM
@TK,
 
If you will, please visualize two open top cylinders of equal proportions at equal heights both filled 1/2 way with water.  A siphon tube is fixed inside of each very near the bottom and the tube is also primed and therefor full of water.
 
Now the cylinder on the left is allowed to drop 1/3 of its height, performing work.  During this change in height water is siphoned from the right cylinder over to the left cylinder so that the level of the water in each remains the same, correct?
 
Now work is done to raise the left cylinder back to its original height.  During this change in height water is siphoned from the left cylinder over to the right cylinder so that the level of the water in each remains the same, correct?
 
Neglecting the losses due to friction (standard ideal case assumption), what is the sum total of the work that was performed on the left cylinder during the entire cycle described?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 12, 2012, 01:24:24 AM
@TK,
 
If you will, please visualize two open top cylinders of equal proportions at equal heights both filled 1/2 way with water.  A siphon tube is fixed inside of each very near the bottom and the tube is also primed and therefor full of water.
 
Now the cylinder on the left is allowed to drop 1/3 of its height, performing work.  During this change in height water is siphoned from the right cylinder over to the left cylinder so that the level of the water in each remains the same, correct?
 
Now work is done to raise the left cylinder back to its original height.  During this change in height water is siphoned from the left cylinder over to the right cylinder so that the level of the water in each remains the same, correct?
 
Neglecting the losses due to friction (standard ideal case assumption), what is the sum total of the work that was performed on the left cylinder during the entire cycle described?
 
M.
Didn't Wildew, fletcher and I already do this problem? Your splitting things up into "left cylinder" is again disingenuous, because the work done is actually on the water in the right cylinder as its level rises. You _could_ view the lifting of the water in the first cylinder as being "for free" since the PE doesn't change, due to the volume (mass) changing as the height is increased. However this is mistaken. You are increasing the total PE of the entire system when you lift, but it is hidden if you only consider the "left cylinder".  The siphon, once primed, is just like the underslung tube in its working and effect. The work you get out when you lower the left cylinder and let water run into it through the siphon must be replaced by raising the left cylinder to get things back to the start point.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 12, 2012, 01:29:03 AM
@MT:

 :'(


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 12, 2012, 03:22:32 AM

Hi Fletcher,

Hope you don't mind, but I've modified your second posted image to indicate what I'm trying to explain as I thought a same starting base would be better.... hopefully it'll do at least a thousand words!

I'm not sure that the final PE is correct, but from what I've gleaned from other posts, and TK's "Virtual Water" video, this is what is going on in my head as to what could happen. Am I wrong?

If not, then from Step 3 in the image, I guess you can....

   1. Unlock whatever is holding the pod in place. If the pod is buoyant, I assume it's movement could be used to do work???

   2. Lower the currently empty blue tank on the left hand side back to it's starting point. Would this take all that much work???

   3. As the blue left tank lowers back to it's starting point, the water would naturally flow back until the water is back at the    starting point.

   4. The "pod" would also sink back to it's starting point as the water level dropped and could be locked again and the process restarted.

I guess the question is, that is if this in any way reflects any kind of reality, is can you get more output more from the releasing of the pod than is required to lift the water in the left container.

Also, if the layering adds head height, then does that mean the the blue water tank on the left of a layered system would have to be lifted as far? If not, then that I guess that reduces necessary input too.

Amo


Hi Amo .. sorry to get back to you so late - busy morning.

I have included an updated pic [worth a thousand words apparently] with the essence of what you are asking - this time I used the right scale so I could calculate correct geometry & masses & actual optimal PE's etc to look at your proposal rather than a representation - I also used increment of 50 kg as per yesterday to keep consistency.

What we have here is a cost of lifting the left tank with blue water to a height such that all of it will run across & it will empty - this could be either into the top of the right tank or up thru the bottom via a tube, overcoming pressure etc.

We are just looking at the water & the buoyancy potential to do work from the POD later when released - net situations.

Before I go on, I said yesterday that there is a real energy loss when transferring water - this is made up of drag & viscosity losses - I should elaborate further & remind you that water running down hill, thru a tube for instance, must be accelerated & then decelerated to fit thru an opening - it also has a tendency to surge or slop, a bit like a ball bearing running down the inside of a U tube i.e. it oscillates dissipating energy & these account for the major energy losses.

The raising or lowering of the tank is irrelevant as it can be counter balanced so is not considered.

Back to the pic ...

1. at start the twin tank system has water PE of 70.5 J - 2. after lifting high enough to transfer all water the PE is 624.6 J - 3A. after transfer to around the POD [locked down] the system PE is 352.5 J - 3B. the last system on the right with purple water is the combined blue & green water volumes & masses after the POD is removed [to show something I going to discuss] - the PE is 168.6 J.

The reason I have found the PE of the combined masses after the POD is removed is because buoyancy is volume dependent - so, as the POD is released in pic 3 it rises [yes, it has a lot of force, INITIALLY re acceleration = f / m (inertia)] - as it rises the water volume up the sides giving the head rapidly flows under the POD - so it has a very short stroke where the force diminishes rapidly as head reduces rapidly.

The purpose of the purple water is to show the final position of the 50 kg of initial blue water [total 62.5 kg] - at all times the PE is way less than the step 2 'raising the system work done'.

OK .. now we want to know what work the POD could do to add that energy back in ? - well, the work the buoyancy force can do when the POD is released is exactly the same as the f x d of 50 kg raising 0.2 meters IINM, except this is a constant force as opposed to a variable force so its easier to work out work done joules.

N.B. you could float a battleship in a bath tub if the bath tub were big enough.

The upshot is that 50 kg rising 0.2 meters gives about 98.1 J - when you add that to the 168.6 J we get somewhere around 266.7 J, well short of the initial work input done.

This is the optimal situation where the buoyancy force equals the upthrust force by allowing the POD to have NO mass [for the exercise] - if we assign mass to the POD then the net Upthrust Force will reduce & so will its lifting ability to raise a mass 0.2 m & the subsequent joules of PE that could be added back, for the exercise.

P.S. it makes sense IMO if you consider just how high water must be raised [CoM/CoG position] to flow across & completely fill the other tank as a few here have been consistently saying.

..........

My apologies, had to push this analysis out pretty quickly so I make no claims of accuracy - hopefully someone else can check the figures & logic against your findings.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 12, 2012, 04:40:15 AM
Hmmm... looks like fletcher and MT don't agree. I wish I could see MT's spreadsheet, but it won't open in my Linux system using LibreOffice... very unusual, it's the first spreadsheet I haven't been able to open. I downloaded it twice.... apparently seamus10n can read it? Is it possible to convert to an older format maybe, that I could read? Sorry, but Koalas generally only use free software or shareware; we avoid Micro$haft products like the BSOD they are.

Meanwhile....maybe this is the missing ingredient that fletcher needs to make up the difference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpQej7M_HXw
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 12, 2012, 05:37:46 AM
Hi TK .. knock yourself out - I'd like to see your breakout of his spreadsheet - I don't have time today.

P.S. for those wondering - you can tun the left hand tank raised up on its side & make it very wide & not very tall [like a shallow sea] - that will reduce the PE input requirement.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on September 12, 2012, 07:05:33 AM
Hmmm... looks like fletcher and MT don't agree. I wish I could see MT's spreadsheet, but it won't open in my Linux system using LibreOffice... very unusual, it's the first spreadsheet I haven't been able to open. I downloaded it twice.... apparently seamus10n can read it? Is it possible to convert to an older format maybe, that I could read? Sorry, but Koalas generally only use free software or shareware; we avoid Micro$haft products like the BSOD they are.

Meanwhile....maybe this is the missing ingredient that fletcher needs to make up the difference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpQej7M_HXw

http://www.viewdocsonline.com
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 12, 2012, 07:19:18 AM
Hi TK .. knock yourself out - I'd like to see your breakout of his spreadsheet - I don't have time today.
P.S. for those wondering - you can tun the left hand tank raised up on its side & make it very wide & not very tall [like a shallow sea] - that will reduce the PE input requirement.

Goeie morgen Marcel,
Goed om jij op deze forum te hebben, ik hoop dat we die Americaners in toog kunnen houden, ps, ik kom van Belgisch Limburg.

The worksheet is interesting, a floating pod filled with water. Buoyancy neutral, very straight forward.
I always wondered if nature can be fooled to believe something different to the reality. Seamus will say "impossible" because the book says so.  Marcel's worksheet gave the first impression to do just that, it gave me the inspiration for a mind twister that i am preparing,  should have it later today.

Marcel, 
When doing calculations, it is important to follow the natural sequence, we can not build the second floor before the ground floor is completed to support the second floor. In you calculation on line 48 to 61 where you calculate the stroke
1.. Displacement water, your height should be the height of the top of the water (top of precharge or head),
2.. If you want to inject at 0.1mtr, that you need to bring the pressure of the water height into the picture (that is the head), which is the same as step 1

When looking at buoyancy it is worthwhile to remember,
1..  Water column height or head is always a LOSS, it is only a mediator to set up the conditions for work.
2..  Stroke displacement volume is the REAL ENERGY to feature in work done

Goeie dag, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 12, 2012, 08:12:58 AM
Hi TK .. knock yourself out - I'd like to see your breakout of his spreadsheet - I don't have time today.

P.S. for those wondering - you can tun the left hand tank raised up on its side & make it very wide & not very tall [like a shallow sea] - that will reduce the PE input requirement.

Thanks, that did the trick, opens fine for me now. I'll have to spend some time looking at it.

Your P.S. is not obvious to me... I'm going to have to think about that one too.
In order to get all the water over to the other side you still have to do the same total lift -I think- because the final liquid level in the second tank doesn't depend on the shape of the first tank at all, and you still have to raise all the liquid in the first tank above, or incrementally above, the level in the second tank as the water is transferred.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 12, 2012, 09:52:39 AM
Pivot the tank 90 degs on the way up so the bottom of the tank is level [just above] with the top of the tank to be filled.

I'm pretty sure it requires less work than lifting a vertically orientated tank - it just reduces the fall gradient & KE of flowing water component thus less PE of position required [more efficient] - doesn't make it OU though.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 12, 2012, 10:06:38 AM
When doing calculations, it is important to follow the natural sequence, we can not build the second floor before the ground floor is completed to support the second floor. In you calculation on line 48 to 61 where you calculate the stroke
1.. Displacement water, your height should be the height of the top of the water (top of precharge or head),
2.. If you want to inject at 0.1mtr, that you need to bring the pressure of the water height into the picture (that is the head), which is the same as step 1

Goeie morgen Michel,
wat een verassing. Ik woon in nederlandse Noord Brabant region. Wereld is klein.  :)

Hi all,
Michel seems to be my regional neighbour...
 
Now to the point.
TK the spreadsheet is done via Google Docs and exported to a xlsx file. But this formum does not accept such extension so I changed it to xls and probably your program expected different content for an xls extension. Just rename it to xlsx and it should do it.
BTW the post editor is horrible, inserting empty lines and if it does not accept certain file extension it will tell you AFTER you post it. On clicking back you post text is lost, I had to write in text again couple of times brrr.
 
As you can see I keep pod completely submersed from precharge to end of stroke. This allow easy calucaltion of work done.
 
About work spent:
>>>1.. Displacement water, your height should be the height of the top of the water (top of precharge or head),
>>>2.. If you want to inject at 0.1mtr, that you need to bring the pressure of the water height into the picture (that is the head), which is the same as step 1
Water is injected always at bottom. Each iteration inserts a pocket of water. It calculates how much work is needed to insert the new pocket + how much to lift existing waters. I think I'm starting to see your point. Currently each iteration (start weight column) is based on weight of water injected while it should based on water height determined by the previous inserted pockets. We know geometry so the height can be calculated.  I'll adapt spreadsheet as time allows. I'm glad I posted it otherwise I would never know.
I can hear skeptics rejoicing that there is a bug in calculation. What if I correct it and it is still OU?
 
respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 12, 2012, 03:38:14 PM
Didn't Wildew, fletcher and I already do this problem? Your splitting things up into "left cylinder" is again disingenuous, because the work done is actually on the water in the right cylinder as its level rises. You _could_ view the lifting of the water in the first cylinder as being "for free" since the PE doesn't change, due to the volume (mass) changing as the height is increased. However this is mistaken. You are increasing the total PE of the entire system when you lift, but it is hidden if you only consider the "left cylinder".  The siphon, once primed, is just like the underslung tube in its working and effect. The work you get out when you lower the left cylinder and let water run into it through the siphon must be replaced by raising the left cylinder to get things back to the start point.

Exactly what I have been saying (or trying to say) for the past several posts.  No energy is gained or lost through one complete cycle, right?
 
Please do not try to equate this simple siphon setup to the ZED.  It has nothing to do with the complete ZED system.  It is only being used to show how the water input and removal at the fill tube can be considered an energy neutral cycle for simple ideal case analysis.  It in no way involves the ZED Pod/Risers where ZED system output is supposed to be measured.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 12, 2012, 06:48:01 PM
OK , Its my turn to play the village idiot again, by asking the questions to which I don`t know the answer, and I would wager my last dime that I am not alone.


What, exactly, is the definition of IDEAL LIFT.


What exactly is meant by the Standard Model, does this mean a raised reservoir feeding a standard hydraulic ram in a vertical position?


Thanks in advance, neptune.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 12, 2012, 07:06:06 PM
I'll take a stab at "Ideal Lift" just to see if I understand the term.....
I think it could be re-written to be absolute or maximum lift; the highest point in the cycle dictated by the physical dimensions of the assembly and the setup. OR, the height at which the skirts blow....
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 12, 2012, 07:18:17 PM

Exactly what I have been saying (or trying to say) for the past several posts.  No energy is gained or lost through one complete cycle, right?
 
Please do not try to equate this simple siphon setup to the ZED.  It has nothing to do with the complete ZED system.  It is only being used to show how the water input and removal at the fill tube can be considered an energy neutral cycle for simple ideal case analysis.  It in no way involves the ZED Pod/Risers where ZED system output is supposed to be measured.
 
M.

That's not what I thought you meant when you first brought it up.
Quote
TK, what you describe is not necessary, IINM.  The fact that I am removing water by allowing it to vent from the bottom of the Pod chamber is only due to the construction of the test system.  In this case, yes, the vented water must be raise to be reintroduced into the fill tube.  And that water is required to be vented in order for the ZED to sink and return to the initial pre-lift starting condition.  However, the venting of the water could also have taken place directly from the top of the water in the fill tube and at that same level if the system was designed for that more difficult venting option.  And if vented from the top of the fill tube it is clear that the vented water does not need to be raised or lowered (change of PE) to do so.
When you said this it seemed to me that you were not talking about a full cycle from start to finish, but only the step of actually raising the water (or somehow else replacing that pressure lost when you drain the water out).  You appeared to be saying in subsequent posts that you could pour water from one place into another without a gradient of some kind if you use infinitesimal steps and that work would vanish if the rate at which it was performed tended to zero.... both of which I find silly.

So please excuse me for misunderstanding... We agree that in these simple two-jug model systems, work in = work out for a full cycle, and I hope we also agree that removing the water from the top of the fill tube in your Zed, then replacing it at the same location, also requires just as much lifting of water as it does sinking.

So then... it appears that all model systems that produce unity actually have nothing to do with the complete Zed system, since Zeds are overunity. But only when combined, since each one is underunity itself. Except of course the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, the one that MrWayne has but refuses to discuss in any meaningful way, while we fool around with example systems that aren't Zeds and are clearly _not_ overunity by themselves but are somehow supposed to teach us how to make an overunity pair of Zeds.

I definitely need another cup of coffee.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 12, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
OK, while I have my Village Idiot head on , how about this. Refer to the diagrams in post number 2137 on page 143 by MT . Look at the middle diagram, precharged state. On my screen, the pod is 10 units tall, and the space above it is one unit tall. Therefore, the space above the pod is About one tenth of the volume of the pod.
       Suppose we have a tank full of water the same shape and size as the space above the pod. A flexible hose joins this tank at the bottom and is connected to the main tank at a point level with the top of the pod in the precharge position. The top of the auxilliary tank is level with the top of the pod. We then lift the aux tank unti its bottom is level with the top of the main tank.  This auxilliary tank contains half a gallon , weighing 5 pounds. So we lifted 5 pounds a distance of 2 units.Let the volume of the pod be 5 gallons. So the upthrust on it will be 50 pounds. We release the pod , to allow it to rise under a load, and we allow the auxilliary tank to empty into the main tank.
So input =5 pounds lifted 2 distance units
output= 50 pounds over 1 distance units
To complete the cycle we lower aux tank to starting position, and it drains the main tank to the precharge state.


So output = 5 times input? Where did I go wrong?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 12, 2012, 08:27:44 PM
@Wildew and Weby1. Many thanks for helpful replies. Any thoughts on my last post please?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 12, 2012, 08:58:47 PM
OK, while I have my Village Idiot head on , how about this. Refer to the diagrams in post number 2137 on page 143 by MT . Look at the middle diagram, precharged state. On my screen, the pod is 10 units tall, and the space above it is one unit tall. Therefore, the space above the pod is About one tenth of the volume of the pod.
       Suppose we have a tank full of water the same shape and size as the space above the pod. A flexible hose joins this tank at the bottom and is connected to the main tank at a point level with the top of the pod in the precharge position. The top of the auxilliary tank is level with the top of the pod. We then lift the aux tank unti its bottom is level with the top of the main tank.  This auxilliary tank contains half a gallon , weighing 5 pounds. So we lifted 5 pounds a distance of 2 units.Let the volume of the pod be 5 gallons. So the upthrust on it will be 50 pounds. We release the pod , to allow it to rise under a load, and we allow the auxilliary tank to empty into the main tank.
So input =5 pounds lifted 2 distance units
output= 50 pounds over 1 distance units
To complete the cycle we lower aux tank to starting position, and it drains the main tank to the precharge state.


So output = 5 times input? Where did I go wrong?

I have highlighed where you went wrong. Most of the "output" lift is coming from the precharge, I believe, which you do not account for, and simply "lowering" the aux tank won't reset the system, you will have to push the pod down somehow.

And... by the way.... "A pint's a pound, the world around". Actually 16 fluidounces per pint, and 8 pints per gallon, but a fluidounce of water is a little more than an ounce of weight; there are 473 mL in a pint, so a pint of water is actually just a bit over a pound (454 g)  in weight. But there are 8 pints to the gallon, not the ten implied by your numbers.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 12, 2012, 09:30:08 PM
@TK. Many thanks for that, I had forgotten that lowering the auxiliary tank would not sink the pod.


Incidentally, it is not quite true that "a pint`s a pound the world around"
Here in the UK we use the imperial gallon[4.546 L] as opposed to the USA Gallon [3.785L]
We still have 8 pints of water to the gallon , but we say "A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter". So our gallon weighs 10 pounds. We have 20 fluid ounces to the pint.


This is a common cause of confusion when comparing the MPG figures of cars in UK and USA.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 12, 2012, 09:58:08 PM
@TK, so I think we understand where we got off track understanding each other as far as the data set I took before leaving for vacation and that it should be valid for a calculation of input energy vs. output energy.  This is with the understanding that the losses in this test are only from the ZED test setup build itself (rubbing), my measurement errors and accuracy issues (abundant), and the accuracy of the measurement instruments themselves.  It does *not* account for the losses that would actually be incurred by a true real world full cycle water recirculation system as this is being also considered as "ideal" in this case (per our previous debate and clarifications).
 
The data that was previously supplied and relevant reference posts follow.  Please let me know if you can run an input vs. output energy check with this data or if something else is missing.
 
From post #1968:
Mass lifted:  ~2.5 lbs
ZED stoke: ~ 11.5 mm.
Water removed and introduced again to obtain repeatable(ish) stroke as measured by a "rain gage" from my yard: ~87.5mm.
Overall change in the head in the elevated fill tube during the cycle is ~ 190 mm.
 
Post #1981:  Painful detail of the trial runs from which this data set is gathered.
 
From post #1988:
So the CVS 5ml syringe rings out at about 50ml (yes, ten fills) to about 37 mm in the raingage (conservatively low reading).

Thanks,
M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 12, 2012, 11:48:53 PM
Hi,
I was owing an update. I have redone work calculation for 10 iterations. New variable is added - pipe diameter. I think now calculation represents reality much better.


Still OU. For the same cylinder diameter and height 1m and pod diameter 0.98 and height 0.9m  I'm getting COP 1.896
Pipe diameter 0.23m.


I'll post spreadsheet but first need to get some sleep over it and check it again in morning. I don't know how you but I usually I find more errors in morning.


Attached is picture visualizing how is work spent calculated now. New variable is diameter of an pipe opening between cylinder and pool beneath it.
First is target volume packetized. Number of packets = number of iterations. Since we know diameter of the tube we can calculate how high the fictive packet would be in pool. To insert such packet into the cylinder above we need to lift it over this height. The more wider pipe the less we need to lift. Work needs to be done of course also against the pressure of water column above the opening(which is increasing by each packet). As we pump the fictive packet into the cylinder water there is not raised by height of the fictive packet but only by pocket cylinder height see picture 3. Work spent against the water pressure equals work needed to lift weight of water column over packet cylinder height.


respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 13, 2012, 09:14:58 AM
1. at start the twin tank system has water PE of 70.5 J - 2. after lifting high enough to transfer all water the PE is 624.6 J - 3A. after transfer to around the POD [locked down] the system PE is 352.5 J - 3B. the last system on the right with purple water is the combined blue & green water volumes & masses after the POD is removed [to show something I going to discuss] - the PE is 168.6 J.

...

The upshot is that 50 kg rising 0.2 meters gives about 98.1 J - when you add that to the 168.6 J we get somewhere around 266.7 J, well short of the initial work input done.

Hi Fletcher,

Awesome work, and it all sounds good. However, I don't think this is a real situation for the setup involved.

Although the "lift-all-release-later" approach must be easier to calculate, I guess what would really happen is that as the water is lifted it would be free to flow out from the tank. This would mean less work done to raise the tank as it slowly gets lighter the higher it gets.

I don't really know how to calculate this, but I guess that with a quick enough flow, and/or a slow enough lift time, you could probably get a 1 to 1 relationship between height gained and weight lost.

Does this sound correct?

If so, can we then roughly say that the average weight lifted over the distance is about half the initial weight (as we're going from all to nothing), and so now the work done to lift the left tank of 50kg would be 306.5625 J. This seems much closer to the work output.

I've got some other ideas too, but for now I just wanted to check I was at least looking in the right direction.

Cheers
Amo

Edited to correct typos.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 13, 2012, 02:45:06 PM
OK .. now we want to know what work the POD could do to add that energy back in ? - well, the work the buoyancy force can do when the POD is released is exactly the same as the f x d of 50 kg raising 0.2 meters IINM, except this is a constant force as opposed to a variable force so its easier to work out work done joules.

Also, a quick question on this.

I thought, thanks to wikipedia and other sites I've found to help me understand (a forum on physics is pretty good), that buoyancy was based on volume of the displaced water. I know we've emptied 50kg of water into the tank, but that's not what's displaced.... is it?

I thought that the initial, soon to be rapidly decreasing, buoyancy force would have been the water density * volume of the cylinder (as it's totally submerged at this point) * g would mean 1000 * .44426 * .44426 * .95 * 9.81 = 1839.36 N over 0.2m = 367.87 J. Even if we took an average between the start and stop point (0.2m), it would be: 329.15 J.

If we link in MT's idea of having a bit more water in the blue tank to start with, and as we release the pod lift the blue water tank a little further to empty the remaining contents and keep the keep the buoyancy constant, are we getting close to the OU tipping point?

I've been trying to do more drawings but it's frustratingly slow. They should be worth more than 1000 words for the effort it takes ;)

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 13, 2012, 02:55:04 PM
Hi .. I think you'll find your answers in the attached pic I made - it is a representation, & I used 'g' at 10 m/s^2 just for ease of calculations readability.

In essence it's a tortoise & hare race story - lifting slowly & surely with very little fall gradient uses least/minimum Work Done Joules by you to give the system PE J's - quick is costly because you have to lift higher to get fast transfer.

NOTE that the system cannot gain PE without a minimum of the SAME expenditure of Work energy it took to raise the system PE - SLOW is the most optimal & efficient method to achieve this efficiency, IMO.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 13, 2012, 03:07:39 PM

Also, a quick question on this.

I thought, thanks to wikipedia and other sites I've found to help me understand (a forum on physics is pretty good), that buoyancy was based on volume of the displaced water. I know we've emptied 50kg of water into the tank, but that's not what's displaced.... is it?

I thought that the initial, soon to be rapidly decreasing, buoyancy force would have been the water density * volume of the cylinder (as it's totally submerged at this point) * g would mean 1000 * .44426 * .44426 * .95 * 9.81 = 1839.36 N over 0.2m = 367.87 J. Even if we took an average between the start and stop point (0.2m), it would be: 329.15 J.

If we link in MT's idea of having a bit more water in the blue tank to start with, and as we release the pod lift the blue water tank a little further to empty the remaining contents and keep the keep the buoyancy constant, are we getting close to the OU tipping point?

I've been trying to do more drawings but it's frustratingly slow. They should be worth more than 1000 words for the effort it takes ;)

Amo


Now, that's why we do experiments to find these things out.

Buoyancy is a factor of water volume displacement [weight of water] & the Work the NET Upthrust force can do is dependent on the stroke length [ WD = f x d ] - for an Archimedes system this is easy to visualize - in this case we are using 'virtual water displacement' due to the pod taking up volume - so the pressure gradient is still created on which buoyancy force is predicated but it is not supported by 'true water volume' to complete the stroke length otherwise - IOW's, it is very powerful for a very very short time & length of which both drop of exponentially IINM [high acceleration potential for low inertia systems] - IMO, the total Work Done capability being identical or thereabouts.

Sounds like its time to get your hands wet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 13, 2012, 09:40:14 PM
Hi guys,
attached is updated spreadsheet v2.1. Before opening it, rename file extension to xlsx so it opens correctly. Checked but could not find further errors in it. Still getting COP>1, see for yourself. COP>1 is not just for a specific dimensions of cylinder and pod, dims can be in certain range and still be over 100%. How is the work calculated is described in my previous post.

Interesting (also a bit ironic after spending quite some hours in Excel) was that when I finished checking the sheet I realized we can compute work done on pump water much easier.
Using the dimensions of cylinder and pod as in the sheet:
Precharge step needs 28 liters raised up to 0.9m
Stroke step needs 78 liters raised up to 0.1m + we need to lift the precharge 28 volume 0.1m


precharge work = m*g*h = 28 * 10* 0.9 = 252
stroke part 1 = 78 * 10 * 0.1 = 78
stroke part 2 = 28 * 10 * 0.1 = 28

total work 252 + 78 +28 = 358
Guess what that 358 is the same work that is relatively complicatedly computed in spreadsheet, cell F84.

respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 13, 2012, 10:00:17 PM
Hi Marcel. I tried to work this out in my own way. You say that precharge work is m*g*h and your answer is in what units? I got it to 24.93 kilogram metres.
 
Work for stroke. See my last post . We need to raise 75.5 litres a distance of 0.2 metres which comes to 15.1 Kg metres.
Total input is 24.93 + 15.1 =40.03 Kg metres 


Volume of pod is 678 Litres. Upthrust is 678 Kg


Stroke is 0.1 metres . Output is  67.8 Kg Metres.


COP is 67.8/ 40.03 = 1.693.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 13, 2012, 10:26:52 PM
Here is my set up for the above calculations. We have a main tank [A] , containing a pod, same dimensions as your . This tank has two connections fitted into the sidewall. |One is level with the top of the pod, and one os near the bottom. We have a second tank [C] this tank is 0.9 metres tall, and contains enough water for precharge. It is connected to the bottom connector of tank A by a flexible hose . To precharge we lift this tank 0.9 meters. This tank very shallow, and large in diameter.
 To stroke, we have a Third tank , one meter diameter and 0.1 metres deep, connected by a flexible hose to the top connector of tank A. To stroke we need to raise it 0.2 metres , cso the bottom of tank B is level with the top of tank A.


I just realised my initial mistake. I assumed that we needed to raise tank C by 0.9 metres . If tank C is 0.9 metres tall we would need to raise it 1.8 meters.  But if we made it only 10 one   centimetre tall, we would only need to raise it one meter to precharge .


So now energy to precharge is 27.7 Kg metres.


So now total input27.7 +15.1 =42.8 Kg metres


So COP is now 67.8 /42.8 = 1.584.


If I am wrong, please tell me where.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 14, 2012, 01:00:13 AM
Gahh.... there is a lot to catch up with. I'm not going to be able to comment yet on the various spreadsheets and calcs above; I've been busy with an experiment of my own, on a feature of the Inverted Travis Effect and virtual water.

I think there is some relevance to the Zed topic under discussion here, in some way. I have just started thinking about this today, really, and it needs some time to "sink" in.... no pun intended. Anyhow, there is a definite difference between restraining your pod by locking it down internally to the chamber, and restraining it by holding it under with some kind of externally applied mechanical stop or force. The key to the ITE and virtual water appears to be that you must have your pod restrained or pushed down externally by something that isn't attached to the chamber holding the water that is surrounding the pod. The "virtual water" effect corresponds to the buoyancy force expected from the volume (displacement) and weight of the Floater.
I think. Maybe.

Here's the video of the experiment. Kind of long. In the "description" on the YT page I give the complete experimental report with the numbers measured and calculated, such as they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 14, 2012, 02:30:59 AM
Hi .. I think you'll find your answers in the attached pic I made - it is a representation, & I used 'g' at 10 m/s^2 just for ease of calculations readability.

In essence it's a tortoise & hare race story - lifting slowly & surely with very little fall gradient uses least/minimum Work Done Joules by you to give the system PE J's - quick is costly because you have to lift higher to get fast transfer.

NOTE that the system cannot gain PE without a minimum of the SAME expenditure of Work energy it took to raise the system PE - SLOW is the most optimal & efficient method to achieve this efficiency, IMO.

So, in the last diagram, I'm not sure which value to take, so I'll do both.

The correct one I think is to do the Sum of PE's with Pod = 352.5 J, starting from 70.5 J. So minimum work done would be 255 J.

For completeness Sum of PE's without pod = 168.6 J from 70.5 J = 98.1 J work done, but this seems incorrect as we don't have to lift Bluey so high so I'll stick to "with pod" above.

My calculation for the average buoyancy force was incorrect in my last post, if we assume no extra water was being introduced. I had assumed "totally submerged" to ".2m not submerged", however, that doesn't actually mean the pod was raised by 0.2m.

So the average buoyancy force over .2m is "totally submerged" to "not submerged at all". Essentially I'm thinking initial buoyancy force of 367.9 J / 2 = 183.9.

Annoyingly this still leaves us short (In: 255 J, Out: 183.9 J) , so I'm going to get in to MT's spreadsheet next and see if more improvements can be made.

Sounds like its time to get your hands wet.

Yeah I should do, I've been trying various things with pint pots and tubing in the vain hope that I don't post anything too foolish!  :)

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 14, 2012, 04:16:01 AM
Hi guys,
attached is updated spreadsheet v2.1. Before opening it, rename file extension to xlsx so it opens correctly. Checked but could not find further errors in it. Still getting COP>1, see for yourself. COP>1 is not just for a specific dimensions of cylinder and pod, dims can be in certain range and still be over 100%. How is the work calculated is described in my previous post.

Interesting (also a bit ironic after spending quite some hours in Excel) was that when I finished checking the sheet I realized we can compute work done on pump water much easier.
Using the dimensions of cylinder and pod as in the sheet:
Precharge step needs 28 liters raised up to 0.9m
Stroke step needs 78 liters raised up to 0.1m + we need to lift the precharge 28 volume 0.1m


precharge work = m*g*h = 28 * 10* 0.9 = 252
stroke part 1 = 78 * 10 * 0.1 = 78
stroke part 2 = 28 * 10 * 0.1 = 28

total work 252 + 78 +28 = 358
Guess what that 358 is the same work that is relatively complicatedly computed in spreadsheet, cell F84.

respect,
Marcel
Argghh..

Yes, the renaming allowed me to open it with no problems.
BUT

NO. Whenever I see false precision......  ten digits after the decimal point ... I pretty much go blind !! Come on..... all that means is that the number is WRONG. I mean, if you say you have 3.456789236 ounces of something.... and it turns out that you "really" have 3.456789235 ounces or any other number than that precise billionth of an ounce value.... then you were wrong, weren't you.
But since your input measurements cannot possibly be more accurate than, say, the tenth of an ounce, you should really only use two or three sig digs at the most. You say "3.46" ounces.... and you will still be right if the true value is from 3.455 to 3.465 ounces, which is within the limit of precision and accuracy of your measurement.

I still haven't analyzed it to see where your error is, if there is one.... I'm going to have to get over my horror and loathing of false precision first. But thanks for the work, anyway....  but next time, please only list digits that mean something, in your answers.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 14, 2012, 04:24:10 AM

Gahh.... there is a lot to catch up with. I'm not going to be able to comment yet on the various spreadsheets and calcs above; I've been busy with an experiment of my own, on a feature of the Inverted Travis Effect and virtual water.

I think there is some relevance to the Zed topic under discussion here, in some way. I have just started thinking about this today, really, and it needs some time to "sink" in.... no pun intended. Anyhow, there is a definite difference between restraining your pod by locking it down internally to the chamber, and restraining it by holding it under with some kind of externally applied mechanical stop or force. The key to the ITE and virtual water appears to be that you must have your pod restrained or pushed down externally by something that isn't attached to the chamber holding the water that is surrounding the pod. The "virtual water" effect corresponds to the buoyancy force expected from the volume (displacement) and weight of the Floater.
I think. Maybe.

Here's the video of the experiment. Kind of long. In the "description" on the YT page I give the complete experimental report with the numbers measured and calculated, such as they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E)


Great vid.

FWIW, IMO, when the Pod is restrained at its highest position [although still completely submerged] the system is in equilibrium, although you had to put Work in to depress the Pod & raise the water level internally initially - [I bet if you did that on a scale it would also read an extra 200 gms or so as you pushed the Pod under] - when it is against the stops the system parts have no potential or ability to move in any direction except together i.e. the forces are there, they just can't be used to do Work because no further displacement is possible.

When you depress the plunger you do more Work on the system again - the system wants to find new equilibrium because you've added the extra Work into it - because the two main players are not 'hard connected' i.e. they are separate entities for this part of the exercise, then the system will try to establish new equilibrium of forces - so the scale [a calibrated Pressure meter] registers the force you put into holding down the Pod, because the parts are not bound by being locked together as one & effectively try [but do not succeed] to move apart, registering as wt force on the scale - but force with no distance is not Work.

I would predict that if you locked down the Pod again at the new lower level [just a split pin or something] then the scale would go back to 1035 gms thereabouts or whatever the combined weights of all the parts was.

Well, that's my take anyway - it will be interesting to see what you or others conclude.

P.S. your timing was impeccable - just this morning I started drawing up some pics looking at similar things with a question for see3d & his sim, related to them - maybe on the weekend I'll finish them.

........

EDIT: If you wanted to check whether pressure wasn't linear I guess you could make up a kit to measure apparent weight of a submerged mass more dense than water - i.e. the water filled beaker on a surface, a mass suspended in it to a balance beam scale - vary the depth the mass is submerged to see if there is any difference in the apparent weight with depth ?

Just a suggestion.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 14, 2012, 08:06:21 AM
@fletcher.... heh.... if the geometry of the dense object is irregular there won't be a smooth relationship between the simple depth of lowering into the water and the buoyancy force, but once it's completely submerged, if it's rigid and sealed, there should be no change in the force with depth.
Yesterday I made up some crude drawings to see where the "opinions" lay on this issue of non-linear pressure changes with water height.
As I've said before, I think that I saw the effect of a "step" in the pressure function in my PerPump 2.0 with functioning TinselZed, as the pump output pressure was increased during the time the riser was free to float, and then dropped abruptly when normal filling of the lower chamber resumed. Some people would call this a non-linear pressure change.

Anyhow, here are the sketch "koans" for meditation. In each case the outer chamber is sealed and you are injecting water at a _volume regulated_  constant rate at whatever pressure is required (you have a magic pump), and you are asked to predict the rough shape of the resulting gas pressure vs time function as the chamber geometry fills and the water level rises.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 14, 2012, 08:42:57 AM
TK .. as a control experiment to your last vid of the ITE what happens when you don't use the vessel cap [I know it had a breather] ?

If you leave it open & completely submerge the Pod to just below the surface & attach it to an external stand it will show a reading on the scale.

If you lower it further to near the bottom what does the scale show while you are lowering it by hand & again when it is clamped to the external stand ?

What does it read if you lower it gradually, perhaps using some sort of screw or whatever you have available etc ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 14, 2012, 10:11:58 AM
TK .. as a control experiment to your last vid of the ITE what happens when you don't use the vessel cap [I know it had a breather] ?

If you leave it open & completely submerge the Pod to just below the surface & attach it to an external stand it will show a reading on the scale.

If you lower it further to near the bottom what does the scale show while you are lowering it by hand & again when it is clamped to the external stand ?

What does it read if you lower it gradually, perhaps using some sort of screw or whatever you have available etc ?

Well, I can do that, but once the thing is fully submerged, since it's fairly rigid its volume won't change with increasing water pressure due to depth. So the amount of water displaced won't change, except by the volume of more pushrod going into the water, negligible I hope. At least that's what I expect. Therefore the buoyant force won't change after full submergence. If there is volume change allowed, like a Cartesian diver, then that's different, but still, I believe, linear force-pressure relationship.

Unfortunately I don't have any labjacks here. I am guessing that raising the reservoir up and having the Pod fixed is equivalent enough, that might be an easier way to do it.

So how about this. My floater displaces 221 mL and weighs 25 grams, so when free to float should have an upward buoyancy of 221-25=196 grams, or when restrained rigidly underwater the full 221 grams, I think. So if I put the reservoir on the scale, and have a means of raising this up on a jack, and then have the pod attached to the Mark-10 force gauge facing down, once the pod is completely submerged, the scale weight of the chamber+water should increase by 221 grams and remain there as the relative depth increases, and the Mark-10 reading the buoyancy force directly should read the same thing.  The deepest tank I have available is the big glass jar used in my underwater wireless experiments and the max capacity of my scale is 5 kg. I think I can set this up with my kit. The only thing missing is a lab jack. I may be able to improvise one or use a hydraulic jack, or just try to lower the pod smoothly with force gauge instead.

So my prediction is that the force will remain constant as the depth is increased once the thing is fully submerged. When it's clamped to the external stand, that is, what I call external restraint, you will see the buoyancy force added to the weight of the water and reservoir. As I lower by hand, ditto.

But what are we showing or testing by this experiment?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 14, 2012, 10:31:18 AM
So, blithely assuming Newton still holds, I dispensed with the fancifications and went ahead and did Fletcher's control experiment. The force upward is equal to the force downward, I hope we can agree on that much without actually having to measure it. So just measuring the weight of the reservoir and the water, as the Floater is lowered into the water, should be enough information, I hope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqE9A_0WRg


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 14, 2012, 10:56:14 AM
I thought that was the basis of your ITE video - perhaps I misunderstood ? - i.e. that when fully submerged near the surface the floater/pod displaced an amount of water - when this was 'connected' to the vessel cap so the pod couldn't rise further, but was still submerged, the entire setup was one unit & weighed so much on the scale.

When you depressed the pod slowly [you now held the weight of the pod] the scale read higher by about 200 gms even though the depth of fluid hardly changed [just some small displacement volume & buoyancy from the shaft perhaps] - as long as you held the end of the pod shaft, acting as an external support, the scale continued to read higher, without any apparent water depth increase ?

AYK the pressure force of water with depth acts in all directions - therefore it acts on the bottom of the vessel [internal force] & also pushes up on the bottom of the pod just above it as buoyancy.

The control might show that this increase in 'weightforce' reading on the scale only exists while you hold the shaft or it is externally clamped - IOW's it is no longer part of the unit by being directly connected to it - the clamp holds its weight but its displacement causes a force downwards on the bottom of the vessel & an internal force pushes up on the pod.

The control is to then attach the shaft to the vessel when the pod is near bottom so that the vessel holds its weight, instead of externally by you or a separate support - action [work] & equal reaction.

I'll download your video again over the weekend & have another look.

Here is a web site with a problem that everybody should work thru - how to bust the bottom out of a glass bottle & why it does.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)

Hyperphysics>Fluids>Pascal's Principles - you should assign a height & volume to the bottle to work thru the results.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 14, 2012, 11:11:03 AM
TK .. Action & Equal Opposite Reaction - when you depress the floater, water viscosity resists its direction of motion, as the water is forced out of the way => gives higher reading on scale just coincidentally similar to displacement, IMO.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 14, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
TK .. Action & Equal Opposite Reaction - when you depress the floater, water viscosity resists its direction of motion, as the water is forced out of the way => gives higher reading on scale just coincidentally similar to displacement, IMO.
There is a couple grams of this when the floater is actually moving, but at whatever depth I hold it still,  you just get the 221 or 222 grams plus a bit for rod length.

The pressure phenomenon you've cited above isn't what's going on in the inverted TE in my videos. The pressure in the jug acts in all directions, not just on the bottom. The bottom has more pressure because of the static water weight. But there is no airspace, and the force of the stopper is transmitted to all parts of the vessel by pressure. The bottom breaks out because of the stress concentration at the "corners" and because of the static weight added to the pressure from driving the stopper in.
In my ITE experiments the added weight is a downward force only, the reaction force to the buoyancy which is "anchored" to the outside world by my hand or a fixed mounting stand. This is caused by the displacement of the floater pushing water (or virtual water) up as it is pushed down. Once it's completely submerged it doesn't need to push up any more water so the buoyant force is constant.
In the Cartesian Diver, there is a flexible membrane or water surface. As the diver goes deeper, the external pressure _changes the volume_ that the diver displaces. This is why its buoyancy varies with depth and why it can be made to rise and sink with externally applied pressure to the water.
The Pod, inflexible and sealed, is not a Cartesian diver, it's a dead lump of matter and its displacement doesn't vary once it's fully submerged.

Quote
AYK the pressure force of water with depth acts in all directions - therefore it acts on the bottom of the vessel [internal force] & also pushes up on the bottom of the pod just above it as buoyancy.
The first part is right... therefore the second part isn't, because the same force is also acting on the top of the pod pushing it down. Buoyancy is not a result of pressure in this way.

ETA: You can think of the water and buoyancy as a simple spring. The spring simply transfers the push from my hand, down to the body of the reservoir which of course increases its "weight" on the scale. But if I compress the spring and then latch it to the side of the jar, there is no external frame for it to push against, so the scale weight doesn't increase.

ETA2: If I have a container, half full of water, half with air, sealed, and I start pumping air pressure into the top part.... does the weight of the container increase? Even when I get to 1000 psi, I've added only a small amount of matter to the system, but the downward pressure on the bottom of the container is huge.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 14, 2012, 02:32:21 PM
NO. Whenever I see false precision......  ten digits after the decimal point ... I pretty much go blind !! Come on..... all that means is that the number is WRONG. I mean, if you say you have 3.456789236 ounces of something.... and it turns out that you "really" have 3.456789235 ounces or any other number than that precise billionth of an ounce value.... then you were wrong, weren't you.
But since your input measurements cannot possibly be more accurate than, say, the tenth of an ounce, you should really only use two or three sig digs at the most. You say "3.46" ounces.... and you will still be right if the true value is from 3.455 to 3.465 ounces, which is within the limit of precision and accuracy of your measurement.


Hi TK,
not sure I understand you correctly. If you say 3.46 ounces I expect it is exactly this volume and not an interval 3.455 to 3.465. Rounding is left to the table processor. I assume they are using double for internal computings [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format)[/size] and when displaying it they look how many digits is fitting into cell and rounding last one.


thank you,
Marcel



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 14, 2012, 02:56:56 PM
Here is my set up for the above calculations. We have a main tank [A] , containing a pod, same dimensions as your . This tank has two connections fitted into the sidewall. |One is level with the top of the pod, and one os near the bottom. We have a second tank [C] this tank is 0.9 metres tall, and contains enough water for precharge. It is connected to the bottom connector of tank A by a flexible hose . To precharge we lift this tank 0.9 meters. This tank very shallow, and large in diameter.
 To stroke, we have a Third tank , one meter diameter and 0.1 metres deep, connected by a flexible hose to the top connector of tank A. To stroke we need to raise it 0.2 metres , cso the bottom of tank B is level with the top of tank A.

I just realised my initial mistake. I assumed that we needed to raise tank C by 0.9 metres . If tank C is 0.9 metres tall we would need to raise it 1.8 meters.  But if we made it only 10 one   centimetre tall, we would only need to raise it one meter to precharge .
So now energy to precharge is 27.7 Kg metres.
So now total input27.7 +15.1 =42.8 Kg metres
So COP is now 67.8 /42.8 = 1.584.
If I am wrong, please tell me where.
Hi neptune,
Not sure about your calc yet but I like your approach with two extra tanks: for precharge and  for stroke. If I go further with simplification we can have next to main tank only one auxiliary tank for precharge and stroke together (very wide and very shallow) with bottom at height 1m. In my sheet I use 28l for precharge and 78l for stroke. 28+78=106kg of water. To lift the auxiliary tank we would need 106kg * 10 * 1m = 1060kgm of work done. Pod can make 678kgm of work so 0.63% efficiency.


I'll use this approach to cross check my spreadsheet again. It can very well be that it is still not correct. Problem is I'm going to have very little free time coming days  :(
[size=78%]
[/size]
take care,
Marcel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 14, 2012, 04:41:12 PM
Thanks to TK and MT for considering my calculation theories.
@MT. I need to work this out but, I think that there may be an advantage in having two tanks at different levels.[Tanks B and C} . However it is  even possible, that even more than two tanks at different levels could lead to less input work.
     Another thing to think about, which has been previously mentioned, is that the more we lift an auxiliary tank, and the more it empties, the less it weighs, and the less force is needed to lift it. I guess that is what you educated guys mean when you talk about calculus and iterations. The calculations I have tried to do, ignore this factor, so the real work done may well be less than I have allowed for.First of all can we agree on some basic figures. Here are mine.


Volume of pod= 678 Litres


Volume of space above pod =78.55 Litres[previously incorrectly stated as 75.5]


Volume of precharge water =28.9Litres. This is volume of outer tank to depth of 0.9 metres minus volume of pod, previously incorrectly stated as 27.9


Are these figure correct please?
Edited to add. It looks like my figures pretty well agree with MT
.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: squigglelicious on September 14, 2012, 06:05:56 PM
 8)   Lets play a game:     

How long will it take until:
MrWayne realizes that he doesn't have an overunity device?

Post your answer as a date and time of the first email to this board
from MrWayne that admits it.

Closest to the actual date wins!

I am going to go with: 
9/21/2012 at 3pm.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ionizer on September 14, 2012, 06:17:44 PM
01-01-2013

but i think he will never admit it.
I think he will leave without saying sorry to all the people who wasted time anf money on his crap.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Ghost on September 14, 2012, 06:58:38 PM
he will most likely never admit it (that should be an option too).
people will lose interest all together at some point and that will be the end of it.
then you'll never hear from him again just like many others.
and even if his technology does work it will never be commercialized and will be suppressed by the government just like many others.
then there will be many others alike that will come along doing basically the same thing.
so in the end he will be no different from many others.
the end :)



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 14, 2012, 07:26:13 PM

Hi TK,
not sure I understand you correctly. If you say 3.46 ounces I expect it is exactly this volume and not an interval 3.455 to 3.465. Rounding is left to the table processor. I assume they are using double for internal computings [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format)[/size] and when displaying it they look how many digits is fitting into cell and rounding last one.


thank you,
Marcel
That's right, you are not understanding me correctly. 3.46 ounces is not the same as saying 3.460000000 ounces. Since the advent of calculators, people have forgotten about significant digits and blindly spew out all the numbers that the calculator can display, whether they are meaningful or not.

The basic rule is this: You cannot have more significant digits in your result, than the _least_ number of significant digits in your input data. Integers and Physical constants like pi are considered precise to whatever degree you need, but actual _measurements_  and calculations using them must respect actual levels of precision, not "mathematically correct" numbers, which will be wrong in a real physical situation.
For a calculation involving a measurement of, say, liters of water made in the ordinary way, I would be very suspicious of any measurement that claimed to be more precise than a milliliter, that is, three decimal places.

If you have, say, an electric heater, and there is a safety label on it that says:  "Keep at least 1 meter (39.3701 inches) distance from flammable objects".... what are you gonna do, get out your micrometer to position your heater?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures)
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/sig_fig/SIG_dig.htm (http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/sig_fig/SIG_dig.htm)
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/rounding2.htm (http://www.purplemath.com/modules/rounding2.htm)

So please..... stop with the false precision already. All that listing a billionth of an ounce (for example) means is that your answer is already wrong.

In spreadsheets, YOU decide how many sig digs to display. Format>Number>digits. Let the machine do the double-precision math, but don't let it make you make false claims of precision that isn't there in reality.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 14, 2012, 09:21:37 PM
@Webby1. I agree with every item on the "do you agree" list. You are doing great work.
 @TK,regarding your video. I found it confusing initially to understand your concept of internal restraint and external restraint. Here is a way that I think I have grasped it, and would like to know if you think it is a valid way to consider it.
     Imagine we have a giant "G" clamp, that has no weight. We dispense with the lid , just keeping the jar and floater.
1. Internal restraint. we hold down the floater with the clamp, one end of the clamp fits on top of the floater rod, the other end fits between the bottom of the jar, and the platform of the scales.


2.External restraint. One end of the clamp fits on top of the floater rod, the other end fits between the base of the scales and the table.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 15, 2012, 01:21:22 AM

The pressure phenomenon [breaking the bottom out of a bottle] you've cited above [force multiplication by pressure transfer - Pascal's principle] isn't what's going on in the inverted TE in my videos. The pressure in the jug acts in all directions, not just on the bottom. The bottom has more pressure because of the static water weight. But there is no airspace, and the force of the stopper is transmitted to all parts of the vessel by pressure. The bottom breaks out because of the stress concentration at the "corners" and because of the static weight added to the pressure from driving the stopper in.


Yes - I posted the example as a good exercise to go thru - if you assign a water height you can calculate the pressure on the bottom of the jug - also the force required to break out the bottom of the bottle - what is potentially interesting is what would the bottle weigh on scales when the 10 N force [~1.0 kg weight] is applied to the stopper if you assign it a volume ? - i.e. the pressure P2 = P1 at stopper + pgh but we have a force multiplication effect on the bottom surface - just an interesting exercise.

Quote from: TK

In my ITE experiments the added weight is a downward force only, the reaction force to the buoyancy which is "anchored" to the outside world by my hand or a fixed mounting stand. This is caused by the displacement of the floater pushing water (or virtual water) up as it is pushed down. Once it's completely submerged it doesn't need to push up any more water so the buoyant force is constant.

The Pod, inflexible and sealed, is not a Cartesian diver, it's a dead lump of matter and its displacement doesn't vary once it's fully submerged.

In the Cartesian Diver, there is a flexible membrane or water surface. As the diver goes deeper, the external pressure _changes the volume_ that the diver displaces. This is why its buoyancy varies with depth and why it can be made to rise and sink with externally applied pressure to the water.


Yes - the purpose of the control experiments was to show that buoyancy was not depth dependent [when the float volume doesn't change] with the same active buoyancy force at all depths, therefore pressure increases linearly, while density remains constant - so an increase in force on the scales must be registering something else & not a change in buoyancy with depth.

Quote from: TK

The first part is right [pressure levels increase with depth] ... therefore the second part isn't, because the same force is also acting on the top of the pod pushing it down. Buoyancy is not a result of pressure in this way.

ETA: You can think of the water and buoyancy as a simple spring. The spring simply transfers the push from my hand, down to the body of the reservoir which of course increases its "weight" on the scale. But if I compress the spring and then latch it to the side of the jar, there is no external frame for it to push against, so the scale weight doesn't increase.


I can live with the spring analogy quite well - I guess if we [the royal we] wanted to be more technically correct we might say that as the float was depressed the PE of the mass was raised - when the float was latched the system was at lowest PE status - the act of decoupling the forces, which were in equilibrium, shows an increase in force read on the scale - as we push the float down it is raising water into the space it just occupied behind it - Mr Newton seems to be vindicated in that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction.

i.e. water to the sides & above the float wants to flow down into its space, because it has greater density - the PE of the system would be lowered if the float rose upwards, if it could - by pushing the float downwards, by adding a force, the water around it still wants to 'flow' into its space.

The float could be moved downwards by an external force or conversely the vessel could be moved upwards around the stationary float - in both circumstances IINM the bottom of the vessel should see [if it could be measured] an increase in force which is easy to see in the ITE video you did.

These things relate directly to see3d's sim IMO where the piston raises the water volume around the locked down pod, so there is not just the work done to raise the water volume [weight] a height, but also a variable force input as the pod is partially submerging - he is contemplating using a counter balance mechanism for this effort required - IINM these experiments prove that the resistance will increase as pod is submerged, which needs to be factored into the sim as pgh calculation, and so a weight & lever counterbalancing approach [ f x d ] might be difficult to implement to get accurate results.

Man I'm having trouble keeping everybody's descriptions of their thought experiments & real experiments in my head - the mental models are overlapping & detail is fading, lol.

These are just my opinions.

P.S. what brought this train of thought around for me was to investigate potentially where Mr Wayne might be getting a 2/3rd reduction in Input Energy penalty that he claims is happening.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 15, 2012, 02:24:20 AM
These things relate directly to see3d's sim IMO where the piston raises the water volume around the locked down pod, so there is not just the work done to raise the water volume [weight] a height, but also a variable force input as the pod is partially submerging - he is contemplating using a counter balance mechanism for this effort required - IINM these experiments prove that the resistance will increase as pod is submerged, which needs to be factored into the sim as pgh calculation, and so a weight & lever counterbalancing approach [ f x d ] might be difficult to implement to get accurate results.
I am just trying to catch up with the videos and posts.  My main system drive failed this week, and I am just about back to normal again after having to hand make some mounting brackets to put a 2.5 inch drive where a 3.5 inch drive was meant to go in my Mac Pro... :-(

I hope I am understanding how these experiments relate to my sim.  When I counterbalance, it is just the lowest energy state that is zeroed out for the pod water weight and the riser weight.  The internal forces grow quickly as the water is raised around the pod, when it is held down.  When released, it will raise to equalize the forces.  My sim actually runs by just raising the top stop 1/1000 of the stroke at a time and recalculating all the forces again.  It keeps moving the riser up one increment until there is no more upward lift force.  It reduces the order of the equations by one to do it this way, and reduces the likelihood of a math error in the process. 

I obviously never have a case where the pod is completely submerged.  It is always partially out of the water.  For a zero layer system, the force seems to be linear with the height of the water column.

If i visualize a teeter-toter with two buckets on each side filled with water so that they are in balance and at the same level. how much force (or extra water) will it take to move one side down 10 degrees? 
The answer is not much.  That is my principle.

However, if suspended right at the waterline in each bucket is a water filled float (neutral buoyancy), taking up half the total water area and zero volume when level, then how will that change the amount of force required?



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 15, 2012, 03:10:39 AM
Quick note on my testing to date:
I've mostly been working on the basics during the very limited time I have to play with this thing; picked up a digital fish scale and a couple of measuring cups ( spouse gets twitchy when stuff disappears from the kitchen... ), rulers, stuff...

Made a larger diameter input cylinder - mounted the screw jack better - put a bottom on the 6.5" 'POD' ( crap!, it leaks a bit ) - vented the 1 riser currently installed - little stuff.

Anyway - it did prove one thing to me tonight, something that might be worth keeping in mind... GRAVITY is the force we're dealing with.

I tried setting up with just a 4lb ( rough measurement, this is a 3rd grade assessment, not grad school physics ) assembled riser / pod "plate". Lifting the unit with just water in the area around the pod was very straight forward, head in the input cylinder and around the pod followed real close and the weight needed to keep it sunk straight out of the textbooks.

Flooded the pod chamber and let the water flow into the first riser gap ( vented ) until I had about 6" in the gaps.

Lowered the input cylinder until the pod was back at the base and closed the vent.

Started the lift again and it behaved as expected; differential pressure caused the water in the "tank" to rise and the water in the retainer gap to sink even before there was any head around the pod, cool. The whole thing started to lift ( this is a single top plate - at this stage the pod is really riser 4 )

Brought it up about an inch and was going to measure the various heads and got surprised watching the system balance itself - the head around the pod kept increasing and the differential head in the 1U space kept shrinking to the point of being non-existent - CRAP! air leak....

No... I let it back down and Teflon taped the vent screw ( gotta be the leak, everything else has been tested ) - tried again with the same result then added a quart of ballast. The additional 2 lb load did the trick, 2.5 hours later the heads are still the same....

Initially, with a light load, while water was flowing in, a differential head appeared in the first riser but went away as soon as the system became static / stable. With more load the head differential remains....

Think I'm about done with 1U and will move on to 2

Dale

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 15, 2012, 03:21:35 AM
@Webby1. I agree with every item on the "do you agree" list. You are doing great work.
 @TK,regarding your video. I found it confusing initially to understand your concept of internal restraint and external restraint. Here is a way that I think I have grasped it, and would like to know if you think it is a valid way to consider it.
     Imagine we have a giant "G" clamp, that has no weight. We dispense with the lid , just keeping the jar and floater.
1. Internal restraint. we hold down the floater with the clamp, one end of the clamp fits on top of the floater rod, the other end fits between the bottom of the jar, and the platform of the scales.


2.External restraint. One end of the clamp fits on top of the floater rod, the other end fits between the base of the scales and the table.
Yes, I believe so. The internal restraint attaches or couples the floater to the chamber, requiring that they move, or stay motionless, together. The giant Gclamp clamping the floater to the chamber does this (with the "spring" of the buoyancy squeezed between the floater and the chamber floor). The external restraint decouples the motion of the chamber (which is moving up and down slightly on the scale) from the motion of the floater, which is either clamped to the external frame below the scale by your giant Gcramp, or is being pushed down by something that is also attached to the external, motionless frame like my body and hand. So the floater pod could be held in exactly the same relative position inside the chamber either way, but with internal restraint it can't move relative to the chamber. You can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 15, 2012, 03:32:44 AM
@Wildew... that is indeed an interesting result. Any chance of a video showing the effect you describe? Are you sure your plugging of the leaks isn't responsible, rather than the increased load?

@fletcher: OK, we are in broad agreement then. I still can't see, from these simple demonstrations and experiments that I've been doing or that webby and wildew are reporting, see3d is simulating, where any work advantage is entering the system. Saying it comes from the other Zed isn't an answer, since the other Zed is getting its work advantage from the first one. So... keep the ideas coming. I just hope somebody hasn't mixed up the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle with some other random one.

@MT: So, has the large OU result in your spreadsheet sim gone away? I wasn't quite clear on your last posting if the error had been found and corrected.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 15, 2012, 01:10:37 PM
We have seen some interesting experiments, with efficiencies as high as 80%. In the Zed, there are a surprising number of variables, and as we know, less than optimum values in these variables are not just additive, they multiply up. So optimisation is elusive, and not achievable overnight. See3d is our biggest hope of optimisation at this point. If 100% is achieved, then the big question becomes, how much of the energy in the exhaust can we utilise without bringing things to a stand still. Let us remember that it took Wayne four years to get to the point where he is at. And yes, I know that opinions differ as to just where that is.


It is refreshing to see that by and large, we are having sensible discussions and treating each other like gentlemen. That, in my opinion is fertile ground for growing the seeds of truth.


Regarding the breaking the bottom of the bottle out by pushing in the stopper. This should come as no surprise to anyone. All we have here is a standard hydraulic jack, with the slave cylinder arranged upside down.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 15, 2012, 05:51:12 PM
We have seen some interesting experiments, with efficiencies as high as 80%. In the Zed, there are a surprising number of variables, and as we know, less than optimum values in these variables are not just additive, they multiply up. So optimisation is elusive, and not achievable overnight. See3d is our biggest hope of optimisation at this point. If 100% is achieved, then the big question becomes, how much of the energy in the exhaust can we utilise without bringing things to a stand still...
100% efficiency is easy to achieve.  A stick is 100% efficient.  Push up 1 inch with 1 pound of force on the bottom and you can raise up a one pound weight sitting on the top by 1 inch (assuming you counterbalance the weight of the stick). 

When a loosely coupled system is less than 100% efficient at lifting a weight, it can still be 100% efficient overall in conserving the input energy.  It is just storing the energy in another form that may be able to be recovered in another way. 

The only real wasted energy comes when input work is converted into something undesired that is not recovered, like heat from friction.

The ZED can be an efficient device when moving slowly.  It can be designed so that there are almost no points of friction in it's operation.  It can have all liquid seals which are practically frictionless.  Air that gets compressed has a heat component, but that component is reversed when it is uncompressed.  From the point of view of friction, it might not be possible to get 100% efficient, but with a well designed, slow moving ZED, it could come very close.

However, 100% efficient operation between input and output is not the goal (though it would be an interesting goal for a loosely coupled, shock absorbing system).

One of the things that can make a ZED more efficient in directly transferring the input to the output is to add more layers.  Each layer is adding another increment of water head to the energy storage part.  That raises the back pressure PSI gradient into the Pod chamber, so more of the input pressure get transferred directly into raising the Pod.  This is an area that I have yet to explore in my sim, so I don't have the definitive formula for it yet.

That is as far as my mental picture has progressed at this stage of understanding the operation of a single, simple ZED (as depicted in my sim).

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 15, 2012, 06:25:56 PM
@See3d. A very informative post. So you are saying that there is a good chance that a single, multilayer Zed can be built to have an efficiency of 100% or very close to it. That being the case, then it all comes down to how much of the exhaust energy we can extract from the system, and still have enough left to complete the cycle.Do you have an opinion on this, please?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 15, 2012, 06:46:09 PM
@See3d. A very informative post. So you are saying that there is a good chance that a single, multilayer Zed can be built to have an efficiency of 100% or very close to it. That being the case, then it all comes down to how much of the exhaust energy we can extract from the system, and still have enough left to complete the cycle.Do you have an opinion on this, please?
That is the $64,000 question.  I do not have a simulated mechanism for extracting exhaust energy at this time.  I do not want to venture an opinion without more advanced simulation work and build confirmations to back it up. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 15, 2012, 07:00:34 PM
Welcome to the weird world of ZED.

Light loads do not behave the same as a full load, loads and pressures during lift can re-balance during lift or after the lift is done, forces do not appear to behave the same depending on the direction of motion,, strange but there must be a connection.
Impulses into a system can create ringing that take time to settle out.  As it settles, the forces trying to balance become weaker.  The settling process consists of periods of motion reversal, which means it can stop moving at the reversal point.  Even a slight amount of stiction in the system might not be overcome by the weak forces.  A small amount of input energy -- from random vibrations, tapping, foot stomping, etc., can remove stiction and let the settling complete.

I am not sure, but surface tension in a small lightly loaded system may have a similar effect as stiction.  An argument for slightly larger models with a bit larger gap.  These stiction or surface tension factors are beyond my simulations.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 15, 2012, 10:48:26 PM
@TK
Quote
Any chance of a video showing the effect you describe? Are you sure your plugging of the leaks isn't responsible, rather than the increased load?
No, I can't post that video because I was wrong. Hate it when that happens  :-\
Here is a video link though, should be active any minute now - http://youtu.be/jbT8LwMmv1g

Only thing I can think of that caused that, only thing that changed. The cap I put on the bottom of the pod was leaking slightly, during the couple hours I was playing with it only maybe a tablespoon of water leaked in but I did seal it up better before playing today. The video [obviously] wasn't scripted and I did state at least one thing incorrectly. The outer cylinder is 8" but the next retainer is 7" not 7.5".

Now to run it again without the camera and try to get a few numbers.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 16, 2012, 02:26:09 AM
MT .. I check over your spreadsheet this morning - doesn't look like Red is going to comment further.

IMO there are a couple of errors & suggestions for you to consider in your analysis.

1. if you covert the pipe entry area to the same as the precharge area the flow rates match, which makes things easier to see - that means the pipe diameter would be around 0.199m^2

2. the Work Output capability of the Pod with a stroke of 0.1 m is NOT what you calculated IMO - you have calculated the entire Pod Volume & converted it to Kg weight water equivalent, then taken a 10th slice of that weight to match your stroke & iteration increments of 0.1 m & 10 - then you have calculated your Output in kgm based on that 10th weight slice acting over 0.1 m stroke distance.

The actual buoyancy potential Work Output is the volume weight of the precharge [28 kg] over 0.1 m stroke length, IINM - not the Pod volume, therefore substantially less than your spreadsheet predicts for COP.

You would also need to assign some mass to the Pod itself to find a Net Upthrust.

That's how it appears to me after a quick peek.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on September 16, 2012, 03:29:17 AM
Wildew -

Nice Set up!

Thanks for the video - it is crystal clear now what you were describing.
It's great you are reporting what you are seeing even if it was due to the leak.

Looking forward to seeing more layers!

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 16, 2012, 05:22:05 AM
MT .. the invisible pod - a cross-sectional view of a hypothetical representation Marcel.

The reference frame is changed - 'g' set to 10 m/s^2 for clarity.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 16, 2012, 08:40:35 AM

I obviously never have a case where the pod is completely submerged.  It is always partially out of the water.  For a zero layer system, the force seems to be linear with the height of the water column.

If i visualize a teeter-toter with two buckets on each side filled with water so that they are in balance and at the same level. how much force (or extra water) will it take to move one side down 10 degrees? 
The answer is not much.  That is my principle.

However, if suspended right at the waterline in each bucket is a water filled float (neutral buoyancy), taking up half the total water area and zero volume when level, then how will that change the amount of force required?


Interestingly Dennis I simed & built something very similar about 7 years ago - when the float is in the bucket fluid the forces move the bucket down to create separation distance between the float & the bottom of the bucket.

You can try it easily with a beaker on a scale - just push one finger down into the water.

P.S. although I have a pic saved of the sim from those experiments the sim itself was lost in a hard drive crash a few years ago & I never bothered to recreate it again.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 16, 2012, 09:23:57 AM
Ahah!  A flash of insight, brought on by the three posts above. Thanks, fellows!

The insight is this: regular floating buoyancy behaviour depends on the mass as well as the displacement. If the mass of the floater is greater than the mass of the displaced water, the floater sinks, although the part of its weight that is equal to the water is cancelled by the buoyancy. And if you have the chamber sitting on the scale, the total weight includes the entire mass of the floater, whether it's sunk, floating, or resting on top of the container, as long as it's "internally restrained" or not restrained, just floating.
But.... when the floater is _externally restrained_, or pushed into the water while attached to some external support, inverted Travis Effect style.... then the scale only indicates the chamber plus the weight of the displaced water. The mass of the floater itself is not included. It could be made of solid lead or perfectly weightless, the scale is still only going to read the same thing: the weight of the displaced water, because the weight of the floater itself is supported by the external restraint.

Hmmm.... interesting, but is it relevant to the behaviour of a Zed or a pair of them? Something to think about anyway.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: squigglelicious on September 16, 2012, 05:46:11 PM
Here is a head scratcher:

Lets say a lead box sinks to the bottom of a water tank.

In doing so, the potential energy (PE) of the system (water in tank + lead box)
decreases as the PE of the lead box decreases more than the increased
PE of the water being lifted to replace it.

Where does the "lost energy " go?


Maybe The Zed is tapping into this reservoir of lost energy?




for my answer, scroll down....









In air, a falling lead box converts its PE to kinetic energy (.5 * m * v).
This is lost by air resistance, and when the box hits the ground it deforms
the ground and itself which heats up itself and the ground.  Or if that is insufficient
then it bounces and the cycle repeats until all energy converted to heat.

I guess in water it is the same, but the "water resistance" dominates.  So the
water must be heating up.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 16, 2012, 07:43:33 PM
I think the problem with all these pressures is that they only act over a relatively short distance. Start with the risers/pod assembly all the way down, with your pressure distribution in the nested cylinder "pistons" of air. Then release the things so they can be pushed up by the pressure. As soon as they start to move, the water level in the pod chamber will drop a lot as water rushes into the space below the pod. This will immediately reduce the pressure in the innermost chamber and also allow all the other pressures to reduce by pushing back thru the "U"s. As the pod/risers go up the pressure drop is greater, and I think the assembly only needs to move a short stroke before all the pressures are back to normal. In fact if it "bounces" above this point it will actually be sucked back down by the water and airpressure in the "U"s. I think.

I'm just imagining here, and also going by what I see in my single-layer pod/riser in the enhanced PerPump with TinselZed.
So the answer is, no, because by the time you get to the top of the stroke, or by the time you reset, the pressure multiplication effect is gone so there's nothing that can be used anywhere else, it all got used lifting or sloshing water around.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 16, 2012, 09:02:27 PM
So just like the "demo" videos where the lift is of a short value.

In the pod chamber I can still add more fluid to continue with the lift but the others I can not.  I suppose that the added fluid in the pod chamber can still influence the other parts to help mitigate those pressure drops.

This then explains why the initial part of the lift is much higher and then falls off so if I set my lift value to the final stroke pressure at end of stroke, I can take more out in the beginning and why it works better when I do use a higher resistance to lift and then allow it to reduce to the final value,, all those pressure shifts happen a little later in the stroke.
As I pointed out in my previous posts: As the pod starts to move up the air pocket expands quickly.  This reduces the air pressure and the lift force.  If the stroke is too far, it can even go to negative air pressure, where you would be better off venting the air instead of creating suction -- best not to go there.  The optimal stroke is short, but the details are different depending on the geometry and starting pressure preloads.

I should know more as the sim improves.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 16, 2012, 11:30:38 PM
Well this helps to bring Waynes comment on how much lift resistance to use into a new light, if you have a max value of lift and use 3\4 of that value you are building in room for more.  I was kind of thinking that it was just to leave some saftey room against blowing a skirt.

So at 3\4 lift value to max then the water is 3\4 the way up the side of the pod, so as lift happens and the other risers start to loose that pressure then more of the force is directed against the pod, retarding its lift so now the water will flow up past the sides of the pod and re-balance the pressure under the other risers until you have reached the full stroke value, then the pod chamber is full to the top and all lift resistance is balanced by the pressure held within the system.

Then on sink you have the full pressure value but only over a small volume of fluid, when that starts to vent the pressure will drop off quickly allowing the other risers to "push" down by not being able to hold against the mass that is left on top,, focusing more of that force into the pod chamber and slightly increasing the amount of pressure you can get back out,, and then the mass left on the risers reduces the difference between the rest pressure and the lift pressure which reduces the extra cost value.

Correct, good discussions going on here, now my spreadsheet may be more understandable.
 
Note the Pod Ret. water height before Rise (Full Pre-Charge)  and after rise while the force remains the same. Less than 3/4 water levels can be reached by lowering the water level in the pod retainer and adding air pressure to bring the water head back up to where it was before the water level reduction or 3/4 of max.
 
The initial setup goal should be to have the Pod sunk at start of Initial Pre-Charge. Actually, that is the reason for the 'Minus Pod' value and is only usefull at Initial Pre-Charge settings.
 
Regards, Larry   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 17, 2012, 03:59:24 AM
I'd been doing pretty good at staying dry until I started looking for greater differentials in this 1U.
With 20+ lbs total load a blown skirt makes a pretty good splash...  ;D
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 17, 2012, 04:27:14 AM
I've been kind of wondering where MrWayne is these days. He usually checks in and makes a post of some kind every day, I thought. So I just went to check mrwaynesbrain.com to see if there is any news. Nope, none since Sept. 9..... but in the "current objectives" part I did notice this bit:

Quote
I introduced Kevan to my newly designed "Hydro Assist" System - he said "Brilliant!" That is a good compliment from Kevan - yet it was like a 'Hole in One' on 'Sunday' - no one to see or hear.....but........God - and He is just keeping me humble.... We have a total of four "Replication Challengers" Two are already reporting findings - excellent work Ladies and Gents.. On that note: I highly recommend the Challengers to ask about the new Hydro Assist system - perfect for your models (no bags or pumps needed). I think the Challengers might just beat me to it - I will be so glad! No point in putting all your eggs in one basket.

Well..... no bags or pumps needed in the new Hydro Assist system..... sounds like a complete redesign is in the offing, since the ones we have seen have bags and pumping rams and stuff...

Two of the four "Replication Challengers" are already reporting findings...... what kind of findings? But they didn't know about the new Hydro Assist system that is perfect for their models....so.. back to the drawing boards?

And MrWayne thinks the Challengers just might beat him to it..... to what? To actually having a running model?

So.... we apparently have a major improvement in design that eliminates the need for a fundamental, and I thought basic and critical, set of components to the overunity doubleZed system.
And we have half the Replication Challengers reporting findings that are apparently not positive enough to be reported in detail. And the other half hasn't bothered to report at all.
And we apparently have a tacit admission that MrWayne doesn't have a running model and is afraid... or hopeful.... that the Replication Challengers will come up with one soon.

Ya know, folks........ it is really _really_ difficult to retain my "suspension of disbelief" in the face of postings like that, which reveal a lot "between the lines" as it were.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 17, 2012, 04:54:24 AM
I've been kind of wondering where MrWayne is these days.
You could just try asking instead of speculating.  Some members know the answers to these questions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 17, 2012, 04:59:36 AM
You could just try asking instead of speculating.  Some members know the answers to these questions.

Thank you, that brings up another very good point, one that I have also mentioned before.

There is a lot of "back channel" communication going on in the form of PMs, emails and even telephone conversations. As you indicate, not all "members" are privy to all the information. Even MrWayne himself doesn't have all the information that is being shared in the back channels.

And I'm sure that holds true for every other open source free energy project on this forum. Doesn't it?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 17, 2012, 01:57:37 PM
Thank you, that brings up another very good point, one that I have also mentioned before.

There is a lot of "back channel" communication going on in the form of PMs, emails and even telephone conversations. As you indicate, not all "members" are privy to all the information. Even MrWayne himself doesn't have all the information that is being shared in the back channels.

And I'm sure that holds true for every other open source free energy project on this forum. Doesn't it?
I have no idea what happens on this forum on the other threads.  This is the only thread I have joined in on -- after I was already involved from another forum and some other private communications.  People sometimes share information privately with one (or a few people), that is not appropriate or advisable to have as part of an on-the-record public communication.  Sometimes it is just more efficient to share half baked information through another format (even phone) until it is well enough organized to share generally.  I certainly don't feel obligated to share every thought or emotion I have (like a Twitter stream) on this thread. 

I have this general rule that I like to go by when dealing with others (especially those who show respect for others in how they communicate on line):  Praise publicly, criticize privately.  Private conversations should remain private.

I suppose there is a reason for the PM feature on this site to be enabled.  I wish half the posts I see here were PMs instead. 

The ZED is not an open source development project.  It was developed privately, but partially shared here with strings attached.  Private development continues at great expense to the private investors.  I see nothing wrong in how it is being shared on this forum.  Participation is optional.  Disclosure: I have not invested my personal money into this project at this point, just my time.

Now back to sim development.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 17, 2012, 10:19:01 PM
TK .. a few here at this thread [they know who they are & thankyou] have taken the time to build something [real or sim] & report their findings to the forum, either good or bad - you are also part of that small group, willing to explore the concepts of a ZED or a dual ZED to establish facts rather than beliefs, delusions, hopes or desires - in short to dispense with distractions & let the chips fall where they may.

I think we can only rely on the goodwill of those few people to get to the bottom of Mr Wayne's claims - others have different agenda's that don't necessarily fit with discussing their findings or facts here, that is obvious - though I'll wager that they are not adverse to reading thru the thread for information that might be useful.

All that has been established here so far will aid see3d in calibrating his sim for a single layer ZED analog - when that is reliable & accurate he can build multi layer versions with performance confidence - this can be checked against real world builds in a feed back loop & save the builders time, effort & money - that has to be a good thing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 17, 2012, 10:38:19 PM
(snip)

The ZED is not an open source development project.  It was developed privately, but partially shared here with strings attached.  Private development continues at great expense to the private investors.  I see nothing wrong in how it is being shared on this forum.  Participation is optional.  Disclosure: I have not invested my personal money into this project at this point, just my time.

Now back to sim development.

Did you notice.... on the front "Home" page of this forum, you find this, in big bold letters:
Quote
Welcome to OverUnity.com
The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum
I've highlighted the part that people seem to have trouble seeing.

And you speak in the past tense when you say "the Zed was privately developed".... yet we read just last week of a major new development that would appear to involve a complete redesign, eliminating the bags and transfer pumps. So perhaps saying "was developed" is not as correct as "is being developed". Not only that...... there is the comment from MrWayne saying he thinks the Replicators might get there first.... "there" being the working demonstration model that actually does run itself. So maybe "is being developed" is also a bit strong... perhaps "will hopefully be developed with the help of forum members" is more accurate still.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 17, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
TK .. a few here at this thread [they know who they are & thankyou] have taken the time to build something [real or sim] & report their findings to the forum, either good or bad - you are also part of that small group, willing to explore the concepts of a ZED or a dual ZED to establish facts rather than beliefs, delusions, hopes or desires - in short to dispense with distractions & let the chips fall where they may.

I think we can only rely on the goodwill of those few people to get to the bottom of Mr Wayne's claims - others have different agenda's that don't necessarily fit with discussing their findings or facts here, that is obvious - though I'll wager that they are not adverse to reading thru the thread for information that might be useful.

All that has been established here so far will aid see3d in calibrating his sim for a single layer ZED analog - when that is reliable & accurate he can build multi layer versions with performance confidence - this can be checked against real world builds in a feed back loop & save the builders time, effort & money - that has to be a good thing.

 
VERY well said, Sir.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 17, 2012, 11:09:54 PM
For those experimenting with raising and lowering a reservoir, connected by a flex tube to the bottom of their pod chambers, like wildew and, I think, mondrasek, allow me to make a couple of suggestions.

First, try to use a large bore connecting flex tube. There will be less energy lost to friction and viscosity and turbulence and things will equalize faster.
It would be good to have a valve or at least a simple pinch-off clamp on this tube.

I don't think that the speed of input is that important at this point. The start and endpoints of the lift and the quantities of water in the reservoir are the important things. I'd suggest sizing the moving reservoir so that it doesn't empty completely and doesn't overflow either, at the bottom or the top; this will make the water quantity involved easier to measure.

And it's the centers of mass of the water that's important. The Zed will have "rectangular" looking cross sections when viewed from the side and the CofM will be halfway from bottom to top of these rectangles. Same for the moving reservoir. Don't forget the "rectangle" that appears under the Pod when it rises.

So... we define a reference height, like the table or the bottom of the Zed chamber, and call that zero. For input we need to know the starting quantity of water in the moving reservoir and the height of its CofM, easy if your reservoir is cylindrical. For output, the weight on top and the CofM of all the little "rectangles" of water. The Zed is precharged and bottomed with the weight in position (external or internal "restraint"?) , CofM of water "rectangles" recorded. Then the reservoir is lifted however high necessary to do the work, and once the water has stopped flowing the remaining quantity and CofM is recorded. Then the reservoir is lowered to whatever extent necessary to recover just the original amount of water, height of CofM recorded (probably will be negative) and the _VALVE CLOSED_, then the reservoir is brought back to the original starting height.

Now.... is the weight back to start? And... when you open the valve does anything happen?

See where I'm going with this: You will have completed a full cycle with whatever temporary "suction" assist (lowering below zero height) is necessary to get your original water back in the reservoir, and you've then returned the input back to the start configuration. So is there output remaining in the system, as pressure or lift?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 17, 2012, 11:25:56 PM
Just a quick note to those who might be building.  Acrylic appear the best way to go if you have the funds or "have those tubes in stock."
 
I've been building out of Pepsi bottles (PETE) with acrylic ends.  So I make tubes that are not very round out of that material.  But the end caps make one end very round.  The other end is not so round.  At ALL!
 
So a tip I received from see3D has been great:  Bond a loop of wire to the open edge of the risers/retainer walls.  It has been a great improvement to my simple setup today.  I can now bend the metal rim of the open end of my Risers until they are round.
 
THANKS DENNIS!
 
My only regret is that I did not get this tip before finishing my initial build.  So my retainer walls cannot receive the wire hoops because they are so close together and inside the taller Outer wall.  That means there is no space to work in which to add the hoop improvements.
 
Hope this helps.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 18, 2012, 03:15:34 AM
TK is so detail oriented I wish he was building - or maybe closer and working with mine - my inadequate test methods will have to do for me I guess.
Major proof ( to me ) that loading and maintaining big differentials is a measurable bonus.
First cycle test I did was with a total 0f 8.5 lbs steady load, lifting and removing 1 additional pound.
I have added a shut off valve and head tube to "exhaust" from.

Major blown skirt with too much weight last night so I studied the spreadsheets and did my own rough calcs to check and they actually matched pretty close to 1 digit which is closer than I can really measure anyway...

With this 1U setup my max differential can be achieved with 23 fl oz in the gap prior to setting the pod / riser in and that will support lifting just under 20 lbs total - 1 inch lift, before a blow out.

POD / riser is 3.5 lbs
I'm defining "cycle" as lift the entire assembly 1", remove the "lift" weight.
Shut the input valve and drain until the pod returns to the starting point - very close to bottom.
Measure the difference between the lifted head and the lowest head needed to sink.
Measure the amount of water drained.

Reapply the lift weight.
Pour the water back into the input cylinder to lift.

First cycle test was with 5lbs added plus 1lb lift weight and it ended up taking inputs of lifting 2 lbs 4.5 inches to cycle. 
( max differential in the 1U was 3" )

Tonight's test:
10lbs ballast added to the 3.5 lb riser and a 5lb lift weight.
( max differential now at 10" )
1.5 lbs water lifted 6" would cycle the 5lb lift weight 1"
Same work input to cycle?
5x the output?
Still very under unity but major improvement?

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 18, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
TK .. a few here at this thread [they know who they are & thankyou] have taken the time to build something [real or sim] & report their findings to the forum, either good or bad - you are also part of that small group, willing to explore the concepts of a ZED or a dual ZED to establish facts rather than beliefs, delusions, hopes or desires - in short to dispense with distractions & let the chips fall where they may.

I think we can only rely on the goodwill of those few people to get to the bottom of Mr Wayne's claims - others have different agenda's that don't necessarily fit with discussing their findings or facts here, that is obvious - though I'll wager that they are not adverse to reading thru the thread for information that might be useful.

All that has been established here so far will aid see3d in calibrating his sim for a single layer ZED analog - when that is reliable & accurate he can build multi layer versions with performance confidence - this can be checked against real world builds in a feed back loop & save the builders time, effort & money - that has to be a good thing.


Yes we need to be thankful to those who are building and sharing. Regarding having a different agenda, it is quite possible that some replicaters are focused on the prize money, and that it their reason for not sharing. Whenever money rears its ugly head, there are problems, that it is the way of the world.
@TK. Yes it would be wonderful if this was totally open source, but surely, the current situation is better than nothing?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 18, 2012, 02:03:08 PM
Hi guys,

I too have had a go with an Excel spreadsheet. Looking over what's been posted by Fletcher's PE calculation images and MT's spreadsheet, I think this looks pretty good. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so hopefully some of you guys will give it a once over and let me know your thoughts.

I've tried to set it up in a way that allows for easy to see modifications (highlighted by the green cells), to change the size of the pod and tanks, the pod density and the height to which the water should be filled to (if you don't want the pod completely submerged), which should then calculate everything else.

I think that the only question really is the formula used for Buoyancy Work. I played around with finding actual work potential at certain pod submerged depths and plugged those in to an equation calculator. That gave me the one I've used, which, looking at Fletcher's PE information and sizes used in his images, gave me a total buoyancy work in the right ball park. Overall the buoyancy never overhauls the energy requirement of the fill but the over all cycle does appear to make it.

Currently setup:
  Work In: 107.32 J
  Work Out: Up: 72.21  Down: 56.96  Total: 129.17 J

  Net: +21.85 J less the various losses.

This seems at first sight to support a comment I'm sure I saw Wayne make once (I haven't looked back through the whole thread, and it's not easily searchable, so happy to be corrected), that in it's most basic form the ZED idea was barely over unity.

Current todo list includes: Having more water input to sustain buoyancy force to see if that improves things, modification of the stroke height, adjustment of tanks relative to each other, and ultimately, more layers!

Please let me know what you guys think, and I'm happy to be told where I've gone wrong! :)

Note: There is a macro in the spreadsheet, I added a chart for a visual element, so if you don't wish to allow macros to run from a stranger, who could blame you, then make sure you click no/don't run/remove at the prompt. The overall spreadsheet will still work, but the chart wont.

Cheers
Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 18, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
This is from my notes. I did not record the reply number and page.


3 Layers, just overunity
4 Layers, not much better.
6 Layers, using two Zeds 250%
or 190% with one Zed.


Remember that with more layers come more set-up problems, and that I believe mrwayne recommended not more than 4 layers for a table top model.
 To me, all this implies that the real OU is in recycling the exhaust as Webby1 says.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 19, 2012, 12:34:06 AM

Hi guys,

I too have had a go with an Excel spreadsheet. Looking over what's been posted by Fletcher's PE calculation images and MT's spreadsheet, I think this looks pretty good. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so hopefully some of you guys will give it a once over and let me know your thoughts.

I've tried to set it up in a way that allows for easy to see modifications (highlighted by the green cells), to change the size of the pod and tanks, the pod density and the height to which the water should be filled to (if you don't want the pod completely submerged), which should then calculate everything else.

I think that the only question really is the formula used for Buoyancy Work. I played around with finding actual work potential at certain pod submerged depths and plugged those in to an equation calculator. That gave me the one I've used, which, looking at Fletcher's PE information and sizes used in his images, gave me a total buoyancy work in the right ball park. Overall the buoyancy never overhauls the energy requirement of the fill but the over all cycle does appear to make it.

Currently setup:
  Work In: 107.32 J
  Work Out: Up: 72.21  Down: 56.96  Total: 129.17 J

  Net: +21.85 J less the various losses.

This seems at first sight to support a comment I'm sure I saw Wayne make once (I haven't looked back through the whole thread, and it's not easily searchable, so happy to be corrected), that in it's most basic form the ZED idea was barely over unity.

Current todo list includes: Having more water input to sustain buoyancy force to see if that improves things, modification of the stroke height, adjustment of tanks relative to each other, and ultimately, more layers!

Please let me know what you guys think, and I'm happy to be told where I've gone wrong! :)

Note: There is a macro in the spreadsheet, I added a chart for a visual element, so if you don't wish to allow macros to run from a stranger, who could blame you, then make sure you click no/don't run/remove at the prompt. The overall spreadsheet will still work, but the chart wont.

Cheers
Amo


Hi .. I'm out here for a few days so don't have time to go thru your spreadsheet carefully, especially a closer look at your output formula - I do like the presentation though :7)

What I suggest you do is add some CHECK cells into the analysis [I do this as a cross reference from a different perspective] - sometimes you can get carried away pumping out formula's that you loose sight of what you are actually trying to say with those formula's.

For instance, obviously buoyancy is generated when there is water beneath the pod & the first diagram should show some because you are using the floatation law to find neutral buoyancy & where the height of water must be to achieve that - that's just a minor presentation point & I haven't checked whether that extra height is built into your inputs - also m^3 should be kg in some cells.

Buoyancy itself is a force - it is the VOLUME of displaced water [in this case the volume up the sides of the Pod] - it can be viewed as the negative gravity effect of that MASS/VOLUME of water - not virtual water but real water to find energy/work capacity- you need to know the height the water is raised, find its COM [half height raised], apply 'g' & you have the PE raising ability of that volume of water aka buoyancy.

Then you need to find the Apparent Weight of the Pod - gravity is still pulling this down - deduct it & if any force is left over it is the Net Upthrust force which does the Work, IINM.

If you include a check cell near your buoyancy work formula & approach it from the simple mathematics described above you can compare it to your result to see if they line up - if not one or other is likely wrong or needs a closer look - you're just looking at the problem from another angle to compare the results.

Just My Opinions [JMO's] at short notice - you may already have approached it this way but I didn't have time to go thru carefully.

P.S. a simple test anyone can do while doing the dishes - take a light weight plastic glass - depress it & feel the upthrust force - fill it with water - turn it over then lift it out of the water upside down until the rim almost breaks the surface - feel the weight of that water [a bit like a barometer tube] - that is similar to the Upthrust force of the glass depressed down into the water pushing back up - it gives you some perspective & an idea of the forces we are talking about & how you can viewed it as volume/mass PE gains or losses for analysis purposes.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 19, 2012, 03:28:35 AM
Hi .. I'm out here for a few days so don't have time to go thru your spreadsheet carefully, especially a closer look at your output formula - I do like the presentation though :7)

What I suggest you do is add some CHECK cells into the analysis [I do this as a cross reference from a different perspective] - sometimes you can get carried away pumping out formula's that you loose sight of what you are actually trying to say with those formula's.

Thanks for the idea, I'll add adding some checks on to my todo list.

For instance, obviously buoyancy is generated when there is water beneath the pod & the first diagram should show some because you are using the floatation law to find neutral buoyancy & where the height of water must be to achieve that - that's just a minor presentation point & I haven't checked whether that extra height is built into your inputs - also m^3 should be kg in some cells.

Yeah, I like that idea too. I think I'll add a sheet dedicated to diagramming the steps the pod is going through. This will probably work nicely with the checks I'll add.

Buoyancy itself is a force - it is the VOLUME of displaced water [in this case the volume up the sides of the Pod] - it can be viewed as the negative gravity effect of that MASS/VOLUME of water - not virtual water but real water to find energy/work capacity- you need to know the height the water is raised, find its COM [half height raised], apply 'g' & you have the PE raising ability of that volume of water aka buoyancy.

Then you need to find the Apparent Weight of the Pod - gravity is still pulling this down - deduct it & if any force is left over it is the Net Upthrust force which does the Work, IINM.

If you include a check cell near your buoyancy work formula & approach it from the simple mathematics described above you can compare it to your result to see if they line up - if not one or other is likely wrong or needs a closer look - you're just looking at the problem from another angle to compare the results.

Err... I'll need to read that a few more times to make sure I understand what your saying there. It seems to make sense, but I'm at work at the mo, so I can't put my full attention on this.

P.S. a simple test anyone can do while doing the dishes - take a light weight plastic glass - depress it & feel the upthrust force - fill it with water - turn it over then lift it out of the water upside down until the rim almost breaks the surface - feel the weight of that water [a bit like a barometer tube] - that is similar to the Upthrust force of the glass depressed down into the water pushing back up - it gives you some perspective & an idea of the forces we are talking about & how you can viewed it as volume/mass PE gains or losses for analysis purposes.

This I think, from what I've learnt reading this forum and getting involved, is potentially where the supposed OU is being created. Normally you think, a submerged object that floats will rise with the force of the volume of water that it was displacing, and to sink it back down to that same level, the same force must be applied to the object... work in = work out.

However, it seems that that it may be the fill and drain approach of the water applied within the ZED means that the requirement of energy to submerge the object in the first place by surrounding it with water, isn't as high as trying to force the object down into an already filled container. So once the cycle completes, the object sinks/falls with the draining dropping water level, and there's a bit left over. Maybe?


Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 19, 2012, 09:42:50 AM
@amo: My last set of buoyancy experiments on YouTube appears to have falsified the hypothesis contained in your last paragraph, at least for a pod and its single surrounding ringwall.

The inverted Travis effect gives what it takes, and takes what it gives, minus losses. The addition of multiple U-chambers and more risers .... how can this change things? You can imagine my single riser and ringwall as a black box, call it a "pod" and build another Zed around it..... and you still are not going to be breaking even. Somewhere there has to be a mechanism for excess pressure or volume... this is the only way that "lift" could remain, or that anything of the "input" could be recycled and used in another Zed.
And it is simply logically impossible to have extra volume or pressure, with your moving parts back in the same starting position, unless you have created matter. This is the same thing as creating energy, really, but it's a lot harder for Koalas to swallow when it's laid out so bluntly as that.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 19, 2012, 07:50:08 PM
I think the first time anyone sees one of these working it's going to be like staring at one of the neverending staircases.
I haven't yet - and possibly never will; but even seeing it happen won't make it any easier to believe...

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 19, 2012, 07:54:36 PM
I did wrap up my testing on 1U last night and glued in the second riser / retainer pair - barring leaks... I should have a bit of comparison info in a day or 2. I did focus up pressure testing rather than trying to measure volume and lift, the results were a little surprising.

The entire floating weight was 18.5 pounds, the volume being transferred was 3 lbs.
I could lift at 14.5 to 15 water column inches and sink at 13.

Just doesn't seem like a lot of input to cycle almost 20 lbs, an inch up and down.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 19, 2012, 10:27:13 PM
@webby: I mean just what I said. For there to be any available "extra" pressure or volume, it has to come from somewhere. Think about it! For pressure to increase over and above what is allowed by volume changes, there has to be something... matter which takes up space... increasing. The only way that I can see for anything like extra pressure or volume to come OUT of the system is for matter to be created WITHIN the system. Do you find this hard to believe? Yet it is the same thing as claiming that extra work comes out of the system.


@wildew: Welcome to the Hydrostatic Paradox. Good work, keep going .... any chance for a new video?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on September 19, 2012, 10:31:10 PM
Thanks for the update Wildew.

We can see that as you add layers, it is adding to the "virtual mass" displacement, with some of that displacement being counted multiple times from previous layers.

Hoping the fun starts soon! 8)

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 19, 2012, 10:34:06 PM
...The only way that I can see for anything like extra pressure or volume to come OUT of the system is for matter to be created WITHIN the system... Yet it is the same thing as claiming that extra work comes out of the system.
I think you have that backwards.  The traditional view is that to extract energy out of a closed system, mass has to disappear from within the system.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 19, 2012, 11:00:18 PM
@TK
Quote
.... any chance for a new video?
I started out to do just that both last night and Monday night. The more I tried to get set up to do ... something. The more I struggled with "video of what?". What, exactly do I have to demonstrate beyond what I did on the weekend... Not much.
One thing for sure, with the small diameter feed tube and working on seeing just how little head change I could get it to lift and sink,,, you would NOT have wanted to watch :) Corn grows faster than water moves at those minor pressure differentials....

When I get the testing started on the 2U I'll shoot another, promise
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 19, 2012, 11:19:43 PM
there has to be something... matter which takes up space... increasing. The only way that I can see for anything like extra pressure or volume to come OUT of the system is for matter to be created WITHIN the system. Do you find this hard to believe? Yet it is the same thing as claiming that extra work comes out of the system.

Hi Guys,
I thought I should post a helping pointer,
Wayne could have given you more insight over time but that wouldn't have helped if you do not believe in OU. 
But then, you do not believe that Wayne has OU to start with,  so nothing is lost. 
But then it is said "there has to be something... ", why ?  that 'something' can not speak to you when your ears do not want to hear.
This is starting to sound like the message from the prophets in the bible.
Their message was simple so is this one ! So is the solution a simple one !
From a helping hand,

PS: Congrats Dale, you did a fine job building that Zed, I like you method for water injection. I am sure you will get some good results out of it. Remember that your dominant lift force comes from the largest area with the largest pressure, which is the difference between the flat top and the layered one.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 19, 2012, 11:50:04 PM
I think you have that backwards.  The traditional view is that to extract energy out of a closed system, mass has to disappear from within the system.
I don't have anything backwards, I just left out the critical part: In order to continue running and producing useful work. The Zed works.... or rather is alleged to work... by transferring pressure from one side to the other, in one way or another.  Try this with your own however complicated system of pistons and cylinders.... and you will find that the pressure increase in one side is offset by a volume decrease on the other side. You can cycle the same pressure/volume change back and forth, putting in work to offset your losses.... but you can't take any work out of the system unless you cause some pressure or volume change _somewhere else_ outside the system. And this will have to be replaced somehow.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 20, 2012, 12:04:57 AM
Where do the floating generators capturing wave energy get the energy from?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 20, 2012, 12:12:19 AM
You can cycle the same pressure/volume change back and forth, putting in work to offset your losses.... but you can't take any work out of the system unless you cause some pressure or volume change _somewhere else_ outside the system.

And if this is not the case we have the "ZED Paradox?"
 
I'm just wondering.  Just because my own experiments are acting so weird so far.  But getting to a stable setup with enough instrumentation to have reasonably accurate results has been delayed quite a bit.  I blame work.  Well that, and real life (vacation!)
 
I've got the digital mass scale and a digital indicator on a mag base (for ZED rise measurements) set up now.  Also installed the independent air line into the bottom of the Pod chamber a la webby1.  It appears that I have a stable lift and measurement system right now (repeated only twice) but was interupted to play baseball with the 4 year old.  The pitcher has to aim very carefully to make sure she gets a hit!
 
I need about a week off from work to get this done!  But I would also need Dale's build to do it right...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 20, 2012, 12:31:08 AM
@All - that have been supportive and / or complimentary about my efforts so far.
I'm not real good at showing appreciation and tend to be quite anti-social... but, THANK YOU!
The comments and input are very appreciated.
If I don't respond or acknowledge,,, please don't take it that I don't care, I do.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 20, 2012, 06:21:58 AM
TK,

Who has said that there is "extra" created, I have not said that nor infered that, there is no extra pressure and no extra volume created, if there were then mass or energy would be being created or destroyed,, not allowed AFAIK.

You imply, I infer. (Or rather you didn't imply, so I didn't infer.) Other than that, I have no argument with you.

It's MrWayne, I believe, who is saying that mass or energy is being created, by his self-running double Zed with new and improved Hydro Assist that doesn't need bags or pumps. And since we can apparently rule out the creation of mass -- everybody knows that's just silly, right? .... since there isn't any exhaust... there must be energy created. But how? Isn't it due to pressure being transferred from one Zed to the other? 

I do find it ironically odd, though, that some of the same people who balk at the creation of mass, seem to have no problem with the creation of energy. They both boil down to the same thing in the end, so I don't see why there should be any difficulty.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 10:45:19 AM
I do find it ironically odd, though, that some of the same people who balk at the creation of mass, seem to have no problem with the creation of energy. They both boil down to the same thing in the end, so I don't see why there should be any difficulty.

Gents, lets be constructive here,

It looks like the tables have changed, life tends to be circular.  It appears to me all guess work what is currently presented here. Nobody seems even to remember what has been presented before in this tread. If you say that Wayne made the statement "Energy is created in the ZED", lets not even go to "Mass creation", then please refer to that post for reference. It can be categorically stated that he never said that.  You know what he said if you care to know... 
From what I read, there appears to be an inkling of believe remaining in this tread that Wayne discovered something new... So why reinvent the wheel or beat around the bush, just go to the source for the knowledge.

Proposed solution
The dilemma you are in needs a positive outlook in order to get out of your stalemate. Drop for a moment the steadfastness to Thermodynamics (you can always come back to your principle believes later, nothing is lost). 
The fastest way to find the answers to your questions is to go back and read, analyze all the mails from Wayne and with the additional knowledge you have already gained, you would have no difficulty to reach the answers that will disclose he magical Pandora's box of the Zed principles (travis effects) that he discovered and that can create OU.

This is my best advice

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 11:05:29 AM
I'd expect Mr Wayne will be along shortly to explain how the water in Oklahoma expands and contracts by at least 50%...while remaining a liquid.
Such voodoo would appear to be dangerous ground indeed for someone who would otherwise expouse solid christian business ethics...

Seamus,

WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC REBUTTAL THAT THE ZED CAN NOT CREATE OU ? 
Throwing the thermodynamics book at it from 10ft away does not do it, neither do the religious hocus/pocus or the other silly comments get you of the hook.  I think we have been reasonable in our waiting

Please do not let me believe that you are a ........?  I still have faith in you until proven different.

Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 20, 2012, 01:29:25 PM
Gents, lets be constructive here,

It looks like the tables have changed, life tends to be circular.  It appears to me all guess work what is currently presented here. Nobody seems even to remember what has been presented before in this tread. If you say that Wayne made the statement "Energy is created in the ZED", lets not even go to "Mass creation", then please refer to that post for reference. It can be categorically stated that he never said that.  You know what he said if you care to know... 
From what I read, there appears to be an inkling of believe remaining in this tread that Wayne discovered something new... So why reinvent the wheel or beat around the bush, just go to the source for the knowledge.

Proposed solution
The dilemma you are in needs a positive outlook in order to get out of your stalemate. Drop for a moment the steadfastness to Thermodynamics (you can always come back to your principle believes later, nothing is lost). 
The fastest way to find the answers to your questions is to go back and read, analyze all the mails from Wayne and with the additional knowledge you have already gained, you would have no difficulty to reach the answers that will disclose he magical Pandora's box of the Zed principles (travis effects) that he discovered and that can create OU.

This is my best advice

Come on, Red, are you really going to start playing semantics games at this late date?

OF COURSE MrWayne is claiming to create energy with this system. EVERY TIME he says that it will run itself with no input power and make useful output power, 36 watts running lights, remember....EVERY TIME he claims excess efficiency over 100 percent... EVERY TIME he makes those claims he is claiming to create energy or excess work, same thing.
Judge for yourself... is MrWayne saying he has 160 percent efficiency... or are we fishing for eels with a coarse net once again?
Quote
"Research and development" The Newly designed Input system replaces the bag system - we have two in testing - the testing is verifying the spread sheets, and the results are confirming the theory. This new input system utilizes the lateral gravitational function of our ZED, does not produce work - just changes the condition and usage of the mass and density of our input - or in simple simple terms - it nearly eliminates the input cost to our ZED. With this replacing the bag system - instead of using the production to run the system - almost all of the production is NET - that is a big monumental discovery in itself. When you say 160% efficient - you only have 60 percent to provide to the customer - but with this improvement - we will have most of the 160% to provide to the consumer - that is more than twice as much NET form the same system. As you can tell - we are all really excited about this.
http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives

So now is Red_Sunset backing off from the claim that the Zeds create energy? Now that we've seen how ridiculous that claim is, since it must involve pressure increase without corresponding volume decrease..... Red is telling us that MrWayne categorically never claimed that the Zeds created energy?

Then he asks Seamus10n " WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC REBUTTAL THAT THE ZED CAN NOT CREATE OU ? " ?? From which I _infer_ that Red is OK with MrWayne's claim that the Zeds can -- and do -- "create OU".

Look here, Red.... either you think it's OU and creating energy, or you don't. You actually cannot have it both ways, depending on whether you are talking to me or Seamus.

And my automobile, for example, doesn't give a hoot whether or not I have a positive outlook about internal combustion engines or not. It starts up when I turn the key, or I can find out why not fairly easily. Zeds are, or should be, no different: my outlook has no bearing on whether they work or not.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 20, 2012, 01:34:04 PM
I see that the idea of the exhaust being used as input is raising queries, so I thought I'd put down how I thought it would be used.

In the attached I've drawn six stages of how I see it working:
 1. Staring state, never to be returned to, water filling tank has tank all the water, tanks A and B contain pods not doing much.
 2. Pre-charged state. We have input work in pumping water so that the water could travel from the filling tank to tank A. The pod is held down while filling.
 3. Pod is let go, gravity/buoyancy kicks in and we have the potential to take work out of the system as the pod floats.
 4. The water is let out of the exhaust pipe which goes towards filling the tank B. No extra work here from us. The pod in Tank A sinks, another potential area to take from the system.

This is as far as my spreadsheet got (apart from filling tank B!). I know my spreadsheet suggested that this may have been OU. I'm now getting in to double checking things out, so lets assume that I made an error, which I think most are sure of and comfortable with, and although it's not OU at this point, it isn't far off...

 5. The water that wont flow naturally, is now be pumped to tank B. This must be less work than was required to fill the original tank, since we've less water to pump (some of it's already in tank B), over the same distance to the same height.
 6. Pod in tank B is let go, gravity/buoyancy kicks in and we have the potential to take work out of the system. This potential must be the same as step 3 as it's a pod with the same dimensions, submerged to the same depth.

Now effectively we are back to 2 and we can repeat the steps to get the water back to Tank A.

Now I don't know if the work required for pumping can be overcome by the floating/sinking work of the pod(s), but if my earlier spreadsheet was in the right ball park, even if not OU in and of itself, might this reduction of the energy required to fill tank B, due to recycling the exhaust water from tank A, be the nudge required to get us over the line?

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 01:49:20 PM
I haven't seen one scrap of it so far.
The theory that re-use of the exhaust of one Zed to 'reduce the input cost' of another can be discounted using logic alone.
If this 'reduced input cost' can be extracted to power an external load then that potential MUST be replenished from SOMEWHERE... This 'somewhere' has never been disclosed.
Please tell us just where this 'somewhere' is, and I'd be happy to explain why you are mistaken.

Seamus & All,

I do not want to drag this out longer than needed. Let me describe the game plan that appears to be misunderstood.
Nobody needs to proof anything to anyone, Wayne's challenge was a challenge for discovery. He knows what he has, and doesn't need your sanctification to make it the truth. 
Wayne issued sufficient information with the challenge for you to uncover the rest for yourself. If you uncover it, you earned it.

That created 3 categories of contestants, 
1.. Took the challenge and discovered the OU secret (the Eureka category) 
2.. The one's that are still trying to discover, following Wayne's row of dots.
3.. The one's that diverted onto their own path and some of Wayne's dots.
4.. The one's that issued their own challenge for the OU to be proven to them.

You know what happened in the past.
If you want to change the future and change the world, take the challenge !
This challenge is not made for who chooses the easy way out, they may observe it from the sidelines (so it might not be for you seamus)

PS:  Wayne issued "prize money" twice to get involved. You can look at this from a suspicious angle (like what does he want, what is his profit?) or You can look at this from within his background "TEACHING". a drive what has his central focus, it is as innocent as that. 

That is all I can say. the stage is yours,
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 20, 2012, 02:11:14 PM
MrWayne's background is in teaching? No offense intended but I find that concept nearly as bizarre as the thought of an overunity hydraulic jack.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 20, 2012, 02:15:20 PM
@Red_Sunset. I was interested in your list of categories of contestants; particularly category number one. "Took the challenge and discovered the OU secret [The Eureka Category.]" The word "Took" is the past tense. So presumably, there are people out there who have a successful replication, and know how it works. This being the case, when are their results going to be published? I had assumed that mrwayne`s purpose in issuing the Challenge was publicity and independent verification. My question is, who is hiding their light under a bushel, and for what purpose? Do you have information that the rest of us lack?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 02:16:26 PM
OF COURSE MrWayne is claiming to create energy with this system. EVERY TIME he says that it will run itself with no input power and make useful output power, 36 watts running lights, remember....EVERY TIME he claims excess efficiency over 100 percent... EVERY TIME he makes those claims he is claiming to create energy or excess work, same thing.
Judge for yourself... is MrWayne saying he has 160 percent efficiency... or are we fishing for eels with a coarse net once again?http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives

TinsleKoala,
I am on the train in the station, looking out of the window, I see only the train on the adjacent line and it starts move.  My first reaction is that the train I am on started to move, but looking out through the other window and seeing the fixed fixtures of the station tell me immediately, no we are not moving.

Your confusion has a similar basis.
What I understand with these efficiency statements in relationship to the Zed is not the energy is created,
160 % is 60% more output than input. The output creation is standard output adhering to normal known physics. So there is no need to convert mass or the like to get it. No magic.
The magic is with the input, only ~60% of verifiable energy was spent to get this output.  Where the remaining 40% is coming from is obviously from gravity. The whole process can be tangibly explained and observed,. It is understood what creates the loophole, but why or how mother nature allows this loophole is '??'

I am not going to repeat what I posted before about angles and viewpoints,  but how you look at something can make the difference between night and day.  The doctrine of thermodynamic is real but at the same time blinds you.

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 02:26:44 PM
MrWayne's background is in teaching? No offense intended but I find that concept nearly as bizarre as the thought of an overunity hydraulic jack.

My dear Koala,

There is a saying that listening is 100 times more important than talking.
Your question  "MrWayne's background is in teaching? " tells me you do not read what has been posted by Wayne ! 
That doesn't look good on what this says about your reading, understanding and connecting Wayne's dots ?

Go and do a search through Wayne's posting and you will see his connection with teaching in a "business company context"

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 20, 2012, 02:38:24 PM
My dear Koala,

There is a saying that listening is 100 times more important than talking.
Your question  "MrWayne's background is in teaching? " tells me you do not read what has been posted by Wayne ! 
My dear Sunset....  I was only quoting YOU.
(snip).... or You can look at this from within his background "TEACHING". a drive what has his central focus, it is as innocent as that. 

That is all I can say. the stage is yours,
Michel
Quote
That doesn't look good on what this says about your reading, understanding and connecting Wayne's dots ?

Go and do a search through Wayne's posting and you will see his connection with teaching in a "business company context"


Well, is that the context in which YOU brought up MrWayne's teaching? I don't think so.

You are engaging in semantic games here, Red_Sunset. MrWayne has claimed OverUnity, excess work, a device that runs itself and makes excess usable output, more work going out than went in, continuously. If you would like to explain AS A TEACHER MIGHT, just how this can happen WITHOUT making excess energy or matter, I would be glad to read very carefully your words and connect all your dots. But if you want to weasel and squirm and try to claim that MrWayne is NOT claiming that he has a self running machine .... then go ahead. I mean after all.... it only runs for less than four hours anyway, so the "self-running" part still hasn't been demonstrated, and there still doesn't seem to be a table top self powered water pump using a Zed (except for mine). I guess the Official Teams of Replicators must not be reading carefully or connecting the dots either, or they'd be done by now.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 20, 2012, 02:41:41 PM
Quoting Red again,
Quote
Your confusion has a similar basis.
What I understand with these efficiency statements in relationship to the Zed is not the energy is created,
160 % is 60% more output than input. The output creation is standard output adhering to normal known physics. So there is no need to convert mass or the like to get it. No magic.
The magic is with the input, only ~60% of verifiable energy was spent to get this output.  Where the remaining 40% is coming from is obviously from gravity. The whole process can be tangibly explained and observed,. It is understood what creates the loophole, but why or how mother nature allows this loophole is '??'

This is gobbledegook.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 20, 2012, 02:49:14 PM
Deleted. duplicate post.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 02:54:04 PM
@Red_Sunset. I was interested in your list of categories of contestants; particularly category number one. "Took the challenge and discovered the OU secret [The Eureka Category.]" The word "Took" is the past tense. So presumably, there are people out there who have a successful replication, and know how it works. This being the case, when are their results going to be published? I had assumed that mrwayne`s purpose in issuing the Challenge was publicity and independent verification. My question is, who is hiding their light under a bushel, and for what purpose? Do you have information that the rest of us lack?

Dear Neptune,
I can not speak on Wayne's behalf,  neither do I know what further intentions he has with this forum.
I am fairly sure that there is more to follow but that is a question only he can answer.
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 03:20:36 PM
Do you have the answer? Something to think about.
In this exchange we have a wanting party and a giving party

1..  Who is the wanting party and who is the giving party ?
2..  Who can set the rules of conduct ?,  The wanting party or the giving party ?
3..  Is it appropriate to insult the giving party if he doesn't hand over all unconditionally ?  How did it work for you in the past ?

I do not expect replies or comments.....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Artist_Guy on September 20, 2012, 04:12:04 PM

The magic is with the input, only ~60% of verifiable energy was spent to get this output.  Where the remaining 40% is coming from is obviously from gravity. The whole process can be tangibly explained and observed,. It is understood what creates the loophole, but why or how mother nature allows this loophole is '??'
Michel


Yep. Gravity is the constant input energy nobody see because they are fixated that lifting up one side is the same as using up the downward fall of the other. Well, in this thing, what if it's not?
 
You know those tire pumps for bicycle tires? Imagine a pair connected together somehow with 2 large rocks on top. You let one come down. That's a 100 percent PE, now going KE in motion. Some portion, not all it is said,  is used to relift the other back up to 100 percent PE. However, because of the ZED's layering, the buoyancy and what not, and shuffling of pressures, it only takes you 60 percent of that PE as KE to get it there.


That's 40 percent now going to be stored in an accumulator, or otherwise going to be able to be used for work.


That's the only way this can work that I can see. Energy is not being 'created', it's being stored. Gravity is a -constant- acceleration, you don't use up one side then the other and it's gone, because once you lift it back, you got another 100 percent PE. But if you had a stored precharge to get started and extra left over each stroke...


If the 100 percent PE available on the one side can re-lift the other side using only 60 percent the travel or available force pressure from whatever travel is allowed....you now have 100 percent PE available on the other side because it's been reset, but still have 40 percent remaining on that side to do as you wish.


Gravity is the 'extra' energy. It is not a used up once, not available again thing, it's a constantly ever available energy source via acceleration. It is not being 'created' per se, it just a constant wind in a tunnel. If you lift a paddle blade on a lever back up in a windy tunnel into the wind, it gets blown back down again, metaphorically speaking. Well what if there are two tunnels and by leverage, this weird hydro-pnuematic jack, it is able to lift that other paddle back up, but not take all the travel it had [available] to do it?


The buoyant lift, if you shuffle it around, is same.


If this works, only way I see it working. No magic at all. Leverage and simple tricks made possible only because you are dealing with water and air, not the usuals.


What are usually hard wired parameters are literally made fluid.


rc
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 20, 2012, 05:13:23 PM
2 short questions:
- Density of the mass in the ZED, not found it ?

If efficiency well above 100%  for each ZED and told the excess of energy is used to power the second Zed, are we saying that 2 ZED together with a close to 100% efficiency when individually they are >> 100% (300% with 6 layers), probably not so my question is:
- How is the excess energy consumed, lamps, heaters, brakes,... ?


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 20, 2012, 05:42:32 PM
Please excuse the interuption:

My purpose with sharing is clear and stated - I am not here to argue with the interuptions - yet from time to time - direction is needed - to avert the misdirection of some.

First:
In an argument - you need at least two supportive statements and then a conclusion - and even if you have two right and valid statements - the conclusion may not be valid. Furthermore - the statements might not support eachother.

Sometimes the Facts - which should be true - may not be related - or misapplied to the conclusion.

When this is the case - it is not an argument but misapplied conjecture.

Conjecture on this forum is recognizable because it is always presented with opinion and emotion - to protects ones own understanding. It is not my postion here to change peoples opinions - just to present a method to learn and understand our Technology.

The trouble with conjecture - is it feeds itself - and the emotion interupts the ability to perceive that the argument is flawed. It sucks people into a pointless debate.

One or two of the people on this learning link are full of conjecture, and they try try to micro manage the topic to support their own conjecture.  I have them on Ignore, but can see they still take up much of your time.

Second:
The Creating Energy conjecture - has been projected here before:
If you have OverUnity - you must be claiming to "Create Energy" - bogus.

How do you properly define creating energy:

Is it true that if you have Net energy coming from a black box - you are creating energy - magic......

I bet Solar power really freaked out some people - we all know now that solar panels do not create energy. But they do convert energy - only about 20% of the available - some better.

So does a wind turbine, a Hydro system - river /dam, or even An airconditioner.

An air conditioner is the better example - being overunity - The BTU of the system is greater that the input of electricity - it is OverUnity unless you account for the energy exchange in the temperature differential of the outside air - which like the ZED uses gravity - you can not physically see the input.

Education and clarity - the temperature differential in an airconditioner can be accounted for - and has been - still it is a OU device - the input of energy from the temperature differential is not part of the internal operating cost. This is a clear examples of a OU device - not magic or energy creation - just simple physics - already accepted and understood.
 
I have stated - in reference to the Question that our system is Over Unity - defined by the input cost to the output of the system - but like the airconditioner needs to account for the temperature differential  - if you account for our unique use of energy from our unique "Mass discplacment" and the effect we capture from gravity - the system can be understood and calculated as well.

The Difference our system has over an airconditioner being - we have enough of a gain to provide our own input cost - and provide a NET.

Consuming Gravity Conjecture:

How do we convert gravity - without consuming the gravity, and causing people to float up into space.....om gosh...(is the train station still moving away?

First you have to understand Gravity as a flow - or a vortex acting upon known mass.
Does an impeller dragging in a river and spinning ..... cause the clouds to stop sending rain - or consume the water?

Perhaps the molecular structure of the mass is in direct relationship to the interuption of the flow of a gravitational the vortex - can't see it so I can only test the observable - be careful this is where error comes - when we make observation the LAW, and then use the LAW to discredit observation.
Neither the law nor the observation have a full understanding of the universe - that takes some certain faith to claim.

In real simple terms - in what we "observe in a known density" - is another way of saying our observable reaction to a known substance and the gravitational field.

The flow rate of gravity appears steady within our range of observation and work - things fall at the same rate - within reason, unless they are affected by resistance of another density - such as air - and that rate changes with the structure.

So we have a MASS of measurable and observable characteristics - and those relationships we assign based on our knowledge from our observations - and turn them into a LAW.

We have a pretty good set of physics on the books well explaining the effects of gravity, buoyancy, mass extra.

Now - Seamus  (more / 03), wants to claim a magical mass increase to account for the additional discplacments, he has made his claim very clearly - it is a religious claim - based on his faith in the LAW - not on what is possible - but on his limits
I do not take advantage of people - so I have to leave his bet alone.

The false conjecture that we Create Energy:

Any known Mass has a Energy value "We" associated with it, we assign to it.
 
Buoyancy is a perfect example and way to measure the effect of gravity on a mass - the numbers are very clear - repeatable - measurable - predictable.

Here is where the disconnect between conjectures like TK's and More/03's:

What is the total energy available from the Mass?
This is some what of a misleading question - a trick question - leads the observation - (nuclear energy is a seperate topic).

Think about this instead - does the (gravitational energy come from the mass) or is the mass effected by Gravity?
Changes your outlook - or ability to see clearly knowing the difference.
Mass does not control how much gravity is available in a given space - I make this claim from simple observation.

Look at this - a cubic inch of lead has a weight and volume - a cubic inch of water has another weight same volume - does the gravity in that space change because of the material - or is our observation and rules change based on the material.

Important Point - neither show the full potential of gravity - just the relationship to the "Train and station" as Red put it - what we can see.

Since the available gravity is greater than the "Mass of the displacement"  then potential energy is not being captured.
Density  - as we call it is like a different size impeller in a river of gravity- the dense one (heavy object) grabs more energy than the less dense one - but the flow rate is the same.

Who knows what the maximum density is - not me.

Our ZED Technology works between those two impellers - they have different density - and thus have a different potential - and we capture our energy by a third system which uses the differential between the two.
And we do it at each layer - one of the Diamonds in the ZED is the reuses of the same flow - or field of capture.
Reuse of the same Mass - as I have stated before in each additional layer.

Since physics has never had to answer the question of gravity being captured or used multiple times in the same space at the same time - in relationship to the potential of gravity within a mass - this is a new development.
(this is the question  - it should be argued - and deserves observation - Do not rely on hard held convictions and conjectures.)

Claims by others that we are CREATING ENERGY - is a good measure of those persons understanding of our system, or their motive. You can lead a horse to water .. the rest is up to the beast.

Creating the condition where one Mass can be reused - simultaneously - and thus capturing more of the available energy in the mass - from gravity - is one of the Diamonds to our system.
If you account for the reuse of Mass in each layer of the ZED - you will see where ALL the Energy is accounted for - and you will see that our system provides NET energy - using currently understood physics -because the input costs are reduced by the reuse of the Mass - having the cost of reusing it - reduced with each layer.

When you understand this well enough - you will also see / begin to understand that the Efficiency is increased by the addition of layers - by reducing the cost - even though pressure increases - its the discplacement value/ratio.

So, can two masses occupy the same space at the same time - NO, but you can capture the effect of gravity /multiple times from the same space - and same mass - YES - with our unique DESIGN.
Every layer reuses at least the POD, and each successive layer used the total mass before it.
 
TO All Replication Teams:
First Great Job So far!
To quicken your understanding - please account for the total displacement of the ZEDS in relationship to the lift - as you add layers - you will see the lift increase at a rate faster than the mass is increased - that alone should bring about a better understanding of our system.
In other words track pressure and volume to lift - and also track total discplacement to lift - eye popper!
Thanks to everyone who is trying to understand.
Like another posted - I am very impressed with you who are here to learn, helping each other, I do not post often - but the appreciation is pure.
I see great discussion and teamwork.

Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: squigglelicious on September 20, 2012, 06:16:57 PM
Have you seen Wayn's latest report:
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives

Lots of suspicious things, reading between the lines:
He says:
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Data collection model - Data pulled - confirmed Physics and I made a determination to keep it as is - it is excellent data.
We have also decided not to use this model and its configuration as our "Extraordinary proof" for Mark's group.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Instead, he will develop a simpler and more powerful model.  I guess this means that
his model didn't clearly show overunity.

Bummer!  looks like my prediction of him giving up the ghost by the 21st wont bear out.
I suppose when you have invested as much time and effort and reputation in
something, it takes alot for the dream to die.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 09:31:19 PM
........................................That's the only way this can work that I can see. Energy is not being 'created', it's being stored. Gravity is a -constant- acceleration, you don't use up one side then the other and it's gone, because once you lift it back, you got another 100 percent PE. But if you had a stored precharge to get started and extra left over each stroke...

If the 100 percent PE available on the one side can re-lift the other side using only 60 percent the travel or available force pressure from whatever travel is allowed....you now have 100 percent PE available on the other side because it's been reset, but still have 40 percent remaining on that side to do as you wish.

Dear Artist,
You gave a pretty good interpretation of the process flow, just explore it deeper and it will reveal itself.
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 20, 2012, 09:41:49 PM
Please excuse the interuption:
My purpose with sharing is clear and stated - I am not here to argue with the interuptions - yet from time to time - direction is needed - to avert the misdirection of some.
...
..................................................
Wayne Travis

Hi Wayne,

Your pen was definitely on a roll.
Thanks for sharing the deeper understanding, it gives something to ponder about and to sleep over to get the understanding of the broader picture.
Thanks for your infallible support, for stopping by and sharing,  it is appreciated !

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 21, 2012, 12:52:01 AM
Quote from: Mr Wayne Summarised

SUMMARY :

CREATING ENERGY CONJECTURE :

 If you have Over Unity - you must be claiming to "Create Energy" – [this statement is] bogus.
 
 How do you properly define creating energy ?
 
 Is it true that if you have Net energy coming from a black box, you are creating energy, magic ?
 
 I have stated, in reference to the question that our system is Over Unity, defined by the Input Cost to the Output of the system - but like the air conditioner needs to account for the temperature differential  - if you account for our unique use of energy from our unique "Mass Displacement" and the effect we capture from gravity - the system can be understood and calculated as well.
 
 The Difference our system has over an air conditioner being - we have enough of a gain to provide our own Input Cost - and provide a NET [energy].
 
CONSUMING GRAVITY CONJECTURE :
 
 How do we convert gravity - without consuming the gravity ?

 First, you have to understand Gravity as a flow - or a vortex acting upon known mass.

 Does an impeller dragging in a river and spinning ..... cause the clouds to stop sending rain - or consume the water ?
 
 Perhaps the molecular structure of the mass is in direct relationship to the interruption of the flow of a gravitational vortex –  can't see it so I can only test the observable - be careful this is where error comes - when we make observation [about] the LAW, and then use the LAW to discredit observation.

 Neither the law nor the observation have a full understanding of the universe.

 In real simple terms - in what we "observe in a known density" - is another way of saying our observable reaction to a known substance and the gravitational field.
 
 The flow rate of gravity appears steady within our range of observation and work - things fall at the same rate - within reason, unless they are affected by resistance of another density - such as air - and that rate changes with the structure [shape & mass].
 
 So we have a MASS of measurable and observable characteristics - and those relationships we assign based on our knowledge from our observations - and turn them into a LAW.
 
 We have a pretty good set of physics in the books well explaining the effects of gravity, buoyancy, mass extra.
 
THE FALSE CONJECTURE THAT WE CREATE ENERGY :
 
 Any known Mass has a Energy value "we" associated with it, we assign to it.
 
 Buoyancy is a perfect example and [a] way to measure the effect of gravity on a mass - the numbers are very clear - repeatable - measurable - predictable.
 
 Here is where the disconnect between conjectures [occurs]!

 What is the total energy available from the Mass ?


 This is somewhat of a misleading question, a trick question, leads the observation - (nuclear energy is a separate topic).
 
Think about this instead.
 
Does the gravitational energy come from the mass or is the mass effected by gravity ?

 Changes your outlook - or ability to see clearly knowing the difference.

 Mass does not control how much gravity is available in a given space - I make this claim from simple observation.
 
 Look at this - a cubic inch of lead has a weight and volume - a cubic inch of water has another weight same volume.
Does the gravity in that space change because of the material, or is our observation and rules change based on the material ?
 
Important Point.
 
Neither shows the full potential of gravity - just the relationship to the "train and station" as Red put it - what we can see.
 
 Since the available gravity is greater than the "Mass of the Displacement"  then potential energy is not being captured.

 Density, as we call it, is like a different size impeller in a river of gravity - the dense one (heavy object) grabs more energy than the less dense one - but the flow rate is the same.
 
 Who knows what the maximum density is - not me.
 
 Our ZED Technology works between those two impellers - they have different density - and thus have a different potential - and we capture our energy by a third system which uses the differential between the two.

 And we do it at each layer - one of the diamonds in the ZED is the reuse of the same flow - or field of capture.

Reuse of the same Mass - as I have stated before in each additional layer.
 
 Since physics has never had to answer the question of gravity being captured or used multiple times in the same space at the same time, in relationship to the potential of gravity within a mass, this is a new development.

 (this is the question  - it should be argued - and deserves observation - do not rely on hard held convictions and conjectures.)
 
 Claims by others that we are CREATING ENERGY - is a good measure of those persons understanding of our system, or their motive.

 Creating the condition where one Mass can be reused - simultaneously - and thus capturing more of the available energy in the mass - from gravity - is one of the diamonds to our system.

 If you account for the reuse of Mass in each layer of the ZED - you will see where ALL the Energy is accounted for - and you will see that our system provides NET energy - using currently understood physics - because the Input Costs are reduced by the reuse of the Mass - halving the cost of reusing it - reduced with each layer.
 
 When you understand this well enough - you will also see / begin to understand that the Efficiency is increased by the addition of layers - by reducing the cost - even though pressure increases – it’s the Displacement Value / Ratio.
 
 So, can two masses occupy the same space at the same time ? – NO ! -  but you can capture the effect of gravity /multiple times from the same space, and same mass, YES - with our unique DESIGN.

 Every layer reuses at least the POD, and each successive layer used the total mass before it.
 
 To All Replication Teams : 

To quicken your understanding.

Please account for the total displacement of the ZEDS in relationship to the lift - as you add layers - you will see the lift increase at a rate faster than the mass is increased - that alone should bring about a better understanding of our system.

 In other words, track pressure and volume to lift - and also track total displacement to lift - eye popper!

 Thanks to everyone who is trying to understand.

 Wayne Travis



Just on line for an hour or so.


Here is a cleaned up version of what Mr Wayne said.


IMO, Mr Wayne, Red & his team are having great trouble rationalising & explaining their position [leaving out whether it is true or not] - this may be one additional motivation for continued involvement along with the ones stated - i.e. to gain a better grasp & understanding from one of us, either a theorist or a replicator building, for theory & abstract presentation for commercial purposes.



I'll start the ball rolling.

First gravity should not be confused with energy - gravity is a force & a force = mass [inertia] x acceleration] - in this case the gravity force which pushes or pulls something is a result of a mass interacting with a field - if that mass has freedom to move it can have PE of position in that field, this can be translated to KE at the expense of energy of position.


For a device such as MR Wayne's to work as claimed it must be producing asymmetric FORCES - this is not the same as asymmetric ENERGY.

IMO, the cosmos is a continuum of forces fighting to find equilibrium - below I plagiarize something I wrote on another board some time ago, rather than explain again - it will suffice.



Quote from: fletcher

I was of course, in the original thread, talking of a gravity ONLY engine causing establishment chaos because so much of Newton physics is predicated on gravity being a conservative FORCE, whilst at the same time NOT being energy - yet it is part of the CoE doctrine [law] because no one has successfully shown an instance in mechanics & machines where once gravity force has given a mass KE [motion] it can, under no other influence, regain its original PE [positional height] AND have excess KE [motion], to prove empirically otherwise - and we know that KE does Work which is energy transformation so conservative gravity, as we understand it, dovetails right in - yet gravity is a force derived from the interaction of a mass & a field, however it got there, & not energy, all the same.
 
 Thank you P-M for that contribution about the scientific foundations & derivation of energy.
 
 I was not aware that there was any sort of institutional groundswell rising, or perhaps a ripple, to seriously question the little premiss that grew up to be a Law, so it was a delight to read of it & their reasoning.
 
 I for one view the mechanics of the world & universe as just such a balancing of natural forces towards a state of equilibrium of those forces - and when those forces are not in equilibrium [however they got to be like that] things are literally forced to move about & re-jostle for position - the next conundrum for me being the Work Energy Equivalence Principle & why it was NOT a Law, yet it is so readily accepted as being inviolate & part & parcel of Conservation Laws - I do it myself all the time.
 
 The upshot is that if gravity is in fact just a force & not energy, as some here seem to believe, and, the Work Energy Equivalence Principle is not an enshrined Law [& it isn't AFAIK], then some latitude exists in my mind that the Conservation of Energy Law might not be the book-end show stopper I once thought it must be.


The upshot being that if science were able to unbundle the 'Work - Energy Equivalence Principle' & view gravity as a force as it is defined then asymmetric forces not finding equilibrium offer an alternative explanation to energy creation or lesser energy Input Costs as is being advanced by Mr Wayne & his team.

...................


Mr Wayne has given some clear pointers which as testable - they are the tenets of his claims - each step should be proved beyond doubt before advancing to the next line of inquiry.

N.B. AFAIK pressure does not change density of fluids [not at these levels anyway] - however to create pressure you need to do Work.

N.B. Mr Wayne previously said that air was not required & two various fluids would work just as well.


 






 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 21, 2012, 01:19:09 AM
Hi all
i have not visited here for a while so I am sorry I did not see your emails sooner.
I have respect for many of you (Milehigh and TK) and would never lock swords with you unless I have a death wish.
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this. However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
My observations some time go on a visit was it could hold pressure and keep operating for a limited time. I believe the longest run is 4 hours.
I was impressed by many of the people working with Wayne and thought it has a chance. But I will not say its real until a two day run followed by a team of very qualified engineers and scientists.
Many of you have called for me to call it a scam or busted but to be honest I am not qualified to debate the physics or mechanics. History is saying it can not happen, the engineers and scientists I have spoken to are divided.
I had advised Wayne not to debate matters in forums like this, just get on with it and get it running long enough so all inputs could be accounted for. i see no use in long debates and endless rhetoric. I am not sure Wayne is fully qualified to answer the questions but he does have some bright engineers on his team.
So I am just going to sit back and see if the day comes when I get the phone call to come down.
My other reason for as some of you put it you have gone soft on this, is it is sometimes about the journey. There is a lot of people involved at all levels and the journey is sometimes more important than the destination. Is it folly? I do not know but in depressed times in a rural community where this is coming out from it has brought a lot of happiness and good will from all walks of the community. Sometimes it is important to believe in things and I think the benefits can be measured in many ways.
However have no fear, I am still on my game in all other areas, busting an average of 10 technologies a month lol. (I hate my job as I always just once one would work)
So all those who wrote to me, thank you and your views are noted and I agree in most cases. To Wayne, just get on with the demo.
As I stated before, I have no time frame but as time goes on confidence will diminish. I have not signed of but at this stage a think a little more breathing room is warranted.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie

...
 To Wayne, just get on with the demo.As I stated before, I have no time frame but as time goes on confidence will diminish. I have not signed of but at this stage a think a little more breathing room is warranted. Kind RegardsMark Dansie
...

Any news Wayne ?????
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on September 21, 2012, 03:24:08 AM

Come on, Red, are you really going to start playing semantics games at this late date?

OF COURSE MrWayne is claiming to create energy with this system. EVERY TIME he says that it will run itself with no input power and make useful output power, 36 watts running lights, remember....EVERY TIME he claims excess efficiency over 100 percent... EVERY TIME he makes those claims he is claiming to create energy or excess work, same thing.

Judge for yourself... is MrWayne saying he has 160 percent efficiency... or are we fishing for eels with a coarse net once again?

Quote from Objectives page of HydroGenRev

Quote

"Research and development" The Newly designed Input system replaces the bag system - we have two in testing - the testing is verifying the spread sheets, and the results are confirming the theory.

This new input system utilizes the lateral gravitational function of our ZED, does not produce work - just changes the condition and usage of the mass and density of our input

- or in simple simple terms - it nearly eliminates the input cost to our ZED. With this replacing the bag system - instead of using the production to run the system - almost all of the production is NET - that is a big monumental discovery in itself. When you say 160% efficient - you only have 60 percent to provide to the customer - but with this improvement - we will have most of the 160% to provide to the consumer - that is more than twice as much NET form the same system. As you can tell - we are all really excited about this.


http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)


"lateral gravitational function" - it seems Mr Wayne left this important tid bit out of his last explanation post !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 21, 2012, 05:14:22 AM
...
 To Wayne, just get on with the demo.As I stated before, I have no time frame but as time goes on confidence will diminish. I have not signed of but at this stage a think a little more breathing room is warranted. Kind RegardsMark Dansie
...

Any news Wayne ??? ??

Hello Powercat,
I received several e-mails confused by your message - as if you were pretending to be Mark Dansie.
At first glance I was confused also - but now I realize you were just quoting Mark and then asking for any "New news".
New News:
Lots of good news: Please remember this is not our business outlet, or our process improvement outlet.
I answer private e-mails every morning for about an hour.
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
Wayne Travis
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 21, 2012, 08:06:49 AM
.........................................................
................................................................
For a device such as MR Wayne's to work as claimed it must be producing asymmetric FORCES - this is not the same as asymmetric ENERGY.
............................................................................
.............................................................................
Mr Wayne has given some clear pointers which as testable - they are the tenets of his claims - each step should be proved beyond doubt before advancing to the next line of inquiry.

Good Morning Fletcher,

AFAIK, the symmetry of the universe is pretty much universal, which led to the thermodynamics laws and associated others.
The symmetry is the reason why we can not extract energy out of several conservative fields, which we would like to do for OU or FE. Tapping another abundant (non-conservative) source other than sunlight would be also preferable but there are not too many of those around.

So it must be evident that an OU invention that draws energy out of a conservative field must have the ability to tamper with the symmetry to tap into the energy.  AFAIK there is no law that forbids or make it impossible to tamper with the symmetry ?   As far as I remember, the law only makes it impossible (forbids) to extract energy out of the system so long the symmetry exists (that is what you, Seamus and TK are saying and fore sure you are all correct) .
But as far as I remember, the law does not makes it impossible (or forbids) to extract energy out of a system  when the symmetry DOES NOT EXIST, let it be a temporary window. (For Pete sake, you are on a OU forum that tries to break into OU, it is hard to let go of old ways and habits)

It is IMPOSSIBLE to break the symmetry ?. You are correct until somebody does break it and then it is no longer impossible.
Rest assured, Wayne did it, he discovered the loophole!
 
This should have been called "The OU Challenge" from the start (Seamus, your US$50.000 is still on offer ?).  Breaking the symmetry & real OU is major and believing is even more difficult.   Wayne's proof would never have absolutely satisfied you, (how could Saddam prove that he DIDN"T have weapons of mass destruction?). The evidence it too incredible to believe, but if you can unearth and discover it yourself. (believe me, it would be a line, hook and sinker.)

History is the best proof and history tends to repeat itself.  I always believed after reading about the multitude of FE attempts through the centuries that the solution must be so simple and so ingenious that the simplicity itself prevents its discovery, not its complexity.

Wayne gave all the pointers in this forum the way "little red riding hood did in the forest", these pointers should lead to the pot of honey.  For you that you haven't discovered it as yet, doesn't that witness to how ingeniously it is hidden, I would think so. But believe me, when you get to the honey, it is good !

Look again carefully, keep on asking questions every step of the way, why, how?

Regards, Michel


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 21, 2012, 08:12:01 AM
Ooops, a BooBo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 21, 2012, 12:29:44 PM

Hello Powercat,
I received several e-mails confused by your message - as if you were pretending to be Mark Dansie.
At first glance I was confused also - but now I realize you were just quoting Mark and then asking for any "New news".
New News:
Lots of good news: Please remember this is not our business outlet, or our process improvement outlet.
I answer private e-mails every morning for about an hour.
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
Wayne Travis


Hi Wayne
Sorry about the confusion, there's a lot of it about and we still have a lot of debate
about how your device works.
So it would be nice if you could give us an update as to when Mark Dansie will be verifying the device.

I will not be emailing you privately as you came to this open forum to tell everyone about this device
I think it only fair that you continue in that way.(open)

It is only my opinion and no doubt you will have a lot of excuses as to why Mark Dansie won't be coming soon,
or excuses about not answering the question in the first place.

All the best
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 21, 2012, 02:32:08 PM

Hi Wayne
Sorry about the confusion, there's a lot of it about and we still have a lot of debate
about how your device works.
So it would be nice if you could give us an update as to when Mark Dansie will be verifying the device.

I will not be emailing you privately as you came to this open forum to tell everyone about this device
I think it only fair that you continue in that way.(open)

It is only my opinion and no doubt you will have a lot of excuses as to why Mark Dansie won't be coming soon,
or excuses about not answering the question in the first place.

All the best
Thanks PC,

One thing is for sure -
Many can now answer questions regarding the function and understanding of our technology.
"Open Forum" or not - that is why Stefan invited me.

It is your choice to follow along or not - or to get involved or not - I respect your decision.

What we  have shared - is an enormous amount - and invested a great deal of time explaining (and I have put up with loads of ego dripping trolls).

p.s - regarding private conversation - It is not a nefarious fact that some people get involved at a deeper level - it is their own desire, willingness, time and energy.

 
Oh .....  I already told you that I will share the Validation findings good or bad - see you then.

Back to the fun  :) 

 We are  having an adventure in this new field of discovery!

Best to you as well!
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 21, 2012, 04:44:15 PM
@Red_Sunset - Thanks for a great lead-in
Quote
History is the best proof and history tends to repeat itself.  I always believed after reading about the multitude of FE attempts through the centuries that the solution must be so simple and so ingenious that the simplicity itself prevents its discovery, not its complexity.
- The things I've read - - but not read
- Seen  - - but not seen
- And thought - - but not....
Real glad I haven't tried to come off as a genius type.
Work has been dizzying lately but with the second U glued up and leak tested I just had to give it one quick "trip around the block" before getting ready for work this morning.

Dumped some water into the channels, closed the vents and started trying to lift the same 15lb weight.
Huh - what the .. ?
Why is the head 5 inches higher, didn't I just add another lifting surface?
Shouldn't it be easier to lift, not harder?

Had to start getting ready for work - maybe that's when the coffee kicked in...

How many times have I seen the numbers in spreadsheets and even thought through the process of INCREASING pressure as layers are added - and it still surprised me.

Dufus....

We see, hear, read and think as we are conditioned.
Good Grief!
Dale
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 21, 2012, 11:22:32 PM
Recorded data from a 3 layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) single ZED as shown in previous photos and posts.  The input is a gravity fed funnel tube that enters the bottom of the Pod chamber.  A separate air line that also enters the bottom of the Pod chamber was used to achieve the set up conditions.  Set up was done to create the maximum lift potential along a stroke of 10 mm with enough lee way to barely allow for not blowing skirts.  The entire load (pre and work load) are very near the maximum of the "ideal lift" potential.
 
Lift mass is 1217 grams (digital scale accurate to  +/-1 gram).
Lift stroke is 10.0 mm (digital indicator accurate to +/- .01mm).
Input water mass is 74 grams (same digital scale and repeated several times).
 
Methodology was to cause the ZED to maintain an initial and measureable height (to  +/-.02mm) with the load weight in place.  A cup holding the water that would be introduced through the funnel was then weighed.  Water was then introduced by pouring and finally dripping from an eye dropper from this cup into the funnel until the ZED had stroked exactly 10.00 mm with some small error in the last digit as reported by the digital indicator.  The table on which the ZED was set up was tapped to induce small vibrations to (hopefully) eliminate the majority of stiction effects from the measurements.  The repeatability of this experiments leads me to believe that the tapping was adequate in the range of accuracy that is being reported.
 
The weight of the cup and remaining water was weighed again.  The difference was the same reported 74 grams through several runs.
 
The Head rise in the fill tube from start of lift to end of lift was ~ 10 mm (using a ruled tape measure and eyeballing the meniscus).  This is as expected at least.
 
At the top of the stroke the lift mass was removed.  Unfortunately this causes the ZED to stroke further and is not exactly how Wayne's system operates.  But I am thinking it is not a functional difference for testing purposes but I am requesting opinions.
 
The new higher ZED height is noted from the digital indicator and water is vented from the bottom of the Pod chamber back into the cup that was used to fill the system at the beginning of the cycle until approximately 10mm of ZED lift has again sunk.  The same lift mass is then reinstalled (which again causes the ZED stroke to change and is not exactly the same way Wayne's system operates.  Comments are encouraged).  More water is either vented or added through the funnel until the initial cycle starting condition is again achieved. 
 
Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
Two other recorded values of possible interest are:
 
The change in ZED stroke when the lift mass is removed or added when at the bottom lift position:  3.8 mm.
Head change in the fill tube for the same:  165mm  +/- 1 or 2 mm.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 22, 2012, 12:24:42 AM
@m
Quote
At the top of the stroke the lift mass was removed.  Unfortunately this causes the ZED to stroke further and is not exactly how Wayne's system operates.  But I am thinking it is not a functional difference for testing purposes but I am requesting opinions.
The head on mine (at fewer layers) drops a lot if I remove part of the lift weight without locking the riser so the ability to recover any head pressure / volume is reduced - so far, not a lot.

One thing I probably missed in those cycle numbers:
Total head change at 10mm from start of lift to end; what about the head reduction needed to sink without the load?
Will it sink loaded by reducing the head by that same 10mm?

Raising / lowering 1200 grams 10mm by moving 74grams the same distance would seem,,, IMPRESSIVE.

What's next?
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 12:40:00 AM
Raising / lowering 1200 grams 10mm by moving 74grams the same distance would seem,,, IMPRESSIVE.

Well it would be if it was that simple!  But the 74 grams of water is flowing down the tube and into the bottom of the Pod chamber...  Only the additional 10mm of head pressure that is the final result in the input tube (that is equal to the 10 mm rise in the ZED) is evident at the end.  So I'm not sure what is going on is so impressive yet.  But it is very interesting, none the less.  And so it is reported regardless.
 
So did the 74 grams of input water only move "up" 10 mm?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 22, 2012, 01:27:12 AM
Quote
So did the 74 grams of input water only move "up" 10 mm?
That's a question I had hoped the engineers around here would be able to answer  ;D

I look at it this way ( likely wrong ) If your input container was sized so that 74 grams of water was 1mm deep and you lifted the entire container 10mm - yeah I know, adhesion would make this impossible - and the entire 74 grams of water were to flow into the input tube - how much work did you do?

The head changed by 10mm - the same volume of fluid transferred - and the load lifted ?

I did somewhat the same a couple nights ago, maybe turning that jack screw 1 turn every 2 or 3 minutes and watching the head pressure on an open tube taped to a scale - painful ....

And had surprising results. 3 pounds of transferred water "lifted" 1" of head caused 15+ pounds of load to rise 1" ( 1U ) - ( I drained the water through the measuring tube until the weight sank back to the starting point - into a measuring cup - 3 times - 3 cups each time )

Hope to compare the same test - 2U - in just a few "minutes"...

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 02:08:21 AM
@wildew,
 
Rock on Brother!
 
Do what you can do (because you can).
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 02:12:45 AM
That's a question I had hoped the engineers around here would be able to answer  ;D

PS.  Engineers only apply known and (usually) understood and observable phenomenon.
 
Physicists explain to us lowly Engineers why what has been observed is understandable.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 22, 2012, 02:44:32 AM
Quote
Physicists explain to us lowly Engineers why what has been observed is understandable.

Ahhh, So THAT'S the way it works - thanks for the clarification M. LOL

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Liberty on September 22, 2012, 03:48:12 AM

PS.  Engineers only apply known and (usually) understood and observable phenomenon.
 
Physicists explain to us lowly Engineers why what has been observed is understandable.
 
M.

Inventors accomplish that which neither physicists or engineers can perform or understand.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 22, 2012, 04:02:01 AM
I look at it this way ( likely wrong ) If your input container was sized so that 74 grams of water was 1mm deep and you lifted the entire container 10mm - yeah I know, adhesion would make this impossible - and the entire 74 grams of water were to flow into the input tube - how much work did you do?

The head changed by 10mm - the same volume of fluid transferred - and the load lifted ?

@wildew

I think this is something myself, MT and Fletcher have being tryinf to think about. Take a look back at:
  Fletcher: http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335936/#msg335936
  MT: http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg336027/#msg336027
  Fletcher: http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg336071/#msg336071

What I found was this:
  http://mathdl.maa.org/images/cms_upload/rogers01010340574.pdf

One of things it notes with regards to work done in filling a tank from the bottom is:
Quote
It is interesting to note that this argument not only highlights how the answer is independent of r, but can be modified to show that the answer is independent of the shape of the cross section of the filler pipe.

What I get from this is that it doesn't seem to matter how you're setup to get the water in to the tank, the work required is the same. Which sort of makes sense, looking at Fletchers work, if you have a container with 74 grams of water 1mm high, all 74grams have to be lifted by the 10mm to fill the tank. However, looking at it simply incrementally, if the container is 10 mm tall, 7.4 grams must be lifted 1mm, 7.4 grams must be lifted 2mm, 7.4 grams ..... must be lifted 10mm. I think that adding up all those 7.4 grams over the various distances equates to lifting the all 74 grams over the one larger distance.

Also if the container is lower than te tank to start with, you have to do all the work to get the water into the tank, but gravity kindly helps out to get it all back in to the container. Similarly, if it is at the same level, gravity will do the first half of the work and you have to do the rest and vice-versa on the way out. And finally, if the container is above the tank, gravity will do all the work to start with, but you have to do the work to get it out. So it doesn't even really mater where the container is relative to the tank.

Also just to note, I was looking at all the examples on various web sites on how to calculate work for filling/emptying a tank from the top (there's a lot more examples that way!), and at first sight it seems that filling/emptying a tank from the top is the better way to go as you don't have to lift the weight of the existing water in the new tank (or raise the new water higher above the existing water, whichever way you look at it) and therefore you do less work. But then of course I realised, that if you go that route, you have to do the work to get the water in to the tank and out of the tank, with no help from gravity so in terms of the cycle, you have to do all the work, which is very much further away from our goal.

Isn't this what Wayne has been saying all along too, try to reduce you're inputs. Here are two ways of filling and emptying a tank in a cycle, both need the same amount of work, both have the same potential output work, but one of the ways requires only half the work from us as gravity takes care of the other half.


I think!?!?!?

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 22, 2012, 05:50:05 AM
Hello All, 

This note is just to update everyone where I am on my sim work. 

I have been getting some test inputs from builders to compare to the sim.  This work has not progressed very far though, because I keep finding things I need to change in the sim to adapt to the exact same setups -- along with fixing some bugs along the way (made possible by having real data to compare with).   Thank you builder friends!

I have modified the sim to be able to report results as US inches-pounds, cgs, or mks unit systems at the user interface.  Inputs and internal calculations will still only take place in inches and pounds.  I am also making many more internal states and dimensions available for optional display.

I realized last night that I needed to add a new operating mode.  This mode creates the initial state for the ZED based on an input force required to just sink the Riser without a payload weight.  All calculations for work in and out, start from this initial state.  Previously, all balancing was assumed to have been done external to the ZED.  However, that is not how the builds are actually taking place, so I needed to make the sim match the actual builds.

An observation from the sim:  There is a lift force coming from the bottom area of each Riser wall ring.  The thicker the wall, and the deeper the water level, the more lift force is generated.  This helps counterbalance some of the Riser/Pod weight.  However, as the Riser lifts up, this force diminishes (because the water depth PSI is less at less depth).  This means that in a practical sense, even though the Riser is counterbalanced at the bottom of the stroke, it gets heavier as the Riser moves up.  A fixed weight counterbalancing system is not going to be as efficient as one that takes this into consideration.  It can still be done with a single ZED, but it takes careful design.  A mechanically linked dual ZED will automatically counterbalance this force efficiently.  I need to add a mode to the sim where it has different types of counterbalance methods. 

The simulation sequence:

0.  Find the initial balance point to barely sink Riser with no payload weight on the Riser.  Save state as baseline.  Balancing can take place with only the Pod head, or with all the risers active at the baseline.

1.  Add the payload weight to the Riser.
2.  Add enough input force (weight) to the water piston to raise payload weight to top of stroke. 
     2a.  Calculate work in and work out ratio.
3.  Remove payload weight from riser.
4.  Remove input force from the water piston.
5.  Let Riser sink back to baseline state. 
     5a.  Go to step 1 to cycle animation.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 22, 2012, 08:14:06 AM
@see3d:
Quote
An observation from the sim:  There is a lift force coming from the bottom area of each Riser wall ring.  The thicker the wall, and the deeper the water level, the more lift force is generated.  This helps counterbalance some of the Riser/Pod weight.  However, as the Riser lifts up, this force diminishes (because the water depth PSI is less at less depth). 

The pressure of the water due to depth does not affect buoyancy or lift force. It acts in all directions equally. I thought we covered this some pages back. If you are getting some lift force here it's not coming from water pressure per se, I don't think. What is happening in the real world is that as the riser lifts up, it is displacing much less water, so its buoyancy decreases, that is, it's being pressed upwards less by the water trying to flow underneath it. This isn't water depth psi due to depth, but water weight being displaced by thick walls and deep submergence. I think.

@webby: er, um..... perhaps if you tell me how you _think_ transistors work, or don't work, we can talk about why they should or shouldn't in your analogy.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 09:44:35 AM
.................................................... I think that adding up all those 7.4 grams over the various distances equates to lifting the all 74 grams over the one larger distance.
Also if the container is lower than te tank to start with, you have to do all the work to get the water into the tank, but gravity kindly helps out to get it all back in to the container. Similarly, if it is at the same level, gravity will do the first half of the work and you have to do the rest and vice-versa on the way out. And finally, if the container is above the tank, gravity will do all the work to start with, but you have to do the work to get it out. So it doesn't even really mater where the container is relative to the tank.
.................................................................

Gents,
A quick note to think about
The laws of nature (physics) that have been discovered over the last few hundred years have been tested over and over again and have been proven to work correctly,  with other words they describe the behavior around us correctly.
So when it comes to "Newton and conservation law" in order to lift water into a tank, with bucket or otherwise...ect.  Believe me that works exactly as described in the physics text books. No free lunch here. Sure you can setup potential energy that can halve what you need to expend at that moment, but if calculated from ground "0" up, it all adds up correctly and in balance.

The question has always been, is the description complete, does encompass and describe all manifestation of a phenomenon in every condition. The question or statement that comes up very often in OU situations is about creating a condition that disturbs the balance of the environment (universe) and opens a window to extract energy, often referred to as "zero point energy", the universal energy that maintains the overall balance. 
Why would this question come up, because the physics laws as we know then are proven to be pretty foolproof,  Seamus & all are pretty right about that, nobody is disputing that fact.  What is being disputed and often confused across the "line divide" is the ability to disturb the natural environment in order to mess with the known physics laws.  Because that is ONE of the known possible ways around the "law of thermodynamics" and "conservation".  I have posed the question on many occasions, can we fool nature to believe something different that what really is? or can we fool nature, so it carries on undisturbed but you have disturbed/re-directed something underpinning the processes or parameters and thereby predicting a different outcome of its natural flow, different that what really should be as predicted by the known physics formula.
Is this hocus pokus?, it might sound like it, but it is often more like, I could have thought about that. Looking back at any invention you know of, how many could you have invented ?  Everything becomes easy after the fact when you know the answer and solution. Step you mind out of the box (you don't need to forget about the box) and you will find it easier to discover things.  Compare it to religious believe, because this routed deep in you, can you think outside your believe and be rational ?
Our minds are to impaired by conditioning experienced in our early life, notwithstanding there was a purpose for that to.
Just my two cents of philosophy.....

Suggestion for water measurement (during testing)
There are two distinct different water aspects in buoyancy 
1.. Head water (the water that gives head height and pressure, also a measurement of water displaced by the float)
2.. Stroke displacement water (the water vacated by the float when moving vertically, this water needs to be supplied in order for the float to be able to rise vertically)

Your Zed has vertical zigzag head, to know the total head (pressure),  you can have a vertical transparent pipe, from the bottom of the pod upwards. Because of pressure equalization, this pipe will show exactly the pressure (total head) at any time more precisely than measuring on the zed iself (1psi = 0.703 Mtr or 27.7 inch). Depending on the number of zed layers, you might need a ladder to get higher up.

Free rise
As you add water, the first thing that happens is adding head until you will reach float pressure (float pressure depends on the weight and lift area of your zed).  Once float pressure is reached (take note), then displacement water begins, no further head water is taken.
With stopper
As you add water beyond float pressure, only head is added and the pressure and head height will increase accordingly.  If you hang a measuring tape along side, you can calculate quickly the force on the stopper, knowing the previous float height and weight.
Water volume measurement
Having a water tap at the bottom of the zed (or vertical pipe), you can drain water into a measuring cup and read immediate the volume and pressure and force from the pipe. The water between the zed and the pipe will always equalize, visually the water levels are at different height but in pressure reality they are the same, no matter what you do,  you can also add water from the top of the pipe with funnel.

I hope this can help,  Michel

PS:  Webby1 has somewhere a picture with a vertical pipe in that way
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 11:18:31 AM
Dear Wayne,

RE: My thank you for your sharing generosity

I should have done this earlier in time and it is way overdue. Considering you had more public attacks on your integrity than you had on your invention. I think a public thank you note for sharing your brilliant inventive concept is in order and way overdue. 
You have my greatest admiration for sharing your discovery work of several years so unselfishly on a public forum. You definitely made a difference in my life that will impact the years to come for the better.

What is most amazing to me is the assimilation capability of nature (alike to birds of a feather flock together) and I am grateful that we found the same flock. What I really regret now was for not traveling to Oklahoma back in July when I was sweating my xxx off under the brilliant Red Sunset of a Chesapeake heat wave.  I realize now, this was an golden opportunity missed.
Any creation carries the reflection of the creator, the brilliant ingenuity of your  invention is a reflection of your creative thought process and your sharing a reflection of your individuality and your chosen path through life.
Notwithstanding what certain individuals are baseless proclaiming on the web.  I base my character assessment on my own interaction experiences and can only smile at the attackers for being so foolishly.…….
By understanding the workings of your invention and I can only guess at the hardship it took to reach the current level and knowing there is still a long way to go before you sleep, I regret that you had to meet such an inferior welcome reception for such large bounty shared..
But rest assured, the bounty of satisfaction is still to come, the balance of forces will be in your favor!

Yours Sincerely, Michel

PS1: In order to see where the majority lies, I invite everybody who had a similar experience to post a similar thank you note

PS2: I know this will most likely open the floodgates for more baseless criticism, lets hope they will be able to come up with a good technical rebuttal this time.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 22, 2012, 12:14:57 PM
Thanks PC,

One thing is for sure -
Many can now answer questions regarding the function and understanding of our technology.
"Open Forum" or not - that is why Stefan invited me.

It is your choice to follow along or not - or to get involved or not - I respect your decision.

What we  have shared - is an enormous amount - and invested a great deal of time explaining (and I have put up with loads of ego dripping trolls).

p.s - regarding private conversation - It is not a nefarious fact that some people get involved at a deeper level - it is their own desire, willingness, time and energy.

 
Oh .....  I already told you that I will share the Validation findings good or bad - see you then.

Back to the fun  :) 

 We are  having an adventure in this new field of discovery!

Best to you as well!
Wayne


Thank you for your response,
I feel disappointed that you're not in a position
to demonstrate to Mark Dansie a fully self-running device, I believe if you truly have OU
this should not be a problem, it is obvious after all this time and 155 pages  that this is a case of work in progress,
and I look forward to the day when you will have a working self-running and self sustaining device.


Good luck
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 12:39:47 PM
So now we are starting to achieve some common ground. It would appear that you do agree the laws of physics as elucidated for centuries do hold true and as such mean that this device could not work, unless this device provided a mechanisim by which to break those laws.
Seriously though how likely is that? This device doesn't do anything remarkable. It combines things such as bouyancy and expansion and compression of air, things that we know are categorically non OU , and then claims an overunity result. Logic alone discounts this. However if we are to suspend our disbelief on that and genuinely look for an OU process none can be shown. The original proclamations based on the simple Travis effect are demonstrably non OU so we are left looking more deeply for some other mechanisim and so far nothing arises.
You make appeal to Zero Point energy as a possible source. I don't discount the existence of this energy but  I do believe it is extremely unlikely that this device is able to utilize it.
I await with interest an attempt at explaining how this could be so...

Seamus,
I do not understand why we keep on going around in circles.
I am happy you can see the common ground and I am happy you don't believe one iota of what is presented.
The point here is not for you to believe outright and without proof. The objective is for you to see the proof yourself and if you can not then ask someone to help you by showing how you went about it searching for it.

Can you list the Travis Effects and what they do ?

The game of chance discovery is low.
How likely is it that a fly climbs into your nose?  What are the chances that an plane crashes into your house ? win the lottery.....
Only a small chance, never the less a chance.  If General Electric announced the Zed concept and energy gain, would you believe it then without seeing the proof?  Here the proof is only an arms length away

"I await with interest an attempt at explaining how this could be so..."  
Sorry, as said before, it is not my place here to disclose IP at "point blank range" this information is not owned by me.
If Wayne wanted to disclose it as you expect, he would have done so already.  You know the options you have.
Sure you can say know, he doesn't have it that is why he didn't disclose it.  Lucky for mankind, he is not the only one who knows it.

What can I say Seamus, your roots appear too deep settled in to follow.
Sorry, it looks we have a mismatch, the change has to come now from your side. This side has given you all it can give you over the ~150 pages of post

Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 01:24:32 PM
Thank you for your response,
I feel disappointed that you're not in a position
to demonstrate to Mark Dansie a fully self-running device, I believe if you truly have OU
this should not be a problem, it is obvious after all this time and 155 pages  that this is a case of work in progress,
and I look forward to the day when you will have a working self-running and self sustaining device.
Good luck

My viewpoint gathered from a distance by reading between the lines,
What appears not to be clearly understood is that the zed had progressive development phases that led to OU. It was not a flash bang and here it is.  During these development phases there were several models of Zed types (principle different and modified ones.)  At certain points in the tread there is reference to more than one model, this could have confused certain people.

The common zed refereed to is the last demo model used for gathering information that led to new discoveries on how to optimize various performance aspects of the system (shown on video) . It appears that this model got worn out over time by the multiple changes it was subjected to and became unreliable.
With new knowledge gained, it was thought wise to rather go for a new improved version zed for the Mark Dansie demo to ensure reliability and have the assurance of a smooth uninterrupted test.  This is now in progress.
With the new knowledge, experience and optimizations applied, the redesigned model will produce substantially more output in a smaller physical size.  Simplifications would also assure better reliability and lower cost. A better demonstration model all round.

It has to be realized that the zed is a new technology still at its virgin stage of development and the physical execution will still undergo major changes by more effectively applying the concept principles of the invention.

It is presumptuous to think that zed design is already a fait accompli , (the first model T-ford is on the way), be ready for it, it is only the beginning.

The above is pretty much my guesswork on what is going from far away by intuition,
and for sure,  I am open for correction by Wayne

This is my last post of the day, Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 22, 2012, 02:29:37 PM
@see3d:
The pressure of the water due to depth does not affect buoyancy or lift force. It acts in all directions equally. I thought we covered this some pages back. If you are getting some lift force here it's not coming from water pressure per se, I don't think. What is happening in the real world is that as the riser lifts up, it is displacing much less water, so its buoyancy decreases, that is, it's being pressed upwards less by the water trying to flow underneath it. This isn't water depth psi due to depth, but water weight being displaced by thick walls and deep submergence. I think.
TK, I work with pressure differential in my sim math.  Read about the Archimedes Paradox again.  Buoyancy force is independent of the total mass of displaced water.  You might be confusing force with potential energy here.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 22, 2012, 02:33:31 PM
My viewpoint gathered from a distance by reading between the lines,
What appears not to be clearly understood is that the zed had progressive development phases that led to OU. It was not a flash bang and here it is.  During these development phases there were several models of Zed types (principle different and modified ones.)  At certain points in the tread there is reference to more than one model, this could have confused certain people.

The common zed refereed to is the last demo model used for gathering information that led to new discoveries on how to optimize various performance aspects of the system (shown on video) . It appears that this model got worn out over time by the multiple changes it was subjected to and became unreliable.
With new knowledge gained, it was thought wise to rather go for a new improved version zed for the Mike Dansie demo to ensure reliability and have the assurance of a smooth uninterrupted test.  This is now in progress.
With the new knowledge, experience and optimizations applied, the redesigned model will produce substantially more output in a smaller physical size.  Simplifications would also assure better reliability and lower cost. A better demonstration model all round.

It has to be realized that the zed is a new technology still at its virgin stage of development and the physical execution will still undergo major changes by more effectively applying the concept principles of the invention.

It is presumptuous to think that zed design is already a fait accompli , (the first model T-ford is on the way), be ready for it, it is only the beginning.

The above is pretty much my guesswork on what is going from far away by intuition,
and for sure,  I am open for correction by Wayne

This is my last post of the day, Michel

Thank you Michel for trying to clear things up,
but there is still confusion when I look at the beginning of this thread, it is clear that Wayne
appeared to have a working closed loop over unity device, here are some quotes from him.

Quote
I do not claim to have all the answers to the problem, but I do have a very over unity device.
Quote
I am on design number seven - and it is works very well) I would say that I am an expert on what does not work, as well
Quote
My models 5 and 6 were also over unity
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg281185/#msg281185 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg281185/#msg281185)

Quote
Thank you for your concern.We completed the closed looped system in November last year.
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg323820/#msg323820 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg323820/#msg323820)

Now for some reason these devices have stopped working and the whole process of development has been started again
to reinvent a better device,.we can all argue that every device ever invented is needing further development.

But why can't one of the original devices be verified by Mark Dansie ?

Either the device runs itself or it doesn't ?

What we appear to have here is devices that used to run themselves, but now can't without redevelopment.

I really want to believe that Wayne has a selfrunning OU device because it would be one of the most important discoveries ever,
and the world really could do with one right now, so why not get on and get it verified by Mark Dansie ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 03:39:04 PM
Now for some reason these devices have stopped working and the whole process of development has been started again
to reinvent a better device,.we can all argue that every device ever invented is needing further development.

But why can't one of the original devices be verified by Mark Dansie ?

Either the device runs itself or it doesn't ?

What we appear to have here is devices that used to run themselves, but now can't without redevelopment.

I really want to believe that Wayne has a selfrunning OU device because it would be one of the most important discoveries ever,
and the world really could do with one right now, so why not get on and get it verified by Mark Dansie ?

Powercat,
Do you run your own business or you are an employee ?  To me it seems a bit emotionally irrational to get into an official and critical test sequence when one is not fully confident the system is reliable enough to see it successfully through and that doesn't have to have anything to do with the soundness of the invention. More with the build quality that has been compromised.
Do you think Mark Dansie comes for free ?
What is the cost of a test failure and what does it do to the product image ?

I am sure Wayne considered all the facts and thought it more prudent to do it this way. I am sure it is more of a business decision than a technical one.

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 04:40:36 PM
What I get from this is that it doesn't seem to matter how you're setup to get the water in to the tank, the work required is the same. Which sort of makes sense, looking at Fletchers work, if you have a container with 74 grams of water 1mm high, all 74grams have to be lifted by the 10mm to fill the tank. However, looking at it simply incrementally, if the container is 10 mm tall, 7.4 grams must be lifted 1mm, 7.4 grams must be lifted 2mm, 7.4 grams ..... must be lifted 10mm. I think that adding up all those 7.4 grams over the various distances equates to lifting the all 74 grams over the one larger distance.
That is the same as what I have come to understand and have argued previously as well.  So unless someone has other ideas the results from my test run are:
 
Input of 74 grams raised 10mm.
Output of 1217 grams raised 10mm.
 
Right?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 22, 2012, 04:48:38 PM
Powercat,
Do you run your own business or you are an employee ?  To me it seems a bit emotionally irrational to get into an official and critical test sequence when one is not fully confident the system is reliable enough to see it successfully through and that doesn't have to have anything to do with the soundness of the invention. More with the build quality that has been compromised.
Do you think Mark Dansie comes for free ?
What is the cost of a test failure and what does it do to the product image ?

I am sure Wayne considered all the facts and thought it more prudent to do it this way. I am sure it is more of a business decision than a technical one.

Michel

Michel
I do hope you're right as it is all beginning to take a long time and we just seem to get more excuses,
while this situation continues the argument about whether there is really OU or not will continue as well.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 22, 2012, 05:48:40 PM
At this time I do not want to get into a discussion about mrwayne`s strategy. I have no doubt that when he gets all his ducks in a row he will call Mark Dansie. In the meantime, I am a lot more interested in what has been achieved by Mondrasek. Those recently published results are to say the least, surprising. He talks about raising 1217 Grams a distance of 10 mm. He does not specifically state how much of this is load weight. Let us be really pessimistic and assume that 50% is load weight, and the remaining 50% of the raised weight has to be left in situ to cause the risers to sink. So the load lifted and removed is about608 g.  Therefore output over input would be 608 over 72 =8.4 recurring. What am I missing here? If Mondrasek has made a fundamental mistake in calculating his figures, why aren`t the Naysayers jumping all over him?
A little point here for Mondrasek. it would be the work of a few minutes to provide a mechanical stop to prevent further rise of the risers when the load weight is removed.
     Guys like Mondrasek Weby1, and Wildew are special because the share all results, positive or negative. I think that it will be guys like these who show us the first proof of OU in this device.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 06:10:05 PM
Good evening, @neptune.
 
The Lift Load is entirely separate from the rest of the system (the rest of the system being the pre-load that is required to be present to maintain pressure in the system).  The Lift Load is a small (2.5lb) free weight disc that is added at the beginning of the lift and then removed at the top (after the 10.0 mm stroke of the ZED).  So the input energy to output energy is actually about 16.49ish.
 
I can give the mass values for all the elements in the system that are part of the pre-load if needed.
 
My system was designed on purpose to have a maximum mass lift potential.  This is intended to show the energy imbalance.  It could NOT be used well to show power production because it would need to be cycled very slowly so as not to allow the inherent flow restrictions to unbalance any portion of the internal pressures and "blow skirts."
 
I am hopefull the results are able to show a positive net energy output from a single three layer ZED system.  I am more than willing to share more details or perform more experiments as requested by those on the forum or by PM.
 
One more time: the reason for the extraordinarily high output ratio (~16.49) is due again to using materials and gap thicknesses that should initially prove very difficult at larger scale.  Also, this test system must have the input water introduced and removed relatively slowly and so would not be very good for power generation.
 
But still a neat demo, eh?
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 22, 2012, 06:16:39 PM
TK, I work with pressure differential in my sim math.  Read about the Archimedes Paradox again.  Buoyancy force is independent of the total mass of displaced water.  You might be confusing force with potential energy here.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for some support for that statement.

In every system I know about, even the inverted Travis effect, buoyancy FORCE does indeed depend on the mass of the water displaced by the displacer, whether it's a floater or a sinker. This FORCE is offset, some of it, by the WEIGHT of the displacer, which is also a FORCE acting towards the center of the earth. Buoyancy is a result of the displacer _raising water_; the force of gravity acting on this water's mass trying to make it run down underneath the displacing object. The resultant Total Force, upwards or downwards, is the algebraic sum of these two _gravitational_ forces: Upwards from the mass of the displaced water, and downwards from the mass of the displacing object.

No, I'm not confusing force with potential energy here, and if your sim is pushing up on riser walls due to the _pressure differential due to water depth_ that is an error, and it's easy to prove that it is, just as I have done empirically some pages ago _using actual measurements on a real system_.

Please take a displacing mass, and attach it to a long thin rod so you can push it underwater without adding much volume to the displacement by your pushing method. Push the mass until it is just barely submerged and measure the force required to keep it there. Then push it as deeply as you can, and measure the force again. Report your results here, and then tell me if I'm confusing  force with potential energy again.

You can measure the force as I did, by simply placing the outer container on a scale and reading the "travis effect" added weight as you push, or you can use a force gauge like this Mark-10 I have here to measure the push in the pushrod directly... they both will give the same value, and this force value will be the same no matter the depth, as long as your displacing volume does not change. Does it take work to push your displacer further downward? Yes, of course. Does the PE of the system increase, even though the buoyant force is constant? Yes, because when you release the displacer it will float upwards through a greater distance. In essence you are lifting the displaced water amount by the same distance as you are submerging the displacer. You are not just raising the surface water, you are raising the slug of water that the displacer displaces, through the entire height represented by the depth of the displacer.

Only a Cartesian Diver responds to changes in water pressure due to depth or outside applied pressure, and it does so because it is deformable: its volume changes with applied pressure, so its displaced mass changes, thus its buoyancy changes. This is a secondary effect caused by the deformable Diver's change in volume, not directly by the applied pressure itself, as you can prove to yourself very easily just by doing this simple experiment.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 22, 2012, 06:35:48 PM
@mondrasek:

You appear to be claiming an "overunity work ratio" of sixteen to one. Now, I don't know about you, but I can instantly come up with several schemes to take advantage of such a claim RIGHT AWAY. For example, instead of just lifting a weight, we can use the output piston to move the short arm of a simple lever, the long arm lifting a smaller weight through a much greater distance in the same time interval. This smaller weight can then be allowed to fall, driving an electrical generator (windlass, linear gear, there are dozens of methods, I'm sure a robotics engineer could come up with many more.) Like the driving weights of a cuckoo clock. Even with lousy mechanical and electrical efficiencies we should be getting overunity electrical output by the end of the day tomorrow, by using some of the output to "reduce the input" used to push against the short arm of the lever to raise up the weight.

Remember those little kid's toy cars and trains, where you push a short plunger over and over, and this spins up a little flywheel in a gearbox and then the little car or train will run for a while on the stored energy from the short plunger pushes? Of course you do.

So.... what's wrong with this picture?  Is there some real problem here? I can tell you this for certain, and I think that I will be believed by those who know me: If I had, two years ago, a simple system that produced a 16:1 ratio of output to input work.... By now you would be seeing it in production by manufacturers of hydraulic tooling systems, and I'd be running my house off of it.

Show me the sausages, if you don't mind. I'd like to see a video of the whole process including the preload/precharge, and I'd like to see the process repeat several times, so that I can find out where your error is. Or if there isn't one, we can grab MrWayne and all three of us go down to SwRI with a carload of plumbing parts and we can demonstrate your 16:1 effect somewhere where it will count, and get some immediate action that doesn't depend on anonymous teams of amateur hobbyists.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 06:49:57 PM
Michel
I do hope you're right as it is all beginning to take a long time and we just seem to get more excuses,
while this situation continues the argument about whether there is really OU or not will continue as well.

Hi Powercat,
Ooops my apologies if my last message was a bit strong and felt harsh. I had to leave in a hurry, when I read my own message on my return, together with your reply,  I thought mine was unintentionally ruff in content wording.

You are correct, the delay doesn't give a good impression, but neither would a failed test with Mark due to hardware problems.
It is a judgement call to chose the best of two evils. I a confident it will be looked upon as a minor hick-up in the near future.
Michel


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 06:51:16 PM
TK,
 
I'll do what I can to comply with your request. 
 
Please note that I am also quite taken back by what my test data has shown.  It is not what I would have expected at all.  So I am looking for the error(s).
 
The digicam that I have is an HD unit that is intended to output directly to a video input of a TV only (that I am aware of).  I have put an axillary output through my PC and two or three conversion programs in the past to make a computer viewable file for my wife.  Those pirated softwares include several dozen viruses/Trojans IIRC. 
 
I'm not very familiar with YouTube, but am willing to learn.
 
Any advice is appreciated.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 22, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for some support for that statement.
TK, How do you explain the paradox where you can float a battleship with a bucket of water?

I am currently working with real build data to verify these various forces in the sim.  I am quite willing to admit any mistake and correct my sim to match real world data.  I don't currently see how I can ignore differential pressures at different water depths.  This is the key element of the Archimedes Paradox which is a key principle in the ZED.  It seems to me that your experiment proves rather than disproves my methods.  The differential pressure from the top to the bottom of your float does not change no matter what depth it is sunk after it is completely underwater, so no forces will change. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_paradox

Are we even talking about the same thing?
Perhaps it is a semantics issue.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 07:14:42 PM
Recorded data from a 3 layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) single ZED as shown in previous photos and posts.  The input is a gravity fed funnel tube that enters the bottom of the Pod chamber.  A separate air line that also enters the bottom of the Pod chamber was used to achieve the set up conditions.  Set up was done to create the maximum lift potential along a stroke of 10 mm with enough lee way to barely allow for not blowing skirts.  The entire load (pre and work load) are very near the maximum of the "ideal lift" potential.
 
Lift mass is 1217 grams (digital scale accurate to  +/-1 gram).
Lift stroke is 10.0 mm (digital indicator accurate to +/- .01mm).
Input water mass is 74 grams (same digital scale and repeated several times).
 

The change in ZED stroke when the lift mass is removed or added when at the bottom lift position:  3.8 mm.
Head change in the fill tube for the same:  165mm  +/- 1 or 2 mm.
 
M.

Mondrasek,
Before you go into doing a hollywood movie production, can you tell me the following

1..  Do You start from what position, sunk = riser standing on the bottom (touching)
      or floating = a water gap between risers and bottom.
2..  At floating position what weight do you have on top of the risers
3..  With that weight what is your float pressure ( this can be in mm or inches head height measure at the bottom of the pod area, where you input or exhaust water)
I would imagine from the text that you are floating the weight up for 10mm is that correct ?

You mention a load of 2.5lb and a output weight of 1217gr for 10mm,
Please try to be clear what amount of "weight + load" you have on the riser at what time, also if you hold (stop) the riser.

Remember that from an energy viewpoint, pressure = distance and weight = volume
Do not read head height on the riser itself, this is not accurate enough to have meaning,  read it on the input/exhaust pipe

Clear sequential data will solve your performance question.

Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 07:40:22 PM
RS,
 
Sorry if I do not or am not able to answer all of your questions correctly.  I am currently in charge of the youngun and waiting for "Mommy" to return from an away trip.  I am also making sure the digicam has a charge and thinking through the video "production."
 
1.  The experiment started from the position of "sunk," but with the Pod/Risers in neutral buoyancy (floating) approximately 1 mm above the point where they would be resting on the annulus walls.  This was by design so as to keep the lift as close to "ideal" maximum as I could while making sure not to have the Pod/Risers sit down on the walls.
 
2.  There is a preload on the system that includes (from bottom to top) the Pod and Riser mass, a couple spacers (that include a partial roll of electrical tape and a plywood disk), a Cedar plank (to give a point for the digital indicator to read off of), a pre-weight (a Tupperware type container with some wet sand from the yougun's play table), and, finally, the Lift Load (a free weight disk marked at 2.5 lbs but that measures at 1217 grams on a digital scale).
 
The digital indicator is another portion of the pre-load.  It's induced mass was not linear due to the internal return spring so I removed that spring and only gravity is in play now.  Except for friction it is now a constant load during the rise/sink.
 
3.  I am not sure what measurement you want me to explain or take with this.  Please try again.
 
Please let me know if anything was not answered!
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 08:00:43 PM
RS,
 
Sorry if I do not or am not able to answer all of your questions correctly.  I am currently in charge of the youngun and waiting for "Mommy" to return from an away trip.  I am also making sure the digicam has a charge and thinking through the video "production."
 
1.  The experiment started from the position of "sunk," but with the Pod/Risers in neutral buoyancy (floating) approximately 1 mm above the point where they would be resting on the annulus walls.  This was by design so as to keep the lift as close to "ideal" maximum as I could while making sure not to have the Pod/Risers sit down on the walls.
 
2.  There is a preload on the system that includes (from bottom to top) the Pod and Riser mass, a couple spacers (that include a partial roll of electrical tape and a plywood disk), a Cedar plank (to give a point for the digital indicator to read off of), a pre-weight (a Tupperware type container with some wet sand from the yougun's play table), and, finally, the Lift Load (a free weight disk marked at 2.5 lbs but that measures at 1217 grams on a digital scale).
 
The digital indicator is another portion of the pre-load.  It's induced mass was not linear due to the internal return spring so I removed that spring and only gravity is in play now.  Except for friction it is now a constant load during the rise/sink.
 
3.  I am not sure what measurement you want me to explain or take with this.  Please try again.
 
Please let me know if anything was not answered!
 
M.

Hi Mondrasek,

Woowh, I am starting to understand why the Aussi wants to have a movie,  I thought I was simple and clear in my request to what was required to ascertain the performance of your zed. I wasn't counting on the weight of such a selection.
Sorry, I am afraid I wouldn't be of much use in help to you.
Michel

PS: What does Mondrasek mean or stand for ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 08:10:00 PM
M is for Michael.
 
ondrasek is for Ondrasek.
 
Slovak ethnicity.  But third generation American.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 22, 2012, 08:50:33 PM
@Red_Sunset. Hey , do not give up on Mondrasek so easily! I have known him, through this forum for many years, and, trust me he is one of the good guys, always willing to share. It would seem to me that he gave a full answer to the first two questions you asked. Why not try asking question three again, if necessary explaining exactly what you want to know in precise detail. The last thing we need at this stage is for the job to fall apart through misunderstandings.
     I could be totally wrong, but what I think you are asking is this.
With that weight what is the hight of water in your feed tube measured from the base of the pod chamber. Forgive me if I am wrong, my intentions are good.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 08:54:23 PM
Sorry all.  I took a video.  It was pretty good except that I forgot to weigh the mass of the cup from which I was pouring the input water at the end!  But the pre-pour mass was only about 180 grams so it was still way less than the 1217 lift.
 
But now I cannot even find a regular USB to mini USB cable to hook the digicam to the PC to try and figure out how to upload a video off of it to YouTube.  I have about half a dozen regular USB to MICRO USB cables sitting around...
 
Ain't technology a b**ch!?!
 
I'll try and present video later.
 
Sorry again,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 09:13:25 PM
Well I found the USB adapter cable I needed plugged into a hub that supports my keyboard and mouse.  So I switched everything around, but the digicam is not recognized by the PC.  It must need a driver that I do not have handy (the PC is on a newer OPSYS since the last time I did this).  So I am giving up for now.
 
I'm still happy to do experiments and report results, but I understand that without "video evidence" or better that any postings should be considered suspect.  But if anyone wants any tests, please let me know.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 09:30:56 PM
RS,
 
Sorry if I do not or am not able to answer all of your questions correctly.  I am currently in charge of the youngun and waiting for "Mommy" to return from an away trip.  I am also making sure the digicam has a charge and thinking through the video "production."
 
1.  The experiment started from the position of "sunk," but with the Pod/Risers in neutral buoyancy (floating) approximately 1 mm above the point where they would be resting on the annulus walls.  This was by design so as to keep the lift as close to "ideal" maximum as I could while making sure not to have the Pod/Risers sit down on the walls.
 
2.  There is a preload on the system that includes (from bottom to top) the Pod and Riser mass, a couple spacers (that include a partial roll of electrical tape and a plywood disk), a Cedar plank (to give a point for the digital indicator to read off of), a pre-weight (a Tupperware type container with some wet sand from the yougun's play table), and, finally, the Lift Load (a free weight disk marked at 2.5 lbs but that measures at 1217 grams on a digital scale).
 
The digital indicator is another portion of the pre-load.  It's induced mass was not linear due to the internal return spring so I removed that spring and only gravity is in play now.  Except for friction it is now a constant load during the rise/sink.
 
3.  I am not sure what measurement you want me to explain or take with this.  Please try again.
 
Please let me know if anything was not answered!
 
M.

Hi Mondrasek,

From what I can interpret and gather, I hope the stuff below matches the reality you have, 
A nice 3 layer riser you got there but the results appear somewhat of the mark, pls check values and designation

Input                 74   gr   
Input energy   12210   gr_mm   
output load     1217   gr   
output energy   90058   gr_mm   
distance                         10   mm   
Output to input ratio         7.38   
height change 0 to 1217gr      4   mm   
head change to support 1217 gr   165mm  = 0.234psi  (your float pressure = stroke pressure)
Weight /psi capability      5185.158   gram/psi

The riser with the weight on it of 1.2kg will float with a head of 165mm (=.234psi). Since you float your weight up for 10mm, your stroke pressure is the same.
Your input pressure to stroke = your float pressure, this makes your energy efficiency is over 700%.
You can lift just over 5kg for every psi of input pressure, that is ~5kg for every 703mm of head

Compared to the guideline efficiency, you are way over,  make sure the above info is listed and interpreted correctly
•   3 layer system is ~160% efficient
•   6 layer system is ~340% efficient
•   8 layer system is ~800% efficient

Please confirm that your input of 74 grams of water is for the distance of 10mm and not just to put a head of 165mm on your riser.

Regards, Michel

PS: You got a very good friend in Neptune mon ami, that is something to appreciate.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on September 22, 2012, 10:26:44 PM
For anyone having difficulty with the Archimedes Paradox that See3d mentioned, this a good discussion thread:

Ocean liner in bucket full of water:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=544619

Relate this paradox with the Travis Effect cup demos I did a while back (links are on Wayne's website front page). The thin layer of water around the ship acts in some ways similar to the thin layer of air around the cement block in the videos. 

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 22, 2012, 10:41:41 PM
For anyone having difficulty with the Archimedes Paradox that See3d mentioned, this a good discussion thread:

Ocean liner in bucket full of water:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=544619

Relate this paradox with the Travis Effect cup demos I did a while back (links are on Wayne's website front page). The thin layer of water around the ship acts in some ways similar to the thin layer of air around the cement block in the videos. 

Tom
The relationship is inverted.  Since it is all taking place underwater, and an inverted cup of air over the upside down battleship, the buoyancy role of water and air are reversed. Same principle, but you have to stand on your head to see it.  Oh, that was tiring, so I turned my monitor upside down instead... LOL
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 22, 2012, 10:44:04 PM
Ha!  Mommy's digital camera takes pretty good video too!  And she is not a bad camera operator either.  Uploading now.
 
RS, I am not sure if I offended you or not.  I did not understand your reply to me and only became concerned when @neptune chimed in.  Sorry if anything I posted was found to be offensive.  It was not intended as such.  I try to write with no tone implied, but if read with tone in mind anything posted can seem insulting.
 
M.
 
PS. 107 minutes to go:  http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY (http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 12:09:27 AM
TK, How do you explain the paradox where you can float a battleship with a bucket of water?

I am currently working with real build data to verify these various forces in the sim.  I am quite willing to admit any mistake and correct my sim to match real world data.  I don't currently see how I can ignore differential pressures at different water depths.  This is the key element of the Archimedes Paradox which is a key principle in the ZED.  It seems to me that your experiment proves rather than disproves my methods.  The differential pressure from the top to the bottom of your float does not change no matter what depth it is sunk after it is completely underwater, so no forces will change. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_paradox)

Are we even talking about the same thing?
Perhaps it is a semantics issue.
It would only be a paradox if the bucket of water weighed the same with the battle ship removed _and no water added_. 

That is: you put your battle ship in the weightless bucket full to the brim of water, overflowing the excess,  and weigh it. Your result is Wtotal.  Now draw a line on the battleship's hull right at the waterline. Remove the battleship and weigh the bucket.... now you see only the weight of the water remaining, Wtotal-battleship = Wwater. Right? Now convert this to a volume and subtract that from the total volume of the bucket: that is, the result is the amount of water that the battleship displaced. Right?
Now take your battleship and calculate the volume of the hull below the waterline you marked. Guess what..... the volume of the hull in cubic centimeters is the same as the weight of the displaced "virtual" water in grams, corrected for the exact density of your water.
No paradox at all.

The second part of your statement seems to be at odds with what you said the first time, which is this:
Quote
An observation from the sim:  There is a lift force coming from the bottom area of each Riser wall ring.  The thicker the wall, and the deeper the water level, the more lift force is generated.  This helps counterbalance some of the Riser/Pod weight.  However, as the Riser lifts up, this force diminishes (because the water depth PSI is less at less depth). 
That is the part I object to, because that is NOT how buoyancy works and there is no contribution from the water depth psi to the lifting. The head of water pressure raises the air pressure which pushes up against the riser; the depth of the parts extending into the water are not affected by the water "psi due to depth" which acts in all directions equally and so cannot produce movement, but rather by the upward force due to the displaced water being heavier than the volume that is displacing it. This upward force is independent of the "depth psi" but of course decreases as the submerged volume of the riser decreases as it lifts.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 12:13:42 AM
Ha!  Mommy's digital camera takes pretty good video too!  And she is not a bad camera operator either.  Uploading now.
 
RS, I am not sure if I offended you or not.  I did not understand your reply to me and only became concerned when @neptune chimed in.  Sorry if anything I posted was found to be offensive.  It was not intended as such.  I try to write with no tone implied, but if read with tone in mind anything posted can seem insulting.
 
M.
 
PS. 107 minutes to go:  http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY (http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY)
I use a program called WinFF to convert the huge files from my camera (about 100 MB/minute of video time) to something a bit more uploadable. Typically I get about 1/5 to 1/6 the filesize when I'm done, by converting from the camera's native format to a MS-compatible .avi format before uploading to YT. Saves a lot of time, but there is some loss of quality.
http://winff.org/html_new/
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 12:20:22 AM
I use a program called WinFF to convert the huge files from my camera (about 100 MB/minute of video time) to something a bit more uploadable. Typically I get about 1/5 to 1/6 the filesize when I'm done, by converting from the camera's native format to a MS-compatible .avi format before uploading to YT. Saves a lot of time, but there is some loss of quality.
http://winff.org/html_new/ (http://winff.org/html_new/)

NOW you tell me!
 
Thanks for the info.  I'll have to check that out if I have to do this again.
 
What format does your video camera record in native?  I think mine is like AC3 or some such.  NOT PC friendly at ALL!
 
YouTube says only 13 minutes to go!  I wonder if that is realistic or just computereez for STFU and have a sandwich...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 12:48:14 AM
The video is up on YouTube now.  I apologize after watching it for the several times I "misspeak" and do not hit the correct lift values during the rushed commentary/experiment.  But I believe this video still shows that I was not making up the data I posted earlier.
 
Let me know if there are specific experiments or measurements that you would like to see from this setup.  I can't promise anything, but will do what I can (because I can).
 
M.
http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2F2325%2F&v=1&libid=1348354043725&out=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2Fmsg337331%2F&title=Hydro%20Differential%20pressure%20exchange%20over%20unity%20system.&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13483540790402)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 23, 2012, 02:06:48 AM
Hi M. - Nice video  ;D
I know the pressure.....
One thing I didn't see you measure - and I noticed because it's what I've been struggling with today.
Your funnel is well above the head line on the input tube, have you paid a lot of attention to the head values as measured on that tube? - Sorry if I missed it in the earlier posts.

My 1U tests looked REAL good if i simply cycled the same load up and down - teeter-totter style. REALLY looked like same lever arm, same travel distance,,,,, different weights. But lift 5 lbs, remove it with the risers unable to move higher - notice that the input head doesn't change - and try to sink. Now it doesn't look so good.

With the system load staying the same it would lift and sink a total of 18.5 pounds an inch using 3 pounds of water and I could hold the head within an inch to an inch and a half - 13.5" to 15"

Remove 5 pounds at the top and I would still remove 3 pounds of water BUT I would have to drop the head to 10" to sink.

Now at 2U: I added 5 more Lbs ballast, still using a 5Lb brick as the "load" - total weight of POD / riser, ballast, load is 23.5 Lbs. 5.5" POD tube. Lift head is up to 23" ( after tweaking the setup... ) and sink without the brick is 16" head. Fluid transfer is down 1/3 to 2LBs but head differential needed is up.

Even after re-applying the 5Lb lift load the head is at 20".

Looking like the 2U is almost a step backwards taking a 2Lb lift of 3" to lift and remove 5Lb 1"

I wanted to do the build this way - 1U at a time, to be able to test and compare the addition of layers.
Will be real interesting to see what happens when I add the third - maybe tomorrow....

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 23, 2012, 02:19:31 AM
... OH, and for another future reference on video files.
winff is OK but the real deal is ffmpeg - it is a command line tool but there's a windows build that will convert ANYTHING - Quickly. Fair learning curve but tons of support out there. Another good tool if the cam is DVD friendly is DVDcatalyst. Love it for putting movies on my "phone" and for video conversions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 23, 2012, 02:20:58 AM
It would only be a paradox if the bucket of water weighed the same with the battle ship removed _and no water added_. 

That is: you put your battle ship in the weightless bucket full to the brim of water, overflowing the excess,  and weigh it. Your result is Wtotal.  Now draw a line on the battleship's hull right at the waterline. Remove the battleship and weigh the bucket.... now you see only the weight of the water remaining, Wtotal-battleship = Wwater. Right? Now convert this to a volume and subtract that from the total volume of the bucket: that is, the result is the amount of water that the battleship displaced. Right?
Now take your battleship and calculate the volume of the hull below the waterline you marked. Guess what..... the volume of the hull in cubic centimeters is the same as the weight of the displaced "virtual" water in grams, corrected for the exact density of your water.
No paradox at all.

The second part of your statement seems to be at odds with what you said the first time, which is this: That is the part I object to, because that is NOT how buoyancy works and there is no contribution from the water depth psi to the lifting. The head of water pressure raises the air pressure which pushes up against the riser; the depth of the parts extending into the water are not affected by the water "psi due to depth" which acts in all directions equally and so cannot produce movement, but rather by the upward force due to the displaced water being heavier than the volume that is displacing it. This upward force is independent of the "depth psi" but of course decreases as the submerged volume of the riser decreases as it lifts.
TK,  Your method to calculate the lift is valid.  My method to calculate the lift is valid.  They generate the same answer.  I stand by my statements 100%.  First, for the battleship floating in a bucket of water.  Take every square inch of the hull and calculate the PSI at the average water depth for that square inch.  Add all the square inches up and guess what?  The total force lifting the battleship is equal to the weight of the ship.  The weight of the "virtual water" displaced is also the same number. A=1, B=1, A=B.

Let's take a very simple example.  Take a 1 inch cube with a total weight the tiniest bit less than a cubic inch of water.  It will float, but right at the surface.  It will have a virtual water displacement of 1 cubic inch of water weighing 0.036 pounds.  The pressure at the bottom surface one inch deep is 0.036 PSI.  The lift from the pressure differential is 0.036 pounds.  It does not matter if we calculate it with displaced virtual water or pressures at the water depth.  The answer is still the same.    The pressures at depth is the truest mathematical representation.  The buoyancy in virtual water is a geometric equivalent IMHO. 

If you want to argue with this analysis, then please do it with an actual example with real numbers.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 23, 2012, 02:53:20 AM
The video is up on YouTube now.
Mike, Very nice and clear video.  It makes it easier to understand your statements.  One thing to watch out for: When you add water to the funnel, it has one potential energy.  When you drain some water, it has a very much lower potential energy, even though it weighs the same.  You are adding energy into the system with your arm -- every time you take water out from below and add it to the funnel way above.  It is tricky.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 23, 2012, 03:08:54 AM
@Webby1
Clarification: What I meant by "notice that the head doesn't change" was: I've been concentrating on the head values and using Read_Sunset's method - measure the head on a sight gage. If my load appears to be up against the stop but the head drops when I remove the brick; it ain't there yet....

I've pretty much stopped using that screw jack except for setting up a cycle.

Recent tests have been done this way:
- get the loads set and static level checked, raise that input container slowly until the load hits the stops
- monitor the sight gauge closely and maintain the head levels as low as possible.
- then close the valve below that input cylinder and pull the sight gage tube out of its holder
- slowly slide the tube down the scale and let the water flow into the measuring cup.
- I usually lower the tube about an inch at a time looking for drop and "usable recovery"
- when the whole assembly is back at the starting point I note the difference between highest and lowest heads. I also tend to keep track of how much fluid comes out at each incremental reduction in head. So far, not much recovery after removing the load.
- then I pour the water from the measuring cup back into the input and open the valve to let it lift.

The way I've been trying to track work in and out is by noting fluid transfer weights / volumes and the difference in head pressures required to achieve that transfer.

Is that any clearer?
Dale

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 03:22:15 AM
... OH, and for another future reference on video files.
winff is OK but the real deal is ffmpeg - it is a command line tool but there's a windows build that will convert ANYTHING - Quickly. Fair learning curve but tons of support out there. Another good tool if the cam is DVD friendly is DVDcatalyst. Love it for putting movies on my "phone" and for video conversions.
WinFF is the GUI for ffmpeg, and there are versions for Linux and Windows systems.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 03:28:15 AM
TK,  Your method to calculate the lift is valid.  My method to calculate the lift is valid.  They generate the same answer.  I stand by my statements 100%.  First, for the battleship floating in a bucket of water.  Take every square inch of the hull and calculate the PSI at the average water depth for that square inch.  Add all the square inches up and guess what?  The total force lifting the battleship is equal to the weight of the ship.  The weight of the "virtual water" displaced is also the same number. A=1, B=1, A=B.

Let's take a very simple example.  Take a 1 inch cube with a total weight the tiniest bit less than a cubic inch of water.  It will float, but right at the surface.  It will have a virtual water displacement of 1 cubic inch of water weighing 0.036 pounds.  The pressure at the bottom surface one inch deep is 0.036 PSI.  The lift from the pressure differential is 0.036 pounds.  It does not matter if we calculate it with displaced virtual water or pressures at the water depth.  The answer is still the same.    The pressures at depth is the truest mathematical representation.  The buoyancy in virtual water is a geometric equivalent IMHO. 

If you want to argue with this analysis, then please do it with an actual example with real numbers.

How about if I just use your numbers as they stand and point out that a pressure differential is not the same thing as a pressure? You can take your one cubic inch down to a mile of depth, and the _pressure in psi due to depth_ will be much greater. The buoyant force will be just the same though, since the pressure differential across the vertical height of the cube is still the same.... since the pressure of water increases _linearly_ with depth. Just like the pressure of air increases linearly with decrease in volume.

If you are just using the pressure differential rather than the "psi due to depth" which is an absolute pressure, then fine, I suppose I am in agreement with your usage. But really..... your terminology was misleading.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 03:36:20 AM

NOW you tell me!
 
Thanks for the info.  I'll have to check that out if I have to do this again.
 
What format does your video camera record in native?  I think mine is like AC3 or some such.  NOT PC friendly at ALL!
 
YouTube says only 13 minutes to go!  I wonder if that is realistic or just computereez for STFU and have a sandwich...
 
M.

The time remaining can vary due to internet traffic and the phase of the moon.
My camera is a Panasonic, it records its HD video files with a .MOD extension, and splits off some info into another tiny file that I don't bother with. My Linux system "thinks" that .MOD belongs to Amiga SoundTracker files (audio) but when I doubleclick on the file it opens and plays in MoviePlayer just fine... but at the wrong aspect ratio, so I have to manually set the aspect ratio to 16:9 in the player.  For the right icon to show up with the file and for it to be recognised by other players I just change the extension to .mpg or .mp4, but the aspect ratio still must be set manually. After I run them through WinFF (ffmpeg gui) I set the aspect ratio in WinFF and the output .avi file is then correct aspect ratio.
I see .ac3 is on the list of formats that WinFF supports.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 23, 2012, 03:40:37 AM
OK - I have a minute
Quote
a pressure differential is not the same thing as a pressure
Relativity...  what CAN be measured as anything other than a difference?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 23, 2012, 03:44:38 AM
If you are just using the pressure differential rather than the "psi due to depth" which is an absolute pressure, then fine, I suppose I am in agreement with your usage. But really..... your terminology was misleading.
I welcome correction if my terminology is misleading (as opposed to just imprecise).  I used the absolute PSI in my statement because the top of the Riser is above the water.  Also, the air pocket pressure adds to the PSI of the water depth, so it can have some positive or negative additive "virtual" water head.  Much easier to calculate with pressures than figuring out an equivalent geometry.

I am still learning about the ZED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 04:03:43 AM
The video is up on YouTube now.  I apologize after watching it for the several times I "misspeak" and do not hit the correct lift values during the rushed commentary/experiment.  But I believe this video still shows that I was not making up the data I posted earlier.
 
Let me know if there are specific experiments or measurements that you would like to see from this setup.  I can't promise anything, but will do what I can (because I can).
 
M.
http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2F2325%2F&v=1&libid=1348354043725&out=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2Fmsg337331%2F&title=Hydro%20Differential%20pressure%20exchange%20over%20unity%20system.&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13483540790402)
Nobody is accusing you of making up data! However it is always possible that you may be taking the wrong data, or interpreting it incorrectly, or otherwise misusing the experiment, inadvertently of course.

OK, here's what I'd like to see. A long lever, with a valve at the fulcrum and the short arm on the piston where your heavy weight is, and the long arm with a reservoir on it. When the piston is UP the reservoir is down and the valve allows the water to run out the outlet into the reservoir. This then allows the piston to come DOWN, lifting the reservoir up to where the water can flow back into the Zed and raise the piston. (Here's where you may need another Zed system..... else how do you actually raise that water?)
OK for the demo for you to operate the valve manually, and even to restrain things at the bottom and stop to allow the drainage to happen ( a "phase shift" of sorts.)
If you are producing excess work, especially a factor of 16 to one, you should easily be able to make a self-runner, with you just working the valve at the appropriate time and holding things back when necessary by operating simple latches.

One question: in your video apparatus the input and output tubes are different. Is this necessary or just a matter of convenience? Are they plumbed to the same or equivalent pressure environments in the Zed?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 04:13:58 AM
Hi TK,

We both know how a transistor works.

From my POV the base argument against the functionality of this system is the same as saying that the current that can pass through a transistor is only the current applied to the gate.

Another one is the recovery,, again, from my POV it would be the same as a statement that if 3 capacitors were charged in series and one cap was discharged that all the caps loose their potential, this is what you have said, that the system has no potential stored that can be used,, and yet others are mentioning that they need to VENT pressure to get the risers to drop,, notice that that is NOT add power but VENT.

Simple stuff really.
Argh. Simple, really -- I don't agree with your analogies. The base of a bipolar transistor or gate of a mosfet controls a much larger current flow between the collector and emitter, or drain and source. There is a _power supply_ providing the larger, controlled current. Where is the power supply in the Zed?

When you vent something out of a system, the internal pressure decreases. It will _never_ get back to where it was before unless the "something" is replaced, whether you are talking charge pressure in a capacitor, or air/water pressure in a Zed. Vent all you like, but to restore the initial state of the cycling system you will need to add power by stuffing back in what you vented, or create new matter within the Zed. Use one capacitor to charge another, and what happens, energetically?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 04:24:32 AM
OK - I have a minuteRelativity...  what CAN be measured as anything other than a difference?
You are playing with the meaning of the term "relative" here.

Take a pressure gauge under the water to a specified depth. Point it in any direction and note the reading. It does not change, whether you are pointing it up, or down, or sideways. I don't care whether your gauge is calibrated in PSI absolute, or PSIG, or atmospheres of Mars, it will still read the same no matter the orientation. This is a pressure, NOT relative to orientation and thus NOT capable of producing movement since the forces exerted by this pressure are balanced.
Now take the same gauge and measure the pressure at the bottom of a pod, and the top of the pod. Subtract the smaller number from the larger number. This is a pressure _differential_ , a different thing than a pressure.

It's interesting, though, that this pressure differential with height is there, whether there is a displacer present or not. The water itself experiences the same pressure differential associated with difference in depth. Yet it does not spontaneously rise up and begin circulating because of it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 05:27:18 AM
Item of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi9KLLtmJKA
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 06:21:04 AM
@Webby: The bollard is Mondrasek's first market! With a 16-to-1 lift ratio, you would have to stand out of the way as it popped up of its own accord, then lowered itself gently back down when no longer needed and unlocked. In fact, you could power a linear alternator with the pop-ups and use it to run your sausage stand on the corner.

Come on, focus on the numbers ! Sixteen to one! Eight to one overunity!

Yet nobody has a self runner yet, not even MrWayne.... not even you. And Mile High has "hinted" and then explained why the numbers have been misleading you.

You can use all kinds of math, not make any arithmetic errors, and still be completely wrong in your conclusions if you are using the incorrect model to describe your events, and this very thing has happened before, several times, for several years and millions of dollars, with smarter people than any of us... simpler math too. So when I "focus on the numbers" that we are seeing currently, I also focus on the inconsistencies.... like the fact that the large calculated OU ratios we are seeing are not compatible with the actual behaviour of the apparatus.

When you discharge a cap _into another identical uncharged cap_, what happens to the energy?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 23, 2012, 07:18:03 AM
OK - I have a minuteRelativity...  what CAN be measured as anything other than a difference?

You are so correct Dale,  that is when they came up with the terms "absolute" & "Relative" to differentiate where is ground zero.
Things can get quickly very confusing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 23, 2012, 08:04:12 AM
The video is up on YouTube now.  I apologize after watching it for the several times I "misspeak" and do not hit the correct lift values during the rushed commentary/experiment.  But I believe this video still shows that I was not making up the data I posted earlier.
 
Let me know if there are specific experiments or measurements that you would like to see from this setup.  I can't promise anything, but will do what I can (because I can).
 
M.
http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2F2325%2F&v=1&libid=1348354043725&out=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2Fmsg337331%2F&title=Hydro%20Differential%20pressure%20exchange%20over%20unity%20system.&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13483540790402)

Hi Mondrasek,

I like your approach, very nice and systematic, nice setup and video. We should get something reasonable out of this.
I think I made a mistake on the input calculation when it comes to input pressure, I think my assumed float pressure is wrong in relation to the water height.
You have some other stuff loaded on top of the riser, what is the weight of that ?
The pressure is as important as the weight because it is the second part of the energy calculation .

With the same setup as in the video,
So lets do the following steps..
1.. What is the Kg of the Non removable weight on top of the riser
2.. What is the water height in the measuring tube at the start with nothing on top of the riser (I mean nothing at all, and you have the normal amount of water inside you began with before )
3.. How different is the water level in the zed compared to the measuring tube
4.. What is the water height in the tube when you put the non-removable weight on
5.. What is the water height in the tube when you put the 1.2kg removable weight on
6.. What is the water height in the tube at the end of the 10mm lift

Measure the water in the measuring tube vertically with reference to the inside bottom of the zed.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 23, 2012, 09:05:07 AM
Hi Dale,
Let me try to help you where I can.  I do not always clearly understand the sequence of events and readings,
I made your statements in bold to differentiate.

1U tests
Looked REAL good. Lift and sink a total of 18.5 pounds an inch using 3 pounds of water and head 13.5" to 15"
Remove 5 pounds at the top and I would still remove 3 pounds of water BUT I would have to drop the head to 10" to sink.

Am I correct to say, 
With 18.5lb weight and 3lb of input water you can lift and sink with a cycled head change of ~14"
With 13.5lb, and 3lb of input water to lift or sink, with a cycled head change of 10".
This should also mean that the delta 5lb (at that base weight), needs not much of water and has a cycled head change of 4”


Now at 2U:
load is 23.5 Lbs. 5.5" POD tube. Lift head is up to 23" ( after tweaking the setup... ) and sink without the brick is 16" head.

I am not clear on, what is 5.5” POD Tube
We lift 23.5lb with a head of 23”
We sink 18.5lb with 16” head  <<  so what do you need to lift the 18.5lb and what do you need to sink the 23.5 ? 

Fluid transfer is down 1/3 to 2LBs but head differential needed is up.  Even after re-applying the 5Lb lift load the head is at 20".
For lift, there shouldn’t be any great difference in water requirement by weight, because the vacated space in the pod would remain the same regardless of weight. Only the head would change in the pod, but this water requirement should be marginal compared to stroke displacement and the other layer heads is per-provisioned (outer 1U).
The only problem with the flat top you made is that it can never achieve the lift capability of individual layers, notwithstanding each pressure layer is referenced to atmos counter pressure. The single surface is divided between all pressure zones and the outer lift area is small (with the lowest pressure) and most likely only accounts for less that 10% of the lift. The pod area is the largest with the largest pressure and will account for the majority of the lift

Looking like the 2U is almost a step backwards taking a 2Lb lift of 3" to lift and remove 5Lb 1".  I wanted to do the build this way - 1U at a time, to be able to test and compare the addition of layers.

You are right when looking at the lift capability figures,  based on the figures given above.
1U - Your lift capability is ~ 36 lb/psi
2U – Your lift capability is ~  30 lb/psi  <<< not normal ?????

To be able to do a better analysis, you need more systematic and sequential figures to avoid measurement or interpretation errors. Refer to the posts sent to Mondrasek, gather that data in an ordered xls would go a long way to getting a handle on it.
I am sure you have done your sizing, area and lift calcs in xls format before you started to build, could I have a look at the model.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 23, 2012, 12:15:31 PM
The argument continues is it or is it not OU ?
a self-runner would settle the argument and this thread would need a moderator to cope with the amount of people
Wanting to replicate.

measurements alone are not enough I can show a circuit that produces more voltage out then in,
have I got overunity ?  A better question would be can I make the circuit self-run answer no.
In the early days of this forum we saw many examples of (more voltage out then in)
Most people have reached an understanding on better ways of measuring performance,
and we can all move on much quicker to the next promising thread.

Let's not forget why most of us are here, we need affordable energy the situation is only getting worse.
All research is very good but when somebody makes a claim that they have achieved OU one of the greatest leaps
In science, then that claim must be investigated and scrutinised and challenged since it is the very reason
Most of us are here and we need to get on and build and promote a working device ASAP

So lots of excuses as to why a selfrunner can't be produced is not really going to go down well here,
and the challenges and arguments are going to go on.

Its a real shame we could do without all the obfuscation but over the years I have got used to it,
Unfortunately it normally leads to nothing, I hope I'm wrong.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 23, 2012, 01:42:30 PM
@Red_Sunset. Are you saying that a Zed where the risers can move independently of each other will give a better COP than a Zed where all the risers are fixed together sharing a common lid [flat top] ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 03:05:05 PM
One thing I didn't see you measure - and I noticed because it's what I've been struggling with today.
Your funnel is well above the head line on the input tube, have you paid a lot of attention to the head values as measured on that tube? - Sorry if I missed it in the earlier posts.

'Morning Dale.  Yeah, I posted in the original data how the head changes in the input tube when the lift mass is added and removed.  I measured it roughly when at the sink location to be approximately 165 mm of input tube head change when the 1217 lift mass is removed or installed.  Also, the ZED lift itself changed 3.83 mm when that lift mass is removed or installed.  That was not pointed out or measured in the hurried video.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 03:17:49 PM
Mike, Very nice and clear video.  It makes it easier to understand your statements.  One thing to watch out for: When you add water to the funnel, it has one potential energy.  When you drain some water, it has a very much lower potential energy, even though it weighs the same.  You are adding energy into the system with your arm -- every time you take water out from below and add it to the funnel way above.  It is tricky.
Dennis, we've discussed that the entire way I vent water and reintroduce it is actually an energy neutral cycle.  This could be more clearly shown if I was using a reservoir with 74 grams of water instead of the funnel and raising and lowering that reservoir 10 mm.
 
In my system I am in fact adding energy to lift the water up from the vent height to the top of the water level (raising it past the top of the water to the top of the funnel does not matter since that energy is lost as the water falls back from that height to the surface of the water).  But I am also losing the pressure of the water at the vent location from the system when I vent the water.  That energy lost is equal to the energy I add to raise the water up, IINM.  So it should be energy neutral.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 23, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
@Red_Sunset. Are you saying that a Zed where the risers can move independently of each other will give a better COP than a Zed where all the risers are fixed together sharing a common lid [flat top] ?

You will observe yourself that the outer layer lift area is only the horizontal rim between the risers where the u-bend and retainer are located. That area is not very big.
The central circular area of the pod is usually the biggest area if no specific changes have been done to change that ratio during the design stage.
Keep in mind also that the outer area is the top of the water column with the lowest pressure delta.

So, if you do not make special design changes at the start to distribute the area space between the layers, that is what you get. From my survey calculations, the total lift force will always be less than the stacked risers.

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 03:58:38 PM
One question: in your video apparatus the input and output tubes are different. Is this necessary or just a matter of convenience? Are they plumbed to the same or equivalent pressure environments in the Zed?

The water input and output tubes are pieces of the same material.  6" is plumbed on the vent valve side.  The remainder (~66") is plumbed as the input with the Coke bottle funnel.  Both are attached to sides of a T-fitting on either ends of the horizontal or "top" line of the T.  The T is inverted and the vertical is glued into a hole in the center of the bottom of the ZED, so into the Pod chamber.
 
There is a separate smaller diameter air line that is only used during the setup.  It is also glued into a separate hole beside the one for the water line T-fitting.  So it also enters the bottom of the ZED into the Pod chamber.
 
Once the setup is complete, no air enters or leaves the system (except as being absorbed into the water and outgassing that way).  The particular setup that I showed in the video was completed three days earlier.  I have only cycled it by adding and venting water as shown in the video since then.  It has sat throughout the days and nights while supporting the preload and lift weight with no loss of anything except evaporation of some water from what I can tell.
 
My method for setting up is not precise as I have no accurate way to measure air volumes or pressures.  So I cannot repeat it except in the grossest ways.  It was achieved by holding the Pod/Risers down at the physical bottom position (Outer Riser resting on it's retainer wall) and then slowly adding water and air until the water rose up in the outer most chamber almost to the top of the Outer Riser and with the maximum amount of air in the system.  The maximum amount of air can be known when introducing more air causes it to bubble out of the Outer Riser and escape the system.  Once this is achieved the system was run through the cycle shown in the video over and over to make sure that more air did not need to leave the system (blown skirts) and that water in the outer chamber did not rise over the top of the Outer Riser.  The water in the outer chamber did require adjustment and water was removed from the outer chamber with an eye dropper until it's level remained below the top of the Outer Riser during the entire cycle.  It has since dropped slightly further due to evaporation over the past three days.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: poynt99 on September 23, 2012, 04:04:52 PM
mondrasek (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mondrasek.7703/),

Your video link seems to be broken.
http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2F2325%2F&v=1&libid=1348354043725&out=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2Fmsg337331%2F&title=Hydro%20Differential%20pressure%20exchange%20over%20unity%20system.&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13483540790402)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 23, 2012, 04:22:12 PM
This was asked of M. but for comparison sake - here are those numbers from my current 2U as pictured in the last post.

1.. What is the Kg of the Non removable weight on top of the riser
6.96 Kg

2.. What is the water height in the measuring tube at the start with nothing on top of the riser
(I mean nothing at all, and you have the normal amount of water inside you began with before )
4.5"

3.. How different is the water level in the zed compared to the measuring tube
What point in the ZED? POD 2"

4.. What is the water height in the tube when you put the non-removable weight on
16.125"

5.. What is the water height in the tube when you put the removable weight on
2.37Kg removable weight
20"

6.. What is the water height in the tube at the end of the lift
1" lift
23.5" head

Measure the water in the measuring tube vertically with reference to the inside bottom of the zed.
POD level is 4.5"
Difference then is 19"

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 23, 2012, 05:26:25 PM
@M - did I read this correctly?
Quote
I measured it roughly when at the sink location to be approximately 165 mm of input tube head change when the 1217 lift mass is removed or installed
Can that be converted to .159 Lbs lifted 6.5 inches for input and 2.7Lbs lifted .4 inches for output?
Or 1.03 in/lb input for 1.08 in/lb output?
Same methodology I'm trying to use for mine but do not know that it's the proper way to analyze this type of I/O
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 06:05:53 PM
@Red_Sunset,
 
1.. What is the Kg of the Non removable weight on top of the riser
 
Pod = 38 gr.
R1 = 30 gr.
R2 = 34 gr.
Lift Mass = 1217 gr.
Non-removed mass = 399 gr. (electrical tape spool and plywood disk spacers, Cedar plank, and Tupperware type container w/wet sand)
Weight of Digital Indicator probe (return spring is removed) = 19 gr.

 2.. What is the water height in the measuring tube at the start with nothing on top of the riser (I mean nothing at all, and you have the normal amount of water inside you began with before )
 
48mm

 3.. How different is the water level in the zed compared to the measuring tube
 
It is actually below all the water levels in the ZED.  But those levels vary and are difficult to distinguish and measure.  I estimated one at 58 mm and the others all at 73 mm.

 4.. What is the water height in the tube when you put the non-removable weight on
 
86 mm
 
 5.. What is the water height in the tube when you put the 1.2kg removable weight on
 
238 mm

 6.. What is the water height in the tube at the end of the 10mm lift
 
 284 mm
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 06:07:34 PM
mondrasek (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mondrasek.7703/),

Your video link seems to be broken.
http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2F2325%2F&v=1&libid=1348354043725&out=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2Fmsg337331%2F&title=Hydro%20Differential%20pressure%20exchange%20over%20unity%20system.&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13483540790402)

Sorry .99, but it works for me.  Anyone have any ideas?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 23, 2012, 07:02:35 PM

 3.. How different is the water level in the zed compared to the measuring tube
 It is actually below all the water levels in the ZED.  But those levels vary and are difficult to distinguish and measure.  I estimated one at 58 mm and the others all at 73 mm.

Mondrasek,
\
I see the following data that doesn't fit the picture the way it is supposed to fit.

The tube says 48mm head and what you see inside the zed is more,  pls check to make sure. Remember in the U-bend of the risers, you can have positive or negative head. Also make sure you ascertain the head height as "postive - negative" = actual head  (positive and negative are the opposite sides of the u=-bend.)
Things should add up correctly.

Quote
5.. What is the water height in the tube when you put the 1.2kg removable weight on
238 mm
 6.. What is the water height in the tube at the end of the 10mm lift
  284 mm
I assume, You put the weight on, then you stroke 10 mm. As I see it, as you put the 1.2kg weight on, you get the 238 head (the risers & pod are floating with that weight on top)
By adding water to stroke the way you do, you basically raise the water level in the pod and the pod & risers will basically keep floating higher as the water level rises.  No head increase takes place at that point. The pressure doesn't change.  So technically the water in the pipe is expected to rise only ~10mm, in your case it is more than 4x more (46mm).

These questions need to be clarified before you can proceed to calculating .

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 07:03:57 PM
@M - did I read this correctly?Can that be converted to .159 Lbs lifted 6.5 inches for input and 2.7Lbs lifted .4 inches for output?
Or 1.03 in/lb input for 1.08 in/lb output?
Same methodology I'm trying to use for mine but do not know that it's the proper way to analyze this type of I/O

Dale, I think you read it correctly and, if your conversions are correct, then yes, that is another way to look at it.  I am not sure which is the correct way to look at it myself and am waiting on the Physicists to explain the data.  I am only trying to present data that was requested repeatedly in the thread.  So if the experiment does not mimic what Wayne is doing I am not concerned.  What does concern me is if the experiment correctly answers any of the questions that have been asked and helps us all understand the ZED better.
 
M.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 23, 2012, 07:18:50 PM

Measure the water in the measuring tube vertically with reference to the inside bottom of the zed.
POD level is 4.5"
Difference then is 19"

Dale

Dale,
I think we have a misunderstanding, the following is a statement, not a question "Measure the water in the measuring tube vertically with reference to the inside bottom of the zed."

What do you mean with
POD level is 4.5"
Difference then is 19"

My meaning of the statement was, to use the inside bottom of the Zed as the zero reference for vertical measurements in the tube. I hope mondrasek has the correct understanding.

When you measure the height level in the tube, from what reference point on the zed did you start measuring to the water level in the upper region the tube?

Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 07:27:53 PM

I see the following data that doesn't fit the picture the way it is supposed to fit.

The tube says 48mm head and what you see inside the zed is more,  pls check to make sure. Remember in the U-bend of the risers, you can have positive or negative head. Also make sure you ascertain the head height as "postive - negative" = actual head  (positive and negative are the opposite sides of the u=-bend.)
Things should add up correctly.

RS, I'll try to get to your second question in a bit.  But for now...Welcome to the wacky world of ZED!  Here are a couple pics where I have relocated the ZED a bit so that the fill tube could be in the shot.  You should be able to see the 5 different water levels in the ZED.  They are all above the level in the input tube when this ZED is fully unloaded.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: parisd on September 23, 2012, 07:39:13 PM
On my side I am still waiting physics equations proving OU in the ZEDs, can find only numerical values without the physics explanation behind or only partial explanation, no verification possible, does not work like this in physics world nor in engineering.

If the physics equations have not been drawn then the ZED project is not enough advanced, the experimental demonstration can only be relevant if providing extra energy during not hours but days or weeks without failure and generating not 36 watts but probably few kilowatts to be consumed in real time by heaters or lamps or anything else (the assumption that more than 36 watts should be generated is based on huge size of the ZED and the claimed overunity (>300%) )


There is also no jewel waiting to be discovered here, so I'm not going to waste my time.
Just  show some experimental evidence that it does and then we can proceed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 23, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
RS, I'll try to get to your second question in a bit.  But for now...Welcome to the wacky world of ZED!  Here are a couple pics where I have relocated the ZED a bit so that the fill tube could be in the shot.  You should be able to see the 5 different water levels in the ZED.  They are all above the level in the input tube when this ZED is fully unloaded.
M.

I can see clearly what you are saying, strange.
I would have expected the tube to indicate a sizable height above the zed at any time. Considering the heads add up together to a certain pressure height. There would be some liquid adhesion creep but that wouldn't explain the difference.

To really understand it is to monitor this relationship from the start, as the risers are inserted.

Equalization should find it equilibrium, so something is not the way we expect it to be. This should be clear before too much value is being put on these measurements

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 08:21:49 PM
I assume, You put the weight on, then you stroke 10 mm. As I see it, as you put the 1.2kg weight on, you get the 238 head (the risers & pod are floating with that weight on top)
By adding water to stroke the way you do, you basically raise the water level in the pod and the pod & risers will basically keep floating higher as the water level rises.  No head increase takes place at that point. The pressure doesn't change.  So technically the water in the pipe is expected to rise only ~10mm, in your case it is more than 4x more (46mm).
Michel, I ran the lift test again as meticulously as I could.  This time the heads were:
 
Pre lift:  241 mm
Post 10 mm lift: 281 mm
 
So, still well more than the 10 mm difference I would also predict at first.  But those are the results.  Sorry for not being able to share pictures of this test.  I took much more time to let the system completely settle for these data points compared to the previous ones.
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 23, 2012, 08:23:29 PM
@RS
Quote
What do you mean with
POD level is 4.5"
Difference then is 19"

My meaning of the statement was, to use the inside bottom of the Zed as the zero reference for vertical measurements in the tube.

All of the distance measurements are taken from that reference point: The top of the base plate ( bottom inside of the ZED)
The base plate is 1/2" and is larger than than the Tank wall so any measurements taken on the ZED levels have a ruler resting on the plate.

The sight gauge rule is also resting on a scrap piece of the same material.

Both rulers are trimmed to 0"

The level of water inside the POD chamber is 4.5" from the base (POD is 1" up) - External input head is 23.5"

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 23, 2012, 10:11:12 PM
You will observe yourself that the outer layer lift area is only the horizontal rim between the risers where the u-bend and retainer are located. That area is not very big.
The central circular area of the pod is usually the biggest area if no specific changes have been done to change that ratio during the design stage.
Keep in mind also that the outer area is the top of the water column with the lowest pressure delta.

So, if you do not make special design changes at the start to distribute the area space between the layers, that is what you get. From my survey calculations, the total lift force will always be less than the stacked risers.

Michel

Hi Michel,
 
I have a slight difference of opinion about the single top lift compared to separate risers. I believe they are the same.
 
 
The first picture shows that an Archimedes calculation and the Pressure Differential calculations produce the same results for certain uniform shapes. This is basic just to get everybody on the same page for the next picture.
 
 
The second picture show the PSI forces on a single top Zed. Note how the bottom of the riser wall is also a downward facing surface being lifted. This small model is similar to Dale's where the walls and gaps are 1/8 inch. So the first outer riser has a 1 psi upward force on the outer riser bottom surface(1/8) and on the top inner surface U (3/8) above the retainer wall. If you have a separate riser version there would now be a 1 PSI downward force on the riser below. So these 2 opposite forces would cancel out everything but the outer surface larger difference. Same as you go inward.
 
 
Note for replicators: I added only two side PSI arrows at midpoint of out riser wall. This shows the inside of the riser wall has 1 PSI and the outside .5. Not a problem for a solid wall, but this can cause distortions on a wall that is to flexible. The difference is greatest at the top and least at the bottom.
 

This example also brings out the fact that the inner downward facing surface are feeling ever increasing depth pressure while the top surface remains at 0. While a hydraulic would only feel 5 PSI with a much smaller SI equal to the pod retainer wall inner diameter SI.
 
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 23, 2012, 10:36:27 PM
mondrasek (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mondrasek.7703/),

Your video link seems to be broken.
http://youtu.be/YwXsoqm75WY (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2F2325%2F&v=1&libid=1348354043725&out=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2Fmsg337331%2F&title=Hydro%20Differential%20pressure%20exchange%20over%20unity%20system.&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13483540790402)
Something's wrong with the link in your post. Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwXsoqm75WY
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on September 23, 2012, 10:49:10 PM
Both links work for me.  I'm using Internet Explorer 8.0.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 23, 2012, 11:35:57 PM
Response to a personal message:
Question was raised about putting ALL of the input water into a narrow vertical tube.
- Close a valve
- Pour in a measured amount of water ( head would be WAY higher than necessary ) it would take a lot more work input.
- Open the valve and let the water flow into the system - is the result any different?

I say No, not with the correct volume added to any diameter tube. The resulting fluid transfer would be the same and the resulting head would be the same. I'm quite sure I could add 2 lbs of water to a 1/2" diameter tube or a 12" diameter tube and if the starting point of the fill was 23" above the base of my current test bed all of the 2lbs of water would enter the system and it would lift 1".

FYI: I only have a 2.5" and a 4" tube set up but yes, it works the same for both of them, the 2.5" just starts with a bit more fill ( same volume though )

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 24, 2012, 12:09:49 AM
Both links work for me.  I'm using Internet Explorer 8.0.
This is what the link in poynt99's post looks like, with the "http" stripped off:

api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2F2325%2F&v=1&libid=1348354043725&out=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F10596%2Fhydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system%2Fmsg337331%2F&title=Hydro%20Differential%20pressure%20exchange%20over%20unity%20system.&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FYwXsoqm75WY&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13483540790402

This is what the link in my post looks like with the "http" stripped off:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwXsoqm75WY

So..... take your pick. I know which one I'm going to use.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 24, 2012, 12:17:03 AM
Response to a personal message:
Question was raised about putting ALL of the input water into a narrow vertical tube.
- Close a valve
- Pour in a measured amount of water ( head would be WAY higher than necessary ) it would take a lot more work input.
- Open the valve and let the water flow into the system - is the result any different?

I say No, not with the correct volume added to any diameter tube. The resulting fluid transfer would be the same and the resulting head would be the same. I'm quite sure I could add 2 lbs of water to a 1/2" diameter tube or a 12" diameter tube and if the starting point of the fill was 23" above the base of my current test bed all of the 2lbs of water would enter the system and it would lift 1".

FYI: I only have a 2.5" and a 4" tube set up but yes, it works the same for both of them, the 2.5" just starts with a bit more fill ( same volume though )

Dale

But is the required input work really different? I don't think so, and that's the point of my thought experiment.  You have the same system with the same amount of water being introduced at the same point, but in two ways that appear to be different at first glance. The work output from the system, including resultant head in the input tube, is the same in both cases.

Is it too much to suggest that a rational person might conclude from this that the input amount of work  _to the system_  is the same, too?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: poynt99 on September 24, 2012, 12:22:52 AM
Thanks TK.

So, what are the thoughts on that demo?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 24, 2012, 02:13:37 AM
Well, my thoughts are going like this right now:  No matter how you add the water, it is going to be equivalent to stroking a small piston a great distance.

Consider, for the sake of simplicity, that Mond's tube cross section was actually 1 cm2 and extended only a little ways above the "max head when lift water is added" line.... I think he's been saying an increase of 40 mm over the "start" position with weight down and before adding the 74 mL of water to lift. And no reservoir, we will just add water directly to the tube itself.

Now add one mL of water to the tube. What happens? It drains down and the weight lifts a bit (1/74 of its final 10 mm?) and once things settle the head in the tube is a half millimeter or so higher than start. What was your piston stroke, a half millimeter? NO.... it was nearly one full cm, _less_ that half millimeter. Your piston has just disappeared into your cylinder, that's all. Now add another mL of water. Ditto. Lather rinse repeat.... for every mL of water you add, you are pushing your "piston" down another (1cm - deltah). Therefore, once you have added your full 74 mL of water, you have pushed down a 1 cm2 area piston, (74 cm - 40 mm) = 70 cm distance. Add your water dropwise, with an hour between drops.... same result, same piston travel, same difference.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 24, 2012, 03:28:34 AM
@TK
Quote
Well, my thoughts are going like this right now:  No matter how you add the water, it is going to be equivalent to stroking a small piston a great distance.

I think I'm done debating or possibly even responding to most, if not all, of these comments. - Let the flames (or whatever they are called here begin) - The statement quoted is ridiculous and you know it.
"small piston a great distance" or large one small distance - same thing - same work - get over it.

I will continue to experiment and post results - might even correct some with thoughts counter to the objective of what this discussion should be about.

And some wonder why there is so much positive communication that doesn't show up here .....

Back to the lab
Dale

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 24, 2012, 04:36:09 AM
I said,
Quote
Well, my thoughts are going like this right now:  No matter how you add the water, it is going to be equivalent to stroking a small piston a great distance.


And then wildew replied,
@TK
I think I'm done debating or possibly even responding to most, if not all, of these comments. - Let the flames (or whatever they are called here begin) - The statement quoted is ridiculous and you know it.


If I had explicitly said, USING MONDRASEK's SYSTEM AND INPUT TUBE, would  it have seemed less ridiculous to you? I thought that would be taken for granted, but apparently not.
Would you care to take my illustration of pouring one cc in at a time and tell me why it's wrong?

Quote
"small piston a great distance" or large one small distance - same thing - same work - get over it.

I'm glad we agree on this point. What does that do to the "overunity" claim though? It would seem to turn the Zeds, and all of the models like yours and Mondrasek's, into ordinary compound hydraulic cylinders.

Quote

I will continue to experiment and post results - might even correct some with thoughts counter to the objective of what this discussion should be about.

And some wonder why there is so much positive communication that doesn't show up here .....

Back to the lab
Dale

Well, good for you. But wouldn't it be better if you simply refuted my thought experiment with a logical argument, carefully reasoned, instead of reacting so emotionally and with your veiled insults? Maybe less satisfying, but certainly more filling.

Isn't this discussion supposed to be about where the extra work comes from in a Zed system? I'll tell you this much with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY... it is not coming from the Zero Point energy.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 24, 2012, 04:38:55 AM
I am going to add one small thing for consideration.

In this system,, the LAST in is the FIRST out.

Most will not be able to get what that changes,, some will.

Think about it.
So if Mondrasek, with his BLUE water inside the Zed, poured RED water into the input tube to make the lift, he'd get that same RED water out on the sink. That makes sense, since there is only the one inlet/outlet into the one chamber, and nobody is blowing skirts or overflowing, so that chamber's water doesn't mix with the other water in the Zed.

But how does that produce any overunity or input work savings?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 24, 2012, 06:43:14 AM
Got to praise webby1 in that he has a far superior understanding into how the Travis system works than the closed minded know it all skeptics.
 
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 24, 2012, 07:01:41 AM
That is the same as what I have come to understand and have argued previously as well.  So unless someone has other ideas the results from my test run are:
 
Input of 74 grams raised 10mm.
Output of 1217 grams raised 10mm.

Dennis, we've discussed that the entire way I vent water and reintroduce it is actually an energy neutral cycle.  This could be more clearly shown if I was using a reservoir with 74 grams of water instead of the funnel and raising and lowering that reservoir 10 mm.

Pre lift:  241 mm
Post 10 mm lift: 281 mm


Hi mondrasek,

I have a quick query on the above three posts I've hand picked out of the last couple of days (you can't leave the thread for a moment without 5 more pages appearing :o)

It seems to my untrained eye that you don't need to only lift your input water over 10mm, but over the head of the water and thus, in the current setup at least, that would require lifting it from the underside of Zed where the water is obtained from, to a minimum of 241mm.

This would seem to me that the input work done was 74g x 241mm = 1783.4g-cm and output from the lift being 1217g-cm, which obviously seems to be nowhere near as good!?

So it seems that there's a need to find a way of finding out what we can take out from the down stroke too. I believe this is where Wayne has pointed to the 'extra' from his ZEDs in previous posts.

Either that or I've not understood something in the work calculation correctly?

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 24, 2012, 07:29:31 AM
..............................................................
Well, good for you. But wouldn't it be better if you simply refuted my thought experiment with a logical argument, carefully reasoned, instead of reacting so emotionally and with your veiled insults? Maybe less satisfying, but certainly more filling.

Isn't this discussion supposed to be about where the extra work comes from in a Zed system? I'll tell you this much with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY... it is not coming from the Zero Point energy.

Hi Tinselkoala,

Here you had the opportunity to receive the feelings Wayne got consistently on this forum (termed being treated with your own medicine). I agree this is not productive and is not the proper way to go forward.  I agree with the water drop analogy although I am getting lost to a clear purpose this serves because this is well researched and defined in physics books.  A new invention has to have something new that was not known or overlooked in physics or a correlation of some kind. Optimizing water transfer is only a secondary aspect to the whole objective, because not optimizing would be counter productive and not sensible.

Can you expand on your absolute statement
You are exploring the zed and make the following statement with "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY... it is not coming from the Zero Point energy".   What basis did you use for the statement to categorically state with absolute certainty ?  In previous mails it was clearly stated by the inventor that it comes from "gravity".
Does this mean you are coming to terms that there is over-unity in the zed and it is just a question what is providing this energy ?

Copied from my message on 22-Sept,  this was a general generic statement only, not specifically referring to the Zed, only OU in general.
"The question or statement that comes up very often in OU situations is about creating a condition that disturbs the balance of the environment (universe) and opens a window to extract energy, often referred to as "zero point energy", the universal energy that maintains the overall balance. "

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 24, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Got to praise webby1 in that he has a far superior understanding into how the Travis system works than the closed minded know it all skeptics.
Regards, Larry

Hi Larry,
I am happy you got it, because I lost Webby1 in his last mail, I gather that he is making differentiation between head water and stroke displacement water but can not see the point beyond.

With reference to the flat top,
I see you point and you most likely are right when you go into the minute details (what I didn't do). I did only a gross assessment to the difference. I can see your point that it could/should be the same, since in one we over-layer the lift area's and in the other we over-layer the pressure.
In a simplified way, I saw the flat top as one central lift area with heads in front to increase the pressure. Didn't see the lift area in the layers as being sizable enough to make an importance.

Using the same model, using max. head, the layered model had ~ 20% more lift distributed equally over all surfaces variation ~10-15%.
The flat top had less lift and 80% of the lift force was concentrated in the center area. Doing an equal area redistribution didn't make much of an improvement.
For more details, I need to revisit the calculation, I might have a gotcha in it.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 24, 2012, 09:26:56 AM
Red_Sunset said,
Quote
Can you expand on your absolute statement
You are exploring the zed and make the following statement with "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY... it is not coming from the Zero Point energy".   What basis did you use for the statement to categorically state with absolute certainty ?  In previous mails it was clearly stated by the inventor that it comes from "gravity".
Does this mean you are coming to terms that there is over-unity in the zed and it is just a question what is providing this energy ?
No, I am not "coming to terms" with any overunity performance in the Zed because none has been demonstrated and no _correct_ analysis indicates that any should be expected.
The inventor never states anything "clearly" as far as I can see. I can't find the quote right now where the Zero Point energy was considered as a possible explanation but I'm sure some others remember it and can tell us where exactly it is.
The bases, plural, that I use to be able to make the statement categorically are first, that I understand something of what the term "Zero Point Energy" actually means, and that there are no systems contained within the Zed that are of the proper dimensions or arrangements to interact with this energy, which undeniably exists. In addition, there is no need to invoke unusual explanations for phenomena that have yet to be shown to exist: the alleged OU behaviour of MrWayne's invention, or any of the compound hydraulic cylinders or simulations that have been shown to us here.

Some readings on Zero Point energy:
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/fusion_facts.pdf
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_3.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0106080
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/spec_sci_tech.pdf
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRAv40_4857.pdf
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 24, 2012, 09:34:37 AM
In mondrasek's model, at the _start_, after precharge but before pouring in the 74 mL of lift water.....

Is the riser/weight combo resting hard against the floor of the containing chamber with its full weight, or is it already nearly "floating" with much of its weight offset by the precharge pressures and buoyancies?

It seems to me that in Mondrasek's video, the riser/weight combo starts to rise up as soon as the first bit of water is poured into the tube. Is this correct? Is the riser/weight actually almost floating at the start, and then lowered back to this almost floating condition at the end?

If the riser/weight is _not_ sitting hard against the chamber floor at the start, with its full weight, but rather has some weight suspended by the precharge.... then you are in the same situation as the automatic bollard in the video I linked earlier. That is, some of the energy required to lift is stored in the "spring" of the precharge, just as in the automatic bollard.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 24, 2012, 09:54:47 PM

Hi mondrasek,

I have a quick query on the above three posts I've hand picked out of the last couple of days (you can't leave the thread for a moment without 5 more pages appearing :o )

It seems to my untrained eye that you don't need to only lift your input water over 10mm, but over the head of the water and thus, in the current setup at least, that would require lifting it from the underside of Zed where the water is obtained from, to a minimum of 241mm.

This would seem to me that the input work done was 74g x 241mm = 1783.4g-cm and output from the lift being 1217g-cm, which obviously seems to be nowhere near as good!?

So it seems that there's a need to find a way of finding out what we can take out from the down stroke too. I believe this is where Wayne has pointed to the 'extra' from his ZEDs in previous posts.

Either that or I've not understood something in the work calculation correctly?

Amo

@AmoLago, first, let me correct an errata:  I started by saying the input water would rise only 10 mm as the entire 74 gr. of input water was added.  I had measured this value roughly when doing setup and pre testing runs.  But something must have changed.  I must have adjusted the setup between that initial observation to the times that I more accurately measure those values for Michel after posting the video.  The first of these re-measurements showed a rise of ~46 mm.  Since this was considered contrary to what was expected it was measured a third time with much more deliberate care that all movements and levels had settled.  This time the input water level had risen ~ 40 mm.
 
My arguement that the lift of water was NOT the entire 271 mm is from this thought experiment:  Consider a container with exactly 74 grams of water sitting beside the input tube so that the top of the water in both are at the same height.  Place a prefilled siphone tube into the water in both.  Now as I raise the container with 74 grams of water a small amount water will begin to flow through the siphon tube from the 74 gr. container into the input tube water column.  The water level in the input tube will aslo begin to rise a bit along it's expected 40 mm increase.  So to transfer all the water from the 74 gr. container into the input tube it must be raised exactly 40 mm.  Now instead of the vent valve I use to remove that 74 grams of water durring the sink, I could remove it by reversing the siphon set up by lowering the container that originally contained the 74 gr. of water by 40 mm again.
 
The way I vent water is misleading, because it also allows energy to leave the system:  The pressure in the water at the valve is lost.  This is also energy that is not being measured in this experiment.  So it was my thought that I may be simply returning that exact same amount of energy to the water when I lift it up the 271 mm.  The siphon example is intended to show that removal and return of water from this system is an energy neutral cycle (barring real world losses to friction).
 
But there is another NEW consideration that I had while writing this to you.  While the siphon example can be used when no Lift Mass is removed or added to the ZED, it does not apply when that is considered.  Because when the Lift Mass is removed or added the water level in the input tube changes drastically.  And so the container for the 74 grams of water would also have to change by the same height to maintan the proper siphon arrangement.  I look forward to what the rest of the gang has to say about this!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 25, 2012, 12:14:06 AM
Here's what  I have to say: You might not be lifting the weight at all. Your precharge is doing most of the "heavy lifting". Your added water is only adding a small amount of lift, enough to allow the precharge's "counterbalance" to raise the weight upwards.

Your risers/weight are actually floating at the start, they are just in a low position, with the precharge stored buoyancy and gas pressures acting as a compressed spring. When you add the water in the tube, you are adding enough float that the precharge is now able to move the riser/weight upwards.

It may be like having two children, exactly balanced on a teeter-totter see-saw. Then you give one of the children an apple. Look! The other child rises all the way to the top, just because you added the weight of the apple to the first child. Did your input work of applying the lightweight apple at a moment arm of x, then raise the entire heavy weight of the child sitting at the other equal moment arm x?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi9KLLtmJKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi9KLLtmJKA)

Even if the precharge is only offsetting a small amount of the weight of the moving parts, the input work to make the cycle is reduced. But of course in Mondrasek's model the entire weight of the moving parts is carried by the precharge, since the moving parts are actually floating at the start.
Is this the secret of the Zed's "overunity", reducing the _work input_ to obtain the same output? Well, the bollard people beat you to it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 25, 2012, 02:05:44 AM
Here's what  I have to say: You might not be lifting the weight at all. Your precharge is doing most of the "heavy lifting". Your added water is only adding a small amount of lift, enough to allow the precharge's "counterbalance" to raise the weight upwards.
TK,  I agree with you that the sequencing of the payload weight is an important consideration for a demonstration.  I am deep into my sim upgrade at the moment.  The program will start by automatically counterbalancing (pre-charge) the Riser, sans payload weight.  It can use one of several algorithms for doing this in order to study the advantages of each.  The Riser is set up so that it will barely sink on its own without a payload weight.  I previously did this step with an external mechanical counterweight.  Next, the payload weight is added to the riser.  Then an input force/water volume is applied until it is enough to raise the payload weight to the desired lift stroke.  Then the payload weight is removed.  Then the extra input force/ water volume is removed and the Riser is allowed to sink back to the bottom to complete the cycle.

This is the sequence I am simulating, so this is the sequence that I will ask the builders to follow and provide the measurements for as a comparison to the sim.  I believe that this will provide the truest transfer function for a single ZED.  Of course, there will be tests for different numbers of risers.

I have to apologize to everyone for being such a slow programmer and mathematician.  I am sure if I were faster at this, many of the questions would already have clear answers.

Of course, if it were easy, I would not even have to do it.  THe sim would have been written long ago by someone else.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 25, 2012, 06:35:30 PM
Hello Se3d, and to all,
I am waiting for the Sim release to further discussions, just as other wait on me - I wait patiently.
Thank You Se3D for all your work, and for being able to communicate clearly with me and the others - that is a gift.

To the replication teams -
 It is very hard to stay on focus with the interuptions - I understand - I appreciate your reporting of your observations - what ever they might be - I smile each time I see someone say - "not what I expected to see"
I have seen some brilliant comments here.

That is one of the points, and if you did not get your hands wet - you might not have had reason to say so.
A little refocus (again), you are continually directed to defend or deny the OU claim based on your single TBZED, that is not the challenge of the TBZED.

What I asked paraphrased - on the (1/2 ZED ) "single" ZEd Builds -   
Design your single ZED to be able to observe, measure, and record the: Base Line
Determine the Maximum head or Ideal of your design (pressure and volume in the locked down position)
Minimum pressure/volume to float with Riser weight only.
Please report the clearance between your pod and pod chamber in square inches (this will allow to see how much volume is required to precharge).
A relationship between the gap around the pod and the volume below the pod will become evident (between replication teams).
What is the maximum load (total load) you can lift the distance of .75 inch (based on the average size of the replications).
Record the pressure and volume of that stroke from the neutral base line position.
Now the preload -
add 1/3 of your total load to the riser - reset the neutral point (to just barely floating).
Record the volume and pressure - to stroke that load.
Now add the total load you lifted 3/4 of an inch and record the volume and pressure needed to stroke 3/4 of an inch.

No comparison is needed - but if you like - report anything you noticed.

This is all I need to see to direct you further, don't be distracted by the desires of others - this is a journey.

If someone wants to design a spreadsheet to organize this and post it here - I would appreciate it!

Keep up the good work.
 
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 25, 2012, 09:59:21 PM
This is some data taken from a test inspired by something similar that MileHigh had discussed in a PM.
 
The initial setup of the ZED has not changed since the video was posted, but more water has probably evaporated from the system by now.  The test was performed by removing the Lift Mass of 1217 mm.  In its place a container for water was placed on top of the ZED that weighed 79 grams when empty.  At this time the system was in neutral buoyancy near the top to the stroke cycle height from the previous video test.  The level of the water was marked on the fill tube for this new initial condition.
A separate container was weighed and then filled with 100 grams of water.  This water was added to the container on top of the ZED and the system was allowed to stabilize to a neutral buoyancy condition again (the table surface was tapped to facilitate the release of stiction in the ZED).  The new level of the water (rise) was marked on the fill tube for this condition.  Also, the drop in the ZED due to the added weight of the 100 grams of water was also recorded from the digital indicator.
 
Next, an additional 100 grams of water was weighed and added to the container on top of the ZED.  Subsequent input tube and ZED height changes were recorded.
 
This process of adding an additional 100 grams of water was continued until 1200 grams total was added for a total of 12 data points and the initial start condition.
 
Please note that this was just a test I wanted to try and is not related (I think) to the data that the Replication Teams have been asked to take.
 
FWIW.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 25, 2012, 11:12:26 PM
In case anyone really doubted it, Mondrasek's data show a linear relationship between the independent variable (the water added to the weight reservoir) and the two dependent variables (the Zed drop in response to the added weight, and the rise of the head level in the input tube in response).


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 25, 2012, 11:21:32 PM
In case anyone really doubted it, Mondrasek's data show a linear relationship between the independent variable (the water added to the weight reservoir) and the two dependent variables (the Zed drop in response to the added weight, and the rise of the head level in the input tube in response).

Thanks TK!  I had made the graphs and looked myself, but I did not have time/patience to annotate and present like you have.
 
Did you look at graphs of the delta in the incremental distances of the ZED lift and also the Input Tube rise for each data point yet?  Weird stuff there.  I'm not sure what is going on.  Just build issues?  Measurement issue?  Or is it correct due to the changing internal pressures in the ZED?
 
BTW, do NOT graph those two previously mentioned delta data sets against each other.  Weirder stuff there!  But I only did it for fun and have no idea if it has an relevance at all.
 
Thanks again!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 26, 2012, 05:08:11 AM

Thanks TK!  I had made the graphs and looked myself, but I did not have time/patience to annotate and present like you have.
You are welcome, I am a graphing whiz so it only took me a couple of minutes to do it, right in your spreadsheet. Using, of course, Office Libre, the free software that comes with Ubuntu Linux installs.
Quote

Did you look at graphs of the delta in the incremental distances of the ZED lift and also the Input Tube rise for each data point yet?  Weird stuff there.  I'm not sure what is going on.  Just build issues?  Measurement issue?  Or is it correct due to the changing internal pressures in the ZED?

No, I didn't. Just eyeballing the graphs, though, it looks perfectly linear with a bit of noise, so I would expect the deltas to look the same when broken out. I am assuming your millimeter measurements are from your digital dial indicator so are fairly accurate, and ditto the water weights that you are pouring in. To get a real handle on the error range we need more runs. If you can manage to do, say, ten runs just like that last one, it will be possible to determine the standard deviation of your data and so get a handle on just how small your random errors are likely to be. I would bet, right offhand, that the "weird stuff" you are seeing in the deltas is probably noise, and will turn out to be linear when the error is taken into account. Still, it does look like the system starts of slowly; there may be a bit of a curve right there at the start of lift. Small tapers, irregularities, bumps.... all would be seen as "nonlinearities" at some scale in the graph, but are considered systematic noise (as opposed to random noise like variations in the "100 grams" for example).

Quote

BTW, do NOT graph those two previously mentioned delta data sets against each other.  Weirder stuff there!  But I only did it for fun and have no idea if it has an relevance at all.
 
Thanks again!
 
M.
I dunno either. The next step, I guess, would be to compute the transfer efficiency. Presumably if you started as before, but simply poured in the whole 1200 mL water at once, the thing would settle at the same zed sink and input head rise values. So you could figure out the input and output work, going backwards, considering the Zed the input and the water level in the tube the output.

But now that I realise that we are dealing with an "automatic bollard" where the weight is supported not by the input water totally, but almost entirely by the precharge.... I'm not sure at all how to analyze the system any more. You might just be tossing an apple, enough to move some heavy object that is already just about to move anyway.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 26, 2012, 05:40:46 AM
@mondrasek: How did you manage to measure the water height in the input tube to the hundredth of a millimeter? I find that....er..... slightly improbable.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 26, 2012, 08:10:33 AM
Anyhow... maybe you have a microscope and can read the meniscus in the tube to finer than a human hair's width. That's good, my eyeballs can't manage that. 
 1 mm = about 0.040 inch, so one hundredth of a mm is .... well, call it a shade less than half a thousandth of an inch.

Regardless of the uncanny precision, I think your numbers are likely to be accurate enough, since there isn't a perceptible deviation from linearity and the noise, even in the single data set, seems quite small.

Here is the graph that shows the slope of the regression line, in other words, the ratio of input to output travel. I'm not sure how useful even this is, though, since there is a great spring (the precharge) pushing up on your Riser/AddedWater combo.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 26, 2012, 10:28:09 PM
@mondrasek: How did you manage to measure the water height in the input tube to the hundredth of a millimeter? I find that....er..... slightly improbable.

I was surprised you didn't jump on that as your first point of business before doing any graphs!  I put a piece of masking tape on the input water tube so that I could mark the meniscus to the best of my "eyeball" ability with a fine sharpie at each step.  At the end the tape was removed and placed on the edge of my workbench.  Then the distance from the initial "zero" mark to each of the step marks was measured with digital vernier calipers that read to 0.01 mm.  So the recorded values are correct and have that precision, but there are at least two "eyeball" and other errors introduced to each. 
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 26, 2012, 11:03:34 PM
Impressive! I might not have thought of that indirect method. Another way would be to photograph the level , next to a reference ruler, and then use dividers on the blow-up photo.

Eyeball errors, and stretchy tape errors .... some random and some systematic. Easily accounted for by statistical methods, with a large enough set of runs. But I'm happy with your figures.

I just don't know what, exactly, they are measuring. That is, since the precharge is supporting the weight of the moving parts, maybe the added water is just lifting--- the added water.

It seems to be unusually quiet around here lately. Are the implications of the automatic bollard analogy starting to sink in? Perhaps this _is_ the secret of the Zed... reducing the input work required to lift the weight, by precharging a spring.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 27, 2012, 12:36:02 AM
The "magic" is in the precharge,, but the questions are, how is it put there and what all it can do.

Good one  ;)

Not sure how relevant "how it is put there" is.
As in: The exact method counts or the same final result counts.
If there is more than 1 way to achieve the same pressure and volume balance does it matter how it's accomplished?
YES - proper setup seriously affects system performance.

M. seems to be demonstrating that the setup doesn't diminish except for possibly some evaporation. That could be minimized by a loose sleeve or hood for the outer riser.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 27, 2012, 01:19:59 AM
M. seems to be demonstrating that the setup doesn't diminish except for possibly some evaporation. That could be minimized by a loose sleeve or hood for the outer riser.

While I am not 100% sure of what I may be demonstrating, I am 100% sure that the air in the setup (precharge) does not diminish (is not being consumed/being converted to any measurable output energy).
 
But I am also still not sure what I am measuring or what "should" be measured.
 
So I am not ready to pursue multiple tests to check for the standard deviation of any reported test measurements.
 
First I want to find a bon-i-fied "anomaly."  Then I'd love to test the f*** out of it!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 27, 2012, 01:50:41 AM
First I want to find a bon-i-fied "anomaly."
WITH -- YOU -- THERE !!   :-\
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 27, 2012, 03:48:12 AM
Just my opinion -
I think it might be an "anomaly" to pay for something (lift a load and take it off)...
and then get all your money back (exhaust value = to input)  Every time. ;)
Why it works is the brain teaser.....have fun  :)
What can do nothing without its head, what does work when storing its head, and does more work when giving its head away? A ZED. 
p.s. really good mood - our optimized six layer system just tested "twice" as efficient "more" than we have ever reported!
In about three weeks - you will hear all about it!
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 27, 2012, 06:53:19 AM
Just my opinion -
I think it might be an "anomaly" to pay for something (lift a load and take it off)...
and then get all your money back (exhaust value = to input)  Every time. ;)
Why it works is the brain teaser.....have fun  :)
What can do nothing without its head, what does work when storing its head, and does more work when giving its head away? A ZED. 
p.s. really good mood - our optimized six layer system just tested "twice" as efficient "more" than we have ever reported!
In about three weeks - you will hear all about it!
Wayne

Just my opinion - That is my opinion too....
"I think it might be an "anomaly" to pay for something (lift a load and take it off)...  and then get all your money back (exhaust value = to input)  Every time. ;) "
Yep...as you have said a hundred times before, to get your money back takes saving !  Saving is something forgotten, everybody wants to spend, immediate returns...ect.  No surprise we have a deficit and financial crisis.  but aren't you stretching it a little bit by "(exhaust value = to input)  Every time." Which bank gives you that?

From my observations of the posted material that I see, it has a similarity to the business trends that followed President Reagan, after the dismantling and consolidations of small to medium businesses in the eighties. Everybody wanted immediate returns, only short term plans to maximize short term stock value and director bonuses counted. China featured big time in this strategy. This all came to a head in the first years of the 2000's and the crisis that followed and it is still going on (because the root cause is not solved).

Looking for an immediate return in the ZED is alike to the stock exchange crash.  Be patient, have a strategy, save and invest and reap the harvest along the way. 

Wayne, what surprises me the most is that your "golden egg discovery", the discovery that will find its place in the physic books has already been overtaken by your new novel input device. What an unbelievable DOUBLE WHAMMY !!! 
I am pretty sure, we haven't seen the end of related discoveries....

Don't loose your head no matter what the returns and don't let anybody stop you !   
Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 27, 2012, 10:57:38 AM
Quote
p.s. really good mood - our optimized six layer system just tested "twice" as efficient "more" than we have ever reported!
In about three weeks - you will hear all about it!
Wayne

One photograph is worth a thousand words, MrWayne.

Do you intend to build up a new, six-layer system with your new bagless assist, for Mark Dansie to validate, or are you still trying to get the old system to run for more than four hours?

And Red_Sunset is inadvertently bringing up an important point: Your device now seems to be violating Conservation of Miracles.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 27, 2012, 01:30:25 PM
.............." Your device now seems to be violating Conservation of Miracles."

Dear Tinselkoala,
I think we (me included) can still learn quite a lot on, what is normal, what is a violation...ect. We see the Thermodynamics as absolute in black and white. I am sure it is like that for most situations but at he same time I believe that our vision is a limited one.  To think that conversion of mass is the ONLY method to create energy is limited the viewpoint, notwithstanding it is a common one. Do we know what happen in unbalanced situation ?  You would say, no I have never seen one.

Wayne has demonstrated for several people (who wanted to see), who were prepared to explore his inventive visionary concept that there are windows that can bypass the known symmetry. Once you have explored that and you are assured of it being a fact, are you going to ignore it because it doesn't fit the understanding of "the law". 
Does it make it less true because it doesn't fit the law ?  The proof on the pudding will say what is the truth.
Would it make the law wrong ?  or does expand our vision and might need to add some amendments to the law?

You can call it  "Conservation of Miracles",  having two miracle techniques in his back pocket is definitely a great achievement for one inventor. Two markedly different techniques that violate as you say it, the sacred high ground, is not something to sniff at.
I am not surprised why his IP is not pasted all over the web. Doing so has shown to do not good.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 27, 2012, 04:49:02 PM
Just my opinion - That is my opinion too....
"I think it might be an "anomaly" to pay for something (lift a load and take it off)...  and then get all your money back (exhaust value = to input)  Every time. ;) "
Yep...as you have said a hundred times before, to get your money back takes saving !  Saving is something forgotten, everybody wants to spend, immediate returns...ect.  No surprise we have a deficit and financial crisis.  but aren't you stretching it a little bit by "(exhaust value = to input)  Every time." Which bank gives you that?

From my observations of the posted material that I see, it has a similarity to the business trends that followed President Reagan, after the dismantling and consolidations of small to medium businesses in the eighties. Everybody wanted immediate returns, only short term plans to maximize short term stock value and director bonuses counted. China featured big time in this strategy. This all came to a head in the first years of the 2000's and the crisis that followed and it is still going on (because the root cause is not solved).

Looking for an immediate return in the ZED is alike to the stock exchange crash.  Be patient, have a strategy, save and invest and reap the harvest along the way. 

Wayne, what surprises me the most is that your "golden egg discovery", the discovery that will find its place in the physic books has already been overtaken by your new novel input device. What an unbelievable DOUBLE WHAMMY !!! 
I am pretty sure, we haven't seen the end of related discoveries....

Don't loose your head no matter what the returns and don't let anybody stop you !   
Regards, Michel
Thank you Michel,
Very Wise!
I have noticed a pattern - those who do not look through the whole process - never seem to understand how we save the energy.
Your process flow chart - I posted a month ago has really helped - thank you.
I just think it will expand the thinking - since our system can be proven by the current physics - it just means the conclusions need adjusted.
my opinion.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 27, 2012, 05:42:49 PM
I think it might be an "anomaly" to pay for something (lift a load and take it off)...
and then get all your money back (exhaust value = to input)  Every time. ;)

And that does continue to go through my head:  The output weight is NOT needed to reset the system when the input is removed.  SO, if the input is equal to the output on the upstroke (if it were that case), why can I remove the output and the system still gives back that same input?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 28, 2012, 06:36:19 AM
Hi Guys,

Been looking through my spreadsheet again with the single, no layers model, ZED that Fletcher and MT were looking at a bit back. I'll post the spreadsheet later again now I've added some checks as Fletcher suggested, but wanted to get some thoughts first.

With the setup the spreadsheet cam with last time, judging by the amount of volume available to pump the water in to in the pod containing tank, the starting PE of the water is 19.8 J (as the tank can be partially filled without the pod floating), and once filled, is PE 123.5 J. This gives us a minimum amount of work required to fill the pod tank as 103.7 J.

Once the pod is let go, the PE of the water drops to 52.3 J (difference of 71.2 J), whilst the pod only gains 56.9 J. As the force on the pod to go up is that of the water being pulled down (I think?), this means our total potential maximum work out could be 71.2 J. Under normal circumstances, I guess the extra would be accounted for and lost from the pod flying out of the water a little way before falling and bobbing about a bit till it found equilibrium.

Then draining the tank back to it's starting position, which cost us nothing as gravity chips in, we could get out the calculated drop in PE of 56.9 J, which we just gained from the pod rising, as the pod falls.

In PE differnce: 103.7 J
Out PE Difference: 71.2 J + 56.9 J = 128.1 J
Net: +24.4 J

Now building something with as few losses/extra inputs as possible to take advantage of that is a whole different kettle of fish, but does it look right?

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 28, 2012, 08:20:05 AM
..............................................................When the precharge has returned the percentage needed to drop the internal pressure by 2\3 the mass on top is no longer able to be held up against the force of gravity and starts to fall, leaving the 1\3 mass potential being applied to the rest of the fluid by using both the precharge residual pressure and gravity pulling the mass down, which ends up with the risers back at the start position with the rest pressure of the system intact.
Now as TK has pointed out it is the precharge that lifts the mass, the extra input then is the apple and since the conditions,, the constants needed for the precharge to exist have not changed, ideally, the full potential from the precharge can be recovered and an additional 1\3 from the mass via gravity. ..................................................................

Hi Webby1,
Reconsider your statements below carefully, from the way I understand your writing,

The statement below does not appear true, if needed go back to Wayne's early postings
        "When the precharge has returned the percentage needed to drop the internal pressure by 2\3 the mass on top is no longer able to be held up against the force of gravity and starts to fall,"

What exactly happens in this scenario what your are describing below on macro level ?
       "leaving the 1\3 mass potential being applied to the rest of the fluid by using both the precharge residual pressure and gravity pulling the mass down, which ends up with the risers back at the start position with the rest pressure of the system intact."

I can not conspire with TK' pointing, the statement is imprecise or I am understanding the statement wrong
         "Now as TK has pointed out it is the precharge that lifts the mass, the extra input then is the apple and since the conditions,, the constants needed for the precharge to exist have not changed, ideally, the full potential from the precharge can be recovered and an additional 1\3 from the mass via gravity."

From what I see in the above is that you are creating your own deviations,
Wayne laid out the path, the facts together with measurements in his posts.  In all discussions thus far, you appear keep your eyes on the payload, because you believe that is where the money is. It is not, the money is in the decoy, the 1/3 overhead (it is a troyan)  I can not stress enough to go back to Wayne's early postings. Look at every statement and declaration Wayne made and question it, ask questions like, how can that be ? How can he say that?

What was misleading at the time were the people who were bluntly stating that Wayne was lying, that he did not have, invent, or was misleading,  if he didn't posted and laid open the design, construction and operations manual with an "open source" clause. This is now referred to as vulture period and had a noticeable influence on today, making the release of information more guarded and restrictive. Sorry for this limitation.

I can assure you, Wayne's statements were made guarded to protect certain interests he has (with good reason), but whatever was written was made truthfully and sufficient to discover and understand the invention.

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 28, 2012, 10:12:56 AM

And that does continue to go through my head:  The output weight is NOT needed to reset the system when the input is removed.  SO, if the input is equal to the output on the upstroke (if it were that case), why can I remove the output and the system still gives back that same input?

Wait a minute. That's not how you described your system working before. Are you telling me now that, at the top of the 4mm lift, you can lock the riser at that point, REMOVE the weight, unlock the riser (doesn't it pop up? ) and then recover your 74 ml water without pushing the risers back down to the start position, they just settle on their own, then you replace the weight, pour the water in and it lifts again?

Regardless of the answer to that:
Back to the issue of the bollard and what is lifting what.

Please, webby and mondrasek, set your riser and weight on the scale. Attach a string to the top of it. Lift upwards, and record the scale reading "just" as the riser starts to actually move and rise up. This is the difference between the actual weight and the weight you are lifting with the string. The scale reading should be.... zero. RIGHT? The thing doesn't move until you have taken up all its true weight on the string, so the scale will read zero just as the thing starts to move upwards.

Now do the same thing with the precharged system.  Set the whole thing on the scale. Record the weight. Now pull up on the string and record the weight "just" as the riser starts to move upwards. Subtract this reading from the first reading. This is the weight you are ACTUALLY lifting.

I am asking you for ten minutes work and a couple of simple weight measurements. My conjecture is that you  are NOT lifting the entire weight of the riser and the moving weight with whatever water you are introducing, because the precharge is already offsetting much of the weight of the moving parts. Please, if you think I am wrong, demonstrate it. Prove me wrong. Then, if I am wrong, we can indeed use the change in GPE of the lifted weight to compute our "output" work. But if I am right...... well, it gets a bit more complicated.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 28, 2012, 12:40:35 PM
Hoping to do some testing on 3U this weekend and have a question on POD weight.
-- Yes, 3U is using a fully separate POD
As pictured this POD weighs 11oz, is 4.5 inches diameter and 10.5 inches tall / long.
It displaces about an inch free floating.
POD retainer wall is 4.75 ID
Seems there have been a few mentions of POD weight / system setup but I haven't been able to find them in my notes or saved posts.

So 2 related questions for anyone that may have those references:
1. During normal cycles should the POD actually sink or would the setup values preclude that condition?
2. What percentage of the POD should be submerged in a free floating state?

Thanks
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 28, 2012, 01:44:25 PM
163 pages and still not one joule of overunity energy... All somewhat tedious.
Just a few thoughts on the latest discussions.
1. Precharge...  It is present at the start and end of the cycle so it can contribute nothing to the net output. It is not relevant or necessary to include it in the analysis.
2. Take long hard look at the graph of displacement vs input head as shown in #2417. A purely linear result. Somewhat different to the many claims of a non- linear process occurring as expoused by mr wayne some time ago.
This machine doesn't work.. get over it and move on.
Should Mr Travis continue to claim this invention does produces usable energy he should be investigated for fraud. He will by now have realised it does not work but does not admit it.

Hello Seamus,

I love your posts because I appreciate an adversary who can give a good counter argument.

Why are you thinking that the graph in post #2417 should show a non-linear trend ? 
And how would that graph fit into the OU theory espoused by Wayne ?
Please let us know how that impacts a Zed process adversely? and the reason why ?

The reason for you believe that Wayne should know what you already know and he doesn't know yet. 

Legally Mr Travis can claim whatever he likes, since you or nobody else came up with a technical counter argument that disproved his claim conclusively.  When it comes to a public test system, he can take whatever time he wants and he stated already what his plans are in that respect that are in progress.

So the ball is still in your court and has never left your court yet,  so get to it...

Please clarify, because I am lost.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
163 pages and still not one joule of overunity energy... All somewhat tedious.

Just a few thoughts on the latest discussions.

1. Precharge...  It is present at the start and end of the cycle so it can contribute nothing to the net output. It is not relevant or necessary to include it in the analysis.

2. Take long hard look at the graph of displacement vs input head as shown in #2417. A purely linear result. Somewhat different to the many claims of a non- linear process occurring as expoused by mr wayne some time ago.

This machine doesn't work.. get over it and move on.

Should Mr Travis continue to claim this invention does produces usable energy he should be investigated for fraud. He will by now have realised it does not work but does not admit it.
LOL, thank you Seamus 01-02-03 you just made me chuckle again - your pompousness has become a point of conjecture.
Thanks I needed the smile - Oh - now you incite investigation - lol -
Well the validation team will do fine. ;-)
Follow the dots, understand the whole system - ours produces usable free work - lots of free work...
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient - which you will never respect - So have a nice day other wise.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 28, 2012, 03:01:22 PM
Hello Seamus,

Legally Mr Travis can claim whatever he likes, since you or nobody else came up with a technical counter argument that disproved his claim conclusively.  When it comes to a public test system, he can take whatever time he wants and he stated already what his plans are in that respect that are in progress.


Anyone that comes to the attention of this forum making a claim of overunity
must be investigated and that is the purpose of this forum.

Some people believe in blind faith, I'm sorry but in all the years of being here
I have heard and seen it all before.

What I haven't seen before is a selfrunner that can be replicated by anyone with basic skills,
or even anyone with advanced skills.

Now Wayne is claiming that he has such a device and that it produces overunity.
So it is going to get challenged you should accept this and move on.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 28, 2012, 03:08:33 PM
LOL, thank you Seamus 01-02-03 you just made me chuckle again - your pompousness has become a point of conjecture.
Thanks I needed the smile - Oh - now you incite investigation - lol -
We'll the validation team will do fine. ;-)
Follow the Dot's understand the whole system - ours produces usable free work - lots of free work...
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient - which you will never respect - So have a nice day other wise.
Wayne

I'm glad you're finding it so entertaining that people are getting frustrated about your broken promises,
and you're serious lack of overwhelming evidence that you do have a real overunity device.
I hope you have because the world really needs it and the world needs it now,or haven't you noticed
the environmental disaster that is unfolding.

No doubt you will be coming up with more excuses just like we've seen in your previous history.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on September 28, 2012, 04:40:23 PM
@Webby1. If what you say is true, and you have never lied to me before, your TBZED has little if anything in common with a spring assisted bollard.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
I'm glad you're finding it so entertaining that people are getting frustrated about your broken promises,
and you're serious lack of overwhelming evidence that you do have a real overunity device.
I hope you have because the world really needs it and the world needs it now,or haven't you noticed
the environmental disaster that is unfolding.

No doubt you will be coming up with more excuses just like we've seen in your previous history.
I am in a really good mood, God has blessed us.
I would hold your position if our claim of OU were not based on input reduction versus excess from nothing, yet I would not stand for ignorant treatment of the messengers.

Our testing is going so well - we are all so excited here - so forgive me if I was insensitive to your "frustrations", my mistake.

Being disconnected to the action here (at our lab) leaves you at a disadvantage - I am sorry - I share what is safe. If you go read some of the threats of theft leveled by some of the "challengers" in this thread - you might understand better.

A big mistake made here over and over by Challengers"  is the mistaken notion that they have a right to tell me what I can do and have to do - Sorry about that too - not the way it is..

I am willing and have shared here with those that are trying to learn - it does not relinquish my right to give and share what I choose.

I don't want to appear presumptuous - but you defend "opinions" "conjecture" and "slander" as if they are legitimate "challenges" - if you think that way - I disagree with you.

Challenge me on the facts presented -with facts. If it is our discovery you are after to understand.

If you are out to determine if we will be the team to break the assumed OU barrier - that is not why I am here - history will take care of that - don't rush it, be patient. Thank you.

If it is "understanding" our hard work... you are after - questions with facts - (the ones that have been authorized for releases).

What we have released - does not represent all of our learned and applied technology - but clearly enough to determine if we have an anomaly - OU or something worth persuing.

Many on this thread have done just that and reported here - which are summarily ignored - and you want me to respect those like Seamus 01-02-03? Just saying it can't be done is looking through concrete glasses. EOS

Finally - in more ways than one:

It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited (myself and so is or team).

p.s.
Broken promises? - it is trash like that that makes Seamus not worth reading -  get real - Research and development takes time - it has been worth the work - from 160% efficient to 600% - I guess that the results are pretty well worth pot shots taking insults like that.

Did Edison run and claim victory on the first wire he made glow? No.

We have one solid shot at this validation with the right people - we have labored - under great testing and expense to make sure their effort is respected - tough for you - the way we respect those who don't wear concrete eyeglasses.
Take care and be sharing soon.

Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 28, 2012, 05:25:13 PM
Hoping to do some testing on 3U this weekend and have a question on POD weight.
-- Yes, 3U is using a fully separate POD
As pictured this POD weighs 11oz, is 4.5 inches diameter and 10.5 inches tall / long.
It displaces about an inch free floating.
POD retainer wall is 4.75 ID
Seems there have been a few mentions of POD weight / system setup but I haven't been able to find them in my notes or saved posts.

So 2 related questions for anyone that may have those references:
1. During normal cycles should the POD actually sink or would the setup values preclude that condition?
2. What percentage of the POD should be submerged in a free floating state?

Thanks
Dale

Hi Dale,
 
 
1. During normal cycles should the POD actually sink or would the setup values preclude that condition?

The POD should be barely sunk at initial pre-charge. Backing down your pod retainer water from ideal to initial pre-charge may leave it floating. If so, you can back down the pod-retainer water until sunk, then add air until your water head is back to what is was before the water back down from initial pre-charge. Or you can add more weight to the pod. But keep in mind the pod retainer water is important to be at a low enough level, so the water can be brought up around the pod so that the water head remains the same doing the rise without overflowing the Pod retainer wall.
 
 
I don't know about 2, and don't remember it being mentioned. But doing testing to make sure the Pod retainer water doesn't overflow during rise will get you the answer.
 
 
For those that don't know, I'd like to point out the print bottom at the bottom of the page, which will list all post from the beginning in an HTML file. After using it the result can be saved and searched or just searched to make finding keywords like 'sunk', 'sink' real easy.
The google search at top will give you similar information but it is not limited to just this subject. And it easier to work with the HTML file.
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on September 28, 2012, 05:44:57 PM
p.s.
Broken promises? - it is trash like that that makes Seamus not worth reading -  get real - Research and development takes time - it has been worth the work - from 160% efficient to 600% - I guess that the results are pretty well worth pot shots taking insults like that.

Yes broken promises, the times we heard there was going to be a visit by mark to verify your device
Maybe promise was the wrong word to use, either way the visit didn't happen.

Seamus is saying a lot more then your device doesn't work,
he mentions a reference to a previous post but if you don't like his attitude
I guess you don't have to read his post properly.

Personally I'm not convinced either way at the moment,
and yes your research is wonderful like many other threads on this forum that do research,
But when you claim you have overunity performance then the challengers challenge.

I'm not surprised that you have convincing answers,
For me the only answer is a self-runner that can be replicated.

Time will tell
All the best
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 28, 2012, 05:49:12 PM
TK,, all the numbers I have posted are with the lift mass on for lift and of for sink,, my outside riser has a weight of 90g which is the only weight that stays with the system,, the lift mass is removed after lift, and yes when setup nicely recovery starts right away, that would be fluid flowing out of TBZED.

You only quoted half my suggested, simple, test.
My test was directed mostly at Mondrasek, but I think it applies to your system as well. I don't know what exactly is happening in your system, but I think that Mondrasek's test which generated the numbers I plotted DOES depend on the riser/weight being floated and lifted by the precharge. Hence the precharge IS indeed acting as a spring for some part of the travel of the moving parts-- made up of buoyancy and the pressure in the "U" spaces -- otherwise the parts would be resting hard on the floor of the chamber. But in Mondrasek's setup they are not, they are floating near the bottom of the chamber.

Why don't you just perform the simple, easy, quick test I suggested and report your results? I mostly am asking mondrasek for this, since it is his system that is making the numbers I plotted and is producing the reproducible, stable behaviour. But I'd like to know the answer from your system as well. What is the value of the weight that the system is _actually_ working to raise by the input, and what is being raised by the precharge spring?

It is extremely frustrating to me to ask this simple question, and to get pages and pages of rationalization and conjecture in return, instead of a report of the performance of the test. Sure, you owe me nothing, and you can do whatever you like with your apparatus. But until you or somebody else DEMONSTRATES OTHERWISE, I am going to continue to believe that mondrasek and perhaps you and MrWayne are dealing with an automatic bollard-type of lift, where much of the actual lifting isn't actually done by the simple input water.

I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong in my conjecture here, but it's going to take some actual numbers to do it. Numbers that would seem very easy for you, and mondrasek, to obtain.

Once it is "confirmed" that the FULL WEIGHT of the moving parts is being lifted by the addition of the lift water in mondrasek's system, then  Mile High's GPE method of accounting for the output work in mond's system can be applied with confidence. But at the present time we don't know the magnitude of the _effective_ lifted weight, because some of it is UNDENIABLY carried by the precharge in mondrasek's system. His riser/weight is already floating at the start of the experiment.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 28, 2012, 06:29:01 PM
I have to agree with TK about the test setup.  I have outlined in detail what measurements I would like to see for comparison to my sim results.  I did have a setback with my sim formulas not matching what was being built for pre-charging, so I have had to go back to square one for a bit, but the tests I outlined have not changed.  They were designed to give an accurate transfer function that is needed to understand the basic ZED device.

1.  Bottom "float" the total weight of the Pod/Riser + whatever weight will not be "payload" that is removed at the top.  This is the low energy state of the ZED.  It should be just a hair negative to weightlessly touch the bottom.
2.  Add the payload weight.  This will press the riser hard against the bottom.
3.  Add water to raise the payload weight to different heights along the stroke.  Measure the heads and amount of water added at each point.
4.  Remove the payload weight at the top position.  Keep the riser from shooting up with a top stop or other restraint if required to keep from blowing the skirts.
5.  Drain the amount of water added.  It should come back to the starting position again if Newton does not turn over in his grave.

6.  The test can be repeated a few times to average the results.  The test can be repeated with different payload weights to understand that variable.

From the data gathered, the transfer function can be graphed and the work in and out calculated, with the remaining being what is stored in the ZED.  The ZED could be operated between any two points along the transfer curve.

There can be some variations about how the input water is measured, input , and drained -- depending on the build setup.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 28, 2012, 09:37:30 PM
Wait a minute. That's not how you described your system working before. Are you telling me now that, at the top of the 4mm lift, you can lock the riser at that point, REMOVE the weight, unlock the riser (doesn't it pop up? ) and then recover your 74 ml water without pushing the risers back down to the start position, they just settle on their own, then you replace the weight, pour the water in and it lifts again?

TK, the lift was 10mm (not 4mm).  At the top of the lift I do not lock anything (yet).  But at the top of the lift the Lift Mass of 1217 g is removed.  Yes, the ZED does pop up at this time (and the input tube water level drops).  When the 74 ml of water is vented the ZED does drop down again.  Even with the Lift Mass removed the ZED is still loaded with the mass of the Pod, Risers, spacers, and a preload mass (all weighed and posted earlier in the thread).  At the bottom the Lift Mass is reinstalled to complete the cycle.  Sorry if this was not all clear.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 28, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
I am asking you for ten minutes work and a couple of simple weight measurements. My conjecture is that you  are NOT lifting the entire weight of the riser and the moving weight with whatever water you are introducing, because the precharge is already offsetting much of the weight of the moving parts. Please, if you think I am wrong, demonstrate it. Prove me wrong. Then, if I am wrong, we can indeed use the change in GPE of the lifted weight to compute our "output" work. But if I am right...... well, it gets a bit more complicated.

TK, I'll skip the measurements and just simply agree with you here.  The precharge is definitely creating a neutral buoyancy condition and is supporting the weight of the Lift Mass.  Lifting up on that Mass or pushing down on it only a little causes it to rise or fall.  And so, as you say, it gets a bit more complicated.
 
So, what do you think is the correct way to measure so we can learn anything about the input energy to output energy ratio of a single three layer ZED setup?  Or is there something else that should be looked at first or instead?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 28, 2012, 10:39:51 PM
So 2 related questions for anyone that may have those references:
1. During normal cycles should the POD actually sink or would the setup values preclude that condition?
2. What percentage of the POD should be submerged in a free floating state?

My opinions:
1.  During normal cycles the Pod should always be pushing upwards on the smallest Riser and the entire system of Pod/Risers should be pushing up (at different times in the cycle) against either locks, stops, preload, and (when present) the work load.
2.  Maximum lift from the Pod is obtained when it is completely submerged.  This lift is also the majority of the total lift of a ZED.  So you want your Pod to be able to fully submerge within the Pod chamber (inside its retaining wall).  The lift cycle should start as close to the point where the Pod is fully submerged in a full Pod chamber as possible.  So maximum lift force is ultimately achievable at the lowest sink level of the system.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 29, 2012, 01:17:08 AM

TK, the lift was 10mm (not 4mm).  At the top of the lift I do not lock anything (yet).  But at the top of the lift the Lift Mass of 1217 g is removed.  Yes, the ZED does pop up at this time (and the input tube water level drops).  When the 74 ml of water is vented the ZED does drop down again.  Even with the Lift Mass removed the ZED is still loaded with the mass of the Pod, Risers, spacers, and a preload mass (all weighed and posted earlier in the thread).  At the bottom the Lift Mass is reinstalled to complete the cycle.  Sorry if this was not all clear.
 
M.

Sorry is right. Surely you recall citing "4 mm" (actually a bit less than 4mm)  and I don't believe that I have been talking about ANY OTHER experiment since you reported that one.

I have been referring to the "reverse" test which you cited earlier, which has the best and most coherent data so far.  I thought that was a repeatable cycle. You have not, as far as I can tell, provided similarly good data for what you are describing above. For example you've not said what the "pop up" height was or how much the input tube water level drops. So PLEASE....

Let us just for the moment continue to discuss the test for which you provided good data that I graphed. What is the ACTUAL WEIGHT being lifted in that test, determined in the manner I suggested? If we had this data, we would be able to use your test data to compute the work balance correctly.

But pages and pages have gone by without this simple data point being supplied.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 29, 2012, 01:20:48 AM
Thanks for the feedback guys.
For the moment anyway, I'm going to leave the POD in its current configuration and do some testing. I do need to extend my sight tube and input container, the additional head requirements are above what 1U and 2U could work within. I also need to accommodate the additional load required, haven't had time to make the bracket I want to move the ballast lower for better balance.

From Larry
Quote
The POD should be barely sunk at initial pre-charge. Backing down your pod retainer water from ideal to initial pre-charge may leave it floating. If so, you can back down the pod-retainer water until sunk, then add air until your water head is back to what is was before the water back down from initial pre-charge. Or you can add more weight to the pod. But keep in mind the pod retainer water is important to be at a low enough level, so the water can be brought up around the pod so that the water head remains the same doing the rise without overflowing the Pod retainer wall.

Hopefully we're all using the same terminology here. There do seem to be times when the terms are used in different ways?
"Barely sunk at initial pre-charge"  then: "from ideal to initial pre-charge"

I picture "ideal" as being the state at full (restricted) lift where all layers are on the verge of "blowing a skirt" or overflowing.

And pre-charge as the state where, fully loaded, ballast and lift weight, the riser unit is just slightly floating - fully energized but not quite able to lift.

"Initial" pre-charge?

Just trying to be clear
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 29, 2012, 01:30:48 AM
I have to agree with TK about the test setup.  I have outlined in detail what measurements I would like to see for comparison to my sim results.  I did have a setback with my sim formulas not matching what was being built for pre-charging, so I have had to go back to square one for a bit, but the tests I outlined have not changed.  They were designed to give an accurate transfer function that is needed to understand the basic ZED device.

1.  Bottom "float" the total weight of the Pod/Riser + whatever weight will not be "payload" that is removed at the top.  This is the low energy state of the ZED.  It should be just a hair negative to weightlessly touch the bottom.
2.  Add the payload weight.  This will press the riser hard against the bottom.
3.  Add water to raise the payload weight to different heights along the stroke.  Measure the heads and amount of water added at each point.
4.  Remove the payload weight at the top position.  Keep the riser from shooting up with a top stop or other restraint if required to keep from blowing the skirts.
5.  Drain the amount of water added.  It should come back to the starting position again if Newton does not turn over in his grave.
Stop right here, because Newton IS rolling over in his grave at this point. If your draining and adding the same amount of water is supposed to be energy-neutral as has been claimed, then why haven't you already made a perpetual water pump? It doesn't have to be the _same_ object weighing the "payload" weight, does it? So after a bunch of your energy-neutral adding and draining water cycles, you could accumulate an arbitrarily large bunch of "payload" weights up at the top of the lift, on a platform of some kind. These could then be used however you like.... and at whatever efficiency level you like. Accumulate a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand of them, for free. Then slide them downhill powering a generator or a water pump.

Or.... perhaps the adding and draining of water is NOT energy neutral. If you are removing the lifted weight at the top, then can you recover the added water at the same level that you added it? Or do you have to provide a "suck" by lowering the receiving chamber much lower than it was when adding?

Quote

6.  The test can be repeated a few times to average the results.  The test can be repeated with different payload weights to understand that variable.

From the data gathered, the transfer function can be graphed and the work in and out calculated, with the remaining being what is stored in the ZED.  The ZED could be operated between any two points along the transfer curve.

There can be some variations about how the input water is measured, input , and drained -- depending on the build setup.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 29, 2012, 02:39:14 AM
Stop right here, because Newton IS rolling over in his grave at this point. If your draining and adding the same amount of water is supposed to be energy-neutral as has been claimed, then why haven't you already made a perpetual water pump? It doesn't have to be the _same_ object weighing the "payload" weight, does it? So after a bunch of your energy-neutral adding and draining water cycles, you could accumulate an arbitrarily large bunch of "payload" weights up at the top of the lift, on a platform of some kind. These could then be used however you like.... and at whatever efficiency level you like. Accumulate a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand of them, for free. Then slide them downhill powering a generator or a water pump.

Or.... perhaps the adding and draining of water is NOT energy neutral. If you are removing the lifted weight at the top, then can you recover the added water at the same level that you added it? Or do you have to provide a "suck" by lowering the receiving chamber much lower than it was when adding?
TK, Think man!  For all your nitpicking about useless details, you sure like jumping to conclusions in the big picture.  If the test is done, the data will speak for itself.  Then you can chart and detail out all the conclusions you like.  I am making no claims about what the data would show.  How could I?  I do not have a ZED built to test here, just a broken simulation that has not yet gone past one layer.  I am just interested in the transfer function of a live ZED to verify the sim.

But I won't be cruel and make you think too hard:

1.  Cycle starts at sunk condition.  No payload weight.
2.  Energy is input, work is done to lift a payload weight.
3.  Payload is removed, input energy is removed.
4.  ZED inputs and loads are the same as 1., so ZED settles back into same state as 1.  Cycle is complete.

You are jumping to some sort of conclusion about about O/U that was not even implied by my test sequence.  Having a prejudice blinds you to what is being presented.  I know all too well... as my wife informs me.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 29, 2012, 09:28:05 AM
TK, Think man!  For all your nitpicking about useless details, you sure like jumping to conclusions in the big picture.  If the test is done, the data will speak for itself.  Then you can chart and detail out all the conclusions you like.  I am making no claims about what the data would show.  How could I?  I do not have a ZED built to test here, just a broken simulation that has not yet gone past one layer.  I am just interested in the transfer function of a live ZED to verify the sim.

But I won't be cruel and make you think too hard:

1.  Cycle starts at sunk condition.  No payload weight.
2.  Energy is input, work is done to lift a payload weight.
3.  Payload is removed, input energy is removed.
4.  ZED inputs and loads are the same as 1., so ZED settles back into same state as 1.  Cycle is complete.
Ah... you are fiddling here. How is the input energy removed? Isn't it done by draining water AS THE ZED SETTLES, and TO MAKE THE ZED SETTLE? So the second half of step 3 isn't complete until the Zed has indeed settled. Can you or mondrasek or webby actually demonstrate this complete cycle?
Quote
You are jumping to some sort of conclusion about about O/U that was not even implied by my test sequence.  Having a prejudice blinds you to what is being presented.  I know all too well... as my wife informs me.

I'm not sure what your wife has to do with this, but...
Yes, you are. No system has demonstrated your steps 1-4. This is a claim, then, about what the data "might" show wrt the performance of a system.
If you DO have a system that actually performs as you HAVE INDEED CLAIMED in your steps 1-4, then why can you not stack up an arbitrarily large "overunity" total lifted amount as I have noted above? There would certainly seem to be nothing to prevent you from starting out with a hundred thousand or even more individual payload weights and move them from the bottom to the top of your lift height, for free, since you are recycling your input energy over and over.

Are you embarrassed by this excess of riches? Is there something wrong with my interpretation of your steps 1-4 and the possibility of raising an arbitrary number of payload weights with the same, cycling, input energy? Please be so kind as to point out exactly where my error is, rather than telling me how my prejudices (which are shared by a bazillion textbooks and PhD physicists, at least) blind me. Please... don't be cruel by making me think too hard. Just.... show me the sausages. Oh... that's right, you have no sausages, just some non-working sims of a sausage machine. Sorry.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 29, 2012, 09:34:48 AM
While all the brainiacs argue over the lift, how the lift is actually done and what all that means,, lets try something completely different.

For those that interested, lets talk about the other half of the cycle.

Drain, Vent, Recovery, Exhaust, Return and maybe some I have forgotten,, but these are terms used to describe what happens when the fluid inside the ZED reverses its direction and flows out of the ZED.

When I have TBZED setup for a real good lift value, that would be lift mass and stroke or lift length, the value of this fluid coming out of TBZED is interesting.

To start with when I lower the reservoir a little bit maybe a little bit of water comes back,, NOW it must be remembered that the reservoir is way up high in the air, not down on the table top.

So next I lower it a little more and more fluid flows back into the reservoir, but to be honest the amount of fluid that returns when I drop from full lift height to precharge height is not as much as the fluid I used to go the other way, it is less, much less.

So next I lower the reservoir further and this time the lower I move the reservoir the more fluid is coming out, a higher rate of return, so when I finally have the reservoir down to start position I have all the fluid back in it.

My conclusion from doing this many times is that I have close to 50% return from the input,, the input being a straight up lift from point a to point b rapidly and the return being a slow ramp down value.

Thank you, Webby. It is clear from your testing that you don't recover the full input simply by lowering the input reservoir to the "precharge" height, you must go below that to provide a "suck" of sorts. In your description above, though... are you leaving the payload weight on, at the top, or are you removing it, as see3d and mondrasek are describing?
If you are leaving the payload weight on at the top, and you still have to lower the input reservoir below the "precharge" height to recover.... what would happen if you took the payload weight OFF at the top? Would you have to lower the input reservoir still more to recover, or will the Zed settle by itself, as see3d seems to expect?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 29, 2012, 09:39:48 AM
And... just in passing.... I can't help but note that Yet Another Page has come and gone, without anybody reporting the simple weighing of the actual weight being lifted by the added water input, tested by the simple method I detailed some time ago.

We've gotten qualitative confirmation that this weight is _less_ than the actual dry weight of the moving parts. But by how much? Substantially so, I think, but I don't have an apparatus to test.

If I did have an apparatus, and some brainiac asked me to do a simple test like this, and for some reason I did not comply, and yet went on with an analysis that assumed without justification that I was lifting the whole weight of the moving parts without the assistance of the precharge.... what then would you think of me, I wonder.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on September 29, 2012, 01:48:45 PM
Been looking through my spreadsheet again with the single, no layers model, ZED that Fletcher and MT were looking at a bit back. I'll post the spreadsheet later again now I've added some checks as Fletcher suggested, but wanted to get some thoughts first.

With the setup the spreadsheet cam with last time, judging by the amount of volume available to pump the water in to in the pod containing tank, the starting PE of the water is 19.8 J (as the tank can be partially filled without the pod floating), and once filled, is PE 123.5 J. This gives us a minimum amount of work required to fill the pod tank as 103.7 J.

Once the pod is let go, the PE of the water drops to 52.3 J (difference of 71.2 J), whilst the pod only gains 56.9 J. As the force on the pod to go up is that of the water being pulled down (I think?), this means our total potential maximum work out could be 71.2 J. Under normal circumstances, I guess the extra would be accounted for and lost from the pod flying out of the water a little way before falling and bobbing about a bit till it found equilibrium.

Then draining the tank back to it's starting position, which cost us nothing as gravity chips in, we could get out the calculated drop in PE of 56.9 J, which we just gained from the pod rising, as the pod falls.

In PE differnce: 103.7 J
Out PE Difference: 71.2 J + 56.9 J = 128.1 J
Net: +24.4 J
Hi AmoLago,
I do not know how other but I could not open your simpleZED file, seems corrupted.
If understand you correctly you are not keeping pod completely submerged during stroke right? Just precharge and then let waters in gap fall.

To you your calculation how I understood it:
You start with some water with PE 19.8J
Pod is locked.
Adding water increases potential to 123.5J

Workin 103.7
Pod workout 56.9J (with no losses 71.2J)

COP of first ZED 56.9 / 103.7 = 46%  (you are saying without losses 71.2 / 103.7 = 68.66%)

PE water left after stroke 52.3J
Since you started with 19.8J your usable exhaust is 52.3 - 19.8 = 32.5J

This exhaust can be used for second ZED.
Now assume adding exhaust on top of initial 19.8J will increase PE of second ZED to 52.3J.
You still need 123.6J - 52.3J = 71.3J to get it fully precharged. First ZED can provide only 56.9J but without losses 71.3 which basically means that all workout of first ZED is needed to finish precharge of second ZED leaving nothing net left.

Yesterday had some time to croscheck my spreadsheet posted in #2174 using neptune's idea of auxiliary tanks. And came to the same conclusion that all workout of first 0layer ZED is needed to finish precharge and stroke of the second leaving nothing left. Again this is just 0-layer system, ZED is using >0 layers. I still need to find out what went wrong in calc in #2174 that showed really robust OU.

respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 29, 2012, 02:53:54 PM
Sorry is right. Surely you recall citing "4 mm" (actually a bit less than 4mm)  and I don't believe that I have been talking about ANY OTHER experiment since you reported that one.

I have been referring to the "reverse" test which you cited earlier, which has the best and most coherent data so far.  I thought that was a repeatable cycle. You have not, as far as I can tell, provided similarly good data for what you are describing above. For example you've not said what the "pop up" height was or how much the input tube water level drops. So PLEASE....

Let us just for the moment continue to discuss the test for which you provided good data that I graphed. What is the ACTUAL WEIGHT being lifted in that test, determined in the manner I suggested? If we had this data, we would be able to use your test data to compute the work balance correctly.

But pages and pages have gone by without this simple data point being supplied.

TK, I will gladly perform the test that you request (though I think that info has already been posted, just not again as a specific answer to your direct request). 
 
Please understand my (our) confusion.  Your comments in post #2435 were in response to a post I made where I was discussing the former experiment in the video, not the one where I took the data that you charted.  So it should be easy to understand why I did not understand that you were referring to the latter one.
 
Next I'll comment again on your post #2435 so that we can all get back on the same page.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 29, 2012, 03:05:58 PM
Please, webby and mondrasek, set your riser and weight on the scale. Attach a string to the top of it. Lift upwards, and record the scale reading "just" as the riser starts to actually move and rise up. This is the difference between the actual weight and the weight you are lifting with the string. The scale reading should be.... zero. RIGHT? The thing doesn't move until you have taken up all its true weight on the string, so the scale will read zero just as the thing starts to move upwards.

I believe you just are asking for the weight of everything being lifted, right? 
 
From #2377 w/changes to the Lift Mass for the latter experiment:
Pod = 38 gr.
R1 = 30 gr.
R2 = 34 gr.
Lift Mass = 1200 g of water   79 g for container *NEW INFO*
Non-removed mass = 399 gr. (electrical tape spool and plywood disk spacers, Cedar plank, and Tupperware type container w/wet sand)
Weight of Digital Indicator probe (return spring is removed) = 19 gr.
 
Now do the same thing with the precharged system.  Set the whole thing on the scale. Record the weight. Now pull up on the string and record the weight "just" as the riser starts to move upwards. Subtract this reading from the first reading. This is the weight you are ACTUALLY lifting.

This request is impossible due to the 5kg limit of the scale.  But I have already stated that the riser will move upwards with the slightest change in mass on the ZED (slightest pull on the string).  So with friction ignored, this value would be zero.
 
I hope this gives you all the info you requested.  If not, please let me know and I'll do what I can to provide your requested measurements.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 29, 2012, 06:35:12 PM
Just my opinion.

The buoyant lift add of the pod is small compared to the total lift of the system, the hydraulic lift value of the pod can be huge, the bottom of the pod sees the highest pressure within the system even tho it has the smallest footprint.

In my system even if I were to take the pod buoyancy value up to 80g that is not a large part of the 680g lifts it does easily.

Also, in my system, the pod comes into intimate contact with the lid of the riser,, no air left in the space.

Webby, can you run one of your lifts both with and without the Pod?  Can you achieve the same setup in the remaining risers to confirm an "apples to apples" comparison both with and without the Pod?  This is very interesting to me.
 
Also, my Pod is up against the top of the Inner Riser and the Inner Riser is up against the top of the Outer Riser in the three layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) system I am working with.  All of these members are very light and will float very easily.  I do not know if using heavier members would change this operational characteristic.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on September 29, 2012, 09:46:15 PM
Sure,  I will try and get around to it today,, not sure when.

The last time I tried it I did not even write the numbers down,, it was not a good lift and took way too much fluid.

Well I guess it should take way more fluid since the Pod is not there.  But I am more interested in the resultant lift of the system with and without the Pod.  Regardless of the input fluid volume change.  Just so the rest of the the precharge levels in the risers are similar.
 
Thanks for offering to do this.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 30, 2012, 12:34:10 AM
From Larry
Hopefully we're all using the same terminology here. There do seem to be times when the terms are used in different ways?
"Barely sunk at initial pre-charge"  then: "from ideal to initial pre-charge"

I picture "ideal" as being the state at full (restricted) lift where all layers are on the verge of "blowing a skirt" or overflowing.

And pre-charge as the state where, fully loaded, ballast and lift weight, the riser unit is just slightly floating - fully energized but not quite able to lift.

"Initial" pre-charge?

Just trying to be clear
Dale

Hi Dale,
 
I agree that this subject needs more clarity and propose the following in bold.
 
Based on info from Wayne's model for all to relate, which had PSI of 10.3 at Ideal, 8.4 at Final precharge or Production ready to lift, 5.0 at Sunk precharge or Starting position. Wayne didn't mention the 10.3, but that is the ideal for the 72" Ht, with the 30" Diameter Pod from the calculator.
 
My Initial precharge should have been Initial Setup Sunk Precharge and the one time only that you would lower the water level in the Pod retainer and add air to reset the water head to Sunk precharge.
 
I also liked webby1's 'Rest pressure'.
 
Any comments are welcomed.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 30, 2012, 12:50:28 AM

I believe you just are asking for the weight of everything being lifted, right? 
 
From #2377 w/changes to the Lift Mass for the latter experiment:
Pod = 38 gr.
R1 = 30 gr.
R2 = 34 gr.
Lift Mass = 1200 g of water   79 g for container *NEW INFO*
Non-removed mass = 399 gr. (electrical tape spool and plywood disk spacers, Cedar plank, and Tupperware type container w/wet sand)
Weight of Digital Indicator probe (return spring is removed) = 19 gr.
 
This request is impossible due to the 5kg limit of the scale.  But I have already stated that the riser will move upwards with the slightest change in mass on the ZED (slightest pull on the string).  So with friction ignored, this value would be zero.
 
I hope this gives you all the info you requested.  If not, please let me know and I'll do what I can to provide your requested measurements.
 
M.

No, I wasn't asking for the weights of everything being lifted... I was asking for the _difference_ between the dry weights and the _actual effective weight_ that is being lifted when you add water in the input tube. And you've answered that: the difference is TOTAL.
 The moving masses are essentially "weightless" due to the precharge. Just as in the automatic spring-loaded bollard. So the raw increase in GPE of the moving mass cannot be used directly to compute the work required to raise it. In fact the work required to raise the moving mass is stored, reversibly, in the spring of the precharge. You are adding a slight upward force, just as the person lifting the bollard does, to make the moving weight rise upwards due to the push of the precharge spring.

In addition, you are not changing MASS of anything unless you cut pieces off of it or add material to it. There is an important difference between WEIGHT, which you can measure with a spring scale, and MASS, which requires a balance to measure it.  Mass is conserved and unless material is removed or added remains constant. Weight, though, is the response of a mass to the force of gravity.... and can easily be modified by, for example... buoyancy and/or U-chambers with pressurised air in them.

So.... can you raise a mass, slide it sideways onto a platform, let the risers sink to the bottom to recover your input water, slide another mass onto the riser and lift it with the same input water, flowing out and in, in a work-neutral cycle, and thus accumulate an arbitrarily large amount of mass at the top by doing this "free" lift over and over?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 30, 2012, 12:56:40 AM
Attached is a new Non Linear Analysis section in my 3 Riser calculator showing PSI, Travis Force, Hydraulic Force,  and Water Height Pod retainer as a small model is loaded from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The chart has 289 data points.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 30, 2012, 01:01:07 AM
Webby said,
Quote
I am thinking that you do not have a correct process in mind of the way the system works.

setup, getting the air and water balance so that the sink mass is just supported by the internal pressure,, not ground down to the bottom of the ZED but floating or just resting on a stop.

precharge,  adding water into the system raising the internal pressure of the system from rest pressure up to lift pressure, where the risers are now just supporting the lift mass.

(lift mass is the payload that offers the constant resistance to the risers against lifting)

lift, lifting the risers up higher by adding more fluid under pressure.   
Contrariwise, that is exactly how I do have in mind that the system "works". But it is NOT the MASS that is offering resistance against lifting, it is the WEIGHT, which has been modified by the precharge just as you have described.
You have said that you can pull up on the weight at the precharge step and it weighs nothing, but as you pull it up higher and higher, to 3/16 inch higher, then it weighs the full value. But what would happen if the water level rises just at the same rate you are pulling up? The weight that you measure will stay very low, won't it?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 30, 2012, 01:04:10 AM
Attached is a new Non Linear Analysis section in my 3 Riser calculator showing PSI, Travis Force, Hydraulic Force,  and Water Height Pod retainer as a small model is loaded from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The chart has 289 data points.
 
Regards, Larry

You have a funny definition of non-linear. Every relationship you show is perfectly LINEAR as far as I can see. You do not use log scales on either axis, and your relations are straight lines. There does not seem to be Any NON-LINEARITY in your data. The relationship between your x and y values can be expressed by the FIRST ORDER LINEAR EQUATION y=mx+b.

It would be nice if you could label the axes of your graphs.... since the numbers along the X and Y axes don't seem to correspond to any of the numbers in your data table.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 30, 2012, 01:22:29 AM
MileHigh's posting of KanShi's analysis.... which her whole class of engineering students worked on..... unfortunately is only in our PMs. 
I'm not going to post it over to the open forum, although I almost did. Let me just say to all those who did NOT get the PM, that her analysis soundly refutes the claim of excess efficiency, and the analysis was done using hand calculations, mainframe simulations, an entire class of engineering students working AND COMPETING for class credit and rankings, and is confirmed by experiment. Nothing that has been discussed so far in this thread has indicated anywhere in the system where any great efficiencies could be realized.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on September 30, 2012, 01:26:25 AM
@LarryC: Did you notice that your "Travis force/PSI Ratio" actually only varies from CONSTANT by a value of 0.24 units, out of a total of around 20 units? That is, by a bit over ONE PERCENT? 

From 20.15 to 19.91... and in a perfectly LINEAR manner over that range. Wow.....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on September 30, 2012, 02:30:12 AM
MileHigh's posting of KanShi's analysis.... which her whole class of engineering students worked on..... unfortunately is only in our PMs. 
I'm not going to post it over to the open forum, although I almost did. Let me just say to all those who did NOT get the PM, that her analysis soundly refutes the claim of excess efficiency, and the analysis was done using hand calculations, mainframe simulations, an entire class of engineering students working AND COMPETING for class credit and rankings, and is confirmed by experiment. Nothing that has been discussed so far in this thread has indicated anywhere in the system where any great efficiencies could be realized.
I should also point out that I ask KanShi months ago if she would produce or have her students produce a transfer function graph of the ZED principle so that I could understand "HOW" it works.  She refused, saying that it would be a waste of her time.  I was not impressed.  Another engineer type agreed to do that task, but failed to deliver.  It seems many can point out that it can't work, but can't do a bottoms up analysis of how it works.  I do not believe KanShi really understood how it works either.  Understanding how it works, means being able to explain through technical analysis all the observed behaviors. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on September 30, 2012, 08:11:45 AM
Hi AmoLago,
I do not know how other but I could not open your simpleZED file, seems corrupted.

Hi MT,

Yeah I found that when I tried to download it at work to check some things out. I zipped it on a Mac as opposed to Windows, don't know if that made a difference. I'll save it as xls next time and I've ditched the macro too so people might feel safer opening it.

Anyway...

If understand you correctly you are not keeping pod completely submerged during stroke right? Just precharge and then let waters in gap fall.
To you your calculation how I understood it:
You start with some water with PE 19.8J
Pod is locked.
Adding water increases potential to 123.5J

Workin 103.7

Yep that's how I had it.

Pod workout 56.9J (with no losses 71.2J)

COP of first ZED 56.9 / 103.7 = 46%  (you are saying without losses 71.2 / 103.7 = 68.66%)

I'm confused about this part myself. The two values quoted were not for the same thing.

Ignoring the actual stroke for a second, when the pod is at it's equilibrium point of buoyancy, the PE of the water has dropped by 71.2 because the hight of the water drops from 0.9m to approximately 0.38m (CoM 0.45 -> 0.19 ???), a difference of 0.52m, however, the pod only rises 0.02m giving it a gain of 56.9 J.

So I don't really know whether the maximum work we can theoretically take is that of the difference of the water PE or the pod PE. Or indeed, some other value still!?

PE water left after stroke 52.3J
Since you started with 19.8J your usable exhaust is 52.3 - 19.8 = 32.5J

This exhaust can be used for second ZED.
Now assume adding exhaust on top of initial 19.8J will increase PE of second ZED to 52.3J.
You still need 123.6J - 52.3J = 71.3J to get it fully precharged. First ZED can provide only 56.9J but without losses 71.3 which basically means that all workout of first ZED is needed to finish precharge of second ZED leaving nothing net left.

Nicely spotted! :) A quick double check of my spreadsheet and I can see exactly what you're saying.

But I have a follow up question. The pod sinks as the water retreats in to the other ZED or back to an auxiliary tank. The water will level off in the two tanks regardless of how the pod sinks, so long as it does so fully back to it's starting point. So if the pod is being used to do work as it is lifted, can it also do work as it sinks? Is this the extra we're looking for?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on September 30, 2012, 11:58:57 AM
I should also point out that I ask KanShi months ago if she would produce or have her students produce a transfer function graph of the ZED principle so that I could understand "HOW" it works.  She refused, saying that it would be a waste of her time.  I was not impressed.  Another engineer type agreed to do that task, but failed to deliver.  It seems many can point out that it can't work, but can't do a bottoms up analysis of how it works.  I do not believe KanShi really understood how it works either.  Understanding how it works, means being able to explain through technical analysis all the observed behaviors.

I agree with you fully, See3d, an interesting situation is developing

The believers:   Led to the waterhole by Wayne, the water can be seen, but it was initially not clear how the water got into waterhole. Clarification is received from looking around in detail, but these clarification details are not directly shared to open the willing or unwilling blind eyes.

The unbelievers: The one's that cannot figure out the path of the water flow, claim that there is no water in the waterhole. They claim to have the clarification details that support their empty waterhole, but these clarification details are not shared to remove the sunshades that obstruct the view the seeing eyes.

Physical proof:  The physical proof is pending a rebuild in order to incorporate performance and reliability improvements.

The result :  An interesting Status Quo

Best action: Choose your best position and wait patiently for "status quo" to equalize  " sit on the fence is not a bad option if you can not break the status quo"


 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 30, 2012, 07:36:38 PM
RE: Post #2411 by MRWayne on: September 25, 2012

I don't think I've seen this responded to during the original challenge or last week - here are my current numbers.
Quote
Design your single ZED to be able to observe, measure, and record the: Base Line
Determine the Maximum head or Ideal of your design (pressure and volume in the locked down position)
31.5"
Quote
Minimum pressure/volume to float with Riser weight only.
2" head - not clear on volume
Quote
Please report the clearance between your pod and pod chamber in square inches (this will allow to see how much volume is required to precharge).
* pod is 4.5" x 10.5"
* inner retainer wall is 4.75
Area under POD: 17.7 sq in
Area of GAP: 1.8 sq in         

Quote
What is the maximum load (total load) you can lift the distance of .75 inch (based on the average size of the replications).
24 lb

Quote
Record the pressure and volume of that stroke from the neutral base line position.
Barely floating is at 24.5"
.75" lift of 24 Lb takes 13 fluid ounces max head is 32.5"

Quote
Now the preload -
add 1/3 of your total load to the riser - reset the neutral point (to just barely floating).
Added 8Lb to the completely unloaded riser

Quote
Record the volume and pressure - to stroke that load.
9.5" head barely floating - 17.5" at full lift
Same volume, 13 fluid ounces.

Quote
Now add the total load you lifted 3/4 of an inch and record the volume and pressure needed to stroke 3/4 of an inch.
? Add the 8Lb to the previous max lift of 24Lb ? ( wouldn't lift )

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 30, 2012, 08:21:59 PM
You have a funny definition of non-linear. Every relationship you show is perfectly LINEAR as far as I can see. You do not use log scales on either axis, and your relations are straight lines. There does not seem to be Any NON-LINEARITY in your data. The relationship between your x and y values can be expressed by the FIRST ORDER LINEAR EQUATION y=mx b.

It would be nice if you could label the axes of your graphs.... since the numbers along the X and Y axes don't seem to correspond to any of the numbers in your data table.

My Post:
Attached is a new Non Linear Analysis section in my 3 Riser calculator showing PSI, Travis Force, Hydraulic Force, and Water Height Pod retainer as a small model is loaded from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The chart has 289 data points.

 
Jumping to conclusions again. What i stated was:  The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. They were not shown in the original graph so I attached a new chart below.
 
 
The numbers don't seem to match because there is 289 Rows of data.
 
 
The important part of the original graph as stated:   More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge.
 
 
That is amazing, of course this would only be important to the open minded who would try to understand why.   
 
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 30, 2012, 10:42:07 PM
Thanks Webby
Will try it.
Can't see where the result will be any different than the original 24Lb max lift: but what the heck
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 30, 2012, 10:45:48 PM
Quote
@Larry: Based on info from Wayne's model for all to relate, which had PSI of 10.3 at Ideal, 8.4 at Final precharge or Production ready to lift, 5.0 at Sunk precharge or Starting position. Wayne didn't mention the 10.3, but that is the ideal for the 72" Ht, with the 30" Diameter Pod from the calculator.
 
My Initial precharge should have been Initial Setup Sunk Precharge and the one time only that you would lower the water level in the Pod retainer and add air to reset the water head to Sunk precharge.

Care to comment on or relabel as fitting 1 through 4 in the illustration attached for clarity?
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on September 30, 2012, 11:12:55 PM
OK - last for now:
The main reason I'm trying to be very clear on the cycle terminology is I'm still struggling with the philosophy or methodology of the post stroke fluid transfer.

Many of the test results posted seem to show going from barely floating to some lifted value and then returning JUST to the starting point. But the cycle described by Wayne sometimes (my confusion) reads like the head values are taken lower - to the point of also removing at least some of the "precharge". - That's why I keep asking.

I see a lot of motion in the levels on mine while lifting, and I need to raise the head some - I'm attributing most of that to the wall thickness; actually loosing some lift potential while lifting because the water levels re-balance,  filling in the void left by the walls.

Sinking ( just a rise / sink cycle, no load removed ) - the point of this posted question - is similar. As water is vented from the POD area and it starts to sink it actually regains that lost buoyancy as the walls come down so I have to vent from a lower point.

The real question though is: Once the risers are back at rest there is still the "precharge?" remaining. That head value stored in the differentials.

It only takes another 2 fluid ounces to remove most of it. In the real device is that energy transferred to the other ZED?
I'm pretty sure Wayne has answered yes. If so, it would seem important to the energy cycle.

My mental block is not seeing value in transferring energy past what's need to sink, out of the system....

3 PSI values in the previously posted illustration; guess I need to work on relating the 5 - 6.7 - 8 PSI values to the heads I'm seeing in this model.

Questions - Questions.....
Dale

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on September 30, 2012, 11:58:29 PM
Hi Dale,
 
This may help or confuse more, reply 963:
 
Post by: mrwayne on July 21, 2012, 07:34:14 PM
I might suggest that we move on to the next portion of the system.
The next phase is to understand how much Head is transferred to the second Z.E.D
Things to consider - The weight of the risers and added weight - they allow the system to sink when partially charged (head)
When You calculate how much (minimum) head it requires to float - amount of weight - you have the minimum exhaust pressure.
Next - you need to Know what your stroking pressure is - so your weight plus your production load - maximum head needed.
Take the average of the two pressures - and this gives you the post free flow pressure.
The value of the free flow is the head at max (end of stroke) to the post free flow pressure.
The value of the remaining exhaust is the post free flow pressure to the Minimum head pressure (sinking pressure)
The head less than the sinking pressure always remains in the Z.E.D and never needs replaced.
This is a good start.
Our pressure is:
Minimum 5.0, 8.4 max, and 6.7 post free flow.
Since the true input cost to each side it the diffirence between these pressures and the Max - this is very important.

 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 01, 2012, 12:01:35 AM
Pic is to show the "Top Stop" I came up with for the next configuration I wanted to achieve to continue testing.  It sits a mm or more above the top of the maximum location that the *loaded* ZED achieved in the cycle in the previously reported test data.  So I cannot repeat or do any more testing on that previous setup.
 
I had to setup again with a new precharge due to the change in the desired stroke range in this configuration.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 01, 2012, 12:09:44 AM
Thanks for that Larry
I will note and study - good spot at the start of a new page too  ;D

I did the swap from the 8Lb load back to the 24 and re-ran the cycle: same result as the original 24 Lb test.
This, combined with your timely re-post from Wayne might be helpful. I also grabbed the video cam while taking the 4 steps to the shop and shot the test, pretty rough and embarrassing - maybe it will help reinforce the point, maybe not.

I do need to add a couple of notes correcting myself.... script writers!, sheesh...

Won't be available for an hour or 2, crappy Internet today, but  http://youtu.be/EtTIE8dztM8
Dale

 
For What It's Worth
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2012, 12:42:10 AM

My Post:
Attached is a new Non Linear Analysis section in my 3 Riser calculator showing PSI, Travis Force, Hydraulic Force, and Water Height Pod retainer as a small model is loaded from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The chart has 289 data points.

 
Jumping to conclusions again. What i stated was:  The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. They were not shown in the original graph so I attached a new chart below.
 
 
The numbers don't seem to match because there is 289 Rows of data.
 
 
The important part of the original graph as stated:   More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge.
 
 
That is amazing, of course this would only be important to the open minded who would try to understand why.   
 
 
Regards, Larry

What is amazing is the way that you present your data.

You state a "nonlinear analysis" and you show an unlabeled graph and a data table, all of which show perfectly linear relations.

Only AFTER I point out what I see, do you then tell us that your published data table is incomplete and that the x-axis in your graph goes far beyond what you have shown in the table, and that the "nonlinear" relationship only occurs between two derived variables, over the full data set.

This of course would only be important to people who are actually trying to communicate, rather than obfuscate, their results.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2012, 12:52:17 AM
Care to comment on or relabel as fitting 1 through 4 in the illustration attached for clarity?
Dale
Is the blue stuff water? And is a "unit" a rectangle block? And at the top of the diagram it says "19 units water".

In #1 I count 18 units.
In #2 I count 19 units.
In #3 I count 17 units.
In #4 I count 21 units.

??


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2012, 01:07:54 AM
@mondrasek: Looks good.... I might have used a different material for the stop ring, but my scrap pile is undoubtedly differently assorted than yours is.
What's the little electronic circuit to the left? I'm guessing it is the power supply for your LED illumination?

Now if you could only figure out a lever - and - cam system to raise and lower your input reservoir, working off of the rise and sink of the riser....

 ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 01, 2012, 01:11:27 AM
Apologies TK - you're right.
I thought I had that sorted out.
It was intended to be mostly illustrative, just to clarify the terms used to describe the positions of the fluids, but I should have checked the counts again.
Yes - the blue is water, the proportions as they relate to the terms are what's important.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 01, 2012, 02:18:54 AM
Quote
@Webby - as the lift happens the water level in the pod chamber is going up, that is a resistance for the input, so as it grows the head must also grow to cover it
Be real careful here - 2 things going on - pressure vs. flow - many people have a hard time distinguishing between them, and I'm not saying you're one of them, but be careful.

IF... all things are are equal, water will flow and stuff will move, at a given pressure [head - differential].
-- this is the "apple" --
If there is a need to increase pressure [only] during lift then something else is causing it, not the load - unless I'm way off base.
Adding "makeup" fluid at the same pressure is to be expected.

Too many years as a plumber having people tell me their shower was terrible because the "pressure" was low....
Give 'em a low pressure, high flow, [clean] shower head - and suddenly the "pressure" was great  8)

Same with electricity, 'nother time.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2012, 02:43:59 AM
no, add the rest of the max lift weight,, or the other 16lbs so that you are back to max lift.

You are looking at the input needed to go from the 8lbs floating "rest position\condition" to the full 24lbs lifted 3\4 inch.  That is the difference between the "just lift the whole mass from zero" to, lift the mass from the "setup" which is the 8 lbs on risers and just floating.

So the 8lbs just floating is the rest position.
That's right. This appears to be a test of my hypothesis that the setup preload is acting as a spring, I think.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 01, 2012, 02:58:26 PM
@mondrasek: Looks good.... I might have used a different material for the stop ring, but my scrap pile is undoubtedly differently assorted than yours is.
What's the little electronic circuit to the left? I'm guessing it is the power supply for your LED illumination?

Plywood is definitely not the best material around all this water.  But I did dunk it through several baths of a waterproofing sealant before installing.  This was a leason learned after watching the same material of the base stand start to delaminate when it first got wet.  The waterproof has done a good enough job on that for now.
 
The circuit is a DC/DC buck/boost converter.  I'm using it as a regulator to take the 12V of an old Toshiba laptop power brick down to the 3~4 volts on the LED lights.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: CuriousChris on October 01, 2012, 03:02:38 PM
I looked at the ZED system about a month ago and dismissed it after viewing a couple of fish tank videos - really is that all he had.

Anyway I haven't read 167 pages of this stuff to come up to speed just a few notes and looked at a video by mondrasek.

Now I have to ask. Has anyone reviewed the theories behind hydraulics? it explains everything I have seen so far.

hydrostatics is the field in question. Mondraseks video shows a simple hydraulic press
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_press

If I am on the wrong path, could someone kindly bring me up to speed?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 01, 2012, 06:05:22 PM
RE: Post #2411 by MRWayne on: September 25, 2012

I don't think I've seen this responded to during the original challenge or last week - here are my current numbers.31.5"2" head - not clear on volume* pod is 4.5" x 10.5"
* inner retainer wall is 4.75
Area under POD: 17.7 sq in
Area of GAP: 1.8 sq in         
24 lb
.75" lift of 24 Lb takes 13 fluid ounces max head is 32.5"
Added 8Lb to the completely unloaded riser
9.5" head barely floating - 17.5" at full lift
Same volume, 13 fluid ounces.
? Add the 8Lb to the previous max lift of 24Lb ? ( wouldn't lift )

Dale
Hello Dale,
I will convert your numbers later after work..
Since a question has arose...
Here is what I am looking for to evaluate your builds -

Starting position .....at the near floating state of the riser - neutral = bottom of stroke - but not on the floor - and high enough not to hit the bottom (floor) when the (work) load is added. I think you said 8 pounds.

Adding the eight pounds will increase the pressure of the system and sink it a little as the heads are increased by the weight.

Now - the recharge is added next - recharge is the value from nearly floating unloaded to nearly floating loaded.

It does make a difference if adding the load sinks the risers a bit - in relationship to the starting point of the stroke - but that is work created by the weight and will be paid for in returning to the end of stroke (you could set your Zed up so that it could not sink - but this complicates the simplicity.

So I need the volume you added to get the loaded Zed to near float and the new pressure - how much water and how much pressure did it take to get from a nearly floating riser set up to a nearly floating loaded riser set up.

This will let me evaluate your pod - to riser weight - to gap relationship - it is very possible to set them up wrong. - one replicator had to redo his pod - it was only 3/4 of an inch - and it is key to balance the function of the system - he repaired it - and his system is working fine now - over unity.

I have seen here on this forum - where the load is confused with the Ideal - Ideal is the max - non stroking lift possible - you have to back away from the ideal in order to have stroke (without blowing skirts)
How far you back away - is directly related to the maximum load you need to engage.

I have offered a short cut - to riser weight (not the load) but the weight of the riser that is never removed. Take the ideal lift and divide by three - rough set up for your riser weight.

Next - to determine your load to lift - it will have to be less than the difference between the Ideal and your riser weight -
So if your Ideal max is say 30 pounds - make your riser weigh 10 pounds - and then set your load to about 10 pounds - this will give you the ability to stroke safely - to determine how far - add the load and and (water and head) until your set up begins to blow the skirts (water or air) and then note the travel - then back off from it. (reset your set up again).

On that note - if you blow your skirts - water or air during testing - any further testing is invalid - until you reset.

The Next piece of the puzzle - once you determined your safe stroke length -

Reset the system to the recharged state and then record pv and then increase the pv until the end of your stroke - record and report the new pv and the stroke length.

Finally - with the load (work removed) - but not allowing the Risers to pop up from the stored head - record the pressure removed from this end of load stroke - to return to neutral, record the volume. subtract the two and you have your pressure increase to stroke.

Use the pressure prior to recharge (neutral), and the difference pressure at the end of the load stroke - to determine the pressure increase needed to lift the load.

The volume cost is also the volume increase during the same states.

Lets say your load was 10 psi, if your pressure increase is .215 and your stroke is .75 inches, and your volume was 27 cubic inches.

Here is the method - 27/.75 = 36 this give you a comparative piston value - 27 cubic inches could lift (in a frictionless position with a surface area of 36 inches a stroke of .75 inches.

Now multiply the pressure difference of .215 x 36 = you could lift 7.75 pounds (roughly)
Now compare your 7.75 to your actual lift of 10 pounds the same difference.

10/7.75 = 129%

That's not bad - and does not account for the exhaust pressure - or the work that could be performed by that energy that must be removed to complete the cycle - "No" the person that thinks it takes more energy to sink??? they have someone else's patent I think.

p.s. these results - I used as an example - are real numbers from one of our replicators.
 

Latest TK and MH slander...

On that note: I am turning the page on them.

I was very patient with the insults and slander from a few special people on this forum - in the attempt to give them the time to catch up.

Since they do not add substance - or can not add substance - and pervert the truth to suit their position and Ego - the page is turned.

The slander is recognized as carrying out "jihad"  against overunity - nothing more - symbolism, protectionism, turn the page.
I have respect for Kanshi - I think Kanshi was "used" and is being used again - smart but misled.

She put effort into her work - more than I have seen from ME, TK, and mh.

It would have been better if she had looked at our system and not what ME had convoluted it to represent.

She posted her evaluation of the Archimedes' buoyancy system - she had been completely misled to the function and operation of our system. She did not represent the Zed technology at all.

This is not the first time effort was put in to mislead those following our actual progress - it has been ongoing.

Tk tries with his fountain and bollord and they both completely missed the principle of our system - you replicators know far more..

I did  explain to Kanshi that she was not representing our system - she responded by showing and posting the seven stages of buoyancy - and her analysis of it -  which only demonstrated she completely missed the mark in comparison to the ZED.

Her work would be good to explain why other buoyancy attempts never amounted to Over Unity and how ours compares - yet when she began to model ours - and had to "restate" the efficiency gain our system was having - she dropped out of the conversation.

You see, Kanshi had very forcefully pointed at me as misleading referencing the layering efficiency gain - she said that adding layers would only reduce efficiency  - down to less than 15% I think she said.

She also never understood or accounted for the reuses of the same displacement - ME had challenged the idea as if I was claiming to put two objects in the same place at the same time - that was foolishness to her. 

Here is my key point - you can count on TK, Seamus, and mh to misguide and others to mislead - it has been done repeatedly.

You - have for 165 pages, I have them on my ignore list - you do as you wish - I am turning the page closed on them.

This frees up time for those who are actually trying to understand - and report actual findings.

I have also turned the page on Powercat - Calling me a liar - I did reschedule an important test - his decision to call it a lie - is a poor evaluation of events.
Missing a "personal" deadline - is not making excuses, it is not lying - I would rather put a quality product out - even if that means rescheduling - Period - page turned.
It was the right decision - and has been well worth the extra effort and time.

I thank Kanshi for her hard work - next time - talk to the inventor about the function - before trying to evaluate a system - save you time and effort. 

The Chapter for discussion on the TBZEDs is open until the replications are done - We will move on to the next part of the input reduction process after that.
@ Replication teams.
Great work on the replications - and thank you for the letters, I will be evaluating the challange at the single TBZED level and I have decided to send HER shares to all four teams - I will reserve the Cash Award - until the two teams (that have currently notified me)  have had time to build the fully functional models.
 
Again..... Great work.
 
Wayne Travis
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 01, 2012, 06:06:49 PM
What is amazing is the way that you present your data.

You state a "nonlinear analysis" and you show an unlabeled graph and a data table, all of which show perfectly linear relations.

Only AFTER I point out what I see, do you then tell us that your published data table is incomplete and that the x-axis in your graph goes far beyond what you have shown in the table, and that the "nonlinear" relationship only occurs between two derived variables, over the full data set.

This of course would only be important to people who are actually trying to communicate, rather than obfuscate, their results.

Thanks TK, we always enjoy your irrational rants and attempts to shift the blame to the one who brings up your issue technique. 
So I’ll drop my Jumping to conclusion statement about you and just show the facts as they occurred, so others can make up their own mind.

Reply #2472 on: September 30, 2012, 12:56:40 AM
My post.
Reply #2473 on: September 30, 2012, 01:01:07 AM
TK response to Webby
Reply #2474 on: September 30, 2012, 01:04:10 AM
TK response to my post.
 
When my post came out, TK would seem to be busy with a review and response to Webby’s post.
Then in 3 minutes and 3 seconds, TK had completed his analysis of my post and responded with his incorrect assumption.
Does anyone else believe that they could do proper due diligence of my post and respond correctly in 3:03?
 
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2012, 07:08:28 PM

Thanks TK, we always enjoy your irrational rants and attempts to shift the blame to the one who brings up your issue technique. 
So I’ll drop my Jumping to conclusion statement about you and just show the facts as they occurred, so others can make up their own mind.

Reply #2472 on: September 30, 2012, 12:56:40 AM
My post.
Reply #2473 on: September 30, 2012, 01:01:07 AM
TK response to Webby
Reply #2474 on: September 30, 2012, 01:04:10 AM
TK response to my post.
 
When my post came out, TK would seem to be busy with a review and response to Webby’s post.
Then in 3 minutes and 3 seconds, TK had completed his analysis of my post and responded with his incorrect assumption.
Does anyone else believe that they could do proper due diligence of my post and respond correctly in 3:03?
 
Regards, Larry
Your argument is bogus. What "due diligence" is needed to understand that 1) your data table does NOT list measurement number and  is incomplete, and 2) your first set of graphs has unlabeled axes, and 3) makes the claim of nonlinear relationships but shows no such thing?
If you want to pretend to be showing data in graphs, you should learn the common conventions for doing so. Unlabeled axes and incomplete data tables are no-nos. You may not be able to evaluate graphical information and data tables quickly.... that doesn't mean everyone else has the same difficulty. Some of us may have been evaluating data, graphing data and presenting it formally for many years.
And PSI and SI are not the same thing.

Irrational rant, Larry? Tell me just what part of my statement is rant, and what part is irrational. Did you label your axes in some way I can't see? Did you include the full data table? Did you illustrate your "non-linear" relationship IN ANY WAY, by graphs or data, in the first post to which I responded?
No, you did not.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2012, 07:10:45 PM
Slander, MrWayne? Really? You are accusing me of slandering you? That's amazing, since you don't even read my posts.... and since I've spoken to no one about you at all.

What do you think of that, CuriousChris?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 01, 2012, 07:16:53 PM
Excellent Post MrWayne!
Thank you for the patience.
A little work I have to do....

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2012, 07:37:21 PM
MrWayne said,
Quote
I have also turned the page on Powercat - Calling me a liar - I did reschedule an important test - his decision to call it a lie - is a poor evaluation of events.
Missing a "personal" deadline - is not making excuses, it is not lying - I would rather put a quality product out - even if that means rescheduling - Period - page turned.
It was the right decision - and has been well worth the extra effort and time.

Is this referring to Mark Dansie's next visit? So it has been rescheduled then? Excellent. What is the new date, that it has been rescheduled to?

It's good to know that it has been rescheduled, instead of just being indefinitely postponed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 01, 2012, 08:31:21 PM
Your argument is bogus. What "due diligence" is needed to understand that 1) your data table does NOT list measurement number and  is incomplete, and 2) your first set of graphs has unlabeled axes, and 3) makes the claim of nonlinear relationships but shows no such thing?
If you want to pretend to be showing data in graphs, you should learn the common conventions for doing so. Unlabeled axes and incomplete data tables are no-nos. You may not be able to evaluate graphical information and data tables quickly.... that doesn't mean everyone else has the same difficulty. Some of us may have been evaluating data, graphing data and presenting it formally for many years.
And PSI and SI are not the same thing.

Irrational rant, Larry? Tell me just what part of my statement is rant, and what part is irrational. Did you label your axes in some way I can't see? Did you include the full data table? Did you illustrate your "non-linear" relationship IN ANY WAY, by graphs or data, in the first post to which I responded?
No, you did not.
;D
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 01, 2012, 11:30:34 PM
To Replicators.
 
Could you please send me a updated picture of your Model for an update on my Web site.
I will not be posting names - just photos.
@
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
Thank you!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 02, 2012, 03:03:38 AM
;D

Nice argument, Larry. You have not refuted any of my points with facts, and you can't deny the truth of my comment. You did not label your graph axes, you did not include the complete data table, and none of what you presented in your first "nonlinear analysis" post showed any non-linear relationships. Only after I pointed out your deficiencies did you provide the necessary support for your claim.... and you still only managed to label one of your graph axes. Now you resort to insulting me and making further nonsensical "responses".  Why not simply refute me? You cannot, that's why.

Here, maybe this will help you with your arguments.
http://people.cst.cmich.edu/swans1bj/graph/Graph.html
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 02, 2012, 06:08:07 AM
Hi Everyone,

This is just a note on the sim progress.  I took a different approach last weekend.  I decided to simplify the math and do more iterations, even though it is a lot slower calculation (think very slow animations, like watching paint dry).  However, I also took an approach that let me calculate any number of layers at the same time (currently limited to 6 for no good reason).  I could not let the builders get too far ahead of me ;)

I still have more work looking at all the edge conditions and testing different cases (and seeing if there is any way to speed it up).  However, I am not stuck inside the complicated math anymore, but moving forward with debugging operational code.   :)

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 02, 2012, 06:25:29 AM
Congrats on the progress Dennis. We're all looking forward to your next release.

Thanks for the huge effort and we appreciate the updates!

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 02, 2012, 06:50:59 AM
------------------------
The important part of the original graph as stated:   More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge.
 
Regards, Larry

Hi Larry,
With regards to understanding the graph data in your post #2485, I saw an odd trend that brought me to the following questions ( To put you at ease, I post with peace, I do not have any intentions to do a jugular vampire act on you, you must be weary to have received some blood stained pages lately)

1.. The total PSI is very low (as read from the Y axis).  Is the listed pressure, the overall PSI or only for one layer?
2.. The non-linear travis force/psi trend is negative going slope, (I would have expected a positive slope,  increasing lb/psi as pressure increases)

Are you 100% sure ?

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 02, 2012, 07:38:59 AM
Ooops mistake...deleted
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 02, 2012, 09:50:42 AM
Quote
A repost of some of "Wayne's" previous and most important postings

A repost of some of Wayne' s previous and important posts which might refresh and help many members when  re-read.
only retouched here and there to improve readability
Wayne Travis « Reply #560 on: June 17, 2012, 04:37:28 PM »

In our system the head travels up with the stroke,  this results in a special condition at the end of stroke,  namely - all the energy you put into the system is still there. The load was up and is removed but the buoyancy "head" is still intact.

You limited the stroke - unlike other buoyancy systems we do not fill,  float and then DRAIN and then sink. As you have discovered, removing the head creates a sink condition. The sink condition is directly related to the static load.

Now we move the head - into the other Zed (equalization - free flow as we call it). At first, the zed does not sink during equalization it sinks during stroke of the other Zed.

Now in the equalized position, we use the pressure in the lowering Zed to supplement the Stroking Zed.  Guess what this does for efficiency..........very exciting

The weight to the riser split the desired force, like this with our 6000 pound force model,  2000 pounds of weight lifted is returned in the system (in the exhaust of the lowering Zed),  This 2000 to fuel the internal operations and this 2000 pounds absolutely free.

In short, our three layer system has a total of 1/3 the Ideal, absolutely free.

Do not get trapped into thinking you have to exceed the Ideal of a system to achieve OU - that would be magic - our system is simple physics - seen in a new light.
When you wrap this together - you will see why

Now you know what I saw in the hot tub back in 2008 in the Travis Effect, and why we dropped everything and pursued this against all odds.

jwtravis5@peoplepc.com

Wayne Travis
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Repost « Reply #583 on: June 18, 2012, 10:20:24 PM »

I am stuck at the air port - nine hour wait.
 
The water in the pod section is always under pressure - the pressure is related to the direction of travel and stage of the process.
 
When Zed 1 is all the way up - it has the full charge in Head + the volume inside the pod added for stroke length- It is at the top because it has just finished its production stroke -
 
At this moment the Hydraulic assist is "on" but no movement or consumption of energy. - To be clear - the hydraulic assist is what adds to the head pressure from the lowering Zed in order to overcome the hydraulic resistance in the production cylinder - or the load.
Both Zeds are connected to opposite sides of one a piston (bags in our last model) that piston is at the end of its travel or near empty at zed one.
 
Zed one :  has the highest presssure (8 psi - example given last week)
Its at the top of stroke - high pressure connected to Mass exchanger --(bags - cylinder)
 
The other Zed (Zed Two) is at the bottom of the stroke It still has 4.6 psi (caused by the weight)
 
Now the first step is to let go of the hydraulic assist - The two Zed's equalize head pressure - so both heads are now at 6.7 psi --both zeds are still in the same position they were in - but the Mass exchanger has traveled half of its distance.
 
Zed two is ready to be pre-charged - this means going from 6.7 psi to 8.0 psi (over coming resistance pressure).
 
The precharge is nearly instantanious - when the first hydraulic assist is turned on - when the pressure drops to 4.6 psi - about 3/4 of the total travel - we kick on the second hydraulic assist cylinder.
 
And we finish the stroke (we are capturing the buoyancy during the Stroke.
 Then we are half way through a cycle - Zed two is up (8psi) and Zed one is down (4.6 psi)  ready for free flow to begin - the other direction.
 
Let me be clear - we exchange 1/2 of the hydro transfer during free flow - no input - then we pay for 1/3 of the next quarter, and then less than half of the last 1/4 .
 
That is our total input - nothing else - very simple.
 
The layering system makes the "Exhaust or water transfer" pay for nearly 70% of the total input cost for each Zeds production stroke (roughly - three layers - better with more layers).
 
When our third part engineers measured the up stroke - they were excited - but when they realized that all the energy for the up stroke was available for the transfer - (minus standard losses)
 
The Riserweight in the system reduces the ideal of the unit - but do not mistake ideal for efficiency, yet the riserweight makes the transfer more powerful and the size of the riserweight (percentage of ideal) is based on the number of layers.
 
So when you see the three layer system has about 1/3 of its ideal lifting weight, you know the reason.
 
A point many critics make is to ignore that stored energy in the head is still complete and intact at the end of every a stroke and can be exhausted at a steady minimum pressure that results in more return than the weight due to the travis effect.
 
Wayne Travis
 
« Reply #695 on: June 24, 2012, 02:38:54 PM »

The outer layer has a significant purpose at this stage of understanding the system -
The Last riser - the largest surface area - needs very little head to overcome the total weight of the risers - keeping that in mind, The Pod is "also" used to keep the weight of the system neutral.
The weight keeps the system in a precharge condition.
 Now - in set up - you want the maximum usage of the pod, a fully submerged pod at stroke is best. So sink the system , you only want to lower the water (head) around the pod enough to sink. So if you will add ten inches of head to the pod in order to stroke - reverse that ten inches to sink.
Now the last riser is you adjustment - you can add or subtract the head (water volume in this case) in this layer to balance the system.

Just an example.
If you use 2500 pounds of weight to keep the free flow pressure at least 5.0 psi, the pod itself will not neutralize the weight - just increase the head in the last layer - a tiny bit of pressure goes a long way when you have a large surface.
In our set up procedure - we over charge every layer - then lower the pod water level to the lowest operating point - then lower the water level in the last layer -until the system begins to sink, - or 5.0 psi is reached.
Set up is complete and matched to the weighted system.

Wayne
 
The weight - which is used to keep the air compressed (and head) -

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 02, 2012, 12:55:45 PM
........................... Stop wasting time on it.

Hi Seamus,
Your reply post is a dead give away into your mind.
I agree with you that the Travis effect is worth to allocate some time for.
Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: CuriousChris on October 02, 2012, 03:18:22 PM
Slander, MrWayne? Really? You are accusing me of slandering you? That's amazing, since you don't even read my posts.... and since I've spoken to no one about you at all.

What do you think of that, CuriousChris?
Hey why are you bringing me in on this one? I wouldn't want to be accused of slander in a forum about an impossible device, Oh my that would be terrible. Oh and its libel by the way ;)


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: CuriousChris on October 02, 2012, 03:22:26 PM

Anyway because no one wants to answer my plea for help in understanding...

Here is my take.

The inverted cup in the fish tank. that's NOT displacement. that's Hydraulics. its all about ratio's. and it was very funny, but I don't think I was meant to laugh.

Read about pascal's law sometime. Maybe you'll understand why you'll never get out more than you put in.

I blame pascal for a lot of my troubles! He has ruined many a party.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 02, 2012, 04:51:49 PM
Hi Larry,
With regards to understanding the graph data in your post #2485, I saw an odd trend that brought me to the following questions ( To put you at ease, I post with peace, I do not have any intentions to do a jugular vampire act on you, you must be weary to have received some blood stained pages lately)

1.. The total PSI is very low (as read from the Y axis).  Is the listed pressure, the overall PSI or only for one layer?
2.. The non-linear travis force/psi trend is negative going slope, (I would have expected a positive slope,  increasing lb/psi as pressure increases)

Are you 100% sure ?

Michel

Hi Michel,
 
Thanks for checking. The low PSI is because of the small model. I used a small model because of its greater SI advantage. The trend is negative and I been looking into that with the attached spreadsheet, see notes at top. It seems to have something to do with the difference ratio of PSI increase in the columns, basically air compression effects. I added the fields in light yellow to copied data from the 3 Riser spreadsheet.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 02, 2012, 04:54:30 PM
Anyway because no one wants to answer my plea for help in understanding...

Here is my take.

The inverted cup in the fish tank. that's NOT displacement. that's Hydraulics. its all about ratio's. and it was very funny, but I don't think I was meant to laugh.

Read about pascal's law sometime. Maybe you'll understand why you'll never get out more than you put in.

I blame pascal for a lot of my troubles! He has ruined many a party.

Hello Chris,
Yes, you are a latecomer - It has been suggested to other "late comers"  to click on my Name and read my posts - to catch you up.

At least see that the video of the Travis effect was only the inception point which lead to the ZED.

In the reading you will find the link to the patent (pending) link and see the system.

You may not realize it - but you come in the middle of third party replications - which two four have reported success - the other two are still working on their builds and testing.

You might spend a little more time reading - just saying.

I will match "your effort" to understand.

So far your response is the normal knee jerk response to a quick glance - true "Curiosity" will take a bit more effort with this one.

Good hunting!

Hope you catch up.

Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 02, 2012, 05:03:25 PM
Hey why are you bringing me in on this one? I wouldn't want to be accused of slander in a forum about an impossible device, Oh my that would be terrible. Oh and its libel by the way ;)
My apology for TK... Chris
I catch your humor (or what you think is humor at this point)_- we have been sharing this discovery with constant badgering and interuption from some - I hope you do not join the effort - we have plenty of that.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on October 02, 2012, 05:50:09 PM
Hi Guys,

I'm uploading my second version of my spreadsheet. Much more detail in here and still shows potential for OU, so I'm looking for pointers to check where my lack of understanding (or clouded vision!?), is leading me to this conclusion. This is still a 0-layer zed, still without continued pumping of water to sustain the pod's buoyant force. I'm well under way in adding layers and hopefully, once Se3d releases his sim, I can check if my answers add up.

In summary, setup as is, with the theoretical no losses:
  In - pump water = 103.6 J
  Out - Buoyant force pod up - 71.1 J
  Out - drain to refill source - 32.5 J
  Out - Pod sinks - 56.9 J

  Cycle complete = 56.9 J excess

-or-

  In - pump water = 103.6 J
  Out - PE difference in pod - 56.9 J
  Out - drain to refill source - 32.5 J
  Out - Pod sinks - 56.9 J

  Cycle complete = 42.7 J excess

-or-

  In - pump water = 103.6 J
  Out - PE difference in pod - 56.9 J
  Out - Pod sinks - 56.9 J

  Cycle complete = 0.8 J excess (rounding errors?). This value though can be increased by increasing the weight of the pod as although the stroke won't be as far, the work required to fill is reduced as more starting (pre-charge?), water can be in the pod tank.

Tell me where I've gone wrong!?

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on October 02, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Hi Everyone,
This is just a note on the sim progress.  I took a different approach last weekend.  I decided to simplify the math and do more iterations, even though it is a lot slower calculation (think very slow animations, like watching paint dry).  However, I also took an approach that let me calculate any number of layers at the same time (currently limited to 6 for no good reason).  I could not let the builders get too far ahead of me ;)
I still have more work looking at all the edge conditions and testing different cases (and seeing if there is any way to speed it up).  However, I am not stuck inside the complicated math anymore, but moving forward with debugging operational code.   :)
[size=78%]~Dennis[/size]
Hi see3d,
thank you for update. I'm really interested in your COP numbers >0 layers. I do not know whether it helps but in my spreadsheet  10iterations gave me precision +- 10. 10k iterations +-1 and above 100k provides only precision behind decimal point. I'm using excel just for the 10iterations, to get more precision I put together small C++ program that does any amount of iterations to see "exactly" where is the result converging.
respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 02, 2012, 10:55:39 PM
Hi see3d,
thank you for update. I'm really interested in your COP numbers >0 layers. I do not know whether it helps but in my spreadsheet  10iterations gave me precision +- 10. 10k iterations +-1 and above 100k provides only precision behind decimal point. I'm using excel just for the 10iterations, to get more precision I quickly put together small C++ program that does any amount of iterations to see "exactly" where is the result converging.
respect,
Marcel
I was surprised about the iterations.  The thing that I thought would take many iterations to settle took only 2.  The thing I thought would need 100 took 1000.  I obviously need to understand why if I am going to be able to speed it up.  I am looking for at least 3 significant digits of precision.  I don't want to see a perceptible wiggle in a straight line on my sim transfer function chart. 

The thing that needed few, was iterating between the water and air stackup to balance the air PSI, air volume, and head differentials across multiple layers.

The thing that took a lot, was my independent variable of the Pod Water Head level.  Those are not the only iterations I do though.  I iterate to find the balance point of the lifting force, lift distance, and loaded riser weight.  That means three nested loop iterations.  Some of my iterations use a binary search instead of linear for speed.  In the worst case, I could escape to C# to speed up the nested iterations.  It is harder to debug though, so I want to get it right in the scripting language first.

I am not ready to publicly state sim COP numbers before I have verified the sim to a build. 

The sim is showing that the input pressure to output pressure gain increases with more levels.  The PSI increases towards the Pod.  The head differentials decrease towards the exhaust.  That is what I would expect with the model dimensions I am using to test.  My single layer model algorithm matched in output to a single layer output in my multiple layer model.  They use different mathematical approaches.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on October 02, 2012, 11:31:42 PM
Hi guys,


maybe an interesting observation...


Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 02, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
Hi guys,

maybe an interesting observation...

Marcel
Yes, this is how I run my new sim, with initial incompressible air, except that I have to put in very small units of water at a time.  Then I convert the incompressible air to compressible air and recalculate the air volume again for each small addition of water.  Then back to incompressible air for the next pass.  It really simplified the math.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 03, 2012, 12:01:42 AM
@Marcel: In the system we are studying the upper inverted "U" is movable: it is formed by the riser sitting over the first ringwall. Please add one more picture: what happens to the levels when the "riser" is released and goes up by _one unit vertically_.

Also.... are you adding your units of water "for free", or do they have to push against the  heads of water already in the chamber in order to wind up inside?

Since the potential difference you've noted is the difference between the two water levels...... as one goes up the other goes down, and it only takes one unit of total travel to cancel out the "two units" of potential difference.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 03, 2012, 01:15:57 AM
Hi guys,


maybe an interesting observation...


Marcel
Very good observation, you are near one of the diamonds of the ZED.

Be careful not to make the not so obvious mistake (very common) of stroking too far, one of the things my engineers struggled with - they wanted a long stroke - it makes sense to long stroke  (unless you understand doing so drops your efficiency - it is a give and take ratio).

Eventually they learned to stop looking at a 'single Zed assembly' as whole ZED, when one zed is sinking - the other is stroking -
What is the other half of the ZED doing - and how does that change the relationships - is something only a few have started to understand.

keeping the stroke short allows you to stay within the highest value of the 2 -1 differential gain, makes managing the replacement head (for the new volume above the ring wall) simple, and keeps you within the higher value / efficiency of the system.

Second Part of the Diamond - you only drew one layer - if you had six layers - the one unit in the pod would have resulted in how many units of differential?

Third part of the Diamond - weighting the riser reduces the compression and expansion - how does this effect the unitized differential?

Good observation!

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 03, 2012, 03:18:44 AM
Hi Michel,
 Thanks for checking. The low PSI is because of the small model. I used a small model because of its greater SI advantage. The trend is negative and I been looking into that with the attached spreadsheet, see notes at top. It seems to have something to do with the difference ratio of PSI increase in the columns, basically air compression effects. I added the fields in light yellow to copied data from the 3 Riser spreadsheet.
 Regards, Larry
 

Hi Larry,
The usual problem I have with xls, even if they are my own older ones, is figuring out afterwards the logic that was applied to them during their creation. In the end, I give up because of the time consumed.
I would agree with the xls graphs and data, because it appears to support the expected natural tendency of the medium and nature.
Give me some more time to work my way through this one, for lady luck to smile

Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 03, 2012, 05:29:56 AM
Hi All,

This is just a screenshot of the sim output for a sample short stroke 3 riser ZED.  It has a zero weight counterbalanced riser.  I am still debugging the auto initialization balance code and looking for edge conditions and fixing bugs, but this picture is worth more than a thousand lines of code to me.   :)

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 03, 2012, 08:13:37 AM
Hi All,
This is just a screenshot of the sim output for a sample short stroke 3 riser ZED.  It has a zero weight counterbalanced riser.  I am still debugging the auto initialization balance code and looking for edge conditions and fixing bugs, but this picture is worth more than a thousand lines of code to me.   :)
~Dennis

Hi Dennis,

Fantastic development, great effort, congrats.
Would it be possible to include a graph line that shows the lift/psi, a trend that Wayne always referred to in his early mails.
This would highlite a diversion from the symmetrical input/output relationship (since overall psi is an input cost and lift is output).
Something you (we) would be looking for, I imagine.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 03, 2012, 11:12:48 AM
@see3d: that looks very nice indeed.

It would be nice to have some reference across the horizontal axis, like sample number or "time", just for reference. The blue triangle of applied force is a nice way of visualising it but it's not easy to describe.

If I may interpret:
You are pushing up with the piston with constantly and linearly increasing force (the blue triangle at bottom, the area of which corresponds to the total work input). The output graphs show a clear knee when the riser lifts off, at an input of about 3.3 pounds or so. The green line shows the "effective" weight of the weightless riser and the lifted weight, decreasing until it reaches zero at the liftoff point. So you're pushing upwards with about 3.3 pounds at that point and the 5 pound weight begins to rise upwards (the knee in the output graphs.) You've already pushed the input piston in by about 0.15 or 0.20 inch at that point (the blue line on the output graphs). Then the riser/weight rises, so the "output force" the green line is zero, but I'd call this the "effective weight" or something like this myself. You have to keep pushing with increasing force, moving the piston in another half-inch or so (the steep part of the blue line). Then you hit the top stop and the second "knee" or leveloff in the graphs is seen. The PSI line (black) looks like it might even show LarryC's little swervy curvy thing along in there once the riser starts moving upwards.


So, I note that 2.609 inch-lbs (input work) > 2.536 inch-lbs (output work) and if you let any air out of the pressurised chamber.... you will have to replace it somehow to complete a cycle. It might be interesting to see how much you could bleed out at the top, though, before the weight/riser starts to sink.

I hope I got the interpretation right... I'm sure I'll hear about it if I didn't.

So, can we then see what the descent cycle looks like, and where/how there is supposed to be any apple to toss to the other Zed?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: CuriousChris on October 03, 2012, 11:29:38 AM
My apology for TK... Chris
I catch your humor (or what you think is humor at this point)_- we have been sharing this discovery with constant badgering and interuption from some - I hope you do not join the effort - we have plenty of that.
Wayne

No need to apologise for TK. It was a bit of an in joke from a comment I made on another thread.
Read it here if your interested
http://www.overunity.com/12711/developing-ideas/msg338441/#msg338441
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on October 03, 2012, 01:48:18 PM
The upstroke analysis looks to be correct, but I don't think that the downstroke is. If the water was allowed to free flow back then the pod would not end up in the position shown. It would be floating and require the amount energy that appeared in the upstroke to reset it to the start position.

Hi Seamus,

Thanks for taking a look and giving feedback. Could I trouble you to expand on your reply a bit though.

From what I have interpreted and understand in what I have read, using the values from spreadsheet as example, due to the pod's weight, when the buoyancy and pod forces are in equilibrium, the pod will be 40% submerged, or 0.36m of the total 0.9m in this case.

This is the starting height of the water inside the pod tank, and overall head height. So at the start, I am thinking that the pod doesn't even need to be locked down, it might be considered virtually weightless due to the forces acting on it, and might only be just touching the base of the tank, but I would think that the pod will be touching the bottom none the less.

Now in this thought experiment, the same quantity of water is added to and then removed from the pod. There's no removal or addition of weight from or to the pod. It is simply locked down while the fill takes place and then let go for the stroke and left to sink as the water retreats.

So as the same amount of water is added and then removed, why would the pod not re-settle back to the bottom of the tank?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 03, 2012, 11:16:34 PM
This is a short update on build modifications that are ongoing with the little three layer (1 Pod, 2 Riser) system that has been reported on and shown in the video earlier.
 
The "Top Stop" that I showed in post #2491 was very stable in and of itself, but presented two problems:
 
1)  The Top Stop made contact with the edge of the Outer Riser which is not a precision cut.  That edge also has some flexible GOOP cement on it that will make contact with the Top Stop in variable ways.  The Outer Riser is free to rotate and so high and low spots on the edge rotate and can result in the top surface tillting slightly in different directions when in contact with the Top Stop.  The flexible cement also allows for compression.  Both of these issues caused the reading on the Digital Indicator to fluctuate more than desired as the ZED was brought into and away from the Top Stop and when the Load Mass was removed and added.
 
2)  The entire Top Stop was installed about two mm above the maximum of the stroke in the previous testing.  And that was just too far.  It was impossible to get a 10 mm stroke up that high with the same weights that were used in the previous tests.
 
The solution to both issues was to add three equally spaced domed contact pins on the underside of the Top Stop.  These were made by smoothing and slightly rounding the head of three finishing nails.  These were driven into predrilled holes in the Top Stop and glued in place.  So now the Outer Riser makes contact by its Lexan endcap with these three contact points.  Very repeatable.  These three new contact points also protrude about one mm below the lower surface of the Top Stop and bring the stroke range back into a workable position for using the same weights that were tested previously.
 
I have replaced the wobbly electrical tape and plywood disk spacers, Cedar plank, and the Tupperware container "preweight" that contained wet sand with a precision machined steel spacer (borrowed from a previous project) and a bar magnet that gives the Indicator a very stable touch point.  The result is that now while "locked" by being in contact with the Top Stop at the top of stroke the Lift Mass can be removed and returned again and again and the Indicator only fluctuates a maximum of approx. .05 mm. 
 
FWIW.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 04, 2012, 12:08:26 AM
Hi Dennis,

Fantastic development, great effort, congrats.
Would it be possible to include a graph line that shows the lift/psi, a trend that Wayne always referred to in his early mails.
This would highlite a diversion from the symmetrical input/output relationship (since overall psi is an input cost and lift is output).
Something you (we) would be looking for, I imagine.

Regards, Michel
Thanks Michel.  Yes, I have a plot of input vs output work, and I can plot any 4 internal parameters that I choose.  I did not show it, because I did not want people to start picking apart details on an unfinished product, looking for meaning, where none can be certain yet.  The picture is just to be taken as a general progress overview at this point.  Stressing over details are for later, after I have more confidence in the sim results.

~Dennis

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 04, 2012, 12:17:12 AM
@see3d: that looks very nice indeed.

It would be nice to have some reference across the horizontal axis, like sample number or "time", just for reference. The blue triangle of applied force is a nice way of visualising it but it's not easy to describe.

If I may interpret:
You are pushing up with the piston with constantly and linearly increasing force (the blue triangle at bottom, the area of which corresponds to the total work input). The output graphs show a clear knee when the riser lifts off, at an input of about 3.3 pounds or so. The green line shows the "effective" weight of the weightless riser and the lifted weight, decreasing until it reaches zero at the liftoff point. So you're pushing upwards with about 3.3 pounds at that point and the 5 pound weight begins to rise upwards (the knee in the output graphs.) You've already pushed the input piston in by about 0.15 or 0.20 inch at that point (the blue line on the output graphs). Then the riser/weight rises, so the "output force" the green line is zero, but I'd call this the "effective weight" or something like this myself. You have to keep pushing with increasing force, moving the piston in another half-inch or so (the steep part of the blue line). Then you hit the top stop and the second "knee" or leveloff in the graphs is seen. The PSI line (black) looks like it might even show LarryC's little swervy curvy thing along in there once the riser starts moving upwards.


So, I note that 2.609 inch-lbs (input work) > 2.536 inch-lbs (output work) and if you let any air out of the pressurised chamber.... you will have to replace it somehow to complete a cycle. It might be interesting to see how much you could bleed out at the top, though, before the weight/riser starts to sink.

I hope I got the interpretation right... I'm sure I'll hear about it if I didn't.

So, can we then see what the descent cycle looks like, and where/how there is supposed to be any apple to toss to the other Zed?
TK, your interpretation is pretty good.  Things have a linear transfer function between a couple of breakpoints around the start and end of the riser lift.  There are some curvy lines on other chart parameters in other charts, but they are derived from this chart, so not unexpected.

This is about all I can say with confidence until I get more debugging and verifications done.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on October 04, 2012, 03:57:47 PM
I don't see that happening. I would expect it to remain floating as the water surface equalizes on both sides. (This is all it can do without any extra energy input). Bear in  mind that the total volume that the water can occupy changes as it moves up.

Hi Seamus,

Hmm, as I wasn't sure I decided to set up something up as an approximation of spreadsheet and, with respect, I believe you are incorrect.

I took some crude measurements, and I repeated this several times to ensure that what I saw occurred every time. It's very crude to simply demonstrate the proof of concept so I beg you judge me too harshly. Attached are some pictures I took as I went through the process:
PA050003s.jpg - Close-up of the mark on the pod to show it is level with the level of the water.
PA050004s.jpg - Close-up levels of water in the two tanks to show they start level.
PA050005s.jpg - Showing the whole setup, pod is free floating, siphon tube is full and ready to go.
PA050006s.jpg - Pod mechanically locked down with a tub of Maltesers. You can see it's not perfect as the line is now just below the surface of the water.
PA050007s.jpg - Now I don't have a pump, so the fill tanks is lifted and the siphon kicks off taking the water from the fill tank to the pod tank.
PA050008s.jpg - A couple of minutes later and the two water levels are level, pod is still locked down.
PA050009s.jpg - Just to show position of everything before stroke.
PA050010s.jpg - Pod restraint is removed, pod rises and you can see again the water level in the pod tank is level with the mark on the pod.
PA050011s.jpg - Just to show position of everything at end of stroke.
PA050012s.jpg - Fill tank lowered back to starting point, water level now higher in pod tank.
PA050014s.jpg - A long time later (definitely need a bigger exhaust pipe!), we are back to the starting point.

Pod tank diameter 13.5cm, height 16.9cm.
Pod diameter 10cm, height 13.5cm, weight 374g.
Height of water with pod locked and pod tank filled 12cm.

According to the spreadsheet, these values give a stroke height would have been 3.5cm (really should have measured that, doh! I think I'll set this up again tomorrow just for that.), and would have had 0.13 J PE difference from the down stroke.

So, I don't think the question is whether the pods sinks back after cycling the water, but how much useful work can be taken out whilst it does? And depending on losses up to that point, would it be enough to cause an imbalance between work in/work out?

Again, please let me know if I've messed up anywhere thus making my conclusions incorrect.

Right back to adding risers/layers to the spreadsheet.

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 04, 2012, 10:10:13 PM
@AmoLago:
Thanks for doing that demonstration and documenting it so well. A ruler somewhere in the picture, next to the tank, would help; one could go over the still pictures with dividers or calipers and get good measurements that way. But it's not really necessary for what you are showing, which is that the water levels will equalize and the system will end up back where it started.
But the situation you have demonstrated isn't what Seamus 10n was talking about, I don't think. It looks to me like what he finds objectionable is the situation that the pod _starts out floating_ above the bottom, then sinks back all the way down to the bottom at the end. In your demo the pod starts on the bottom, and winds back up there. If you started with just a bit more water in the system to begin with, so that the pod started at, say, 1 cm high, then that is where it would wind up, not all the way down at the bottom.
So you are both right: If you are adding nothing and subtracting nothing and your input winds back up at the same place where you started.... so will your output.


Quote
So, I don't think the question is whether the pods sinks back after cycling the water, but how much useful work can be taken out whilst it does? And depending on losses up to that point, would it be enough to cause an imbalance between work in/work out?

To answer this question, imagine a string attached to the top of the pod. What force would you have to pull upwards with to prevent the pod from starting to sink?
Or, conversely, imagine that you are taking work from the water pressure as it flows during the pod sinking. This is equivalent to pushing against a little bit of elevated head. So, to simulate this, don't put the input reservoir back down completely on the table at the "recovery" but rather elevate it, by say, 1 cm. Now where do the water levels and pod wind up?



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on October 05, 2012, 12:37:48 AM
Any update on the "Zed for Dummies"  book and where one can be purchased?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 05, 2012, 03:24:37 AM
Any update on the "Zed for Dummies"  book and where one can be purchased?
My thoughts were to offer the book after the Validation.
We are concerned that it would send mixed signals releasing it before.
Thanks for asking - Michel put a lot of work into it.
Wayne
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 05, 2012, 04:50:01 AM
Red is planning a sequel, for after validation, including an epilogue of recent 'oh so simple face palming' improvements & efficiencies.

This will be called "ZED's for Zombies".

 ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on October 05, 2012, 06:40:49 AM
@AmoLago:
Thanks for doing that demonstration and documenting it so well. A ruler somewhere in the picture, next to the tank, would help; one could go over the still pictures with dividers or calipers and get good measurements that way. But it's not really necessary for what you are showing, which is that the water levels will equalize and the system will end up back where it started.
Hi TK,

Thanks for the kind words, much appreciated, I'll bear the ruler idea in mind for next time.

But the situation you have demonstrated isn't what Seamus 10n was talking about, I don't think. It looks to me like what he finds objectionable is the situation that the pod _starts out floating_ above the bottom, then sinks back all the way down to the bottom at the end. In your demo the pod starts on the bottom, and winds back up there. If you started with just a bit more water in the system to begin with, so that the pod started at, say, 1 cm high, then that is where it would wind up, not all the way down at the bottom.
So you are both right: If you are adding nothing and subtracting nothing and your input winds back up at the same place where you started.... so will your output.
You know what, I went back and re-read his post again and I see what you're saying:
Quote from: seamus103
I would expect it to remain floating as the water surface equalizes on both sides.
So apologies Seamus, yes of course, the pod will remain floating while the tank drains and once the water is completely balanced again, only then will the pod be back at base. Maybe that wasn't as clear as it should have been within the spreadsheet, but it was certainly the intention.

To answer this question, imagine a string attached to the top of the pod. What force would you have to pull upwards with to prevent the pod from starting to sink?
Or, conversely, imagine that you are taking work from the water pressure as it flows during the pod sinking. This is equivalent to pushing against a little bit of elevated head. So, to simulate this, don't put the input reservoir back down completely on the table at the "recovery" but rather elevate it, by say, 1 cm. Now where do the water levels and pod wind up?
Hmm, this is where I fall down. I'm all good at playing with numbers, but the practical part eludes me, certainly as far as what is considered "work out" anyway.

So, String theory! (pun intended)
I would think that initially very little force would be required on the string to stop the pod sinking, but as the tank drained you would need more force to hold it in the same position. As we hold it in place, the pod is not sinking with the water, so the water would eventually equalise at a slightly lower point in the two tanks (no mass of the pod to cater for), until we let the pod go, which would cause the two water levels to rise back to the, in this case, start position at the 40% mark on the pod.

To the second point, I will try later cos it's fun to play, but I would think that the water levels will equalise at a higher point and thus the pod doesn't sink to the bottom. I also would think that how far off the bottom the pod will be is going to be determined by the ratio of the area of the fill tank and the gap around the pod. This would mean that further work would would be required to complete the cycle - probably approximately what we just took out of the system :(

Alright, to leave this post on a more positive note (for myself at least), the spreadsheet's calculations do appear to be correct, even if it might not be possible to use the full or indeed any of PE difference of teh sinking pod. This at least gives me confidence to push on to adding risers/layers to see if there is a benefit to that. And reading Wayne's last post, I think I also need to look in to controlling the stroke height rather than letting the pod float to it's full potential.

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 05, 2012, 06:56:58 AM
Amolago ..

EDIT: you just squeaked in while I was writing  ;D

Thanks also for taking the time to document a simple experiment of POP.

Further to what TK & Seamus have said, I would add that ...

Logic should show without calculations that the Input should equal the Output, if the complete cycle is mapped from start to end - the end condition must be all components returned to start conditions.

I gather that your Pod has just enough water surrounding it to cause it to 'float', just above the bottom of its tank floor - this is where water levels are equalized & is the starting condition.

It might be beneficial to view your system from a slightly different perspective - that is, that with the Pod just floating you have shown a good example of Archimedes Floatation Law - where the weight of the Pod [374 g] is exactly equaled by the equivalent weight of water displaced by the Pod below & up to the water line.

So, in a sense, you can forget about the Pod itself when it is 'floating' - as far as the tank is concerned the density of the water inside the tank is uniform up to the water line i.e. the weight of water in an identical tank without a Pod would rise to the same water line height & have uniform density etc.

When you release the Pod it rises because its virtual density is less that the water medium for its real displacement volume, until displacement volume in water weight equals 374 g.

N.B. See3d could also use this 'control experiment run mode' approach quite realistically to test & cross check the integrity of his code & sims - IOW's don't lock down the Pod & Risers etc then release them to do Work - just let them float up unrestricted - when the Input & Output sums equalize to zero [assuming no losses] then you have created a floatation experiment adjusted for water transfer.

The question then becomes ...

Does or Is the Work Done capability [Output] of the Pod acting as a piston [rather than slowly floating up & down via water transfer in this simplified approach] greater in one scenario over the other ?

IF locking down & releasing of the Pod shows a clear advantage in the energy equations then something new has definitely been discovered & it doesn't depend on number of risers or differential pressures etc.

IF there is NO advantage to be seen here then the Travis Effect is related to number of risers & pressure differential & is not a function of a Pod acting as a piston rather than floating up as water is transferred back & forth etc.

........................

The skeptics here categorically feel there isn't any advantage to be had in a short displacement stroke because whilst the force is variable for the TE the Work capability is solely related to the Water Volume increase under the Pod as it rises, whatever distance that might be !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on October 05, 2012, 07:57:35 AM
My thoughts were to offer the book after the Validation.
We are concerned that it would send mixed signals releasing it before.
Thanks for asking - Michel put a lot of work into it.
Wayne
Sounds good Wayne, looking forward to it 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 05, 2012, 08:38:01 AM
..............................................
IF locking down & releasing of the Pod shows a clear advantage in the energy equations then something new has definitely been discovered & it doesn't depend on number of risers or differential pressures etc.

IF there is NO advantage to be seen here then the Travis Effect is related to number of risers & pressure differential & is not a function of a Pod acting as a piston rather than floating up as water is transferred back & forth etc.

The skeptics here categorically feel there isn't any advantage to be had in a short displacement stroke because whilst the force is variable for the TE the Work capability is solely related to the Water Volume increase under the Pod as it rises, whatever distance that might be !

Hi Fletcher & all,
In comparison to the Travis device, locking the pod at the end of stroke distance, as I see it, has to do with removing the load and maintaining the stroke head, the head maintains the pressure. To maintain the pressure has a greater benefit in the dual zed setup by its capability to equalize both zed’s, than the gain would be if extracted and later to be inputted.  Also it is easier to recover the energy of a steady pressure volume than that of a receding one, a situation you would have if a float up would be allowed after removal of the load.  The zed described by Wayne is customized for a dual balanced setup,  a single zed wouldn’t do without alternative recovery measures (which would equal the dual zed in any case).

       "The Travis Effect is related to number of risers & pressure differential & is not a function of a Pod acting as a piston rather than floating up as water is transferred back & forth etc."
The Pod as a piston can not float up without all risers floating up also, the pod is part of the riser assembly, all need to act in unison,  so the whole contraption must be seen as one.  The uniqueness of the pod (area) is the single point of control for the whole device, the pod water does serves 3 functions,  the pod head controls the pod (for lift) and all the riser heads (total lift) since it is located at the bottom of the water column. The third water function is volume injection at stroke pressure to fill-in vertical lift space created by the stroke.

The skeptics are right in general that there is no advantage in a short stroke. The reason for short stroke is a requirement due to the physical properties of the multilayer buoyancy device.  This is the only way to minimize water input cost.  The more layers, the more this (short stroke) becomes an advantage. This is a main Travis effect pillar towards OU.  This has been discussed previously, I don’t remember on which page, so for details pls look back into the pages for a more detailed explanation.

Regards, Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on October 05, 2012, 08:53:44 AM
Does or Is the Work Done capability [Output] of the Pod acting as a piston [rather than slowly floating up & down via water transfer in this simplified approach] greater in one scenario over the other ?

If I understand what you are asking correctly, then I believe this is the case. This also is something that puzzled me while developing the spreadsheet with the PE difference checks you suggested. I've reasoned it in the following way:

If I place a marble on top of the pod then fill the pod tank with the pod unlocked, once the pod hits the top stop, the marble will only have been pushed as high as the pod floats.

However, if I lock the pod down, then I release it once the pod tank is full, the pod has a much grater force behind it to start with, and once it hits the stop, the marble would be thrown further into the air. How far I guess depends on where the stop actually is, too soon and too late will diminish the hight to which the marble would reach. Also I would think that a lighter pod would generate a higher "throw".

I think this can be seen from the fact that the reduced PE difference in the water level is greater than the gained PE difference in the risen pod. In the spreadsheet, the water drop is 71J, while the pod rise is 57J.

The trouble, I think, as mandaresk pointed out, is that when the work gained using this greater value is added to the work value in draining the tank you find it equals that which was required to fill it in the first place.

If I have understood you correctly, this would probably mean that your second option about the layers, or maybe even some garbled combination of the two, is the supposed secret to the whole thing.

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 05, 2012, 11:37:06 AM
Amolago ..

A simple thought experiment for you to consider.

Take a deep tank with a known water volume in it - have a Pod [with a marble on top] suspended by a TK string so that its bottom surface just touches the water line in the tank - cut the string & let the Pod & marble fall - it will sink into the water & descend past its floatation interface [lets say half the height of the Pod] due to inertia & momentum - at the same time water will rise up the sides of the tank & Pod as the Pod displaces water - the direction of the Pod will reverse & it will then accelerate upwards due to upthrust force & have momentum - viscosity drag force will impede its descent & rise velocity's somewhat.

1. Will the Pod rise all the way out of the water [start conditions re-established] which recedes down the tank sides as the Pod rises ? N.B. equilibrium of forces & water height will be established when the Pod with marble floats.

Clearly the system will show decayed oscillation until equilibrium is achieved where the system CoM is at its lowest height & system PE is least.

2. IF, on the descent phase, the Pod pushes by a one-way pawl [like a one-way clutch or bearing system] & on the way upwards is stopped by the pawl would you expect the marble [not constrained by the pawl] to rise above its starting height ?

Would you expect, at any time or in any configuration you choose, the system CoM to be higher than the starting conditions CoM height & PE ?

N.B. the system starting conditions CoM height & PE is gained by the Work you physically put into the system to run the thought experiment.

Now, view the same thought experiment from the perspective of locking down a Pod & marble & lifting water to the tank & filling the sides with water etc, then releasing the Pod with marble - do you expect a different result in this mode as opposed to the earlier where you still have to do Work to take the system from its preferred gravity induced equilibrium state of lowest PE ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 05, 2012, 02:33:57 PM
Amolago ..
A simple thought for you to consider.

Gents,

With layers or without layers, with air or without air. In the end it all doesn’t matter, if the device remains symmetrical it will also remain symmetrical in its energy process,  in = out. That is what Seamus has been saying all along and he is absolutely correct. That is why we have a law.  Now I am getting into a repeat of a earlier posting which I do not want to do.

AmoLago, I am sure you treat your one layer float as symmetrical, if you think it is, then the “out” will equal the “in”.  The normal standard physics processes are symmetrical ?
Can a multi layer float be symmetrical?, absolutely yes,  although it offers many more possibilities to tamper and/or interfere with the buoyancy processes to change the symmetry and then it would depend on how you use it. 

For example, to go back to my statement in my previous post,
“The reason for short stroke is a requirement due to the physical properties of the multilayer buoyancy device.  This is the only way to minimize water input cost.  The more layers, the more this short stroke becomes an advantage. This is one of the main Travis effect pillars towards OU.” The reason for this is simple and obvious, enough “the only way to minimize water input cost” 

But Wayne didn’t stop there, knowing he had a fantastic lift device, he explored how can other internal ratio’s be promoted and exploited further, by their own natural properties or as needed, were artificially modified to create a non-symmetrical device.

Symmetrical: Exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities
Non-Symmetrical: Not exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities

What can be understood with term non-symmetrical in our context. The non-linear effect immediately indicates a disparity between in- an output.  Allowing the device to generate its capable output for a lesser input cost. Effectively internally the full bill is paid in full but not by the external input

Wayne described before the non-linear effect when relating to getting more lift per PSI in the higher than in the lower pressure ranges. (example: a 1.6x increase in pressure gives a 3x force advantage,  5 to 8psi increases lift from 2500 to 7500 pounds),
This characteristic is best expressed with the “pounds/psi” value.  Before you throw up your hands and say this is technically not possible because lift is “area x psi”.  Since area is fixed, the force should follow the psi,  how can the lb/psi be non-linear ? 
Do remember that the psi quoted here is the psi at the bottom of the water column because that relates to our input cost. The pressures on each lift area are determined by each layer’s water head. This for sure can change the lift ratio’s quite substantially.
This means that the relationship from input to output can vary,  one input value can have different output values. In the demo Travis device this change can amount to a 33% variation (based on the example figures above)

This advantage conversion factor for the Zed is available in the upstroke but also in the down stroke, a double advantage.
Lets go back to the example : a 1.6x increase in pressure gives a 3x force advantage,  5 to 8psi increases lift from 2500 to 7500 pounds

To better understand the process, you need to understand the relationships
Keep the following type equivalents in mind : Pressure =distance,  Volume=Weight
 1. -  During the upstroke, the input is   â€œvolume x pressure” and the output is “weight x distance”
 2. -  During the down-stroke, the input is “weight x distance”  and the output is “volume x pressure”.

If you look carefully, you will see that the upper and down value type relationships are crossed. 

1..  Top “weight” relates to  bottom “pressure ”
and
2..  Top “distance” relates to Bottom “volume”

With the result,
If the non-linear ratio in the upstroke gives us “ 1.6x increase in pressure gives a 3x force (weight) advantage”
That means that the down-stroke will give , a 1x force (weight) will give 60% (5/8) of pressure advantage instead of 1/3 ( this effectively nearly doubles the energy return during the down stroke).

AmoLargo,  Any calculation that is based on symmetry will always give a balance in-output. The laws are not wrong.
 So the first to do is,  to look for non-symmetry. The solution to the complex is in the simple.

Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on October 05, 2012, 04:54:44 PM
Now, view the same thought experiment from the perspective of locking down a Pod & marble & lifting water to the tank & filling the sides with water etc, then releasing the Pod with marble - do you expect a different result in this mode as opposed to the earlier where you still have to do Work to take the system from its preferred gravity induced equilibrium state of lowest PE ?

Hi Fletcher,

As I've stated before, I really am a newbie at this, so I'm grateful for the patience shown. Yes, I did have to Google "one-way pawl", just so you know what your up against!

I've read, re-read, and read again, tried a few things in the kitchen, and read once more and I think I've finally understood what you're getting at. That said, I'm not sure of what to post in response to this.

I can see your point and fully agree that if we determine a maximum height a pod might be able to float or sink to, that once it is let go in attempting to reach equilibrium it will never hit those points again.

In answer to the actual question posed though... no, I would not expect any difference in outcome from the two methods.

Ah, as I write that sentence, I think I now get it and subsequently deleted most of my post!

So we're going for:
Quote from: fletcher
IF there is NO advantage to be seen here then the Travis Effect is related to number of risers & pressure differential & is not a function of a Pod acting as a piston rather than floating up as water is transferred back & forth etc.


Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 05, 2012, 11:33:32 PM
@Red_Sunset
GREAT! writeup - well done.

Thanks
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 06, 2012, 12:57:14 AM
I've added a new version of the calculator of a Single Top 5 U, instead of the Outside Retainer Water Drop, this version used a Percent of Ideal Force to give the desired results, so 66% or 33% or any % is easy to forecast some of the results for your model. Should help with Wayne's 2505 post. 
 
 
@Red,
Great Post (#2557), you may yet break thru the concrete brain barrier of the perverters of the truth here to suit their position and Ego.
 
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 06, 2012, 01:36:40 AM
Quote
you may yet break thru the concrete brain barrier
- - of even the simple minded experimenters  ;D
so many simple things, so many clues, so much to think about, to get to the truth....
takes time and effort - jury's still out
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 06, 2012, 02:33:59 AM
Red .. FWIW, it isn't that I am deliberately ignoring your attempts at explaining an as yet unproven phenomenon - I just don't see the value in long worded discussions without supporting empirical evidence or at the very least well drawn diagrams by you - I do in fact agree that asymmetric force generation is a necessity to finding gravitational induced OU.

The point of working thru with the likes of Amolago/Chris is that they are prepared to examine first principles [as is See3d] - from that foundation [like building a house from a corner stone] where there is no asymmetry of forces it is possible to move forward to other areas of investigation & not be looking backwards - as most will be aware building a spreadsheet or a sim is far more than plugging in numbers, you have to understand physics principles & apply them mathematically correctly - if a simple spreadsheet or sim shows an anomalous result [such as Marcel's did] against a simple thought experiment or control experiment it is likely a human error is the cause rather than incorrectly unaccounted for physics in the form of the math equations.

I am not attempting to straight jacket anybody's thinking - just examining logic & following the evidence when it might be provided for discussion.

I could have examined what you wrote a lot more but LarryC gave me cause to do something more interesting with my time.

Have a good day.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 06, 2012, 07:39:44 AM
The simple answer Webby is that when a device is promoted to be OU & its Prime Mover is ONLY Gravity Input [as has been stated, i.e. no environmental heat energy entering or leaving the system via adiabatic cooling & isothermal heating] and you've said that compressible air is not a requirement, just another low density fluid to water, then gravity force is the ONLY force available to change the symmetry of all internal forces & pressures are derived from gravity acceleration etc.

N.B. densities remain constant for all intents & purposes & since some of the modeling & builds shown use compressible air as an internal spring analogue we have to make some allowance for the fact that the graphs will have curves because air is not an IDEAL GAS so is indicative of the IDEAL GAS LAWS behaviour to a point.

The upshot is that ANY Gravity ONLY device which is OU should be able to do at least one of two things.

1. INCREASE the system PE to higher than it started at, assuming it starts at equilibrium conditions of lowest PE [gravity causes mass to find its lowest position of PE].

N.B. this gain in system PE can be used to do WORK OUTPUT.

2. INCREASE the system KE i.e. if a system is in a state of rest & is given Input Energy then to cycle it must have PE restored completely & to do WORK it must have additional KE gained from the dynamic processes, which can be bled off to do external WORK OUTPUT.


The due diligence is to compare the expected math model against an anomalous device - if the two with extraordinary care are still not able to be aligned or synchronized in behaviour then the math model is lacking in some capacity - the additional due diligence is to then come up with a theory that can be described & tested mathematically to emulate the actual empirical behaviour displayed within levels of confidence.

IMO, at this stage in proceedings we have seen 171 pages of much subjective talk & cheer-leading & very little objective information & analysis of any anomalous behaviour that might show indications of items 1. or 2. above, to get excited about from a skeptics point of view.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2012, 08:33:57 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong.... but we have not been presented with any anomalous behavior to analyze, have we?

The reported behaviours of actual built systems seem to be, so far, entirely non-anomalous and in line with CofE and normal hydraulics and fluid dynamics. Some results from models have been reported to indicate anomalous behaviour and some have been corrected after errors were found or methods improved. Other models have consistently reported ordinary behaviour. Real-world experience with mathematical models of physical systems indicates that it is quite possible to use the wrong model, or the right on incorrectly, and thus draw invalid conclusions about the system being modelled. Data from real operating systems must be obtained and crosschecked with model predictions if any model is to be considered valid.

The only indication of any anomalous behaviour in a real system comes from MrWayne. He's alleged that there are "replications"... but of what exactly we do not get to know. We do know that his longest reported runs are four hours or less and that a model has made 36 watts extra electrical power while running. This is well within the possible stored energy from precharge, elevated water heads, etc inside the large model.

So... where are the sausages? Where is the anomalous behaviour to analyze?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 06, 2012, 09:07:10 AM
Alrighty, it seems as tho it is time for simple questions.

What, in sciences is due diligence?  Is it making a mathematical model that does nothing but use the understood mathematics?? or is it in actually building that item in question.  Well what has been stated here is that the only due diligence needed is to state what is currently understood,, not build and test but just COUNT on what WE think WE know.

Simple thing is, the more we know, the more we know we do not know.

Any person out there care to disagree???

Webby1,  you made a very wise remark,
Similar to saying, I always bake bread with white flour,  and I can not understand why I never get a whole wheat bread out of the oven.

Some more in a similar context......

International diplomacy is starting to become quite important on an international forum. Something we technical people are not very good at.  I am sure Wayne can attest to that when looking back at the topic history of the last 171 pages.

I might have been mistaken on the understanding of the function of this forum. The reason that I read the posts or write posts on this forum is to read, share, other viewpoints different to my own, to receive new idea’s, new possibilities as related to the topic. I would assume that most other people share the same understanding.

Posting on this forum is becoming quite a hazard, when posting an opinions, idea’s and the like, do we need to prove without doubt before we utter an opinion or theory?  I can see that to get a full thesis would be great, but is that the only way.

Wayne’s idea’s and IP are given to you for free without warranties of any kind for you to enrich your technical life with.  I gave you my viewpoint on Wayne’s system,  I have somewhere some calculations from a few months ago that prove the same thing.  But pls do me a favor and put some figures into xls and see for yourself, that is the best proof you ever going to get.

PLEASE DO NOT BELIEVE what anybody says or writes, not just on this forum alone, TV, internet…ect.  Cross validate any interesting information, ONLY YOU ALONE can do that.  Don’t expect others to do that for you.  That has been Wayne’s conviction all along.  Everything starts with a good idea, the more revolutionary the outcome is , the more revolutionary the idea was.

Fletcher, Amolago, I do not disagree with you doing basic physic’s buoyancy tests,  the references ware intended to home you in, since I just feel you are wasting your time, but if that feel good to you and you need no advice, that is also fine with me.  And the same goes also for Seamus’s 4 enclosed walls.  I was looking forward to some questions instead than for example the outright disputing of the “symmetry” dictionary descriptions as a matter of speaking.

I have shortened this mail somewhat to stay diplomatic,  in closing I choose only to include this,   I would imagine it all comes down to an outlook difference alike to an physicist and an inventor, settler and explorer, engineer and inventor, employee and entrepreneur,  tourist and adventurer.  We should allow all people their own freedom within their domain of vision and that should be respected (this is not the same than agreeing to), but the conduit to find out more is through asking questions, not by outright denials.  (remember that Einstein quote from some posts back)

Since none of you have any questions, I have no problem to stay in the background

Regards, Michel





Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 06, 2012, 09:41:56 AM
Dear Skeptics and the like,

Several people have appeared on this forum (inventor included) and given you their version (as they see it) of a system that can do OU (assumed from the gneral viewpoint). They explained the workings, physical  details,  understanding of the system in the only way they can of the phenomena.  I am sure you understand what has been described.

Until now you haven't been able to produce any sensible validation why the system can not work. Produce some reasonable proof to support your objection or stop calling yourself's skeptics worth any salt.

Your posts do not match the reason that you still hang around this forum

Do keep in mind:  This is an commercial system with IP that are not all openly declared, so do your work well.

Concerned member
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 06, 2012, 10:07:28 AM

Posting on this forum is becoming quite a hazard, when posting an opinions, idea’s and the like, do we need to prove without doubt before we utter an opinion or theory?  I can see that to get a full thesis would be great, but is that the only way.

Wayne’s idea’s and IP are given to you for free without warranties of any kind for you to enrich your technical life with.  I gave you my viewpoint on Wayne’s system,  I have somewhere some calculations from a few months ago that prove the same thing.

But pls do me a favor and put some figures into xls and see for yourself, that is the best proof you ever going to get.

Fletcher, Amolago, I do not disagree with you doing basic physic’s buoyancy tests,  the references were intended to home you in, since I just feel you are wasting your time ...

Regards, Michel


Red .. there is a very big difference between expressing & sharing opinions & ideas v's making a declaration of OU demonstrated [the warrantie] - in Wayne's case it is the gravity only force equivalent of a device 'boot strapping' it self upwards gaining PE, so when such a claim is made by whomever the claim moves to another dimension of scrutiny from discussion or opinion or idea.

My objection Red is that Amolago was attempting to reconcile a floatation buoyancy test experiment against his spreadsheet analysis model to launch forward from & better understand your more complex concepts in turn - whilst it is a waste of both our times to have done so where were 'the inner circle' to help him thru this basic stuff so he could move on knowing his model was predictively accurate, at least for ordinary floatation & buoyancy ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 06, 2012, 10:17:47 AM

Dear Skeptics and the like,

Several people have appeared on this forum (inventor included) and given you their version (as they see it) of a system that can do OU (assumed from the gneral viewpoint). They explained the workings, physical  details,  understanding of the system in the only way they can of the phenomena.  I am sure you understand what has been described.

Until now you haven't been able to produce any sensible validation why the system can not work. Produce some reasonable proof to support your objection or stop calling yourself's skeptics worth any salt.

Your posts do not match the reason that you still hang around this forum

Do keep in mind:  This is an commercial system with IP that are not all openly declared, so do your work well.

Concerned member


Actually I/we didn't make any claims so the onus isn't on any of us - I for one will happily wait till they are available off the shelf so to speak [if it ever happens] & be happy to admit I was wrong & short sighted - I'll have plenty of company.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 06, 2012, 10:47:21 AM
Red .. there is a very big difference between expressing & sharing opinions & ideas v's making a declaration of OU demonstrated [the warrantie] - in Wayne's case it is the gravity only force equivalent of a device 'boot strapping' it self upwards gaining PE, so when such a claim is made by whomever the claim moves to another dimension of scrutiny from discussion or opinion or idea.

My objection Red is that Amolago was attempting to reconcile a floatation buoyancy test experiment against his spreadsheet analysis model to launch forward from & better understand your more complex concepts in turn - whilst it is a waste of both our times to have done so where were 'the inner circle' to help him thru this basic stuff so he could move on knowing his model was predictively accurate, at least for ordinary floatation & buoyancy ?

Hi Fletcher,
With regards to Wayne's invention, technically he shouldn't be on this forum because he and his IP represent a commercial company and their would always be a conflict of interest between both when it comes to a full open declaration.  He was persuaded by Stefan to introduce his invention here,  and the rest is now history....
But at the same time I am happy he did, because I learned more from his invention than the overall "overunity forum",  in the past I popped in from time to time to see what is new. I never had a login, neither posted.
  This topic introduction can be seen as a problem or an advantage (depends how you look at his approach), for Wayne it was a  challenge how someone else can figure out his invention, the quicker you realized this the more benefit you had. 
The challenge he presented was actually reverse engineering,  I loved the challenge,  my gutt-feel made me belief he had something, it didn't matter to me if it was not everything he claimed (it turned to be all true as he said, in the end). Once you tap into the inventors objective and logic he follows, it comes quite easy to follow through, you will even spot what he is hiding. He declared what he wanted, you think he should have thrown his whole IP on the forum, than I don't think you understand business clearly, he is not looking for competitors.

Please keep my pointers with regards to Amolago investigation as they were intended "homing pointers", to guide you into the right direction . Lets not take it out of context, there was never any mal-intent intended, my apologies if it came across that way.

I believe in what is written in the physics books and its laws, even after exploring Wayne's two circumnavigation processes, that were recently expanded to 3 processes, each process notably different from each other but all exploiting gravity (not necessarily buoyancy).
Wayne expanded our understanding of the physic's processes, he did not make any redundant or untrue.

Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 06, 2012, 01:03:14 PM

Hi Fletcher,

This topic introduction can be seen as a problem or an advantage (depends how you look at his approach), for Wayne it was a challenge how someone else can figure out his invention, the quicker you realized this the more benefit you had.

The challenge he presented was actually reverse engineering,  I loved the challenge,  my gutt-feel made me belief he had something, it didn't matter to me if it was not everything he claimed (it turned to be all true as he said, in the end).

Once you tap into the inventors objective and logic he follows, it comes quite easy to follow through, you will even spot what he is hiding. He declared what he wanted, you think he should have thrown his whole IP on the forum, than I don't think you understand business clearly, he is not looking for competitors.


I believe in what is written in the physics books and its laws, even after exploring Wayne's two circumnavigation processes, that were recently expanded to 3 processes, each process notably different from each other but all exploiting gravity (not necessarily buoyancy).

Wayne expanded our understanding of the physic's processes, he did not make any redundant or untrue.

Michel


Michel .. I understand business models & practice quite well - I also understand that the patent application process affords certain rights & protections post disclosure - I also understand that a successful defense of a patent hinges on obtaining a water tight 'method patent' to control the way the technology is deployed & used mechanically -  e.g. the metaphor is the Wright Bros patenting wing warping for controlled powered flight which was made redundant by a French patent some years later with the use of ailerons.

Hypothetically, I could also easily deduce & understand a method to potentially exploit a loophole in force symmetry using fluids that is somewhat related to, but prior to, Wayne's thread content here, web site content & patent application, & that is also consistent with many known laws but brings into serious question the role, description & application of gravity force - hypothetically, I could also understand that if I were to method patent it, supported by a working model, it would bare little resemblance to Wayne's dual Zeds & transfer system etc, & by all accounts be far more simple, efficient, versatile & cheap to produce - hypothetically, I could also understand that that would constitute a very real competitive risk threat precisely because 'I was not hiding something' or failing to disclose something pivotal - I understand that it is very difficult task to method patent for every iterational improvement that might come along by whomever in the future that could see an inventor or company marginalized in history & profit - I understand it is best to not underestimate anyone nor assume that genie's can go back in bottles.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 06, 2012, 05:35:48 PM
Michel .. I understand business models & practice quite well - I also understand that the patent application process affords certain rights & protections post disclosure

Hi Fletcher,
From my viewpoint, 
A patent is a registration document. Nothing more.
For this document to be any good, you need to have a capability to do the policing to safeguard it, otherwise it is no good except in the most obvious and blatant cases.

>>>> All this cost money  >>> only money can safeguard your patent. 

As an inventor and businessman, do you want voluntary create a situation for yourself to get exposed to a legal wrangle, only to show your clever invention to an anonymous bunch of over-unity bloggers on a forum, most of them with a hidden agenda ?
I think Wayne has guts to do what he did, I doubt I would do the same in his situation, and I told him so. Why torture yourself on this forum, rather apply your time to furthering your business.

I have a friend who was a professional treasure diver, he recovered some large silver treasures around  the Southern African coast.  The returns of his expedition did him well in later life. His tale of wisdom was, with treasure diving you can famous 'or' rich but you can not be famous and rich (except if you find all your treasure in one go).  Important wisdom!

In general I believe that, speed to market is worth more than a patent, sure each case can be different.

But what has all this to do with a serious technical discussion or dissection of a principle to over-unity ?
So why are you diverting Fletcher ?
You know how the zed works and achieves OU, but you avoid to engage ?
What is your agenda ?

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 06, 2012, 07:43:59 PM
Much of this is probably terribly obvious to most but I needed to see it.
Setting up to measure IDEAL is FAR from trivial.....
At this point I really see why Wayne said that the 10K challengers should have ports top and bottom for measuring and adjusting. I'm not so sure even a small model like mine can be setup right without that. Bottom ports may be in the works...

Another item that's almost a necessity is a very fine input system, even a good squeeze bulb might not cut it. A screw syringe would be awesome!

Even with crude testing though a couple of things have shown up as clear trends.
Max head is height x water layers - DUH  :o
So for this 12" tall - 3 layer model; max possible IDEAL ( in more ways that one ) should be 48" Closest I've been able to get so far is 43.5"

By filling the POD retainer with water - all top vents open - and starting with the other layers 'just' over half full I can get that close by just adding air - starting at the middle and working outward.
- Add air to the pod riser and close
- add air to riser 2 and close, top up the pod riser
- then layer 3 and adjust the others - air compression keeps this interesting....

The 2nd trend: Lift force DOUBLES with each additional layer charged..
All of this was done with the riser locked by the cheapie digital scale - no movement - just getting a measurement to base riser weight and lift load from.

It's looking like I should be working with a 12Lb riser and 12Lb load - .5 to .75 lift distance.

I need to double check the initial, pod-only force reading; it was just over 1Lb, but the trend is clear.
POD only - 12" head - 1Lb force
riser 1 - 22" head - 8Lb force
riser 2 - 32" head - 16Lb force
riser 3 - 42" head - 32 Lb force

I'm sure the spreadsheets have shown this, I just needed to see it done mechanically

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 06, 2012, 08:11:25 PM

Max head is height x water layers - DUH  :o


Dale
You just made me laugh out load - I bet we have all had those "DUH" moments.
Great work - you should see a bit more spread as you add layers - as the diameter increases further from the POD.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 06, 2012, 08:44:10 PM

But what has all this to do with a serious technical discussion or dissection of a principle to over-unity ?
So why are you diverting Fletcher ?
You know how the zed works and achieves OU, but you avoid to engage ?
What is your agenda ?

Michel
Hello Michel,
Lets avoid diversions (of agenda debates) - this forum (fringe or not) has brought us some incredible new friendships, team members -  people that have seen the wisdom, felt the purpose and respect the benefit to mankind.
Fletcher is not the first to suggest a better idea - prior design, and or competition.
We have room for competition, no worries.
We at HER would rather suggest a dialog of understanding and joining - rather than the direction of threats and theft - be they real or not; greed will naturally separate the two.
 Thanks Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 06, 2012, 08:44:23 PM
You just made me laugh out load -
You're welcome Wayne  ;D
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 06, 2012, 10:17:48 PM
Well, does this mean then that the input must go up by the head pressure at a greater value than the increase in pressure???  I mean come on, 1 riser at 22 inches of head giving 8lb of lift and then the 3rd riser head pressure is only up to 42 inches but lift has gone up to 32lb,, and all that for the same volume of input fluid??

Great job by the way!
Thanks for the compliment Webby.
Did you mean force instead of "pressure???" - I think you're just trying to reinforce what I noted, adding layers multiplies output force and it doesn't appear to be linear to input force.

Right?

Now I need to work on getting the weights set up and cleaning up the air plumbing. And probably adding the bottom ports...

Even kind of thinking about setting up manometers on each. Would be cool to watch during stroke but couldn't; too bad.
The air and fluid flows (unless the tubing was tiny, maybe) would really mess with the system. They'd be real nice for setup though; just have to valve closed for operation.

Anyway, 'nough typing - back to the shop :)
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 07, 2012, 01:20:05 AM
Attached is a calculator based on Wayne's calculation instructions to replicators from reply #2505.
 
 
Would any of the replicator please apply your specifications and see how it works out. I used made up data that would give me the same results as Wayne had in #2505.
 
 
I've been working with this calculator using data from my calculators and an interesting observation that can be made is that the ratio (not shown) of the 'SI of Pod Retainer' to the 'SI of pod retainer water gap' is the key to the OU.
 
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 07, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Larry!  ;)

I've got the whiteboard in the kitchen full of the numbers from post #2505 right now!

Thanks for the extra fuel. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 07, 2012, 04:09:10 AM

Quote from: Michel

But what has all this to do with a serious technical discussion or dissection of a principle to over-unity ?
So why are you diverting Fletcher ?
You know how the zed works and achieves OU, but you avoid to engage ?
What is your agenda ?

Michel


Hello Michel,

Lets avoid diversions (of agenda debates) - this forum (fringe or not) has brought us some incredible new friendships, team members -  people that have seen the wisdom, felt the purpose and respect the benefit to mankind.

Fletcher is not the first to suggest a better idea - prior design, and or competition. We have room for competition, no worries.

We at HER would rather suggest a dialog of understanding and joining - rather than the direction of threats and theft - be they real or not; greed will naturally separate the two.

Thanks Wayne


Michel .. my agenda has been upfront from the start.

To support, where I am able, any sim builder or model builder prepared to openly & fully discuss their builds in this thread, in a respectful manner - I also said that I was without prejudice quite prepared to let chips fall where they may.

Which Wayne is also cognizant of, & prepared for, judging by his response to you.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 07, 2012, 05:18:43 AM
To All,

I consider fletcher to be the best kind of skeptic -- a senior skeptic -- Open minded with a respectful professional demeanor, knowledgeable in the field, and willing to give expert help and analysis to others who are making a serious effort and progress at understanding how the ZED works. 

A skeptic of fletchers caliber is a valuable asset.  Every thread should be so lucky.

One of the hardest things for a junior skeptic to do is not jump ahead to a conclusion and become biased before something is well understood.  It is better to just keep quiet if that happens until all the details are worked out.  Watch and learn from the seniors when you are lucky enough to have one engaged.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 07, 2012, 04:50:11 PM




         >:(    No dennis whilst we "watch and learn"   innocents can continue to be scammed in what is    obviously a con, weather originated as, or developed into,ie wayne is a liar as he used to state he had a patent and has no such thing. if he is taking investment then he is a criminal because anyone with half a brain knows this cant work and you may find yourself complicit  in this .




    Ian
 
Dennis is right - and I very much welcome true skeptics - and have and many who have visited our lab, and reviewed our improved models.

On a side note:
It may not be the intent of this thread - but this thread is "weeding" out the phony skeptics - by their own words premature conclusions, attacks lack of due diligence.

@ Ian
You are not spreading the truth.... my decidedly unfriendly......too bad.... not by my wish.

Do you defend the "phony skeptics" with your bogus claim?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you took someone else's word and did not read it for yourself , I have seen that here several times..... Not really a question - only one went back and then returned to apologize in a PM.

The status of my patent application has been very clear.
Three times this lame claim from - based on a clip of a conversation where I discuss the process and expense we have had so far doing our due diligence protecting our IP - and called it  "My patent". Is it yours?
Substance requires that you do not take things out of context - this is how the thread roots out the phony skeptics - with their own lack of due diligence.

I also reviewed this conversation when TK - was so misled - he even posted pictures which were intentionally misleading.
And when mh and MarkE tried to throw the same mud.

The common thread with all four/five of you who make such claims - Is that they - like you add no substance to the discussion.

You use symbolism and conjecture to falsely associate me - with past failures - and resort to bull like - "I lied about a patent"

The ZED Technology can stand on its own - it does not need me or matter if - I ever was misunderstood - or you do your own  due diligence.

And many more are beginning to understand that truth - the ZED discovery is very real my friend - and as the replicators and others have attested to - I have told the truth about my claims.

Let me be clear - (repeated for the fourth time - we have worked very hard to protect our IP - and in May when the PCT cleared - part of the international patent process - we moved a step closer - patenting is a process - and we have done our due diligence very well.

Now if you have something with substance to add - welcome.

But if all you can do is act like a bull - Snort, stomp your foot, pout - and bellow..... we sold our cow a long time ago....

"We have no need for your Bull".

I apologize for being so blunt - be clear on one thing - We will see this through, try to be respectful where we can and forgive where it is needed - yet understand this - we will not back down - we have no need ....we have the truth.

Free Energy has been discovered - now is the time to separate those who will - from those that won't.....those that think - from those that don't; those that fear - form those that stand, Free energy is a gift to man.

Phonies continually fall on the wrong side of the benefit to the world - while using the excuse of protecting the innocent -
The people who do get involved - are far smarter than you give credit - you seem to think that the "innocent" need your protection as if they are too ignorant to think for themselves - so you must save them from being fooled?

This is where you and I differ - I see those that solve our riddle - as pretty brilliant - just saying....

Peace and Growth.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on October 07, 2012, 05:10:04 PM
To All,
The Validation team has now - for the third time - requested that I leave this forum.
I need to respect that wisdom - but I will miss your discussions.
 
This thread has been a blessing in so many ways - you have been a blessing.
(yes, even the phonies had something to add - when they looped through the same symbolism for the fourth time - they are out / done - in my book)
@Stefan,
 I appreciate your invitation - and for your original work which brought Mark Dansie and I together in the first place - that is in our history as well - and thank you for stepping up the moderation when it was needed. Good call.
Now - We have shared the early prototype and discovery with this forum, my purpose has been served and has been fun.
(especially after I figured out how to select ignore lol, ).
The group no longer needs my input, they are doing very well. We have met some honorable people and made some great alliances.
We will come back as I promised to post the Validation report, or I will ask a member or two of that team to post here.
To the Replication teams -
Please continue to contact me through my e-mail, with your progress great building! I will follow thru.
I believe the first Replication Model will arrive mid month - that team is moving on to the second challenge!
For those of you so inclined -God Bless
and the rest - peace be with you.
Thank you all - It is "exceptionalism" like that of those who got their hands wet - that search....discover...... and share.
Welcome to the new frontier of energy production!
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergyRevolution llc
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 07, 2012, 07:32:44 PM
To All,
The Validation team has now - for the third time - requested that I leave this forum.
Wayne Travis

Dear Wayne,

Go well my friend and thank you for the opportunity to have made your acquaintance.
I will also shut the door behind me so we can leave the so called skeptics in peace.

Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 07, 2012, 08:28:36 PM
To continue my comments about skeptics:  I will not say too much about fake skeptics.  They are egotistical naysayers in skeptics clothing.  They do more harm than good in disrupting and delaying discovery of the truth to a true skeptics standards.  Their claim to fame is to counter any and every positive statement with a negative one.  This thread provides ample evidence.

However, this thread has no more of them than the internet in general AFAIK.  I read a lot of science and technology based news stories in print and on the internet.  Many are research findings from reputable companies and universities.  In the comments sections on the internet, the number of critical naysayers outnumber intelligent commentary.  The same names keep popping up in different venues.  It is a sport to them to be the first to find something negative to say about some new research, product in development, or new product.  Print letters to the editor don't have troll posts since they are moderated to weed out trash.  I doubt many trolls would even take the time to write in, since they know nobody will see it.  Net result is a few trolls dominate the negative voice on the internet.

A senior skeptic may take on the role of mentor and help lead you to discover the truth on your own.  Of course, you have to be trying to learn the truth in the first place for that to happen.  Other than pointing out obvious math or geometry errors, a senior skeptic would rarely try to ram his version of the truth down your throat -- resorting to profanity and name calling if you are too dense to grasp his way.  A junior skeptic can easily get caught up this unhelpful behavior.

Fake skeptics can be a plague on discovery, but so can true believers.  True believers (as opposed to true knowers), believe everything they are told about how wonderful a product or technology is, without any proof of life.  They will take up the cause of defending the idea against all skeptics, without understanding the technology or having clear proof that it is performing as advertised.  They are just as disruptive in that they counter logic and data with emotional fuzzy reasoning. 

In the absence of fake and junior skeptics, true believers would not have much to say, other than adding a supporting mood to those working towards discovery.  No harm done.  It takes two to argue, so I have to go back to the skeptics as having control of the pace of discovery.

One more group, and the most valuable to discovery are the replicators.  They may be believers, or skeptics.  It does not matter, because they are pushing forward with a contribution that provides the data to verify or refute claims.  They are engaged in the conversation in a positive way.  My hat is off to all of them.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 07, 2012, 08:47:42 PM
Wait just a minute.

I posted pictures that were intentionally  misleading? That is a lie, Mister Wayne.  Give a link to these intentionally misleading pictures that you accuse me of posting, and show how they are intentionally misleading. You cannot.

While you are at it, Mister Wayne...... how long is your longest run time? Not days, or overnight, is it. Not even four hours, I'll bet. Yet you claim to have a perpetual free energy self running machine. Where is the demonstration of this?  And you referred to your PATENT many times, not just in a snippet of conversation.... yet you did not then nor do you now have an issued patent.  You have indeed been intentionally misleading... but you cannot point to a single instance when I have been intentionally misleading. You, Sir, are a liar.

And now.... when the going gets tough and nobody here has been able to report any real or correct results that look in the least like any OU.... you bid us goodbye. Do you know just how typical this is, how many times this has happened on this forum alone?

Goodbye Mister Wayne. One day you will answer to that God in whom you profess to believe, as will we all.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 07, 2012, 08:56:55 PM
All this talk about senior skeptics and true believers is hilarious. Skeptics determine the pace of progress, indeed. What a laugh. Every skeptic can be instantly refuted in the most definite manner possible: show him the sausages. Let the claimant demonstrate the validity of his claims. It is that simple.

Where is this self-running machine? Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself (mister wayne's exact own words) and how was its overunity determined? What is the longest that one of Mister Wayne's machines has run for, unattended, and was its entire precharge still there when it stopped running?

Show me the sausages. Then let's talk about Junior Skeptics and who is holding up progress.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 07, 2012, 09:17:55 PM
All this talk about senior skeptics and true believers is hilarious. Skeptics determine the pace of progress, indeed. What a laugh. Every skeptic can be instantly refuted in the most definite manner possible: show him the sausages. Let the claimant demonstrate the validity of his claims. It is that simple.

Where is this self-running machine? Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself (mister wayne's exact own words) and how was its overunity determined? What is the longest that one of Mister Wayne's machines has run for, unattended, and was its entire precharge still there when it stopped running?

Show me the sausages. Then let's talk about Junior Skeptics and who is holding up progress.
TK,

A senior skeptic has a thick skin.  I have worked with senior skeptics (as well as juniors) for decades.  However, I will not engage in a rebuttable about my observational opinions about skeptics and believers here, simply because I have work to do.  An opinion needs no defense.  A rebuttal conversation just proves my point about skeptics disrupting and delaying progress towards discovery.  However slighted you may feel this time around, you brought it on yourself.  Get over it, and get on with life.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 08, 2012, 12:38:39 AM
The pic is to show the modifications to the original setup.  It will probably be a bit obtuse for the casual observer, but it is what it is.
 
The stability of the stroke measurement was greatly improved by replacing the previously used items with a steel spacer and a neo bar magnet (for the digital indicator to read off of).  The stability at the top of stroke is extremely good IMHO.  However, at the bottom of the stroke there is still some variability.  The entire test ZED Pod/Riser group can be rocked back and forth and therefore raise or lower the digital indicator readings.  But it is what I have for now.  I will think if there is something I can do to improve that part of the system (make it less variable) and welcome your ideas.
 
My goal with this build was to mimic a single ZED though the same production cycle that Wayne uses with two ZEDs.  Since I do not have the same energy capture system I have tried to mimic it with the contraption pictured.
 
Wayne uses a hydraulic cylinder on top of his ZEDs that is connected (via one way valves) to an accumulator that will NOT accept input until a predetermined pressure level is breached.  So when one of the (un-stroked) ZEDs in his system is preparing to rise it is, in effect, held down, until the predetermined pressure level in the ZED is reached.
 
At the end of the stroke of Wayne's system that same hydraulic accumulator system will lock out and not allow the pressure it received to push back through the one way valves to help push down through the "sink" portion of the cycle.  So only the weight of the ZED and "pre-load" will assist in pushing that ZED back down.
 
What I have attempted to build is a system where I can replace the hydraulic capture system of Wayne's twin ZED setup with an equivalent single ZED test system where a "lift mass" is used instead. 
 
Cycle is as follows:
 
I can stroke with the "lift mass" in place to a point where the ZED Pod/Riser group is in hard contact with the "top stop."  The "lift mass" can then be removed.  The vent valve (for those who already now the test system setup) can be opened and the Pod/Riser group can be allowed to drop 10mm (the chosen test stroke distance).  At this point the "lift mass" can be placed again on the Pod/Riser group.  BUT it will also rest on the three dowels that have been added to the test setup.  So the pressure in the system will not rise and the Pod/Riser group will not sink.  It is (hopefully) the same as Wayne's system where at the botom of stroke the rise will only be resisted by the requirement that the pressure in the hydraulic capture system overcome the accumulator preset value.
 
Please let me know if you have questions or if I have missed something!
 
If you think this is a valid test setup, please let me know what you think should be tested.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 08, 2012, 01:09:02 AM
Attached is a calculator based on Wayne's calculation instructions to replicators from reply #2505.
 
Would any of the replicator please apply your specifications and see how it works out. I used made up data that would give me the same results as Wayne had in #2505.
 
I've been working with this calculator using data from my calculators and an interesting observation that can be made is that the ratio (not shown) of the 'SI of Pod Retainer' to the 'SI of pod retainer water gap' is the key to the OU.

After running more of my other calculator data thru this #2505 reply calculator, I'm pretty sure it has some issues. I will be working it out with Wayne and repost the update when they are resolved.
 
Thanks, Larry
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 08, 2012, 02:08:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-Sxfntdb4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-Sxfntdb4)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 08, 2012, 02:59:13 AM
TK,

A senior skeptic has a thick skin.  I have worked with senior skeptics (as well as juniors) for decades.  However, I will not engage in a rebuttable about my observational opinions about skeptics and believers here, simply because I have work to do.  An opinion needs no defense.  A rebuttal conversation just proves my point about skeptics disrupting and delaying progress towards discovery.  However slighted you may feel this time around, you brought it on yourself.  Get over it, and get on with life.

~Dennis

Refute my points, Dennis. Can you? Do you even try, or would you rather just insult and denigrate me?

Did I, or did I not post intentionally misleading pictures as Mister Wayne has accused me of doing?
Did  Mister Wayne, or did he not, state many times that he had a patent?
Has Mister Wayne, or you, or anyone else, shown results that actually indicate overunity performance?
Has Mister Wayne demonstrated to YOU the validity and truth of his claims, or has he not?

These are not observational opinions that I am asserting, see3d. They are facts. The thickness of MY skin is not the issue, is it? I've been ignored, insulted, denigrated, lied about and accused of things I haven't done, on this thread. But I'm here..... I haven't run away, I haven't kept secrets, I've pointed out some important things that nobody else seemed willing to confront. I've asked questions that nobody has answered and I'll keep on asking them until it's realised by everyone that they have no answers.

Here's just one question I've asked:
Where is the simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, and how was this overunity determined? The words in red are a direct quote from Mister Wayne. Do you believe that he actually has such a simple system, and that it is clearly overunity by itself? (Can be answered with "yes" or "no". Will you even bother to answer?).  Why have you not demanded to see it, if you believe it exists, so that you can put its dimensions and performance of this actual, simple, three layer system into your spreadsheet? Are you afraid of upsetting someone with thin skin?

Are you afraid of puncturing someone's thin skin, by insisting that Mister Wayne demonstrate the truth of his statements? I  am not.

Did I bring something on myself? Or am I responding to, and being responded to, very much like happened in the cases of Mylow, Archer Quinn, and even Steorn? Perhaps Mister Wayne, and you yourself, could learn something by studying the case of Magnacoaster, Vorktex and Richard Willis. He's been selling... or claiming to sell.... his overunity electrical generator since 2009. Many people believe that he is a fraud -- but he has made the same kinds of claims as Mister Wayne, and has even been on television with his device. Why don't you spend some time spreadsheeting his claims, and see what you think. Is it because you too think that he's a fraud?  Where do you draw your particular line, Dennis?  What is worth YOU spending your time on, and what isn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWx0oKVQRY0

It's hilarious that you are blaming me -- and other "junior skeptics" that you don't agree with, for slowing you down and your lack of progress. In what way am I keeping you from understanding, or working on your spreadsheet? How did I become so powerful, that I befuddle your mind, and prevent you and everyone else from showing what they claim to have, already: working engineering models, dimensioned design drawings, real data, a device that runs itself.......

Thin skin? Hey, I have actually even been accused of "rifling" computers on the other side of the planet, just because I point out inconsistencies in reported data. What is happening in this thread is a mild case, compared to Archer Quinn, Mylow, Ainslie, and other fakes that I've been involved in examining. Rather, it seems...as it generally does.... that it is the True Believers and those who pretend impartiality like yourself, who have the thin skins. It is they who begin the flame wars and who are constantly interested in continuing them, by making false accusations and casting aspersions about character, education, and motivation. When you can't show any sausages, you start flailing and calling names and saying how stupid it is to want to see sausages, when the plans for the best sausage machine are being developed right in front of you.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 08, 2012, 03:02:51 AM
I gave another builder the suggestion to use pencil lead for a centering means, they are using 1\8 inch thick material  so they drilled a small indents into the risers and attached pencil lead into those,, maybe this can help keep things from moving around to much without adding to much friction.

You may need to do it a little different, like gluing on some pencil lead that is big enough to fill the gaps you have and then sand it down to fit.

But we have been told... by Mister Wayne I believe... that the system self-centers and that no such centering devices are needed.

Is that not a true statement, then? Is it a matter of precision, or scaling?  Can't find any floating plastic beads of the right dimensions?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 08, 2012, 03:07:05 AM
@TK,

Is it not interesting that wildew has posted numbers that show each riser added increases the input pressure by 10 inches of head but that the lift value doubles from the riser before it.

So the volume of input stays the same but the pressure of input goes up

from wildews post
 
POD only - 12" head - 1Lb force
riser 1 - 22" head - 8Lb force
riser 2 - 32" head - 16Lb force
riser 3 - 42" head - 32 Lb force


Is that what you would of expected??
I expect that these force numbers are strongly dependent on the areas and volumes involved.  I also continue to expect, and continue to find, that people confuse force with work, energy with power, and pressure with the ability to perform "nonlinear" miracles. Why don't we see the DISTANCES over which these great forces can act? I expect that they get smaller and smaller as the forces get larger and larger. What do you expect? What do you actually find?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 08, 2012, 03:25:06 AM
Just to be clear - all I was reporting was FORCE ( that's why i used that term.... )
I DO understand the difference.
Yes, I did find it interesting that there was a clear relationship between force in and force generated as layers were added.
End of experiment....

Dale
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 08, 2012, 04:05:29 AM
Refute my points, Dennis. Can you? Do you even try, or would you rather just insult and denigrate me?
TK,

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else.  My agenda has been clearly stated from before you showed up and repeated in your time.  It has not changed.  And yes, your railings have caused me to stop working on my simulator (not a spreadsheet) on more than one occasion to respond to your misunderstandings.  Wading through a lot of other trash posts is also time consuming.

When I first showed up, there were 60 or so pages already here.  I took the time (days) to go through them all first.  I was never mislead about the nature of the pending patent that had just been published.  I was surprised that you were (or pretended to be).  In any case, I am not interested in refuting your points -- most of which have nothing to do with my agenda.  I have actual important work to do -- bummer, wasted 30 min on this reply.

Your time would also be better spent on technical work or conversations where you are adding value.  Repeating your hunger for sausages is tiresome and not very cute after the 2nd time.

Thanks for the video -- I like to watch Shark Tank now and then.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: AmoLago on October 08, 2012, 10:29:44 AM
AmoLago, I am sure you treat your one layer float as symmetrical, if you think it is, then the “out” will equal the “in”.  The normal standard physics processes are symmetrical ?
Can a multi layer float be symmetrical?, absolutely yes,  although it offers many more possibilities to tamper and/or interfere with the buoyancy processes to change the symmetry and then it would depend on how you use it. 

AmoLargo,  Any calculation that is based on symmetry will always give a balance in-output. The laws are not wrong.
 So the first to do is,  to look for non-symmetry. The solution to the complex is in the simple.

Hi Red,

There's a lot to digest there and I'll try my best to understand it all and evaluate and incorporate what you're saying in to any things I try.

One thing I will say though is that I didn't actually try to find symmetry in the work produced in the spreadsheet. Indeed I believe I simply posted what I found in calculating PE differences in several parts of the system and posed the idea that there was possibly an imbalance. This resulted in posts from Seamus, TK, and Fletcher trying to help me out in discussing those values calculated.


And on thinking about the post from TK regarding a string attached to the pod, I was wondering; If a removable weight is on the other end of the string applying the force described then as the pod falls, this weight would be lifted. So as was said, the pod would not make it all the way back to the starting position at the base of the tank. Everyone seemed happy with that, and that the energy required to reset the system, would be that lost through the increased buoyancy.

However, if instead of using more energy in draining the tank further, we simply removed the weight entirely moving it on to some platform to keep it at the same height, then without that force applied to the pod, it would now sink as before back to the bottom.

So as I see it, the system would now would be back to the start, but we'd have 1 of two outcomes; either a weight was moed up and down as the pod dropped, or a weight is in a lifted position that wasn't before the start.... plausible?

Amo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 08, 2012, 12:40:50 PM
Good point M.
Quote
BUT it will also rest on the three dowels that have been added to the test setup.
I need to add that feature too, THANKS
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 08, 2012, 02:50:58 PM
Amo said,
Quote
So as I see it, the system would now would be back to the start, but we'd have 1 of two outcomes; either a weight was moed up and down as the pod dropped, or a weight is in a lifted position that wasn't before the start.... plausible?

Well, is it plausible or not? I think you are saying that the reversible, break-even work in-work out of adding and recovering the lift water will either do one of two things. It will lift and lower the weight, also reversibly and break-even, or it will raise the weight up, you can leave it there, and the system will come back down and you still recover your input water break-even. Leaving the lifted weight at the top; slide it sideways onto a platform or something. Thus you have overunity. Right? And you can use some of this weight in a second system somehow, as an "assist" to compress a bag or something, for free. Right?

Well, why stop there, with just the one weight lifted for free. Leave your lifted weight up and lift _another weight_ up. And another. And another. When you have lifted a hundred thousand weights up, with your reversible input water in and out break-even.... then let's talk about what to do with that COP > 100,000 you have attained.

So.... as you see it, is this plausible.... or not? If you have even a tiny bit of excess _anything_ in the system anywhere, it can be made to accumulate until its loss rate equals its rate of continued accumulation. If you have no loss rate, then you can accumulate your excess until.... your platform breaks from overloading, or you blow a gasket or a fuse or let out the magic smoke or your lab blows up.

As I see it, this idea of leaving the lifted weight in the lifted position, and still recovering the input work in a reversible manner, is indeed implausible, for the reason of the accumulation described above. It allows arbitrarily large OU ratios, and for me to believe in _that_, I will just have to see it for myself.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 08, 2012, 11:04:22 PM
What I expect is that Dale's outcomes resemble the ones I have.
That's good, right? Sims and hardware performance iteratively converge on some reality that's repeatable and understandable. Carry on.
Quote
The more resistance to lift the shorter the lift, I get that from mine.
Is this the same as saying that the greater forces are only available over shorter lift distances? Maybe it is. Is it a consequence of air compression, or a fundamental fact of hydraulic levers? I'd like to see tested the conjecture that 2 incompressible fluids of different densities would "work" as well as water/air. Got mineral oil?
Quote
The setup changes the performance of the system when comparing in to out.
No surprise there. Different "bollard springs", different lift and sink forces, for the same weight bollard. Different weight, different lift and sink forces for the same setup.
Quote
The setup changes the performance of the system for recovery.
Also ditto.
Quote
The lift resistance can be too much and performance degrades, it can be too little and performance degrades.
The latter is interesting. This would appear to me to indicate that the compression of the air involving volume change is important, and thus would be different if two incompressible fluids were used.
Quote
The fluid entering the pod chamber gains in height faster than the pod\risers raise.
Also, I'm guessing, a consequence of the volume change of the airspace as the air is compressed. Again, it would be nice to compare the performance of an all-liquid system.
Quote
The applied force to fluid in is not the same as the applied force to fluid out, what I mean here is that I lift the water up to lift height right off the bat and the risers go up with that full value, plus the increase to compensate for the growing head in the pod chamber, and then the fluid comes back out starting at the high pressure value and drops off as the risers sink.
 
I don't understand how the first part of the statement fits with the second part. I'd say they are contradictory... can you explain further?
Quote
The minimum return pressure will be created by the weight left on the risers.
So if there is no weight left on the riser there is no return pressure? Then how do you get "sink" and recovery of the input water?
Quote
There are "sweet spots" in the setup where the choices made all work together.
As in life, and everything else too.
Quote
I also found a way to increase lift height for very little extra input, and I believe that it also makes for more output.

Well, good, I hope you share your discovery so it can be critiqued. How's your skin thickness today?

 ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 09, 2012, 05:33:06 AM
Amolago .. the Wayne & Red Show is over for a while which you will understand why if you read the context of the recent back posts.
 
 
@All ..

I want to go on record as saying that I have the greatest admiration for TK, in particular, but also respect for the other skeptics that posted in this thread & those that were moderated out on Wayne’s request, so they couldn't post – while it was not always pretty they were doing their jobs & following their consciences but they apparently were too immalleable a foil for Wayne to use - few have done more for so long than TK to analyse & debunk claims of either theory or builds, in so many areas of free energy investigation - he clearly has more intelligence, experience & knowledge, & building talent, in multifaceted disciplines, than most of us I'll wager - he also is quite right to dig for the meat & ask for proof of principle in light of extraordinary claims, as were the other skeptics - this doggedness comes about to some degree from a skeptic becoming desensitized & jaundiced from long term exposure to litany of claimants, human ego's & motivations only guessed at.
 
As a wise, if not somewhat sarcastic sage said in & about this thread, paraphrased, that it would remain a recriminating testimony & record, & so it will be for some – hindsight is 20/20.
 
On that note I do not have any idea why Wayne & some of his sanctum have frequented forums - from my perspective there was an element of skeptic baiting, possibly for their own hubris & amusement - one critic mused in this thread that the skeptics were 'brilliant ... in their insolence' IIRC & recently ironically challenged them as ‘not worth their salt to be called skeptics’ if they couldn't figure it out & refute the claimants [without a POP device produced I might add] – very strange indeed - IMO, the claimant side has been at times disingenuous & they have given their reasons - it seems to me that magicians are not the only ones skilled in deflection or omission & have cards up sleeves – Blaize Pascal might well roll in his grave.

These Are My Opinions.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 09, 2012, 06:36:35 AM
Amolago .. the Wayne & Red Show is over for a while which you will understand why if you read the context of the recent back posts.
 
 
@All ..

I want to go on record as saying that I have the greatest admiration for TK, in particular, but also respect for  the other skeptics that posted in this thread & those that were moderated out on Wayne’s request, so they couldn't post – while it was not always pretty they were doing their jobs & following their consciences but they apparently were too immalleable a foil for Wayne to use - few have done more for so long than TK to analyse & debunk claims of either theory or builds, in so many areas of free energy investigation - he clearly has more intelligence, experience & knowledge, in multifaceted disciplines, than most of us I'll wager - he also is quite right to dig for the meat & ask for proof of principle in light of extraordinary claims, as were the other skeptics - this doggedness comes about to some degree from a skeptic becoming desensitized & jaundiced from long term exposure to litany of claimants, human ego's & motivations only guessed at.
 
As a wise, if not somewhat sarcastic sage said in & about this thread, paraphrased, that it would remain a recriminating testimony & record, & so it will be for some – hindsight is 20/20.
 
On that note I do not have any idea why Wayne & some of his sanctum have frequented forums - from my perspective there was an element of skeptic baiting, possibly for their own hubris & amusement - one critic mused in this thread that the skeptics were 'brilliant ... in their insolence' IIRC & recently ironically challenged them as ‘not worth their salt to be called skeptics’ if they couldn't figure it out & refute the claimants [without a POP device produced I might add] – very strange indeed - IMO, the claimant side has been at times disingenuous & they have given their reasons - it seems to me that magicians are not the only ones skilled in deflection or omission & have cards up sleeves – Blaize Pascal might well roll in his grave.

These Are My Opinions.
I have been with this thread a long time.  In my understanding, Wayne came here to share the principles of his ZED device that he believes is a free energy device and challenged members to build it and prove it for themselves.  He did not offer blueprints for proof of concept models, but offered to pay some costs of replicated ZEDs.  I believe that his challenge was sincere and he followed through with his offer. 

I believe it was disingenuous for the skeptics to hinder those who were making an effort to understand and replicate a ZED.  Perhaps their past experience with scam artists who were trolling for money made them behave BADLY.  Admittedly some skeptics showed up late, and were not aware of the context of the thread and were probably influenced by the harsh temperaments of others. 

I set for myself a goal of understanding the ZED from the ground up by writing a static simulator before attempting a build.  I am doing this at some cost to myself in time taken away from other projects.  My belief that the fastest way to the truth THAT ALL CAN ACCEPT was demonstrating a physics based simulator model that matched the results of experiments.  Then use the simulator to extrapolate the boundaries of operation.  This is science.  This is how it is done. 

Taking one thought experiment case and jumping to a final conclusion about O/U does not explain the operation of the ZED.  The ZED has some interesting qualities.  Understanding it may provide for ideas and applications not even imagined due to the narrow context that some skeptics have taken and how they have bullied others -- causing a backlash of course. 

There are enough committed members working on theory, simulations, spreadsheets, and physical devices to arrive at a common understanding of how a ZED works in due course.  I do get frustrated when those efforts are hampered by some skeptics -- who should be helping these efforts instead. 

This is the only thread and device on O/U dot com that I have taken an interest in.  I am not aware of the contributions of the skeptics to bust scams on other threads.  I make my judgments of their behavior on this thread only.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 09, 2012, 07:26:47 AM
I have been with this thread a long time.  In my understanding, Wayne came here to share the principles of his ZED device that he believes is a free energy device and challenged members to build it and prove it for themselves.  He did not offer blueprints for proof of concept models, but offered to pay some costs of replicated ZEDs.  I believe that his challenge was sincere and he followed through with his offer. 

I believe it was disingenuous for the skeptics to hinder those who were making an effort to understand and replicate a ZED.  Perhaps their past experience with scam artists who were trolling for money made them behave BADLY.  Admittedly some skeptics showed up late, and were not aware of the context of the thread and were probably influenced by the harsh temperaments of others. 

I set for myself a goal of understanding the ZED from the ground up by writing a static simulator before attempting a build.  I am doing this at some cost to myself in time taken away from other projects.  My belief that the fastest way to the truth THAT ALL CAN ACCEPT was demonstrating a physics based simulator model that matched the results of experiments.  Then use the simulator to extrapolate the boundaries of operation.  This is science.  This is how it is done. 

Taking one thought experiment case and jumping to a final conclusion about O/U does not explain the operation of the ZED.  The ZED has some interesting qualities.  Understanding it may provide for ideas and applications not even imagined due to the narrow context that some skeptics have taken and how they have bullied others -- causing a backlash of course. 

There are enough committed members working on theory, simulations, spreadsheets, and physical devices to arrive at a common understanding of how a ZED works in due course.  I do get frustrated when those efforts are hampered by some skeptics -- who should be helping these efforts instead. 

This is the only thread and device on O/U dot com that I have taken an interest in.  I am not aware of the contributions of the skeptics to bust scams on other threads.  I make my judgments of their behavior on this thread only.

~Dennis

Whoowh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 09, 2012, 07:37:13 AM
All valid comments & observations Dennis, from one perspective - you full well know I support your approach as the logical & sensible first step - IMO we were primed to look in this direction.

And IF it should turn out that a ZED is not extraordinary - that it is underunity - and that two ZED's in isolation are still underunity [as the skeptics have been saying] but when & how they are connected creates torque ... well, that would be another direction.

JMO's.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on October 09, 2012, 03:20:37 PM
Can I point out that there may be a problem in building a ZED that uses two liquids instead of air and water.It is my belief that the Zed works because of the difference in density between air and water. If we used a mineral oil in place of air, the problem is that the densities of oil and water are closer than the densities of water and air. Wayne suggested that if we replaced the water with mercury, and replaced the air with water, the COP would increase by a factor of 13. So it seems to me that good results demand two fluids of widely different densities.
   In the unlikely event of anyone having access to mercury, read up on the dangers of mercury vapour. You could end up as mad as a hatter.[ google the origin of "mad as a hatter"]
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 09, 2012, 10:43:15 PM

Can I point out that there may be a problem in building a ZED that uses two liquids instead of air and water. It is my belief that the Zed works because of the difference in density between air and water.

If we used a mineral oil in place of air, the problem is that the densities of oil and water are closer than the densities of water and air. Wayne suggested that if we replaced the water with mercury, and replaced the air with water, the COP would increase by a factor of 13.

So it seems to me that good results demand two fluids of widely different densities.


Some thoughts to ponder Neptune.

Water is about 770 times more dense than air [also a fluid] at sea level [1 atmosphere] - that's a ratio of say 800:1.

Mercury has a specific gravity of about 13.55 so that's a ratio of say 13:1 compared to water - a far lesser differential as you point out.

Yet Wayne says using a lesser differential increases COP by a FACTOR of 13, eerily close to the mercury specific gravity or specific weight.

This might suggest that the ratio between ZED mass to water & ZED mass to mercury is the important ratio - this might suggest that the ZED is for floatation of a mass in a fluid rather than doing Work - a more dense fluid like mercury would require 13th the volume transferred in & out to float the ZED leading to downstream factored COP advantages - it also might have some relationship to LarryC's ratio of Pod area to water gap area of about 11:1 in his spreadsheet.

Below is a pic I pulled this morning to show how to calculate the density of an oil when a fluid density is unknown - it was really to illustrate linear pressure changes after interfacing of two different density fluids - in the multi-layered ZED I believe the relative densities have to be far enough apart to allow the outer retainer head to control the compound levering effect floating the Pod & Risers.

JMO's.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 10, 2012, 12:30:15 AM
Yet Wayne says using a lesser differential increases COP by a FACTOR of 13, eerily close to the mercury specific gravity or specific weight.
@fletcher, this was pointed out to me by PM.  I haven't checked the facts myself but thought it important to post.  Hopefully someone has the time to research and correct us all:
 
Wayne said that mercury and water increased the output by nearly five times - He did not say that the increase was 13.  He may have said the Mercury is 13 times heaver than water - the gain in using mercury and water comes from the lack of compression - which means the Layers all move equally - causing a faster increase in lift (less volume) - and the weight of mercury increases the Maximum lift .
 
Those two effects combined - make the non compressable a (tested) superior combination.

 
I apologize for not fact checking myself.  I'm a bit busy this evening.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 10, 2012, 12:58:06 AM
From Wayne in August as he replied to Fletcher's post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on August 22, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am a little overwhelmed at the quality of this response -
So let me say a few things that popped in my head when trying to follow it.

The Neutral buoyancy question (for the riser) - normally - less weight means more output - that is in a traditional system - but our is Non- linear.

This means - a certain amount of weight - at the right range of the polynominal - is a great advantage - cheap to lift and valuable to sink - cost reduction in both directions. Loss of ideal output - but a great reduction in the cost of a less than ideal output.

The density of the water is also important - yet it is not the "expansion of the air"  where we operate the piston - or pull power out of the system - this is a mistaken understanding of our operation. - at the end of the up stroke - all the air is still compressed to the highest point - which is the same as the precharge compressed value - only we raised the height of the water below the pod to stroke - inch for inch - after precharge.
(side note - the air does expand - but while we are lowering - not rising - and not all the way - just until the weight of the risers equalize with the head).

We use the heavy density "water" to pressurize the lighter density air - and when the equilibrium of the load is met - we maintain this equilibrium to stroke.

The lighter density is what pushes up - if you could measure the density of the air - you would see that the force applied to the riser is minus the value of that density - it would be easy to measure in a mercury water set up.

Mercury More density) could replace the water, and Water could replace the Air (less density) and the system would work much better - not thirteen times better -  because water has more density than air (twelve times better would be a safe bet).

A mercury water system would not have expansion and allow for extreme control of the water levels during operation.

I hope this helps - it is important to understand that this system is a pressure diffirential system - casued by gravitys effect on density - the seperating walls redistribute where the diffirential is focused.
The mass "reuse" is what causes the ZED to be Over Unity ....TK's Virtual Mass is the begining of the real understanding.
It also answers where the Energy Comes from - hope to see you all their!"
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2012, 02:12:09 AM
Hmmm.

Mondrasek said MrWayne said,
Quote
Wayne said that mercury and water increased the output by nearly five times - He did not say that the increase was 13.
(emphasis his)

And Greenhiker said that MrWayne said,
Quote
Mercury More density) could replace the water, and Water could replace the Air (less density) and the system would work much better - not thirteen times better -  because water has more density than air (twelve times better would be a safe bet).
(emphasis mine)

Hmm. It also appears that MrWayne said that this proposition had been tested. Well..... where is the test data, the blurry photo of the test apparatus, the explanation of where the mercury was disposed of..... and so forth. Under the circumstances -- since both the statements above cannot be true -- permit me to express my doubts that a mercury-water Zed system has ever actually been tested AT ALL and shown to produce 13 times more overunity performance than a water-air Zed system. Or twelve times. Or even five times.


Meanwhile, let me just say this: Galinstan.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 10, 2012, 04:15:25 AM
@Builders,

I think I have a pretty good handle on most of the factors involved in initial setup of a ZED now.  It was driving me a bit crazy for a long while before I finally realized that I was trying to over constrain the initial conditions.  Mutually exclusive conditions created an impossible starting state.  No wonder the formulas were not happy.  The issue is that only one air pressure in one layer can be specified.  All the others will have a geometric relationship to the one.  Alternatively, only the volume of water can be specified for each layer -- not each individual head for the same reason.  I have chosen to allow the following initial items to be manually specified in the simulator:

-- With an initial relative air PSI of zero (i.e., riser vents open), the water level of each riser layer.
-- The water level of the Pod.
-- The air PSI of the last riser layer before the exit (exhaust).  This value will create a head differential in all the other layers.

In addition, the final balancing of the Riser Pod is automatically adjusted by one of the following methods:

1.  None
2.  External balance
3.  Manual balance from initial setup above
4.  External input balancing force applied (Pod water injection) -- will alter Pod water level and air pressures.
5.  Adjustment override of the air PSI of the last riser layer.

Other places that a balancing input could be done, but not currently planned due to more complex code:

-- Addition of more Pod water (same as 4. above, except water piston remains on its lower stop)
-- Addition of more exit (exhaust) water (similar to 5. above) -- this would force head differentials and increase air PSI.

For matching the sim to a build, once the geometry is input, and the water volumes and heads are measured, the air PSI input can be manually tweaked to match. 

For match a build setup to a sim model, the process is to fill each water pocket with the specified volume of water with vents open, then we could close the vents and add air pressure to the last air pocket until the head differentials match the sim, or add a specified amount of additional water to the exit.

I welcome comments on this part of the sim user interface.

~Dennis

PS: Just for fun; the setup output force vs number of layers for one particular setup.  This is just for the progression not absolute numbers.  The outside dimensions of the ZED were held constant, but each layer was added from the outside to the inside, shrinking the Pod diameter in the process.  (not verified):

Layers, Pounds:

0, 0
1, 1.08
2, 3.27
3, 5.94
4, 9.00
5, 12.30
6, 15.59
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 10, 2012, 04:38:28 PM

After running more of my other calculator data thru this #2505 reply calculator, I'm pretty sure it has some issues. I will be working it out with Wayne and repost the update when they are resolved.
 
Thanks, Larry

Sorry for the confusion, the original version is working according to Wayne's instructions in #2505. Attached again below.
 
It would be interesting to get some feedback from the replicators. Either here or PM.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 11, 2012, 02:41:59 PM
Uh-oh. Looks like somebody has stepped out ahead of the field and is already marketing a pressure differential air system that puts MrWayne's paltry 36 Watts to shame. Working prototypes, demonstrations, even an order form for production units.  This is how to do it, MrWayne! The Hydro-Electric Reactor, it's called, with nice spiffy bright yellow and green paint, none of this bland battleship grey stuff that just screams "boring" to the investor.

http://www.cogarinternationalenergy.com/index.php

Now..... skepticism is relative, isn't it. Where do _you_ draw your own personal line, people? You can bet your bippy that there is an internet forum thread somewhere (Panacea U?), discussing this device, with believers and promoters and those who will try to replicate it and model it in a spreadsheet.

AND IT'S PATENTED. Or at least... patent applied for.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110048008?dq=Gabriel+Ohiochoya+Obadan&ei=-hJxUKieGIj3igKmnoFo

The Nigerian gentleman who is the inventor has a quite impressive resume, as well.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 11, 2012, 10:36:22 PM
Quote from: Cogar

The Reactor transfers kilowatts out of the kilowatts of the electricity it generates, back to the starter motor, in order to continue operating perpetually without any external power source. The extra 1500 kilowatts generated is distributed to other users.


I guess someone will have to fill in a request for demonstration form - check the inputs v's the outputs when closed looped into self sustaining mode - analysis was done on 12 July 2012.

This would be fantastic for turbo prop/fan aircraft - just have the multi-stage compressor looped to electrically drive the prop fan with no external fuel input required for combustion & expansion of gases which gives them reaction velocity & thrust.

Dang .. this must be an example of the Carnot cycle adding free ambient heat energy into the system - wait, what percentage of the exhaust is being used & recovered & how efficient is it ? - I dunno, doubts are starting to creep in.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 12, 2012, 12:36:34 AM
FYI, I'm still dialing in the new setup.  It's a slow and tedious process and I'm not giving it much time each day (if at all).  It's kinda been a weird week for me right now.  But things have been progressing towards a stable lift and measurement system.  I'm quite pleased at the moment.  I might be ready to do some data collection type testing tomorrow.
 
So is there any specific testing that anyone thinks would prove either way that a simple three layer (1 Pod, 2 riser) ZED system is or is not an OU construction?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 12, 2012, 06:37:45 AM
Uh-oh. Looks like somebody has stepped out ahead of the field and is already marketing a pressure differential air system that puts MrWayne's paltry 36 Watts to shame. Working prototypes, demonstrations, even an order form for production units.  This is how to do it, MrWayne! The Hydro-Electric Reactor, it's called, with nice spiffy bright yellow and green paint, none of this bland battleship grey stuff that just screams "boring" to the investor.

http://www.cogarinternationalenergy.com/index.php (http://www.cogarinternationalenergy.com/index.php)

Now..... skepticism is relative, isn't it. Where do _you_ draw your own personal line, people? You can bet your bippy that there is an internet forum thread somewhere (Panacea U?), discussing this device, with believers and promoters and those who will try to replicate it and model it in a spreadsheet.

AND IT'S PATENTED. Or at least... patent applied for.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110048008?dq=Gabriel+Ohiochoya+Obadan&ei=-hJxUKieGIj3igKmnoFo (http://www.google.com/patents/US20110048008?dq=Gabriel+Ohiochoya+Obadan&ei=-hJxUKieGIj3igKmnoFo)

The Nigerian gentleman who is the inventor has a quite impressive resume, as well.

So TK, are you libel for promoting this scam? All has been recorded:
(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/useron.gif) (http://www.overunity.com/pm/ashtweth_nihilisti.112/sa/send/)ashtweth_nihilisti
Re: Hydro-Electric Reactor (Coger international) (http://www.overunity.com/12799/hydro-electric-reactor-coger-international/msg340049/#msg340049)« Reply #14 on: Today at 06:01:06 AM »
Quote (http://www.overunity.com/12799/hydro-electric-reactor-coger-international/post/quote/340049/last_msg/340049/)
looks like they were busted for selling shares?
http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/c/cogarfinancial-DefaultJudgment.pdf (http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/c/cogarfinancial-DefaultJudgment.pdf) 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 12, 2012, 07:11:26 AM

So TK, are you libel for promoting this scam? All has been recorded:
(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/useron.gif) (http://www.overunity.com/pm/ashtweth_nihilisti.112/sa/send/)ashtweth_nihilisti
Re: Hydro-Electric Reactor (Coger international) (http://www.overunity.com/12799/hydro-electric-reactor-coger-international/msg340049/#msg340049)« Reply #14 on: Today at 06:01:06 AM »Quote (http://www.overunity.com/12799/hydro-electric-reactor-coger-international/post/quote/340049/last_msg/340049/)
looks like they were busted for selling shares?
http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/c/cogarfinancial-DefaultJudgment.pdf (http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/c/cogarfinancial-DefaultJudgment.pdf)

Am I promoting that scam? Is it a scam? How do you know?

No, I am pointing out that rumors and pictures and videos of a "working model", a "patent", a bunch of engineers and endorsements, a fancy web site and a bunch of claims do not mean that there is really anything there at all to get excited about. And I am pointing out that each of us has a skeptical threshhold, depending on our own experiences and education and so on. It looks like we've found yours.... somewhere between the Zed and the Hydro-Electric Reactor. The only way that you and I differ is where we place that line, I guess. You aren't going to be spreadsheeting the Coger device, I'll bet, because you _know_  (believe, really) that it's a scam and can't work.

Well...... some of us believe the same thing about MrWayne and the Zed. Is that a reason to be disrespectful to us? Well, then... should I be disrespectful towards YOU because you don't believe in the Coger device, in spite of all the evidence in its favor?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 12, 2012, 06:00:54 PM
Quote
So is there any specific testing that anyone thinks would prove either way that a simple three layer (1 Pod, 2 riser) ZED system is or is not an OU construction?
 
M.

With Mondrasek's set up and measurement capabilities, are we saying that there is no way to determine a hard number for the efficiency of the upstroke + downstroke?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 12, 2012, 11:43:58 PM
I am looking for a simple cross check for hysteresis in the ZED system from anyone who has a build.  I have it and believe it must be from unrelieved friction/stiction in my crappy build.  But I am not 100% sure due to recent additions to my test bed.
 
I was not happy with the variability of releasing stiction in my system by tapping on the workbench surface.  So I attached a "shaker" to one of the legs of the ZED stand and base plate.  It is a simple DC motor from an OLD CD drive.  I attached an off center weight on the spinny part to make it vibrate when running (yes I built a vibrator).  It is being powered off the same DC/DC converter that I was using to regulate the LED lighting when I was joking about that.  The intention was that this added "shaker" would cause my test ZED system to stop exhibiting variable behavior that I attributed to stiction (due to the crappy nature of the build).  But I have run a simple test with the shaker on (it does a fine job compared to banging the workbench top BTW) and was not pleased:
 
With the shaker running and the three layer ZED (1 Pod/ 2 Risers) fully loaded in a mid stroke condition I do the following:
 
1)  Lift slightly on the lift load being supported by the ZED.  The system then settles back down to a position of ZED height "a" and input fill tube water level height "b."
 
2)  Push down slightly on the lift load being supported by the ZED.  The system then settles back up to a position of ZED height *lower* than "a" (see #1) and the input tube water level height *above* "b" (see #1).
 
So more stiction than the "vibrator" can overcome?  Or hysteresis?
 
If anyone with a better build (yes I am talking to you, Dale) can tell me if you observe a similar condition or not it will help me to understand if the system has a hysteresis condition that I was unaware of or if I still have a stiction problem for TK to factor into any data that is recorded.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 12, 2012, 11:59:40 PM
No pressure Ehhh M. ?? LOL
Mine's apart at the moment waiting for a couple of "just delivered" parts to be installed tomorrow.
BUT - I have had trouble getting it to return to an exact same state. I've attributed some of that to possible air leaks or such but I've also let it sit static - loaded - for days - and not detected a change I could blame on a leak.

I think you and Webby might have more total time playing but yes, I do seem to be observing some of the same.

That's part of the reason I'm trying to get "fussier"... with setting up and tracking changes.

Maybe I'll have more to contribute by Sunday afternoon.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 13, 2012, 12:46:36 AM
No pressure Ehhh M. ?? LOL

Not our baby to birth, right?  So no pressure...  Just get it done!
 
I just ran another quick test and hoped to gather data that was usefull.  I started by engaging the "shaker" and then adding a little bit of input water so that the fully loaded ZED would lift to a new location between the hard stops.  It moved up nicely and settled at a reading that then varied by only 0.03mm on the digital indicator (due to the vibrator).
 
I then lifted the weight on the ZED system and let it settle again.  It then read 0.50 mm *above* the previous readings through the same range of fluctuation.
 
I then pushed down on the ZED system and let it settle again.  This time it *also* read above the reading from just after having adding more water.  But it was below the reading recorded above (fluctuating through the same range).  It was exactly 0.28 mm below the readings where I had just lifted the weight and then let it settle.
 
So all that was weird (unexpected) to say the least.  And I began to try to repeat the same tests immediately.  But when I pushed down on the ZED Pod/Riser system I "blew skirts."  I was probably not being as gentle with this system that is running very close to it's limits as I should have been.  So I have to set up again.
 
Either way, interesting results.  I'll try to do better next time.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 13, 2012, 04:16:28 AM
Just a quick thought M.
I can't come even remotely close to those tolerances on measurements - for 2 reasons.
-  1, no dial indicator
- and 2, even if I had one ( yes I know they can be quite inexpensive ) my single top plate rocks some - quite a lot actually - when you're talking discrepancies of less than a third of a millimeter. I could probably apply slight pressure to any side and have it dip by 2mm without any real vertical motion. You've got a lever arm amplifying those minute measurements too. Any possible way to mount the dial so it's reading directly off the top of that weight?

The variations I mentioned earlier were more in the water levels. Start with measured differentials in two layers - allow it to rise a little / sink a little. Then try to get all 4 levels back to the exact same spots. Couldn't quite seem to get back there.

Maybe more tomorrow
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 13, 2012, 07:23:04 AM
@Mondrasek: Your very precise results are interesting. To get an idea of the hysteresis, if any, we really need a series of data points from an identical set of test trials. Do you have the patience and time to do 20 runs, with a short interval between runs, say a minute, for relaxation and settling? Make a blank data table, try to use the exact same procedure each run, fill in your data table objectively without thinking or analysis, just the facts ma'am, then when you have measurements from a set of 20 runs, I'll run, or you can run, basic statistics on them, and then we will be able to see if what you are seeing is genuine hysteresis or is noise in the data. In other words, we will determine means and standard deviations of the data points, which will enable us to evaluate the _actual_ degree of precision you are attaining with your eyeballs and dial indicator (without a dial....) and tell us what the level of noise is in your measurements and apparatus. If the hysteresis is larger than the standard error, then it's probably real. But since its value seems small and you are measuring to such high precision.... we need to tease out the accuracy level from all that precise data and see just how _accurate_ it all is. Precision and accuracy are very different, but related, critters. So what if you can put five rounds into a circle the size of a quarter at 100 yards, if that circle is down on the corner of the target rather than in the center bullseye that you were aiming at. Precision, and accuracy. For best results you need both.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 13, 2012, 08:17:18 AM
@Mondrasek: Your very precise results are interesting. To get an idea of the hysteresis, if any, we really need a series of data points from an identical set of test trials. Do you have the patience and time to do 20 runs, with a short interval between runs, say a minute, for relaxation and settling?

I see no problem with my patience for completing that test run.  But I have some concerns with relieving the load weight on the ZED system.  I can add weight repeatably.  But "lifting" by a repeatable (negative) value is a challenge.  I guess I can try to pick up a pulley so I can set up a simple counterweight system. 
 
Maybe these tests do not require the use of a constant mass value for the added and subtracted weight between readings?  But, then again, it's the only way to be sure.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 13, 2012, 07:18:55 PM
Hysteresis test data.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 14, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
@Mondrasek: thanks for doing that. I'll run the numbers shortly, but meanwhile can you give some description that correlates the parameters in your column titles with your verbal description in the earlier post? I don't get these "max" and "min" terms.....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 14, 2012, 03:26:27 PM
@Mondrasek: thanks for doing that. I'll run the numbers shortly, but meanwhile can you give some description that correlates the parameters in your column titles with your verbal description in the earlier post? I don't get these "max" and "min" terms.....

The test started by turning on the shaker.  It was running and therefore vibrating the test ZED slightly the entire time the test was run.  A little water was added to the system through the fill tube to make sure everything was moving freely.  The Pod/Riser system was floating at a point between the bottom and top stops.  It was fully loaded with the addition of a magnet on top of the lift mass.  The magnet was used to pinch one end of a monofiliment fishing line between itself and the lift mass, thus anchoring one end of that line.  The other end of the line was run fairly straight up and through a small pulley that had been suspended from the ceiling above the test ZED.  After looping over the pulley the line was tied to a small ring magnet to anchor that end and give a place for the test weight to be attached.
 
A steel weight was set on top of the ZED system and caused the Pod/Riser to sink a bit.  The average value of the indicator was recorded at this point in the first column labeled "With Extra (+) Weight."  I say average because the indicator was fluctuating rapidly through a range of ~0.02 mm due to the shaker vibrations.  The weight was then removed and the system given about 20 seconds to fully stabilize as the Pod/Riser system rose back up a small amount.  I then recorded the maximum and minimum readings of the indicator at the new Pod/Riser height.  These are the two columns labeled "After Removing Extra Weight MAX" and "After Removing Extra Weight MIN."
 
Next, the same steel weight was suspended from the fishing line by attaching it to the hanging ring magnet.  This caused this weight to counterbalance the ZED system a bit by pulling up on the lift mass.  The Pod/Riser system would rise slightly and the average new height was recorded in the column labeled "With Extra (-) Weight."  The weight was then removed and the system given about 20 seconds to fully stabilize as the Pod/Riser system sank back down a small amount.  I then recorded the maximum and minimum readings of the indicator at the new Pod/Riser height.  These are the final two columns labeled "After Removing Extra Weight MAX" and "After Removing Extra Weight MIN."
 
M.
 
PS.  Sorry for not posting a description earlier.  I had thought to shoot a short video instead but did not get around to it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 14, 2012, 04:07:15 PM
Well, I'll have to think about that description before I can provide a good interpretation of the data. But without knowing anything but the numbers, I can say a few things anyway.

We assume that nothing changes between trials and that each trial is a "duplicate" in all respects.... so the "true" value of any parameter should be the same, across trials. If the measurements really were the same, then you'd see a straight horizontal line across the trial numbers, at the value of the measurement. Since there is some noise to be expected, the mean value of all the trials can be plotted as this straight line, and then each individual value can be compared to the mean to see if it's an outlier, close to the mean, or just crazy noise. "Close" here means within one Standard Deviation of the mean value, plus or minus. You can also define the magnitude of the noise as being the size of the standard deviation: noisy data will have larger variations from the mean than will "quiet" data.

So ideally we'd like to see straight horizontal lines, with small standard deviations, and all data points lying within one SD of the mean line.

But that's not quite what we get. I see noise and a trendline.... I think this: first, your measurement technique got better over the 20 trials. Second, something happened toward the end, you have a small leak or you are losing water or air in the transfer or something, because there is a definite trend in the data that is different from the assumption of a constant mean value.

What it all means in terms of the actual apparatus interpretation, will have to wait until I've slept and thought a bit. But feel free to think and interpret on your own.

For some reason the graph in the spreadsheet lost some of the data symbols when converted. Maybe somebody else can fix it. The image is before conversion though.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 14, 2012, 10:28:53 PM
Hmm.
 
Well I think that my test ZED *must* have a leak somewhere.  The data that TK shook down is one thing.  But I have also been trying to establish a repeatable test stroke for about half a day now.  And while that has gone very well (as far as repeatability) it has shown a repeated anomaly that I cannot explain without considering a leak of some sort.
 
I have been stroking the test ZED system through *exactly* 10.0 mm.  This is very easy to do now.  But the problem comes in when I start to lift from the bottom (sunk) state.  As pressure builds in the ZED I will see some overflow from the Outer Chamber on to the top of the Outer Riser.  This was a normal part of setting up the system before.  So I would remove the excess water with a pipette and continue.  I would repeat the lift and sink cycle until the overflow condition ceased.  That is how I set up for the test runs reported earlier.
 
But now I have run the same test cycle over a dozen times and *every* time I have to remove some overflow water.  So it is not stabilizing.  There is not loss of air in the system or "blowing skirts."  But there is excess mass of water in the Outer Chamber each time.  So water must be leaking from the inside annulus to the outside annulus?!?
 
I can leave the system alone at any lift condition for quite some time without any change to the apparent overflow anomaly.  So my guess is that there is a leak between the retainer walls that is affected only when the system is temporarily under a "vacuum" condition as water is vented.  Very weird.  And I am removing the overflow with an eyedropper type pipette so it is only a few ml each cycle.  And fairly repeatable.
 
The rest of the lift cycle is also very repeatable.  I have tape marking the fill tube at the exact level that the system lifts and sinks.  Those levels repeat within eyeball error.
 
Very cool results.  But also disappointing.  If there is a leak it is not something I will find easily.  But I wonder if test results from the system as is are worthwhile?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 14, 2012, 10:46:39 PM
"But I wonder if test results from the system as is are worthwhile?"

Well, to answer that we need to know what the predictions are. If the system were acting as a normal multiple hydraulic cylinder, what would you expect the values in the data table to look like, and if it were producing any extra work or pressure, what would you expect the values to look like?


But regardless of the answer to that, sure, they are worthwhile, because they were good practice for you.... you can see your technique improving over the twenty trials -- and they indicate that leak, or perhaps your fluid removal. In any case they indicate things to be aware of and a possible problem that needs fixing in the apparatus.

Sure, you can find the leak. Use clear water in each chamber except one, make that one dark with food coloring. Stroke. Look for colored seeps. Don't find any, reload system with clear water in each chamber except a different one, repeat stroke, look for colored seeps. Do one chamber at a time with dark color. Eventually you will see where the colored water is bleeding past one of your flexible seams when the system flexes under pressure changes. If it's an air leak..... you can put soap in your water and get all the inner surfaces wet, even the air chambers, and when the leak occurs you will see bubbles forming in the soap.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 14, 2012, 11:20:58 PM
Well, to answer that we need to know what the predictions are. If the system were acting as a normal multiple hydraulic cylinder, what would you expect the values in the data table to look like, and if it were producing any extra work or pressure, what would you expect the values to look like?

Exactly!  I've been trying to post impartial test data.  But I have also been asking what kind of test to run to put a nail in this thing either way.
 
So, what is the definitive test?
 
Thanks, TK, for your input.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 15, 2012, 02:51:47 AM
What is the definitive test? I dunno. I guess the claim is that you can slide the weight horizontally off the top, and the system will still reset just as normal. Then you can slide another weight onto it at the bottom, stroke, then slide that weight horizontally off the top. Repeat until all your weights is lifted, for free. Then you can drop those lifted weights with a cuckoo clock mechanism and extract useful energy as they slowly fall. As much as you like, since you lifted so many weights for free.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 15, 2012, 03:18:42 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong here ...

1. You know what the minimum head height is in the outermost channel so that the Pod/Riser plus lifted mass is just floating.

2. You know how much extra volume & weight of water must be added to the outer channel so that the Pod/Riser plus lifted mass will stroke the full 10 mm after release.

3. You know the mass/weight of the lifted mass.

4. You can calculate how much PE in Joules is given to the lifted mass after a 10 mm stroke length.

5. You can see what the new head height is to achieve this & calculate the PE Joules of lifting the additional volume & weight of water that was given by you so that a half cycle stroke to do Work could be had.

6. You can compare the two results.

N.B.1. I am assuming we can forget about other water columns & air columns jockying for position in transition up or down.

N.B.2 I am assuming that once the lift mass is laterally removed that the system returns to start conditions of its own volition, or at least, with no additional Work Done by you, no matter how long that takes.

Does that sound reasonable or have I forgotten something ?

Often a stepped diagram helps visualize the flow system to find other parameters that might be consequential.

JMO's.

P.S. you have to make some adjustments in calc's second part of cycle to allow for the final position of the Pod/Riser without lifted mass [it probably won't sink so low] because the lifted mass is going to find its own way home & not hitch a ride.

Then you have to think about what is required to get the Pod/Riser to the start height so the lifted mass can slide laterally on top for another boost upwards etc e.g. it might stop part way down, let the lifted mass slide on top, then settle to original start position with everything in equilibrium again.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 15, 2012, 05:28:41 AM
Yes, you seem to have forgotten the automagic bollard. It has a heavy mass of perhaps fifty kilos and is raised up a full meter, by the gentle application of a few tens of grams of upwards force over the same distance. Then it's latched in the raised position. When it's time to lower it you just unlatch it and it descends... slowly and gently.... back into its hole. If you simply compute the increase in PE based on the mass of the bollard and the distance it was raised, and compare that to the force you applied over that same distance to raise it.... what will your result show? A massive advantage, which, if you didn't know there was a preloaded spring and a gas piston in there making the bollard "just barely not float", you might think it was an overunity bollard. And since the spring cycle is fully reversible with negligible losses, you could stand there all day long, raising and lowering the heavy bollard and never break a sweat. And I'd be very amused seeing you doing it, working out your OU automagic bollard cycle.

So, since the system has to be precharged to the point where the moving parts are actually floating but restrained from moving upwards...... and since that precharge is apparently conserved just like the preloaded spring in the bollard ....... it becomes a bit more difficult to compare the input work to the output work... because the TRUE output work is much less than it appears to be, since most of it is being done in a reversible manner by the spring preload.

I for one do not believe in the "sliding over off the riser" of the lifted mass, to make its own way home, because of the reductio ad absurdum I have tried to illustrate. If you can do that, you have _infinite_ OU, because you do not need to use the same weight.... you can wind up with all the weight in the world, lifted up onto your platform, by your "free" and reversible input work cycle. This is not allowed in my reality, sorry, therefore the idea that this is possible is flawed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 15, 2012, 12:48:31 PM
Not much of a weekend update I'm afraid.
Some unusually nice weather shifted priorities to fall cleanup.

But here's an updated picture of the model showing this week's changes.
- Full floating POD replaced by a sealed "riser" - 4.5"OD
- Pre-load and lift weights relocated to under the bench, much more stable!
- Bottom ports added, using a squeeze bottle to adjust works great. ( figuring out WHAT to adjust is another matter.... )

I can still only get to 43" head locked down and shooting for "IDEAL", I'd be happier if I could get the setup up to 46". I gave up trying and took spreadsheet numbers to setup the weights.
As pictured; the coffee can weighs 16lb and is the lift weight.
Everything else, [riser plate & tubes] + [hardware] + [brick] is also 16Lbs.

 I spent most of the time I had just trying to develop a good - repeatable(ish) setup so no numbers from this current rig yet.

Sorry to hear about the "possible" leak M. - You'll figure it out.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on October 15, 2012, 01:49:15 PM
Love the weights under the bench idea. Its one of those ideas that is so simple- but only after someone[you] has thought of it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 15, 2012, 03:35:46 PM
Mond's data looks a lot better if the first two trials are discarded as outliers. There is still something happening during the first seven or eight trials, then a period of constant performance, then another upwards trend. But leaving out the first two from the means and stddevs makes the set a lot less noisy and more consistent overall.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 15, 2012, 03:44:41 PM
Mond's data looks a lot better if the first two trials are discarded as outliers. There is still something happening during the first seven or eight trials, then a period of constant performance, then another upwards trend. But leaving out the first two from the means and stddevs makes the set a lot less noisy and more consistent overall.

One thing I noticed yesterday is that the Outer Riser tends to want to rotate, probably due to the vibrations from the shaker motor.  As it rotates the piece where the height indicator is touching will move.  So this may slightly change the readings on that indicator.
 
Another thought:  Since the Pod and Risers are NOT locked together, the Inner Riser and Pod may be rotating separately of the Outer Riser.  And since nothing is truly square in this build any rotation of either inner member may cause a change in the tilt of the Outer Riser end cap.  Any minor tilt changes can affect the indicator readings quite a bit.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 15, 2012, 04:06:00 PM
Back to the topic of how to properly measure this single three layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) ZED set up.  What is the opinion of the method that Wayne outlined in #2505?  I'll post the relevant section below in bold, not for emphasis, but just to delineate where his content starts and ends.
 
Lets say your load was 10 lbs (corrected by M), if your pressure increase is .215 and your stroke is .75 inches, and your volume was 27 cubic inches.

Here is the method - 27/.75 = 36 this give you a comparative piston value - 27 cubic inches could lift (in a frictionless position with a surface area of 36 inches a stroke of .75 inches.

Now multiply the pressure difference of .215 x 36 = you could lift 7.75 pounds (roughly)
Now compare your 7.75 to your actual lift of 10 pounds the same difference.


10/7.75 = 129%

Is this a valid method for evaluating input vs. output?

M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on October 15, 2012, 07:29:30 PM
I see that mrwayne has updated his website today. He states that the time for handing over to the team for validation is likely to be this coming Friday. He also speaks of the next phase which heis calling the "Rotary Zed." Have a look for yourselves.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 15, 2012, 07:43:03 PM
That is promising news http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 15, 2012, 08:33:01 PM
Didn't MileHigh already cover this?

Back to the topic of how to properly measure this single three layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) ZED set up.  What is the opinion of the method that Wayne outlined in #2505?  I'll post the relevant section below in bold, not for emphasis, but just to delineate where his content starts and ends.
 
Lets say your load was 10 lbs (corrected by M), if your pressure increase is .215 and your stroke is .75 inches, and your volume was 27 cubic inches.

Here is the method - 27/.75 = 36 this give you a comparative piston value - 27 cubic inches could lift (in a frictionless position with a surface area of 36 inches a stroke of .75 inches.

Now multiply the pressure difference of .215 x 36 = you could lift 7.75 pounds (roughly)
Now compare your 7.75 to your actual lift of 10 pounds the same difference.


10/7.75 = 129%

Is this a valid method for evaluating input vs. output?

M.
I must have read this passage two hundred times and I still can't figure out just what is meant. It sounds like the Bates Motel all over again.... where did the missing dollar go?

MileHigh said to us,
Quote
If you pump 27 cubic inches of water into the ZED, and it raises up by 0.75 inches, then the effective area of the ZED riser is indeed 27/0.75 = 36 square inches.

Therefore, if you put a 10 pound weight on top of the ZED the increase in the water pressure would be 10 pounds divided by 36 square inches = 0.277 psi.

Look at Wayne's initial conditions again:  Lets say your load was 10 pounds, if your pressure increase is .215 and your stroke is .75 inches, and your volume was 27 cubic inches.

Your pressure increase would not be 0.215 psi Wayne, it would be 0.277 psi.

Note that 0.277/0.215 = 129%, exactly what Wayne is trying to claim as the "gain."

This is a simple geometry problem. You have so much volume at such and such pressure. You reduce the volume by a certain amount and your pressure goes up.  Therefore, as MH has pointed out, that figure of 0.215 PSI has to be explained, because it's too low. One way that it could be explained is that it is the result of a backwards calculation from a lift and weight measurement that is only slightly in error. It cannot be explained by any geometric means, I don't think.

Are these numbers from a measurement on a real system, or are they just made up for the sake of the illustration? I guess I don't need to remind you that if wishes were airline tickets, beggars would fly.

As to whether this method is really valid to analyze the Zed.... it would certainly help, if we had a data table of actual measurements on a system of known geometry like yours, wouldn't it?  To determine if the method is valid, it should be used on a known non-overunity system to see if it gives correct results.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 15, 2012, 08:38:42 PM
I see that mrwayne has updated his website today. He states that the time for handing over to the team for validation is likely to be this coming Friday. He also speaks of the next phase which heis calling the "Rotary Zed." Have a look for yourselves.

You didn't mention that he also expects to be up and running by Wednesday. Which of course means he's not up and running now.

And he also said in his October 1 update that
Quote
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery), and we will be ready for the Validation!

So what I want to know is this: Has Mark Dansie made his airline reservations yet?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: camelherder49 on October 15, 2012, 08:53:24 PM
I can hardly wait for this week to be completed.
Just one question: When the ZED begins self running,
how will the fuel that makes it operate be described??

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 15, 2012, 09:25:33 PM
As to whether this method is really valid to analyze the Zed.... it would certainly help, if we had a data table of actual measurements on a system of known geometry like yours, wouldn't it?

Yeah, but it would also be preferable to take data from a system that does not have some sort of leak between the retainer walls.  I'm about 99% confident that a leak must be the cause of all unusual behaviors that I am witnessing while trying to set up a repeatable test stroke again.  And it is probably a factor for oddity in the hysteresis data as you pointed out.  I was hoping to possibly run a fast test that might minimize the affects of a leak, but, as you know, leaks grow.  So even a speed run will likely not allow for repeatability in multiple runs.
 
Dale, you about ready to take over?
 
The construction of my test ZED does not allow for easy (if at all) repair of a leak to an inner retainer wall.  Probably better to just build a new one.  I'll think on it for a few, but right now I think a complete tear down and rebuild of that section is required.  And since so much of the build is glued in place now, that would be rough.  So it would be really nice if someone else can support this.
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 15, 2012, 09:56:32 PM

I see that mrwayne has updated his website today. He states that the time for handing over to the team for validation is likely to be this coming Friday.

He also speaks of the next phase which he is calling the "Rotary Zed." Have a look for yourselves.


As he says in his blog it is a natural progression to take a reciprocating format & redesign it as a rotary format.

The analogy is taking a pendulum that swings back & forth [like a swing] & making it fall from 12 o'cl & end up back there with excess velocity [like kiiking] so that it rotates rather than oscillates - another analogy is a normal combustion engine pistons linear action driving a crank shaft being replaced by the Wankle rotary cycle.

There are a couple of reasons to change format from reciprocating to rotary, or back.

The first scenario is power density, & a two ZED unit device probably has more power density than a single ZED device, for example - or a rotary device for that matter, in terms of unit compactness.

The second is size & efficiency - a rotary device can revolve quickly & because of inertia acts as a flywheel - mechanical flywheels are efficient energy storage devices - devices can also be stacked on one output shaft.

Interesting times Friday.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on October 15, 2012, 10:13:04 PM
@TK. I merely reported that mrwayne had updated his website. There were several things that I did not mention. I also suggested that you take a look for yourself.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 15, 2012, 10:30:02 PM

I can hardly wait for this week to be completed.

Just one question:

When the ZED begins self running, how will the fuel that makes it operate be described??


Quite easily I suspect.

First there is no fuel as it is proclaimed to be a gravity device - gravity is a force, it is not Energy.

N.B. ALL current engines have either a fuel source, [externally supplied, stored internally as potential energy, or made on demand] or exploit a naturally occurring gradient or differential, like Cox's clock used barometric pressure changes or Drebbel's PM devices used air pressure & temperature differentials - the latter are of course examples of environmentally driven Intrinsic Motion Machines [IMM's] & not PM as we might be tempted to describe them.

Since gravity is a force & any IMM that could do Work using only gravity force as the Prime Mover would have to have the ability to create on demand asymmetric forces that in turn produced torque.

This does not contravene the Laws of Thermodynamics IMO because the Laws deal almost exclusively with Mass, Work & Heat, in closed & open systems.

Asymmetric force generation leading to torque & an IMM able to do Work & self sustain itself would be outside the mandates of Thermodynamics as they currently stand, IMO.

P.S. IMO, you might have to disassociate the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle if a loophole in current physics was found.

Let's see how it goes for Friday.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: camelherder49 on October 15, 2012, 11:06:50 PM
Let's see:

Nuclear = enriched plutonium

internal combustion = gasoline/diesel etc.

steam = boiling water vapor

Zed = no fuel??????????

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 15, 2012, 11:26:46 PM
Quote
Gravity powered devices / Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
 on: September 26, 2012, 09:48:12 PM
 
... p.s. really good mood - our optimized six layer system just tested "twice" as efficient "more" than we have ever reported!
In about three weeks - you will hear all about it!

Wayne
 

A quote from Wayne a little over 2 1/2 weeks ago. Sounds like progress in Chickasha has been going well!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 16, 2012, 12:07:00 AM
Dale, you about ready to take over?

I can only do what I can do M. but I will continue to try.
I'll never get to your level of detail and accuracy!

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on October 16, 2012, 12:19:05 AM
Hi Fletcher,

Quote
Work using only gravity force as the Prime Mover would have to have the ability to create on demand asymmetric forces that in turn produced torque.

You are right on the money. The mass can be used to asymmetrically self re-gauge itself especially in a geodesic fall. 3 axis lever.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 16, 2012, 12:27:48 AM
Love the weights under the bench idea. Its one of those ideas that is so simple- but only after someone[you] has thought of it.

Thanks Neptune - necessity is the ...  ;D
One feature I just realized I forgot - and will add tonight - Mond's bottom stop.
In a way I wish the blocks and 2x6 block were fastened to the top of the riser so I could limit its travel but I will add a stop under that bottom cross member. Then when I add the 16Lb weight I will see the "pre-charge" happen because of incoming water instead of being caused by adding the weight.

@Fletcher - I like your analysis method - comparing and calculating the outer riser height.
I'll try to get some numbers to plug in to that methodology.

Merging that comment by Fletcher and the hydraulic comparison reminder posted by Webby might be interesting.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on October 16, 2012, 12:41:46 AM
Hi Seamus,

I will explain simply.

A heavy ball in a open cylinder.

A shaft stuck through the middle of the cylinder so that it is precessed. (first lever)

A heavy ball on an incline does what?

A heavy mass pushing a long lever arm does what? (2nd lever)

The torque from the lever arm with a beam at 90 degrees can make a virtual wedge lifting cylinder behind the heavy ball creating an incline with a wheel.

A beam at -90 degrees from the lever arm can create a counterbalance or fall in front (by dropping the cylinder) of the heavy mass. (3rd lever)

The ball has only one direction to go to re-gauge itself.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on October 16, 2012, 01:37:14 AM
Hi Seamus,

I just started this project and this is my third printed cylinder. From my experiments it take very little energy to push the lever with the weight aiding. Like all gravity devices I need to build bigger more mass. So far my designs have been iterative I've been fixing issues as I come across them. I can tell you why this 3rd version will not work and working on a 4th larger version so I can get a 2" sphere with a lighter weight printed lever, but I am open to your thoughts on why it won't work and if so do you see a way to use this leveraged fall to aid a motor?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on October 17, 2012, 07:03:14 PM
Hi Seamus,

I appreciate your input.

I don't understand what you mean by bottom though. The ball and lever portion are on the slope due the counterbalance and wedge behind it. The bottom where the rim of the precessed cylinder is contacting the ground is about a quarter of the way from lever arm between the counterbalance. In other words the lever and ball are always on a slope with the true bottom being slightly in front of the lever.

This is where I'm not understanding, logically you would think two objects on a slope would want to seek lowest point especially when a heavier object is behind it. The bottom is always being pushed ahead on the rim of the cylinder ahead of the lever and weight.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 17, 2012, 08:11:59 PM
I just started this project and this is my third printed cylinder. From my experiments it take very little energy to push the lever with the weight aiding. Like all gravity devices I need to build bigger more mass. So far my designs have been iterative I've been fixing issues as I come across them. I can tell you why this 3rd version will not work and working on a 4th larger version so I can get a 2" sphere with a lighter weight printed lever...
Hi DTB,

Very nice construction.  I think it is great that you are doing a quality build of your device.  I suspect you are learning a lot about the issues involved and increasing your skills.  It does not matter if your device is O/U or not.  All that matters is that you are building a device and learning about the principles involved. 

Ignore anyone who dissuades you from dreaming and trying out different ideas.  Learn for yourself by doing.  Just don't fall in love with an idea so that you fail to learn the objective truth about it.  If your operating principle is wrong, then learn about that too.  Even an experiment that fails to achieve the original goal can have a useful result.  The post-it note glue was a dismal failure of an experiment to make a strong adhesive.  Penicillin was discovered from a failed experiment.  Objective powers of observation and dreaming about the possibilities are all that is required for useful ideas.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 17, 2012, 10:59:54 PM
I now do not think I have a leak in my test system.  I believe I was pushing the system too close to the maximum or "ideal" lift and witnessing a water transfer phenomenon caused by my crappy build. 
 
In all ZEDs, while trying to stroke up with the absolute maximum lift mass the water in the system will rise to the very edge of the retaining walls.  If you add input water at any appreciable rate to the Pod chamber at that condition you will cause a wave of pressure differential that, while it tries to stabilize, will cause some of that water to spill over.  This causes air in the next passage to also burp up under the next Riser wall and a cascade of water and air resettlement occurs from the inner chambers towards the outer chambers of the ZED.  This is "blowing skirts" and normally a fairly violent and obvious event.
 
However, in the case of a poor construction with not very cylindrical members you may have the condition where the walls of the Pod/Risers and Retainer Walls come close or into contact.  Capillary action causes water to rise up around these close contact areas and "wick" or "weep" over the retainer wall tops in a very slow and gentle manner possibly.  So it is a sloooooow skirt blow scenario that does not evidence itself with the usually expected violent skirt blow activity.  Instead, you end up with extra water in the outside annulus and a slowly decreasing lift potential that leads you to think you have a leak.  At least that is my current theory.
 
I lowered my lift mass from ~1153g down to exactly ~1000g to see if this corrected the problems I was having that lead me to believe I had a leak in the system.  So far, so good.  Further testing for stability is, of course, needed.  But I think the leak (like the cake) was a lie.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 18, 2012, 12:18:43 AM
 ;D
Told you that you'd figure it out !

PS - same thing happens in (as others have said) "better" builds too.....
Can't tell you how many hours I've spent, even now with the ability to add / remove air or water where I think it's needed (or not) and have still not come up with the combination that will leave margin top and bottom for 66% of IDEAL in a managed .750 lift in both loaded and unloaded conditions.

I'll think I'm close... and then I'll see a meniscus form at either a top or bottom of this partition or that..... and try a different combination,,, or as you said, VIOLENTLY blow a skirt.

Interesting - but frustrating some times too.

Been there done that
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 18, 2012, 12:57:57 AM
Dale,
 
I wonder if .750 in. is too much to ask for in your build?  At least with only three layers (1 Pod, 2 Risers)?  In other words, I think you may be at the limit of your system also.  So you need to change one of four variables:  lift distance, lift height (above the "floor"), lift mass, or number of layers.
 
For me at least, stroke range and the height of that stroke range above the absolute minimum level of my Pod/Riser system were very critically linked to the "ideal" lift mass.  So maybe back off of one of those parameters a bit and see if you gain stability?
 
My belief is that you will gain a greater maximum level in at least one of those parameters as you continue to add layers.  JMHO.
 
Thanks for the support.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 18, 2012, 07:11:32 PM

So tomorrow is the big day  ;D
can Wayne keep his promise this time.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 18, 2012, 07:13:47 PM

It looks like things are a bit behind the plan:

http://ebookbrowse.com/hydro-energy-revolution-business-plan-doc-d266658317

Don't miss the "test results" near the end.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on October 18, 2012, 07:20:06 PM
So tomorrow is the big day  ;D
can Wayne keep his promise this time.
More objectively stated: Can Wayne meet his stated goal this time?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 18, 2012, 10:22:07 PM
The link from DiscerningDave is interesting if you have not seen it before, but remember that document is 20 months old.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 18, 2012, 11:20:44 PM

I feel sorry for the investors, who as of 20 months ago had forked over $330,000.  I hope they're comfortable with the term "donation".

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on October 19, 2012, 12:45:09 AM
Hi See3D,

Thank you for the encouragement. I am always open to suggestion and advice. Even if it's a complete failure I will learn, but I'm glad there are people here who can help point out where most likely errors are so I can learn from them and where I should really be focusing my energy.

Hi Seamus,

Thanks, I see now. I didn't have to increase mass to see how it's locking. I used a sphere magnet with a metal plate underneath which should've pulled the lever down moving the slope but didn't.  I still find the slope aspect interesting as a little tap is all that required to move it forward.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 19, 2012, 03:20:46 PM
Friday just started in Mr. Wayne's World of southern Oklahoma. In fact it's not even 8:30 am yet; bankers and lawyers are still having their breakfast martinis.

You could at least give him until lunchtime before you conclude that he's all wet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on October 19, 2012, 10:01:51 PM
So friday is drawing to a close in my part of the world and I'm off to local for a beer.
No sign of Mr Wayne's self imposed deadline being hit as yet. Time to write this off as a viable idea....?
Time to write it off? Certainly not for me. I still would like to make a spreadsheet on #2531 and better understand Mr. Wayne reaction to it #2534. Thank you for the directions Mr. Wayne.

Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 20, 2012, 02:50:51 AM
Maybe they meant _next_ Friday.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 20, 2012, 03:21:51 PM
I finally got my system stable and repeatable enough to try and take some numbers.  I ran this experiment three times as accurately as possible and then ran the OU evaluation from post #2505.  My measured values were:
 
Lift Mass = 1000 g
Pressure Increase = (from 225 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 22.5 g/cm2
Volume = 113 ml ( or cm3)
Stroke = 1.0 cm
 
This gives a comparative piston value of 113 cm3/1.0 cm = 113 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 113 cm2 x 22.5 g/cm2 = 2540 g. 
Since my lift mass was only 1000 g this is underunity at 1000/2540 = 39.4%.
 
However, not all of the recorded volume went into the ZED to cause the measured lift.  Approximately 16 ml (or cm3) was used to raise the pressure and remained in the input tube.  This caused the 225 mm rise in the input tube water levels between top and bottom of the stroke.  So if this 16 ml is subtracted from the 113 ml the comparative piston value would be 97 cm3/1.0 cm = 97 cm2.  The calculated mass that comparative piston would be able to lift is 97 cm2 x 22.5 g/cm2 = 2180 g.  This is also underunity at 1000/2180 = 45.9%.
 
Math checks and comments are appreciated.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 20, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
I finally got my system stable and repeatable enough to try and take some numbers.  I ran this experiment three times as accurately as possible and then ran the OU evaluation from post #2505.  My measured values were:
 
Lift Mass = 1000 g
Pressure Increase = (from 225 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 22.5 g/cm2
Volume = 113 ml ( or cm3)
Stroke = 1.0 cm
 
This gives a comparative piston value of 113 cm3/1.0 cm = 113 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 113 cm2 x 22.5 g/cm2 = 2540 g. 
Since my lift mass was only 1000 g this is underunity at 1000/2540 = 39.4%.
 
However, not all of the recorded volume went into the ZED to cause the measure lift.  Approximately 16 ml (or cm3) was used to raise the pressure and remained in the input tube.  This caused the 225 mm rise in the input tube water levels between top and bottom of the stroke.  So if this 16 ml is subtracted from the 113 ml the comparative piston value would be 97 cm3/1.0 cm = 97 cm2.  The measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift is 97 cm2 x 22.5 g/cm2 = 2180 g.  This is also underunity at 1000/2180 = 45.9%.
 
Math checks and comments are appreciated.
 
M.
Hi M.
 
Nice, but could you list the size specifications of your model. You probably did it before, but it would save time as I would like to calculate the lift force and compare the calculated results to actual of your results to wildew's.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 20, 2012, 04:28:11 PM
Nice, but could you list the size specifications of your model. You probably did it before, but it would save time as I would like to calculate the lift force and compare the calculated results to actual of your results to wildew's.

Sure Larry.
 
Pod OD 87.5 mm x 107.5 mm tall 38 g.
Inner Riser OD 95.5 mm x 111 mm tall 30 g.
Outer Riser OD 103 mm x 112 mm tall 34 g.
 
The above were all measured before assembly and set up of the ZED and are average values of OD and height.  The rest will be derived from the build process and the above numbers since I cannot measure anything but the outer wall OD right now and even that is an approximation.
 
Outer Wall OD 107 mm.
Mid Retainer Wall OD 99.5 mm.
Pod Chamber Wall OD 91.5 mm.
 
I actually have no spare material to measure thickness!  So if anyone has a two liter Pepsi bottle and calipers, have at it.  I would estimate it at ~0.4 or 0.5 mm thick.
 
All end caps are 2 mm thick.  I estimate that the Outer and Inner Risers are floating ~ 2 or 3 mm above the retainer walls they would rest on when the system is at the bottom of stroke.
 
I'd have to tear everything down to accurately weigh the preload weight due to the weight (spacer), indicator touch plank, and indicator probe, but estimate all that to be around 380~400 g (on top of the Outer Riser mass).  The removable lift mass (jar of water) was set up to be exactly 1000 g.
 
Let me know if you need anything else.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 20, 2012, 09:47:50 PM
Sure Larry.
 
Pod OD 87.5 mm x 107.5 mm tall 38 g.
Inner Riser OD 95.5 mm x 111 mm tall 30 g.
Outer Riser OD 103 mm x 112 mm tall 34 g.
 
The above were all measured before assembly and are average values of OD and height.  The rest will be derived from the build process and the above numbers since I cannot measure anything but the outer wall OD right now and even that is an approximation.
 
Outer Wall OD 107 mm.
Mid Retainer Wall OD 99.5 mm.
Pod Chamber Wall OD 91.5 mm.
 
I actually have no spare material to measure thickness!  So if anyone has a two liter Pepsi bottle and calipers, have at it.  I would estimate it at ~0.4 or 0.5 mm thick.
 
All end caps are 2 mm thick.  I estimate that the Outer and Inner Risers are floating ~ 2 or 3 mm above the retainer walls they would rest on when the system is at the bottom of stroke.
 
I'd have to tear everything down to accurately weigh the preload weight due to the weight (spacer), indicator touch plank, and indicator probe, but estimate all that to be around 380~400 g (on top of the Outer Riser mass).  The removable lift mass (jar of water) was set up to be exactly 1000 g.
 
Let me know if you need anything else.
 
M.

Thanks, M.
 
 
See attachment: It calculates out to your diameters with a .5mm thickness and a gap of 1.45mm.
 
 
Wayne had recommended that the height be 3 times the average diameter. This seems like your issue.
Also, if it was close to that height, your lift force would increase greatly and you would have no trouble with the .75".
 
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 20, 2012, 10:03:16 PM
Wayne had recommended that the height be 3 times the average diameter. This seems like your issue.
Also, if it was close to that height, your lift force would increase greatly and you would have no trouble with the .75".

Larry, please understand that I am not a contestant in any of the challenges.  So I have no issue.  I have only built what I could with what I could come by cheaply so that (hopefully) we could determine the proper way to test and confirm that a three layer ZED (1 Pod, 2 Risers) can be OU or not.  I understand that the proportions of my test ZED are not what has been recommended and my experience with testing it would cause me to declare exactly the same thing.  For the given diameters of the members I worked with a taller build would have definitely performed better.
 
But at this point I have a build that has been tested and the results given.  Even if it is an OU failure it should fit the predictions of your spreadsheet and Dennis' simulation.  So, does it?  Does your spreadsheet say this build will fail to be OU by approximately the same percentage as the measurements and calcs taken from the real world build?  If so, this is a good thing!  And I would happily run other tests for you or anyone else interested in verifying mathematical models.  Those models should not only work to predict a good build.  They should also work to show identical results for a bad one.
 
Thanks for the checks so far.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 21, 2012, 12:13:53 AM
Nice work M.
I really should ship you mine and let you play with it, but then what would I have to occupy so much time  :o

@fletcher, if you would - from #2647
Quote
2. You know how much extra volume & weight of water must be added to the outer channel so that the Pod/Riser plus lifted mass will stroke the full 10 mm after release.
You said outer channel? - was that intentional?

Larry uses an outer channel water drop figure in the spreadsheets. I've never fully understood the significance of that. Larry?

I think I've finally worked out a nice setup method but it hasn't changed the final testing results much. If anything it has increased the lift differential of removing water from height x and pouring it back in at height y. Maybe in dual-zed land that's a benefit, not sure. It does seem to make the "work?" numbers look worse.

Setup Method - now... (ports top and bottom in each cavity - single top plate)
This had me swinging,,, inject water into the space between two retainers, with a sunk riser between them. How to control which cavity the water goes in to..... Same with adding air at the top. And all 7 cavities interact.....

Tuns out it's not so tough once you really understand the pressure gradients - OK, I'm slow.....
- With it weighted down, flood the pod chamber and close the first air vent.
- Then inject water into the first riser cavity, the trapped air will force the water up the right side of riser 1.
- Close the air vent and continue.
- It's real interesting at water port 3, the air really starts to compress in the inner chambers, reducing the differentials.
- If desired, add air in the reverse order, from outside in. ( a 100ml hydroponics syringe works GREAT! )  ;D

** measured water volumes in each of the chambers is about 500mL, 450, 475, 500 ish **

I'm starting to wish I had invested in some distilled water. I've got hard, high calcium water, even softened the whole thing is getting cloudy and harder to see, measure. Maybe time for a vinegar rinse.

Current testing setup:
Dry assembly - flat top pod / riser + hardware and blocks is 16Lb 10Oz | lift weight is 16Lb
Fluid cycled is 13 Fl Oz
Head pressures, POD outward, in inches of head
Sunk to a stop without the lift weight: 8 - 16 - 14.5 - 9.25
Pre-charge 26 - 26 - 20 - 11
Full lift of .75  34 - 26.5 - 17.5 - 9.25

With this setup there's quite a bit of margin - interesting to watch it approach the limits and then back away from them as it lifts. I could go to a full inch pretty easily but I'm starting to think the lift is the gravy, almost a side-effect of what's really happening in the system - it NEEDS to charge under added resistance; but what's it giving back????? 

Maybe time to add layer 4 but it definitely has gotten MUCH more complex with each added layer.

Nice little cheer from Mark D on the smart scarecrow show
From me: Go get 'em Wayne !
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 21, 2012, 07:01:31 PM
Is it a secret?

It's Sunday morning in Oklahoma. Everyone is at church, dressed in their Sunday finest. This afternoon, after a nice big Sunday meal, the valiant crew of 108 will no doubt roll up their sleeves and return to work on the advamcement of the new redefined Zed technoology.

Quote
Hello and Welcome,

Yes, Hello and Welcome, We the cooperation of our now 108 team members - we have just advanced our system to an entire new level production with dramatically reduced capital cost and reduced complexity.
This Advamcement in our ZED technoology has massively opened our market - we are in the process of redefining our business objectives.
This is the Adventure in the discovery!
questions to me, Wayne Travis at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
I will be glad to answer.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis
(sic)
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/letter-from-the-president


Well, here's a question then: Are you "up and running" yet, as your October 15 update promised you'd be by last Wednesday, Friday at the latest?
Is it a secret?


Sincerely Doubtful
--TK

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 21, 2012, 08:30:55 PM
I have lowered the lift mass from 1000 g to 900 g.

Lift Mass = 900 g
Pressure Increase = (from 202 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 20.2 g/cm2
Volume = 110 ml ( or cm3)
Stroke = 1.0 cm
 
This gives a comparative piston value of 110 cm3/1.0 cm = 110 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 110 cm2 x 20.2 g/cm2 = 2220 g. 
Since my lift mass was only 1000 g this is underunity at 900/2220 = 40.5%.
 
However, not all of the recorded volume went into the ZED to cause the measured lift.  Approximately 14.4 ml (or cm3) was used to raise the pressure and remained in the input tube.  This caused the 202 mm rise in the input tube water levels between top and bottom of the stroke.  So if this 14.4 ml is subtracted from the 110 ml the comparative piston value would be 95.6 cm3/1.0 cm = 95.6 cm2.  The calculated mass that comparative piston would be able to lift is 95.6 cm2 x 20.2 g/cm2 = 1930 g.  This is also underunity at 900/1930 = 46.6%.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 21, 2012, 09:09:38 PM
It's hard for me to see any dependence on geometry in those kinds of numbers. That is, if your Zed system were tall and skinny, or short and fat, the lift and pressure numbers would still be the same, since they depend on the volume of fluid, and this doesn't change regardless of the shape.
Am I correct in this reasoning?

Anyhow, did we ever get a confirmation that these results from the three builds (yours, wildew's and webby's) , can be modelled accurately by the sims that LarryC and see3d are working with?



Seriously, though.... it sure doesn't seem to me that you are going to be able to make progress towards the goal of confirming overunity in a simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, unless you get some more specific help from someone who actually has such a system up and running.

By Wednesday.




Friday at the latest.

 :-[
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 21, 2012, 10:01:04 PM
It's hard for me to see any dependence on geometry in those kinds of numbers. That is, if your Zed system were tall and skinny, or short and fat, the lift and pressure numbers would still be the same, since they depend on the volume of fluid, and this doesn't change regardless of the shape.
Am I correct in this reasoning?
Hi TK.
 
What I have observed with regards to the proportions of the Pod/Riser Diameter to Height is this:
 
A short setup (like mine) has a reduced stroke distance potential vs. a taller setup.  This is because the pressure differentials in the system are always escalating from whatever is your "preload" setup of water and air levels toward a "blow skirts" situation.  The shorter the Pod/Risers, the quicker you will blow skirts.  And so the maximum stroke potential is therefore reduced as the Pod/Risers are constructed shorter (relative to their diameter). 

So a taller build will give you more "distance" between the preload setup condition and when the system will "blow skirts."  Therefore the stroke distance increases as the ZED becomes taller.  To what limit this relationship converges and/or reverses I have no idea.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 21, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Hi TK.
 
What I have observed with regards to the proportions of the Pod/Riser Diameter to Height is this:
 
A short setup (like mine) has a reduced stroke distance potential vs. a taller setup.  This is because the pressure differentials in the system are always escalating from whatever is your "preload" setup of water and air levels toward a "blow skirts" situation.  The shorter the Pod/Risers, the quicker you will blow skirts.  And so the maximum stroke potential is therefore reduced as the Pod/Risers are constructed shorter (relative to their diameter). 

So a taller build will give you more "distance" between the preload setup condition and when the system will "blow skirts."  Therefore the stroke distance increases as the ZED becomes taller.  To what limit this relationship converges and/or reverses I have no idea.
 
M.

Isn't the calculation of a "comparative piston value" a way of normalizing or correcting for this difference in stroke length with Zed aspect ratio (ratio of diameter to height)?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 21, 2012, 10:33:31 PM
Isn't the calculation of a "comparative piston value" a way of normalizing or correcting for this difference in stroke length with Zed aspect ratio (ratio of diameter to height)?

Hmmm.  Supposedly?   

But why rely on calculations when you can run a physical test?  I mean, it's the only way to be sure, right?
 
Any tests I can do besides these boring mass reduction runs that you think might help?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 21, 2012, 11:06:57 PM
Dear All,
I came across an interesting read , I think the book content is somewhat relevant to the current evolved position of the Hydro Differential invention having arrived at a crucial milestone on its way towards confirmation and market introduction

"Mad like Tesla",  exploring the "underdog inventors"

INTRODUCTION : Cheering the Lone Runner
It will never work. It can never be done. It is impossible. It will never be accepted.
How often, throughout modern history, have those words been spoken?

There are dozens of classic examples, from Tesla to current inventors and their pursuits to introducing new idea's and concepts
Also includes passages on current hot and cold fusion positions, Thane Heins and a variety of other recent concept inventions.

The book:
Mad Like Tesla: Underdog Inventors and their Relentless Pursuit of Clean Energy By Tyler Hamilton
Publisher: E[CW] P[res]s 2011 | 256 Pages | ISBN: 1770410082 | PDF | 1 MB

Can be found here for evaluation:
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/Politics_Sociology/1770410082.html (http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/Politics_Sociology/1770410082.html)

I hope you like it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 21, 2012, 11:39:07 PM

Hmmm.  Supposedly?   

But why rely on calculations when you can run a physical test?  I mean, it's the only way to be sure, right?
 
Any tests I can do besides these boring mass reduction runs that you think might help?
 
M.
Well, personally I'd like to see a calibration of your manometric pressure measurement system, but I can't think of an easy, free way to do it, without having a calibrated reference manometer to compare with. But really... there's not much that can go wrong with manometry, as long as you've got the tubing and the space.

I suppose you can't test any geometric hypotheses, unless you want to build a new system. But what would be the point of that? Right now, absent input from Mister Wayne's Brayne, I'd say that the priority would be trying to get a sim to track your actual results, as a way of validating the simulation.

I mean, you are doing it right, right? Your Zed/Pod/riser system is set up according to the best directions available from the actual inventor, given the constraints of your chosen system of engineering materials and construction technology, along with your experimental protocols and measurement tools... right? And you aren't blowing skirts and your results are repeatable, so on and so forth. So your experimental results are valid, right? Is anyone challenging them on realistic grounds?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 21, 2012, 11:45:29 PM
@Red_Sunset: The invocation of Nikola Tesla in these conversations is another nearly sure sign of "woo" and exaggerated hyperbole.  May I point out a rather significant difference between Tesla himself, and many of those other "inventors" mentioned in that text?

Tesla, of course, actually demonstrated the veracity and validity of his claims, almost 100 percent, across his entire career. In addition he actually did patent many of his inventions, and many of his inventions or their direct technological descendants are in daily use, by me and by you. Those others mentioned in that text..... have less stunning records.

Back on the topic.... since you seem to be on the "inside" track, there, Red, perhaps _you_ can tell us what happened.... is the system "up and running", was this Friday the one meant, have there been some snags, has Mark D. purchased his airline tickets yet?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 22, 2012, 01:23:32 AM
It's hard for me to see any dependence on geometry in those kinds of numbers. That is, if your Zed system were tall and skinny, or short and fat, the lift and pressure numbers would still be the same, since they depend on the volume of fluid, and this doesn't change regardless of the shape.
Am I correct in this reasoning?


No.
 
I don't have a 2 Riser System Rise calculator. So I used my 3 Riser System Rise calculator as an example of geometry change.
 
Pic 1 shows the results before and after from a .75 rise using M.'s specification.
 
Pic 2 shows the results before and after from a .75 rise using M.'s specification, but the height changed to 13".
 
Regards, Larry
 
PS: Red is probably asleep now, but all I can tell you is this,  ;D . But, If you want to be the one who writes the physics paper on this great advance, you should start trying to understand now.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 22, 2012, 02:44:08 AM
Is there an answer to the actual questions asked, in those images, I wonder? 

Does LarryC's system accurately predict or describe the performance of Mondrasek's actual system?

Does the aspect ratio of the Zed affect the work efficiency measurements made in the manner that Mondrasek showed?

If these questions are answered in LarryC's drawings, can someone explain to me just where, and how? Because it just doesn't "pop out" at me.

Meanwhile..... did MrWayne meet his self-imposed deadline, or did he not? Does he have his system "up and running" and is Mark Dansie waiting in line to board an airplane, or not?

Answer me that one, and then maybe we can talk about scientific papers, LarryC.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 22, 2012, 09:48:31 AM
Quote
Tinselkoala: Back on the topic.... since you seem to be on the "inside" track, there, Red, perhaps _you_ can tell us what happened.... is the system "up and running", was this Friday the one meant, have there been some snags, has Mark D. purchased his airline tickets yet?
Meanwhile..... did MrWayne meet his self-imposed deadline, or did he not? Does he have his system "up and running" and is Mark Dansie waiting in line to board an airplane, or not?
Answer me that one, and then maybe we can talk about scientific papers, LarryC.
LarryC:  But, If you want to be the one who writes the physics paper on this great advance, you should start trying to understand now.
As a quick reply,
Tinsel, thanks for your learned multi-opinions on the “mad like Tesla” book, please do read it first and take note of the intended message direction of the book. Do not make the same mistake as you did with Wayne’s message.
With reference to the inside track,  I would assume that when all is ready for your ears to hear, you will hear it.  Patience mon ami. 
I can only wholly agree with Larry, as a skeptic with no understanding of the device, is akin to a chicken without head.  May I suggest you stay away from scientific papers until the understanding has come. (this assessment is based on my perception of your postings I read in this forum)

I found the following professional signatures references on the web.  The are not my own, neither do I agree with them and I do not approve of the language and I cannot understand how this can be a fair rating. 
You could take some lessons from Mark Dansie, who stated "I am not out there to disprove or debunk it, although this makes me a skeptic by default",  the skeptic position is a result, not a purpose.  This makes a great difference, since this means that the process requires first understanding and analysis before the words " No, this can't be real or can't work" are uttered (also referred to as "due diligence")

Location
http://americantrollsociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/most-wanted-list.html
 (http://americantrollsociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/most-wanted-list.html)
Posted content at that URL
//////////////
TinselKoala
This real life psychopath is the reason crazy people should be neutered. Take insecure, mix in some psychotic levels of projection and an obsessive need for attention and you have this mistake of humanity.

Has thus far claimed to be from Australia, New Zealand and now claims to live "10 of miles from the inventor of the magnecoaster" in Ontario Canada. Canadians measure distance in kilometers dumb ass... Just to complete the picture, his youtube account claims he is from the US.

Suspected of having Conflicted Multiple Personality Disorder (CMPD) which has spread across the Earth since the personalities don't get along.

Publicly accused of being all of the four horseman from the apocalypse in a single shape shifting troll by Vatican spokesman Father Ciro Benedettini.

After being crushed by Quarktoo in Lawrence Tseung's temple of trolling, Tinsel went over the edge and is now required to take medication and wear an ankle bracelet monitored by law enforcement for the rest of his life.
//////////////
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 22, 2012, 02:10:29 PM
@@Red_Sunset,
You are taking things out of context and you have no idea about the great work TK does,
as well as uncovering fraudulent claims, which of course make the people who he has caught out
very angry, so it should be no surprise to find negative comments on the Internet (come on wake up)
You are being offensive calling TK a troll, if you look at his youtube account you will see
this is a person with great knowledge who does experiments and research.

And when somebody makes a claim of overunity, you expect him to have blind faith in that claim
And except it as presented without challenging it, (get real) on this forum we have heard and seen it all before,
so when TK's challenging questions are ignored or avoided it all begins to sound like the same old story.
Do you have any idea how many claims of overunity this forum looks into every year(no of course you don't)

In your post you mention Lawrence Tseung a man well known for his extravagant claims, and it has been proven
time and time again that none of his circuits produce overunity, he is a fraud and con man.

For some reason you seem to think we should accept Wayne's word with out proper proof and verification,
and wow it's been a long time coming and still we wait and yet again Wayne has broken his word.

You seem to be in a double act with Wayne as this is the only thread you ever post in,
I doubt your sincerity in looking for a free energy device, you only appear to be interested
In promoting this one. (very suspicious) you appear to be totally convinced it works,
no need for a verification team for you.

When people make claims of overunity, they expect us to run our homes on blind faith ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 22, 2012, 02:22:30 PM
You are an amazing hypocrite, aren't you, Red. To quote that passage along with your hypocritical disclaimer that you
Quote
... found the following professional signatures references on the web.  The are not my own, neither do I agree with them and I do not approve of the language and I cannot understand how this can be a fair rating...
indicates that you are trying to prove a point by your citation.

Yet you have no compunction about quoting that passage. What is your point? Why did you not then cite or quote all the OTHER passages on that website having to do with OTHER members of this forum? You say you don't agree but you quote it anyway. Your actions belie your words, making you a hypocrite.

I've made no mistakes concerning Mr. Wayne, and you've done nothing to refute my points or answer my questions. May I remind you, Red_Sunset, that you have made some amazingly amateurish errors in your own calculations, and as far as I am aware, your simulation results do not correspond to any results from actual systems.


Mister Wayne said, in his "newsletter" of October 15, that he would be "up and running" by Wednesday, meaning 17 October, Friday at the latest. Today is the 22nd of October. Is Mister Wayne "up and running" yet, and has Mark Dansie made his airline reservations yet? What do YOU think, Red_Sunset? Has he fulfilled this simple promise, or has he missed YET ANOTHER deadline for demonstrating the veracity of his claims?


Now... let's see if you really do agree with or support any of the statements that you have so kindly reproduced, while failing to answer any real questions ON TOPIC.


Quote
TinselKoala
This real life psychopath is the reason crazy people should be neutered. Take insecure, mix in some psychotic levels of projection and an obsessive need for attention and you have this mistake of humanity.
I challenge anyone to produce evidence that I am psychopathic, crazy, insecure, psychotic or projecting my own inadequacies on others. Please give references and your qualifications to make these diagnoses.
Quote
Has thus far claimed to be from Australia, New Zealand and now claims to live "10 of miles from the inventor of the magnecoaster" in Ontario Canada. Canadians measure distance in kilometers dumb ass... Just to complete the picture, his youtube account claims he is from the US.
Let us have some evidence for these assertions. Where have I ever claimed to be from Australia, or New Zealand? Where have I claimed to live   "10 of miles from the inventor of the magnecoaster"? For some time I did indeed live in Mississauga, Ontario, which anyone can see is fairly close to Kitchener, ON.... some tens of miles. And Canadians do indeed still understand miles as a measurement of distance, DUMB ASS..... and just to complete the picture, everyone who knows me knows that I currently reside in SAN ANTONIO TEXAS, which I have even indicated several times in this thread.
Quote

Suspected of having Conflicted Multiple Personality Disorder (CMPD) which has spread across the Earth since the personalities don't get along.
Evidence please.... who suspects me, what are their qualifications, and in what Diagnostic and Statistical Manual edition is this "CMPD" to be found?
Quote

Publicly accused of being all of the four horseman from the apocalypse in a single shape shifting troll by Vatican spokesman Father Ciro Benedettini.
ORLY? I challenge anyone to provide support for this assertion.

Quote

After being crushed by Quarktoo in Lawrence Tseung's temple of trolling, Tinsel went over the edge and is now required to take medication and wear an ankle bracelet monitored by law enforcement for the rest of his life.

Sorry.... no. Cite a reference to the incident referred to. The allegation that I am required to take medication is a lie and the claim that I am required to wear an ankle bracelet and be monitored by anyone is a ridiculous libel.


So just what are you trying to prove by your quotation of that passage, Red_Sunset? If I find a corresponding passage on a random website insulting YOU with ridiculous and insane libels, should I post it here for you all to read? Of course I would include a disclaimer that I did not agree.......




Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 22, 2012, 06:37:26 PM
Check it Out!
http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 22, 2012, 07:12:22 PM
Another update full of promising statements, and on the face of it all sounds good,
let's hope this time the validation team are not postponed again.

Quote
Now also consider this - our system has been replicated by diligent people, those replications validate our claims
I have never seen a replication that has done what Wayne is claiming (self-run)
if I have missed it or someone has a link to it please post it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 22, 2012, 07:20:34 PM
Check it Out!
http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)
 
Regards, Larry

Looking very carefully, checking it out.... .I see a lot of claims but no data or evidence supporting the claims at all. I see a rebranding, some talk about a spinning or rotary system, some talk of data gathering.... but not even a claim of a continuous running device. Just a hope to "presume" running tomorrow. Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow.....

Larry, all I have ever asked for is DATA TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS BEING MADE. That is, some proof, some evidence, that actually indicates that MrWayne has what he claims. Data like that Mondrasek provides. Data from real systems. Data that support the claim that he has a "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (his exact words). But what has been provided is sorely lacking. It has been amusing watching you learn how to present your data in a manner that actually communicates something.... you are not quite there yet.
We've seen no photos from these independent replicators, no data, nothing but claims..... and still no firm date for Mark Dansie's visit, and still no self-runner. Just some more references to God and the Bible.... which I find totally amazing. Typical but amazing.
What we have seen is believers making attacks on skeptics like me, exemplified by the quotation Red_Sunset chose to post. No refutations of our points, no arguments about substance, no provision of any support for their claims, but simple ad hominem abuse, while at the same time accusing us, falsely, of the same thing.

Now.... getting back to something we can actually check: Does your sim reproduce or predict Mondrasek's accurate results properly? If it doesn't..... well, there is something wrong somewhere. Wouldn't you agree? And it's pretty hard to argue with results as precise and consistent as Mondrasek's.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 22, 2012, 08:35:26 PM
......................................What we have seen is believers making attacks on skeptics like me, exemplified by the quotation Red_Sunset chose to post. No refutations of our points, no arguments about substance, no provision of any support for their claims, but simple ad hominem abuse, while at the same time accusing us, falsely, of the same thing.
......................................
Peace Bro ! Please do not shoot the messenger, 
I only showed you something, you knew already that it was out there. I can not see why you get so hyped up on it. You must have stepped on someone's feet to get that write-up. I agree that the content is bullshit with no meaning to actuality but it does underlines the feelings certain people have towards you. Pretty similar to the reputation you acquired here in this topic subject.  It is not always what was said but how it was said what is destructive.
The data you are looking for is will not help you without understanding the device. Once you understand the device, the data is secondary. The data is only primary to the efficiency, this changes with the device type and physical properties.
Good to hear the good news on the replication , do not force your way in, only diligence will work.
Regards.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on October 22, 2012, 09:00:20 PM
Strange enough? The questions are there, but the answers are missing!

At the bottom of this page: http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/our-system-explained (http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/our-system-explained)

Do you have a working model?
What is the best run time on record?
Doe the ZED Produce usable power?

The answers to the other questions are lacking substance, only promisses and waffle.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 22, 2012, 09:57:38 PM
@Red:

Just imagine how easy it would be to embarrass me, shut me up, make me eat crow or humble pie or whatever your favorite metaphor might be. All that needs to be done is for someone of these people to "show the sausages"... that is, to produce unequivocal evidence that their claims are true. Not Mylow, not Archer Quinn, not "TheBuzz" who I believe wrote the passage you quoted, not Rosemary Ainslie, not Steorn..... and as of yet, not Mister Wayne..... none of them have performed the simple act that would have me eating my Stetson and publicly apologising on YouTube, just before vanishing into history. Not one!
Instead, they choose to insult me, complain about my personal style, seek to have me banned by secret communications with the site owner, post lies and libels about me, or even about people they only _think_ are me..... but they never refute me. Why not?

One would be tempted to draw a certain conclusion from this, don't you think? And I'm not talking about concluding that I am not a nice person, or a DUMB ASS, or a misogynistic homosexual, or a pagan hippie. I am talking about them trying to support their claims and demonstrate their veracity. The conclusion is that they cannot, and that they don't, in fact, have what they claim.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 23, 2012, 03:33:44 AM
@Red:

Just imagine how easy it would be to embarrass me, shut me up, make me eat crow or humble pie or whatever your favorite metaphor might be. All that needs to be done is for someone of these people to "show the sausages"... that is, to produce unequivocal evidence that their claims are true. Not Mylow, not Archer Quinn, not "TheBuzz" who I believe wrote the passage you quoted, not Rosemary Ainslie, not Steorn..... and as of yet, not Mister Wayne..... none of them have performed the simple act that would have me eating my Stetson and publicly apologising on YouTube, just before vanishing into history. Not one!
Instead, they choose to insult me, complain about my personal style, seek to have me banned by secret communications with the site owner, post lies and libels about me, or even about people they only _think_ are me..... but they never refute me. Why not?

One would be tempted to draw a certain conclusion from this, don't you think? And I'm not talking about concluding that I am not a nice person, or a DUMB ASS, or a misogynistic homosexual, or a pagan hippie. I am talking about them trying to support their claims and demonstrate their veracity. The conclusion is that they cannot, and that they don't, in fact, have what they claim.

Tinsel,
Your point is well made and taken,  I am confident that within the not so distant future the claims will be proven in a way that will satisfy the needs of you & all.
Regards,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 23, 2012, 07:06:04 PM
FYI - The new "Our System Explained" page on Wayne's site has been up for about 2 weeks or so.  Wayne decided to update it for a Q & A page and began by listing the questions. I have noticed 3 or 4 updates to the page since then, as he is adding more answers.

His latest addition is the answer to the question, Do you have a working model?

"As of Mid October - we have built - in house 9 models, each new progression in the development better than the last.
Currently we have two complete models and both work as claimed. Both have been independently replicated - not for the world to see - but for our partnerships and developing teams. Visitor's have access to both models - with NDA's.
We have a model ten in progress - each model uses a unique method to create the advantage over Gravity and the correlating relationships of our differential process. They do not look the same - and one is better than the other for different uses.
They all use our discovery and method to turn the conservative field of gravity into a viable energy source - unlocking that key is the diamond to our success."
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 23, 2012, 07:30:54 PM
Well, my invisible pink Unicorn project is coming along nicely. As of Mid October - we have foaled - in house 9 colts, each new progression in the development better than the last.
Currently we have two complete adults with horns and both work at stud as claimed. Both have been independently verified - not for the world to see - but for our partnerships and developing teams. Visitor's have access to both adults - with NDA's.
We have a model ten in progress - each model uses a unique method to create the advantage over Optics and the correlating relationships of our differential invisibility process. They do not look the same - and one is better than the other for different uses, but they are all invisible to one degree or another.
They all use our discovery and method to turn the conservative field of illumination into a viable cloaking device - unlocking that key is the diamond to our success.

If anyone would care to dispute me, or to see my small herd of invisible pink unicorns, you can come and visit at any time. Of course you will have to sign my NDA.

No, silly, I can't show you a photograph of an invisible pink unicorn.... they are _invisible_. So that proves their existence. And I can't let you talk to anyone of the many people.... 117 at last count.... who _have_ seen them. Because they are all under NDA.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 23, 2012, 07:41:53 PM
What about an infrared camera?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 23, 2012, 09:23:23 PM
What about an infrared camera?
Sometimes I think you aren't taking me seriously.

Of course, it would be easy to prove to you that I have a herd of invisible pink unicorns. I could set up the infrared camera; I could put the sprinklers on then dump some flour onto them, I could record the sound of them rutting, I could send you a box full of their....er...... never mind. It would be EASY to prove what I claim. Really, really easy.

But I'm not going to prove it to you. That's not my purpose here, and you'd learn nothing. You might even try to say that I faked the proof. So you need to find out for yourself. I'll tell you the basics.... for example, unicorns are a lot like horses, they eat the same food and require only a little more space for exercise. Now, if you start with some ordinary horses, there is a way you can wind up with invisible pink unicorns.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 23, 2012, 09:57:53 PM
Sometimes I think you aren't taking me seriously.

And sometimes I think you take me *too* seriously.  Truth is, I'm bored.  Waiting will do that (to me at least) rather quickly.  And so I play.
 
I'd like to play with invisible pink unicorns.  But I underestimated their dimensions.  I had "assumed" that they were a miniature variety, something like a miniature goat or possibly donkey.  But if they come from full sized horses, I'm out.  I don't have the room, nor the zoning requirements for livestock.  Though if anyone cares to have a go I would love to read about the experiment.  Probably a new thread is in order.
 
Cheers,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 23, 2012, 10:03:09 PM
TK -

I thank you for your time spent researching and helping me learn of IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorns). Although I never saw one in person, I am happy to blindly give donations without ever having anything but empty promises. I do have a few questions.

- Do you first create a pink unicorn and turn it invisible or do you make an invisible unicorn pink?
- On the model I am working with I notice the horn growth to be 2 cm per week, is this what you found in your findings?
- I have thought many times before I had a successful model and could never see it. For your sprinkler/flour test did you use a tractor sprinkler, I'm not able to afford a tractor sprinkler due to the donations given to you...

I have built a KHIPU (Knee High IPU) and a MLPIPU(My Little Pony IPU) and would appreciate it if your validation team would look at these as well when they come next week...or the week after that...or the week after that...

TK I encourage you to 'ignore' unbelievers, for they will not feast at the table 'with' us.

Know you are the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

- Correcaminos

beep beep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 23, 2012, 10:32:56 PM

I have built a KHIPU (Knee High IPU) and a MLPIPU(My Little Pony IPU) and would appreciate it if your validation team would look at these as well when they come next week...or the week after that...or the week after that...


Correcaminos, it looks like you're a lot farther along on the Replication Challenge than I am.  Maybe you could give me some advice.  I'm trying to build a tabletop IPU on my patio table.  I'm using a rocking horse and trying to make a horn out of a tennis-ball can, attached with duct tape.  But I'm having a little trouble with invisibility.  Maybe I used the wrong shade of pink spray paint.  Will more layers help, maybe three?  I know I'm close, I just can't quite get there.

I know I can turn this rocking horse into a live unicorn, despite everything the "experts" know about biology.  They could help us, if they would just quit being negative and get their hands furry!

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 23, 2012, 10:58:37 PM
Correcaminos, it looks like you're a lot farther along on the Replication Challenge than I am.  Maybe you could give me some advice.  I'm trying to build a tabletop IPU on my patio table.  I'm using a rocking horse and trying to make a horn out of a tennis-ball can, attached with duct tape.  But I'm having a little trouble with invisibility.  Maybe I used the wrong shade of pink spray paint.  Will more layers help, maybe three?  I know I'm close, I just can't quite get there.

I know I can turn this rocking horse into a live unicorn, despite everything the "experts" know about biology.  They could help us, if they would just quit being negative and get their hands furry!

Well I will have to admit I noticed TK was so far along on his, and did not want to be 'left behind' so I first created a time machine to travel back and catch up to TKs progress. Unfortunately the first time machine I built looked like a couple of hot water heaters with pipe, etc mangled around it.

Anywhoo, I think the problem, and not really a problem at all: each solution in it's own time, is that when adhering the can, ensure that the rocking horse is laying on it's side preferably head (crown) facing the north with snout facing west. With the horse on it's side the duct tape can take advantage of lateral gravity. On some models it may even require 2 layer and 3 layer adhesion.

For invisibility you must wear a different hat, I will explain the many hats one must wear later (*sidenote - wearing to many hats has been known to neck cramping. Please talk to your physician before wearing as many hats as I).

Congratulations on coming this far, we are doing where all before us have failed, and this is not of our own doing...o wait nope it is all us! (and consequently anyone who actually successfully creates an invisible pink unicorn that I can ride their coattails).

Stay furry my friend.

- Correcaminos

beep beep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 23, 2012, 11:31:35 PM
Apparently there is no "principle" as to how this works, just some as yet not fully defined combination of 'effects' that defies conventional analysis.

I tried simulating this in SIMIPU  (http://www.simipu.com (http://www.simipu.com)) but as expected it does not show any possibility of IPU production.

This is because the equations used to do the simulations have their basis in reality principles. Because of this you won't be able to discern how this works by using any of the available equine/unicorn simulation softwares.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 24, 2012, 12:22:41 AM
I thank you all for your interest, and I am happy to report that, even though some saddles and tack got left on the loading dock, the IPU project is coming along nicely, and we are about to start on Invisible Blue and Invisible Orange unicorns as well as the original Pink.

I see that there are some concerns about scaling. I assure you that the IPU effect is completely scalable.... after all, some of our replicators have been tasked with coming up with a Table Top Corral of miniature IPUs, (we call them IPU Pony's) and we've even sent out some reward money for preliminary steps in that direction. So don't worry, I have a simple, three-Unicorn corral that is clearly invisible, all by itself, so I'm sure that one of our team members will be successful soon.

We have noticed, though, that tall skinny Unicorns are more invisible -- and pinker -- than short, fat ones.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on October 24, 2012, 12:31:43 AM
TK
Yah gotta stop smokin that stuff!!
 
Chet
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 24, 2012, 12:58:42 AM
Okay, so I've *gotta* ask...
 
How do we know the color of the unicorn if it is invisible?  I mean, does the color change come first?  Or the invisibility?
 
I'm assuming the color is before the invisibility, so aren't you really naming your invisible unicorns by the color they were *before* they became invisible?!?  How do you know they did not change colors either while they were becoming invisible or therafter?
 
M.
 
PS.  Is unicorn a proper noun in this situation or not?  Should I be capitalizing it as Unicorn?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 24, 2012, 04:38:54 AM
Okay, so I've *gotta* ask...
 
How do we know the color of the unicorn if it is invisible?  I mean, does the color change come first?  Or the invisibility?
 
I'm assuming the color is before the invisibility, so aren't you really naming your invisible unicorns by the color they were *before* they became invisible?!?  How do you know they did not change colors either while they were becoming invisible or therafter?
 

All these questions!  What is it with you doubters?  TK's not here to give you all the answers.  You need to get busy and build your own IPU.  That's the only path to enlightenment!

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 24, 2012, 09:55:32 AM
Ah, I see that there is still some confusion. Let me deal with some of the questions, if I can. This might help the sincere animal husbander to breed his own herd of invisible pink Unicorns. But the sckeptics and clownsnakes will just have to shovel it.

First, science has for thousands of years believed that the qualities "invisible" and "pink" are somehow exclusive. For many years, garage inventors have been tinkering with invisibility and have never been able to make a pink animal become invisible, nor have they been able to demonstrate pinkness in any invisible thing. "Invisibility is a conservative field" they cry. Well, we haven't transcended any physics we have just figured out a way to work around traditional physics to our advantage. A single Unicorn is only 70 percent invisible, true, but two of them are 140 percent invisible, and the more you have, the more invisible (and pink) they become.

But let me just give you a simple illustration, the Tinsel Effect. Anyone can do this themselves, with just a windowless laboratory and a Unicorn. But I've been able to harness this effect (no pun intended) to do what nobody has done before. Take your Unicorn, pink--- well, it can be any color really, use a brown one if you don't have pink--- and bring it into your laboratory. I suppose anyone can see that it is a real Unicorn and is pink. (Or brown or whatever.)

Now... turn out all the lights. Voila! Your pink Unicorn is now invisible. (And no one can deny that it is still pink.) True, this invisibility only lasts as long as the lights are out.... but I've found a way to use this effect to make investors open their purses anyway. (Don't turn the lights back on.)

As to the issue of Unicorn vs. unicorn--- first I want to thank Mondrasek for these excellent questions, they show that he is sincerely trying to understand the system rather than just calling it a bunch of horseshite hooey, a reductio ad absurdum or a satire.
I've patented the system..... (well actually I've got an idea for a sketch of a drawing for a patent application) and once the paperwork is acknowledged then the use of the capitol Unicorn will be protected as a trademark, like Kleenex (tm) or Jesus (tm).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 24, 2012, 10:27:59 AM
Seriously now..... the point of this exercise is clearly to emphasise that a paragraph of additional claims, coming "a day late and a dollar short" after a self-imposed deadline to be "up and running" for a validation team inspection is missed ..... proves nothing and could just as well be a tale of pink unicorns, invisible kind.

Does Mister Wayne have what he claims, including all these new variations? I don't know. Why don't I know? Because the people in control of the information have chosen NOT to release anything that looks like real proof, or lately even real evidence at all, that what they claim is true. Since the claim flies in the face of physics... the physics that allowed us to land a mobile robot laboratory on Mars, that allows us each to own and control dozens of powerful computers, that can take the heart out of a fresh corpse and use it to give years of life to a sick child.... the claim, without solid proof, must be taken as false until demonstrated otherwise. Nothing in this thread in terms of theoretical analysis, discussion of hypothetical operation modes, simulations, or real model builds has provided any support for Mister Wayne's claims of overunity performance. Spreadsheet results that _do_ appear to predict OU results apparently cannot duplicate the results from an actual tested system. Mister Wayne is certainly under no obligation to provide me or anyone else (other than his investors) with proof of his claims... but then one must wonder why he started this thread in the first place.

In addition it now appears that Mister Wayne is following a standard script. Devices are claimed to exist that work, but refinements are made and new devices are built, which is why the old ones cannot be tested or demonstrated any more. As soon as the new devices are ready-- incorporating a new set of miracles or a new instantiation of the old miracles-- they can be tested. Just as soon as they are ready and "up and running". No further mention is to be made about testing the OLD devices, like the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself.
This pattern has been repeated so many times it's hard to know which example is best. Steorn, Rossi, Magnacoaster, Thane Heins, MyLOW, Archer Quinn, I could go on and on .... large and small, expensive and cheap, all these organizations and people claimed to have a unit that worked and could be tested, then reneged by developing-- or claiming to develop-- new and better systems that would be tested soon..... but nobody ever gets to test the OLD, allegedly working, systems that started the whole affairs.

No, I don't _know_ for absolutely certain that Mister Wayne doesn't have what he claims. But I believe in physics and in the proper principles of scientific exploration and communication, so the reasons for my disbelief in Mister Wayne are sound, and the "cure" for them is easy: just show me the sausages. But the sausages have been replaced by a new model and nobody wants to talk about -- or test or demonstrate--- the old sausages any more.

The simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself (MrWayne's exact words) .... how was this clear overunity determined, what is the input/output work ratio, where is this system now, why can it not be demonstrated and shown to be clearly overunity by itself?

Is it an invisible pink unicorn?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 24, 2012, 01:34:33 PM
Tough to argue with any of those comments TK, I've felt several of the same frustrations at times.
One point to clarify though - IF I have been following the developments accurately myself...

The system being readied for evaluation does use the same 2 3-layer ZED devices that have been used for data collection for what, almost, if not, a year. The major departure is the mechanism for transferring fluid between them. The new method is claimed to be less complex, less expensive AND pushes the system further into the OU realm. Intention is to prove without any doubt the veracity of the claims. 

I can easily wait another week or 2.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 24, 2012, 02:17:38 PM
I can now confirm after a recent visit, that TK's invisible pink unicorn
are working as claimed, while I was there I managed to replicate one,
which is of course total proof that it works.

Working together with his team we also managed to produce a new turbo version
which is multicoloured as well as being invisible.
I have a video of my visit but for obvious reasons there is nothing to see,
for business reasons I cannot produce any Scientific Data that might back up this claim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The story of this thread is unfolding like so many others we have seen over the years,
and no matter how many plausible excuses we hear the likelihood is that it will end up
like the many other claims of overunity and result in no free energy.

Wayne by his own statement on his website has virtually put himself in the last chance saloon,
never say never, but we are likely to get more excuses, history repeating itself again
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 24, 2012, 03:54:31 PM
I can now confirm after a recent visit, that TK's invisible pink unicorn
are working as claimed, while I was there I managed to replicate one,
which is of course total proof that it works.

Working together with his team we also managed to produce a new turbo version
which is multicoloured as well as being invisible.
I have a video of my visit but for obvious reasons there is nothing to see,
for business reasons I cannot produce any Scientific Data that might back up this claim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We thank you for joining us powercat. And we thank your wife and kids for letting us borrow you for a week. I hope your trip back to Canada was quick.

To the scoffers I will post a pic. This pic will show that IPU is 100% true. It however is the last step in the process that does not violate the NDA.
To the sceptics, I thank you for you have indeed helped us reach our goal. You won't be able to feast directly with us, it's more of a little kids table, but feast you will.

- correcaminos

beep beep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 24, 2012, 05:51:39 PM
Hello Unicorn herders,
A late note tinted by a Red Sunset overlooking the Red Sea. You guys amaze me so much, that I am forced to comment.
I thought this was a technical forum for people with interest in OU, that used shared idea's and information to further their own direction of interest and research. People who can accept boundaries of self interest of other member discoveries. (in the end, unique information = $$, and these are not your $$ to loose)

I think this situation was caused by Wayne first mistake of trying to share some interesting aspects of his invention. That a partial disclosure does not work for this forum is clear. 
What we do have here is a sad bunch of opportunists that frequent these pages with a everything or nothing push approach.  With an attitude of do NOT give me an idea, a theory, a concept, we are NOT interested in that. Just give me the sausages but the sausages were not part of the sandwich. You appear like a bunch of FREE-LOADERS in your comments and rants, out to pirate an invention.

What you guys are not getting through your thick skulls is that NOBODY is seeking your approval or validation for the Zed system in the first place.  You rejected already the understanding of some of the concepts underpinning the invention. You disclaim clearly any concept claim to work or to existence.  Why are you still opening your mouths to be fed?
The reason why YOU ARE NOT PRIORITY to the new evolutionary process and progress information appears to escape your comprehension. Please think !! Do not let us be ashamed of you !!

I agree, you might be better off playing with your horned invisible donkeys.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 24, 2012, 06:27:04 PM

I thought this was a technical forum for people with interest in OU, that used shared idea's and information to further their own direction of interest and research. People who can accept boundaries of self interest of other member discoveries. (in the end, unique information = $$, and these are not your $$ to loose)

I think this situation was caused by Wayne first mistake of trying to share some interesting aspects of his invention. That a partial disclosure does not work for this forum is clear. 

What's the point of a partial disclosure?  Why post anything here at all if you can't tell us the things that matter, like how the machine is over unity or how scientists for hundreds of years have been wrong about the laws of physics?  And why defend someone so passionately when he has done nothing but make unsubstantiated claims?

I would love to know how the machine provides more energy than it uses, or at least see some evidence that it does.  Simple questions go unanswered, so it's no wonder the discussion moves into parody.

Want to shut up the "unbelievers"?  Provide some answers.  Otherwise, take cover when you hear the thunder of invisible pink hooves approaching.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 24, 2012, 07:03:45 PM
What's the point of a partial disclosure?
To advance your learning and understanding, it was not meant to be spoon feeding, Wayne did not expect to find a baby nursery.
Maybe you an try to rediscover, by beginning this topic with a new fresh outlook

Why post anything here at all if you can't tell us the things that matter, like how the machine is over unity
Enough information for understanding has been layed out, but you are not able to immediately comprehend what is told. So do some homework and you will see.

How scientists for hundreds of years have been wrong about the laws of physics?
What makes you think that, you are incorrect, Scientists have been correct for over hundreds of years, our knowledge only expands.

And why defend someone so passionately when he has done nothing but make unsubstantiated claims?
Enough has been done for the ones that do their home work

Simple questions go unanswered, so it's no wonder the discussion moves into parody. Want to shut up the "unbelievers"?  Provide some answers.  Otherwise, take cover when you hear the thunder of invisible pink hooves approaching.
You obviously in keeping the same attitude can not be helped, that is what a pink hoove.... proves.  I do not want to shut you up, I still have hope for you if you want to be helped,   but you donkey's can be very stubborn <<  You can take a thirsty pink hoove to the water but you can not make him drink.>>  All that is clear from the many misconceptions stated in preceding posts

"I would love to know how the machine provides more energy than it uses"
It is all there for you to find in the preceding topic pages.  There is no point to repeat what has been said before
Become a prospector and you will find the diamonds  (that is the best I am prepared to do at this point in time)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 24, 2012, 08:20:08 PM
Surely you can understand the unicorn idea sounds just as convincing as Wayne's argument

I know you only ever post in this thread but I hope you will take some time to look at the thousands
of other threads on this forum where people have made claims just like Wayne, they all had their chance
to prove their technology worked and they all failed (on going investigations not included)

Replications.. there have been no replications of Wayne's self-running device, not by anyone on this forum
and no links have been posted to other sites where this is shown.

The numerous spreadsheets and calculations that are as close to any real information as we have ever received
are inconclusive and very debatable.

"And so Mr Red I only post in this thread"
do you really expect people to except Wayne's word without any scientific proof,
and let's not forget how many times we have heard the verification team is coming,

I guess You have a special relationship with Wayne that we are not party to,
no need for the verification team to visit Wayne, as you are completely convinced
that his device works,hmmm very suspicious
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 24, 2012, 08:34:56 PM
...
I think this situation was caused by Wayne first mistake of trying to share some interesting aspects of his invention. That a partial disclosure does not work for this forum is clear. 
What we do have here is a sad bunch of opportunists that frequent these pages with a everything or nothing push approach.  With an attitude of do NOT give me an idea, a theory, a concept, we are NOT interested in that. Just give me the sausages but the sausages were not part of the sandwich. You appear like a bunch of FREE-LOADERS in your comments and rants, out to pirate an invention.

I'll take an 'ANYTHING or nothing approach', unfortunately nothing has been the current approach.

Freeloader - a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food, shelter, etc. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/freeloader)

I definitely depend on my employer to pay me for my work for food, shelter, etc. However this is not charity, it is earned.

I see very little difference in the definition of 'freeloader' and the man who calls himself Wayne Travis. Switch out the word charity for investments. (Mark Dansie, etc have yet to notice/report progress, so is Mr. Travis actually doing anything. Opposed to creating new acronymns everyother week for the new/better model coming out in two weeks).


I do not want to shut you up, I want to help you Then please help us Red_Sunset, (it will actually be a good practice exercise, possibly finding other areas to expand on where others for hundreds of years have failed) let's start from the beginning.

- correcaminos

beep beep

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 24, 2012, 08:56:07 PM
...

"And so Mr Red I only post in this thread"
do you really expect people to except Wayne's word without any scientific proof,
and let's not forget how many times we have heard the verification team is coming,

I guess You have a special relationship with Wayne that we are not party to,
no need for the verification team to visit Wayne, as you are completely convinced
that his device works,hmmm very suspicious

Great last paragraph, and statements that I will echo.

As to the "scientific proof", my hope is that he accepts my above invitation to show what hundreds have missed and is being expanded on. I have faith that he will accept and not reply with the normal "you have to get your hands wet" "I can't spoon feed you" or "I don't have time for skeptics" drivel that has been regurgitated before.

- correcaminos

beep beep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 24, 2012, 09:08:29 PM
Quote
I do not want to shut you up, I want to help you
Then please help us Red_Sunset, (it will actually be a good practice exercise, possibly finding other areas to expand on where others for hundreds of years have failed) let's start from the beginning.
- correcaminos

Now that is a start, >>"Please help us Red_Sunset, let's start from the beginning"<<

So what do you mean, and expect and intend to do ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 24, 2012, 09:58:17 PM
Now that is a start, >>"Please help us Red_Sunset, let's start from the beginning"<<

So what do you mean, and expect and intend to do ?

What do I mean.
Let's start from the beginning. Review basic elementary principles, formulas, etc while all staying on the same page. Continue to get deeper and deeper into, for example, how the ZED, or similar systems work. Ensuring that together we agree on and have proven every dot, every iota of evidence.

What do I expect.
I think from my former comments you know my expectations. How great an opportunity though to start from square one and as skeptics and believers, uniting to come to a common ground, based on reality experiment, testing, etc. Again you know my current stance, however I am good at admiting I was wrong. Which leads me to your last question.

What do I intend to do.
I intend to start down this slow methodical path and once and for all end the dispute of OU in this system. Since both sides are covered no, assumption should be accepted, verifications on every level will be the only way to take the next step.
I intend no monetary gain, only the knowledge gained from this experiment and a journey that none, to my knowledge, have weathered.

If at the end of this exercise, however long that takes, I am wrong, I will admit as much and invest, promote, and proclaim truth to HydroEnergyRevolution, in hopes of furthering Mr. Travis' vision, in what little ways I can.

Red_Sunset I ask that you accept my invitation.

- correcaminos

beep beep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 24, 2012, 11:18:16 PM
Correcaminos
Quote
What do I mean.
Let's start from the beginning. Review basic elementary principles, formulas, etc while all staying on the same page. Continue to get deeper and deeper into, for example, how the ZED, or similar systems work. Ensuring that together we agree on and have proven every dot, every iota of evidence.
Wayne posts contain the whole picture of the invention, so the best way to approach this is to review all of Wayne's posts in this thread and formulate his statements with your added understanding and comprehension (and conclussions as needed). There is material enough for a complete book. It is just a matter of organizing the info.
I will be glad to review, discuss and correct understanding as needed.
Quote
What do I expect.
I think from my former comments you know my expectations. How great an opportunity though to start from square one and as skeptics and believers, uniting to come to a common ground, based on reality experiment, testing, etc. Again you know my current stance, however I am good at admitting I was wrong. Which leads me to your last question.
I like your wholehearted approach
Quote
What do I intend to do.
I intend to start down this slow methodical path and once and for all end the dispute of OU in this system. Since both sides are covered, no assumption should be accepted, verifications on every level will be the only way to take the next step.
I intend no monetary gain, only the knowledge gained from this experiment and a journey that none, to my knowledge, have weathered.
Good, this is exactly the motivation you need to start with point 1 "what do I mean"
Quote
If at the end of this exercise, however long that takes, I am wrong, I will admit as much and invest, promote, and proclaim truth to HydroEnergyRevolution, in hopes of furthering Mr. Travis' vision, in what little ways I can.
Don't worry, the OU light will shine on you and repentance is a life enriching exercise
Quote
Red_Sunset I ask that you accept my invitation.
You got it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 25, 2012, 12:04:01 AM
RSS..

I apologize, I obviously did not make clear my invitation.

I do not believe reviewing previous posts, that do not start at the beginning, is the way to go in proving whether OU is achievable with the ZED, hence why I put the invitation out there in the first place. Starting in the middle and continueing from there is a dangerous way to build understanding of a system. Building fallacy upon fallacy leads no where, at least no where I wish to go.

I guess that first I should ask this question.
Do you understand how the ZED works, functions and expands on many Laws of Physics?

- correcaminos

beep beep


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 12:07:21 AM
RSS..
I guess that first I should ask this question.
Do you understand how the ZED works, functions and expands on many Laws of Physics?
- correcaminos
beep beep

YES
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 12:26:32 AM
Powercat,
Quote
Surely you can understand the unicorn idea sounds just as convincing as Wayne's argument
I understand the point you are trying to make with the unicorn, but that I see due to your own shortcomings, not Wayne’s. Your expectation did not match the delivery from Wayne in this forum. There was a mismatch between intentions and expectations.
Quote
I know you only ever post in this thread but I hope you will take some time to look at the thousands of other threads on this forum where people have made claims just like Wayne, they all had their chance to prove their technology worked and they all failed (on going investigations not included)
I never had a login into this forum until last July, acquired at the time because I was so outraged how Wayne’s was being torn apart early on in this forum by so called skeptics of devious character, while I was trying to understand the workings of the invention. I have never seen such disrupting disturbance before. After understanding his concept, the login purpose was to show my support for his concept against the attacks. Before Wayne’s thread I have looked at many other OU threads over the years for a new idea or a different viewing angle on the same old OU problem.  I have seen flawed or doubtful conclusions and some that were very clever but could not make the grade for OU,  others required some testing to confirm or disprove an assumption.
I was in this way that I came across Wayne’s zed. What intrigued me was how Wayne was going to convert force to energy after seeing the inverted cup test. It didn’t take time to realize that there is a penalty payoff for using Archimedes in this way. Notwithstanding I was sufficiently intrigued and I wanted to understand how this idea could work out  towards OU. For me, it didn’t matter if he had OU or not. I was only interested in the approach method. For possible use sometime in the future in a different way. So for me, the principle was more important than the device.
By having command of a principle that opens a loophole, its physical implementation is just a matter of experimental engineering.

The delay problems experienced by Wayne relate to the physical design model that is still at its infancy and its implementation is undergoing ongoing changes. Multiple improvements are being applied and tested, resulting in greater efficiency per cubic volume.  It is not just OU that is sufficient but the output to cost ratio that play a great importance in commercialization.
In addition  the intellectual property of these improvements and concept changes need to be secured. This is a business enterprise, not an amateur setup.  The peculiar reaction received from certain members of the forum came across as unsavory and for the purpose of security led to curtailing of the information released in the forum.
Quote
Replications.. there have been no replications of Wayne's self-running device, not by anyone on this forum and no links have been posted to other sites where this is shown.
The numerous spreadsheets and calculations that are as close to any real information as we have ever received are inconclusive and very debatable.
I can not comment on self running replications, because I don’t know.  If you think that spreadsheet and calculations are inconclusive and very debatable, then why did you not debate them ?  You can always bring your own data (if it is more accurate and better)
Quote
"And so Mr Red I only post in this thread" do you really expect people to except Wayne's word without any scientific proof, and let's not forget how many times we have heard the verification team is coming,
I do not expect myself or other people to accept Wayne’s word as proof. If you are worth your salt, you do your own diligence and find proof, you do not need to rely on Wayne for that? Although you need the pre-requisite of understanding the system, to generate your own proof.  The validation team date is closely tied in with Wayne’s engineering and business activities, any delay should be seen in that context not from a forum viewpoint. Concept proof does not come from the forum. I think some self appointed people's heads are to big on this forum.
Quote
I guess you have a special relationship with Wayne that we are not party to, no need for the validation team to visit Wayne, as you are completely convinced that is device works,hmmm very suspicious.
If you are not party to a special relationship with Wayne, but you would like to have one, I suggest you better make contact with him.
I did my homework, validation and proof, if that is “ hmmm very suspicious”,  I don’t see the point
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 25, 2012, 04:22:06 AM
Check the front page of Wayne's site. http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php

Very nice animation that shows some of his improvements to the ZED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 25, 2012, 04:36:14 AM
Check the front page of Wayne's site. http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php

Very nice animation that shows some of his improvements to the ZED.

The animation is very impressive.  Thanks for the pointer.  I now have a better understanding of how the ZED works.

There is one thing I don't quite understand, however:  How can this machine keep running by itself?  I don't see how it can complete a full cycle and get back to where it started as long as there is friction.  It seems like it would eventually settle down and stop.  Can somebody please tell me what I'm missing here?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 25, 2012, 06:41:32 AM
I think if he added just a few more valves and pistons then the whole concept would become much clearer...

I especially like the horizontal, double ended ram on the top of each Zed. See how it pumps water back and forth.... from either side of THE SAME OUTER ANNULAR CHAMBER........ ??

Can Red_Sunset explain the functioning of these rams and the pumping that they do?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 09:59:50 AM
I  think they had a few spare rams left over and had to put  them *somewhere*....
Provide a nice way to differentiate from a standard ZED though. This one has 'Hydro Assist' perhaps...

Seamus,  Your are a tragic and sad example for a human being.

A few descriptive labels are added to discern the different components illustrated for whom is interested (do consider that this model is a older type and will go into history like a model T-Ford, the newer type is expected to be more simple).
This would not change the core principle of operation naturally.

Wayne, the animation is superb, into all little details. Fantastic job.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
...........................   There is one thing I don't quite understand, however:  How can this machine keep running by itself?  I don't see how it can complete a full cycle and get back to where it started as long as there is friction.  It seems like it would eventually settle down and stop.  Can somebody please tell me what I'm missing here?
You appear not to do a proper investigative exploration, you appear to jump to conclusions based on face value only. (wade through the fine print, that is where the important details are).
  "You can not SEE how it can complete a full cycle", **  based on what facts do you make this conclusion?
  "Seems to eventually settle down and stop", **  based on what facts do you make this conclusion?

Assumptions are a probability based on a most likely scenario support by a doubtful fact
** Symbolically speaking, it might pay to look at it with open eyes. What you are missing is a little work on your part.
Quote
I do not believe reviewing previous posts, that do not start at the beginning, is the way to go in proving whether OU is achievable with the ZED, hence why I put the invitation out there in the first place. Starting in the middle and continueing from there is a dangerous way to build understanding of a system. Building fallacy upon fallacy leads no where, at least no where I wish to go.
If you do not believe reviewing previous posts that start at the beginning and lead you to the understanding of OU with the Zed.   If your invitation is for a private tutor to put you into the know, then I am afraid we misunderstood each other.  If you have question on your exploratory path that show your due diligence, I will be your man. I have no intentions to rewrite everything that has been written already on this topic.
I suggest you DO NOT start from the middle or the end.  The beginning is the place to avoid building fallacy upon fallacy and this should be the place you wish to go.

If you are motivated, you surely will reach your objective !


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 11:43:34 AM
What is the green rotating circle in the middle seemingly connected only to the 'data collection tree'? Is it a driven or driving something?
Seamuss,  you wouldn't want to know what that is, it would only confuse you.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 25, 2012, 12:53:23 PM
Red_Sunset
looking back through the last four pages or so of this thread you are the only one defending Wayne's presentation
of his overunity device.
Repeatedly you make statements saying we must do our homework to understand how the device works,
and according to you it is our fault that Wayne hasn't provided enough information for us to understand
Wayne has been repeatedly asked to provide proper input and output measurements,
and when he provides anything it is incomplete and not possible to make a proper assessment,
again according to you this is our fault.

The new animation that Wayne has posted on his website is the first bit of real information that we have seen
in a long time, if only he would keep it coming and include a visit by the verification team.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person I would like to point out that most of the members
here are also of reasonable intelligence, but for the large majority of us to support wanes claim
we will need more information, or do you expect us to have mind reading capabilities.

Now I think you will agree that Wayne has made a rod for his own back by repeatedly delaying
the verification team and not producing a proper set of measurements.

A number of us here are very suspicious of Wayne's true intentions and it is most certainly
up to him to prove his case, after all he is the one making the claim.

So we continue to wait
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 25, 2012, 02:52:06 PM
You appear not to do a proper investigative exploration, you appear to jump to conclusions based on face value only. (wade through the fine print, that is where the important details are).
  "You can not SEE how it can complete a full cycle", **  based on what facts do you make this conclusion?
  "Seems to eventually settle down and stop", **  based on what facts do you make this conclusion?

Assumptions are a probability based on a most likely scenario support by a doubtful fact
** Symbolically speaking, it might pay to look at it with open eyes. What you are missing is a little work on your part.

Red,

 I was making an effort to understand.  I asked some questions in an attempt to "do my homework".  Apparently you are unwilling to help me.

 Yes, I probably was making conclusions based on face value.  That's all I've got to go by.  I asked some questions to try to dig deeper, but you would not answer them.

 I base my conclusion that it will eventually settle down and stop on years of seeing how things work, and understanding some basic physics.  Why don't you tell us what facts you base your conclusion on that it will not stop?  The burden of proof is on those who say it will work.

 Others here, such as webby1, are willing to try to answer questions to help those of us that have doubts.  Why aren't you?

 So, until someone can explain to me how this machine could possibly keep running on its own, with no external input, my position is that Wayne is wrong (intentionally deceptive or not, I don't know), and you are defending the indefensible (in a most annoying fashion).

 And the second half of your rant was in reply to someone else's comment.  You could have indicated that.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 25, 2012, 03:00:48 PM
YES

Thank you for your response, it was elaborate and well structured.

On to question 2.

What Laws does it expand on?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 03:22:23 PM
Thank you for your response, it was elaborate and well structured.
On to question 2.
What Laws does it expand on?
To make it easy for me,  go to the master himself,
Have a look at message « Reply #2282 on: September 20, 2012, 05:42:32 PM »
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 03:41:13 PM
Why don't you tell us what facts you base your conclusion on that it will not stop?  The burden of proof is on those who say it will work.
Others here, such as webby1, are willing to try to answer questions to help those of us that have doubts.  Why aren't you?
 So, until someone can explain to me how this machine could possibly keep running on its own, with no external input, my position is that Wayne is wrong (intentionally deceptive or not, I don't know), and you are defending the indefensible (in a most annoying fashion). 
This has all been done before, please refer to previous postings by Wayne and myself
I would like to list them all here but unfortunately there are just too many to list.
Quote
And the second half of your rant was in reply to someone else's comment.  You could have indicated that.
My apologies, that was my mixup !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 25, 2012, 03:44:32 PM
Not Red, but if I may.

The answers have been provided, we have been told the values that are needed for the simple 3 riser system, we have been told its dimensions, its operating pressures its lift distance and its lift capacity in weight and the volume of input fluid.

I do believe these are what have been asked for and they were provided,, not all on one page, granted, but they have been given and they may have been ignored.

The part that is hard for some to get there mindset around, is that when lift is done the system can still return the fluid UNDER PRESSURE.  In a normal hydraulic system when the "lift" is done and you remove the source of pressure there is nothing left within the cylinder but in the ZED that is not the case, that is what that precharge thing is all about, well that and bringing the ability to lift up to a higher value, but any way. 

What all this means is that you can recover some of the input to re-use in the next cycle of the other ZED, take care of that precharge part and maybe more thus reducing the cost you must pay to stroke.

webby1
I have a lot of respect for the work you have done on this thread and there was a time in your
early part of the thread that I got excited that we had finally after all these years found a genuine
overunity device especially when the inventor himself awarded you $2000 for getting it right.

Then the problems started and the debates about accurate measurements, which could have been solved
by producing a self-running model, at this stage there has been doubt cast on your results and your
ability to measure correctly since we have another member who has shown underunity.
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg340960/#msg340960 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg340960/#msg340960)
Now I'm not saying you are wrong or he is wrong what I'm saying is that it is not accurate evidence,
Wayne has avoided producing measurements that are accurate enough to make an accurate assessment of performance.
He has also broken his word a number of times when he said the verification team would be visiting.

I have not completely given up hope that this device might produce Overunity,
but nowhere in this thread so far has that been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 25, 2012, 03:51:54 PM
I especially like the horizontal, double ended ram on the top of each Zed. See how it pumps water back and forth.... from either side of THE SAME OUTER ANNULAR CHAMBER........ ??

Can Red_Sunset explain the functioning of these rams and the pumping that they do?

I'll give this one a go.  I saw this and thought, "Brilliant!"
 
Please ignore all the internal risers and pod.  Consider only the Outer Riser as a floatation device:  A cylinder shaped float that is inside the main tank.  In this case the more water in the Outer Annular Chamber, the more buoyant force the (restrained) Outer Riser will have.  So as the horizontal, double ended ram that is mentioned is pumping water into the Outer Annular Chamber it is helping to increase the lift force.  And it is also REDUCING the weight of the Outer Riser, or "preload" at the same time!  This is because the water that is being pumped into the Outer Annular Chamber originated from inside the rams that were therefore a weight on top of the Outer Riser.
 
As the ram pumps water into the Outer Annular Chamber it raises the lift force of the Outer Riser due to buoyancy and reduces the weight of the Outer Riser (reduces the weight of the ram pump assy on top of the Outer Riser).  Likewise, as the ram pumps water out of the Outer Annular Chamber it lowers the lift force of the Outer Riser due to buoyancy and increases the weight of the Outer Riser (increase the weight of the ram pump assy on top of the Outer Riser).
 
The horizontal ram pump improvement causes a transfer of water mass that changes the weight of the "preload" on the Pod/Riser system at the same time as it changes the buoyancy of the Outer Riser.  Nice improvement, at least in concept form.  I'd like to know exactly how much of an improvement can be achieved this way.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 25, 2012, 04:36:37 PM
Take a large jar of water. This represents the outer annular chamber. Take a plastic cup, drop a lead weight into the bottom of it, and fill it halfway with water and float it in the jar of water. This represents the riser, with its own weight and the weight of the water inside the cup. Mark the "head" on the outside of the outer jar.

Now take an aliquot of water OUT of the outer annular chamber and put it INTO the floating cup. This corresponds to the horizontal ram removing some water from the outer annular ringwall and holding it on top of the riser assembly, removing the buoyancy and adding the weight of this water to the total riser weight, just as you have described.

Now look again at the "head" on the outside of the outer jar.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 25, 2012, 04:46:34 PM
Now look again at the "head" on the outside of the outer jar.

Now take a look at the height of the plastic cup.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 25, 2012, 04:49:07 PM
webby1
I have a lot of respect for the work you have done on this thread and there was a time in your
early part of the thread that I got excited that we had finally after all these years found a genuine
overunity device especially when the inventor himself awarded you $2000 for getting it right.

Then the problems started and the debates about accurate measurements, which could have been solved
by producing a self-running model, at this stage there has been doubt cast on your results and your
ability to measure correctly since we have a another member who has shown underunity.
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg340960/#msg340960 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg340960/#msg340960)
Now I'm not saying you are wrong or he is wrong what I'm saying is that it is not accurate evidence,
Wayne has had avoided producing measurements that are accurate enough,
to make an accurate assessment of performance.
He has also broken his word a number of times when he said the verification team would be visiting.

I have not completely given up hope that this device might produce Overunity,
but nowhere in this thread so far has that been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There it is. That is the problem with building a replication not according to Wayne's specification and reporting on it. It is misleading to people who have not read and understood all the related post.
 
 
Please see #2696, #2697, and #2708 pages 180 and 181. 2696 explains the issue with the build and in 2697 M. explains why he build it that way.
 
 
M. had a pod and 2 riser version. I only have a system rise calculator for a pod and 3 riser version. In 2708 it shows that a 3 riser built according to M. specification (Pic 1) fails to maintain full force for a .75 lift as it starts with 4.75 and ends with 1.85. Pic 2 shows the results from a replication built to Wayne's specifications and it starts with a lift force of 15.05 and ends with a lift force of 15.12.
 
 
My system rise calculator is very complex, not easy to change, and I am working on other more important spreadsheet now. So I do not have time to make a pod and 2 riser version.
 
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 25, 2012, 05:27:43 PM
...
Second:
The Creating Energy conjecture - has been projected here before:
If you have OverUnity - you must be claiming to "Create Energy" - bogus.

How do you properly define creating energy:

Is it true that if you have Net energy coming from a black box - you are creating energy - magic......

I bet Solar power really freaked out some people - we all know now that solar panels do not create energy. But they do convert energy - only about 20% of the available - some better.

So does a wind turbine, a Hydro system - river /dam, or even An airconditioner.

An air conditioner is the better example - being overunity - The BTU of the system is greater that the input of electricity - it is OverUnity unless you account for the energy exchange in the temperature differential of the outside air - which like the ZED uses gravity - you can not physically see the input.

Education and clarity - the temperature differential in an airconditioner can be accounted for - and has been - still it is a OU device - the input of energy from the temperature differential is not part of the internal operating cost. This is a clear examples of a OU device - not magic or energy creation - just simple physics - already accepted and understood.
 ...
Wayne Travis
 
RSS...

Thank you for pointing this post out.
Please answer the following questions:

Wayne claims that the ZED does not create energy, correct?

Do you agree?

Wayne also states that an airconditioner is OU, correct?

Do you agree?

Thanks in advance for your reply

- correcaminos

beep beep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 25, 2012, 06:32:31 PM

Now take a look at the height of the plastic cup.
Of course the cup rides lower in the water. But the water level outside is unchanged. I went ahead and inverted the cup to make it correspond more to a Zed riser and performed some experiments. The experiments and your comments made me think a lot more about these horizontal rams and what they are really doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68p0EX4IHSk

I've done some further experiments after making this video and reading your comments, and I'm no longer quite so dismissive of these horizontal rams.
The horizontal rams add and subtract effective weight from the riser assembly. This weight is coming from the outer water volume, though. I can see how this is a clever way to make the riser into a "Cartesian Diver" by varying its effective weight without varying its effective volume (the reverse of how the real CD works) and pushing the overall buoyancy back and forth around the neutral point. But it takes work to move that water, just as in the traditional CD it takes work (external pressure change) to change its effective volume to push the buoyancy around.
My experiments have shown that the horizontal rams aren't totally ineffective as I at first thought. In fact they  might even be driving the whole system. However they don't work by affecting some "head" in the surrounding water level, and at least over the small height range of my experimental apparatus the pressure of the air and its volume trapped inside the riser doesn't change much if any either.

In the animation you can clearly see depicted all the springy effects that turn the system into a fancy automatic bollard.  It is likely that the entire riser system is pre-charged to be neutrally buoyant, and all it takes is the small change in effective weight caused by these horizontal pistons filling and emptying their reservoir chambers, to make the riser/pod assembly rise and sink. Just as in a true Cartesian diver, the small change in effective _volume_ at the same weight causes a change in buoyancy that drives the diver higher or lower in the water until again, volume displacement and effective weight are the same and neutral buoyancy is reestablished.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 25, 2012, 07:01:02 PM
In the animation each Zed has a stack of three vertical cylinders on top. The middle one of these is cross-connected to the one on the other side. Both are the same size and aren't connected to anything else that I can see. What do these cylinders do?
The top cylinders of these stacks drive, by pressure and suction, the horizontal weight-changing rams.
So it appears that the middle cylinders are driving nothing-- just each other in a closed loop of equal volumes. Is this just another minor part of the weight-shift system that shifts the weight of the cylinder full of hydraulic fluid from one side to the other?
The top cylinders are driving the horizontal rams. So that leaves the bottom, larger cylinders of these stacks. All the pistons of these cylinders are connected and are driving/driven by the rising and lowering of the floating assembly, and the larger cylinders are connected through some unclear valvulation to some black boxes.

Can anyone explain the middle cylinders of the vertical stacks, and what the valves and black boxes do with respect to the larger, lowest of the three cylinders of the vertical stacks? And is this system driving the motion, or being driven by it, or both at different times? It is clearly shifting the weight of the hydraulic fluid from one side to the other, acting through the coaxial pistons, in synch with the water weight changes within each side, but is it doing anything else? It's not clear to me what's going on here, because of the valves and black boxes.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 25, 2012, 07:13:50 PM
webby1 LarryC
Both your efforts are fantastic unfortunately it has all been very debatable and we have seen
from mondrasek a negative result from his build so nothing is a given.

I would love to be in a position where I could believe that a self-running device can be built
as I have a workshop space available to me to make one,
so far I'm not convinced (I'm not the only one) and the more Wayne keeps delaying
the verification team the more I feel a self-runner is not possible.

I hope this situation will change either somebody here produces a self-runner
or a link is posted to one, and let's pray that the details of that self-runner
are available for all to replicate.

I have red all of Wayne's posts and he has never given enough information to make a self-runner,
if he had done then where is it, he even says himself he is keeping information back for commercial reasons.

At least Wayne appears to have recovered the lack of information by posting an animation of his device
on his website we can only hope that he will be releasing more information.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 25, 2012, 07:21:13 PM
I thought about what Red_Sunset said about doing my homework, and decided that made a lot of sense.  So, I went back and studied the posts from mrwayne, and took some notes.  The more I read, the more sense it began to make!  In fact, I believe I now have a complete understanding of how this machine operates.

I realize that not everyone that is looking for answers will put in the effort required to divine the knowledge from this thread, so I will now provide a complete, consise description of how the ZED accomplishes its amazing over-unity feat.  (Those that prefer to learn by building your own machine might want to stop reading now, so you can discover all this yourself.)

(The construction of the actual machine itself is sufficiently described by the outstanding animation on the HER site, so I will skip the details of the machine design and focus on describing how it
manages to be self-running and over unity.)

Here's how it works:

First of all, Wayne had to invent multiple ways to control the water and air (differential in layers larger than four).  You should see a bit more spread as you add layers and as the diameter increases further from the POD.  This much was obvious, but the real genius is yet to come.  You must keep in mind that this is not a momentum system, it is a dual-inverse process.  Keeping the stroke short allows you to stay within the highest value of the 2-1 differential gain!  Keep in mind how the unitized differential is affected.  It helps to understand gravity as a flow, or a vortex acting upon known mass.

Now, about the gaps.  Equalized gaps or equalized volumes will both work just as well, within 10% of each other.  The effect will become more dramatic with larger gaps.  Reducing the volume it takes to activate the Travis Effect will result in a smaller gap, which is more efficient.  Adding layers without separating the walls and air gaps does not equal to reusing the mass (which is critically important).  ZED uses a microscopic amount of input volume to Archimedes.  This is the key point of the Travis Effect.  The machine is a pressure differential system, caused by gravity's effect on density.  The separating walls redistribute where the differential is focused.

On the question of self-centering, it is important to note that the inner pressure is always greater, so the alignment improves as you near the center.  The layering system increases the speed and increases the effectiveness of the Travis Effect 11.1 times better than Archimedes in time, distance, and mass.  (I realize that should be quite obvious, but I include it here for completeness.)  The input comes from within the loop of the system.  Once the system is charged, no new energy needs to be put in to run continuously.

Normally, less weight means more output.  That is in a traditional system, but ZED is non-linear.  The water surface is the hydro-pneumatic seal for the ZED, of course.  You have to back away from the ideal in order to have stroke.  Recharge is the value from nearly floating unloaded to nearly floating loaded!  ZED, in its simplest form, reuses the same mass over and over simultaneously, in an additive fashion, by shifting the center of gravity during the free-flow process.

Of course, gravity is at the heart of the ZED operation, so some observations are in order.  Gravity is not limited or controlled by mass or density.  Instead, mass and density are controlled by gravity.  ZED shows that gravity can also be utilized in the absence of mass!  ZED concentrates the measurable effect of gravity in a smaller space.  It pushes down and gravity pulls down to generate an upward force.  The upward force has no real weight value.  This is key to the machine's ability to use gravity as a non-conservative field.  ZED utilizes the effects of virtual mass.  One mass can be reused, simultaneously, with gravity being captured or used multiple times in the same space at the same time, of course.

Additional improvements can be had by incorporating a hydro assist, which utilizes the lateral gravitational field.  This allows the ZED to transfer the Core Energy laterally, yielding creative entropy disruption.

Oh, and don't forget:  If you turn up gravity, the system works better.

There you have it, the Over Unity Diamond in all its glory!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 25, 2012, 07:28:27 PM
However they don't work by affecting some "head" in the surrounding water level, and at least over the small height range of my experimental apparatus the pressure of the air and its volume trapped inside the riser doesn't change much if any either.

Start with your bottle of water on top of the cup.  Now RESTRAIN the cup (simulating the hydraulic capture system where a minimum pressure level must be overcome before stroke of the system can occur).  At this point pour the water from the bottle back into the jar.  You will see the head rise.  And therefore the buoyancy force increases. 
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on October 25, 2012, 07:33:13 PM
I am supposing that the rotating green circle is a hydraulically driven electric generator.  This generator would be used to power the system electronics as well as possibly supplying the visual proof of an overunity device by illuminating a light bulb .  It would make sense also for the generator to supply a trickle charge to a battery.  This battery would serve as the "startup" supply for the electronic control systems (controller, electronic valves..etc).  Wayne or RSS - Would you please comment !!
 
Dave
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on October 25, 2012, 07:42:25 PM
Quote:
"Oh, and don't forget:  If you turn up gravity, the system works better."


or substitute H2O with a denser / hydrophobic fluid.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 25, 2012, 09:49:43 PM

Start with your bottle of water on top of the cup.  Now RESTRAIN the cup (simulating the hydraulic capture system where a minimum pressure level must be overcome before stroke of the system can occur).  At this point pour the water from the bottle back into the jar.  You will see the head rise.  And therefore the buoyancy force increases. 
 
M.

So? That momentary increased force acts over a correspondingly shortened distance. There's no mechanism for any extra sauce in there.
(The buoyant force also rises because you have effectively decreased the mass without changing the volume -- reduced the density -- of the floating cup by removing the water weight from atop the cup. It's a double whammy effect, but it still can't produce any kind of gain as far as I can tell.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 25, 2012, 09:55:00 PM
Quote:
"Oh, and don't forget:  If you turn up gravity, the system works better."


or substitute H2O with a denser / hydrophobic fluid.
Dave, I quite think you are pulling my leg. You, and the other Discerning Dave as well. Lateral gravity! Who knew?

But note in the sim the presence of the "springs" that are showing the result of having a _compressible_ gas as one of the parts of the system. I think that if you fill all the air spaces with an incompressible fluid of a different density than water, you are removing one of the energy storage mechanisms in the system. I have asked several times if anyone has actually tested or demonstrated a fully liquid-filled system to see if it works the same, worse, or better, but as usual all we have is "mrwayne sez", no actual evidence of any kind that such a system has been built, tested, and runs itself with greater effect. I've even suggested a convenient non-toxic alternative to mercury for such a system.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on October 25, 2012, 10:17:38 PM
I've even suggested a convenient non-toxic alternative to mercury for such a system.

TK,
Please share the alternative material name once again.
 
Thanks,
Dave 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 10:41:20 PM
RSS...

Thank you for pointing this post out.
Please answer the following questions:

1.. Wayne claims that the ZED does not create energy, correct?  Do you agree?
Your understanding is correct, the Zed energy output can never be more than generated by the lift capability.

2.. Wayne also states that an airconditioner is OU, correct? Do you agree?
Yes, as in reference to the heat pump used in a aircon system, the overall aircon system as we know it is not OU
//////////////
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 11:18:55 PM
................................................    (The construction of the actual machine itself is sufficiently described by the outstanding animation on the HER site, so I will skip the details of the machine design and focus on describing how it
manages to be self-running and over unity.)
Here's how it works:   
.........................................  Additional improvements can be had by incorporating a hydro assist, which utilizes the lateral gravitational field.  This allows the ZED to transfer the Core Energy laterally, yielding creative entropy disruption.
Oh, and don't forget:  If you turn up gravity, the system works better.
There you have it, the Over Unity Diamond in all its glory!
Dave,
You made a good start for making sense of it all, but could you attempt to word it in plain English, and outline which process are throwing up the sought after diamonds. 
Regards,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 25, 2012, 11:34:51 PM
In the animation ............................ What do these cylinders do?  The top cylinders of these stacks drive, by pressure and suction, the horizontal weight-changing rams.
So it appears that the middle cylinders are driving nothing-- just each other in a closed loop of equal volumes. Is this just another minor part of the weight-shift system that shifts the weight of the cylinder full of hydraulic fluid from one side to the other?
The top cylinders are driving the horizontal rams. So that leaves the bottom, larger cylinders of these stacks. All the pistons of these cylinders are connected and are driving/driven by the rising and lowering of the floating assembly, and the larger cylinders are connected through some unclear valvulation to some black boxes. 
Can anyone explain the middle cylinders of the vertical stacks, and what the valves and black boxes do with respect to the larger, lowest of the three cylinders of the vertical stacks? And is this system driving the motion, or being driven by it, or both at different times? It is clearly shifting the weight of the hydraulic fluid from one side to the other, acting through the coaxial pistons, in synch with the water weight changes within each side, but is it doing anything else? It's not clear to me what's going on here, because of the valves and black boxes.
The vertical hydraulic ram on top of the risers is the load and weight ram.
 -  The bottom portion is the load ram that captures the stroke energy and stores it into the load accumulator (black box)
 -  The middle portion is the weight ram, in the balance see-saw setup, as one zed strokes, the other one descends and the ram produces the descend riser weight for the descending zed.( and naturally an weight load for the stroking zed). This ram could technically be replaced by a concrete block of a certain weight (as by design)
 -  The top ram operates the horizontal ram that increases the outer head during stroke
\///
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on October 25, 2012, 11:52:59 PM
TK,
Please share the alternative material name once again.
 
Thanks,
Dave

TK's suggestion was Galinstan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 26, 2012, 12:10:31 AM
Dave,
You made a good start for making sense of it all, but could you attempt to word it in plain English, and outline which process are throwing up the sought after diamonds. 
Regards,

All the bizarre terms and phrases I put in my "how it works" post came from previous posts by mrwayne, either in this thread or on his Web site.  (Yes, including even the "lateral gravitational function" and the suggestion to turn up gravity.)  How could it not be clear?  Everything he says is so straightforward and instructive.  Just go back and read my post again.  It's all there; open your eyes!!!

(It scares me that anyone might think my "how it works" post was a serious attempt to explain the [supposed] workings of the ZED.  The whole point was to show how there is nothing in the posts from mrwayne that answer the fundamental questions which are constantly being asked here.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on October 26, 2012, 12:23:41 AM
I've seen some good information being shared over the last few days.  It seems that a lot of us are frustrated.  Sometimes because of a lack of details, misunderstanding and validation that has been put off for various reasons over and over.
 
I for one have a very extensive technical background but have a really hard time understanding this system, though I understand much of the main principles.  It seems some people here have an "inside track" or intuition as to how this device works.  The rest of us are trying hard to analyze and understand in a futile attempt.
 
I think tensions are running high because of the lack of validation so far.  I queried Wayne about his book "Zed for Dummies" and he said that it would be forthcoming AFTER the validation for various reasons and I certainly respect Wayne's desire to do that.
 
Those of us trying  to perform our "due diligence"(TK, PowerCat, myself and others) might be much less miserable with either 1. Validation or in the meantime 2. An extremely simplified way this thing works in order to replicate and "get our hands wet."  Like I say, some people here seem to "get it", the rest of us struggle, and it is not because of lack of intelligence or lack of desire or effort.
 
Anyway to all those replicators and experimenters, please keep up the good work and please keep sharing your results, as I'm sure you will.
 
And good luck to you Wayne!
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 26, 2012, 12:30:52 AM
(It scares me that anyone might think my "how it works" post was a serious attempt to explain the [supposed] workings of the ZED.  The whole point was to show how there is nothing in the posts from mrwayne that answer the fundamental questions which are constantly being asked here.)
I agree with you that it sounds somewhat exotic, but their is sense in it when you have a clearer understanding of the system and need to explain where the "free" energy is coming from.
Since you came pretty late on this scene, you have a lot of ground to cover,  have a look at red_sunset <<on October 05, 2012, 02:33:57 PM », and  « on: October 05, 2012, 08:38:01 AM », and « on: October 02, 2012, 09:50:42 AM » and before.
There is no easy way, neither a quick instruction guide as yet except for the "zed riddle explained" that has not been released as yet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 26, 2012, 12:44:50 AM
.................................  It seems that a lot of us are frustrated.  Sometimes because of a lack of details, misunderstanding and validation that has been put off for various reasons over and over.
I think tensions are running high because of the lack of validation so far.  I queried Wayne about his book "Zed for Dummies" and he said that it would be forthcoming AFTER the validation for various reasons and I certainly respect Wayne's desire to do that.
Those of us trying  to perform our "due diligence" (TK, PowerCat, myself and others) might be much less miserable with either 1. Validation or in the meantime 2. An extremely simplified way this thing works in order to replicate and "get our hands wet."  Like I say, some people here seem to "get it", the rest of us struggle, and it is not because of lack of intelligence or lack of desire or effort. 
Xavier,
I might be naive here, but I do not understand what "validation" has to do with "understanding the system".   Even after validation has successfully completed, the understanding wouldn't have changed, at least not due to the validation.
Please explain !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 26, 2012, 12:47:32 AM

M. had a pod and 2 riser version. I only have a system rise calculator for a pod and 3 riser version. In 2708 it shows that a 3 riser built according to M. specification (Pic 1) fails to maintain full force for a .75 lift as it starts with 4.75 and ends with 1.85. Pic 2 shows the results from a replication built to Wayne's specifications and it starts with a lift force of 15.05 and ends with a lift force of 15.12.

Larry, thanks again for posting those earlier graphs and for restating their meaning again here.  I've been trying to think what more I can test with my build and I think your post solidified something I was considering while digesting your earlier graphs.
 
Your graphs point to the possibility that my build (with one less riser) is acting similarly and loosing lift force dramatically throughout the stroke range that I was testing.  So what if we test a smaller stroke range?
 
My reasoning for testing a smaller stroke range is this:  Testing different lift masses has already been done and shown to be a linear relationship.  So no joy there and futile testing.  But if I lower the top stop and adjust for a shorter stroke I might stay within a higher force range if your analysis is correct.  So this should be evidenced by a smaller input volume (respectively).  And I think that means that the same calculations when performed on the new test data must show a larger ratio (OU %).  So I think it is a worthwhile test.
 
As always, I welcome input and suggestions.  But please note that the modifications to top stop height and stroke are already underway.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 26, 2012, 01:10:14 AM
Webby,
 
I wouldn't say it is too late.  Unlike you, my changes may take a few days.  From you I would expect new results in less than an hour or two!
 
I see no reason not to try, though I need to find a way to get the water out of the outer annulus first.  I need a very thin tube.  I'm not sure what (or why) a hobby shop might have something as small as that.  So suggestions are again welcome!
 
M.

PS.  I think I can still get 8 mm of stroke.  The bigger the better to minimize the errors due to measurements.  And I can always go shorter in the future if another data point is deemed important.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on October 26, 2012, 02:45:43 AM
Xavier,
I might be naive here, but I do not understand what "validation" has to do with "understanding the system".   Even after validation has successfully completed, the understanding wouldn't have changed, at least not due to the validation.
Please explain !
Good point RSS.  Like I said, after the validation Wayne will release his book which explains the ZED.  The bonus would be that the system would also be proven, the skeptics can go home and the rest of us can join the "117 members" to get this thing to the public.  Maybe that sounds too optimistic, but getting past the validation would enable this team to finally move forward with this project.  Yes?  No?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on October 26, 2012, 03:22:31 AM
Maybe that sounds too optimistic, but getting past the validation would enable this team to finally move forward with this project.  Yes?  No?

Getting past the validation team is a major step and instrumental in securing additional resources to advance the ZED technology and determine the scalability.  Will a system 4 meters x 4 meters and 5 meters in height be capable of 10KW output or only 100 watts output?  But Mark Dansie must be 110% convinced before the validation team goes into action.
 
Dave
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 26, 2012, 04:58:36 AM

Getting past the validation team is a major step and instrumental in securing additional resources to advance the ZED technology and determine the scalability.  Will a system 4 meters x 4 meters and 5 meters in height be capable of 10KW output or only 100 watts output?  But Mark Dansie must be 110% convinced before the validation team goes into action.
 
Dave

Wow, Mark Dansie is over unity, too?  ;-)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 26, 2012, 10:20:16 AM
Good point RSS.  Like I said, after the validation Wayne will release his book which explains the ZED.  The bonus would be that the system would also be proven, the skeptics can go home and the rest of us can join the "117 members" to get this thing to the public.  Maybe that sounds too optimistic, but getting past the validation would enable this team to finally move forward with this project.  Yes?  No?

Validation, the "yes or no" is dependent on the way how you look at the whole picture,
Wayne knows what his system does, he doesn't need the validation, but he sure he needs to convince other outside people and therein the validation is a technical business milestone to progress to the next stage in his planned business path,  which is commercialization.  If you see yourself as a future part of his direct or related business activity, I can see the importance.

From a science and technical  viewpoint, it importance is greatly diminished except for the "second opinion confirmation value". 
If the skeptics need to rely on Mark Dansie confirmation to home, what is their worth then?.  Isn't their assessment based on good and proper science principles, as has been mentioned throughout this thread.
I would expect a skeptic worth his salt (who thinks he knows what he is talking about) to cry foul when Mark confirms that the Zed works.  The fist accusations leveled could be that Mark is in a conspiracy with Wayne.

Regarding the statement "the validation would enable this team to finally move forward with this project",  Moving forward to what ?  The pretty HER animation shown is already a model T-ford,  the validation will be be done on the next generation system which only resembles in a small part the model-T.  So for moving forward, most people here have already missed the bus in petty squabbles that stifled progress. The system will go from here under cover to protect business advantage as it moves into the future.

The forum had the full attention of an experienced inventor how wanted to educate ( lay the basis to create inventors, not dump knowledge), but the relationship process of teacher<-> student was reversed due to immaturity that muffled the teacher with the tragic results seen.  In retrospect I can only ay that Wayne's good idea was to ambitious and the attendees to immature, possibly caused by mismatched expectations on both sides.

Golden opportunities have been lost for all (with or without validation)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 26, 2012, 11:35:15 AM
No opportunities have been lost and this charade will end shortly in the only possible result.
No validation will be forth coming and people will lose interest.
My only regret would be they wasted time even considering the idea as viable in the first place.

My silly boy Seamus,
You obviously like to waste your time on this forum.  Like all of us. Why would you do that ?
It obviously gives you enjoyment.  You are welcome to your fun!   
I also have been trying to let the forum lie to the side, a few times in the past but the forum seems addictive, akin to blogging.

I enjoy your regular entries on this forum to amuse us with your doomsday rethoric. That is quite OK
Do you have any variations on the same theme ?  I would like that.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 26, 2012, 11:45:12 AM
Validation, the "yes or no" is dependent on the way how you look at the whole picture,
Wayne knows what his system does, he doesn't need the validation, but he sure he needs to convince other outside people and therein the validation is a technical business milestone to progress to the next stage in his planned business path,  which is commercialization.  If you see yourself as a future part of his direct or related business activity, I can see the importance.

From a science and technical  viewpoint, it importance is greatly diminished except for the "second opinion confirmation value". 
If the skeptics need to rely on Mark Dansie confirmation to home, what is their worth then?.  Isn't their assessment based on good and proper science principles, as has been mentioned throughout this thread.
I would expect a skeptic worth his salt (who thinks he knows what he is talking about) to cry foul when Mark confirms that the Zed works.  The fist accusations leveled could be that Mark is in a conspiracy with Wayne.

Regarding the statement "the validation would enable this team to finally move forward with this project",  Moving forward to what ?  The pretty HER animation shown is already a model T-ford,  the validation will be be done on the next generation system which only resembles in a small part the model-T.  So for moving forward, most people here have already missed the bus in petty squabbles that stifled progress. The system will go from here under cover to protect business advantage as it moves into the future.

The forum had the full attention of an experienced inventor how wanted to educate ( lay the basis to create inventors, not dump knowledge), but the relationship process of teacher<-> student was reversed due to immaturity that muffled the teacher with the tragic results seen.  In retrospect I can only ay that Wayne's good idea was to ambitious and the attendees to immature, possibly caused by mismatched expectations on both sides.

Golden opportunities have been lost for all (with or without validation)

What a lot of excuses you are making for Wayne not releasing any further information,
it's as if you know that's what is going to happen.

An alternative response you could have made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry that people are struggling to understand how Wayne's self-running device works,
and I hope soon to have good news about the verification team, in the meantime it is good
to see two members have started retesting as they hope to produce more accurate results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But unfortunately all we get from you is the sound of an arrogant salesman telling everyone
we must believe in your product without question.

(we tell you there isn't enough information Because there isn't enough information)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on October 26, 2012, 01:10:48 PM
The importance of validation. About 40 years ago, when i was a mere lad of 27, my friend and I built a couple of unicycles, and learned to ride them. I then built a two metre tall unicycle with chain drive. In spite of many tries, I found it impossible to ride. Then my friend, who had more courage than I, got on it, and rode it about 3 metres. I immediately got on it and rode it 100 metres! What had changed? I now knew that it was possible, and was prepared to invest the courage and effort to really try it for myself. The time and effort that needs to be invested to understand the ZED is by no means trivial, so most people will not bother, unless they are 100% sure that the effort will be rewarded. Simples!

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 26, 2012, 01:39:31 PM
.............................................  What had changed? I now knew that it was possible, and was prepared to invest the courage and effort to really try it for myself. The time and effort that needs to be invested to understand the ZED is by no means trivial, so most people will not bother, unless they are 100% sure that the effort will be rewarded. Simples!
Thanks Neptune for your alternative angle of insight,
I fully agree with your fresh view.  What you are saying that the risk factor is too high? 
Sure this is a personal choice.  Low effort, low risk, usually low return
I think of knowledge as intertwined building blocks and that an strand of knowledge can diversify into other area's or lead up a new branch.  So a singular outcome is not that critical.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on October 26, 2012, 02:33:26 PM
Something for all of you to think about:

Quote
A shill, plant, or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. Plant and stooge more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).[citation needed]
Auctioneer and assistants, Cheviot, Ohio.

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions[1] because of the potential for fraud and damage, however, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.[citation needed]

Shill can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit shill for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity. The origin of the term shill is uncertain; it may be an abbreviation of shillaber. The word originally denoted a carnival worker who pretended to be a member of the audience in an attempt to elicit interest in an attraction. Some sources trace the usage back to 1914.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: neptune on October 26, 2012, 02:37:18 PM
@Red_Sunset. I agree with what you say, Low input, low risk, poor results. The problem is, in this age of information, we suffer info overload. The only survival strategy that works, is to decide what to absorb, and what to reject. As we get older and set in our ways we become less receptive to new ideas. Claims for overunity are a dime a dozen, and the rate of their presentation is rising exponentially.
       Good luck to all those who will try to understand without guarantee of big final results. But remember that nothing succeeds like success.That is why I think that validation is important for a lot of people.
@ Webby1. You say there are limitations and advantages. Another way to say this is "Terms and conditions apply."
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 26, 2012, 03:25:56 PM
neptune
Come on... low input low gain look at all the input by Tk all those videos and tests
has he found Overunity ? and we have seen negative results from another member
who is also getting his hands went.......  Facts and reality are what counts

You have been here more than enough years to know yourself how many times this forum
has been  convinced by a claim of Overunity only to find out later it's not true

I do take your point, and I will try to post less since I'm not doing any actual testing.
the problem is Red_sunset arrogant attitude to anyone that might question the validity
of Wayne's device.  (sorry I don't believe in blind faith)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on October 26, 2012, 04:05:46 PM
Validation, the "yes or no" is dependent on the way how you look at the whole picture,
Wayne knows what his system does, he doesn't need the validation, but he sure he needs to convince other outside people and therein the validation is a technical business milestone to progress to the next stage in his planned business path,  which is commercialization.  If you see yourself as a future part of his direct or related business activity, I can see the importance.

From a science and technical  viewpoint, it importance is greatly diminished except for the "second opinion confirmation value". 
If the skeptics need to rely on Mark Dansie confirmation to home, what is their worth then?.  Isn't their assessment based on good and proper science principles, as has been mentioned throughout this thread.
I would expect a skeptic worth his salt (who thinks he knows what he is talking about) to cry foul when Mark confirms that the Zed works.  The fist accusations leveled could be that Mark is in a conspiracy with Wayne.

Regarding the statement "the validation would enable this team to finally move forward with this project",  Moving forward to what ?  The pretty HER animation shown is already a model T-ford,  the validation will be be done on the next generation system which only resembles in a small part the model-T.  So for moving forward, most people here have already missed the bus in petty squabbles that stifled progress. The system will go from here under cover to protect business advantage as it moves into the future.

The forum had the full attention of an experienced inventor how wanted to educate ( lay the basis to create inventors, not dump knowledge), but the relationship process of teacher<-> student was reversed due to immaturity that muffled the teacher with the tragic results seen.  In retrospect I can only ay that Wayne's good idea was to ambitious and the attendees to immature, possibly caused by mismatched expectations on both sides.

Golden opportunities have been lost for all (with or without validation)
Moving forward to implementation of this technology to the world.  Validation is the next crucial step, without it this device cannot be sold.
 
If Mark Dansie is in a conspiracy with Wayne(very unlikely) then this could be the scam of the century.  It would be totally foolish because with their exposure they would both likely end up in prison.
 
Why are Golden opportunities lost?  Which ones and how?
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 26, 2012, 05:34:12 PM
And with this TK also noted and interesting effect he was seeing with his Tinselzed Heron pump.

 8)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 27, 2012, 01:49:00 AM
A short update on the modifications to lower the test stroke distance from the previous tests on the system presented in the earlier video.  Since the test system is built from materials "at hand" and not Engineered for adjustability, several things other than just stroke distance have changed:
 
Stroke now starts a bit lower, so that should mean more lift potential.  This was not intentional but just due to the nature of the "shims" that I could easily construct and the desired 8 mm stroke range that I had in mind.
 
The system is set up with the same methodology but probably different results now.  It has been cycled enough times that it should be able to provide useful readings in the morning.  I am allowing it an "overnight" stay to relax any new stresses since this is what I did before the previous test data was taken and so wanted to do the same this time.
 
But my initial impressions are this:  Wow, what a difference such seemingly small changes make!  Sorry to tease, but I am as excited to see the new data as well.  I can't guess what they will be.  I am only saying now that the system does act differently with this lower stroke range and shorter stroke arrangement.
 
I'll post data in the AM if nothing gets in the way.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 27, 2012, 02:18:35 AM
However, If it does not generate energy then perhaps it has use as an interesting curiosity or maybe even a piece of art, but no utility whatsoever as an overunity energy device.

Nice little twist of what was intended - and also a contradiction to the arguments of others.
"If it creates energy it has to be false because energy can't be created"
"If it DOESN'T create energy it isn't over unity and should be discarded....."

Can't have it both ways

The intent of Webby's post was - I think - to try to say that energy is not being created, it is being converted.
IF... Gravity can be considered and proved to be a flow and not a force... That is HUGE.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 27, 2012, 02:51:32 AM
Nice little twist of what was intended - and also a contradiction to the arguments of others.
"If it creates energy it has to be false because energy can't be created"
"If it DOESN'T create energy it isn't over unity and should be discarded....."

Can't have it both ways

The intent of Webby's post was - I think - to try to say that energy is not being created, it is being converted.
IF... Gravity can be considered and proved to be a flow and not a force... That is HUGE.
Outstanding thinking webby1 and wildew. Gravity is a flow and Wayne has shown how to tap into that flow. The new advancements, when shown, will make that fact, easier to comprehend.
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on October 27, 2012, 05:01:19 AM
If anyone here doesn't know what the Universal Law of Gravitation is they should look it up.  Gravity does not "flow" like a stream or the wind, at all.

How gravity acts is completely understandable.  It's possible to visualize exactly what the gravity field is like inside the ZED right down to the the nano differences from one 3D point relative to another.  You can do it with a calculator, a scale, and a ruler.

So any notion of "changing" gravity or "taking advantage of the 'flow'" of gravity is false.  Gravity is just "there" and it is as dead as a doornail.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hoptoad on October 27, 2012, 07:03:57 AM
snip...
IF... Gravity can be considered and proved to be a flow and not a force... That is HUGE.

Or if gravity can be considered a flowing force.? What then?

KneeDeep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: johnny874 on October 27, 2012, 08:22:35 AM
 seamus,
mr.wynes device can't work, sorry.

edited to add; stefan (hartiberlin) supports his work as far as I know.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 27, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
Do you "believers" think that physics does not understand gravity to the point of being able to engineer, at will, with it? Please research two topics: Gravity Probe B, and the Cassini mission to Saturn's moon Titan. The gyroscopes in the GPB satellite experiment, which contain the most precise spheres ever made by humans, and the ballistic spacecraft trajectory to Titan, requiring only a single small course correction on the journey from Earth to Saturn, indicate that gravity, its nature and its effects are pretty damn well understood and IF gravity were a "flow" or IF it somehow was possible to extract energy from a gravitational field..... these two experiments, and many MANY others over the years, would have revealed that fact, by adding or subtracting energies that would have to be accounted for. But guess what: over the nearly one BILLION mile journey up the gravitational well of old Sol on the way out to Saturn...... and over the years of GPB's orbital work.... Newtonian physics and standard engineering mechanics and dynamics required no fudging. GPB did reveal that Einstein was right, too.... at even more precise, tiny scales, relativistic corrections to Newton do show up, but there are no surprises in the energy balance of the experiment. What goes up.... comes down, with losses, and there's nothing extra or left over that isn't accounted for by Newton and Einstein.

The idea that MrWayne is a "teacher" who somehow wanted to teach us something, with noble motives, and was chased off or frustrated in his attempt by skeptical challenges is just a lie.  No genuine teacher with knowledge that he wishes to reveal acts as he does. If I want to teach someone the Pythagorean theorem or how to solve a quadratic equation, the first thing I do is to DEMONSTRATE that what I am teaching actually works. And I answer any and all questions along the way.
I don't claim that I have a secret equation that works a miracle on a complicated problem, then drop hints in non-standard language, confusing integers with reals and making other sophomore errors, and have you struggle to derive some equation without ever having seen a real problem worked out with the secret system that I am allegedly teaching you.

Ask relevant questions concerning the Zed, and stop talking about Gravity in general, you say? OK, here's a relevant question for the Teacher and his sycophant Students:
Where is the "Simple, Three Layer System that is clearly overunity by itself"? (Mister Wayne's exact words.)
How was this clear overunity determined, and what is the ratio of input to output work? If you tell me that there is NO INPUT, then I say this: show me this system running, making usable output without any input, and demonstrate the veracity of your claim and your authority and credibility to teach.
Note that I am NOT ASKING YOU TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS FOR ME or to simply "give" me the solution. I just want the Teacher to prove that he has something to teach, by SHOWING WHAT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE and demonstrating that it works.

And another thing: What is this sudden talk about overunity air conditioners? It seems lately like THAT is the definition of "overunity" that MrWayne wants to apply to the Zed. Otherwise why bring it up, why use it as an illustration? An "overunity" system that is OU in the same way that a heat pump or window AC is OU.... is not very interesting, and there aren't many such systems being discussed on OVERUNITY forums.

I can claim to have a herd of invisible pink unicorns, and I can conduct classes in animal husbandry, equestrian performance, and saddle-making all day long, using regular  horses as my examples. I can even show you cartoon animations of how a young Unicorn's horn starts to grow and twist into its nice spiral, and I can demonstrate IN THE ANIMATION how an adolescent Unicorn begins to turn completely pink, discarding its paler juvenile transparency for the more robust adult invisible pigmentation.  By the end of the semester you will know a whole lot of conventional information about horses and their care and feeding. But if I never EVER actually show you a real pink invisible unicorn.... what are you gonna think?

ETA: Did I mention that there are at least 117 people who have confirmed my invisible unicorns? No, I can't tell you any of their names so you can contact them yourselves and ask just what they saw or didn't see. But if you sign my NDA I can show you my barn full of saddles and tack, and the floor covered with unicorn....er..... hoofprints. But sorry, all the unicorns are out in the upper pasture grazing right now, and won't be back until.... after you've gone home.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 27, 2012, 11:56:03 AM
The Travis gain effect in a nutshell
This is the most simplest way I can describe the principles involved,  I am not going into the workings of how the multi layer lift device accomplice the ratio changes.
Case #1 is your standard and Case #2 is the Travis miracle being disputed. I know you will be coming back with IMPOSSIBLE, CAN NOT BE….ect. But if you have some usable brains at all you will figure it out. I even added a picture and I added related and relevant postings from Wayne to the bottom.

Please note: The Case #1 & 2 examples below are theoretical examples with simplified values for demonstration of the Travis OU principles only. They do not bear direct resemblance to the implementation of the principles within the Zed system

LIFT Case #1 (Standard system)
We lift a weight of 1000kg to a height of 1meter,
Potential energy created in the weight= 1000KgMeter

To do the lift we use an hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. This requires to fill the ram cavity of 1mtr x 1mtr  with 1000 liters (kg) of fluid (the pressure is 1000kg/SqMtr or 0.1kg/SqCm)
Fluid energy input is 1000kg x 1mtr = 1000KgMtr

DESCEND Case #1 (Standard system)
We descend the weight of 1000kg back to down to base level (distance = 1Mtr),
Potential energy released by the weight= 1000KgMeter

To do the descend,  we use the same hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. The ram cavity, 1000 liters (kg) of fluid with a pressure of 1000kg/SqMtr or 0.1kg/SqCm)
Fluid energy output is 1000Kg/SqMtr x 1mtr = 1000KgMtr

LIFT Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
We lift a weight of 1000kg to a height of 1meter,
Potential energy created in the weight= 1000KgMeter

To do the lift we use an hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. This does not require  to fill a  ram cavity of 1mtr x 1mtr  with 1000 liters (kg) of fluid.  The multi layer lifter design reduces the fluid input and pressure requirements.  The effective energy input to lift is reduced to a level below 100% according to the design
Fluid energy input is  >1000kg x 1mtr =  >1000KgMtr

DESCEND Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
We descend the weight of 1000kg back to down to base level (distance = 1Mtr),
Potential energy released by the weight = 1000KgMeter

For doing the descend we have the ability to use an effective different lift area, we choose to descend the weight with an extreme effective reduced piston lift area of 0.1SquareMeter (as an example only). The ram cavity remains unchanged at 1000 liter (kg) of fluid (the pressure is now 10x more, 10.000kg/SqMtr or 1kg/SqCm).
The fluid output is exhausted at 10x the standard pressure, containing 10x the energy level.
Fluid energy output is 10.000Kg/SqMtr x 1mtr = 10.000KgMtr


//////////////////
REFERENCES: 
Some of WAYNE’s POSTINGS in this FORUM that explain this effect, please try to read with comprehension.

« Reply #718 on: June 25, 2012, 02:36:25 PM »
A good question was asked by a college student,  >> (The assumed college student was me at the time, Wayne's answer is what the whole zed principle is all about)

"It is guessed that the weight of the riser assembly (piston/float + top deadweight) is equaled by the default upward buoyancy force of 4.8psi.  A 8psi would nearly double this force. "
 The guess is wrong:
 The function of lifting a weight using the layering system has a different set of principles than using the weight to increase the pressure in the same chamber.
 
The linear scale of (hydro) pressure to lift increases toward ideal - this means we get more bang for the buck, lift more for pound in the higher range than in the lower - this is extremely useful - taking advantage of this relationship is fundamental.
 
In simple terms - increasing the pressure in the pod from 7 psi to 8 psi (hydro) of pressure will lift an additional 687 pounds (for the cost of 1 pound of work)
 In the lower scale - 3.8 psi to 4.8 psi (Hydro) 458 pounds creates 1 psi of hydro pressure
So the input value depends on the point in the scale - the weight value - and the lift value is also controlled by that scale
  If you put 5500 pounds of weight on both of the Zed - we would have 8psi at all points - same scale = no gain.
Currently - we uses the lower scale weight to increase the value of the sinking system - while benefiting from the higher range on the upstroke.
 Wayne

This may seem like a lot of work to do slight better than a pneumatic cylinder - well that is because - it is not the lift that I had to overcome in my design:
The second hurdle in using buoyancy to generate energy - HOW DO YOU SINK AN OBJECT THAT IS NORMALLY BOUYANT - WHILE MAINTAINING THE FIRST HURDLE - HOW DO YOU REDUCE THE VOLUME REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OBJECT BOUYANT?
I bold these, not to yell - but they are the right questions that had to be answered to make my overunity device work.

////////////////////

You are at the same point at which our Engineers (who where hired to disprove our system started to say omgosh).

Let me help you jump ahead a little - in our system the head -like Larry mentioned - travels up with the stroke - this results in a special condition at the end of stroke -
Namely - all the energy you put into the system is still there - the load is up - and removed - but the buoyancy - "head" - is still intact.

You limited the stroke - unlike other buoyancy systems we do not fill -then - float -then DRAIN and then sink - as you have discovered - moving the head creates a sink condition. The sink condition is directly related to the static load - as one of you mentioned - well done.

Now - we move the head - into the other Zed (equalization - free flow as we call it) the first one does not sink during equalization it sinks (during stroke of the other Zed).

We reserve a large portion of the head (neutralizing the weight of the system - we also do not expand the air in the system (Much) as one of you stated - well done.

Now in the equalized postion - we use the pressure in the lowering Zed to supplament the Stroking Zed -
Guess what this does for efficiency..........very exciting

We add weight to the riser and split the desired force - like this with our 6000 pound force model - 2000 pounds lifts weight - returned in the system (exhaust - lowering Zed transfer),  2000 to fuel the internal operations and 2000 pounds absolutely free.

In short - our three layer system has a total of 1/3 the Ideal - absolutely free.

Do not get trapped into thinking you have to exceed the Ideal of a system to achieve OU - that would be magic - our system is simple physics - seen in a new light.
When you wrap this together - you will see why - every engineer who comes - is so excited to join our work.

Well done men, ladies'

Now you know what I saw in the hot tub back in 2008 - in the Travis Effect - pretty cool, and why we dropped everything and persued this - against all odds.

Please e-mail me when your OMGosh moment hits - I am honored by your work, and will include you in our historical journals (with permission) and possibly work together in the future of Clean FREE Energy.

jwtravis5@peoplepc.com

Wayne Travis


« Reply #699 on: June 24, 2012, 03:32:27 PM »
You People impress me,
My Patent attorney told me that few people could - or would wrap their heads around a system (like ours) that had so many naturally correlating effects within the system - you are doing well!
On that note: does it amaze you yet on how much is going on in basically a single moving part (when they are attached together).
Now for a big jump in your computations - I know some of you are working ahead - so.......
Consider the Weight - I told you it was to keep the air compressed - the heads in place (partially) and to control the sink rate of the system .... right -
 
Two More reasons for the weight:
First - as you have noticed - the effeciency of the system is best at "ideal" in most systems to get to ideal requires going from 0- ideal and back again = over and over -
The weights let us skip past the first 55% of the system and function only in the begining of the "super effecient range".
The weight would seem to some to be a waste of energy - or a simple teeter taughter effect - which it is (in that normal relm of physics - but to be able to cancel out the need to go from 0 - ideal - and instead operate at 55% of ideal too ideal only is good, very good.
We do not get to "eliminate" the need for the weight - but we do not pay for that part of the process over and over .
That was hard for my engineers - they wanted to squeeze everything out of the system - which means - you have to put it all back in - poor logic with a free energy machine - net Zero. They insisted on light weigting the risers - I argued - it cost us nothing if they are equal on both sides - they argued "Ideal usage" I argued - pay for everything - results in nothing.....
 
Part two:
The weight and mininum pressure effect:
As in our last model - we have enough weight to keep the pressure at 5.0 psi hydro - this means that if we had chosen to place our pump at the bottom of the system - we would have to overcome the 5.0 and then charge it to 8.0 in order to stroke - but we do not do that - we raised our pump to an elevation equal to that head/psi and so - when we push our water into the pod - the pump has a resistance of - well 0-3 psi - which is much better than 5-8 psi.
Three pounds is not three pounds - Some one will jump on me for that - but to let you all work it out - I will just say - that you can raise the water level in a column from any point - it is harder the lower you go - just in the friction of a seal ---
To be fair - the weight eliminates the input cost of 5.0psi - and reduces the ideal use of the system (please recall that fully utilizing the ideal results in under unity.
Raising the pump eliminates the stress of the exchange - that stress is what tore our model seven apart - during long runs.
- when you get done with this part - let me know - and I will explain the inverted pump system - 20% reduction in pumping cost -(real good).
Got to go
Again - very impressive teamwork.
Wayne Travis
 
« Last Edit: June 24, 2012, 04:56:27 PM by mrwayne »

« Reply #701 on: June 24, 2012, 04:55:04 PM »
•   Quote
A question was asked about a weight selection calculator -
We do have that in our system - We are not releasing that work without NDA.
Our Model allow us to state the required output "Net"  such as "50kw" and it will find all of the size hieght, width, layers, and weight that will match that output. Then we chose which to select - based on several factors - shipping manufacturing, location etcetera.
The model takes into considerations about 3000times (rough guess) - the information you have uncovered so far.
We have spent four years - not struggling - but in careful understanding.
Concerning your models at this stage, I suggested 1/3 of the ideal of the system - since you have discussed small systems - if your system calculates to lift 600 pounds (at the end of your stroke).
- add the weight of the risers and then add enough weight to reach about 200 pounds.
You will discover that the exhuast pressure created by 200 pounds is over half the energy required to lift 600 pounds.
Some of you may have noticed that we have 5.0 psi in our system from 2500 pounds of weight - and we only add 3psi to get to 8 psi to lift 5500 pounds (which is our operating lift).
So my suggestion - fill out the NDA meet our engineers that have busted it for years to come to a complete and predictive model....
Or, just add a weight to increase your exhuast above half the operting pressure.
We are fortuntate to have a large o/u operating range, this will get you in the good.
Thanks Wayne


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 27, 2012, 12:17:27 PM
........................................ and over the years of GPB's orbital work.... Newtonian physics and standard engineering mechanics and dynamics required no fudging. GPB did reveal that Einstein was right, too.... at even more precise, tiny scales, relativistic corrections to Newton do show up, but there are no surprises in the energy balance of the experiment. What goes up.... comes down, with losses, and there's nothing extra or left over that isn't accounted for by Newton and Einstein.
..........................................................

TK...Your clearly have an agenda ! and a BAD ONE at that.
Why is there a real conflict between what you say in the quote above and your presence on this forum ? considering what follows that statement.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 27, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
I have lowered the lift stroke from 1.0 cm to 0.8 cm.  Start height for the lift is also slightly lower due to sloppy adjustment of the stroke.  Precharge (initial air and water levels) were necessarily adjusted per the previous methods, but likely resulted in slight differences and therefore results cannot be absolutely compared to those of prior tests.

Lift Mass = 1000 g
Pressure Increase = (from 242 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 24.2 g/cm2
Volume = 102 ml ( or cm3)
Stroke = 0.8 cm
 
This gives a comparative piston value of 102 cm3/0.8 cm = 128 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 128 cm2 x 24.2 g/cm2 = 3100 g. 
Since my lift mass was only 1000 g this is underunity at 1000/3100 = 32.3%.
 
However, not all of the recorded volume went into the ZED to cause the measured lift.  Approximately 17.2 ml (or cm3) was used to raise the pressure and remained in the input tube.  This caused the 242 mm rise in the input tube water levels between top and bottom of the stroke.  So if this 17.2 ml is subtracted from the 102 ml the comparative piston value would be 84.8 cm3/0.8 cm = 106 cm2.  The calculated mass that comparative piston would be able to lift is 106 cm2 x 24.2 g/cm2 = 2570 g.  This is also underunity at 1000/2570 = 38.9%.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 27, 2012, 02:29:51 PM
Some spray cans come with these nice little spray tubes that are 6 inches long :)

And the electrical assembly area at work has every imaginable size of heat shrink tubing!  The smaller sizes are clear, thin walled, and fairly flexible.  Some 1/16 (ID? OD?) found it's way to my work bench at home.
 
TK should be proud to know that it was my A&P Tech friend at work who thought of the heat shrink tubing when I asked him what we might have on hand for this application.  This was after he had handed me a spray tube from a WD40 bottle first.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 27, 2012, 02:30:42 PM
Something for all of you to think about:

Hey!  Welcome back!
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on October 27, 2012, 02:38:12 PM
@All,
 
The term layer seems to have different meaning to different people, this has caused some misinformation, so I clarified with Wayne.
 
 
A 3 Layer Travis system is a Pod and 3 Risers.
 
 
The Pod was not considered a layer, because it has little lift value compared to the risers, it's main purpose is to maintain the Accumulated PSI by rising with the system and not allowing a air gap to form above it.
 
 
Thus M. has a 2 layer system.
 
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 27, 2012, 02:46:57 PM
The term layer seems to have different meaning to different people, this has caused some misinformation, so I clarified with Wayne.
 
 
A 3 Layer Travis system is a Pod and 3 Risers.
 
 
The Pod was not considered a layer, because it has little lift value compared to the risers, it's main purpose is to maintain the Accumulated PSI by rising with the system and not allowing a air gap to form above it.
 
 
Thus M. has a 2 layer system.

Well that is seriously disappointing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 27, 2012, 03:02:26 PM
Edit
I missed the above post while posting  :P ??? :o :(
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on October 27, 2012, 03:16:21 PM

Hey!  Welcome back!
 
M.

Thank you!  Watching the drama unfold!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 28, 2012, 02:12:59 PM

And the electrical assembly area at work has every imaginable size of heat shrink tubing!  The smaller sizes are clear, thin walled, and fairly flexible.  Some 1/16 (ID? OD?) found it's way to my work bench at home.
 
TK should be proud to know that it was my A&P Tech friend at work who thought of the heat shrink tubing when I asked him what we might have on hand for this application.  This was after he had handed me a spray tube from a WD40 bottle first.
 
M.
The Local Hobby Shop (the one that sells RC Aircraft models, not electric trains or "crafts")  is an amazing resource. Ask for "antenna tubes" and you will be offered dozens of differently colored plastic tubes about a foot long and of nice wall thickness and stiffness. Ask for Teflon CA application tubing and you will be offered several different gauges of very fine Teflon tubing in rolls or precut short lengths. Ask for silicone fuel line tubing: ditto.
Look there also for packages of metal tubing offcuts, plastic hardware, and specialized adhesives, in addition to fine mechanical parts like inexpensive small precision ball bearings and matching shafts.
I was gonna suggest heatshrink but it's often too flimsy in the smaller sizes to work as good pipeline tubing. Try the very fine Teflon: it can be had in capillary sizes and has wall thickness that is tough enough to withstand bends without collapsing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 28, 2012, 02:29:27 PM
TK...Your clearly have an agenda ! and a BAD ONE at that.
Why is there a real conflict between what you say in the quote above and your presence on this forum ? considering what follows that statement.

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, I have an "agenda": that is the Truth. What is the "bad" part of that? Can you actually refute any of the things I've said in the post you partially quote? DID YOU LOOK UP the experiments I suggested? How can one send a robot spacecraft on a ballistic UNPOWERED journey of a billion miles through a gravitational field, without noticing a "flow" or anything else NOT understood about gravity? How do you keep gyroscope spheres spinning so accurately for years without understanding the forces they experience? Do not try to tell me that gravity is non-conservative or is some kind of "flow" until you can show your model to be consistent with the results of these two sets of experiments.
But all that is irrelevant, really, because all I am asking for is EVIDENCE that supports the CLAIMS MADE by MrWayne and you and some others. But you cannot or will not provide that evidence, instead choosing to attack me and my "agenda" without, again, providing support for your attack.

Where is the demonstration that Mister Wayne is correct? It does not exist. You and others have pointed out that he's been working on this "basic discovery" since 2008. It is almost 2013 now. If he and his engineers understand the system so well why can't they build a working model?  Why do they claim to have done so, but never succeed in demonstrating that fact? Why is the longest reported run still under four hours, and why is that time well within the capacity of the stored energy in the system?

I'd say, Red, that YOUR AGENDA is slightly more difficult to defend, and is much less legitimate, than mine is. Consider that you have never actually built anything to demonstrate the truth of your contentions. Yet you can lay out the full instructions in a single post. Where are the sausages?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 28, 2012, 04:22:08 PM
Mr. Webb.
 
Thank you for that!  It was very interesting!
 
I started this test with only the preload weight in place and at max stroke on the 8mm stroke setup.  The water from the outer annulus was removed (mostly) by siphoning with the liberated heatshrink tubing.  Then the (insert appropriate name here) was lowered ~8mm by venting water from the Pod chamber per usual testing protocol.  Water was then reintroduced to the outer annulus via a CA applicator pipette (eye dropper).
 
The (insert appropriate name here) system was expected to rise as the water was returned to the outer annulus.  But it did not.  It did not move at all at first but actually sank as the water neared the maximum level in the outer annulus.
 
Since the above reported observations were not expected I immediately rejected them and started over.  BUT I changed the testing protocol slightly to correct for the WEIRDNESS that was observed previously.
 
Again water was siphoned from the outer annulus (the (insert appropriate name here) was still at its lowered state from the previous test).  But then water was added to the FILL TUBE so that it would enter the Pod chamber.  This was done until a noticeable rise in the (insert appropriate name here) was achieved and thus eliminated the weirdness due to the hysteresis/stiction/gremlins in the previous test.
 
Water was again reintroduced to the outer chamber, drop by drop.  And the (insert appropriate name here) began to stroke upwards as expected.  For a bit.  And then it began to sink.  For a bit.  And as the reintroduced water began to reach its maximum height the (insert appropriate name here) began to lift again.  All in all, it lifted.  But it sank during part of this test.
 
WTF?
 
This test is pressurizing the (insert appropriate name here) from the OUTSIDE to the INSIDE rather than the usual method of pressurizing from the inside to the out.
 
I could really use a sim to check this out further...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 28, 2012, 05:25:50 PM

Well that is seriously disappointing.
Why? All you have to do is add another layer and you'll have your overunity results, improved vastly from your earlier 40 percent. Right?

Or perhaps, you've done something else wrong and after another month of building and playing with a WRONG system, describing everything you are doing in advance publicly, asking for criticism, then doing what you think is "approved"... maybe those "in the know" will tell you about it. Finally.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 28, 2012, 05:26:43 PM
Webby said,
Quote
TK, yes indeed the interesting space stuff does prove a bunch of things,, oh wait it does not prove anything it only states that the understood model for what we *use* the models for, works VERY well.
Oh...wait.... the interesting space stuff does INDEED prove some things. It proves that effects like those Mister Wayne and Red Sunset depend on in their "explanations" do not actually occur in well-measured systems. For if they did, they would have shown up as anomalous thrusts that needed to be accounted for or corrected, without being understood.
Or do you think that the only place in the Universe where gravity is non-conservative and actually "flows" is in southern Oklahoma?


If gravity is a "flow" like the flow of a river or wind, and you are extracting energy from gravity to power a system, shouldn't you see a reduced gravity, over or under your extraction mechanism? And, if energy isn't being "created", shouldn't this decrease in gravity correspond exactly to the increase in energy, potential or kinetic, that you are extracting? The ZED machine and the effect it allegedly depends upon are logically inconsistent with the real world of facts and how it behaves.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 28, 2012, 07:06:41 PM
Quote
Really what I would like the conversation to focus on is the WHOLE system, including the sub-system that is at work inside the main system, that small part that is used without being used up.
Actually it's a large part: it's the stored energy in the precharge, that is acting like the spring of the automatic bollard. It's a complicated spring, made up of several segments, with dampers -- compare the construction of the Zed to a dashpot, for example.  The precharge of buoyancy and pressure make up a major portion of what is actually moving the riser assembly, and the action of the horizontal rams and other parts work by using a small input _force_ to change the effective density of the moving riser assembly, turning it into a Cartesian Diver that rises or sinks because it is being cycled very slightly around its neutral buoyancy point.  All that is made clear by the animation.
The problem I see is that there isn't any way to get work out of this system. Everything in the animation either balances like an equally weighted see-saw, or is lossy (pushing fluid through narrow pipes and inter-wall channels is very lossy).
Now, especially with Mond's latest "weird" or notso weird results, I think that it is entirely possible that this system could "rock" back and forth for some good while, like an equally balanced see-saw, slowly, and like the see-saw _squeaking_ at the fulcrum, could have some energy tapped off of it for some time. Like you can do with a flywheel: "precharge" by spinning it up, remove all power, let it spin for a while, and then drive a small fan with a pulley-belt arrangement. Until it mysteriously stops running, and you have to precharge it again.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 28, 2012, 07:10:54 PM
Why? All you have to do is add another layer and you'll have your overunity results, improved vastly from your earlier 40 percent. Right?

I would hope so!
 
Unfortunately there are some "real world" problems with adding another layer.  Due to the material source that was selected the best choice would be to make another smaller Pod and convert the existing one into a Riser.  So another inner annuli thingy.  But due to the small size of the retainer walls and the way they were attached to the base, everything was constructed from the inside to the outside.  This was a necessity in order to attach and check the seals of those walls to the base (while trying to maintain some sort of concentricity).  So adding another retainer wall to the inside would be all but impossible.  At least from what I can think of now.  I'll mull it over for a bit since I would at least like to see how the tests would perform if another layer was added.
 
Did I mention that everything is glued together now!?!  I mean, the (insert appropriate name here) is glued to the stand that is glued to my work bench!  So modifications of the type you are suggesting would require major surgery.  Craziness!  Probably better to start over.  Or not.
 
Have you met my friend Dale?
 
M.
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 28, 2012, 07:36:42 PM
If you could, and when you are set back up for lift, I would like to see 3 pics, one with the risers down with only the sink weight on, one when you have reached full precharge with the lift weight on but not lifting and the final one when the stroke is complete

Pics of just the (insert appropriate name here) or do you need the fill tube in the shot?
 
I just hooked up the "stage lighting" again.  Funny thing.  Those LEDs seem to like their electrical power hooked up one way more than the other.  In fact, if I reverse the polarity, they don't light up at all!  Who knew?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 28, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
Now that is at least two hours of my life that I'm not getting back!
 
Hope it helps.  Let me know if you want me to email higher rez versions.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 29, 2012, 01:17:30 AM
Is that your vibrator motor on the lower left? Nice.

It would also be nice if you had some kind of transparent plastic ruler attached to the whatever it is, just for convenient reference marks.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on October 29, 2012, 03:21:09 AM
 ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 29, 2012, 08:01:32 PM
More new promising statements from Wayne Travis....again
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives)
Quote
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements -
we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend if we are ready
and Mark happens to be locked into a conference or is traveling.
This member will visit us and then report to Mark, at that point a decision will
be made if we need to arrange schedules and add more data collection,
or if Mark can arrange a return.
To be very clear, we will not rush things -
we will do what is in the best interests of our long term goals,
the temporary alternate is just preplanning for contingencies.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on October 29, 2012, 11:04:32 PM
That is why Mark D called for a long duration run test of at least two days.

Its hard to argue against a device that self sustains itself & power output is maintained [does not slow down] by way of overcoming internal losses & doing a reasonable amount of real Work [load] which would deplete energy reserves given to the system at set-up if this were its only energy source - this applies equally to reciprocating format or a rotary format.

As TK & others have been saying you don't have to understand the physics to see the obvious - just be provided with evidence that a device does what is said it will do - the independent validation team will confirm their findings & also confirm that likely no fraud was involved if they have unfettered access & the test is a success.

A simple demonstration test that doesn't require data collection stations etc is to have the device lift via a pulley a known weight vertically - let it rise, then fall [use some method to disengage & let it come down again] then be lifted again in a repeating cycle - the cumulative Joules of Potential Energy given to the weight can easily calculated - an even simpler method is to attach a prony brake as has been mentioned.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on October 30, 2012, 12:08:39 AM
In my opinion having a "prevalidation member" visit is a non-starter.  There is no point to it.  Two people need to go and bring camping equipment and plant themselves by the device and see what happens.  They can take turns sleeping and monitor the system 24/24 for a few days straight.  They need to see it driving a load of some sort.

We can't have a repeat of the Sterling Allen South African trip fiasco.  Poor Sterling was like the chump in a 1920s silent movie in that case.  That was a classic case of reality being stranger than fiction.  Just ghastly considering how long Sterling has been at this game.

Like TK said, if the device is set up outside on the ground then there is always the possibility that some electrical cables were buried in the ground months before.  I don't know how to cover that issue 100% but seeing it set up on top of a hard surface like concrete or asphalt would not be perfect but would be preferable.

For Mark:  My suggestion is that before anybody goes anywhere you discuss these kinds of issues beforehand.  Ask what the load on the system will be, how it will be implemented, and how it will be measured.  Get pictures of the setup, confirm that your people can watch the system 24 on 24, etc.  I know you know what I am about to say, but I will say it for all:  No need to worry about all sorts of sensor data that Wayne might want to show.  Just the load and how it is measured and watch the device in operation.  I would suggest that they camp out for at least 5 days.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 30, 2012, 01:10:47 AM
@Webby1
You are quite the cheerleader - and I do NOT mean that in a bad way   8)
Setup IS very important - but there is also one constant that I'm becoming much more familiar with.
This is going to go against one of Red_Sunset's comments in the ZED for dummies book - a little.

In that document he says that the input volume has to fill the gap that "appears" as the risers / retainers separate during lift - and he's right - to a point. What isn't clearly stated is where that fluid comes from....

Back to the constant:
This also speaks volumes to Wayne's proportion recommendations regarding pod diameter to average riser diameter.
The input volume is dictated ( and restricted ) by two things; the volume of the gap / height of the clearance between the pod and the first retainer - and the total volume to fill in ONLY THE AREA | ID OF THE FIRST RETAINER x STROKE DISTANCE.
Sorry, not shouting - easy highlighting

The ability to lift is dictated by what happens as the water level rises around the pod - that motion rearranges the air / water levels in all of the other layers. Then hydraulics kicks in and pressures become a more dominant force for stroke. ( OK - I'm not speaking for Wayne - my thoughts only )

I'm still not claiming victory in understanding the entire process and haven't even started trying to piece the whole system together. But Webby's right - setup matters, a LOT.

Input volume can be easily calculated and predicted - mine at the moment is still 12 fluid ounces, as dictated by my model with a 4.5" OD pod, 11.5" height, .750 lift and .125 gap.

The "fill in" volume for the outer layers: Comes from the layers themselves - reducing the differential during stroke - a major loss, at least in my .125 walled model.

Video from last night should be available soon  - depending on influence by Sandy....
 http://youtu.be/Fwqif5q3_VY

Dale


 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on October 30, 2012, 02:55:59 PM
It is not so amusing, it is real that the setup is the most critical part of the process.  Small changes in the setup make big changes to the system function.

Precharge is added during operation by the sinking ZED, except for the first lift, so are you meaning the setup pressure?  That is a one time input for each ZED and then the initial lift input is the other part and then the system runs itself.

So, does yours run itself?  If not, who has one that does?

I think you guys need to cut back on the Kool-Aid, switch to coffee for a while, and wake up.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 30, 2012, 04:33:10 PM
People interested in patent applications and the patenting process might be interested in the recent developments in the Rossi story.

I've read both Rossi's application, and MrWayne's application. It seems to me that MrWayne's application suffers from many of the same kinds of defects that caused Rossi's application to earn its rejection notice. The main one being that a person skilled in the art does NOT have sufficient information disclosed in the patent application to construct and operate a working, self-powered, self-running Zed system. Others being issues about prior art, true inventive novelty, and so on.

http://shutdownrossi.com/technology-patents-and-ip/rossis-epo-patent-denied/ (http://shutdownrossi.com/technology-patents-and-ip/rossis-epo-patent-denied/)



The simple, three-layer system that is clearly overunity by itself (Mister Wayne's exact words): Where is it, how was its clear overunity determined, what is the ratio of input work to output work? Why can it not simply and clearly be demonstrated? Has it, perhaps, been taken apart for some reason?



Note to all Free Energy Inventors: NEVER NEVER take apart your working prototypes. NEVER, for any reason. Start your improved models from scratch. After all.... somebody might actually want to see YOUR WORKING MODEL that proves your claims ...... so don't take it apart, protect it in its pristine working state. DO NOT TAKE APART YOUR WORKING PROTOTYPES.

But for some reason, they always do.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 30, 2012, 04:48:12 PM
So, does yours run itself?  If not, who has one that does?

I think you guys need to cut back on the Kool-Aid, switch to coffee for a while, and wake up.

By "self-running" you mean without any outside source of power or depletable internal power, right? I mean, running on stored compressed air, or a battery, that will eventually run out and stop the machine.... that doesn't count, in your definition, I hope.

As far as I can tell, only MrWayne has claimed actually to have a self-runner, and the longest observed run, again according to "official" public information from MrWayne, is under four hours, even for that unit. I'm sure someone will correct me with FACTS and REFERENCES if I've gotten this part wrong.
It also doesn't seem that any of the "replications" MrWayne has alluded to in his website's information are self-runners either. Again.... I would be very happy to be wrong about this and to be corrected with facts and references.


But this entire conversation may become literally moot, Dave. Stefan has indicated that he will be removing "hardcore skeptics" _and all of their posts_ as part of the cleanup of the forum website.

Then maybe people can have their breakfasts in peace, with choice of beverages, lulled by the soft groaning of their Zeds, garnering energy from gravity while running their homes on the extracted energy, independent from the Tyranny of Big Oil, at last.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on October 30, 2012, 05:19:13 PM
...
As far as I can tell, only MrWayne has claimed actually to have a self-runner, and the longest observed run, again according to "official" public information from MrWayne, is under four hours, even for that unit. I'm sure someone will correct me with FACTS and REFERENCES if I've gotten this part wrong.
It also doesn't seem that any of the "replications" MrWayne has alluded to in his website's information are self-runners either. Again.... I would be very happy to be wrong about this and to be corrected with facts and references.
...

TK....

 Wayne on his website states the following on Our System Explained in the second part of the last question.

"Our personal longest run with those systems was four hours - longer was not needed from this system - since it gained from the first stroke and continued to gain at the same rate as long as we let it run - no degradation was observed - we started and stopped the system as many times as we wished.
"
just a statement though...no facts or evidence...maybe by Friday?

- Correcaminos

Beep Beep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on October 30, 2012, 05:39:36 PM
Video from last night should be available soon  - depending on influence by Sandy....
 http://youtu.be/Fwqif5q3_VY (http://youtu.be/Fwqif5q3_VY)

Nice video Dale!
 
Converted your units so that I could compare and follow the previous test posts exactly and get:
 
Lift Mass = 10 lbs = 4540 g
Pressure Increase = (from 18.5 in or 470 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 47.0 g/cm2
Volume = 12 oz = 355 ml ( or cm3)
Stroke = .75 in or 1.9 cm
 
This gives a comparative piston value of 355 cm3/1.9 cm = 190 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 190 cm2 x 47.0 g/cm2 = 8930 g. 
Since the lift mass was only 4540 g this is underunity at 4540/8930 = 50.8%.
 
Anything I missed?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 30, 2012, 07:02:20 PM
................................................... What isn't clearly stated is where that fluid comes from...........................................
......................................The ability to lift is dictated by what happens as the water level rises around the pod - that motion rearranges the air / water levels in all of the other layers. Then hydraulics kicks in and pressures become a more dominant force for stroke. ( OK - I'm not speaking for Wayne - my thoughts only  .............................................
.............................................The "fill in" volume for the outer layers: Comes from the layers themselves - reducing the differential during stroke - a major loss, at least in my .125 walled model.  ......................................
Dale
Hi Dale,
I am very impressed with your approach and work done with the model "Multi Layer Buoyancy Device".
With reference to your quote above, the riser bases are pre-provisioned with maximum allowable water,  apart from water movement in the U-bend during pre-charge (head), the stroke is the major level altering action, the 2 only components that make an impact is the riser wall thickness and the added space/volume in the riser head airspace for a length equal to the stroke distance.  The choice of stroke distance must be carefully determined to fit within the set conditions.

To certain others
The forum response to the introduction of a "bold new idea" is quite interesting.  I can not really fathom why certain people are so pre-occupied with how Mark is going to do his validation, where he is going to sleep, what to eat, what flight he will be on, what he must meassure and how. It is clear that he is already under the critique hammer, interesting!  ( Not interfering in business, not your own has always been good advice).
The assumptions that are being made about Wayne's patent content and its relationship to Rossi's is even more funny.  Your emotional hype makes for good miscellaneous reading. Keep it up!
My advice, if you have something interesting idea or concept to share,  please do not bring it to this forum. This is not the place to come, for help,  for support.
 
Regards,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 30, 2012, 07:27:38 PM
My advice, if you have something interesting idea or concept to share, ** but you like peace,  please do not bring it to this forum.
Regards,

You were doing so well in the first part of your post helping someone for a change 
and then you wanted to protect your investment, and you thought attacking anyone
that disagrees or has a different opinion on the Zed is the way to do it.

This forum has plenty of interesting ideas and concepts that are being shared and not being challenged,
but as you only ever post in this thread you wouldn't know that.

The reason they are so many challenges here is that Wayne is claiming Overunity
I'll say it again Wayne is claiming Overunity did you get that.Not a concept or an idea, he says he's done it,
that is why he is being challenged and more so now since we see negative results,
Wayne still has not shown and neither has anyone else proof of Overunity.

Marks visit is Wayne's idea, except he keeps putting it off again and again, very suspicious
considering Wayne has made claims that all his devices producer Overunity (I can show the posts)
and we make it our business because most of us here are interested in Overunity.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 30, 2012, 09:05:32 PM
You were doing so well in the first part of your post helping someone for a change 
Powercat,
Helping someone,  Did you think there was a meaningful interaction. Did you see any specific technical questions?.
You may explain what happened.

Quote
The reason they are so many challenges here is that Wayne is claiming Overunity.  Wayne still has not shown and neither has anyone else proof of Overunity.
And so he promised for a validation by Mark Dansie

Quote
Marks visit is Wayne's idea, except he keeps putting it off again and again, very suspicious
considering Wayne has made claims that all his devices producer Overunity (I can show the posts)
So Wayne is not fast enough?  or you can not be more patient?  or both?  How important is that to you and why?

A small questionnaire that could possibly clarify a lot of misunderstandings.
1.. Does Wayne still have an obligation towards this forum?
2.. Should Wayne still care about you on the forum?
3.. Should any constructed multi layer buoyancy device show OU?
4.. Do you know why there are validation delays?
5.. Have you been informed about the validation delays?
6.. What system is Mark Dansie going to test ?
7.. Is this test conducted to satisfy this forum or HER business plans?
8.. If and when the validation proofs successful,  what is your next expectation?
9.. On a successful test could you build a replication with the info you have?
10.. Why is this forum accumulating and filling still more forum pages on this topic?
11.. Being interested in OU, do you like contributing or only observing
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 30, 2012, 09:26:51 PM
@ Red
Your opinion is noted, and as you are so utterly convinced Wayne's device works you must be an investor,
probably a director family member, as you have never shown your own device ?
Your determination to try and prevent anyone suggesting Wayne's device might not work as he claims
is probably based on your keenness to see new investors get their chequebook out.

Now why don't you show me where I ever said Wayne's device doesn't work as he claims.
I keep waiting to see new evidence but it never comes it's the same with the verification.

I will keep waiting and hoping that something will improve but while it doesn't
and you keep insisting that it works without any proper evidence or verification,
I will keep posting to show you are just an arrogant salesman for Wayne's device,
and of course we must believe in the product because you say so.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 30, 2012, 10:31:34 PM
@ Red
Your opinion is noted, and as you are so utterly convinced Wayne's device works you must be an investor,
probably a director family member, as you have never shown your own device ?
Your determination to try and prevent anyone suggesting Wayne's device might not work as he claims
is probably based on your keenness to see new investors get their chequebook out.

Now why don't you show me where I ever said Wayne's device doesn't work as he claims.
I keep waiting to see new evidence but it never comes it's the same with the verification.

I will keep waiting and hoping that something will improve but while it doesn't
and you keep insisting that it works without any proper evidence or verification,
I will keep posting to show you are just an arrogant salesman for Wayne's device,
and of course we must believe in the product because you say so.
Hi Powercat,
We communicate direct or 'by suggestion',  and it is the latter what is used most. So lets not state 'where did I say'
An investor I am not, but I can see and understand something with good logic. A reasoning that hold true under critical test. All the logical evidence has been presented in this forum and no technical aspect of this invention has been disputed to date.

All what has been presented contra has been 'general", non technical, not one specific technical contra argument has been presented. A trend that started already on page 1, reread pages 1-4 of this forum.  I do not deny that Wayne did not offer a 'full open book' as requested. What was unique how the conversation turned to the different non-technical (business) aspects including "open sourcing'.  Why this early in the start of the forum when no technicality was addressed? The same people that claim 'it doesn't work" want 'open sourcing',  strange isn't it !!
Would I expect a working demo model at the start of the forum, yes and there was one, also verified by Mark Dansie (there is a U-tube video somewhere.  TinselKoala had even the opportunity to verify the Zed but he and his dog wanted to be paid to make the trip and have card blanche (no NDA),  the problem was who was going to pay for the dog and TK to do the validation, he wasn't.
The development of the system is ongoing and a new system is in the pipeline.  Mark will be testing this new system, not the old one. Wayne has specific business reasons for this, That is one of the reasons why you are kept waiting.

If you like to discuss or argue the technical workings of this device, you are welcome. (but do not request repeats of previous posts)

Wayne will produce the necessary to further his business. 
You Powercat must produce the necessary to further your own business.  This is the message you should carry away from this forum.  Wayne doesn't need to proof anything for or to you, you have to proof it to yourself.  This way you do not have to rely on nobody's believe other than your own

Wayne proof for Hydro Energy Revolution will be in the newspaper soon enough.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on October 30, 2012, 10:48:45 PM
All the logical evidence has been presented in this forum and no technical aspect of this invention has been disputed to date.

Wayne proof for Hydro Energy Revolution will be in the newspaper soon enough.

I don't have to prove anything, I am not the one making claims of Overunity on the Internet,
Wayne has been claiming this on this site since April the 10th 2011,
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/
We're still waiting for proper evidence, verification, or a successful replication,
If this so called logical evidence has convinced you it works where is your device ?

Logical evidence, is that different to actual evidence,(sounds like invisible pink unicorns again)
show me the successful replications that prove Overunity

You say,in the newspaper soon enough Wayne has been saying soon for over a year,
a serious lack of credibility is going on, more excuses time and time again and still no real evidence.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on October 30, 2012, 11:34:19 PM
This gives a comparative piston value of 355 cm3/1.9 cm = 190 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 190 cm2 x 47.0 g/cm2 = 8930 g. 
Since the lift mass was only 4540 g this is underunity at 4540/8930 = 50.8%.
 
Anything I missed?
Hi mondrasek
I just wanted to say that to increase efficiency you might need to pump stroke water at precharge level and not at the bottom level.
I learned this fact from Michel's latest compilation of MrWayne posts #2789. Paragraph starts with Part two: ...  we raised our pump ...

I would say pumping at precharge level gets better COP but still to get over 100% per device you need to have two devices interacting together. How exactly is this achieved I'm still figuring out but dual setup seems essential from info posted sofar. 

respect,
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 30, 2012, 11:50:48 PM
Converted your units so that I could compare and follow the previous test posts exactly and get:
 
Lift Mass = 10 lbs = 4540 g
Pressure Increase = (from 18.5 in or 470 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 47.0 g/cm2
Volume = 12 oz = 355 ml ( or cm3)
Stroke = .75 in or 1.9 cm
 
This gives a comparative piston value of 355 cm3/1.9 cm = 190 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 190 cm2 x 47.0 g/cm2 = 8930 g. 
Since the lift mass was only 4540 g this is underunity at 4540/8930 = 50.8%.

Thanks for doing that M.
Good to see side-by-side data in the same format
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 30, 2012, 11:57:48 PM
I was just thinking,, have you considered how much volume you are giving up to your "measuring tool"?
I've thought about it, but haven't done a few cycles with it "on" and "off" yet. I can close the vales to the bottom ports but don't have a set for the top ports and that's where the bigger impact is likely to happen. Anything providing more compressible air volume will have an effect on the system.
The UPS guys know me well .....
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 31, 2012, 12:10:08 AM
Quote modified to help phrase two questions - I hope it doesn't change the context.
Hi Dale,
I am very impressed with your approach and work done with the model "Multi Layer Buoyancy Device".
1. The added space/volume in the riser head airspace for a length equal to the stroke distance. 
2. The choice of stroke distance must be carefully determined to fit within the set conditions.
Thanks
A new acronym? MLBD
1. I've read that 5 times and still don't quite follow - dense. Added volume for a length equal to stroke distance? Please clarify.

2. How would you approach that design decision process?
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 31, 2012, 12:12:32 AM
Nice job on that.
Thanks Webby
Dennis gets a lot of credit for the concept.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 31, 2012, 01:45:40 AM
@Red: If you are going to mention me and describe my activities, I would appreciate it if you would get your facts straight. Certainly, were I to visit Mister Wayne in Chickasaw, on my own dime and my own time, I would consider myself a representative of this forum, and of course would not be willing to sign an NDA, since the whole idea is to let the forum know what's going on. And the circumstances under which I would sign an NDA, and who would be paying my salary in that circumstance, were discussed in PMs between MrWayne and me. The best way that I could suggest was to cut me out entirely and take his device to South West Research Institute's laboratories here in San Antonio, the organization that gave something like four million dollars to speculative inventors last year alone, and have them "verify" its working and help to develop it commercially. Under full NDA and patent protection of course. A one-day's drive with a big panel truck and he could have the best hydraulic systems engineers in the world crawling all over it for free. A second choice that also would not have cost MrWayne a Red_Cent would have been to contact ETI directly and have them look at it, in which case they (ETI) might actually hire me to be the "visitor" under full NDA of course. But then I would be representing ETI and secondarily MrWayne and so couldn't discuss the matter here. Another, more direct probability was also discussed by MrWayne but I won't go any further on that. In addition, another, separate group has also contacted me with offers to go to visit MrWayne under NDA and so on. I also won't discuss that offer any further.

My dog, Maggie, comes with me of course .... but she works mostly for free, and is happy to sign whatever NDAs are required, as long as she gets a biscuit now and then.

Part of any agreement to have me visit would include an up-front "act of god" penalty clause: if for any reason I am NOT shown what I am supposed to see, specified before I arrange transportation, the claimant will pay me at my usual consulting rate for at least three days plus expenses no matter what and no matter under whose dime I originally contract to come, and any NDAs in effect will be deemed void. This kind of penalty clause should be incorporated in ANY site visit by anyone, anywhere, to a claimed OU device.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on October 31, 2012, 01:53:16 AM
Hi mondrasek
I just wanted to say that to increase efficiency you might need to pump stroke water at precharge level and not at the bottom level.
I learned this fact from Michel's latest compilation of MrWayne posts #2789. Paragraph starts with Part two: ...  we raised our pump ...

I would say pumping at precharge level gets better COP but still to get over 100% per device you need to have two devices interacting together. How exactly is this achieved I'm still figuring out but dual setup seems essential from info posted sofar. 

respect,
Marcel

"At precharge level" will of course mean that you must inject the water under greater pressure than you recovered it, doesn't it? This will require the input of work (energy) at some point. Where will this come from and what will it _really_ do to the COP?

By the way, did I mention it yet? My invisible pink unicorn herd is learning to fly. Already the stallion is able to fly completely around the block at 25 feet of altitude, and the lead mare isn't far behind.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on October 31, 2012, 04:39:26 AM
If anyone here doesn't know what the Universal Law of Gravitation is they should look it up.  Gravity does not "flow" like a stream or the wind, at all.

How gravity acts is completely understandable.  It's possible to visualize exactly what the gravity field is like inside the ZED right down to the the nano differences from one 3D point relative to another.  You can do it with a calculator, a scale, and a ruler.

So any notion of "changing" gravity or "taking advantage of the 'flow'" of gravity is false.  Gravity is just "there" and it is as dead as a doornail.
Gravity is an integral of space-time.  Einstein said that space-time flows similar to a river, in one direction.  The direction is determined by the second law of thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on October 31, 2012, 05:16:44 AM
Gravity is an integral of space-time.  Einstein said that space-time flows similar to a river, in one direction.  The direction is determined by the second law of thermodynamics.

Not at all and you may be implying relativistic concepts and that does not apply here.

This is gravity:  F = Gm1m2/r^2 where G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N (m/kg)^2

Gravity is just two or more masses attracted to each other by gravitational attraction as indicated by the formula above.

The ZED is nothing more than masses moving up an down in the gravity field of the Earth.  The higher they go the more gravitational potential energy they have, the lower they go the less gravitational potential energy they have.  The gravity field is conservative and it's absolutely metaphysically impossible to move up and then back down to your original position in a gravity field and end up with a net gain in energy.

You can model the masses moving up and down in potential energy like capacitors going up and down in electrical potential energy.  Masses and capacitors are as dead as a doornail.

You can also model any compressed air or the fluid pressure accumulator like springs that can be compressed for an increase in potential energy or decompressed for a decrease in potential energy.  Springs can be viewed like inductors.  Springs and inductors are as dead as a doornail.

So the ZED can be looked as a bunch of dead masses interacting with a bunch of dead springs in a conservative gravity field where it is impossible to gain any energy in the gravity field.  The masses and springs can store and release energy but they can't create any energy.

If the arrangement of masses and springs could create energy then a schematic diagram with an accompanying timing diagram could be posted that explains exactly how that is done.  A working model could also be demonstrated.  That would change the world completely and it would be so big that none of us could even imagine what would happen.  It would be so big that it would be beyond any one person or any one company's business plan.  The thing to do would be to open source it immediately for the benefit of all mankind.

However, this is not the next Iron Man movie, this is real life and we are still waiting for that energy saviour that recognizes that his own personal financial goals are completely and totally insignificant with respect to the benefit that such an alleged system could bring to all of mankind.  The end of famine and the building of housing and establishment of hygienic living conditions and access to medical care for every single person on Earth for sure.  Possibly even the end to all war.

The only catch is that it actually has to work and be demoed to the public for all to see and make measurements.  It's a big catch.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 31, 2012, 07:23:46 AM
Gravity is an integral of space-time.  Einstein said that space-time flows similar to a river, in one direction.  The direction is determined by the second law of thermodynamics.
Quote from: MileHigh
The only catch is that it actually has to work and be demoed to the public for all to see and make measurements.  It's a big catch.

Xaverius & MileHigh, (& Seamus, & Fletcher, & PowerCat & all)

Physics book theory is known, good and well.
We know that a OU concept must take what is written to a new level (let it be an expansion or exception level). 
Message #2789 on page #186 addresses this possibility in a practical theoretical way.
What is your opinion and analysis of possibilities assuming we can technically master the reduced piston area in case #2 in the same enclosure?. 
Your technical learned comments will be more beneficial to this forum than general comments and physics theory recalls.

So what is your opinion, reasoning, view and on what basis do you take that position?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 31, 2012, 07:31:40 AM
@Red: If you are going to mention me and describe my activities, I would appreciate it if you would get your facts straight. Certainly, were I to visit Mister Wayne in Chickasaw, on my own dime and my own time, I would consider myself a representative of this forum, and of course would not be willing to sign an NDA, since the whole idea is to let the forum know what's going on. And the circumstances under which I would sign an NDA, and who would be paying my salary in that circumstance, were discussed in PMs between MrWayne and me. ...............................................................
TinselKoala,
I didn't have all the facts, only what was written in previous posts. Thanks for expanding the facts.
My point was, for the purpose of verifying that the zed system works, you had the opportunity and no NDA would stop you from saying that it didn't work. 
And the self interest factor for seeing it work was low (compared to your posted comments)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 31, 2012, 08:30:53 AM
...............................................
I learned this fact from Michel's latest compilation of MrWayne posts #2789. Paragraph starts with Part two: ...  we raised our pump ...  I would say pumping at precharge level gets better COP but still to get over 100% per device you need to have two devices interacting together. How exactly is this achieved I'm still figuring out but dual setup seems essential from info posted sofar. Marcel 

Quote from: Wildew
A new acronym? MLBD
1. I've read that 5 times and still don't quite follow - dense. Added volume for a length equal to stroke distance? Please clarify.
2. How would you approach that design decision process?
Dale 

Marcel & Wildew, 
The differentiation to be made is, "are we looking at a device (component) or looking at a System (multiple devices/components)?".  This is the reason why I referred to MLBD is for the same reason. The multi layer riser assembly is only a device/component of a system called the Zed (?????).  This terminology has been used at random, which can be confusing.
From my viewpoint and for clarity, the ZED is a system containing two MLBD.(Wayne might disagree with this)
The Zed system relies on saving input costs, this clearly can not be done with one MLBD. As Marcel mentioned to elevate the input would equate to the same as a dual MLBD system (a ZED system, where the alternate Zed provides or absorbs exhaust savable energies).
This doesn't mean that the device characteristics cannot be measured on a standalone MLBD.  When the device is build, certain characteristics are designed in with a specific performance in mind. You obviously hoped to design and build something better than the standard buoyancy pod.  It is these characteristics we want to verify for performance with a specific test protocol in mind and compare them to the standard buoyancy pod to see which changed characteristics you can take great advantage of.
What is your expected calculated weight lift expectation for a volume input at various pressures. What is your stroke displacement pod water ratio to a unity volume?  How does that compare to a unity system?

The water in the riser cavities (U-bends) is free water.  How much free water area you use determines your benefit ratio as compared to unity. The water in the pod area is paid water, the more water you use there, the more you pay.  The two together add to equal the theoretical unity of the MLBD. This is just one of the aspects of the MLBD, but a critical one.
With paid water you could stroke to the absolute distance limit, what is limiting your stroke distance is the unpaid water because its volume remains unchanged (the disadvantage of the non payment). The limit is the point where ONE of the free waters doesn't no longer support the stroke displacement distance.  What makes it more complicated is that for best efficiency you want to stroke at full force (full head) which also uses already max. water.  Your best capability is the match of both, force and distance within the designed capability of the device.
From my viewpoint, I would look for how the device matches the expected theoretical & calculated design characteristics.  The design process would be initially a theoretical simulation of the device, a manual animation on paper.
I hope this helps.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 31, 2012, 11:17:33 AM
@R_S
From the referenced post:
Quote
LIFT Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
We lift a weight of 1000kg to a height of 1meter,
Potential energy created in the weight= 1000KgMeter

To do the lift we use an hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. This does not require  to fill a  ram cavity of 1mtr x 1mtr  with 1000 liters (kg) of fluid.  The multi layer lifter design reduces the fluid input and pressure requirements.  The effective energy input to lift is reduced to a level below 100% according to the design
Fluid energy input is  >1000kg x 1mtr =  >1000KgMtr
Reduces fluid input and pressure but the symbols ">" show greater than?

Quote
DESCEND Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
We descend the weight of 1000kg back to down to base level (distance = 1Mtr),
Potential energy released by the weight = 1000KgMeter

For doing the descend we have the ability to use an effective different lift area, we choose to descend the weight with an extreme effective reduced piston lift area of 0.1SquareMeter (as an example only). The ram cavity remains unchanged at 1000 liter (kg) of fluid (the pressure is now 10x more, 10.000kg/SqMtr or 1kg/SqCm).
The fluid output is exhausted at 10x the standard pressure, containing 10x the energy level.
Fluid energy output is 10.000Kg/SqMtr x 1mtr = 10.000KgMtr

It appears that what you're try to say is that the lift takes (more or less) input energy than standard hydraulics and the energy returned by the sinking weight is the same. That the real benefit - and what we are searching for - is the energy stored in the fluid being returned during the sink?

Just trying to be clear
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 31, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
@R_S
From the referenced post:Reduces fluid input and pressure but the symbols ">" show greater than?

It appears that what you're try to say is that the lift takes (more or less) input energy than standard hydraulics and the energy returned by the sinking weight is the same. That the real benefit - and what we are searching for - is the energy stored in the fluid being returned during the sink?

Just trying to be clear
Dale

Sorry, You are right, looks like a oops slip of the pen,  correction be below

It appears that what you're try to say is that the lift takes (less) input energy than standard hydraulics and the energy returned by the sinking weight is the //same// more. That the real benefit - and what we are searching for - is the energy stored in the fluid being returned during the sink?

Correction:  Message #2789 on page #186 should read
Fluid energy input is  <1000kg x 1mtr =  "less than 1000KgMtr"

For doing the descend we have the ability to use an effective different lift area, we choose to descend the weight with an extreme effective reduced piston lift area of 0.1SquareMeter (as an example only). The ram cavity remains unchanged at 1000 liter (kg) of fluid (the pressure is now 10x more, 10,000kg/SqMtr or 1kg/SqCm).
The fluid output is exhausted at 10x the standard pressure, containing 10x the energy level.
Fluid energy output is 10,000Kg/SqMtr x 1mtr = 10,000KgMtr
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on October 31, 2012, 11:38:14 AM
Thanks for clearing that up.
That's what I thought you intended.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on October 31, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
Sorry, You are right, looks like a oops slip of the pen,  correction be below
For doing the descend we have the ability to use an effective different lift area, we choose to descend the weight with an extreme effective reduced piston lift area of 0.1SquareMeter (as an example only). The ram cavity remains unchanged at 1000 liter (kg) of fluid (the pressure is now 10x more, 10,000kg/SqMtr or 1kg/SqCm).
The fluid output is exhausted at 10x the standard pressure, containing 10x the energy level.
Fluid energy output is 10,000Kg/SqMtr x 1mtr = 10,000KgMtr
Sorry, what is meant by ram cavity here?
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on October 31, 2012, 01:56:17 PM
Sorry, what is meant by ram cavity here?
Marcel

Hi Marcel,
Good picture, the ram cavity is where the fluid is kept that interfaces with the lift surface.
Lets now call the weight of the car 1000kg and the lift surface below the car 1SqMtr and that would make 1000ltr fluid requirement to lift the car 1 mtr. high.
Now apply the examples shown.  Remember that the magic for case #2 is in the lift surface.
And use a little imagination with pixie dust (forget about the pink unicorns for a while, they have a negative vibe)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on October 31, 2012, 10:01:03 PM
Xaverius & MileHigh, (& Seamus, & Fletcher, & PowerCat & all)

Physics book theory is known, good and well.
We know that a OU concept must take what is written to a new level (let it be an expansion or exception level). 
Message #2789 on page #186 addresses this possibility in a practical theoretical way.
What is your opinion and analysis of possibilities assuming we can technically master the reduced piston area in case #2 in the same enclosure?. 
Your technical learned comments will be more beneficial to this forum than general comments and physics theory recalls.

So what is your opinion, reasoning, view and on what basis do you take that position?
  My statement was geared toward supporting wayne's theory of OU.  The fact that the laws of nature cannot be broken, but can be "redirected", "altered", "augmented", etc. to possibly be used for free energy.  I'm afraid at this point my "learned general comments and physics theories"  are all I can contribute, because despite your message 2789, I still don't know how this device works, most likely because of its complexity.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on October 31, 2012, 11:43:31 PM
The system is very simple, the complexity is within the interactions of the air, water and pressure.

I take it you have seen drawings, pictures or animations of the ZED, in that you see the nested riser system and the pod.  The pod spends a lot of its time just filling up space, thus reducing the quantity of fluid that is needed to be pushed into the pod chamber.  When that fluid is pushed into the pod chamber there is air already in the pod chamber so it gets pushed out, and the only out for the air is down the inside of the first riser, there is water inside the first riser so the air then pushes the water down and out from under the riser, this is repeated for how ever many risers you have.

Additive pressure, when the riser has the water standing up on the outside of the riser and air is on the inside the pressure needed to hold that water there is the height of the standing water, well if the outside riser is 12 inches tall then the air pressure must be .43 psi and that pressure not only pushes the out from underneath the riser it also pushes back the other way, so the riser that is one closer tot he pod chamber needs to counter that pressure to start with, then for its own column to be stood up and held it needs to add another .43 psi, this continues for how ever many risers you have until you reach the pod chamber.  In the pod chamber there is a little water and just enough air for the lift, all of this air is at the final additive pressure from the risers, but the water level is low in the pod chamber, now water is pushed into the pod chamber and that level rises and that rise in level increases the pressure that the water must have to enter the pod chamber, if it started out empty and went to full then that would be an increase of .43 psi.

After all this is done there is still room for more water in the pod chamber, and all the water standing up in the vertical sections are holding potential, not to mention that a force must be applied and held constant t keep them there, this force is pushing on two horizontal plains, one is the bottom of the ZED and the other is the underside of the top of the risers.

Lift is the force of holding the water in the vertical plain while more water is pushed into the pod chamber.  This does two things, it applies a slightly increased force of lift so the risers go up and it adds fill material to the risers to keep the pressure more consistent while the risers are moving up and filling in most of the increase in volume that is created by the risers going up.  The fill material is the remaining air in the pod chamber, as fluid is added into the pod chamber more fluid is added than the rate of rise of the pod\risers, this forces the water up and past the side of the pod and pushes more air out of the pod chamber and into the risers.

A small thing is that the bottom of the pod sees the total head of the fill side of the system, the air pressure on the water around the pod creates a seal,,

At end of lift, if you look at one of the nice drawings, you will see that all of the air is still being held in the vertical position, well most of it, some has fallen down due to the increase in volume within the ZED that has not been compensated for.  All of that water that is still being held in the vertical position will fall back down and move the air and the moving air moves more water for how ever many risers you have and all that pressure with the total fluid amount that was added comes back out of the system, so the discharge of the ZED is under an increased potential until the risers are back to rest,, or there starting point.

So the simple part is, water in, air and water repositioned creating potential, lift and then recovery of the stored potential.
nice explanation, thanx.....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 01, 2012, 12:00:26 AM
Have you met my friend Mr. Webb?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on November 02, 2012, 08:05:57 AM
[quote author=Red_Sunset link=topic=10596.msg342351#msg342351 date=1351688177
Good picture, the ram cavity is where the fluid is kept that interfaces with the lift surface.
Lets now call the weight of the car 1000kg and the lift surface below the car 1SqMtr and that would make 1000ltr fluid requirement to lift the car 1 mtr. high.
Now apply the examples shown.  Remember that the magic for case #2 is in the lift surface.
And use a little imagination with pixie dust (forget about the pink unicorns for a while, they have a negative vibe)


Hi Michel,
when we decrease piston area 10x this has implications for the ram cavity volume dimensions isn't it? From 1m3 cube to 10m high chimney with 0.1 sqrmeter area. Then fluid comes at higher pressure but 10m below.
Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 02, 2012, 09:29:06 AM
Hi Michel,   when we decrease piston area 10x this has implications for the ram cavity volume dimensions isn't it? From 1m3 cube to 10m high chimney with 0.1 sqrmeter area. Then fluid comes at higher pressure but 10m below.
Marcel
Hello Marcel,
You are right if the piston was standard as shown in your picture. (also 10% reduction is an most likely impossible extreme, for example only) though the practical impossibility wouldn't change the point what is being demonstrated
But we said that the magic was in the piston, so the piston is more likely to look like the multi-layer Travis piston. Where a tall pressure height can incorporated very easily. 
We are lifting a 1000kg, using a Travis piston. Lets assume a 3 layers piston (+pod), to start, this would mean that the1000kg is divided over lift surfaces, now 250kg/surface. But it doesn't have to be this way.
For simplicity, lets keep the outer layer square area 1SqMtr, this would make the pod area approx. 85%.............go on from here.....
Let me allow you to proceed in this matter with calculations towards the objective.  Think about what natural properties the system could have and what modification the system should have and what you could do to break the linearity towards your objective of desirable properties. Sometimes you need to help nature a bit.

What are your desirable properties ?
1..  More output for less input (benefit on the upstroke)
2..  More return from the input for less output sacrificed  (benefit on the down-stroke)

For these desirable properties to materialize, you require the natural symmetrical relationship to be modified otherwise that result would not be possible. 

We have two target area's
1.. The input volume relationship to lift capability
2.. The interface relationship between input and output, the lift surface controlled by "surface area" and "pressure". Their product will give you the lift force. Any change of either variable will change the product proportionally.

We know that the MLBD has multiple surfaces or different size (shrinking as they go inwards) notwithstanding their total size is fixed and each surface has its own specific pressure (not necessarily the same for each surface) notwithstanding that there is only a single total head pressure which is our input and control pressure.  This gives quite some options, we can play with.
Play with this variable concept, you will see some surprising results dat zal je haren laten recht staan.

Van mijn oogpunt, zijt jij die enige persoon what een unconditioneele interesse heeft in the principe van Wayne's ontdekking, en doet een zienbare moeite om iets nieuws te leren. Als he nodig is zal ik je wel een berichtje sturen van waar we vlugger en meer productief verder kunnen praten.

Groeten, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 02, 2012, 02:14:50 PM
You are not alone on this... However , one good thing about the standard laws of physics is that you can discount any level of complexity offered as an explanation. The device simply does not work... period...

It is proven (for at least two centuries now , with rigorous scientific and mathematical proofs that any device such as this cannot work. Take the time to learn why this is so, and don't waste any more time on this.

Xaverius, 
When 1000 people jump of the roof,  do not just do the same thing.   You can stand on your own feet and make your own assessment and decision.  Wayne never told you to believe him, he wanted you discover for yourself what it is all about. That is why you haven't seen any complete "this is how it works", only guidance that allows the thinking men to discover the new frontier.

Seamus will blindly follow, he is entitled to that (neither is anybody saying that the wise men are wrong), but that is just not the whole story.  Can we "think and reason", that is the key to advancement and that is the reason he keeps very quite regarding Message #2789 & 2846. He appears to have no clue and prefers to hide behind dark sunglasses covered with the dust of two centuries.  We do get wiser in time, this leads to progress.

For the fence sitters, the proof on the pudding is near !

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on November 02, 2012, 03:12:06 PM
Xaverius, 
When 1000 people jump of the roof,  do not just do the same thing.   You can stand on your own feet and make your own assessment and decision.  Wayne never told you to believe him, he wanted you discover for yourself what it is all about. That is why you haven't seen any complete "this is how it works", only guidance that allows the thinking men to discover the new frontier.

Seamus will blindly follow, he is entitled to that (neither is anybody saying that the wise men are wrong), but that is just not the whole story.  Can we "think and reason", that is the key to advancement and that is the reason he keeps very quite regarding Message #2789 & 2846. He appears to have no clue and prefers to hide behind dark sunglasses covered with the dust of two centuries.  We do get wiser in time, this leads to progress.

For the fence sitters, the proof on the pudding is near !

Wow, you think Seamus is the one blindly following?  That's some serious irony!

As for the 1000 people jumping off the roof, I'm sure it's fine if you turn down gravity first or activate the lateral gravitational function.

Mmmmm..... Proof pudding.....  Serve it up, buddy!  Let's see it!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 02, 2012, 04:16:19 PM
Wow, you think Seamus is the one blindly following?  That's some serious irony!
As for the 1000 people jumping off the roof, I'm sure it's fine if you turn down gravity first or activate the lateral gravitational function.
Mmmmm..... Proof pudding.....  Serve it up, buddy!  Let's see it!
Discerning Dave,
I am sure that Seamus >>isn't<< blind in everything and I am not making a case that he doesn't have a understandable ground to stand on. To contradict more than 100yrs of the best science brains is not easy, neither is there any known occurrence of this phenomena in nature.
The case I am making is that he doesn't make any "think & reason" case, that makes him only only good for throwing the book at a problem.  That approach is of no benefit in this forum or for this topic that already transgresses that boundary.

You might laugh with the lateral gravitational function mentioned in a previous post because you didn't understand its meaning and nobody explained it. It is not a literal function, neither a horizontal gravity manifestation, rather a result effect. 
From what I came to know is that the proof on the pudding will demonstrated in a different flavor than you would expect and will demonstrate the lateral gravitational function.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: correcaminos on November 02, 2012, 04:38:35 PM
Xaverius, 
When 1000 people jump of the roof,  do not just do the same thing.   You can stand on your own feet and make your own assessment and decision.  Wayne never told you to believe him, he wanted you discover for yourself what it is all about. That is why you haven't seen any complete "this is how it works", only guidance that allows the thinking men to discover the new frontier.
...
For the fence sitters, the proof on the pudding is near !

RIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHTTTTTT.....THAT"S why we haven't seen a "this is how it works" or validation or pre-validation.

I for one prefer my proof inside of my pudding.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 02, 2012, 07:32:00 PM
From MrWaynesBrain dated Oct 29:
Quote
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements - we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend if we are ready and Mark happens to be locked into a conference or is traveling. This member will visit us and then report to Mark, at that point a decision will be made if we need to arrange schedules and add more data collection, or if Mark can arrange a return. To be very clear, we will not rush things - we will do what is in the best interests of our long term goals, the temporary alternate is just preplanning for contingencies.

That would be THIS WEEKEND, then, right? Today is Friday. IF they are ready, a "prevalidation member" will come and see a self-running device that runs, producing useful work output, with NO INPUT, for as long as you like, THIS WEEKEND, over the next three days.

RIGHT?

And it appears that the animated illustration of a Zed system doesn't really represent anything that they have actually built:
Quote
If you have not seen our home page lately - I have posted a 2D model of one of our planned Beta Models, it gives a pretty good insight to the function of our ZED technology.


Like fishing for eels with a coarse net, this is.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on November 02, 2012, 10:16:10 PM
[quote author=TinselKoala link=topic=10596.msg342646#msg342646 date=135188112

And it appears that the animated illustration of a Zed system doesn't really represent anything that they have actually built:


  I think that Wayne or RSS or someone else stated that the animation was a previous prototype model that is no longer being regarded for development.  That's the way I understood it, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  I am assuming we should hear about any validation process within the next few days.  It should be interesting to see what develops after that........
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 02, 2012, 10:20:34 PM

Bait-and-switch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on November 02, 2012, 10:23:24 PM
Bait-and-switch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch)
How's that?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 02, 2012, 10:47:04 PM
Bait-and-switch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch)
TinselKoala.
I agree with Xaverius, "How is that".  I didn't know Wayne was obligated to you. I would expect a happy reaction
I would think that it is a natural evolution for a good inventive idea. Simplification and increasing efficiency are key important for any product. The reason why the physical implementation is secondary to the invention principle.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 02, 2012, 11:24:50 PM
How's that?
The unit Mark Dansie videoed is not the Zed in current production. The unit detailed in the animation on the MrWaynesBrain website is not the Zed in production. The simple, threelayer system that is clearly overunity by itself is not the Zed in production. The unit shown in the photo slide show is not the Zed in production. None of these systems is what is going to be shown this weekend. The investors, whoever they are, were told about things like the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself... but that's not what they are getting, is it.

Bait, and switch. WHERE is the simple, three-layer system that is clearly overunity by itself (MrWayne's exact words), which was cited and used to drum up the early interest in this system? Where is the demonstration of self-running, for more than four hours, of ANY of the various different OU systems of Mister Wayne?

Bait, and switch. Show a picture of something, get up the interest, and then remove that first something completely without actually showing it, ever.... and promise a new, better something.... soon. Bait and switch.

That's how. Get it now? Mylow, Archer Quinn, Steorn, Rossi, the list goes on and on. Every one said they had something, and when challenged they refused to show that working something, instead saying that better somethings were just about to be revealed.... on and on, over and over for years, some of them. If Mister Wayne doesn't want to be included on this list, he probably should stop acting like all those who _are_ on this list.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 02, 2012, 11:28:46 PM
TinselKoala.
I agree with Xaverius, "How is that".  I didn't know Wayne was obligated to you. I would expect a happy reaction
I would think that it is a natural evolution for a good inventive idea. Simplification and increasing efficiency are key important for any product. The reason why the physical implementation is secondary to the invention principle.

If Mister Wayne makes claims of overunity performance, new energy  sources,  in this forum YES, he is obligated to provide evidence that his claims are true. This is not a church!
If he doesn't choose to provide evidence that his claims are true, why is he even making them? There are several reasons that come to mind. On the other hand, if he DOES have what he claims, I cannot think of any reason whatsoever, considering his participation here (which seems to have ended) that he would not immediately provide the necessary proofs. Which, by the way, could easily be done without revealing any proprietary information.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 02, 2012, 11:45:26 PM
Question posed out of honest ignorance:
 
If an invention is patented, or at least protected by an application.  But during preparations for a reveal to the public an epiphany leads the inventor to realize that one part of the invention can be redesigned into a much simpler construction.  Should he first develop that new simpler construction and file protection on it before the reveal?
 
To state it another way...  If an invention is revealed, and another party realizes that a portion of the invention can be redesigned much more simply as is not covered by the existing patent (applications), can the other party patent the simpler embodiment of that portion and therefore "bust" the original patent (application) protection by producing/patenting a varient that is "better?" 
 
i.e.  The better mouse trap?
 
I'd like to know.
 
Thanks,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 01:33:55 AM
Question posed out of honest ignorance:
 
If an invention is patented, or at least protected by an application.  But during preparations for a reveal to the public an epiphany leads the inventor to realize that one part of the invention can be redesigned into a much simpler construction.  Should he first develop that new simpler construction and file protection on it before the reveal?
 
To state it another way...  If an invention is revealed, and another party realizes that a portion of the invention can be redesigned much more simply as is not covered by the existing patent (applications), can the other party patent the simpler embodiment of that portion and therefore "bust" the original patent (application) protection by producing/patenting a varient that is "better?" 
 
i.e.  The better mouse trap?
 
I'd like to know.
 
Thanks,
 
M.

What you are describing is very much like what Andrea Rossi is discovering. You might like to read the documents surrounding his recent patent application rejection concerning his E-Cat "cold fusion" claims. It's a long read, but there are long excerpts from the rejection document itself that show what kinds of problems one has when one either fails to cite prior art, or doesn't provide sufficient information FOR DUPLICATION OF THE EFFECT by one skilled in the art, or makes changes and modifications after the application is filed.

http://shutdownrossi.com/technology-patents-and-ip/rossis-epo-patent-denied/ (http://shutdownrossi.com/technology-patents-and-ip/rossis-epo-patent-denied/)
http://shutdownrossi.com/certification-licenses-validation-testing/no-certifications-notheory-nopatent-noecat/ (http://shutdownrossi.com/certification-licenses-validation-testing/no-certifications-notheory-nopatent-noecat/)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 01:39:46 AM
I don't think so TK.

Any proof that was not given would be used to say it is false, that would be anything OTHER than full and complete disclosure.

I'm afraid I'm not following you.

If I had a Zed that ran itself, and anyone doubted me, I'd set it up in the middle of a field inside a big plexiglass box, take a backhoe and dig a ten-foot deep trench all around it, set up video cameras streaming over the internet, invite a couple of attorneys and notary publics to witness it, start it up and let it run. And run. And run. The notaries and lawyers would work in shifts, to maintain constant observation. After a week or ten days, I'd start letting people make inquiries about investment opportunities. After a month, I'd start collecting money. Six months, and the Zed-powered factory would be turning out Zeds for domestic and commercial use. After a year, the entire world would be changed. Hopefully for the better.

I'd even hire you and Red_Sunset as salesmen.

Of course, right now.... correct me if I'm wrong....  MrWayne's house is fully powered by his Zed system, and that is proof enough. Isn't it?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on November 03, 2012, 02:53:10 AM
I get it now, TK.  Bait and switch is a very common tactic of some of these yayhoos.  I contacted Butch LaFonte after the Mylow incident and we agreed that it made no sense why he was doing this hoax.  What do you think is the motivation?  Do some people just get their jollies from lying to people?
 
Most scams involve money, but the scamsters get your money and then leave town.  They don't hang around internet forums.  Joseph Newman?  What was his scene?  He was on Johnny Carson for crying out loud!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on November 03, 2012, 04:23:39 AM
Webby1:

Quote
get real first, science demands that, get your views and understandings out of the way and think logically,, that is all that is needed.

I could file for patents under what I have learned, but would that be right?

I am not sure exactly what you are implying and I don't want to put words into your mouth.  But at the same time you are clearly convinced and have been for quite a while and seem to be indicating that you can logically explain things.

So, please feel free to explain what you have learned to us and/or make a clip or two if that would suit you.  The only thing that I and many others would request is that you talk in terms of energy or power using standard scientific terminology using whatever unit system you are comfortable with.

For example, "exhaust" won't cut it.  That word has connotations of something like free leftovers.  The truth is that is you are going to "use the exhaust to precharge the next loading cycle," or whatever, what that really means is that you are expending energy from one source and putting it somewhere else.   Just for the sake of argument if you have 50 kilogram-meters of energy stored in the left ZED, then the "exhaust" might in reality be the expenditure of 10 kilogram-meters of energy so that you end up with 40 kilogram-meters in the left ZED and 10 kilogram-meters of energy in the "precharge." (or whatever)

So feel free to give us a step-by-step breakdown of how a ZED system can cycle through one full cycle and export energy and repeat the process indefinitely.  Knowing the energy state of every component in the system for every step would be the ideal.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 04:37:07 AM
Really??  TK as the bait and switch champion???

get real first, science demands that, get your views and understandings out of the way and think logically,, that is all that is needed.

I could file for patents under what I have learned, but would that be right?

TK would say, SURE to heck with any body else, BUT TK,,,,, a sunk kualo will grasp on to any thing that is floating, I am a little more in line with what is right.

There has been no real demonstration that MrWayne has what he claims. Demos have been put off, the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" is nowhere to be found, the design has been changed several times, the patent application no longer corresponds to what they are building (allegedly building that is) and the patent application does NOT contain the "secret" that makes it possible for one skilled in the art to reproduce the overunity performance that is alleged.
What are you worried about me for? You are the one being duped. You have seen NOTHING in your own work, NOTHING in Mondrasek's work, and NOTHING from MrWayne that enables overunity performance.

I don't  need to know _anything_ about science to know that MrWayne has not demonstrated the truth of his claims. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 04:46:00 AM
Please TK,

would you show me the science.  Not your objections but the science.
The science is contained in many physics textbooks. For you, no offense.... try "The Cartoon Guide to Physics" by Larry Gonick and Art Huffman (1990, HarperPerennial). If you want something more advanced you can look in just about any hydraulic engineering text.
Quote

Would you show me the understanding of the system as a whole.
Sure.... as soon as you show me the system WORKING as a whole, driving itself and making useful excess output power.
If you cannot do that, I'm going to guess that YOUR understanding is faulty..... because if I had the _correct_ understanding that you claim to have there is NOTHING in the world that would stop me from building a working, self-powered running model. And if it really _can_ be done as the animation shows, I am quite sure I could do it for under 2000 dollars in materials.
Quote

Not your interpretation of what is happening.

You CAN NOT so get it or try,,,, or shut up.

On the contrary.... you CAN NOT show me a self powered running Zed system. I don't have to show you anything, except to point out that nobody has demonstrated a working system that fulfils the claims made, not even Mister Wayne, and especially not you or mondrasek.
Quote

I tried with you but,, well you do not get it at all,,, you are missing the boat.
Contrariwise, webby. You don't have a working, self-powered overunity system, do you? Did I miss something... or did YOU? Where is your video showing your self-runner? We know you have the funds sufficient to buy parts and materials, you claim to have the knowledge, you constantly berate me for my "lack of understanding".... so I'll be looking forward to seeing your video of the selfrunner this evening, just as soon as you post it.


Or... perhaps..... you have missed the boat.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 03, 2012, 05:55:26 AM
@webby1,

You are wasting your time with the concrete brains. Only Mark's observations can start to change their opinion, then they will attack Mark. In the end they will understand, and the real men will admit they were wrong and the others will slither off in the grass. I already know the results, so I patiently wait for Mark's results.

Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 06:26:24 AM
Whooow gents slowly, 

Quite a handful of words before breakfast, no need to throttle each other.  From what I can see quite a few true words have been spoken.
There have always been two camps in this topic, from the very beginning. Recall message #12, by baroutologos  “you certainly express a point based on what the man said, but I think lets give him a chance to explain the principle shall we?”

Camp #1:  Unquestionable working proof by physical demonstration
                  Not interested in physics principles
                  Wanting to have the invention fully revealed
                  Open Source publication.
Camp #2:  Interested in the workings of the invention
                  Physics principles
                  Knowledge gain

These totally diverging positions played havoc with this topic from the very beginning but this is expected to be resolved in the nearby future by a successful and unquestionable demonstration of a Hydro Differential System (in a design form chosen by the inventor).

I am still puzzled about TK’s position and insistence regarding the model. The topic is called for good reason a “Hydro Differential System”, not a ZED system or MLBD.  It is clear from previous posts that there was a reliability problem with the too often modified mark-1 system. A new system with all the design and add-on improvements would be the logical and best way to go.
Now why does someone with no stake in the project, object to sensible engineering and business practices with such vigor? And for what reasons?  is my obvious question.

Lets leave the Hydro Energy Revolution matters in the hands of the initiator of this topic, the inventor of the hydro differential system, “Wayne Travis”. I am confident that he will not disappoint you on your expectations. An assured successful delivery comes before time.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 06:30:22 AM
Quote
It is clear from previous posts that there was a reliability problem with the too often modified mark-1 system.

Let me translate that into English for you:  It didn't work.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 06:47:21 AM
The science is contained in many physics textbooks. For you, no offense.... try "The Cartoon Guide to Physics" by Larry Gonick and Art Huffman (1990, HarperPerennial). If you want something more advanced you can look in just about any hydraulic engineering text. .......................................................

I am going to restrict myself to one item only. 
OU is not contained in Physics textbooks, the reason we still burn fossil fuels.  Your take the same position than Seamus. If that is your whole conviction, than I can not understand why you would be on this forum.
I come to the conclusion from your posts that your expertise in "pink unicorns and cartoons" could be used better in other more appropriate forums. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 06:52:22 AM
Let me translate that into English for you:  It didn't work.

Nooop, that is where you are wrong.
A working mark-1 was shown on video, together with Mark Dansie inspecting the system.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 07:16:57 AM
......................................................  dat zal je haren laten recht staan.
Van mijn oogpunt, zijt jij die enige persoon what een unconditioneele interesse heeft in the principe van Wayne's ontdekking, en doet een zienbare moeite om iets nieuws te leren. Als he nodig is zal ik je wel een berichtje sturen van waar we vlugger en meer productief verder kunnen praten.
Groeten, Michel
I received a justified comment about my non-english comment at the bottom of my post#2861.  MT response has been the only one received thus far on this specific topic, the reason for this specific private message.
The main point is that I am open to ANY constructive question or explanation by ANYONE within my allowable capabilities.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 03, 2012, 07:26:43 AM
I get it now, TK.  Bait and switch is a very common tactic of some of these yayhoos.  I contacted Butch LaFonte after the Mylow incident and we agreed that it made no sense why he was doing this hoax.  What do you think is the motivation?  Do some people just get their jollies from lying to people?
 
Most scams involve money, but the scamsters get your money and then leave town.  They don't hang around internet forums.  Joseph Newman?  What was his scene?  He was on Johnny Carson for crying out loud!

I see it as a cry for attention....to be noticed and recognized.  This is what makes a lot of folks go into politics or movies or become singers.  I have no idea what is really going on in this case but, I do have to agree with TK in that it appears to be following the same script that we have all seen so many times before.  Hopefully soon, we will know one way or the other.  But, it is possible that we will never really know.  Remember Mylow when the MIB raided his house and stole his device?  Alrighty then.

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 08:37:57 AM
Piffle. What we saw was various parts of the machine moving. No indication at all that it was actually producing any usable energy.

Seamus,
You didn't see anything because you were not validating the system, why don't you ask Mark Dansie what he saw before you state your ?learned opinion? guess.
In contrast, you appear not to have much to say on Message #2789 on page #186.   True colors coming through?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 10:18:04 AM
There is an even simpler reason for not commenting on 2789. It does not contain any information that explains how this device could work. All it has are nonsensical assertions that are not in keeping with current physics knowledge 
Show me a verifiable working device and I'd be happy to redact any previous negative comments

Seamus,
I thought you were worth more than that simple excuse.
So then as a hypothetical example, you agree that the stated conversion capability exists ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 02:00:58 PM
Nooop, that is where you are wrong.
A working mark-1 was shown on video, together with Mark Dansie inspecting the system.

Nooooop... that is where YOU are wrong. The longest time that any "hydro differential system" or Zed has operated continually is UNDER FOUR HOURS. Do you know of a longer run? Can you document it?
The claim is that the machine will run itself indefinitely, producing useful output work. This has NEVER been demonstrated. The run times we have been told about can be accounted for by stored energy within the system.
Mark Dansie's "inspection" shown on the video you cite consisted of him looking at the thing running (unevenly... how could it have operated BY THE CLAIMED METHOD if it was running so unevenly?) after it was started by some electrical means... the pushbutton box.... and no evidence was given that the device was unpowered after that point. I pointed out some unaccounted-for wires or hoses leading from/to the machine in the video stills.... and I got insulted for my troubles, without the hoses/wires being explained.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 02:08:48 PM
Seamus,
I thought you were worth more than that simple excuse.
So then as a hypothetical example, you agree that the stated conversion capability exists ?

Why do you always have to insult? How much then are YOU worth, Red_Sunset? You continually make errors in your math, you insult people gratuitously, you make claims you cannot support, and you apparently have built and tested nothing of your own. How much, then, are YOU worth? You cannot refute anything that Seamus10n has said about physics or the impossibility of MrWayne's system working as claimed. So you resort to insults and specious argumentation, as above.

In some recent postings, we have learned that Mister Wayne considers air conditioners to be overunity. And it seems that his definition of "overunity" as applied to air conditioners might also be the same as applied to the Zed "hydro differential system" or whatever you want to call it.

That is all why I am stressing the following so much: WHERE IS THE "SIMPLE THREE LAYER SYSTEM THAT IS CLEARLY OVERUNITY BY ITSELF"? These are mister Wayne's exact words. How was the "clear overunity" determined and what is the work in/work out of this simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself?

The fact that this simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself cannot be produced, described, demonstrated, or explained should be telling you something, Red_Sunset. Are you paying attention?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Nooooop... that is where YOU are wrong. The longest time that any "hydro differential system" or Zed has operated continually is UNDER FOUR HOURS. Do you know of a longer run? Can you document it?
The claim is that the machine will run itself indefinitely, producing useful output work. This has NEVER been demonstrated. The run times we have been told about can be accounted for by stored energy within the system.
Mark Dansie's "inspection" shown on the video you cite consisted of him looking at the thing running (unevenly... how could it have operated BY THE CLAIMED METHOD if it was running so unevenly?) after it was started by some electrical means... the pushbutton box.... and no evidence was given that the device was unpowered after that point. I pointed out some unaccounted-for wires or hoses leading from/to the machine in the video stills.... and I got insulted for my troubles, without the hoses/wires being explained.

TinselKoala,
WOoooh...I thought that I was fairly good at mastering the English language and believed that American was quite similar.
Never realized that "Let me translate that into English for you:  It didn't work." could mean so many things!
To demonstrate "Indefinitely" is going to take a 'bloody long time' in all contexts,
All jokes aside,
This was a bit of a overdose, especially implying that Mark as a OU/FE validation investigator doesn't see on site what you are imagining to see from a video. This is going to be promising for the next validation exercise coming up.
Let's not allow it to slide into the ridiculous
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 04:57:01 PM
Why do you always have to insult? How much then are YOU worth, Red_Sunset? You continually make errors in your math, you insult people gratuitously, you make claims you cannot support,  ..................................................
TinselKoala,
I disagree with you regarding, "I thought you were worth more than that simple excuse." it is not an insult, it is an encouragement to allow a greater exposure.
All what is being said is that I did hold him in high regards and he(seamus) is short changing himself (demoting himself) by hiding behind a simple excuse, (which is  behind the standard physic book texts) on an OU site that wants to break through the thermodynamics barrier. ( a bit of irony).
It does imply that his respectable expert (learned) status is diminishing in my eyes by his non-action. He can correct that at any time of his choosing, maybe he needs more time to be ready, no problem, but until then.....
If you think that Seamus is making a beneficial contribution and doing the correct thing, then we differ in opinion.
In the same vain, yours is not fairing so good either, when I grade your posts for content accuracy. For example let me restate below what Wayne said about an "air conditioner" and compare that with your recall. A totally different meaning.

Wayne message  « Reply #2282 on: September 20, 2012, 05:42:32 PM »
An air conditioner is the better example - being overunity - The BTU of the system is greater that the input of electricity - it is OverUnity unless you account for the energy exchange in the temperature differential of the outside air - which like the ZED uses gravity - you can not physically see the input.

Education and clarity - the temperature differential in an air conditioner can be accounted for - and has been - still it is a OU device - the input of energy from the temperature differential is not part of the internal operating cost. This is a clear examples of a OU device - not magic or energy creation - just simple physics - already accepted and understood.
 
I have stated - in reference to the question that our system is Over Unity - defined by the input cost to the output of the system - but like the air-conditioner needs to account for the temperature differential  - if you account for our unique use of energy from our unique "Mass displacement" and the effect we capture from gravity - the system can be understood and calculated as well.

The difference our system has over an air conditioner being - we have enough of a gain to provide our own input cost - and provide a NET
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 05:37:49 PM
Red, you are grasping at straws. We all know what is meant in this context by 'Indefinitely'. We mean that the system runs on its own power, not anything supplied from outside, for LONGER than it possibly could on an internally stored energy source like a battery, OR a PRECHARGE OF COMPRESSED AIR AND ELEVATED WATER HEAD. MrWayne has not demonstrated this to ANYONE that we know about, especially not Mark Dansie. What he was shown did NOT satisfy him, remember? And since then he's been put off more than once for a re-visit, AND.... the device he saw is no longer being shown. Is it?

Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself? What part of MrWayne's words are you going to accuse me of misinterpreting here?

As far as the "overunity" air conditioner goes, my recollection is fine, and nothing in your quote changes anything: Mister Wayne believes that an air conditioner can be overunity if you do not take into account the energy it takes to run it. And the same goes for the Hydro Differential Pressure system, the Zed.  Duh.

And as far as Seamus10n goes: yes indeed his contribution is valuable. He calls your and MrWayne's bluff in the most uncompromising terms. He states the facts of physics as they are and makes you try to justify your claims, and the more you try the bigger you fail. THAT is why honest and educated and outspoken skeptics are not welcomed by you or others of your ilk. We challenge you to prove your claims, and you cannot.



Where is the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself"? Am I misunderstanding Mister Wayne's EXACT WORDS here? Does he mean "overunity like an air conditioner" in this phrase, or does he mean something that makes MORE ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT? That should be easy to demonstrate. I know I could do it, without revealing any proprietary information. And I'll bet you could too. IF, that is, you ever had anything to demonstrate.... which you do not.

How was the clear overunity determined, and what is the input work and the output work of this system?

What, exactly, is your justification for why this system cannot be shown and why the two questions cannot be answered?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 05:52:27 PM
TinselKoala,
WOoooh...I thought that I was fairly good at mastering the English language and believed that American was quite similar.
Never realized that "Let me translate that into English for you:  It didn't work." could mean so many things!
And in this case it means that the SelfRunning System doesn't run itself for long enough to prove that it runs itself. In other words.... it DOESN'T WORK. Should I have included "as claimed"? OK, The Hydro Differential Pressure Exchange System DOES NOT WORK AS CLAIMED, and nothing we have been shown or told, and nothing Mark Dansie has seen and shared with us, changes that evaluation.
Quote
To demonstrate "Indefinitely" is going to take a 'bloody long time' in all contexts,
Longer than, say, three years? Which is how long Mister Wayne has been making his claims, I believe. I have electromechanical systems in my home that have been running continuously for over three years and I'll bet you do too. Some of them are even heatpumps that could be called overunity IF the input power isn't considered, like Mister Wayne's air conditioner. But for a thing like the Zed system, still in development, I'd say a solid WEEK of operating continuously without intervention, making usable output power..... that would be a lot more impressive than "under four hours" which is the best we've had claimed so far. Still not conclusive though: after a week of self running, I'd want to see evidence that the precharge is still there, then I'd want to take it apart, reassemble it and start it up again. Nothing is too much for due diligence, on a device that will put 90 percent of Mister Wayne's oilman neighbors out of business for good.
Quote
All jokes aside,
This was a bit of a overdose, especially implying that Mark as a OU/FE validation investigator doesn't see on site what you are imagining to see from a video.
Mark Dansie was not satisfied, was he? And the items I point out in the video ARE there, aren't they?
Quote
This is going to be promising for the next validation exercise coming up.
Let's not allow it to slide into the ridiculous
Do you mean the "validation exercise" that should have taken place last weekend, but couldn't, because the device was not yet "up and running"? Or the validation exercise that is supposed to be taking place RIGHT NOW, Saturday the 3rd of November 2012? Why don't you give Mister Wayne a call on the telephone right now and ask him if it's underway yet or not. Personally I hope that it is, but I doubt that it is.
If it is, I'll apologise and buy you a beer (or other favorite beverage) the next time we meet. If it's not.... I'll accept your apology in advance. Let us NOT slide into the ridiculous.... of letting Mister Wayne get away with Yet Another Missed Deadline.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 06:10:10 PM
Now... back to the video Dansie showed, which shows an early HDPE system "running"...... I seem to recall that we have heard from the sycophants that a single Zed by itself isn't OU, but when they are combined together they attain OU performance.

How does this work in a system where only ONE of the Zeds is working properly, and the other is just kind of coughing and stuttering along? How do we attain overunity now?

Is it kind of like some older twin-engined airplanes, that can climb out fine on both engines, but if one fails or sputters, the airplane can't climb or maintain altitude and must quickly find a landing spot?

Or does _any_ degree of performance from the second Zed push the system OU, even if the first one is well below and the second one isn't running properly? What magic is this?

Let's say we took the animation, and disabled one side to the same degree as what Mark Dansie saw in the video in question. Would the ANIMATION still run, even? Or a model built from the animation?

Sure.... because it's driven from "outside".

Do you see? When the data and known facts are examined _logically_ and thought about coherently, the inconsistencies and impossibilities compound, like interest.

Wouldn't it be so much simpler and easier than all of this, if Mister Wayne simply showed the simple, three layer system that is CLEARLY OVERUNITY BY ITSELF, and demonstrated its overunity, by measuring the work output and showing that there's no work input, as he claims? Of course it would be.

IF, that is, such a system really existed.


Well, at least there will be a redecorated conference room.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 03, 2012, 06:42:17 PM
...............................................Wouldn't it be so much simpler and easier than all of this, if Mister Wayne simply showed the simple, three layer system that is CLEARLY OVERUNITY BY ITSELF, and demonstrated its overunity, by measuring the work output and showing that there's no work input, as he claims? Of course it would be.
IF, that is, such a system really existed.
Well, at least there will be a redecorated conference room.
Dear TinselKoala,
Any further comments or answers from my side would be futile and unproductive
Lets be patient and time will provide the answers you seek.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 07:48:05 PM
Dear TinselKoala,
Any further comments or answers from my side would be futile and unproductive
Lets be patient and time will provide the answers you seek.
Contrariwise, if you made and reported on the telephone call I suggested, that would be very productive indeed. We'd know if a "validation" was happening right now, as promised, or not. Would you not be interested in knowing that?

Will time and patience provide the answers I seek? Somehow I doubt it.

After all.... it has been quite some long time now since Mister Wayne told us about the Simple Three Layer System that is Clearly Overunity By Itself.... and no answers to the questions "how is the clear overunity determined" and "what is the output work" have been forthcoming. Is more time needed, to answer these questions? Or are there simply NO ANSWERS? Why would that be?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 03, 2012, 08:22:25 PM
I have snaked a siphon tube into the fill tube connected to the funnel in the system I have been testing.  This allows me to add and remove water through that tube with a syringe.  The benefits are: 1) no longer need to use the bottom vent to remove fluid/pressure to cause the system to drop to the bottom of stroke, 2)  stroke in both directions can be performed very slowly and smoothly compared to before, 3)  can measure lift distance and input pressure vs. input volume very accurately now, in both directions of the stroke.
 
First thing tested with the new input method was not related to that modification.  The modification happened while I was testing a different setup "precharge' method per @webby1.  Previously the system had been precharged by locking at the top stop and then introducing air until is escaped through the outer annulus.  Then the system would be stroked multiple times until skirt blows and removal of extra water causing flooding of the Outer Riser was eliminated while cycling.  The alternative method was to do the same setup but while starting locked in the bottom position.  For your reference, the first method caused more flooding of the Outer Riser while the second cause more skirt blows whie stabilizing by cycling over and over.  But ultimately they both resulted in almost identical setups as far as I can tell.  The volume of added water to stroke is exactly the same, but the pressure required did increase by 2 g/cm2 which I hope is probably insignificant or related to how gently the system can be cycled now.
 
Next tests will be input pressure and stroke height vs. input volume for the positive and negative portions of a full cycle.
 
One very interesting observation with regards to hysteresis and/or stiction:  While cycling using a 12 ml syringe it is possible to reverse direction of the syringe and see NO change in the lift height until approximately 8 ml of fluid has reversed direction.  I can see the water and air levels changing in the ZED but not lift change.  So, is it stuck?  Or is there hysteresis?  Otherwise the system strokes so smoothly that I can easily dial the lift into exactly any 0.01 mm value with the new syringe input method.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 08:40:07 PM
(snip)
 
One very interesting observation with regards to hysteresis and/or stiction:  While cycling using a 12 ml syringe it is possible to reverse direction of the syringe and see NO change in the lift height until approximately 8 ml of fluid has reversed direction.  I can see the water and air levels changing in the ZED but not lift change.  So, is it stuck?  Or is there hysteresis?  Otherwise the system strokes so smoothly that I can easily dial the lift into exactly any 0.01 mm value with the new syringe input method.
 
M.

Well, there probably is some hysteresis combined with sticktion, and some of the stiction will come from viscosity and capillary effects, which likely won't be overcome by your vibrator.
Consider a neutrally buoyant floater, like a cake of Ivory Soap, just barely floating at the surface of water. To get it to start rising or sinking visibly, it might be necessary to vary its effective density by a finite amount, not an infinitesimal one. That is, a neutrally buoyant floater might need several grams (effective) weight change in order to start moving, either sinking or rising further up out of the water, even though "theoretically" it should start moving as soon as any infinitesimal alteration to its effective density is achieved.
I suppose you could call this "hysteresis".

But the fact that your hysteresis is repeatable and controllable, and you can get your desired position of the floater at will, using the same input each time, is good news. It's hard to reconcile that degree of hysteresis with the performance (or alleged performance) of a twin-Zed HDPE system, though.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on November 03, 2012, 10:42:46 PM
Quoting LarryC:

Quote
You are wasting your time with the concrete brains. Only Mark's observations can start to change their opinion, then they will attack Mark. In the end they will understand, and the real men will admit they were wrong and the others will slither off in the grass. I already know the results, so I patiently wait for Mark's results.

For what it's worth Larry, I don't think the concrete brains or the mush brains on this thread can understand any of the spreadsheets that you have posted in this thread.  I can't recall a single comment about one of your spreadsheets that was indicative of an understanding of what you are trying to communicate with those spreadsheets.

Well, I am very confident that we will never see a successful launch of any kind of ZED.  As TK stated, we are now in the phase where allegedly working prototypes are abandoned for "new and improved" prototypes.  Well, the allegedly just-abandoned allegedly working prototype would have been enough in itself to rock the scientific world right to it's foundations and become the main event in the history of the 21st century.  How many times have we seen that before?  Scientists would almost be going insane to see the first prototype if it actually worked even if it was held together by plastic bands and band-aids.  Yet, Hydro Energy Revolution LLC have apparently abandoned that Earth-shattering technology for a "new and improved" Earth-shattering technology.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this thread starts to coast off into the frozen void and blackness of space because nothing happens.  In other words the whole thing is dead.  Let me suggest an arbitrary time for calling this thread dead.  Suppose that we pronounce the thread dead on March 31st, 2013.  That gives Wayne and company five more months to show something.  Considering a "pre-validation" is supposed to be happening this weekend, and all of the talk about dates for demos and all of the slippages, I think that March 31st, 2013 is being petty generous.

What I would propose is that on April 1st, 2013, assuming no successful demo and no product launch, that we all contribute to a post-mortem on Hydro Energy Revolution LLC and this thread.

He is my big question:  What were the motivations of Wayne and company for coming here?  Why was this thread started?  What purpose did it serve?  What is the real reason for all of this discussion?  Who does it benefit, who does it hurt?

Those are serious questions and I would encourage all participants in this thread to express their opinions when we cross that hurdle.

Permit me also to preemptively raise an issue.  I have seen free energy schemes get busted and then all of the believers in the thread might go mute or simply write off the whole experience and say almost nothing.  I have seen them say, "Well I learned something" without saying what they learned.  For the believers, show some spirit!  If you are frustrated and angry for whatever reason then say it!  Surely you must have some thoughts and feelings about being used!  Express yourselves, don't just end up as passive patsies.

But again, the real post-mortem for this thread should be to examine and speculate about the motives and reasons that the promoters of this free energy scheme came here in the first place.  I would like to see an honest and open discussion about that take place.  This includes parties from ALL sides of the debate.  The losers should not just pack up and run.  Let's all have a good stimulating debate and try to learn something from this experience.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 04, 2012, 12:14:14 AM
Hey M.
While you're at it - a test you might want to run.
Now that you can see and measure the pre-charge.
Note the volume and pressure increase before lift - with the lift weight on.
Then, after removing the lift weight at the top.
Note the volume and pressure drop - before - it starts to sink. ( post-charge ?? )

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 04, 2012, 03:05:24 AM
Hey M.
While you're at it - a test you might want to run.
Now that you can see and measure the pre-charge.
Note the volume and pressure increase before lift - with the lift weight on.
Then, after removing the lift weight at the top.
Note the volume and pressure drop - before - it starts to sink. ( post-charge ?? )

Dale

K.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 04, 2012, 03:15:51 AM
Well, there probably is some hysteresis combined with sticktion, and some of the stiction will come from viscosity and capillary effects, which likely won't be overcome by your vibrator.
Consider a neutrally buoyant floater, like a cake of Ivory Soap, just barely floating at the surface of water. To get it to start rising or sinking visibly, it might be necessary to vary its effective density by a finite amount, not an infinitesimal one. That is, a neutrally buoyant floater might need several grams (effective) weight change in order to start moving, either sinking or rising further up out of the water, even though "theoretically" it should start moving as soon as any infinitesimal alteration to its effective density is achieved.
I suppose you could call this "hysteresis".

But the fact that your hysteresis is repeatable and controllable, and you can get your desired position of the floater at will, using the same input each time, is good news. It's hard to reconcile that degree of hysteresis with the performance (or alleged performance) of a twin-Zed HDPE system, though.

Thanks for your input.  It agrees with what I was considering.
 
Can we please only discuss the system and test results that are presented?
 
Facts are facts.  No reason to look elsewhere, IMHO.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 04, 2012, 03:59:07 AM
 I have been busy, it has been a privilege to add my small contribution to the HER team. In this time, I have witness amazing feats of team work. When an issue crops up with new advancements, its seems like a team of industrial specialist comes in overnight and do what in my experience with large Corporations would be impossible in such a short timeframe. These are great volunteers driven by their understanding of the process, observation of the working system, and the desire to help the world with this discovery. They also have an excellent project manager in Wayne.

It is not a matter of if it will work, but when.

This has been an amazing ride, since I received the understanding. It is energizing, all-consuming and will frequently wake you up early with new ideas and additional understanding. I haven’t been this excited, since I fell in love with my wife, over 40 years ago. If you thank you can assist in any way, you should contact Wayne. Even if you don’t have the understanding and just an open mind, there is additional material and assistance from other members that may help get you there. This is an opportunity to be a great part of history.

@MH, You and the other misleaders should seriously focus on what I stated: I already know the results.

Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 04:35:11 AM
So, then LarryC.... you are claiming that you've seen a Hydro Differential Pressure Exhange Overunity System running, all on its own, for longer than possible on its internally stored energy, making useful power, for longer than four hours? And you are claiming that you know how to build one yourself and get it running, and you are claiming your spreadsheets accurately reflect what's going on inside the system.

Am I right? Is this what you are claiming, when you say "I already know the results" ??

Otherwise, how could you already know the results?

"It is not a matter of if it will work, but when." This sure sounds to me like it's STILL NOT WORKING YET.

And here it is, Saturday night 3 November, already, and there has been no word from Red_Sunset about the results of his telephone call to Mister Wayne, and no update on MrWaynesBrain.com indicating that they have solved their little problems and have gotten their NEW design, the one that is not described in the patent, the one that is not the one illustrated in the animation, the one that nobody has seen yet ...... there's no indication at this point that your "when" has been attained.

But you already know the results. In addition to being a great communicator, spreadsheet designer, you are also psychic?



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 04:38:13 AM

Thanks for your input.  It agrees with what I was considering.
 
Can we please only discuss the system and test results that are presented?
 
Facts are facts.  No reason to look elsewhere, IMHO.
 
M.
Sure, Mond, we will discuss whatever you like. Does LarryC's spreadsheet accurately model the behaviour of your system? Facts are, after all, facts. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 04, 2012, 06:42:28 AM
..........................And here it is, Saturday night 3 November, already, and there has been no word from Red_Sunset about the results of his telephone call to Mister Wayne,  .........................................

YES BOSS, Right away !!!
What a jackass you are!!!  Just unbelievable, your distorted ramblings that have no relation to reality.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 07:05:40 AM
YES BOSS, Right away !!!
What a jackass you are!!!  Just unbelievable, your distorted ramblings that have no relation to reality.

You insult me again, and all I wanted was for you to call your hero and ask him if his promised validation was underway. In other words, I called your bluff. And you folded. You apparently don't even have enough faith, to bother testing it.

What a jackass YOU are, Red.  Reality? I laugh at you, because you seem to have no idea what reality is. There is no self-running Hydro Differential Pressure Exchange Overunity System.

Where do I ramble? I am focused very intently. WHERE IS THE SIMPLE, THREE LAYER SYSTEM THAT IS CLEARLY OVERUNITY BY ITSELF? You don't know, you can't demonstrate it, you cannot explain how its clear overunity was determined. Instead you fill pages with your "explanations" that explain nothing and your posts full of insults.  But I think if you or Mister Wayne, or LarryC, really had what you and he claim, you wouldn't bother to spend any time here at all. Why should you? And if Webby really understood the system like he thinks he does, he'd have a self-runner by now IF IT WERE POSSIBLE. Don't you think that's true? What is keeping the BELIEVERS who claim to fully understand the system, from building one of their own? I know what.

Sure, complain and whine that you don't have to prove anything to ME. And of course you don't. A good thing for you.... because you cannot.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 04, 2012, 07:27:09 AM
..............................................................He is my big question:  What were the motivations of Wayne and company for coming here?  Why was this thread started?  What purpose did it serve?  What is the real reason for all of this discussion?  Who does it benefit, who does it hurt?
Those are serious questions and I would encourage all participants in this thread to express their opinions when we cross that hurdle.
Permit me also to preemptively raise an issue.  I have seen free energy schemes get busted and then all of the believers in the thread might go mute or simply write off the whole experience and say almost nothing.  I have seen them say, "Well I learned something" without saying what they learned.  For the believers, show some spirit!  If you are frustrated and angry for whatever reason then say it!  Surely you must have some thoughts and feelings about being used!  Express yourselves, don't just end up as passive patsies.
But again, the real post-mortem for this thread should be to examine and speculate about the motives and reasons that the promoters of this free energy scheme came here in the first place.  I would like to see an honest and open discussion about that take place.  This includes parties from ALL sides of the debate.  The losers should not just pack up and run.  Let's all have a good stimulating debate and try to learn something from this experience.   
MileHigh 
Hi MileHigh,
You wrote some interesting and valuable, worthwhile words. 
I do not believe (at this point) that Wayne's invention falls into the the said category. But we need to be realistic and see the world in its full and broad spectrum, for the good and the bad, the deceptions, the truths and the untruths, the dis- and misleading information, actions to uphold the image, ect..
The big question raised and was raised before, but never been satisfactory answered and I think it deserves an understanding.  I have some idea's but these are pure speculations based on gathered telltales and totally uncorrelated, time will clarify.
A point was raised that there are possible winners and losers in this game. Possible winners yes, still a bit puzzled that going on the forum could produces losers.
Exploring who has "interests" is a good exercize to understand the motives behind the visual actions seen.   
For example, why would a skeptic lower himself to a low level to disprove someone's understanding on something he can not understand yet. Why so called experts want to force by threat rather than engage on. What is their interest?
There are many dynamics on this forum playing itself out. Most likely the reason why I am still here.
This understanding is most likely just as important than the working principle
A bright Sun_Rise is coming.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 07:41:23 AM
There is only one thing that anyone needs to understand about this system: the claims of overunity performance have not been supported by proof.

And let me also point out that we are already far along MileHigh's road of progression. Mister Wayne has already fled this forum, and has done the bait-and-switch dance twice in October alone, and it's now November, and there still is no report from any independent "validator" who has seen a HDPE Zed system running itself indefinitely, making useful work on the output, with no input.

He hasn't been suppressed by Big Oil, hasn't suffered the fate of so many other Free Energy discoverers..... he's just been working quietly in southern Oklahoma for years, making free energy (between leaks and rebuilds) and nobody seems to be noticing.  It doesn't seem like he's even up to the Rossi standard: at least Rossi got some interest from NASA, and scientific journalists from around the world are following Rossi's story. But Mister Wayne is like the best kept secret in the backwaters of Oklahoma. Maybe that's why he started posting here, on this reknowned international free energy open source forum -- he's trying to catch up with Rossi, because if Rossi's device hits the market before the HDPE does, nobody is going to want one of Mister Wayne's noisy, inefficient, huge kludges, when you can just hook up a small, quiet, COP>6 cold fusion ECat to your home for all your energy needs.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 04, 2012, 09:57:08 AM
It is clear from this forum that science isn't just a dull & quiet environment for geeks.
The following audio book sheds some light on what kind of intrigue might be going on here
To succeed, knowledge must be pursued by any means, with passion !

The Secret Anarchy of Science: Free Radicals (Audiobook) By Michael Brooks, read by Matt Addis
Unabridge edition 2012 | 9 hours and 29 mins | ISBN: n/a , ASIN: B008CBW9B2 | MP3 56 kbps | 191 MB

For more than a century, science has cultivated a sober public image for itself. But as best-selling author Michael Brooks explains, the truth is very different: many of our most successful scientists have more in common with libertines than librarians.

This thrilling exploration of some of the greatest breakthroughs in science reveals the extreme lengths some scientists go to in order to make their theories public.     Fraud, suppressing evidence, and unethical or reckless PR games are sometimes necessary to bring the best and most brilliant discoveries to the world's attention. Inspiration can come from the most unorthodox of places, and Brooks introduces us to Nobel laureates who get their ideas through drugs, dreams, and hallucinations.
Science is a highly competitive and ruthless discipline, and only it's most determined and passionate practitioners make headlines - and history.
To succeed, knowledge must be pursued by any means: in science, anything goes.

An evaluation copy can be found here: http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/audiobook/B008CBW9B2.html
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 04, 2012, 11:23:18 AM
Some strong words,
The Secret Anarchy of Science
Text example: This books is a call for more scientific anarchy and for the creation of a culture in which it can thrive (looks very much like this forum)
Our future may depend on it.  So let it rip !

A 5 minute sample attached
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on November 04, 2012, 02:28:57 PM
Red_Sunset:

We can all have a very frank discussion in the Spring 0f 2013 assuming that Wayne never delivers and the thread is moribund and people have run out of ideas.

Quote
For example, why would a skeptic lower himself to a low level to disprove someone's understanding on something he can not understand yet.

Yes, you can keep on trying to pretend that there is something to understand.  Certainly you have some people that believe you.  Who knows, perhaps you are even believing it yourself.

As far as science being advanced by the anarchists and quacks goes, of course that can happen sometimes.  Other times it does not.  Look at the quasi cult of Marko Rodin.  I would hazard a guess that Marko Rodin does not even know how an inductor works.  I would also hazard a guess that not a single problem has been solved using "Rodin mathematics."  I would call a Rodin coil a "leaky" coil, just like you can purchase "leaky" coax cable.  Leaky coax cable serves a useful purpose, but I don't think Marko Rodin's leaky coil serves any purpose.

It will all come out in the wash on April 1st, 2013 and we can all talk.  Until then I suppose that we are running in "faint hope" mode and some of us are giving Wayne the benefit of the doubt.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 04, 2012, 02:51:44 PM

He hasn't been suppressed by Big Oil, hasn't suffered the fate of so many other Free Energy discoverers..... he's just been working quietly in southern Oklahoma for years, making free energy (between leaks and rebuilds) and nobody seems to be noticing.  It doesn't seem like he's even up to the Rossi standard: at least Rossi got some interest from NASA, and scientific journalists from around the world are following Rossi's story. But Mister Wayne is like the best kept secret in the backwaters of Oklahoma. Maybe that's why he started posting here, on this reknowned international free energy open source forum -- he's trying to catch up with Rossi, because if Rossi's device hits the market before the HDPE does, nobody is going to want one of Mister Wayne's noisy, inefficient, huge kludges, when you can just hook up a small, quiet, COP>6 cold fusion ECat to your home for all your energy needs.
"please continue, Governor"
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 04, 2012, 08:44:20 PM
Does LarryC's spreadsheet accurately model the behaviour of your system? Facts are, after all, facts.

Unfortunately LarryC does not have a spreadsheet for the "2 Layer" (1 Pod/2 Riser) system that I am testing.  His was for a 3 Layer (1 Pod/3 Risers) system that supposedly is the one you've been asking about.  I guess I missunderstood the meaning of "3 Layer" and just assumed that terminology was used for what was presented in the diagrams of the patent application.
 
I'd love to see what a spreadsheet like LarryC's would predict if it was for a "2 Layer" system like I am testing.  But I am no spreadsheet guru and realy can't fathom putting in the time to modify what he has already provided at this point and time.  Hell, I've barely got enough time to test the thing I have now!  If anyone else wants to have a go at modifying LarryC work for my case, that would be great.
 
Cheers,
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on November 04, 2012, 10:35:38 PM
The time for pre-validation will lapse in 9 hours(3:30 CST, now).  Mark Dansie's response and appearance are imminent.  The world is ready for free energy.  Anticipation..........
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 10:49:23 PM

Unfortunately LarryC does not have a spreadsheet for the "2 Layer" (1 Pod/2 Riser) system that I am testing.  His was for a 3 Layer (1 Pod/3 Risers) system that supposedly is the one you've been asking about.  I guess I missunderstood the meaning of "3 Layer" and just assumed that terminology was used for what was presented in the diagrams of the patent application.
 
I'd love to see what a spreadsheet like LarryC's would predict if it was for a "2 Layer" system like I am testing.  But I am no spreadsheet guru and realy can't fathom putting in the time to modify what he has already provided at this point and time.  Hell, I've barely got enough time to test the thing I have now!  If anyone else wants to have a go at modifying LarryC work for my case, that would be great.
 
Cheers,
 
M.
I agree, it would seem _necessary_ for any spreadsheet to be validated against known systems. And I have no idea how LarryC's spreadsheet is organised, but from my own spreadsheet experience, it might be possible to change the spreadsheet, or add to it, to make it model 2, or 3, or 4 or even 5 layers of a zed. Certainly it should be easier to do that, than for you to modify your hardware to fit the "three layer" definition.

So let me see if I've got the sequence of events right.

You announced your intention to build a "three layer system" and told us all about the materials and plans, and you gave us photos of your build and preliminary tests and so on, including a full description of how your layering was done.

Then you got up to the point where your system was behaving consistently and you started posting real, usable numbers for input and output lift weights and distances and so forth.

Then, when you started posting your "efficiency numbers" showing a relatively low overall efficiency.....

ONLY THEN did any of the people "in the know" inform you that your system wasn't a three-layer system at all and so your results don't matter.

Did I leave something out?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 11:01:17 PM
The time for pre-validation will lapse in 9 hours(3:30 CST, now).  Mark Dansie's response and appearance are imminent.  The world is ready for free energy.  Anticipation..........
Just a reminder to everyone that we changed from Daylight Time to Standard Time last night. Spring forward, fall back.
So it's going to get dark early...............
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 11:05:43 PM
"please continue, Governor"
You forgot to quote, or even answer, the question I asked in the first part of my post. Why?

Here it is again:

So, then LarryC.... you are claiming that you've seen a Hydro Differential Pressure Exhange Overunity System running, all on its own, for longer than possible on its internally stored energy, making useful power, for longer than four hours? And you are claiming that you know how to build one yourself and get it running, and you are claiming your spreadsheets accurately reflect what's going on inside the system.

Am I right? Is this what you are claiming, when you say "I already know the results" ??

Otherwise, how could you already know the results?

"It is not a matter of if it will work, but when." This sure sounds to me like it's STILL NOT WORKING YET.

Quotations in RED are of course from your own statements, LarryC.

Please continue, Governor....... continue to avoid the hard questions, like

Where is the " simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity BY ITSELF" (MrWayne's exact words), how was its clear overunity determined, what is the input/output work of this simple system?

The "by itself" part: I've always interpreted this to mean, from context, that Mister Wayne was talking about a single Zed. Otherwise why include the "by itself"?
Of course if anyone has actually SEEN this system they could tell me whether it's got two zeds or one. Or would that reveal information I'm not supposed to have?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 05, 2012, 12:01:12 AM
That is a big jump to take TK,, but that is what you do.

2 risers still show one thing that you seem to think does not exist, just as Dales 3 and my 4, and that thing that does exist that you do not think can exist is another part of the system that needs to be looked at when actually thinking about the efficiency of the system as a whole.

As usual, you miss my point entirely.

Why didn't any one of the "in the know" people tell Mondrasek that he was NOT building a correct three layer system until AFTER he already had it built and was reporting well underunity results?

And as far as me thinking something doesn't exist..... you do realise that I installed a TinselZed in my modified Heron's Fountain perpetual tabletop waterpump and reported how it responded, don't you? Where I reported that the flow (pressure) was increased by the addition? But that this increased flow lasted for a shorter time than in the unmodified Heron's Fountain? To me, that's strong evidence that there is an effect happening and I've never denied that. Once again..... as usual.... others misrepresent my position, and attack their misrepresentations. (It also seems to me that I met and exceeded Mister Wayne's self-running tabletop waterpump challenge with this device, but I never really expected to get any acknowledgement from him for that.... since my system's not overunity and he wanted an _overunity_ waterpump. Which he still doesn't have.)

Meanwhile.... it's getting dark outside already, on Sunday the 4th of November.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 05, 2012, 12:18:12 AM
As usual, you miss my point entirely.

Why didn't any one of the "in the know" people tell Mondrasek that he was NOT building a correct three layer system until AFTER he already had it built and was reporting well underunity results?

Truth be told, of course I was disapointed to learn that I did not build a three layer system.  I think I said so at the time.
 
But I also never expected to build something that was OU.  And this is because I did not design what I built specifically for any intended performance characteristics.  I freely admit that I do not have the skills to analyze the system and/or simulate it in order to have designed something with an expected performance in mind.
 
Instead, I just built from what was at hand that could come close to what was in the patent app and the explanations in this forum at the time.  I knew from the start that it was too short for the diameters I was using as far as was explained by the inventor.  I did not fully understand why until I built what I have, but now I would agree that the proportions are way out of whack.  But then again, that is only my opinion and would need to be tested first if I were going to change that statement to a claim.
 
All in all it would have been quite an amazing coincidence if what I built performed similar to anything that Wayne has described as OU.  My build is what it is. 
 
But I can still test it to see what it can do and not do and what I can learn from it and share.
 
It is still pretty cool.  Seriously.
 
Now, lets do some science...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 05, 2012, 12:22:27 AM
Preserved here for posterity and comment, from the FAQ section of Mister Wayne's  Brain (http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/our-system-explained)

This is Fair Use for educational and archival purposes. No copyright infringement is intended.

Quote
Do you have a working model?[/font]
As of Mid October - we have built - in house 9 models, each new progression in the development better than the last.
Currently we have two complete models and both work as claimed.Both have been independently replicated - This helps our partnerships and development teams.
Visitor's have access to both models and the history of the development for those interested. Business questions and questions regarding optimizations require an NDA.
We have a model ten in progress - each model uses a unique method to create the advantage over Gravity and the correlating relationships of our differential process. They do not look the same - and one is better than the other for different uses.
They all use our discovery and method to turn the conservative field of gravity into a viable energy source - unlocking that key is the diamond to our success.
 Derek wrote in and asked: "Thank you for your time. I have two questions spurred from the Our System Explained page.

Of the two models working as claimed.

1. What is the claim?

2. How long has each model successfully run" My Response: Since 2008, when we first stumbled onto the "Travis Effect" (named by one of the visitors to our lab) we began developing a system to maximize the usefulness of that effect - The claim has been that we can and have developed a energy conversion method to reduce the input cost to our system to such a degree that we have excess "Net" energy from that system. We call it clean and free energy, others want us to call it overunity - which does not really fit our vision of the machine - but for communication - we accept that charge. So our "Claim" is simple - The ZED technology provides a way to provide Net Energy with no fuel, emissions, input or noise (which can be confirmed with simple physics). And after four and half years - we have reduced the cost of the system to the point that we are cheaper in cost than all categories of Energy production. Much noise has been made over the years over our explanations - and we don't mind any of it - how it works is just fun conversation - and some people take it way to far - others can't grasp the simple concept. Our Focus is in the Production model, our testing, and our alignments. Part Two: I don't avoid this question - and it is often asked to help people discern if we eventually run out - or the viability of our system - Both of the questions are out of the scope of the Models we built 1 thru 8, (like asking how far your car can drive when you have only built the engine) 1-8 were built to test specific design variations - aspects and functions of our gravity capture methodology. None of those were built to run for more time than it took to collect and analyze the Data,.........  Our Model 7, which was a conversion of model 6, model six was just a input/output of a three layer system - the First model the Skeptics reviewed. The Skeptics asked that we convert to a closed looped system - which we did and it ran "closed looped" for the Skeptics. We ran until they were satisfied that degradation was not a concern. Our personal longest run with those systems was four hours - longer was not needed from this system - since it gained from the first stroke and continued to gain at the same rate as long as we let it run - no degradation was observed - we started and stopped the system as many times as we wished. The point with our system even in that infant stage - was that our ZED technology had the potential to be self sufficient - from the start - - from the first stroke on - eventually it sinks into your head (in general) that if you begin gaining immediately and continue without fuel or additional input or loss - the age old question of entropy - or winding down, using entropy to judge the system is superfluous. Scalability, total NET, structural integrity, and ROI - are the right questions. After they left (the skeptics) - we did more testing with this system - Eventually in our testing - the first degradation was a broken weld in the bag and then when we maxed the system we bent the lever arm that connected the bags. Model Eight was and is the Data Collection system - it has sensors everywhere to measure all changes in the system - it was not a self running system - but an upgrade - we repaired all the failure points with the model 7 - a little good engineering - and began pulling data for the Validation team and our engineers - Now - Our current status - our model 9 is an accumulation of the best of everything we have learned - the data collection model was worth every bit of pain the system required to modify - model 9 is the best/ cheapest capture of the principal of our operation. Model 9 will run continuously - but it is not our production model - it is the last stage before the Beta field model - our Beta field models will run providing excess without a doubt - we have done our due diligence's -as all of our engineers confirm confidently - (which is a important considering the stigma). One final note: We are in business to provide a quality product - over 2000 years have passed with the goal of free energy - we made the decision to do it right - the first time. In that light - you will understand our process - and our lack of concern about the length of time our development models run - when we built model 10 - that will be its focus - among further understanding of the rest. We do understand why that question is asked - which it is often - usually to determine the entropy - our system is not a fuel based system - it consumes nothing (nothing tangible, measurable yes) Our system runs on Gravity. Entropy of "parts" is our concern - which will be thoroughly engineered and tested in the Beta development. With Model 10 - entropy of parts is the main question - we have our design well tested and legally secure - we have solid IP protection and backing. In line with our companies vision - we are in our proper order - after we discovered the potential and its understanding - we moved to develop low cost designs, after low cost designs - we are moving to develop long running devices - it is our business perspective - we are allowing the validation teams to have the scientific perspective. Our vision is for long term success - A secure quality product to Market - to the benefit of the world and the consumer (not fame). Thank you for asking, and sorry for the delay. I take the time to answer all questions - we have 121 members internationally who help us, have visited our work we have an open door policy - we are well secured, and positioned to be the answer to the clean energy desire - with a positive ROI - the first for clean energy.
(sic)

Four hours maximum run time so far, of ANY of the devices. Each one uses a DIFFERENT "unique" method of capturing gravity. No concern for run times. Making the design economical first THEN working toward long run times. Model 9 "will" run continually... not "does run" continually.
Entropy of parts..... do you know, I think perhaps Mister Wayne doesn't really understand what "entropy" means.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 05, 2012, 12:34:36 AM

Truth be told, of course I was disapointed to learn that I did not build a three layer system.  I think I said so at the time.
 
But I also never expected to build something that was OU.  And this is because I did not design what I built specifically for any intended performance characteristics.  I freely admit that I do not have the skills to analyze the system and/or simulate it in order to have designed something with an expected performance in mind.
 
Instead, I just built from what was at hand that could come close to what was in the patent app and the explanations in this forum at the time.  I knew from the start that it was too short for the diameters I was using as far as was explained by the inventor.  I did not fully understand why until I built what I have, but now I would agree that the proportions are way out of whack.  But then again, that is only my opinion and would need to be tested first if I were going to change that statement to a claim.
 
All in all it would have been quite an amazing coincidence if what I built performed similar to anything that Wayne has described as OU.  My build is what it is. 
 
But I can still test it to see what it can do and not do and what I can learn from it and share.
 
It is still pretty cool.  Seriously.
 
Now, lets do some science...
 
M.

Yes, lettuce dew.

In actual Science, researchers who make unusual claims will ALWAYS make their raw data available for inspection and replication. In addition, real scientists will always try their best to rule out alternative explanations for their findings, narrowing the conditions down to the point where only the claimed effect could possibly be responsible for the data seen. Mister Wayne has done neither of these things, at least not publicly.
Mister Wayne isn't a scientist, though, he's a businessman, so why should we expect science from him, I dunno.

So sure, Mondrasek, your system is pretty cool. Too bad it's not a "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself." If only we had a real spreadsheet that could accommodate things like varying the aspect ratio, the wall and interwall dimensions, and the number of layers..... or if someone would just go out and spend a few hundred dollars on some acrylic tubes and plate of the correct dimensions.... then we could do some science that might be applicable to the Real Question: does Mister Wayne have a revolutionary, world-shaking Free Energy Overunity device, or does he not?

But sorry... I am afraid I just don't swallow the idea that you weren't trying to build a Zed whose results would apply to MisterWayne's system. And I think everyone reading here knew that you were, at the time. So... the fact that they didn't tell you you were going wrong, before you had everything glued down, is kind of... unfortunate. Not for you, you're having fun.... but for them, and for MisterWayne, because it makes "them" look bad and it doesn't help to "validate" or give credibility to Mister Wayne's clayms.

Some paranoid person might even think it was deliberate, to tie you up on an irrelevant system, so you might not find out that the _relevant_ system isn't overunity atall.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 05, 2012, 01:12:42 AM
@M,
 
Thanks, for presenting the actual facts and trying to set the record straight.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 05, 2012, 01:28:59 AM
But sorry... I am afraid I just don't swallow the idea that you weren't trying to build a Zed whose results would apply to MisterWayne's system. And I think everyone reading here knew that you were, at the time.

Okay, let's forget the fact that I have designed and built industrial automation equipment for a couple decades now.  Feel free to patent search about me.
 
My constraints on this build were the diameter and height of the straight part of a two liter Pepsi bottle?!?  Do you really believe I thought that would be the magic dimensions for spectacular results?  Hell, they don't even come close to the ratios of the dimensions in the diagrams of the patent app.  They were pulled from thin air.  And the recycle bin.
 
Of course I would have been thrilled if the build based off of such a completely un-engineered selection of dimensions showed anything OU.  But I had no delusions that it would and still thought it would teach us all (or at least me) something.  And so I post the results.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 05, 2012, 01:40:22 AM
Quick update - for any one interested.
Friday night I started a test, playing around with a setup, suggested by Wayne, that put a little more emphasis on understanding the significance of varying the differentials across the layers. Specifically; making the differential greater in each layer, moving outward from center.

I've also continued to try to improve my ability to see and record the results of the tests.

And I discovered 2 things:
One: (this was exciting) During a "stroke" there appears to be more lifted than just the lift weight.
Webby has been right - first in is first out - but what comes out is at a higher pressure....
Somehow, that increase in pressure needs to be included in the efficiency calculations.

Two: (this was very troubling) My little model was running down.
If I repeated the cycle 3 or 4 times; between hard stops, with measured volumes of water, the head pressure at the end of each cycle was lower.

I would have posted all of this Friday night but the attitude here has been so rabid I took the results off line and kept quiet until I could be reasonably sure of the cause (I had an air leak - repositioning one of the top ports for the metering thing might have caused it.)

I'm pretty sure the leak is fixed now, I'll post a data set as soon as I can verify the results.
Dale 


     
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 05, 2012, 03:10:35 AM

Okay, let's forget the fact that I have designed and built industrial automation equipment for a couple decades now.  Feel free to patent search about me.
 
OK, and we can also forget about how you were going to patent your magnet-assisted gravity wheel, and all the money you spent on that process before you finally did the _correct calculations_ that convinced you that you were in error. But what does any of that have to do with this?
Quote
My constraints on this build were the diameter and height of the straight part of a two liter Pepsi bottle?!?  Do you really believe I thought that would be the magic dimensions for spectacular results?  Hell, they don't even come close to the ratios of the dimensions in the diagrams of the patent app.  They were pulled from thin air.  And the recycle bin.
 
And webby's system was made from sliced-up tennis ball packaging tubes.... yet was enough like MrWayne's system for Wayne to give him two thousand dollars just for building it.
got to go computer upgrading....
Quote
Of course I would have been thrilled if the build based off of such a completely un-engineered selection of dimensions showed anything OU.  But I had no delusions that it would and still thought it would teach us all (or at least me) something.  And so I post the results.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 05, 2012, 03:50:34 AM
OK, and we can also forget about how you were going to patent your magnet-assisted gravity wheel, and all the money you spent on that process before you finally did the _correct calculations_ that convinced you that you were in error. But what does any of that have to do with this? And webby's system was made from sliced-up tennis ball packaging tubes.... yet was enough like MrWayne's system for Wayne to give him two thousand dollars just for building it.
got to go computer upgrading....

TK, you are the one that calls into question my "intentions" for building, testing, and posting data.
 
I'll quote:
But sorry... I am afraid I just don't swallow the idea that you weren't trying to build a Zed whose results would apply to MisterWayne's system. And I think everyone reading here knew that you were, at the time.
End quote.
 
My reply was only to say that your inferences were not based on facts.  If you feel otherwise, please state your case.  At this point I don't see why you are bringing up history that I have already freely and openly disclosed and am happy to share.  Including my humiliating experience about.
 
Can we please more forward?  I have always and would continue to appreciate your input on the current test data that is presented. 
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 05, 2012, 04:47:52 AM
@TinselKoala
That is LOW !
WOW!
A personal attack on someone like M. ?!?
You need help.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 05, 2012, 05:04:34 AM
@TK,
Please get back on your meds or see a doctor. Do you realize how many delusional conclusions you have made in the last 24 hours?
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 05, 2012, 05:21:39 AM
For a contributor like Mondrasek to be attacked by anyone on this forum is ridiculous.

And all of that bickering with Red Sunset to get him to call Wayne so you can have your update?

It's time to take a break and reflect TK.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 05, 2012, 05:39:19 AM
I agree, it would seem _necessary_ for any spreadsheet to be validated against known systems. And I have no idea how LarryC's spreadsheet is organised, but from my own spreadsheet experience, it might be possible to change the spreadsheet, or add to it, to make it model 2, or 3, or 4 or even 5 layers of a zed. Certainly it should be easier to do that, than for you to modify your hardware to fit the "three layer" definition.
Please, go for it with my blessing. It may help you back to normalcy.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 05, 2012, 06:27:33 AM
For a contributor like Mondrasek to be attacked by anyone on this forum is ridiculous.
And all of that bickering with Red Sunset to get him to call Wayne so you can have your update?
It's time to take a break and reflect TK.
Tom

Thanks guys (Tom, Larry, Wildew) for that whiff of sanity !

TK should realize that his point (notwithstanding it is a valid one), his domineering noise is blanking out all other communication.  Hard work, a good ear and patience are virtues.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 05, 2012, 11:33:16 AM

TK, you are the one that calls into question my "intentions" for building, testing, and posting data.
 
I'll quote:
But sorry... I am afraid I just don't swallow the idea that you weren't trying to build a Zed whose results would apply to MisterWayne's system. And I think everyone reading here knew that you were, at the time.
End quote.
 
My reply was only to say that your inferences were not based on facts.  If you feel otherwise, please state your case.  At this point I don't see why you are bringing up history that I have already freely and openly disclosed and am happy to share.  Including my humiliating experience about.
 
Can we please more forward?  I have always and would continue to appreciate your input on the current test data that is presented. 
 
M.

Again, you miss my point.
The only reason I brought up your "humiliating experience"....which, had it not been for my insistence, might have been even more humiliating and costly .... was because you brought up your design and patent experience as some kind of credential. I just wanted to remind you that all your experiences in this field haven't been entirely positive, and that I have been right.... more than once.... about the things I've told you about gravity and magnetism and the possibility of making a perpetual motion machine using them as "power sources". After all, it's the only patent application or attempt of yours, the only design of yours, that I have direct experience with. I do recall how astounded I was to learn, back then, that you were a robotics designer, since you apparently had forgotten more than I ever knew about calculating arms and moments.

Can you really honestly tell me that you +weren't+ trying to replicate as much of a Zed system as you could manage? That you  happily and with full knowledge started out building something that ISN'T a Zed, was never intended to be a Zed, and produces results that aren't applicable to a Zed? OK, fine, but I think re-reading your early posts on the matter might refresh your memory a bit. I think you started out to build as much of a Zed as you could do, just like webby did, but with different and perhaps better materials. You now tell me differently ... OK, fine, sorry for "assuming" that you were actually trying to build a Zed that would give measurements that could tell us something about Mister Wayne's system.

But I have to ask you , then.... what is the point?  If we cannot generalize from your results to the Zed performance, then you are just wasting everybody's time with your cool gadget, aren't you?  Why should I give input to you on something that doesn't even relate to the topic of this thread?

Funny..... I accuse you of trying to build a Zed, and you deny it. Isn't that a bit ironic?

@TinselKoala
That is LOW !
WOW!
A personal attack on someone like M. ?!?
You need help.

Dale
Low? Ask Mondrasek whether or not he found my input helpful at all, on that other project of his that I mentioned. I don't think you were around then.... let's just say that his experience might have been even more "humiliating" to use his word, and costly,  had I not helped him out back then. And my major help was not by building a system similar to what he designed, but rather by my _words_ and my insistence on facts and correct calculations based on solid engineering principles.

I have made no personal attacks on Mondrasek, and he knows it. On the other hand, I seem to be the target of plenty of personal attacks here. Like this one from you, alleging that I somehow "need help".
You are right... I need help. Seamus10n hasn't posted much lately though, and you've managed to scare off most of the rest of the scientific skeptics with those personal attacks and insults.

It would also be very helpful if someone would answer some of the questions. The main one being.... what about the "simple three-layer system that is clearly overunity by itself". Those are mister Wayne's exact words. Nobody will tell me where that system is today, why it cannot be shown, how its clear overunity performance was determined, what was the input/output work ratio? Does the "by itself" part mean a single Zed, or not? Aren't you curious at all about these things, Dale? Would the answers not be most helpful to YOU, since you seem to have a similar set of hardware, but that isn't clearly overunity by itself?

@TK,
Please get back on your meds or see a doctor. Do you realize how many delusional conclusions you have made in the last 24 hours?

Ah, YET ANOTHER personal attack and insult. Thanks for showing me what I'm supposed to be doing against others. By the way... where is the example of me insulting anyone, as I have been insulted here?

For your information, Sir, I am not on any medication, and I will put my grasp of reality up against yours any day of the week, including Sunday. Don't you remember that I've asked you a couple of simple and respectful questions about your claims? You've not deigned to answer them, even though what you said is rather amazing. You said that you already know the results, and I just asked you to tell us HOW you knew the results.
And I asked you to clarify the part about it not being a matter of "if"... but "WHEN" it will work.

Those things are more "delusional" than anything I've ever said here, because they aren't based on facts, just your beliefs.

Here it is again:

So, then LarryC.... you are claiming that you've seen a Hydro Differential Pressure Exhange Overunity System running, all on its own, for longer than possible on its internally stored energy, making useful power, for longer than four hours? And you are claiming that you know how to build one yourself and get it running, and you are claiming your spreadsheets accurately reflect what's going on inside the system.

Am I right? Is this what you are claiming, when you say "I already know the results" ??

Otherwise, how could you already know the results?

"It is not a matter of if it will work, but when." This sure sounds to me like it's STILL NOT WORKING YET.

Quotations in RED are of course from your own statements, LarryC.

While you are at it, consider again the other question that has never been answered by anyone:

Where is the " simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity BY ITSELF" (MrWayne's exact words), how was its clear overunity determined, what is the input/output work of this simple system?

The "by itself" part: I've always interpreted this to mean, from context, that Mister Wayne was talking about a single Zed. Otherwise why include the "by itself"?
Of course if anyone has actually SEEN this system they could tell me whether it's got two zeds or one. Or would that reveal information I'm not supposed to have?

And another question, Larry: has your spreadsheet been able to duplicate the performance numbers of ANY real system for which we have data, like Dales, or Webby's or Mondrasek's? Have you tried actually validating your spreadsheet against any real system?

I don't really think you'll answer these questions, Larry, because the answers are not to your liking.
Here's what I think : You have not validated your spreadsheet by duplicating the performance of any real system. You don't really "know" that "it" works, you are just expressing a faith. It's not a question of "if" but "when" means it's not working YET, and you don't know how the clear overunity performance of the simple three layer system by itself, was determined, and you can't tell me the ratio of input to output work or what form the output work takes. And I'll just go ahead and stipulate that the "by itself" part of Mister Wayne's exact words was intended to indicate a single Zed, by itself, not in connection with another. Please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this, by giving me the correct answer. Delusional conclusions? Well then...what are the FACTS that prove that my conclusions are "delusional"?


For a contributor like Mondrasek to be attacked by anyone on this forum is ridiculous.

And all of that bickering with Red Sunset to get him to call Wayne so you can have your update?

It's time to take a break and reflect TK.

Tom
Sure, Tom, I'll reflect all right. I'll reflect all the insults made against me, and all the excuses for Mister Wayne not meeting his own deadlines, right back at you. Just what is this "attack" you speak of? The only person being attacked, here, as far as I can see... is me. As usual.

You aren't much of a poker player are you. I knew Red_Sunset would not make the call I suggested, because I know that he doesn't have the faith that he pretends to have. Why not call Mister Wayne and ask him how his validation is going this weekend? I think it's because RedSunset didn't want to hear what he knows he would likely have heard: that there isn't any validation going on this weekend, because of some inconvenience or leak or missed appointment or something, but really because the New Model, just like the Old Model, all nine of them.... won't run under its own power for more than four hours. It's not MY update..... it's YOURS. Don't you need this validation? Aren't you going to look silly when it doesn't happen?
Consider the possibilities:  if Mister Wayne is wrong, all this is a waste of time and you and the rest of the believers will have to hang your heads in chagrin, apologise to me, and go back to your day jobs and the price of your gasoline will continue to rise. OR... Mister Wayne is right, I am wrong (along with all the physics and thermodynamics texts in the world).... and whatever chagrin I might feel will be lost in the real revolutionary upheaval that will be produced by the first Free Energy device on the planet. I'll take the risk, happily, because I have got nothing to lose. If Mister Wayne is right we all benefit, even me, and I'll be quite happy in my momentary embarrassment and you can mock me and insult me all you like, it won't matter a bit.
But if Mister Wayne is WRONG -- which hundreds of years of scientific experimentation says he must be ..... what are you gonna do? What's YOUR backup plan, then?

Please, go for it with my blessing. It may help you back to normalcy.
See? Yet another attack and insult. And that is in reply to this quote from me:
Quote
I agree, it would seem _necessary_ for any spreadsheet to be validated against known systems. And I have no idea how LarryC's spreadsheet is organised, but from my own spreadsheet experience, it might be possible to change the spreadsheet, or add to it, to make it model 2, or 3, or 4 or even 5 layers of a zed. Certainly it should be easier to do that, than for you to modify your hardware to fit the "three layer" definition.
The major advantage of spreadsheets is that variables can be just that: allowed to vary, and their effect on results examined quickly. Of course, the spreadsheet has to be designed by someone who isn't an ignoramus and who knows how to program it to handle variables. Not up to the job, LarryC? Did I just call you an ignoramus?
Did you call me deluded, on medication, in a doctor's care, ABNORMAL?


Meanwhile, it is now Monday morning in Oklahoma. I'm sure we'll be hearing some news from Mister Wayne soon. A quick poll: who thinks that Mister Wayne will be announcing a successful complete validation, a self running machine that makes useful output power and doesn't stop after four or six or eight hours?



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 05, 2012, 11:41:00 AM
Thanks guys (Tom, Larry, Wildew) for that whiff of sanity !

TK should realize that his point (notwithstanding it is a valid one), his domineering noise is blanking out all other communication.  Hard work, a good ear and patience are virtues.

That's right.... I am holding up progress, simply by posting on an internet forum, the most effective way to hold up progress ever invented. Domineering noise blanking out all other communication! Imagine the power I have. Sitting here in South Texas in my little DeepBunker, I am to blame for the fact that Larry's spreadsheet can't model a real system that we can measure, that Mondrasek doesn't have a three layer Zed, that Webby's system is not OU and wildew's system is leaking,  and that Mark Dansie isn't visiting Oklahoma watching a Free Energy machine making energy from gravity and running along for days at a time without any input. All my fault for making all this "domineering noise". Sure it is. Why, I'm sure Mister Wayne is trying to post right now, but can't make it through all the domineering noise.... much of which actually seems to be in the form of insults and attacks against me.
Why don't you just put me on your ignore list, Red, like Wayne did months ago. That way you can get on with your work, building and spreadsheeting. Oh..... wait.... .sorry, I forgot for a moment, you are doing neither.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on November 05, 2012, 12:05:48 PM
This post is mostly for TinselKoala, because he tries so hard to show the errors of Mr. Wayne and his ardent followers.

Psychological studies have proven, a strong believe system can not be destroyed. So, no matter what amount of words, or scientific and technical arguments, or even actual proof that the system is not OU, nothing will ever convince Mr. Wayne and his apostles.

TinselKoala already made this tiring experience with RosiPosi (and probably with many more OU-inventors).

See this story about the three Christs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti) , http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/05/jesus_jesus_jesus.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/05/jesus_jesus_jesus.html) .

You will see, there is no cure.

This thread is now in the realm of psychology. And unfortunately, there is no pill and no treatment. The sufferers hold on to their illusions till they depart.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 05, 2012, 02:57:36 PM
Back from a long weekend and I can see yet again that Wayne has failed to have his device verified,
and that TK is being attacked for asking relevant questions about the device, I can understand this behaviour
coming from "Mr Red I only ever post in this thread" Wayne's salesman and promoter,
but the other members/believers should know better from the history of this forum, and if you really want
to stop TK repeatedly asking relevant questions and challenging the claims made,
then why on earth don't any one of you produce evidence that proves a three layer system is overunity
and show us a self-running device ?

I can't run my house on blind faith and neither can you, so stop attacking people for asking for proof,
especially since so much time has elapsed since the beginning of this thread and Wayne has continuously
broken his word, I wonder......are some of you being paid by Wayne to keep the faith ?
it is all getting very very suspicious and beginning to look like a con, as Wayne seems to be only interested
in attracting investors, and he has no intention of allowing a validation by Mark Dansie.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on November 05, 2012, 03:47:06 PM

Where is the " simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity BY ITSELF" (MrWayne's exact words), how was its clear overunity determined, what is the input/output work of this simple system?

The "by itself" part: I've always interpreted this to mean, from context, that Mister Wayne was talking about a single Zed. Otherwise why include the "by itself"?


TK, I think you've misinterpreted the "by itself" part.  I think this means the "simple, three-layer system" is only overunity when it is completely by itself.  If anyone is around watching it, or tries hooking up any measurement instrumentation, it gets nervous and becomes underunity.

If a simple, three-layer system runs in the forest and no one is around to see it, does it violate the laws of physics?

 ;)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 05, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
Hi there,
             I loved one of the original videos of this great machine groaning,ticking and clicking and have been watching progress since then.
TK. is asking all the right questions and all that seems to emerge is page after page of waffle.
   Come on mrwayne give us something real
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 05, 2012, 04:21:28 PM
TK -

I find it strange that three native speakers of English strongly objected to the way you handled yourself on this board yet you find your posts fitting. You say it is you that is being attacked. Hmmm.

You are entitled to your opinion. You may also continue to use your other Member names that you spawned, to agree with yourself.

I stand by my original advice to you though.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 05, 2012, 05:10:52 PM
This post is mostly for TinselKoala, because he tries so hard to show the errors of Mr. Wayne and his ardent followers.

Psychological studies have proven, a strong believe system can not be destroyed. So, no matter what amount of words, or scientific and technical arguments, or even actual proof that the system is not OU, nothing will ever convince Mr. Wayne and his apostles.

TinselKoala already made this tiring experience with RosiPosi (and probably with many more OU-inventors).

See this story about the three Christs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti) , http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/05/jesus_jesus_jesus.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/05/jesus_jesus_jesus.html) .

You will see, there is no cure.

This thread is now in the realm of psychology. And unfortunately, there is no pill and no treatment. The sufferers hold on to their illusions till they depart.

Greetings, Conrad

Thanks, Conrad.

I do have some history of examining the more absurd claims and claimants.

Rosemary Ainlsie, since 2009 -- I built and tested both the circuits she claimed to produce COP 17 and COP > Infinity (sic -- she really did claim that in all seriousness) and found that they do no such thing. I've got a duplicate of her COP INFINITY device right here, and anyone who likes is welcome to examine it and verify that it is what Ainslie "designed" and that it produces the same "evidence" for OU that she cited.... but is not OU. And I've been attacked and libelled continuously by her since then.... but ALL of her early collaborators and sycophants know now that I am correct and was all along. Bait, and switch. The first COP 17 claim was blasted out of the water and while trying herself to reproduce her own claimed results with that circuit and failing.... she came up with the NERD kludge, miswired her own demonstration device, lied about the schematic in use for over a month in this forum, and started her claims of COP > Infinity. This is still going on, too: I invite anyone who is interested to take a look at Ainslie and how she talks about me.... or rather Bryan Little, who she thinks, in her deluded trollness, I am.

Archer Quinn and the Sword of God: very similar to this case, Quinn claimed to have a working magnet/gravity wheel and carried on a long set of threads here pretending to "teach" people how to build one. People sent him money, which he spent on cigarettes and magnets, and finally when it became clear to all that he was a fraud, just as I had been telling them.... he vanished into the Australian outback. This one was so stupid that I saw no need at all to build anything to debunk it.... but many people DID believe him, spent money and sent him money. Bait, and switch: he went through several different radical "redesigns" before his last supporters fell away; the first builders were bemused at all the changes in his Sword of God that was already supposed to work before he started his threads.

MyLOW -- claimed to have built a HJ magnet motor that worked. Fraudster from the very beginning, he had "site visits" of the typical kind, he cynically showed himself visiting the grave of Howard Johnson, he measured his magnet position to the hundredth of a millimeter using a caliper that he bought with money people sent him.... all the while, I was telling everyone that he was a fraud, and I actually replicated his fraudulent technique and got him to admit that I was right and that he was faking. There's a lot more to this story, including him involving his brother and his wife in the fraud. Where is Mylow and his magic HJ motor now? Where is the award that Sterling Allan promised for the first replication of Mylow's motor, which I made, and which he acknowledged...... but he refused to actually GIVE me the promised award, because my replication of Mylow's motor and his drive system .... wasn't OU. It didn't seem to matter to Sterling that Mylow's wasn't either and that I used EXACTLY THE SAME method of driving that MyLow did: my replication was exact in all significant aspects. But no award for TK.... Very similar to the present case, where Webby got his two thousand dollars for his build, but when I demonstrate a perpetual self-powered water pump using a Zed system effectively .... I get nothing, because it's clear that my system is NOT OU. Bait... and switch.

Mondrasek's magnet assisted gravity wheel.... this one was interesting enough to me, since he did have a "new" idea, for me to do an all-out build, and my colleague JK came up with a good system for "latching" the magnets in the proper position to provide the weight shift.... and my build of the device "almost" works as Mond intended. With the addition of negative friction coefficient bearings, it would work just fine. I have some on order but the anticipated delivery date is sometime in 2024, and I just couldn't wait. Mond should tell you about that, though.... loss of sleep from his excitement, patent search, fees spent, time lost..... and finally he calculated correctly and convinced himself that his wheel is a non-starter. But I show it off to everyone who visits my other lab, and everyone is amazed... it really IS the best magnet/gravity wheel they've seen. Too bad it stops turning after a few turns. No bait and switch here: Mondrasek is the first and as far as I can tell the ONLY person I've seen make these claims with the integrity to admit that he was wrong in his idee fixe and correct his mistakes. That makes him an outstanding example and in spite of the accusations against me here, I hold him in the greatest regard for his honesty and integrity. And he knows this, so I care not one whit about the false accusations that I "attack" or disrespect Mondrasek.

Steorn's Orbo pulse motor and the claims of perpetual motion from a PM-only device....I analyzed their first Kinetica Orbo and determined that it was identical to Kohei Minato's claimed overunity magnet motor, in fact likely infringing on Minato's very real US patents, and would work just fine as long as the stator magnet was hand-held.  I built 2 major iterations of their electrically powered Orbo pulse motor, confirmed the "core effect" as a viable principle for driving a pulse motor, something that surprised me.... and which was the major Red Herring that fooled many people into believing in Steorn and perhaps even investing. I was actually the FIRST, even before McCarthy and his ilk, to show output power lighting LEDs from an Orbo motor, and if their claims were true, that light from my LEDs was FREE ENERGY in use. I also reproduced their instrumental measurements on my second Orbo, Orbette 2.0, and determined how the negatively accumulating energy integral was obtained in their video demonstrations. Where is Orbo now? Nowhere. Steorn is no longer making overunity free energy claims, and they've abandoned the motor with moving parts altogether, and are pushing a heater that uses a large thermal mass, kept hot, to heat a little water quickly. In short.... they are now trying to sell an on-demand electric water heater, and they've burned through over twenty million Euro over the years without producing a single Joule of excess energy. Bait, and switch. The original investors thought they were investing in a magnet motor that ran itself.

Rossi--- when he showed his ECat, on Krivit's video, making what he claimed was great output of steam, but only showed a little trickle coming out of the tube.... I boiled some water using the same input power that he used, and got the same small output of steam he showed, approximately, and then I used the power he _claimed_ was being output..... and I (and many others) got HUGE GOUTS of steam, far far more than Rossi showed. This proved to me, and many other people, that that demonstration at least was a hoax. Further examination of the Rossi story shows that he is a convicted fraudster, has done time in jail over his "petroldragon" waste oil recycling scam, has previously defrauded the US DoD with a "thermoelectric module" of high efficiency, that he could never deliver and that was finally scotched by a suspicious "factory fire".... and the thermoelectric modules of Rossi are never heard from again. Years later he comes up with the ECat, and has done the Mister Wayne thing of baiting and switching. Where is one of Rossi's early ECat systems, that he claimed worked clearly producing COP 6? Gone, that's where. Nobody will be able to test any Rossi system independently and comprehensively. Even his "one Megawatt" unit only made less than half that during its demo, and there was a 500 kW Diesel genset running the whole time of that demonstration.... and I wonder why. The Rossi story isn't over, but my involvement building hardware is. The Bait-and-Switch technique is very effective against replicators who get too close to the truth.... the model they try to replicate vanishes and a NEW better model using different principles is unveiled, so the claimant can stay a step ahead of his detractors. Just as in the present case and in the case of Steorn.

There are a few more projects that I've worked on, but these should show anyone who cares that I am willing to build stuff to examine claims, and that I have been right many times about my evaluations of various claimants and their projects. In fact, nobody that I have ever "accused" of not having what they claim... has actually HAD what they claim. Nobody. Could Mister Wayne be the very first one to PROVE ME WRONG? I think it's quite unlikely, but I'm willing to observe, and if I am wrong in this instance I'll gladly and happily admit it and apologise to anyone whose feathers I've ruffled. But the other way around.... it will never happen. The only person who I've debunked that still occasionally speaks kindly to me is Mondrasek. The others have vanished, except for Ainslie, who is like a zombie that cannot be stopped by any natural means, even though they are dead and the decaying flesh is falling from their bones. Figuratively of course. No apologies from anyone.

Much of my work with the claimants I cite above is documented in literally hundreds of video demonstrations on my YT channel. Insult me for my skepticism and my work and my attitude.... get in line, because you are in a long queue with lots of company. Try to prove me wrong (something that I welcome and encourage and challenge every one of my detractors with) ..... and you will find yourself alone, because nobody has done that yet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 05, 2012, 05:16:08 PM
TK -

I find it strange that three native speakers of English strongly objected to the way you handled yourself on this board yet you find your posts fitting. You say it is you that is being attacked. Hmmm.

You are entitled to your opininion. You may also continue to use your other Member names that you spawned, to agree with yourself.

I stand by my original advice to you though.

Tom

So now it appears that you are accusing me of having multiple accounts and sock puppets here. Where is your evidence for that? Stefan Hartmann, the owner of this site, can tell you just how wrong you are, since he has the IP logs. Why don't you ask him how many accounts I have here. Other member names that I spawned..... you are funny. It is as if you just cannot believe that anyone would possibly agree with me, and you believe that similar criticisms must be coming from the same person.
I stand by my original advice to you and all my detractors: Prove Me Wrong, with demonstrations, facts, outside checkable references. If you can't... then you may resort to the usual insults and mud slinging and lies... like your accusation that I am "spawning" multiple usernames. I don't really mind all that much because it says more about YOU than it does about me.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 05, 2012, 05:26:35 PM
.....................................This post is mostly for TinselKoala, because he tries so hard to show the errors of Mr. Wayne and his ardent followers.
Psychological studies have proven, a strong believe system can not be destroyed. So, no matter what amount of words, or scientific and technical arguments, or even actual proof that the system is not OU, nothing will ever convince Mr. Wayne and his apostles............................................
Greetings, Conrad
Some more page filler for good measure.
Conrad,  Sure it can be construed this way, but that is not the actual reality on the ground. The actuality is based on suspicion and mistrust.  Sure the point is well taken that TinselKoala and others (including me) want to see the “proof on the pudding” regarding the Travis theory presented by Wayne earlier in this thread.

An concept idea /invention delivery consists of 3 basic parts
1..  A logical reasoning/deduction/conclusion of a working theory
2..  A practical implementation/verification test of this working theory by the inventor
3..  A verification/replication of this working theory by a third party

In opposition;
TinselKoala tries so hard to point out items # 2 & 3 are not sufficiently demonstrated.
In that vain, Mr Tinselkoala has already concluded (due to the delivery delays for item #3)  that item #2  is also fraudulent and this implies by implication that #1 is also fraudulent.
Mr Tinselkoala never addressed/or objected or produced any counter argument to item #1, since he thinks understanding #1 is not important. He is also of the opinion that items #1 is not adequately explained by the inventor.

In support;
Mr. Wayne and his ardent followers, who have studied item #1  are convinced that Mr Wayne has applied sound scientific reasoning and logic to conclude that the hydro differential system principles can work as said and therefore conclude that a workings of item#2 are highly probable and possible and await the item #3 validation process.
In the same vain, Mr TinselKoala is on a tighter schedule, also waiting for the item #3 validation process but with less patience and without any clear understanding of items #1 & 2. 

Observations:
The track record of Mr TinselKoala has been interpreted as suspect by the orthodox methods used, unreasonable pressures applied throughout this threat (the carrot and stick approach (give me or “else” !).  The reason that previously several fraudulent inventors have crossed swords with Mr TinselKoala appears to have given Mr TinselKoala special recognition and that appear to have given him judge & jury powers.  Since this thread is now in the realm of psychology, I am not convinced that his motives are genuine.

Postscript: 
The underlying main reason that these odds here, stems from a basic misunderstanding of terms under which Wayne revealed his invention on this forum.  Wayne made it very clear at the very beginning that he came to share novel inventive but selective concepts and that he would not reveal all details of his invention to protect his IP,  he is not educating competitors.  This is supported by the simple inverted cup video’s
Neither did he come to the forum to seek any validation approval for his invention.
He stated to have come to this forum to share knowledge (item#1 only) and he clearly said that OU was not the objective of his revelations as related to his invention (it was said that his system generated a excess output without you having to put in an energy fuel, OU was not a consideration)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 05, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
TK -

If the CorreCaminos and Discerning Dave handles are not yours, then I stand corrected.
I thought they had your brand of wit and humor and I apologize if they are not yours.

Personally, I believe overall that your efforts to root out fraudsters over the years is commendable.
You are diligent, highly skilled, and very intelligent. 

Even the mighty TK is fallable though. You failed to mention in your write up of Steorn, your full involvement there. You were a majorly disruptive force at one point, causing many thousands of people to believe that you had an Overunity device. Your hoax video may have had different intentions at the time, but the result was harmful to the community. Many people went out and bought materials trying to replicate your hoax. In fact, there are still people hosting your video and perpetuating what you started.

So while I do appreciate your efforts for truth, I often don't agree with your methods.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 05, 2012, 06:15:33 PM


All in all it would have been quite an amazing coincidence if what I built performed similar to anything that Wayne has described as OU.  My build is what it is. 
 
But I can still test it to see what it can do and not do and what I can learn from it and share.
 
It is still pretty cool.  Seriously.
 
Now, lets do some science...
 
M.

Maybe Wayne's words can help you realise that you're too layer system should produce OU.

Quote from: mrwayne on September 07, 2012, 02:41:19 PM
Since I do not wish to be the director of "observation" - I leave that method and value up to the replicators.
A single system (105%) has only a paper value - you have nothing to give - but a dual system (160%-190%)
leaves you room to make mistakes - have losses - and to feel confident in your construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 05, 2012, 06:27:32 PM
Powercat-

IIRC,  Wayne was speaking about a single ZED with 3 layers  vs. Two Zeds in tandem, each with 3 layers.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 05, 2012, 06:30:10 PM
I'm done here, have to many important task to address. I may or not be back after the system is verified, depending on if I can find another OU site that want their members to discuss in peace and doesn't allow the continuous harassment by the concrete brains.
 
By the way, an IP address is easy to change, just google it. It is used by some with MMD (Multiple Member Disorder). I love it when they use the alias to ask questions, so they can make a point they want to express, true psychopaths. Anyone interested should press on Discerning Dave's name and do a show post. Can you guess who he really is?
 
I stand by my earlier statement that I already know the results. It is from facts, seen, replicated and calculated. So please don't follow the delusional conclusions of others.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: conradelektro on November 05, 2012, 07:05:54 PM
Red-Sunset wrote:

-----------------------------------
Postscript: 
The underlying main reason that these odds here, stems from a basic misunderstanding of terms under which Wayne revealed his invention on this forum.  Wayne made it very clear at the very beginning that he came to share novel inventive but selective concepts and that he would not reveal all details of his invention to protect his IP,  he is not educating competitors.  This is supported by the simple inverted cup video’s
Neither did he come to the forum to seek any validation approval for his invention.
He stated to have come to this forum to share knowledge (item#1 only) and he clearly said that OU was not the objective of his revelations as related to his invention (it was said that his system generated a excess output without you having to put in an energy fuel, OU was not a consideration)
   -----------------------------------

Strange declarations like this "Postscript" are the clearest indications that we are in the realm of psychology. This is not science, this is the most undesired double talk one can encounter. If someone talks to me like this face to face in real life, out he goes by the door. Such two tongued creatures only come close to me once.

Here in this forum strange creatures can loiter, because OU is by nature on the fringe of society. One has to give leeway. But one does not have to approve.

Greetings, Conrad

 

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 05, 2012, 07:11:32 PM
Strange declarations like this "Postscript" are the clearest indications that we are in the realm of psychology. This is not science, this is the most undesired double talk one can encounter. If someone talks to me like this face to face in real life, out he goes by the door. Such two tongued creatures only come close to me once.
Here in this forum strange creatures can loiter, because OU is by nature on the fringe of society. One has to give leeway. But one does not have to approve.
Greetings, Conrad 

Do yourself a favor, you understand english, then read from the beginning of this forum with comprehension (start at page #1)
This is something Tinsel has to learn too.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 05, 2012, 07:17:24 PM
..................................................... Try to prove me wrong (something that I welcome and encourage and challenge every one of my detractors with) ..... and you will find yourself alone, because nobody has done that yet.
I wouldn't blow my trumpet too loud of I was you.
TinselKoala, I haven't seen you proving anything, only making demands.  From a gambling viewpoint, the odds for proclaiming "this can never work", is then easy when the odd are predominantly against OU  in a big way.(as seamus stated, no takers for the last 200years"), Sure this makes betting against OU is obvious very lucrative.  I don't see much smartness in that, only  a opportunistic disposition.

So a better forum name would be 'OU-Debunking.com' instead of 'OVERUNITY.COM' site.
Interesting
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 05, 2012, 07:37:42 PM
Powercat-

IIRC,  Wayne was speaking about a single ZED with 3 layers  vs. Two Zeds in tandem, each with 3 layers.

Tom

Hi Tom,
thanks for that, I found another quote that seems more specific, I still can't understand why any replications
have not shown overunity.
Quote from: mrwayne on August 08, 2012, 03:48:39 PM
Be warned - you need three layers to have robust over unity - 5 and 6 layers are the best numbers of layers.
The two layer model was only 104% efficient upstroke - a simple capture method to use the exhaust will boost that
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 05, 2012, 08:42:56 PM

AN CIVILIZED EXEMPLARY MODEL OF A SKEPTIC RESPONSE

« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2012, 10:44:11 AM »
I really hate to be the one raining on this parade, but this idea won't work, and here's why.
blah.......blah.....................blah

Never seen any skeptic response in this thread presented in this way, WHY !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 05, 2012, 09:58:12 PM
I suggest you read the thread properly MileHigh has done this on a number of occasions as well as others,
since it is Wayne who is making the claim, most members believe it is his responsibility to prove his case,
from the evidence he has provided so far no one has been able to produce a clear overunity device or a
self-running one.

And the amount of excuses he gives for delaying verification makes him someone not to be trusted on his word
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on November 06, 2012, 01:04:33 AM
By the way, an IP address is easy to change, just google it. It is used by some with MMD (Multiple Member Disorder). I love it when they use the alias to ask questions, so they can make a point they want to express, true psychopaths. Anyone interested should press on Discerning Dave's name and do a show post. Can you guess who is really is?

I'll take it as a compliment that you think I'm TK. However, I haven't his background knowledge nor the time to write all those posts.  (I doubt TK will take your accusation as a compliment.)

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 06, 2012, 01:22:15 AM
I finally got the testing done that I was trying for all weekend.  I'll skip the long post since I need to tend to other things right now, but here is the important info:  The stroke distance has been changed to only 7mm.  The volume of water change is achieved and measured using a 12 ml plastic syringe through a prefilled siphon tube that has been snaked into the original fill tube and is down below the minimum levels that tube ever approaches.
 
System was stroked to the bottom of the 7mm and then the 1000 gram lift mass was installed.  Readings were taken and then increments of 5 ml of water were added via the syringe/siphon tube and readings taken again.  This was repeated 18 times.  The final input water increment was only 2 ml since this brought the stroke into the top stop.  At this point the lift mass was removed and readings taken again.  Then the water was removed first with the final 2 ml volume and then again by 5 ml increments to repeat the data points used in the upstroke.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 06, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Just some useless usage of some poor electrons.
The use of normal forces and interactions in the normal method will yield to normal results.
When these forces and interactions are not used in the normal method then the results may or may not yield normal results, they may be different than expected.
When a result that is different than expected is encountered then causality is what needs to be found, investigated, so that eventually an understanding of that difference will be known.
Over time and over many threads TK has demonstrated a large practical knowledge in many disciplines, even if his method of posting and challenging things is unsavory his abilities should not be readily discounted.
TK has posted that he had an unexpected result from his Tinsel Zed augmented pump.
This observation from TK should be used as a reason for further investigation, the results that have been posted about performance should be used as a reason for further investigation.
When causality of the unexpected results is understood then we will be able to move forward with a better understanding of the world around us.
Webby1,
You provide some very wise words that are easy overlooked.
Wayne provided a clear method we could use to advance but we all chose to ignore it and rather proceeded with bickering about what he has "to do" rather than what we "can do" with the information provided.
Is this normal human nature?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on November 06, 2012, 05:49:18 AM
TK is a solid good guy and has done a lot of great work over the years.  No one should doubt his honesty, integrity or sincerity.

There are clearly attempts being made to establish credibility for the claim by repeatedly making references to the alleged proof of the operating principle as described in certain posts in the thread.  Repeated attempts are being made to make it appear that the skeptics are unable to understand the alleged theory.  This is an attempt to portray the skeptics as simply unable to grasp what is allegedly going on because of their fixed mindset.  If you read this over and over it can have an influence on some people that can be easily swayed by this kind of talk.

This is all in fact complete nonsense.  There is nothing whatsoever in this thread that could even remotely be considered a logical line of reasoning that is "proof" that this ZED system is possible.  The alleged proof is just a bunch of carefully crafted sentences put together that in fact say nothing at all.  Another simple fact is that it's extremely difficult to describe how a complex mechanical device operates without the aid of schematic diagrams and charts and timing diagrams.  Since the culture of the free energy forums has always been like this, take the example of people talking about electronic circuits without the aid of electrical schematics, this strategy blends in nicely and becomes less noticeable.

So, there is a not-so-subliminal attempt to "play" the audience with the understanding on the part of the player that some of them will be swayed and actually believe what they read.  But the real truth is that there have been no logical explanations offered for how this system could possibly work.  There are simply a bunch of convincing sounding sentences strung together that seem to sound credible but are in fact not credible.

You all just have to be honest with yourselves and ask yourselves if you have ever read an explanation for how the ZED allegedly works where you truly understood what was being said.  I can draw an analogy to the back and forth discussions between beginners in electronics where both parties are seemingly having an interesting discussion about a circuit, but I can't make head or tail of what they are talking about.  They regularly use concepts and have a lingo that is outside the realm of real electronics.  It's like they have made up there own pseudo technical language to describe how electronic circuits operate.  It may sound convincing to another newbie reading the conversation, but to my trained ear it's in reality nonsensical pseudo technical gibberish that means next to nothing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 06, 2012, 06:18:04 AM
I suggest you read the thread properly MileHigh has done this on a number of occasions as well as others,
since it is Wayne who is making the claim, most members believe it is his responsibility to prove his case,
from the evidence he has provided so far no one has been able to produce a clear overunity device or a
self-running one.
And the amount of excuses he gives for delaying verification makes him someone not to be trusted on his word
Powercat,
Only looking on the surface, I would agree with your message. Sure he could have given more !
If you all would have read the forum properly you would have been discussing, improving, debunking, expanding the Travis theory. Because like spaghetti, the taste is in the sauce.  Could Wayne be more detailed, explanatory, to the point, provided more information... YES, he could have .....but ask the question, was he given a chance ?  Why did he depart ?  and you still think he owns the forum something.. an obligation... 
Do not be surprised why you do not get an update on new developments, or test activity, because in his eyes you became general public.  Accept it with grace because you might have been given too much already.

Copied from older posts, some samples of Wayne's posting declaring his intentions and relationship to the forum << Pertinent text is in bold>>

« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2011, 11:07:46 PM »
My motivation to share this with all of you - is purely to validate what each of you have dreamed is possible, and just maybe - you will direct me to the like minded  people who will join the company.
I am nobody, But I am sincerely concerned for the worlds need of energy, and the impact supporting unsustainable and unsafe energy production.
Lastly - I am not concerned about what other people think about my efforts, no disrespect - but if I were to listen to all the nay Sayers -I would have never tried.

« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2011, 11:07:46 PM »
I am not surprised by the way I am treated - even here - everyone thinks money will just fall from tree's when the O/U discovery is made. To use the need of money to deny a claim is inexperienced reasoning.
Have any of you offered to help, not yet, most everyone is looking for the fault.
Skepticism is a sign of intellect, but facts are little more reliable -and more important.

Reply #24 on: April 11, 2011, 04:57:58 PM »
OK, the real over unity device is going off line.
If and when I am sure it is safe, I will release all IP here, you all deserve to know.


« Reply #94 on: May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM »
We are further along in our research than anyone on this forum understands yet.
OPEN SOURCE comments:  I do have a reason for posting here - and not disclosing:

« Reply #454 on: June 13, 2012, 05:25:54 AM »
Nay sayers are welcome if the remain respectful - If you want to know for sure - get in your car, on a plane and knock on my door - I love sharing our work.
Don't expect that from your insults I am going to feel obligated to you.
We have released our progress and I have spent considerable time sharing our hard earned research with those respectful enough study and ask.
Lastly regarding The Law - we have yet to claim and will not claim "over Ideal" or more than the energy available in the simple physics of our design -
We have very clearly claimed to be able to operate at a lower than we can generate. I have even explained how.
The entire thread on defying the laws is your interpretation of what we have - not ours.

« Reply #699 on: June 24, 2012, 03:32:27 PM »
My Patent attorney told me that few people could - or would wrap their heads around a system (like ours) that had so many naturally correlating effects within the system - you are doing well!
On that note: does it amaze you yet on how much is going on in basically a single moving part (when they are attached together).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 06, 2012, 08:59:33 AM
Those dates are pretty telling, there, Red. The posts you quote span over a year and a half up to today!!

But checking his website you can clearly see that he is indeed claiming overunity, free energy, and all of that. But there isn't any report yet of what happened this weekend. If you find one, or know about any backchannel communications about the events of the weekend, please let me know right away.

@GreenHiker:
I think I know the incident you are talking about. Can you please provide a link to where I, under any alias at all, ever claimed any overunity performance?  I'll buy you a pizza and a glass of beer if you can. The device, IIRC, was originally exhibited specifically to refute a claim made by Omnibus, not having to do with OU at all but with the AGW rotation and drag reduction concerned, it was posted and brought to his attention, and then the original was taken down less than half an hour after it was posted. You will find that all of the copies you see are taken from someone's quick-thinking screen capture during that time period, and that the claims of overunity performance happened after that fact and none of them came from me. I think I can still find some links where it was clearly explained that the device in question was NOT, and never could be, overunity or exhibit anything out of the ordinary. If I showed you a set of wings flapping, but told you specifically that you could not fly with them, and then you broke your ankle trying to fly off the roof of the barn..... would it be my fault? What I mean is this: those thousands of people you mention clearly did NOT believe what they were being told, straight out, full truth.... measurements that indicated 17000 joules of onboard energy storage, for example, based on rotor power dissipation measurements, or the overnight running with RPMs reported every few minutes, which when graphed clearly indicate a slow decrease in RPM.... these people chose NOT to believe what they were being told, and instead chose all on their own to try to make an overunity device based on what they had seen. Is it surprising that they failed to make an OU device? While yet succeeding in replicating the red herrings of AGW stator rotation, the stabilising effect of the magnokinetic judson dampers that even depended on a specific aluminum alloy, the reduction in drag and rotor acceleration caused by the AGW stators? Lots of people replicated all those features without difficulty. (Moving stators.... lol.) CLaNZeR's nice graphs comparing judson damper materials, showing a clear difference with the specified alloy working the best,  were some of the nicest data I've seen, and I know he never expected any OU performance. If those people had believed what they were being clearly and definitely told, and simply tried to reproduce what they saw, they would have had much better luck, I think. But they chose to believe their fantasies instead. Blame me for that? Sure, and the poor student who flunks an announced exam will also blame her teacher for her own inadequacies.
Are you aware that the designer of that device, Overconfident, or 0C sometimes, died from a malignant metastasis of his melanoma cancer? All through his brain it was. I considered him a friend, a very level headed fellow, with a pretty good grasp of reality until close to the end. His device, too, would have worked as a true OU motor if only he had some of those negative coefficient of friction bearings. I hope you aren't confusing him and his claims and hopes, with me and mine.
I feel sorry for those people who feel that they wasted their time on that project, but I don't feel responsible for their folly at all, any more than I would if you broke your ankle jumping off the barn with my model wings that I told you wouldn't support your weight. OK... so it's my fault that I left them out for you to see and dream about.
I really wish I could discuss that project further, because it has some really profound implications, some of which are being repeated right before our very eyeballs, but I can't.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 06, 2012, 10:59:37 AM
Powercat,
Only looking on the surface, I would agree with your message. Sure he could have given more !
If you all would have read the forum properly you would have been discussing, improving, debunking, expanding the Travis theory. Because like spaghetti, the taste is in the sauce.  Could Wayne be more detailed, explanatory, to the point, provided more information... YES, he could have .....but ask the question, was he given a chance ?  Why did he depart ?  and you still think he owns the forum something.. an obligation... 
Do not be surprised why you do not get an update on new developments, or test activity, because in his eyes you became general public.  Accept it with grace because you might have been given too much already.

Copied from older posts, some samples of Wayne's posting declaring his intentions and relationship to the forum << Pertinent text is in bold>>

You talk about chances mrwayne has had so many chances he has been claiming overunity for over a year,
and blaming this forum is ridiculous he's only been here since April and he has his own website,
none of the members here can post on his website, so he has more than enough chances to prove his case.

Wayne's promising words and statements,
he is doing exactly the same sort of stuff he did on this forum on his website, keep promising the verification team
is about to turn up, keep saying the devices running better and improvements have been made, keep saying important
information about how the machine runs will be released shortly.
These are all great words for people who want to believe by faith alone...With the faith you don't have to know
the facts....You don't have to build a device or test it....You know it works because you believe.

I can not run my house on blind faith and neither can anyone else, and so far Wayne's evidence has been
Seriously lacking in Scientific Data...verification, and successful replications showing clear overunity
Yes I know he says this has all been done but that is just his words, his words are not proof,
unless of course you are a believer and follow blindly.

Very interesting you posted a list of quotes from mrwayne that actually say very little,
I think I will do the same and make a list that show Wayne's words are not to be trusted.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 12:01:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odUxMlud0Xg
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 07, 2012, 01:26:40 AM
I'm a little surprised this wasn't the one posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dzRdyC0abA
LOL
Great tunes
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 07, 2012, 02:30:05 AM
Wayne's words
These statements are by Wayne Travis except for one by Mark Dansie,
this seriously doesn't look like someone who can be trusted on their word.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review

Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.

Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world

Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.

Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it over and over

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!

Quote from: mrwayne on October 15 on his web site
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

Quote from: mrwayne on--------------------- November 6 on his web site
Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation?
Me too.

Now http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 07, 2012, 03:36:52 AM
This is somewhat off-topic but there are a lot of parallels.
Most of us have other specific areas of interest that are closer to "the norm" than free energy and there are emerging technologies all around us; some succeed, some fail....
I'm into aviation
Anyone want to debate the Moller SkyCar?
I just received a newsletter from Samson Motorworks  about their SwitchBlade prototype.
http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/
What's their current banner? "Welcome to the future"
This thing is heavily - privately - funded and is way behind schedule; they've been actively seeking funding and taking pre-orders - for models.... It may or may not ever "fly".

 In my opinion; it might just be one of the "coolest" rich boy toys to attempt market entry - or a glimpse at a possible future. They are working within the confines of well understood and tested physics and are still struggling.

Has Wayne been overly optimistic about his goals - yes.
Have I personally invested in the possibility - yes, time and some money (not to Wayne, just in materials).
Am I a full fledged believer - No, not yet.
Has Wayne asked anyone to "Buy" into the project? - not to my knowledge - people have volunteered - and there was one "now is the time" comment on the site.

Contribute if you feel like it or just move on - this wouldn't be the first forum thread to just fade away.
Remain so focused on specific deliverables?
Is that why any of us are here?
Dale
 

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 05:18:08 AM
Wow. Thanks for compiling that list, powercat... that is truly amazing. And the present Nov 6 post is definitely worth reading. Here's a little excerpt:

Quote
I decided that 160% was not good enough - and considering our latest physical testing of our TAZ is 960% - I think the timing is just about right.

That's right, all you skeptics. Two weeks ago 160 percent was good. Now they are up to 960 percent..... I wonder how they keep it from blowing up entirely....

Wait.... 960 percent of WHAT? 
If the thing has NO INPUT............. and it's outputting 960 percent of that......... well, I guess you get what you pay for.

Or maybe you just get what you deserve, in the end.

9.6 times nothing is..... nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeolH-kzx4c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeolH-kzx4c)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 05:53:05 AM
Dale.... aviation already has plenty of ways to kill people. The "skycar" is an idea whose time came, and went, a long time ago. I'm sure you remember convertible airplanes whose wings folded out of the way, so you could drive them down the road. The skies were a lot less crowded then, people were happy to go 80 mph in the air and 40 mph on the ground..... But nowadays, a skycar like the Moller isn't a "car" that can be driven on the highways at all, the concept has changed. It's another extremely high performance aircraft that will take a lot of skill and ability to fly in the first place and will also have a lot of failure modes that are more helicopter-like than airplane-like, and it will be too expensive for anyone but Ferrari and Lamborghini owners to afford.
Plus.... you drive on the freeways I'm sure. Do you really want to give a lot of those people another two degrees of freedom? They can barely handle straight-and-level on the _ground_, much less at altitude.
 8)
(aviator's Ray-Bans, of course.)

ETA: there have been "thank yous" and various acknowledgements to investors and donors. I str that MrWayne's parents were among the principal donor/investors.
Checking... Yep>>

Quote
Financial Investors:
My Mother and Step Dad, Linda And Dwight Wasco, who initially helped to fund the patent attorney and then continued to be a resource of help and inspiration.
My uncle Al Travis – structural engineer, who grasped my vision and initial discovery and funded its research and legal fees without reservation!
My Uncle Lloyd Hooker - who worked by my side through two prototypes and helped to keep me motivated through the many set backs.
My Step Aunt and Uncle, Ed and Janet Wasco, who saw the reality and genuine gift this discovery is to the world and chose to support me and the venture!
Kevan Riley - hydraulic engineer, a friend and engineer who repeatedly had to calculate and verify my calculations on the prototypes and experiments.
Richard Larson - Electrical engineer, a friend and engineer who designed and wrote the many programs to collect our Data, and operate our system.
Kathaleen Reid-Martinez, Phd, a friend and Advisor, who helped direct and discern our direction.
Mark Dansie - Technology Skeptic, a friend and Advisor, who helped guide the applications and functionality of our system.
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/special-thanks (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/special-thanks)


Wait a minute.... what is Mark Dansie doing on the list of Financial Investors???
 :o
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 06:24:51 AM
Wayne's words
These statements are by Wayne Travis except for one by Mark Dansie,
this seriously doesn't look like someone who can be trusted on their word.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
............................................

Hi PowerCat,
Fine work !! I really appreciate how you make a good point,  your point made is very clear based on the extracts. And I sure can not refute the points you are trying to make !!  and I am not going to try either.
Since I am not intimate to Wayne's exact business and development strategy and modus operandi, I therefore will not try to argue because I would be on thin ice and sucking my thumb if I do.
This is the way I envisage a good forum should work, clear informed position statements, rebuttals and counter arguments based on fact and backed up with documentation rather than emotional outbursts !  Something Wayne referred to several times as due diligence.

In that context a few comments,
1.. Wildew makes a good position point in # 2875 and mine would be in similar vain because I believe the concept can and will work (based on my own deductions, not on Wayne's directly although they conspire in part). I better build my own to prove as you are doing (but dual zed).

2.. TinselKoala makes a presumptuous emotional  attack in # 2876,  they might be his biased on his personal feelings and opinions but they should not find a place on this forum.  His personal  emotional infused utterings are of no benefit to anyone, only creates bad feelings.  A structured logical argument would be better here.
The reference from MH that says that, "TK is a solid good guy and has done a lot of great work over the years.  No one should doubt his honesty, integrity or sincerity" , I have no doubt that he "was", but at THAT moment in time, it should be corrected NOW to read " TK WAS a solid good guy ......... but lately lost his handle on things."

3.. MileHigh makes some good points in post #2968,  unfortunately it is just too high level and too broad without any specifics to do anything with or about. This brings it into the category of personal opinion but does nothing to further this topic.
To find resolve, more specific questions need to be asked backed with reference otherwise it just remains talk to talk.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 06:38:24 AM
......................................
ETA: there have been "thank yous" and various acknowledgements to investors and donors. I str that MrWayne's parents were among the principal donor/investors.
Financial Investors:
My Mother and Step Dad, Linda And Dwight Wasco, who initially helped to fund the patent attorney and then continued to be a resource of help and inspiration.
My uncle Al Travis – structural engineer, who grasped my vision and initial discovery and funded its research and legal fees without reservation!
My Uncle Lloyd Hooker - who worked by my side through two prototypes and helped to keep me motivated through the many set backs.
My Step Aunt and Uncle, Ed and Janet Wasco, who saw the reality and genuine gift this discovery is to the world and chose to support me and the venture!
Kevan Riley - hydraulic engineer, a friend and engineer who repeatedly had to calculate and verify my calculations on the prototypes and experiments.
Richard Larson - Electrical engineer, a friend and engineer who designed and wrote the many programs to collect our Data, and operate our system.
Kathaleen Reid-Martinez, Phd, a friend and Advisor, who helped direct and discern our direction.
Mark Dansie - Technology Skeptic, a friend and Advisor, who helped guide the applications and functionality of our system.
Checking... Yep>>
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/special-thanks (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/special-thanks)
Wait a minute.... what is Mark Dansie doing on the list of Financial Investors???

TinselKoala,
That was good spotting !
I have read this before myself, but my penny didn't drop on it. I believed it to be an acknowledgement to friends who had some part along the way to further the Zed concept, but that is the section a bit lower down.
I missed the "Financial Investors:" heading.     INTERESTING  , possibly typing position mistake ?
If it is real at this point in time, that would be a WHAMMY!!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 07, 2012, 07:04:49 AM
TinselKoala,
That was good spotting !
I have read this before myself, but my penny didn't drop on it. I believed it to be an acknowledgement to friends who had some part along the way to further the Zed concept, but that is the section a bit lower down.
I missed the "Financial Investors:" heading.     INTERESTING  , possibly typing position mistake ?
If it is real at this point in time, that would be a WHAMMY!!

I have been specifically asked by Mark not to engage in this forum, due to the obvious "Jihadists against free energy".
 
I agreed with Mark regarding the continual manipulation of our activities, words, and circumstances ..... which continues here today.
 
Yet to protect the innocent: here is my response and apology.
 
Listing Mark under financial contributor was an error.
 
Thank you for the catch - and I corrected the heading to be clear - Mark has been an invaluable advisor - as described after his name as is consistent with every other persons individual type of contribution.
 
I have pointed out clearly and repeatedly my respect and admiration for Mark and his guidance.
 
It was out of respect for his counsel and advice that he was listed on the page of special contributors.
 
My mistake for not noticing the possible confusion until now, and my apology for any confusion I may have contributed.
 
Thank you for the question to bring clarity.

Added: Also - Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly independant and extremely qualified Validation team.

Mark is one of my friends, a good man, and wise in his actions.
 
Now back to work.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 08:03:33 AM
Before you go.... don't you want to explain how, if you have no input, you can be 960 percent efficient?

Since efficiency is the ratio of output to input, if you have no input but some usable output you actually have E = OUT/Zero, and that's either undefined or infinite, depending on how much math you had in school.

But if you mean that you have 9.6 times more output than input.... and you have zero input, that means your output is 9.6 times zero, and that's zero, in anyone's math.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ5-BTdcqjk

You guys had better be careful up there. If you create a black hole or something, messing around with gravity like that, I'm too close for comfort down here near Comfort, Texas.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 08:17:55 AM
Before you go.... don't you want to explain how, if you have no input, you can be 960 percent efficient?
Since efficiency is the ratio of output to input, if you have no input but some usable output you actually have E = OUT/Zero, and that's either undefined or infinite, depending on how much math you had in school.
But if you mean that you have 9.6 times more output than input.... and you have zero input, that means your output is 9.6 times zero, and that's zero, in anyone's math.

Yes, TinselKoala, That is how it would be when you want to act stupid about it.
I suggest you follow the good example of 'PowerCat'.  admirable!!    You could recall and refer to previous posts by Wayne, where he explains how he measures OU and efficiencies on the Zed system.
No..No..that is not what you want to do, you rather throw some meaningless emotional rocks around, as if you have a score to settle ? Have you..?

Not good my boy !! not good !!

Why don't you take yourself and your dog up to Oklahoma and pay Wayne a visit, this would do yourself, this forum and the whole a world a lot of good !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 09:45:31 AM
Yes, TinselKoala, That is how it would be when you want to act stupid about it.
I suggest you follow the good example of 'PowerCat'.  admirable!!    You could recall and refer to previous posts by Wayne, where he explains how he measures OU and efficiencies on the Zed system.
No..No..that is not what you want to do, you rather throw some meaningless emotional rocks around, as if you have a score to settle ? Have you..?

Not good my boy !! not good !!

Why don't you take yourself and your dog up to Oklahoma and pay Wayne a visit, this would do yourself, this forum and the whole a world a lot of good !!
Mister Wayne's "explanations" do not explain anything in any language I speak. Energy and work are measured in Joules in the Systeme Internationale, used by scientists and engineers around the world. Efficiency is the ratio of output energy to input energy, or equivalently, work. Ratios are expressed by division. That is just the way it is. And Mister Wayne has repeatedly said that there is NO INPUT.
That is NOT meaningless!!  Would you care to dispute any of those specific points?? Or are you satisfied with calling me names and slinging more mud at me?

If you are referring to Mister Wayne's calling an airconditioner overunity..... well, as long as you don't take into consideration the energy it takes to run it..... oh come on, pull the other one why don't you. This is absurd.

And are you offering me a contract? I doubt if you can afford my daily rate, and I have a penalty clause in my standard contract that says if I get there and am NOT shown what I have been offered to see, for any reason not of my doing, whether act of God or war or tsunami or parts left on the loading dock or whatever, I turn around and go home immediately, with three full days paid at my usual rate.

You get my sarcasm, humor, critical analysis based on what I read here and there, and you get to sling mud at me for free. But if you want me to travel.... you must pay, and there will be conditions.

But you don't have to pay Maggie, she works for biscuits.

But all that is moot anyway. I don't want to be anywhere near something that's ten feet tall, groans like a sick Texas Longhorn, and is 960 percent overunity.... and keeps springing leaks.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 10:12:32 AM
Mister Wayne's "explanations" do not explain anything in any language I speak. Energy and work are measured in Joules in the Systeme Internationale, used by scientists and engineers around the world. Efficiency is the ratio of output energy to input energy, or equivalently, work. Ratios are expressed by division. That is just the way it is. And Mister Wayne has repeatedly said that there is NO INPUT.
That is NOT meaningless!!  Would you care to dispute any of those specific points?? Or are you satisfied with calling me names and slinging more mud at me?

If you are referring to Mister Wayne's calling an airconditioner overunity..... well, as long as you don't take into consideration the energy it takes to run it..... oh come on, pull the other one why don't you. This is absurd.

And are you offering me a contract? I doubt if you can afford my daily rate, and I have a penalty clause in my standard contract that says if I get there and am NOT shown what I have been offered to see, for any reason not of my doing, whether act of God or war or tsunami or parts left on the loading dock or whatever, I turn around and go home immediately, with three full days paid at my usual rate.

You get my sarcasm, humor, critical analysis based on what I read here and there, and you get to sling mud at me for free. But if you want me to travel.... you must pay, and there will be conditions.

But you don't have to pay Maggie, she works for biscuits.

But all that is moot anyway. I don't want to be anywhere near something that's ten feet tall, groans like a sick Texas Longhorn, and is 960 percent overunity.... and keeps springing leaks.

Tinsel,    The communication is getting so absurd and surreal that I question why we even communicate.
But to help an associate in distress, we need to go the long haul. Because we are human.
No, I am not slinging or trying to sling mud at you or maggie.
And no, do not get any idea's that I am offering you or maggie a contract or biscuits. 
I was only suggesting a possible road to recovery.

Instead of giving me generic explanations and statements, tell me in detail how Wayne said he measured efficiency in that other language ?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 10:42:21 AM
..........................................................  What flummoxes me in this whole comedy is how Mr Wayne can continue to believe this lie when by now all the evidence points to what we as skeptics already know for sure. This machine cannot work. There is 200 years at least of unassailable science that shows why and everyone would be wise to learn from that.

Seamus,
You making general statements that flummoxes me in this whole comedy you skeptics have laid on.
OK, the machine can not work !!! 
Why can this specific creation from Wayne not work the way he said ?. That is what I need to hear from you,  there is not one case made in the past 200 pages of this forum that does that. Only generics, "There is 200 years at least of unassailable science that shows why" >> that is a history lesson, not a reasoning of impossibility!!   Sure it accentuates that it is and will be a tuff call to disprove a 200yr blockage.

If you thinking that you are making a convincing case, you are not.
I think Wayne made a convincing case that held up under critical analysis and number validation, that shows a "possible" way out of these 200 years.

What are we to believe ?, "good logical reasoning" or "that history can not be overcome" ?  I would go with good logical reasoning , keeping the knowledge of history into account and go along UNTIL PROVEN DIFFERENT. (I would stay away from those 100 jumping people that look at each other dumbfounded, I rather follow my head)

This "PROVEN DIFFERENT" you have NOT provided, Why?  There is enough material to base your negative analysis on.
I know that takes work and time to do.   Are you taking the easy way out ?

UNTIL PROVEN DIFFERENT, 
UNTIL THE FAULT IN THE REASONING FLOW IS POINTED OUT. 
>>UNTIL THEN, I STAND and BELIEVE UNSHAKABLE<<

*** This also means
 - I do not have to repeat that Wayne's theory can work
 - And neither do you have to repeat that it doesn't
Until new specific proof is presented for evaluation to the contrary of either point
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 07, 2012, 11:09:55 AM
Hi PowerCat,
Fine work !! I really appreciate how you make a good point,  your point made is very clear based on the extracts. And I sure can not refute the points you are trying to make !!  and I am not going to try either.
Since I am not intimate to Wayne's exact business and development strategy and modus operandi, I therefore will not try to argue because I would be on thin ice and sucking my thumb if I do.
This is the way I envisage a good forum should work, clear informed position statements, rebuttals and counter arguments based on fact and backed up with documentation rather than emotional outbursts !  Something Wayne referred to several times as due diligence.

In that context a few comments,
1.. Wildew makes a good position point in # 2875 and mine would be in similar vain because I believe the concept can and will work (based on my own deductions, not on Wayne's directly although they conspire in part). I better build my own to prove as you are doing (but dual zed).

2.. TinselKoala makes a presumptuous emotional  attack in # 2876,  they might be his biased on his personal feelings and opinions but they should not find a place on this forum.  His personal  emotional infused utterings are of no benefit to anyone, only creates bad feelings.  A structured logical argument would be better here.
The reference from MH that says that, "TK is a solid good guy and has done a lot of great work over the years.  No one should doubt his honesty, integrity or sincerity" , I have no doubt that he "was", but at THAT moment in time, it should be corrected NOW to read " TK WAS a solid good guy ......... but lately lost his handle on things."

3.. MileHigh makes some good points in post #2968,  unfortunately it is just too high level and too broad without any specifics to do anything with or about. This brings it into the category of personal opinion but does nothing to further this topic.
To find resolve, more specific questions need to be asked backed with reference otherwise it just remains talk to talk.

You really don't get the purpose of this forum, most of the members here are interested in finding overunity
or doing research into ways this might be possible...mainly working on improving efficiency,
TK does a lot of work on this and also helps others understand their circuit and how to measure correctly,
he is not the only one there are many great members here helping each other and getting along very nicely.

It is not up to any member here to prove anything to you, they are not making claims of overunity,
and that's the big point you keep missing....  If Wayne had come here to discuss an idea or looking
to develop one, do you really think he would have got the treatment you think is unjustified.
Try try looking at some other threads where overunity is not being claimed.

Do you think this is the first time this forum has seen a promising claim of overunity.
Again Wayne is the big I am...I've done it....it works...I have got overunity...
and he is saying that to a forum of people mainly interested in overunity and discovering it,
you seem to believe we should just accept his word for it....he is also seriously lacking
in Scientific Data...verification, and successful replications showing clear overunity.

Unfortunately you are completely addicted to this thread, and believe in Wayne's device blindly,
challenges will continue until Wayn comes up with some proper evidence.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 11:32:03 AM
Red, with enemies like you, who needs friends?  ;D

I believe you just asked _me_ to explain Mister Wayne's explanations to _you_. Yep... that's absurd all right.

Here's the thing. A person has an idea, perhaps it came to him in a dream or a vision or by prayer or whatever. He sketches it out, thinks about it, takes a bath, and has an Eureka! moment. His logic is impeccable and his sketches look right and even some b.o.e. calculations give tempting results. He's absolutely sure that a device made on the principle revealed in his vision will work and will be revolutionary, running itself and giving out more energy than it takes in. He's a charismatic individual and a born salesman and lives within a closeknit family, small town civic and religious circle of friends and relations. He's able to convince a lot of people to back him simply because he is so sure of himself, and quite honestly so.
So he gets to building. The nature of the vision, the device and the forces concerned mean that the device is working back and forth around a delicate balance. It's big and bulky and the differential is small.... but it almost works, almost takes off and runs itself.... but comes to a stop in a few minutes. Well, it's just a preliminary version, but all the backers come around, have coffee or beers, talk and look and are still sure that their boy is on to something. They don't quite understand what, but as long as he does... and he seems to, he's got these explanations that sound pretty good I guess, don't they to you Honey? Let's pick up some chicken on the way home...
Anyway...what happens now. The machine doesn't quite work. The inventor goes home but can't sleep. He has two ways to think about his experience but he only sees one.

Way number one: The scientist looks at the DATA from the experiment, which she knows is good.... so she examines her THEORY to find where it is flawed.
Way number two: The person of faith looks at the Theory, which he knows is True, and therefore there must be something wrong with the experiment, like the apparatus or the materials or the conditions.

Mister Wayne is a person of faith, not a scientist, and sees only the second way of thinking of the situation. And he's been through, taking his word, nine iterations of this process and is on the tenth. Nine experiments telling him he cannot make a self running device. But he is quite sure his theory is correct.... so he builds a tenth system, improving a little bit more, solving some of the problems, learning how to do hydraulic pressure plumbing properly, how to use a torque wrench, how to get curved paths out of linear hardware, and having a jolly good time. Each iteration is a little different and usually cannibalizes the previous iteration, so there's nothing stored back in the barn to ship off to independent testers.  Meanwhile.... even the other people of faith are having trouble swallowing the latest miracle.

How many times have we seen this process repeated, just in different makeup? Until I named MrWayne, I could have been talking about dozens of people who have posted on this forum alone in the past four years since I've been looking around, same basic story just different details.

Anyhow, it's plain that my calling attention to the inclusion of Mark Dansie's name in the "investors" list rattled Mister Wayne's cage a bit. That seriously looked bad. I accept the explanation that it was a mistake on his part, that it's not true that MD is an investor, and I sure hope MD has invested nothing other than his time and thought on this, because had he really been an investor that is a serious conflict of interest and would in my thinking disqualify him from "validating" MrWayne's system.
But then.... it seems that he's sending someone else anyway, or will when the time comes. Weird.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 11:48:24 AM
Red, with enemies like you, who needs friends?
Tinsel,  I am your friend, you just don't know it yet.
PowerCat,  I thought that Wayne explained his invention rather well.  Sure he was a bit economical on elaborate disclosures, and didn't go into great detail but using a thinking mind it could be decrypted.
Nowhere do I see a question that hasn't been answered in this forum,  the only request that has been refused is actual life data.
Skeptics don't object to a theory point, they just claim it doesn't work without stating what doesn't work,. Stating that the whole thing doesn't work doesn't help anybody.
I think we have a serious disconnect here !

I think you are correct, I spent too much time on this forum, you could say addicted.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 11:54:00 AM
Seamuss,
Instead of working from the top down, could you start from the bottom up.
Just as an exercise, forget the LAWS, while you work you way up from simple points of discovery.
Could you ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 12:05:27 PM
Red, did I not refer you some time ago to the story of Dr Peter Graneau, PhD., professor emeritus Physics at MIT,  and his son Dr Neal Graneau, PhD., physics, working at Oxford University in England?

Graneau the father had a completely worked out, very plausible theory of excess energy, solar energy in his thinking, that could be liberated from liquid water by discharging a high power arc through it. He could talk to you for hours, provide simple, undeniably valid equations modelling his theory, and it was consistent in almost every way you could imagine _except_ that it violated CofE and had a certain element of circularity in its overall argumentation. This is a physics professor from MIT, so you had better believe him. Right? You can't assail his math arguments... if his assumptions were true his conclusions were valid. IF.

Many many experiments were done with amazing results, legendary in fact. Supersonic jets of cold fog punching holes through thick aluminum plates! Jets of invisible cold fog that could pass through 10 cm of water without disturbing it, only to erupt violently at the surface. As the tech team... a truly international one, with branches on the Continent, in the UK, in the USA and in Canada... as the tech team got better and better, the true experimentation kind of stopped and efforts morphed into attempts to extract the excess energy that Graneau... and by this time some others with deep pockets--- were absolutely sure was there. But trial after trial, apparatus after apparatus, failed to produce any excess energy from the water arc discharges. This phase of the effort went on for seven years and consumed around 1.5 million dollars US, without bearing any fruit other than bitter apples of frustration.

Graneau of course accused his workers of incompetence rather than examining his simple theory and model for flaws.

Then..... a fresh pair of eyes entered the scene, and some real experiments began again, to examine the fundamental claims of the theory, rather than looking for flaws in the apparatus. And to cut to the chase and make a long story short, the _scientific_ experiments showed that the original claims and basic assumptions made by the Graneaus, father and son,  were wrong. From this, considerable effort went into finding the _appropriate_ mathematical model for the high-intensity shockwave phenomena encountered when you blast a few cc's of water with 20 kV at 2 kA current. The shockwaves were imaged using newly developed high-speed Schlieren photography in a transparent refractory arc chamber. It was elegant work which confirmed the new model, showed Graneau's old model based on conservation of momentum was not applicable after all.... and the new model accurately predicted the results of further experiments measuring output energies from the system, which Graneau's method severely overestimated.

Seven Years! Dozens of people, two continents, five countries! A math model based on solid physics and conservation principles! PhD Physicists from the world's best Universities! A Megabuck and a half of funding support just for the Graneaus alone! Papers in scholarly journals!  Everything !!

Just one tiny problem: they were wrong.

Bottom line: No longterm self runner means that the theory that you and Mister Wayne have such faith in.. .that logical theory that certainly "should" work in practice.... is flawed in some way, perhaps simply by being the wrong theory for the job at hand, like Graneau's was.

Now it's no simple thing to _disprove_ a theory in the manner I've described above. The highspeed video camera needed to photograph events inside the transparent arc chamber cost around 30,000 dollars and is restricted technology; the highspeed Schlieren photography of that kind of event had only rarely ever been done, mostly as demonstrations by the camera manufacturers, and required some pretty tricky fabrication of apparatus; the correct math model was more complex than Graneau's simple one and required the consultation of mathematical physicists and hydrodynamicists from another major university for development and application and analysis.... and even Graneau's co-authors on the papers I mentioned earlier decided to retract their names from the papers, requiring letters to editors and so on.

Anyhow, in this case there's not even anything to disprove, that I can see. No sausages, in other words.

Nine Hundred and Sixty Percent ! I'm flabbergasted. My overunity meter doesn't even go that high, it pegs at COP>6.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 07, 2012, 12:25:20 PM
PowerCat,  I thought that Wayne explained his invention rather well.  Sure he was a bit economical on elaborate disclosures, and didn't go into great detail but using a thinking mind it could be decrypted.
Nowhere do I see a question that hasn't been answered in this forum,  the only request that has been refused is actual life data.

Wayne's explanation lead to a number of members attempting to build a device that according to Mr. Wayne
Should produce clear overunity, I didn't see any member here produce clear overunity.

Quote
Skeptics don't object to a theory point, they just claim it doesn't work without stating what doesn't work,. Stating that the whole thing doesn't work doesn't help anybody.
I think we have a serious disconnect here !

I have never said it doesn't work and at the beginning of this thread I even congratulated Wayne,
Unfortunately as time went on it became clear that Wayne is not somebody to be trusted.

Quote
I think you are correct, I spent too much time on this forum, you could say addicted.

That's not what I said, I said you are addicted to this thread, you only ever post in this thread,
do you ever look at  anything else on the forum ?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ionizer on November 07, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
200 Pages.

All i can say is WOW.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 12:32:16 PM
Red, did I not refer you some time ago to the story of Dr Peter Graneau, PhD., professor emeritus Physics at MIT,  and his son Dr Neal Graneau, PhD., physics, working at Oxford University in England?
.......................................
Just one tiny problem: they were wrong.

Bottom line: No longterm self runner means that the theory that you and Mister Wayne have such faith in.. .that logical theory that certainly "should" work in practice.... is flawed in some way, perhaps simply by being the wrong theory for the job at hand, like Graneau's was.
.........................................................................
Anyhow, in this case there's not even anything to disprove, that I can see. No sausages, in other words.
Nine Hundred and Sixty Percent ! I'm flabbergasted. My overunity meter doesn't even go that high, it pegs at COP>6.
TinselKoala,
It is no problem that the theory is wrong, 
It is no problem that there is no OU, real or virtual or imagined in any other way !
Just give me a good reason WHY IT CAN NOT WORK !
Wayne gave you his run down why it can work. At this point I do not want to go to the actual build for obvious reasons.

The problem on this forum is that the resident experts "claim it wrong" without giving any other reason than.....200yrs of thermodynamics.  We do not want to know.
You live next door, oh no, we rather argue until we see blue in the face !
No discussion, no di-section, no anything. ....only "can not work"

Without changing your position, we obviously have nothing further to talk about other than filling up pages with just text.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 01:03:19 PM
...........................
That's not what I said, I said you are addicted to this thread, you only ever post in this thread,
do you ever look at  anything else on the forum ?
PowerCat,
Yes I look at many interesting idea's on this site, but over the years, I never came across an idea as ingenious as this one that looks so innocent at first.  One that when looking more, had a logical and plausible theory that in progression revealed more than was provided by the inventor. That was a good sign.
The tell tale was that the inventor hid details by using shaded explanations, and not always in logical sequence (the way I saw it at he time) but when you read all his posts in one document, you see the missing connections in a later post.  If you have nothing, you do not hide or present something as was done in Wayne's thread.  I could easy understand Wayne's precautions as he explained HIS invention, because he was parting with his brainchild idea onto a public website (no so easy)
After going in deeper over a period of 2-3 months, it became clear that Wayne never lied but he did on many occasions reveal only partial details, a incomplete truth (I do not think this was intentional, rather he was to close to the device).   
The knowledge that Wayne acquired over several years can not be assimilated in 1 day, for me it took many weeks because it requires a lot of visualization because I had never seen a zed neither had a model to test with.
My initial conclusions were similar than most of you, could not see where the OU came in, until the light came on.  It is important to read with comprehension of the details and looks for requirements in-line with the objective of the device.
Like you all do, the first question where is the energy coming from, once you discover and see that clearly. You realize it is possible.  My purpose and intent is to translate the principle to an other force field, and produce a device that is not limited by the cycle speed limitations of a buoyancy device.
Time will tell.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 01:19:03 PM
Red said,
Quote
"Nowhere do I see a question that hasn't been answered in this forum,  the only request that has been refused is actual life data."

And I say, for about the umpteenth time....

Where is the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself"? How was the clear overunity determined, what was the ratio of input to output work or energy, and WHY CAN IT NOT BE DEMONSTRATED?

Oh... I guess this must qualify as "actual life data". Sorry for asking... so many times.

Red, gravity is a conservative field of force. Buoyancy is just an effect of gravity by another name, worked through displacement of water. This means that there is nothing that "flows" in the force of gravity, and the gravitational potential energy of any object depends ONLY on its height above a reference, not at all on the simple or complicated path that it took to get there or how much work went into getting it there in the first place. This set of facts has been proven countless times and in fact the existence of experiments like Gravity Probe B and the ballistic trajectory that spacecraft take on their journeys, to name only two of countless many...  RULE OUT any possible "loophole" in that set of facts. That is why Mister Wayne's device cannot work as advertised, and why it always stops running after a while when it's not receiving outside power. You've been told all of this before. Unless and until Mister Wayne or someone else provides _actual experimental evidence_ that gravity can provide useful work in a repeating cycle, using buoyancy, airpressure, bollard springs, jello, silly putty or even magnets...... we really do have to trust what we actually do know about how the world works..... and it's a fact that a closed path in a gravitational field yields zero gain in potential/kinetic energy unless work is done on the system from outside. The Zed, with its complicated pressure and buoyancy chambers, is a complicated Red Herring (should have been your alias, too) that serves quite well, apparently, to fascinate the terrestrial primates into forgetting that pigs cannot fly no matter how hard they flap the cardboard wings.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 07, 2012, 02:13:50 PM
PowerCat,
Yes I look at many interesting idea's on this site, but over the years, I never came across an idea as ingenious as this one that looks so innocent at first.  One that when looking more, had a logical and plausible theory that in progression revealed more than was provided by the inventor. That was a good sign.The tell tale was that the inventor hid details by using shaded explanations, and not always in logical sequence (the way I saw it at he time) but when you read all his posts in one document, you see the missing connections in a later post.  If you have nothing, you do not hide or present something as was done in Wayne's thread.  I could easy understand Wayne's precautions as he explained HIS invention, because he was parting with his brainchild idea onto a public website (no so easy)After going in deeper over a period of 2-3 months, it became clear that Wayne never lied but he did on many occasions reveal only partial details, a incomplete truth (I do not think this was intentional, rather he was to close to the device).   The knowledge that Wayne acquired over several years can not be assimilated in 1 day, for me it took many weeks because it requires a lot of visualization because I had never seen a zed neither had a model to test with.My initial conclusions were similar than most of you, could not see where the OU came in, until the light came on.  It is important to read with comprehension of the details and looks for requirements in-line with the objective of the device.Like you all do, the first question where is the energy coming from, once you discover and see that clearly. You realize it is possible
My purpose and intent is to translate the principle to an other force field, and produce a device that is not limited by the cycle speed limitations of a buoyancy device.
Time will tell.

This is purely based on your belief where are the successful replications that show clear overunity,
Where is the Scientific Data that show your belief is right,
You entirely base your belief on Wayne's Words I have shown you that Wayne cannot be trusted on his word,
but since you don't have to believe in reality.... facts or verification to post on this forum
we will continue to hear your words of blind faith without actually ever seeing any proof from you.

Now if you're going to take some of Wayne ideas and make your own unique device,
I wish you all the best of luck and hope you don't make any claims you can't prove.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 07, 2012, 03:22:45 PM
Using the latest data I presented for an entire stroke cycle while recording Input Volume, Input Pressure, and Stroke Position, I believe it is possible now to calculate expected performance of a twin ZED system of two identical two layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) ZEDs of the construction I have been testing.
 
The overall head change throughout a complete cycle for the single ZED was ~224 g/cm2.  If a first ZED at its highest head value (top of stroke) is then attached to a second equal ZED construction at its lowest head value (bottom of stroke) via their input water connections, they would equalize to the same average head pressure of ~112 g/cm2.  This would also require that ~15 ml of water leave the first ZED and enter the second ZED.
 
So to finish the cycle by lowering the first ZED completely (with no lift mass in place) and raising the second ZED (with the 1000 g lift mass in place) now requires an additional 112 g/cm2 head and (87-15) 72 ml of water to transfer to the second ZED.
 
Lift Mass = 1000 g
Pressure Increase = (from 114 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 11.2 g/cm2
Volume = 72 ml ( or cm3)
Stroke = 0.7 cm
 
This gives a comparative piston value of 72 cm3/0.7 cm = 103 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 103 cm2 x 11.2 g/cm2 = 1150 g. 
Since my lift mass was only 1000 g this is underunity at 1000/1170 = 87.0%.
 
Does this make sense?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 03:52:39 PM
I'd be more than happy to start from the bottom up. If there was even on hint that the underlying theory of the conservation of energy was wrong I'd be eager to find it.

Can you describe the  'first simple point of discovery' that I should consider?  I'm intensely interested for surely a Nobel prize is I the offing for the person who can elucidate how this machine breaks fundamental laws .

Since we are talking about principles,
We can start with that simple hypothetical example I presented to you a while ago. You can have the Nobel prize (shared with Wayne).
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 04:25:51 PM
This is purely based on your belief where are the successful replications that show clear overunity,
Where is the Scientific Data that show your belief is right,
You entirely base your belief on Wayne's Words I have shown you that Wayne cannot be trusted on his word,
but since you don't have to believe in reality.... facts or verification to post on this forum
we will continue to hear your words of blind faith without actually ever seeing any proof from you.

Now if you're going to take some of Wayne ideas and make your own unique device,
I wish you all the best of luck and hope you don't make any claims you can't prove.
PowerCat,
Wayne's invention as a device is a milestone in the OU path. But it is not as important as the principle that provides the doorway to the OU domain beyond. There is no blind faith, no hypnosis, no magic spell, involved that Wayne bestowed upon me.  He did not convince me, he even let me hang suspended so I could figure it out for myself. There was the forum and I compared notes with Wayne from time to time and he gave me hints when stuck.  Like the forum, just a little bit more efficient.  I am very greatfull to him for the help he provided during that time period.
The work notes done were compiled into a book that I gave to Wayne in gratitude. The book was initially called "Zed for Dummies", renamed later as "The Zed riddle explained" to avoid the 'dummies' naming conflict
The investigative research that led to the diamonds in the bottom of the Zed was initially not so easily understood and presents itself as a pandora's box.  Only a creative dissection will slowly reveal its secrets, I went through multiple stages of realization.  As Webby1, Wildew and Mondesarek will witness.
Once clearly understood, the principles to OU as unlocked by the Zed are not restricted to the Zed and can be applied in many different ways.  When Wayne releases the latest test unit, you will not even see a Zed any longer.
It all has to do with the physics principles not with the zed. The zed is just one expressive form of the principle. The device is difficult to manage in any case and there are now easier ways to do it.
PS: I would never present my own device here on this or any forum,  we should learn from our experiences
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on November 07, 2012, 05:51:33 PM
Ladies and Gents;
 
No one ever said "The proof of the pudding is all about just talking about it!!"

Let's EAT some of that ZED pudding and determine how good it really is.
 
 
Enough Advertising already !!
 
 
Serve it up!!
 
Carry on and get on with it!!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 06:26:34 PM
SEAMUS
Quote
Make no mistake, when Mr wayne says ,  'we don't have an input' he is unambiguously stating that his machine breaks the first law of thermodynamics. Anything else he claims should be immediately disqualified by any thinking person.
TinselKoala
Quote
Red, gravity is a conservative field of force. Buoyancy is just an effect of gravity by another name, worked through displacement of water. This means that there is nothing that "flows" in the force of gravity, and the gravitational potential energy of any object depends ONLY on its height above a reference, not at all on the simple or complicated path that it took to get there or how much work went into getting it there in the first place.

Seamus, TinselKoala,
OK, I back down !!  You are right,  tapping gravity for energy can not be, it is impossible!
Impossibility is a fact!  It is a fallacy to think it could be different

* So please do not waste any more time here on this thread !
* Do not worry about the validation, it is not going to work, why ask ?
* I am sorry you had to post so many messages, you can delete them all.
* Since it all can not work, you can delete your login also!
* Over-unity is a heresy, so you can shut down this website to!
So lets go home and forget about it all

It is so strange that we are ALL here discussing this in the first place, discussing a impossibility and looking for a possibility to get around the impossibility and that is totally impossible, especially with people who think it is absolutely impossible.
Strange human beings we are.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on November 07, 2012, 07:13:36 PM
Quote
Strange human beings we are.

More like strange ways we human beings try to find ways to make a living.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 07:37:25 PM
You just aren't getting it, Red. The fact of gravity being a conservative field of force and all the consequences of that are well known and trusted to be correct. Without solid experimental evidence otherwise, NOT WORDS OF A THEORY, this fact must be taken as true and valid.

The story of the Graneaus is just one example of a theory, put forth by solid scientists, with only a single little flaw: it was the wrong theory to describe the system concerned, yet this flaw was not seen and understood for much longer and for much more cashburn than Mister Wayne has managed. They were blown out of the water.... so to speak..... by the LACK of experimental evidence that actually supported their theory, in spite of many trials that they -claimed- to do so, combined with careful analysis that produced a CORRECT theory that WAS supported  by the experimental evidence and predicted the outcomes of further experimentation accurately. IT HAPPENS, and a lot of people went down the wrong path on that one.... because of the force of Peter Graneau's personality and credentials.

In the present case we are at the same stage the Graneaus were when that "extra pair of eyes" I mentioned started looking at their story. Scientific research has stopped (without even a paper published: the Graneaus had, I think, five or 6 in the mainstream physics literature, including an entire book published by Oxford University Press) and engineering efforts are under  way.... without bearing the fruit of a self-running machine that DOESN'T STOP after a short time. To me, the parallels are uncanny, because I am intimately acquainted with the story of the Graneaus.

Bottom line: theories are fine things. They are a dime a dozen, even cheaper by the gross. But if they are not used to set up real and falsifiable hypotheses which are then rigorously tested, they are just words and equations, no matter how logical they seem or how well the math works out.

You don't seriously believe that scientists and engineers who understand how to do THIS (following picture) don't thoroughly understand gravity, buoyancy, and mechanical advangage, do you? Perhaps you do...... but some people believe in angels and demons, too.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05016702.jpg

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 07:54:37 PM
Red, if we skeptics did what you sarcastically suggest (because you can't actually refute the points Seamus10n and I made) we'd miss out on the chance to see REAL, SOLID EVIDENCE that someone has actually found a workaround or flaw in the main...er.... stream.... understanding of some well-known and trusted physical principle. We'd also miss out on the sheer drama (and occasional high comedy) of watching all these people (here I refer to Archer Quinn, Mylow, Steorn personnel, Rosemary Ainslie, and others of that ilk) finally choke on the feet they stuff into their own mouths with their unsupported, and unsupportable and even untestable, claims.  Does mister Wayne belong in this "ilk"? More and more, it is appearing so.

Personally I think that there are a lot of truly creative people working on various interesting things on this forum. Some of them might have the potential (pun intended) of figuring out how to hook into to the "wheelworks of Nature" that Nicky used to talk about. The extraction of low grade environmental energies and conversion of them to higher-grade, usable forms might someday result in real systems that do operate in that manner, yielding useful output work. But these will most certainly NOT have "no input" if and when they are discovered. Meanwhile, many of these creative and innovative people are distracted by projects that seem simple and logical (based on incorrect assumptions about fundamental principles) and wind up doing what GreenHiker accused me of being responsible for: They waste their time, money and creative juices running down dead-end paths that have long before been explored to the last nook and cranny, because some charismatic individual shows a system that is misinterpreted or some experimental results from bad experiments. Deliberate Red Herrings don't help the case much, either, unless they are so very obvious Red_Herrings that lead folks astray from the main school of fish.... out to where they are easy prey for sharks. The discerning fisherman sees these radical Red Herrings and understands not to chase them, and perhaps even learns from them.
Don't get eaten, Red.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on November 07, 2012, 08:22:44 PM


Hi Michel,


if I may still go back to the #2789 post


>LIFT Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
>We lift a weight of 1000kg to a height of 1meter,
>Potential energy created in the weight= 1000KgMeter
>To do the lift we use an hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. This does not require  to fill a  ram cavity of 1mtr x 1mtr  with 1000 liters (kg) of fluid.  The multi layer lifter design reduces the fluid input and pressure >requirements.  The effective energy input to lift is reduced to a level below 100% according to the design
>Fluid energy input is  >1000kg x 1mtr =  >1000KgMtr


You are basically saying that lift case is over 100% efficient. Can this be achieved purely by one ZED or only in combination with another ZED which would provide some of its exhaust as input?
Somewhere in the beginning MrWayne said that upward action is not much different from a pneumatic cylinder and that main difference is in down stroke. As I read it lift part is 100% but down stroke over 100%.


Marcel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 09:04:14 PM
A big breakthrough in Chemistry was when they figured out that it is not just what and how much of stuff is in something but how it is connected as well.

This system just takes actions and reactions and connects them differently.  Same ingredients but a different cup of soup.

Your new soup is not very nourishing. Maybe it needs a bit of the meat of EVIDENCE, and the spice of SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS to be completely palatable.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: camelherder49 on November 07, 2012, 09:36:08 PM
From TK

Red, gravity is a conservative field of force. Buoyancy is just an effect of gravity by another name, worked through displacement of water. This means that there is nothing that "flows" in the force of gravity, and the gravitational potential energy of any object depends ONLY on its height above a reference, not at all on the simple or complicated path that it took to get there or how much work went into getting it there in the first place.[

From NOAA describing percolation in the Hydrologic Cycle:

 Percolation is the movement of water though the soil, and it's layers, by gravity and capillary forces. The prime moving force of groundwater is gravity. Water that is in the zone of aeration where air exists is called vadose water. Water that is in the zone of saturation is called groundwater. For all practical purposes, all groundwater originates as surface water. Once underground, the water is moved by gravity. The boundary that separates the vadose and the saturation zones is called the water table. Usually the direction of water movement is changed from downward and a horizontal component to the movement is added that is based on the geologic boundary conditions.
This is being accomplished in a closed never ending cycle that has been ongoing
for millions of years.
Wayne has mimicked nature to a degree!

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 10:06:43 PM
"When you look at the system most eyes stop at the obvious parts, they do not even need to go any further because they have seen what they need to,, but that does not mean that there is no more things to see."

On that we are in total agreement. I would only substitute the word "want" where you have "need".
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 10:13:09 PM
Hi Michel,
if I may still go back to the #2789 post
>LIFT Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
>We lift a weight of 1000kg to a height of 1meter,
>Potential energy created in the weight= 1000KgMeter
>To do the lift we use an hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. This does not require  to fill a  ram cavity of 1mtr x 1mtr  with 1000 liters (kg) of fluid.  The multi layer lifter design reduces the fluid input and pressure >requirements.  The effective energy input to lift is reduced to a level below 100% according to the design
>Fluid energy input is  >1000kg x 1mtr =  >1000KgMtr
You are basically saying that lift case is over 100% efficient. Can this be achieved purely by one ZED or only in combination with another ZED which would provide some of its exhaust as input?
Somewhere in the beginning MrWayne said that upward action is not much different from a pneumatic cylinder and that main difference is in down stroke. As I read it lift part is 100% but down stroke over 100%.
Marcel 
Marcel.
The example is purely a theoretical extreme example to highlight a point on the characteristics of the multi layer buoyancy device and energy flow.

There was a correction on « on: October 31, 2012, 11:34:13 AM » that read
Correction: Message #2789 on page #186 should read
Fluid energy input is <1000kg x 1mtr = "less than 1000KgMtr"

You can keep it to the standard piston at a theoretical efficiency of 100%
or alternative a MLBD takes less than 1000kg (ltrs) of water to lift 1000kg for one meter height depending on the number of layers in the design
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 10:15:16 PM
From TK

Red, gravity is a conservative field of force. Buoyancy is just an effect of gravity by another name, worked through displacement of water. This means that there is nothing that "flows" in the force of gravity, and the gravitational potential energy of any object depends ONLY on its height above a reference, not at all on the simple or complicated path that it took to get there or how much work went into getting it there in the first place.[

From NOAA describing percolation in the Hydrologic Cycle:

 Percolation is the movement of water though the soil, and it's layers, by gravity and capillary forces. The prime moving force of groundwater is gravity. Water that is in the zone of aeration where air exists is called vadose water. Water that is in the zone of saturation is called groundwater. For all practical purposes, all groundwater originates as surface water. Once underground, the water is moved by gravity. The boundary that separates the vadose and the saturation zones is called the water table. Usually the direction of water movement is changed from downward and a horizontal component to the movement is added that is based on the geologic boundary conditions.
This is being accomplished in a closed never ending cycle that has been ongoing
for millions of years.
Wayne has mimicked nature to a degree!
You are leaving out an extremely important aspect of the hydrological cycle, and that is where the INPUT OF ENERGY comes from that drives the entire cycle, and indeed allows us to live on the Earth at all. Do you know what that aspect is?

Where does your percolating groundwater come from? It comes from surface water. How does the surface water get there, to run off and percolate? From rainfall and snowmelt. Where does rain and snow come from? From the condensation of water vapor high up in the atmosphere, raining or snowing on high places on the ground. Where does the water vapor come from? It is evaporated from surface water, oceans, groundwater, plants and even animal exhalations. What evaporates the water? Energy from THE SUN. What lifts the water vapor high up in the Earth's gravity field, adding GPE to it? Atmospheric convection caused by THE HEAT OF THE SUN warming the ground which warms the air in contact with it, making it less dense than its surroundings.. so, by _buoyancy_ the hot, moist air rises to an altitude where it cools enough for the rain to condense and fall out.

Where is the corresponding aspect in Mister Wayne's "mimic of nature", to whatever degree? Where is his SUN which provides the energy for his mimic of nature's hydrological cycle?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 10:21:48 PM
Marcel.
The example is purely a theoretical extreme example to highlight a point on the characteristics of the multi layer buoyancy device and energy flow.

There was a correction on « on: October 31, 2012, 11:34:13 AM » that read
Correction: Message #2789 on page #186 should read
Fluid energy input is <1000kg x 1mtr = "less than 1000KgMtr"

You can keep it to the standard piston at a theoretical efficiency of 100%
or alternative a MLBD takes less than 1000kg (ltrs) of water to lift 1000kg for one meter height depending on the number of layers in the design

The precharge is doing most of the lifting. The injected water only  needs to be of sufficient amount to push the system back and forth around its neutral buoyancy point. An automatic bollard weighing hundreds of pounds can be lifted with fingertip lift, because most of its true weight is taken up, and stored, in the compression of its lifting spring.

If you are not allowed to precharge a Zed by pressurising its internal chambers....what then?

I'd actually like to see the results from Mond and Wildew on this. If you set up your system at bottom with all vents open, and allow the water levels and air pressures to equalize fully at ambient pressure, then close all vents and proceed to apply the lift input... what then? I think you will have removed the spring of the automatic bollard, but I've only had one cup of TinselKoffee yet so I'm well prepared to be wrong. That's what experiments are for: to test hypotheses and _rule them out_.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 07, 2012, 11:19:08 PM
I'd actually like to see the results from Mond and Wildew on this. If you set up your system at bottom with all vents open, and allow the water levels and air pressures to equalize fully at ambient pressure, then close all vents and proceed to apply the lift input... what then? I think you will have removed the spring of the automatic bollard, but I've only had one cup of TinselKoffee yet so I'm well prepared to be wrong. That's what experiments are for: to test hypotheses and _rule them out_.

No can do here.  I have no vents on top and so cannot equalize ambient air pressure.  My precharge method always results in some internal air pressure.  But I believe Dale can accommodate.  And what I believe will happen is it will still lift, but with a slightly retarded potential.  The volume of air in the chambers will not start precompressed and so will need to compress more than usual as the input water is introduced.  But it will still lift.  The resultant air volume in the chambers will be slightly reduced and so the maximum buoyancy that results will also be slightly reduced.
 
I've personally never seen and still do not see the single ZED as anything other than a buoyancy lift system.  There are internal pressures that are necessary to redistribute the air and water in the various annuli in order to change the buoyancy caused by a difference in water height outside and inside any given Pod or Riser wall.  But I still do not think that pressure lifts anything.  However, you can calculate the lift based on a pressure or buoyancy point of view and reach the same results.  But that is just the way I see it.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 07, 2012, 11:28:20 PM
I'd actually like to see...

And as long as you are making request, here are a couple for you.
 
I have posted data that graphs beautifully.  I'm not sure if you are one of the other two (I dl'd once at work) that downloaded and checked that out or not, but it is sweet.  And exactly as one would expect.  I'd actually like to see your interpretation.
 
I have also posted calculations from that data on how two ZEDs should perform and wonder if that conclusion is correct and somewhat accurate.  I'd actually like to see your opinions on that as well.
 
Sorry for being terse.  I'm a bit pissed off about the lack of attention to real testing going on.  So it is not personal.
 
Also pissed off about the lack of a spell check button...
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 08, 2012, 12:04:37 AM
Hummm .....
Quote
I'd actually like to see the results from Mond and Wildew on this. If you set up your system at bottom with all vents open, and allow the water levels and air pressures to equalize fully at ambient pressure, then close all vents and proceed to apply the lift input... what then?
That actually sounds like a reasonable request. I have a door to trim first, but since i start all setups that way, why not. I'll just have to play with the weights a bit to find a load and base that will operate in that range.

All I add from that state is air anyway - to increase the differentials and increase the lift capacity.

Gimme an hour or 2
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 08, 2012, 03:03:40 AM

And as long as you are making request, here are a couple for you.
 
I have posted data that graphs beautifully.  I'm not sure if you are one of the other two (I dl'd once at work) that downloaded and checked that out or not, but it is sweet.  And exactly as one would expect.  I'd actually like to see your interpretation.
The weather is clear and dry right now so I'm doing some astrophotography and only posting between running back and forth to the telescope. I'll be taking a look at your data when I'm done, or the sun comes up, or something. Right now I just finished processing an RGBL image of the Dumbbell Nebula in Vulpecula, and I'm getting ready to go out and start up the scope for tonight's shooting. So I'll be occupied for a bit.
Quote

I have also posted calculations from that data on how two ZEDs should perform and wonder if that conclusion is correct and somewhat accurate.  I'd actually like to see your opinions on that as well.
 
Sorry for being terse.  I'm a bit pissed off about the lack of attention to real testing going on.  So it is not personal.
 
Also pissed off about the lack of a spell check button...
 
M.
Are you terse? No probs, bro. Some people actually do have other hobbies than this one, though.... Believe me, I pay attention to your reports, they just sometimes get bumped to a lower energy level in the stack, temporarily.

Doesn't your browser have an inbuilt spellchecker? Mine does, at least something is putting all those squiggly red lines underneath "airplane" instead of "aeroplane" for me.

You can so equalize your air pressures and water levels. All you need is some thin tubing. Take some insulated wire and strip off long pieces of insulation. or Go to the hobby shop and get some Teflon CA application tubing. or Turn the whole thing upside down, separate the halves and put water to the same level in all chambers, reassemble and turn back over. I don't know if that latter one will really work. But certainly you can equalize your pressures at ambient  with some leeetle beeeety tubes. Or you can drill holes in your top plate and use tiny corks to plug them after you've leveled off your waters. Of course you seal everything just like a "normal" zed, you are just starting with no precharge.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 08, 2012, 03:09:22 AM
Hummm .....That actually sounds like a reasonable request. I have a door to trim first, but since i start all setups that way, why not. I'll just have to play with the weights a bit to find a load and base that will operate in that range.
Uh..... no, that's not the idea. You need to compare the performance of the system using the same "load and base", whatever you are calling your moving parts. You can't go changing the load to find something that works and then call that a comparable lift! The point of my proposed experiment is to see how much of the preload is working to offset the weight of the lifted parts. If you take the spring out of the 300 pound automatic bollard.... and then replace the bollard itself with a lightweight paper shell, and find that it's as easy to lift as the complete bollard was before.... what have you "proven"?
Quote

All I add from that state is air anyway - to increase the differentials and increase the lift capacity.

Gimme an hour or 2
Dale

All you add from that state is Air .... pressure.  Take your time, do it right, have fun.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 08, 2012, 03:31:23 AM
That was actually a pretty interesting test - for a few reasons.
1. A few valves arrived in the mail today so I re-attached the board - and now I can easily lock it out.
2. It's easy to repeat - no setup
3. Something interesting showed up in the outer layer - it reversed for a bit
4. It still pushed the numbers up - first in - last out
5. It repeated through half a dozen cycles - no leak !

Not bad to set up - at these low pressures I used the actual riser and support for the base weight and the "fat" 5Lb brick for the lift - worked pretty well.

One note to newcomers - casual observers - others ....
This was NOT a recommended setup - it's actually pretty bass-ackwards, but a rather interesting base-line that might serve to demonstrate what can be accomplished by rearranging things a bit...

I used Mondrasek's format but added a column for the POD height.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 08, 2012, 03:53:52 AM
Quote
All you add from that state is Air .... pressure.  Take your time, do it right, have fun.
I don't know about the fun part - sometimes my "fun" is doing something less challenging - like taking an ultralight for a 30 mile jaunt on a dead calm afternoon.

But I also like to be challenged -sometimes.

"All I add is air pressure" - yes. But it completely changes the system.
Not JUST because of the air pressure - but what that air pressure does to the rest of the system.

It has a direct impact on the hydraulics - minor - the greater impact is in what it does to the higher density fluid.

One of us is wrong
I have a long history of being both right and wrong, I totally accept being a blithering idiot at times.

Hope you have a clear view of the night skies
Dale
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 08, 2012, 05:25:00 AM
I guess I haven't been clear, or I'm not understanding you.

My conjecture is that the majority of the lift is due to stored energy in the precharge, in analogy to the action of the spring-loaded automatic bollard that weighs 300 pounds but only requires a few ounces lift to bring it up into full up position. Most of the energy to lift the bollard is stored in the spring, reversibly, and this is its "precharge".  In your system the precharge includes compressed air _and_ elevated water heads. In order to test this conjecture, one must compare lifting the _same_ total weight in two conditions: Precharged as normal, and totally NOT precharged. Totally  not precharged means that all the water levels inside and out are exactly the same, and the chambers have been opened at the top to release all pressurised air, then sealed, then you add your water or air to perform your lift.
So from your description and photos, I think you are 1) lifting a different amount of weight and 2) you are still starting with different water levels in the various chambers.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 08, 2012, 05:47:06 AM
I don't know about the fun part - sometimes my "fun" is doing something less challenging - like taking an ultralight for a 30 mile jaunt on a dead calm afternoon.
that sounds good to me too
Quote
But I also like to be challenged -sometimes.

"All I add is air pressure" - yes. But it completely changes the system.
Not JUST because of the air pressure - but what that air pressure does to the rest of the system.
Er... isn't that kind of a tautology? It's sort of like saying "Food is good, but not JUST because it's food, but because you can eat it."
Quote

It has a direct impact on the hydraulics - minor - the greater impact is in what it does to the higher density fluid.

One of us is wrong
That's an interesting way of putting it. I don't really see how someone who is just asking questions can possibly be "wrong". I'm asking questions, testing conjectures, and pointing out that there is no evidence for some claims being made in this thread, and in fact there is some evidence against some of the claims. These things aren't "wrong" and I am not wrong to maintain them. You also are not wrong, because you are asking questions and collecting data. And I believe that you will not allow yourself to be fooled, once you are a little more enlightened about the scientific method. Vary variables one at a time, examine their results on the system and collate your data. When patterns emerge, that's the time to make testable conjectures about what you think you are seeing. If you cannot _disprove_ one of your conjectures no matter how hard you try, then you just might be right about that conjecture. One might even say that a scientist tries as hard as possible to be wrong, and when she fails.... she writes a paper and publishes it.

Quote

I have a long history of being both right and wrong, I totally accept being a blithering idiot at times.

As long as it doesn't happen on takeoff or landing.....
 ;)
Quote

Hope you have a clear view of the night skies
Dale

Thanks, it can be frustrating because of the light pollution. It looks clear, but apparently there is a lot of water in the air that's affecting transparency, and we are just about down to the dew point already at 11 pm.

Last night's efforts, all night, yielded this cartoonish image of the Dumbbell nebula, complete with a couple of satellite traces. Since these are oriented roughly N-S they are in polar orbits and so are likely ...er.... surveillance satellites.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 08, 2012, 07:36:43 AM
The precharge is doing most of the lifting. The injected water only  needs to be of sufficient amount to push the system back and forth around its neutral buoyancy point. An automatic bollard weighing hundreds of pounds can be lifted with fingertip lift, because most of its true weight is taken up, and stored, in the compression of its lifting spring.
TinselKoala, MT, Seamus & All,
Tinsel, the example is not pre-charged, it is a standard hydraulic lift example out of the text book (MT hydraulic car lift picture at the time is exactly what it is). The purpose of the #2789 post is to make a point as simple as possible to digest.
 The objective is to show in a simplified way how a relationship change affect the balance in a normal symmetrical system.  The values used are extreme to clearly show the difference. 
The key point of interest that we introduce, is a hypothetical piston that can change its area size properties at little to no cost.

Case #1 uses the known standard piston and the simplified energy balance is shown
Case #2 uses a hypothetical piston (that can change its surface area for the up and down-stroke) but maintains the same control on he hydraulic fluid chamber and the simplified energy balance is shown.

The point of the example is to demonstrate that if engineering a  "hypothetical piston"  that possesses these properties is possible,  then OU would be possible. (sure, so long the property change metamorphosis costs are neglige)

The possibility of a working hypothetical piston that can do that is NOT the question here, we assume we can engineer one. A consideration that the Law of thermodynamics would make it impossible to engineer this piston is not under the scope at the moment.
The only question here, that is looking for your answer is,  Case #2, POSSIBLE,  " YES" or "NO" !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 08, 2012, 08:07:52 AM
Last night's efforts, all night, yielded this cartoonish image of the Dumbbell nebula, complete with a couple of satellite traces. Since these are oriented roughly N-S they are in polar orbits and so are likely ...er.... surveillance satellites.

Tinsel,  Fantastic astro picture, never thought that this quality was possible from a home setup.
I am impressed !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 08, 2012, 08:47:57 AM
"The only question here, that is looking for your answer is,  Case #2, POSSIBLE,  " YES" or "NO" !"

Well, what you are asking is kind of like, "if pigs had wings, pilot's licenses, current medicals and clearance from the tower, could they fly?" In other words, an energy input is required to make your hypothetical piston do what it is supposed to do, but your conditions don't allow that. So sure, if the world of Avatar were real, the people would have blue skins. If the Pope was a Southern Baptist, he'd still have to ....er...... use the toilet now and then.
What is the point of constructing impossible hypotheticals? Isn't it better to posit a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis, and then test it? I think it is.

Two kids are equally balanced on a see-saw. They toss an apple back and forth horizontally ... thus doing no work, right? ... at just the right rate (mechanical resonance) and pretty soon they be rocking hard and high.

RE the astrophoto: thanks, but that's not anywhere near the best I've done; I'm still getting familiar with the monochrome imager and the process of shooting thru filters to make a color image. A lot of stuff can and does go wrong, like the satellite trails. Hopefully the other data I took last night will come out better: a "closeup" of the Orion Nebula. I haven't had time to process it yet.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 08, 2012, 11:25:46 AM
Hi there,
             this is a quote from Einstein.   " Insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                  John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 08, 2012, 11:44:33 AM
Quote
As long as it doesn't happen on takeoff or landing.....
Stuff happens.....
That was at about hour 10 - we get along a lot better now.

The comment about "being wrong": As stated and intended would apply to others more, particularly;
- Can't work
- Won't work
- Stop wasting time

So in the TK vs Wildew case it's not completely black and white.
I'm not saying it absolutely DOES work - TK's not saying it absolutely DOESN'T
Point taken

Nice night shot, I forwarded to a friend on Long Island.
He needs a boost.
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 08, 2012, 12:10:57 PM
.......................Well, what you are asking is kind of like, "if pigs had wings, pilot's licenses, current medicals and clearance from the tower, could they fly?" In other words, an energy input is required to make your hypothetical piston do what it is supposed to do, but your conditions don't allow that. So sure, if the world of Avatar were real, the people would have blue skins. If the Pope was a Southern Baptist, he'd still have to ....er...... use the toilet now and then.
What is the point of constructing impossible hypotheticals? ......................................

You can't be serious in asking this question..surely? Isn't it obvious  ...........................................................
Tinsel & Seamus,
Thank you for your answers,  you both came within the expected range of replies.

Your answers to the little example exercise that required only a "can you imagine this, a type of Barney play", for doing this hypothetical exercise. Your answers clearly characterized how you view and evaluate the world around you.  How you handle an "out of the box" situation.  Allow me to have made the following observations and conclusions,

** Tinsel could somewhat get along with the idea but definitely preferred both his feet on mother earth. 'Out is out' and not preferable. Although if pushed harder, he would make the leap into the "out of the box thinking".

** Seamus on the other hand is the extreme right of the picture, "imagination" is an impossibility, for the same reason that OU is an impossibility. It is engrained into the core. An OU "Jihadist" using Wayne's words. Out of the box thinking is heresy.

From the viewpoint that OU is an impossibility, and is therefore a "out of the box" domain.
No "in the box" thinking is going to produce "out of the box" results.  Therefore "Out of the box thinking" is a pre-requisite to discover OU.  This is done by setting "out of the box requirements", that are resolved with "in the box" solutions.  This is the approach that will produce results. But this requires an "out of the box" thinking ability !! 

I think that this little exercise explains clearly why we are "at odds with each other" over the previous pages.
I duly respect your more conservative positions and that only a successful OU demonstration will entice you over the 100% demarcation line.
I have no problem to leave the "grand discussion" at that.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on November 08, 2012, 05:45:18 PM
Gents,

There is a big difference in how different people are defining pre-charge.  In a ZED of the sort that has been replicated here, I think of it as the initial balance.  That is, what is needed to counterbalance the fixed weight of the riser, without any payload weight.  There is more than one way to create this initial balancing setup in a ZED, but this is a needed step for high efficiency operation.  Do not attack this as being a source of stored energy that can be consumed.  It is not, and it can't be for repeated cycles.

Some others are defining pre-charge as winding up a "spring" that can be used to supplement the losses in a running ZED.  The ZED will cycle until the "spring" runs down.  This is a legitimate target of inquiry.

Some complete systems talk about a pre-charged "spring" that is a temporary source of power to phase shift the generation of force at one point in the operation to application of that force at another point later on, but the pre-charge is restored on each cycle.  This is also a legitimate target of inquiry since it has the potential to start with a "spring" wound more than required to just phase shift the force.

It can be confusing when using the same term for all of the above.  Let's be clear about which we are talking about.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 08, 2012, 06:57:37 PM
Yes, I am talking about the initial precharge that Mister Wayne says his system does not consume and that will be there unchanged after an indefinitely long time self-running. When the machine stops, it is (according to Mister Wayne) NOT because this precharge has been depleted, but for some other reason.

This is in analogy to the spring in the automatic bollard system. The bollard weighs, say, 300 pounds. The spring is compressed with a force of 295 pounds. Thus it takes only 5 pounds (say) of upwards force to lift the bollard to the top, where it's pinned in place. When you are done with the bollard, you unpin it and its weight (effectively only 5 pounds) allows it to sink against its dashpot slowly back into the ground. This spring "winds up" and "winds down" reversibly and does its work "in secret", only needing the initial compression from its installation. Remove ONLY this spring from the automatic bollard and you cannot lift the bollard without applying the full 300 pounds of lift.

So the point of my proposed experiment is two-fold: Does the precharge in a properly prepared ZED help to lift the total weight of all the moving parts, in the same way that the compressed spring of the bollard does?  OR..... in contradiction to the claims of Mister Wayne.... does the precharge in a properly prepared and functioning Zed act as a _depletable_ power source like the wound up spring of a clock or the stored elevated water reservoir in my Heron's Fountain/TinselZed hybrid perpetual water pump?
Since we don't have a functioning Zed.. (Yet?) we can't ask the second question (yet?) but we ... or rather you guys with real systems... can see at least if the first part is answerable.

It seems that the builders are already prepared to acknowledge that, without the precharge setup, the system will require a "lot" more input in order to wind up lifting anything. Will you recover all this "lot" of more input as well, in a system that's not precharged? Doing the simple control experiment I've described, eliminating ONLY the precharge and starting with all water levels the same and the (sealed) chambers all at ambient pressure, to see how much "input" is needed to make the same lift of the same weight might shed some light on the system. It might even be possible to use results from this kind of good control experiment, compared with the "experimental" condition (precharged fully) to predict how long a system would run IF the precharge was not retained but was acting as a true power source, not like a bollard spring but like a clock mainspring. (remember those?)

------------------------

@Dale..... hey, all the big bits ended up in one pile and there's no wing damage... or broken bones. Therefore: Good Landing!!  8)
Nice looking ship too.

Since you like my astrophotography, here's one from last week.
This is the Sword of Orion, rising in the post-midnight sky. We see this with the naked eye as three fuzzy "stars" hanging from the belt of the great hunter Orion. In this image the "Running Man" nebula is on the left, the Great Nebula birthing its blue supergiant stars in the center, and the lovely multiple system called Nair al-Saif on the right.
This was done with the monochrome imager, making individual monochrome frames in R, G, B and L filters, then combining them in software to make the full color image. This represents about 90 minutes of total exposure, around 25 or 30 separate frames combined together, and a couple of hours of processing time the next day. This shot shows off the capabilities of the equipment a bit better than the Dumbbell image. This is a small jpeg for upload; the original .tiff output file is almost 3000 pixels wide and is 36 MB.
Equipment and workflow:
William Optics Megrez90 apo refractor on Celestron CGEM mount>TeleVue field flattener reducer giving around f/4.5>Meade CCD RGB filters>Orion Parsec 8300 monochrome astronomical imager, chip cooled to -15 C >Stark Labs Nebulosity for capture>PixInsightLE for processing>back to Nebulosity for final RGBL assembly>back to PixInsightLE for final tweaking and file format conversion.

Thanks for tolerating the offtopic astrophotos. I am in awe of the Universe, and ... it is all around us. We are stardust, created in explosions of old stars leaving gas and dust remnants like the Dumbbell, a planetary nebula leftover from a supernova or nova event, and gathered back together into stars and planets in systems like the Great Nebula in Orion, the birthplace of new stars.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 08, 2012, 07:31:41 PM
That appears to me to be different than the way MrWayne has been using "precharge".  The precharge is what's in the system before a cycle starts. Then you add whatever fluid/air to make the lift. Then you sink, recovering whatever fluid/air you added. What's left is the same precharge and position that you had before you added your whatever fluid/air to make the lift.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 08, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
Just to ask - state - and be sure.

ASK :: The test data presented last night was gathered as requested, I believe?
Water levels set to 6.5 inches - POD near zero.
Pod near zero is required in this case to allow for some air compression.

STATE :: That is one problem with this test setup; I'm not saying it's not a valid or legitimate test but there is the problem of compression.

In a well set up system the air remains in a near-steady state of compression so its volume change is reduced.
With this setup there is a greater change in volume of the low density fluid.

All of that's fine as long we understand what we're testing and what the goal of the test is.

BEING SURE :: Kind of the same as the first question ( no, really the same ) Was the test that was done and the data that was presented - what was asked for?

Dale

PS: The comment about changing 1 think at a time - meaning - doing this zero added air test with the same payload as the previous test ( I Think ). The result of trying that would have been no lift. The volume of water added would have been lower ( no under-pod-fillin ) but the POD chamber would have gone to the max height before over flowing without causing enough differential in the outer risers to provide lift.

It's a balanced system. The weights can't change, the pressures and differentials can't change, without affecting something else in the system.

Within a range though it would be, and is suggested, to slowly change just 1 thing and observe the reaction.
IE: Add or remove 1 pound from a working setup.

 

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 08, 2012, 08:08:09 PM
I refer to that condition as the setup.
The setup is setting the air and water relationships before starting the system.
I refer to precharge as taking the system pressure and using an external source raising it up to lift pressure.
After precharge is met more fluid and pressure are needed for lift.
I refer to lift as making the lift as well as how much weight the lift can move,, my bad.
I refer to rest as when the system has made a lift and returns back to its setup position and pressure.

A short refresher on "PreCharge"
1.. The intial partial precharge lifts the risers from the floor (float pressure)
2.. The next charge, called "Full PreCharge" takes the system to full stroke pressure (force) but NO Movement (brake is on, system taken to stroke pressure). In a full dual Zed system, this process has 2 stages, Equalization(free cost) & Hydraulic assist (paid cost)
3.. Stroke action only provides stroke displacement volume water as required for the stroke distance, the pre-charge takes care of the stroke pressure (force)

Process stages picture attached
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 08, 2012, 08:50:13 PM
Gents,
There is a big difference in how different people are defining pre-charge.  In a ZED of the sort that has been replicated here, I think of it as the initial balance.  That is, what is needed to counterbalance the fixed weight of the riser, without any payload weight.  There is more than one way to create this initial balancing setup in a ZED, but this is a needed step for high efficiency operation.  Do not attack this as being a source of stored energy that can be consumed.  It is not, and it can't be for repeated cycles.
Some others are defining pre-charge as winding up a "spring" that can be used to supplement the losses in a running ZED.  The ZED will cycle until the "spring" runs down.  This is a legitimate target of inquiry.
Some complete systems talk about a pre-charged "spring" that is a temporary source of power to phase shift the generation of force at one point in the operation to application of that force at another point later on, but the pre-charge is restored on each cycle.  This is also a legitimate target of inquiry since it has the potential to start with a "spring" wound more than required to just phase shift the force.
It can be confusing when using the same term for all of the above.  Let's be clear about which we are talking about.

I can see that Tinsel has a reasonable idea, to see and verify what the precharge impact is,  See3D suggest some good instances that the spring effect could occur and be used and replicators like wildew doing a goose chase. You can be assured of more water and energy input.
But you guys have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to spring effect.  The fact that air is present in the system and will compress and therefore act as a spring  is unavoidable but not desirable.  The same reason why we have a center POD and not a riser in the middle of the zed.  The reason for the initial precharge is to setup the piston to the float position (overcome the riser weight).
The final precharge bring the system up to full stroke force without movement (piston is stopped with brake)  At no time in this process does the spring effect has any desirable effect or purpose .
When stroke movement is started, the main purpose of the Hydraulic Assist is to maintain that stroke pressure constant to optimize the energy output for that limited distance.  At this point does the spring effect serve to smooth out the force to keep it within margin but this is not a critical side effect
During descent, the spring effect is detrimental, because it counteracts a fast descent since this spring is located between the lift surface and the water below, this would retard the descent.  The only component that promotes descent is the RiserWeight while pulling the bottom plug out, any spring effect in the system will hinder that.

I think your logic is way off track with thinking that the air spring effect is going to keep the system going, or assist in any way.  The precharge real benefit is in recycling of pressure volumes that allows for reduced volume usage at stroke time (in a dual Zed)
I am open for correction if you think different !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on November 08, 2012, 09:42:48 PM

This is somewhat off-topic but there are a lot of parallels.

Most of us have other specific areas of interest that are closer to "the norm" than free energy and there are emerging technologies all around us; some succeed, some fail....

I'm into aviation

Anyone want to debate the Moller SkyCar?

Dale




Hi Dale ..


While there is a little off-topic going on ...


In the early 90's [90/91] I had completed a commercial pilots licence & was finishing an instructor rating - at the time of gaining my licences & rating the A-Cat who had a hand in teaching me was a gentleman by the Cp Gordon Vette - he was an ex Air NZ captain - he was also the test pilot for the prototype Moller 400, flying to the states every 6 months or so for further evaluation.


I sidetracked him whenever I could to talk about the Moller skycar - I was particularly interested in the vectored thrust from the 8 engine/4 narcels that could run on any combustable fuel - Gordon always flew tethered flights [for insurance purposes] & mostly in ground effect though sometimes higher.


I asked him when they would be commercially available ? - they were computer controlled for navigation & stability so you only needed minimum training to fly them [far less than a private pilot's licence but that would be preferable] - he said, at that time, that he was convinced that the aircraft could fly to 30,000 feet & do over 300 kts IIRC - but the problem with release & commercialisation was not the mechanics or performance but the Civil Aviation Authority needs for 'electronic flight corridors' [virtual tunnel networks/corridors in the sky] that the Moller could be directed into & fly about safely etc - he said that the technology just wasn't there then to achieve a sky network that the FAA would approve - until that such time as it was & it was idiot proof & approved by FAA the Moller would never eventuate as a commercial alternative to private transport.


Gordon was to receive the 120th production model IIRC - Moller himself made his fortune out of designing & building expansion chamber exhausts for racing cars & the knock-on technology that followed but also had an aeronautics degree IINM.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on November 08, 2012, 09:50:23 PM
...
I think your logic is way off track with thinking that the air spring effect is going to keep the system going, or assist in any way.  The precharge real benefit is in recycling of pressure volumes that allows for reduced volume usage at stroke time (in a dual Zed)
I am open for correction if you think different !
Red, you are not understanding my post.  My post was made for those who already understand, but using the same term to mean different things, which does not promote understanding by others.  If you can not see where the different situations come from in my three cases in actual builds, then I can not help you at this time.  I am not trying to be rude, but I need to do more work before it is easier to illustrate all the cases for everyone. 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 08, 2012, 10:30:52 PM
Red, you are not understanding my post.  My post was made for those who already understand, but using the same term to mean different things, which does not promote understanding by others.  If you can not see where the different situations come from in my three cases in actual builds, then I can not help you at this time.  I am not trying to be rude, but I need to do more work before it is easier to illustrate all the cases for everyone.
See3D,
Your post makes good sense to me, I am not referring to your post in a corrective sense or where they actually come from in your 3 cases.
I am referring to the zed and the implied association of the spring effect to the zed and the precharge as a means to provide enduring power for a prolonged time.
Sorry if I caused any confusion, that was not intentional
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 08, 2012, 10:39:16 PM
You, Wayne and others who pursue devices such as this, far from being out of the box thinkers, are actually trapped by your own delusions. No amount of wishful thinking will create an OU device if the mechanisms you design don't have the characteristics that will allow that to occur.

Let's imagine the problem at hand was designing an aeroplane. You, as 'out of the box' thinkers have decided to use cheese as the material of choice, and to bolster your thinking have only chosen to consult cheese makers rather than aeronautical experts. Sounds ridiculous I know, but Mr Travis's attempt at OU appears to me to be an equivalent exercise.

For the record I think OU is achievable. To my mind manipulating space time itself will be the only fruitful level of enquiry. At this time I don't have any idea what such a device would look like, but I can tell you with certainty it does not look like anything yet shown by Wayne Travis.
Hi Seamus,
I duly respect your constraint conservative position. No problem, man
It is best that we recognize that WE have come to the end of the road
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on November 09, 2012, 01:12:19 AM
You can't be serious in asking this question..surely? Isn't it obvious that case two describes no more than hydraulic leverage and the conclusions drawn about the energy balance are completely false.

Sure, the descent in case two could generate ten times the pressure but the volume that could be transferred is ten times less. Net result in energy terms is exactly the same as case one. Not overunity at all.
I agree, how is that much VOLUME transferred the same distance as the input with greater pressure?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 01:19:08 AM
Two kids are on a perfectly balanced see-saw. You give one of them -- Zedediah -- an apple. He sinks, but before he's down he tosses the apple to the other kid -- Dezdemona. Now Dez sinks and Zed rises. Since the toss was horizontal it was "work-free". Dez takes a small bite out of the apple and tosses it back to Zed, also work free. Now he sinks and she rises. Zed takes a bite out of the apple and tosses it back to Dez. This goes on for some little while, until the apple is completely eaten and the kids are in balance again, each one weighing about half-an-apple more than they did at the start.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 02:38:42 AM
I guess that is how you think it may be happening.

So if that is what is happening and the system only has one exit point, the pod chamber is in a closed system with its feed bag, then for the pressure to leave either the water or the air has to transport said pressure,, if that happens we call it blowing a skirt.

Does not happen when things are working.

when things are working....

But we've heard report after report from MrWayne about things _not_ working, springing leaks, etc.
Just as with Zed and Dez, the added weight doesn't have to exit the system.... it just has to wind up being evenly distributed at a lower GPE than it entered. There is no need to "blow skirts" (Dez would really not like that and would slap you if you tried anything). Depending on how the system is constructed..... recall the Heron's Fountain..... a little leak somewhere between chambers, or even something about the pistons and valve system, could be tossing the apple back and forth, making the system run.
Hey, I dunno if that's what Mister Wayne's system does or not, since he's not sharing. But certainly nothing about the published animation _rules it out_ as a possibility.
We've apparently decided that a single Zed is balanced and the water in represents the "apple" compared to the kid's weight: a relatively small input has a large effect because of the precharge and counterbalance effects. So if you have two of these balanced Zeds and if there's some elevated reservoir of accumulated fluid that is cycled back and forth between chambers or cylinders in two balanced Zeds on its way down to a lower reservoir or tank or chamber....

What I can't figure out is how an _unbalanced_ pair of Zeds with an electronic control panel could keep running if it didn't have a power supply.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 09, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
I agree, how is that much VOLUME transferred the same distance as the input with greater pressure?
Quote
Quote from: seamus103 on November 08, 2012, 11:04:50 AM
    You can't be serious in asking this question..surely? Isn't it obvious that case two describes no more than hydraulic leverage and the conclusions drawn about the energy balance are completely false.
    Sure, the descent in case two could generate ten times the pressure but the volume that could be transferred is ten times less. Net result in energy terms is exactly the same as case one. Not overunity at all.

Xaverius,
I agree, that is what you see as a standard, of the cuff view. I agree that your view is a natural logical and linear deduction "within the box", but logical CAN NOT produce OU,  200yrs of foolish trying has proven that already.

In the case#2 example, for simplicity, it was clearly said that an assumed "hypothetical" piston was used that had the capability to morph into that into that property. The morphing is an engineering aspect. 
The reason that Seamus thinks that the inventor is deluded I can reasonably understand only because he can not visualize how this impossibility can realistically exist.  The book "Anarchy in Science", the reference I posted a while ago, gives you a good overview on how many theories, concepts and inventions were ridiculed by their peers over the centuries. Only because the recipient ear & brain can not yet process the information presented, it is not unlike a religious conversion because strong preconceptions and indoctrinations have to be put aside first to open the mind (that takes time)

If we go back to Wayne's posts, he says that he can produce a lift of 2500lb with 5psi, when increasing the psi with 60%, he lifts 7500lb.  Normally this relationship should be linear (pressure x area), but obvious what he is describing isn't,  increasing the pressure from 100 to160%, increases the lift by 300%.  Impossible in the normal "in the box sense", absolutely !.

As described by Wayne, the special effects are not exactly "space, time", only multiple masses occupying the same space at the same time and a relationship distortion due to virtual appearance are the main effects that drives the OU capability.
Addon >>The Travis effect is also possible because of the piston unique structure. The combined " riser surfaces" gathered into one assembly does not equal the sum of these "riser surfaces" if used separated from each other. The stacked water column configuration in the combined structure produces a unique relationship, from a parallel to serial but the lift remains parallel  << addon

There is nothing I could add to Wayne explanation, the pictures posted, or the animation on the web site. 
Only the penny of realization and comprehension in your thinking mind need to drop, it will come, give it time, persistence pays !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on November 09, 2012, 08:01:12 AM
Red_Sunset:

Quote
Only the penny of realization and comprehension in your thinking mind need to drop, it will come, give it time, persistence pays !

Indeed, persistence pays.

You have been holding court here for quite a while and doing a pretty good job of it.  The real question, to paraphrase you, is that people need to use their thinking minds, and giving them some time and letting them weigh the possibilities, and with some persistence, they may come to a level of realization and comprehension.

The real question is what are they going to eventually realize.  Certainly time is not on your side Red_Sunset, and in all likelihood, the sun is going to set on you.

Some people may come to realize that all of the prompts and suggestions and the allusions to eventual enlightenment will indeed result in another form of enlightenment.  The longer time goes on, the more stress there is put on your position and there may be a reactionary form of enlightenment that is the opposite of what you are hoping for.

Wayne seems like a nice guy.  Down home Oklahoma folk.  You seem like a nice guy, some cool guy that sails the world and is just dropping in for an extended stay to turn people on to this new realization.

But onward the clock ticks, and tocks, and ticks, and tocks, and that stress that I made reference to will result in a new form of enlightenment.

The realization that may dawn on some people is that things are getting stale.  Nothing concrete is happening.  We are all just spinning our wheels and spinning our wheels and spinning our wheels.

Look at this whole model of what has been transpiring here.  Is it just a mirage?  Is there a way to put the pieces of the puzzle together that makes complete sense but not in a way that you would like it to make sense?  Do all the pieces of the puzzle add up to a workaround for gravity and buoyancy that allow you to harvest free energy from a standalone hydraulic-pneumatic device, or do the pieces to the puzzle add up to something else?

I see the pieces to the puzzle adding up and it all makes perfect sense to me.  The idea of a demo to prove the system to a team organized by Mark Dansie sounds pretty sweet.  But my jigsaw puzzle puts that concept on a Moebius strip.  We are always on the journey but we never seem to get there, it's always around the next bend.  You just have to think and visualize and get energized by what you say and we can all round yet another corner on the Moebius strip.

The way all of the pieces fit together into a new form of realization and comprehension is pretty comprehensive.  The realization is that you are basically a pretty slick and clever paid shill.  In other words you are part of the Inverse MIB.  This is all just an orchestrated online event, a never ending story.  Your job is to hold court and convince people that all they have to do is open up their minds and this amazing realization will come true.  All that you have to do is tune in and try to achieve that Nirvana of understanding.

But the real Nirvana of understanding is for individuals to come to the profound realization is that this is all just an orchestrated event - people guided onto a Moebus strip of hope.  You may have some pretty good Inverse MIB buzz going right now, but the clock is against you and as time goes on people will be coming to the real and true realization with respect to what is really and truly happening.

Like I said, for this "alternative" realization, all of the pieces of the puzzle come together and fit perfectly.   You are trying to get people to have a "Eureka ZED moment" and keep on trying to convince them to put the pieces of the puzzle together.  Your puzzle has the disadvantage of never ever getting completed.  The "alternative" puzzle pieces all fit together perfectly and everything makes sense.

It's fun watching the show sometimes, but it's just a show.  The end is basically a foregone conclusion and I don't think that the number of statues built in honour of Wayne will ever match the number of statues built to honour Einstein.

You can go back to your regularly scheduled activities there Red_Sunset but the pressure will continue to mount as time goes on, something that is inescapable for you.

What is the root cause for this whole thing?  Rum and Coca-Cola!  What else could it be?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 09, 2012, 09:48:54 AM
Contrary to your assertions I am able to fully visualize this system, and with the help of mathematics prove beyond doubt that you are incorrect. Work, a conserved quantity, is the integral of Force with respect to distance and this holds true over ANY arbitrarily defined boundary. That is ANY geometry you or anyone else is able to visualize or define.  I understand you appear to be unable to think in these ways, and this is a limiting factor in your understanding of physical systems.
In light of this you should measure this system on its merits to date. No result so far, and I can confidently predict no result in the future. 

Seamus,
I have no problem to admit to any limitations in my vision or anything I might have overlooked if found to exist.
Can you share your mathematical proof to put Force behind your word and difference of vision. I agree that work is a conserved quantity, is the integral of Force with respect to distance and this holds true over ANY arbitrarily defined boundary "in a common and normal configuration". Out argument is that Travis is an exception to that normality, not to the law.
For the purpose of argumentation, we can stick to the theory for the time being, because that is what we have control of at this moment in time
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on November 09, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
If we go back to Wayne's posts, he says that he can produce a lift of 2500lb with 5psi, when increasing the psi with 60%, he lifts 7500lb.  Normally this relationship should be linear (pressure x area), but obvious what he is describing isn't,  increasing the pressure from 100 to160%, increases the lift by 300%.  Impossible in the normal "in the box sense", absolutely !.

As described by Wayne, the special effects are not exactly "space, time", only multiple masses occupying the same space at the same time and a relationship distortion due to virtual appearance are the main effects that drives the OU capability.
Addon >>The Travis effect is also possible because of the piston unique structure. The combined " riser surfaces" gathered into one assembly does not equal the sum of these "riser surfaces" if used separated from each other. The stacked water column configuration in the combined structure produces a unique relationship, from a parallel to serial but the lift remains parallel  << addon

There is nothing I could add to Wayne explanation, the pictures posted, or the animation on the web site. 
Only the penny of realization and comprehension in your thinking mind need to drop, it will come, give it time, persistence pays !
Hi Red,
is this nonlinear increase in pressure demonstrable also in 1 riser system? My calculation for 1 riser lift case shows it is pretty linear.  I can share it if people are interested.
MT
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 09, 2012, 11:42:08 AM
Hi Red,
is this nonlinear increase in pressure demonstrable also in 1 riser system? My calculation for 1 riser lift case shows it is pretty linear.  I can share it if people are interested.
MT 

MT, 
It is not a non-linear increase in pressure, "it is a NL increase in Force" for a linear increase in pressure.
The answer is, Noop it is not.
As Wayne indicated before, its aspects are clearly seen with 2+ layers (multiple) layers and more apparent with a higher area ratio between the most inner (pod) and most outer layer.  The whole dynamics of the Travis effect conspire together to a greater efficiency in unison, the more layers you introduce.  The disadvantage that more layers become more difficult to manage to get this max.efficiency out of them.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MT on November 09, 2012, 11:58:17 AM
MT, 
It is not a non-linear increase in pressure, "it is a NL increase in Force" for a linear increase in pressure.
The answer is, Noop it is not.
As Wayne indicated before, its aspects are clearly seen with 2+ layers (multiple) layers and more apparent with a higher area ratio between the most inner (pod) and most outer layer.  The whole dynamics of the Travis effect conspire together to a greater efficiency in unison, the more layers you introduce.  The disadvantage that more layers become more difficult to manage to get this max.efficiency out of them.
Thanks, it is more clear now. We will eventually get there.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 09, 2012, 01:43:04 PM
First we need to clear up confusion around the pivotal words , ANY and ARBITRARY. I would have to qualify the postulate by adding 'within a normal Euclidian space'. It is true that Euclidian geometry is only applicable when the force of gravity is small compared with other forces. The differences at normal scales are practically infintisimal however. In such spaces all the conservative laws are mathematically provable. I won't do that here as there are many texts available that do a far better job than I could.

You, having  accepted that the conservation laws are valid for normal Euclidian space appear to believe that a Travis device can operate outside those boundaries. I would be prepared to consider this a possibility if it happened to be of nanometer scale or traveling at near the speed of light adjacent to a blackhole. This device doesn't appear to have any of those properties, so we can safely assume it will not exhibit any of those effects.

Seamus,
What are you saying ?  "If the Travis device could operate in the nanometer scale or traveling at near the speed of light adjacent to a black hole then we could possibility see the Travis Effects and some OU."
You can not be serious !

This is definitely not the counter argument that I expected, I find it very disappointing that your are have shifted around the landscape from thermodynamics/conservation to 200yrs of history, to Wayne's ability to black holes. The Travis device wouldn't be of much use traveling at the speed of light near a black hole.

I know you can do better, please give me a counter argument within context, something earthly, something real.
We can not safely assume any assumption like that,  that leeway is too big


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 05:20:50 PM
Red, what _you_ are saying is that you agree that conservation laws hold true and that work is the integral of force times distance, etc, but in Mister Wayne's system he has sprinkled pixie dust in there, and this makes what is normally a linear relationship into a non-linear one, enabling the violation of Conservation of Energy and the extraction of work from gravity.

You have not explained what the Pixie Dust is or how it works, you have not explained (or even demonstrated) how the "non-linear" force, when multiplied by the distance thru which it acts, becomes larger than the original linear force input multiplied by its distance of action.... In short, you are doing what I have been trying to explain to you for days now: You are invoking processes that don't exist, to hypothesize results that are not in evidence. You are strapping cardboard wings onto your pigs, and claiming that, IF ONLY, they were on a planet with reduced gravity and denser air, they might be able to fly.

What all this fantasy of yours has to do with MrWayne's lack of demonstration of his claims, his missed deadlines and his covering up of actual data, while claiming NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY PERCENT efficiency for a system that he says has "no input"...... I dunno.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 09, 2012, 05:55:05 PM
.........................................................................................
What all this fantasy of yours has to do with MrWayne's lack of demonstration of his claims, his missed deadlines and his covering up of actual data, while claiming NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY PERCENT efficiency for a system that he says has "no input"...... I dunno.

Nothing at all ! my dear squire TinselKoala
We are still talking about the iron age when Wayne has already progressed into the modern age.

Quote
You have not explained what the Pixie Dust is or how it works,

You are not into pixie dust,  I thought that you prefer the pink unicorns, How are they doing for you ?  Like to switch ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 09, 2012, 06:22:45 PM
Hi,
   with the see-saw if the apple goes from one to the other nothing happens, once the one with the apple sinks work will have to be done
because the one with the apple will be lower. If one takes a bite out of the apple the piece must be spat out or placed at fulcrum so that an advantage is gained. Eventually the apple will be out of it and the process stops.
   If I were mrwayne I can envisage a bit of pressure rising-in my knickers!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 07:21:12 PM
Hi,
   with the see-saw if the apple goes from one to the other nothing happens, once the one with the apple sinks work will have to be done
because the one with the apple will be lower.
The apple is tossed horizontally. The greater inertia of the kids on the see-saw keeps them going in the same direction for a short time. The kid catching the apple will continue upwards due to this inertia, until the system "catches up" and she begins to sink. As the seesaw is again level she tosses the apple back (after taking a small bite out).
Quote
If one takes a bite out of the apple the piece must be spat out or placed at fulcrum so that an advantage is gained.
Nope. A tiny bite of apple stays with the kid. The rest of the apple is tossed to the other kid. If you want to spit it overboard or place it at the fulcrum, that's ok with me too. The advantage remains, getting smaller and smaller until, either way ....
Quote
Eventually the apple will be out of it and the process stops.

 If I were mrwayne I can envisage a bit of pressure rising-in my knickers!

And here's what we actually have ( or have been told we actually have):

We have two large cylindrical and multilayered buoyancy-pressure systems. Each one is balanced around its neutrally buoyant point, like a spring-loaded automatic bollard, so that a small change in the buoyancy-maintaining condition can cause the floating assembly to rise or sink, just as in the Cartesian diver or the automatic bollard. The two systems are connected cross-wise by mechanical and/or hydraulic linkages... like two equally balanced kids on a see-saw. A system has been described and even illustrated in animation that serves effectively to transfer a small amount of weight and/or buoyancy change from one side to the other. This makes the system a force amplifier already. And, like all amplifiers that can be fed back their inputs with a phase shift of 180 degrees.... like the kids throwing the apple on the seesaw or the hydraulics and horizontal rams of the Zeds --- the system can oscillate in a feedback manner.
All of this is out in the open. The results of our experimenters with their layered systems illustrate the automatic bollard portion of the system, where a small force input results in a large motion of a heavy assembly, due to the precharge spring. The thought experiment of Dez and Zed with the apple illustrates how a dual system would rock back and forth given a work-neutral shifting of weight. The animation on MrWayne's websites show the necessary working parts doing just that: changing buoyancy and effective weight in just the right manner and phase timing to produce a feedback oscillation in the force amplifier that is the dual Zed system.

All that's left is the pixie dust. In the thought experiment, the input required to make the system move comes from the input of the apple, unbalanced at first, then finally balanced and stopped. If the apple wasn't eaten, was tossed back and forth at just the right time AND THERE WERE NO LOSSES.... the kids could continue rocking until Momma called them Home for good.

However we know that in any real system there will be losses. So the critical part of Mister Wayne's claim is still not understood... how to get that system working "forever" even against its losses, and even considering that the apple can't really be tossed "work free" since there are losses there too.

But fortunately... or unfortunately.... there is no need to understand or explain that which HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 07:37:00 PM
Yes TK we have heard all about system failures from Wayne, when they make a change they run into issues, errors, whether they be human or mechanical.

IIRC we were not told initially how long the system ran while Mark was visiting, nor were we told of the reason for termination of the run, it was you that that put forward the concept that the system failed.
Mister Wayne has told us that the longest time any of the systems has run is under four hours. He's told us of the leaks, the overtorquing, the failures to perform as expected. The system Mark videoed had obvious problems, it was unbalanced, only one side sounded like it was "producing" power .... yet its screen lit up and it ran.... and it did NOT have a generator, I seem to recall,  and the electrical parts were running on batteries that it itself didn't charge, as we finally got MrWayne to "admit", I str. Mark went away unsatisfied.... and all deadlines since then have been put off because the self-imposed goals haven't been met..."due diligence" as MrWayne says in one breath, and then "960 percent" in another, without providing any evidence of due diligence other than another missed deadline and some more words.
If the system DIDN'T FAIL or wouldn't fail, webby, why wasn't it allowed to run for two days? Surely Mark would have enjoyed actually seeing what he went down there to see.
Quote

I agree that if something happens inside the system so that the original relationships between the water and the risers changes that the system will loose its advantage and stop functioning.

I am not sure if "we" have decided anything accept that "we" disagree.

Remember, it is not how much "I" put into a system, it is how "much" is put into the system regardless of source.

Mister Wayne says that once the precharge is in, before the system starts, then _nothing_ is put in after that from ANY source. And then you start it, and once the system has run for a while, during which while you are taking power OUT of the system, you can stop it, and measure that it is exactly as it was before you started it, with the original precharge pressures and water levels exactly as they were before starting. Or am I getting this part wrong? Please correct me right away if Mister Wayne is NOT claiming the above for his system.

I'd love to see a demonstration of this.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 09, 2012, 07:50:52 PM
Hi,
  thanks for your response. Are we saying that the apple is tossed in an arc so there is some reaction vertically? I was assuming that it
was shuttled horizontally giving only lateral force.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 09, 2012, 08:03:42 PM
TK,
 
While I appreciate your see-saw analogy, I can't quite see how it is supposed to fully represent a dual ZED system.  On every upstroke the rising ZED is restricted hydraulically and must produce more upward force before rising than the one that is lowering.  In my little test setup I simulate this by adding a weight to the ZED at the bottom of stroke that it must lift while rising.  That weight is removed at the top of stroke.  So in the see-saw analogy don't you need to hand a sack of apples to the child that is at the bottom and have that lift with them to the top where you would remove it again?  Isn't that entire portion of a dual ZED system missing from the see-saw analogy?
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 09, 2012, 08:15:48 PM
Hi,
  thanks for your response. Are we saying that the apple is tossed in an arc so there is some reaction vertically? I was assuming that it was shuttled horizontally giving only lateral force.

Minnie,  TinselKoala,
Can you expand on the curve of the arc, so I can determine at which point in the apple trajectory did Adam capture the apple and took his bite?
I can not see how with an horizontal shuttle, he would still be able to intercept the apple in time using front teeth only.
And what does he do after 4 hours of eating apples, when he has eaten too much apple?, spit, spat or stop the see-saw ?
I think you make this unnecessary too complicated
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 09, 2012, 09:59:01 PM
Hi Red_Sunset,
                       I think you've finally got it, when all the apple has gone it stops.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on November 09, 2012, 10:17:22 PM
Xaverius,
I agree, that is what you see as a standard, of the cuff view. I agree that your view is a natural logical and linear deduction "within the box", but logical CAN NOT produce OU,  200yrs of foolish trying has proven that already.

In the case#2 example, for simplicity, it was clearly said that an assumed "hypothetical" piston was used that had the capability to morph into that into that property. The morphing is an engineering aspect. 
The reason that Seamus thinks that the inventor is deluded I can reasonably understand only because he can not visualize how this impossibility can realistically exist.  The book "Anarchy in Science", the reference I posted a while ago, gives you a good overview on how many theories, concepts and inventions were ridiculed by their peers over the centuries. Only because the recipient ear & brain can not yet process the information presented, it is not unlike a religious conversion because strong preconceptions and indoctrinations have to be put aside first to open the mind (that takes time)

If we go back to Wayne's posts, he says that he can produce a lift of 2500lb with 5psi, when increasing the psi with 60%, he lifts 7500lb.  Normally this relationship should be linear (pressure x area), but obvious what he is describing isn't,  increasing the pressure from 100 to160%, increases the lift by 300%.  Impossible in the normal "in the box sense", absolutely !.

As described by Wayne, the special effects are not exactly "space, time", only multiple masses occupying the same space at the same time and a relationship distortion due to virtual appearance are the main effects that drives the OU capability.
Addon >>The Travis effect is also possible because of the piston unique structure. The combined " riser surfaces" gathered into one assembly does not equal the sum of these "riser surfaces" if used separated from each other. The stacked water column configuration in the combined structure produces a unique relationship, from a parallel to serial but the lift remains parallel  << addon

There is nothing I could add to Wayne explanation, the pictures posted, or the animation on the web site. 
Only the penny of realization and comprehension in your thinking mind need to drop, it will come, give it time, persistence pays !
  It seems to me that the input pressure locked together with a smaller surface Area.  This smaller Area then exerts more Pressure on the same Volume of fluid.  This Mass of water then moves the given Distance, although in a narrower channel.  This implies that the input channel would have to be higher than the output channel.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 10:20:33 PM
Hi,
  thanks for your response. Are we saying that the apple is tossed in an arc so there is some reaction vertically? I was assuming that it
was shuttled horizontally giving only lateral force.
It's a thought experiment, Minnie. As the seesaw is passing thru horizontal on the way to the travel stops (Zed high, Dez low or vice versa) the apple is tossed. If it's in an upward arc, there is a reaction vertically down at the thower. The receiver gets this same reaction vertically down when she catches it. The transit time of the ball is short compared to the oscillation period of the see saw. There is inertia. Once the apple is caught by the rising child at the horizontal position, she has plenty of time to take a bite out of it as inertia carries her and the apple up to the top stop. She has one bite of apple in her mouth and the rest of the apple in her hand. She sinks due to the apple-cation of the full weight of the apple. As she passes through the horizontal point she tosses the remains of the apple over to Zed. It doesn't matter if it's an arc or a straight horizontal pass. If it's an arc she is transferring some work to the other side, and that work came from her breakfast. Simpler to IMAGINE, since it's a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, a horizontal work-free transfer.
The purpose of thought experiments -- which always incorporate ideal, not achievable elements in part, is to try to figure out consequences that would happen if you _could_ achieve the ideal elements.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 10:30:23 PM
Minnie,  TinselKoala,
Can you expand on the curve of the arc, so I can determine at which point in the apple trajectory did Adam capture the apple and took his bite?
I can not see how with an horizontal shuttle, he would still be able to intercept the apple in time using front teeth only.
And what does he do after 4 hours of eating apples, when he has eaten too much apple?, spit, spat or stop the see-saw ?
I think you make this unnecessary too complicated

I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

Now that Webby has said that the initial charge of pressure/water is added AFTER the precharge setup, and it is this what starts the system going... it should be clear that my analogy is EVEN MORE APT than before. The setup precharge puts the kids on the seesaw and balances them. That initial charge that starts up the system is the apple. What happens to it?

Instead of your mocking response, why do you not refute the points: The individual Zed is balanced around its neutral buoyancy point and it takes only a small effective weight change to make it rise and sink. This is like adding an apple to one of the kids. The Dual Zed system has in the animation, a visibly working set of parts that do just this very thing. This is like tossing the apple back and forth at the right time for feedback oscillation. (Do you understand amplifiers and how they oscillate?) If the apple is consumed (by eating, half winding up in each stomach, or by spitting it overboard a bite at a time) the kids stop rocking.......

SO.. .What happens to that initial load of pressure/water that webby says starts the system, after the setup precharge?     
Maybe it takes four hours for it to wind up equalized in the stomachs of the two Zeds.



@mondrasek: If you are able to start at state A at the bottom, then put a weight on at the bottom, lift it, remove the weight at the top, sink and recover back to the original state A without input of further work, leaving the lifted weight at the top... what is preventing you from lifting all the weight in the world, work free, a little at a time? There is either something wrong with how you are describing what you are doing, or with how I am interpreting your description... or you already have a COP infinity device in your workshop.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 09, 2012, 10:51:43 PM
@mondrasek: If you are able to start at state A at the bottom, then put a weight on at the bottom, lift it, remove the weight at the top, sink and recover back to the original state A without input of further work, leaving the lifted weight at the top... what is preventing you from lifting all the weight in the world, work free, a little at a time? There is either something wrong with how you are describing what you are doing, or with how I am interpreting your description... or you already have a COP infinity device in your workshop.

If what I calculated in #2999 is correct then I only have a maximum COP of 87% possible.  And that is *if* I were to construct a second identical ZED to what I have tested and hooked the two together.  So that is preventing me from lifting all the weight in the world.  That is also something I did not say was happening.
 
My question was only about the correctness of the see-saw analogy for a twin ZED system.  If the ZED was not coupled to the hydraulic capture system, then I can understand the see-saw analogy.  Then it is just two ZEDs, doing no work, oscillating back and forth.  Just like a see-saw.
 
But in the dual ZED setup, each rising ZED is lifting considerably more weight than the falling one.  This does not happen without diverting some of the previous lift back into the system (supposedly).  And if it required that ALL of the previous lift be returned to the system, then I could agree that we can have an oscillator again.  But much more complicated than a simple see-saw?  So my question is, is it a correct analogy to ignore the hydraulic capture and feedback system entirely or is that also properly accounted for in the simple see-say analogy?
 
M.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 10, 2012, 01:52:44 AM
Just Rambling,

The typical thought of using gravity in a system is that the work captured from a weight falling is equal to the amount of work it takes to lift the weight back up to its starting point.  That is that the work to reset the weight is a loss and nothing but a loss to the system.

This is not the case in a ZED.  After setup the first initial input fluid into the pod chamber leverages the force of gravity to increase the pressure value that can be utilized within the pod chamber, the more pressure in the more work out.  After the leverage is achieved gravity being gravity and being relentless in wanting to pull things down still tries to pull the water back down to an even value, to do that it tries to push the air up and out of the way, since the air has no place to go except to push on the horizontal surface of the riser and the horizontal surface of the next inside water column, gravity then is assisting in the lift process as well as the increases in input pressure to allow a greater lift,, IE more work out.

At the end of lift gravity is still gravity and is still trying to pull the water, risers and sink weight down, so when the water is allowed to exit the system gravity can now express its force over the water and move the air which moves the water, so on and so forth, and pushes the water back out of the pod chamber under pressure free of charge to me and free for me to use.  At the end of the sink I must stop the risers from being pulled down any further than the start position, gravity will try and remove all that it can.

Been enjoying laughing at the post by the misleaders, but yours is just excellent logic, webby.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 10, 2012, 02:56:30 AM

If what I calculated in #2999 is correct then I only have a maximum COP of 87% possible.  And that is *if* I were to construct a second identical ZED to what I have tested and hooked the two together.  So that is preventing me from lifting all the weight in the world.  That is also something I did not say was happening.
 
My question was only about the correctness of the see-saw analogy for a twin ZED system.  If the ZED was not coupled to the hydraulic capture system, then I can understand the see-saw analogy.  Then it is just two ZEDs, doing no work, oscillating back and forth.  Just like a see-saw.
 
But in the dual ZED setup, each rising ZED is lifting considerably more weight than the falling one.  This does not happen without diverting some of the previous lift back into the system (supposedly).  And if it required that ALL of the previous lift be returned to the system, then I could agree that we can have an oscillator again.  But much more complicated than a simple see-saw?  So my question is, is it a correct analogy to ignore the hydraulic capture and feedback system entirely or is that also properly accounted for in the simple see-say analogy?
 
M.

I really  need to get this straight.

Several times, it has seemed to me that you have said that you can put a weight on at the bottom, lift it to the top, and then slide it off horizontally onto a platform, say. Then without adding any weight back, you somehow cause the sink to happen and you recover the input you used to lift up the weight.
Right?
So now you are back at the bottom of the cycle and you've recovered the work you put in. But you've got a weight sitting up on top of the platform where it wasn't, before.

Is this what you've said you can do, or not? Where did I get the idea that you said this?

Quote
In my little test setup I simulate this by adding a weight to the ZED at the bottom of stroke that it must lift while rising.  That weight is removed at the top of stroke.  So in the see-saw analogy don't you need to hand a sack of apples to the child that is at the bottom and have that lift with them to the top where you would remove it again?
#3069

And there have been other times when you've said a similar thing, about removing an added weight at the top, achieving sink and recovering back to the start position, but with your added weight left behind at the top.

So.... please clear up my misconception about this. Because as I've said before, if you are really doing this..... then you can lift an arbitrary amount of weight in small increments, work free, then recover all that added _free energy_ by letting the weights slide back down through some generator like a waterwheel, a cuckoo clock escapement, you name it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 10, 2012, 03:55:42 AM
or 2, prove your case by providing some experimental evidence.

@seamus103 - I completely agree with you there.

Larry has posted many spreadsheets, no one has really debated or discussed them.
At times there have been comments like "I don't know how to read them", or - "what"? But they've been largely ignored.

M. posted some data a couple of days ago, it was also not discussed.
I posted data that was the result of a test requested by TK, also ignored.
 
What the forum lately has consisted of is a RS vs. TK vs. you - with NOTHING of any substance provided by either side. Yes, please, lets get back on topic with data presented that either supports or refutes the claims.

Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 10, 2012, 04:28:02 AM
@seamus103 - I completely agree with you there.
Larry has posted many spreadsheets, no one has really debated or discussed them.
At times there have been comments like "I don't know how to read them", or - "what"? But they've been largely ignored.
M. posted some data a couple of days ago, it was also not discussed.
I posted data that was the result of a test requested by TK, also ignored.
 What the forum lately has consisted of is a RS vs. TK vs. you - with NOTHING of any substance provided by either side. Yes, please, lets get back on topic with data presented that either supports or refutes the claims.
Dale
Wildew & all,
It is clear that no matter how much priming is done, the core principle of the Zed has been stared into the eye but has not been discovered to date.
Why ?  because this forum is being misled by see-saw's with boys eating apples
The whole phenomenon of the zed OU contains a certain amount of IP, that has not been understood.
Xaverius is trying to solve the key point but misses the key.  Only until that keypoint is understood will everything clarify.  Neither Tinsel nor Seamus can see the key effect.  Your data will not really help you, because your systems are too small and you can not measure precise enough because the unenhanced effect is not big enough.
Wayne has always been too truthful, even on his animation.  Can you identify all components on the Zed animation and explain why each component is there for ?  There is a pointer in the picture to the effect.
You can follow Seamus and TinselKoala, I guarantee you that you will never arrive (you are being sucked into a black hole).
The choice is yours!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on November 10, 2012, 04:34:30 AM
@seamus103 - I completely agree with you there.

Larry has posted many spreadsheets, no one has really debated or discussed them.
At times there have been comments like "I don't know how to read them", or - "what"? But they've been largely ignored.

M. posted some data a couple of days ago, it was also not discussed.
I posted data that was the result of a test requested by TK, also ignored.
 
What the forum lately has consisted of is a RS vs. TK vs. you - with NOTHING of any substance provided by either side. Yes, please, lets get back on topic with data presented that either supports or refutes the claims.

Dale
Good idea Dale,

Let's stick to getting good data from the replications and use that to verify the sims and spreadsheets.  Then we will have something mathematically verifiable on which to base a theory of operation.  Until then I plan on ignoring other types of posts about how the ZED operates.

Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 10, 2012, 04:40:08 AM
Not ignored!


And Red..... you remind me of those Prophets of the End of the World. When the end doesn't actually come, they just change the date and carry on.

There will be a black hole all right...... and there's plenty of company down there. Soon, you'll even have your own hydro assist buoyancy device to keep you warm in the summer and cool in the winter.

Any news from Chickasaw, on this Friday night, the 9th of November?? Seems like a couple of kids with some chewing gum and apples could have fixed that NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY percent overunity device by now. You know, the one that was supposed to be already operating a week or ten days ago... else how did the measurement of its efficiency come from?
Unless of course it blew its skirts with all that excess unused input net return and left a muddy hole in the ground where MrWayne's barn used to be.

And how can you say that I haven't produced anything of value. From me, you have the workings of the automatic bollard and you now understand that you are doing just the same thing with your springy precharge or setup or however you want to use the terms that Mister Wayne clearly defined some time ago. From me, you have the see-saw analogy, which, if you actually study what is happening in the animation, you will see describes exactly what is happening in the animation. The only difference is that in the animation "something" is driving the exchange of effective weight from side to side and this effective weight isn't being consumed... as if the kids aren't eating the apple.  If you cannot see the utter validity and limpidity of that analogy then I submit to you that YOU don't really understand the system, and I challenge you to explain just where the power comes from to offset the continual losses in the real mechanical system without a depletion of some stored energy or supplied power. You cannot.
From me you have the insistence on the use of common units, realistic precision in your measurements and calculations, and the importance of repeatable long series of data points under controlled conditions. From me you have pink unicorns that are invisible and you have the kids Zed and Dez. And you have my suggestion that Mond light up his system with LEDs.  That alone is a contribution of deep significance and importance. Meanwhile.... from Red we have a bunch of words and from Mister Wayne we have... confirmation that MD isn't an investor.
And what we do NOT have is any information about "validation" or who is going to see what, when.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on November 10, 2012, 04:48:17 AM
Wildew & all,
It is clear that no matter how much priming is done, the core principle of the Zed has been stared into the eye but has not been discovered to date.
Why ?  because this forum is being misled by see-saw's with boys eating apples
The whole phenomenon of the zed OU contains a certain amount of IP, that has not been understood.
Xaverius is trying to solve the key point but misses the key.  Only until that keypoint is understood will everything clarify.  Neither Tinsel nor Seamus can see the key effect.  Your data will not really help you, because your systems are too small and you can not measure precise enough because the unenhanced effect is not big enough.
Wayne has always been too truthful, even on his animation.  Can you identify all components on the Zed animation and explain why each component is there for ?  There is a pointer in the picture to the effect.
You can follow Seamus and TinselKoala, I guarantee you that you will never arrive (you are being sucked into a black hole).
The choice is yours!

On the contrary Red.  When a simulation is verified to match a physical build, then the simulation can calculate the effect to incredible precision, or mathematically scale the effects to large size. Once a simulation works for the pieces, it can be expanded to a more complex system.

It is only when the mathematical model and the physical builds match that we can say we have proof of function and full understanding.

Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 10, 2012, 05:15:50 AM
@Red_Sunset
Quote
the core principle of the Zed has been stared into the eye but has not been discovered to date.
OK - please, enlighten me - all of us. Another clue perhaps ?

This really isn't a challenge, just a question.
What is it then?
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 10, 2012, 06:58:08 AM
@Red_SunsetOK - please, enlighten me - all of us. Another clue perhaps ?
This really isn't a challenge, just a question.
What is it then?  Dale
Hi Dale,
Let me post a mail from me to you, last 31-Aug as a reminder  (more clues are out there now)
Wayne set the precedent for this thread, and I am not going to change that, I am sure you can handle a challenge.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:01 PM, michel wrote:

    Hi Dale,
    ...............................................................  When it comes to understanding what Wayne figured out over time, the best way is to summarize, describe what the device is and what it does from what you know about it thus far.  Then for each details described, ask "What, How and What. then do logical reasoning and it is amazing to what conclusions you will come. The ability to do good visualization and pondering on what is the most likely scenario of a process or behavior in a given situation brings you quite quick to the solution.

    For example, what is the reason that more layers make the device more efficient, or how would wider water/air column width's achieve a similar result ? Can you visualize pretty accurately what the risers do during a descent after stroke?  How or what determines the working pressures ?  The riser weight? What determines the length of the stroke ?  All this can be way different for different dimensioned zeds. The zed is still way open for improvement and as Wayne said, the data shown is for the test zed that is based on an old design, with the knowledge and understanding gained he can do way better now due to improvements. (more output for similar dimensions).

    If you play each item out,  step by step you come to some possibilities, refine these with the most likely scenario. Try always to simplify and setup, this clarifies.  You will find your answers

    This is actually what Wayne wants as an inventor and I think that was a part in his reason to go to a forum, the feedback of other persons views and an other angles on the workings of his device, he has been looking at this for a few years already, fresh idea's can be of great help to advance his cause. ( I don't think it worked out in that way, )

    Regards, Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 10, 2012, 07:34:24 AM
................................................................
And how can you say that I haven't produced anything of value. From me, you have the workings of the automatic bollard and you now understand that you are doing just the same thing with your springy precharge or setup or however you want to use the terms that Mister Wayne clearly defined some time ago. From me, you have the see-saw analogy, which, if you actually study what is happening in the animation, you will see describes exactly what is happening in the animation. The only difference is that in the animation "something" is driving the exchange of effective weight from side to side and this effective weight isn't being consumed... as if the kids aren't eating the apple.  If you cannot see the utter validity and limpidity of that analogy then I submit to you that YOU don't really understand the system, and I challenge you to explain just where the power comes from to offset the continual losses in the real mechanical system without a depletion of some stored energy or supplied power. You cannot.
From me you have the insistence on the use of common units, realistic precision in your measurements and calculations, and the importance of repeatable long series of data points under controlled conditions. From me you have pink unicorns that are invisible and you have the kids Zed and Dez. And you have my suggestion that Mond light up his system with LEDs.  That alone is a contribution of deep significance and importance. Meanwhile.... from Red we have a bunch of words and from Mister Wayne we have... confirmation that MD isn't an investor.
And what we do NOT have is any information about "validation" or who is going to see what, when.

TinselKoala,
I took my prophets robe off,  do I think that the end of the world is near?  The question is, can we ignore Niburu ?
Tinsel, I am not familiar with the good work you have done in the past, any reference from me is directly related to the Zed.  I do not compare the zed with bollards, fountains or ballistic apples. I do not assume a springy precharge. An animation is for me a "presumed" model of the actuality in order to explain the actuality easier and better.
And you do not need to challenge me where the power comes from,  it would be better and more productive to challenge yourself because that would produce lasting benefit.

With due respect, I am not questioning your "contributions of deep significance and importance",  I am only questioning your objectivity in relation to the zed, which is marred and influenced by personal disturbances between you and Wayne.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 10, 2012, 08:14:25 AM


 I am only questioning your objectivity in relation to the zed, which is marred and influenced by personal disturbances between you and Wayne.

Yes, the Mr. Wayne that had the simple 3 times O.U. device (not shown nor proven) but then branched out to have others build another device that, if done correctly, "should" work.  This has made no sense to me from the start.  I think TK has only been pointing out the obvious, or rather, what should be obvious to an impartial observer.

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 10, 2012, 09:44:40 AM
Wayne has always been too truthful, even on his animation.

I know you follow Wayne blindly and you decide to ignore the evidence that he is not to be trusted, so if
you continue to make statements like that I will feel obliged to show everyone a list of broken promises

Wayne Travis is a liar and I am showing the evidence.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review

Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.

Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world

Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.

Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it over and over

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!

Quote from: mrwayne on October 15 on his web site
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation?
Me too.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 10, 2012, 01:49:22 PM
I really  need to get this straight.

Several times, it has seemed to me that you have said that you can put a weight on at the bottom, lift it to the top, and then slide it off horizontally onto a platform, say. Then without adding any weight back, you somehow cause the sink to happen and you recover the input you used to lift up the weight.
Right?
So now you are back at the bottom of the cycle and you've recovered the work you put in. But you've got a weight sitting up on top of the platform where it wasn't, before.

Is this what you've said you can do, or not? Where did I get the idea that you said this?
 #3069

And there have been other times when you've said a similar thing, about removing an added weight at the top, achieving sink and recovering back to the start position, but with your added weight left behind at the top.

So.... please clear up my misconception about this. Because as I've said before, if you are really doing this..... then you can lift an arbitrary amount of weight in small increments, work free, then recover all that added _free energy_ by letting the weights slide back down through some generator like a waterwheel, a cuckoo clock escapement, you name it.

TK, I am doing exactly what you (and I) describe in that I am lifting a weight and removing at the top.  The system is then reset while leaving that weight up.  HOWEVER, I am NOT doing that FOR FREE.  That is the point of the efficiency calculations.  And in #2999 I explain how using the data collected I believe the best that could be achieved from a dual setup of the exact type of two layer ZED I have constructed is an efficiency of 87%.  This is clearly UNDERUNITY.
 
My point has and remains to be that I do not understand how the see-saw analogy is correct for a dual ZED system.  This is because it apparently ignores the hydraulic capture and assist sub system.  I have been asking you (and the rest of the forum) if that analogy is in fact a correct one.
 
Twice now I have stated my questions.  And twice you have not addressed the questions about the analogy but instead redirected to these questions about "lifting the world for free" which I have never claimed or even brought up.  If I wished to be disrespectful I might make a statement like, "Since you refuse to discuss the validity of the analogy it is obviously incorrect."  But that is not my intent at all.  I am just trying to understand how the hydraulic capture system is properly accounted for in the see-saw analogy or if you have left that part out intentionally or by oversight.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 10, 2012, 09:37:35 PM
Ok, Mond, calm down, sheesh.

So you are not lifting the weight "for free". The lifted weight has added gravitational potential energy, from where it started, to where you slid it off at the top. Now you sink and recover, back to the start of a cycle. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here as well--- you are doing a "cycle" I hope, finishing at the same "everything" as before the lift, just before you slide another weight on at the bottom.
And this is not happening "for free". You have to put some energy in, and this energy in that you have to put in to "reset everything" is more than the gain in GPE from the slid-off weight at the top.
Am I right so far?

And you've somehow been able to generalise this to a dual Zed system and compute a max efficiency of 87 percent. Not 86 or 88 percent, but 87 percent. Fine, I dunno how you did that without knowing the details of how the Zeds are coupled, but fine, your eyes are no doubt sharper than mine.  My problem was with my understanding of the lifting and sliding off of the weights in the previous step. But now that we know that the cycle, done that way, is clearly not work-free and you cannot gain energy that way..... fine. It's rather nice to have it all stated explicitly in one place, isn't it?

Now.... the see-saw analogy as I have presented it does not have any system for extracting usable work. It does incorporate the transfer of _effective weight_ by tossing the apple, just as the horizontal and vertical rams do on top of the animated zeds. The difference being that the animated zeds do it not by transferring actual weight between the two "children" but by doing it virtually: using the "travis effect" by removing some of the buoyancy-producing displaced water and stacking it as weight on top of the riser assembly, which increases the effective weight of the riser by moving water from the surroundings to the top of the riser. 

Now... just what exactly is the "hydraulic capture" system that you are talking about? If one hooks a hydraulic pump and ratchet to the fulcrum point of the see saw, or arrange some pistons underneath the seats, one can easily use the motion resulting from tossing the apple back and forth to pump hydraulic fluid around. Just not a lot or with much pressure.

But what's the point of stretching the analogy further? There is no demonstration, remember, that there is some kind of hydraulic capture system that does anything like contribute power or energy to the system, anyway. Is there?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 10, 2012, 10:16:32 PM
It is clear from this forum that science isn't just a dull & quiet environment for geeks.
The following audio book sheds some light on what kind of intrigue might be going on here
To succeed, knowledge must be pursued by any means, with passion !

The Secret Anarchy of Science: Free Radicals (Audiobook) By Michael Brooks, read by Matt Addis
Unabridge edition 2012 | 9 hours and 29 mins | ISBN: n/a , ASIN: B008CBW9B2 | MP3 56 kbps | 191 MB

For more than a century, science has cultivated a sober public image for itself. But as best-selling author Michael Brooks explains, the truth is very different: many of our most successful scientists have more in common with libertines than librarians.

This thrilling exploration of some of the greatest breakthroughs in science reveals the extreme lengths some scientists go to in order to make their theories public.     Fraud, suppressing evidence, and unethical or reckless PR games are sometimes necessary to bring the best and most brilliant discoveries to the world's attention. Inspiration can come from the most unorthodox of places, and Brooks introduces us to Nobel laureates who get their ideas through drugs, dreams, and hallucinations.
Science is a highly competitive and ruthless discipline, and only it's most determined and passionate practitioners make headlines - and history.
To succeed, knowledge must be pursued by any means: in science, anything goes.

An evaluation copy can be found here: http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/audiobook/B008CBW9B2.html (http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/audiobook/B008CBW9B2.html)

Red:

Thanks for this link...that book is great!  I am about half-way through and it is incredible to see how the "scientists that we have all come to know and love have fudged results now and then to make the experiment fit their theory.  Then, someone else builds on their work and it turns out they were right but, not exactly right.  Fascinating.

I listen to about 3-5 audiobooks/week and this one is great.

Thanks again.

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Xaverius on November 10, 2012, 10:34:36 PM
I know you follow Wayne blindly and you decide to ignore the evidence that he is not to be trusted, so if
you continue to make statements like that I will feel obliged to show everyone a list of broken promises

Wayne Travis is a liar and I am showing the evidence.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review

Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.

Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world

Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.

Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it over and over

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!

Quote from: mrwayne on October 15 on his web site
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation?
Me too.
I agree, all this waiting is extremely nerve wracking.  At the same time I understand that whenever an electrical, mechanical or electro-mechanical device is being developed, there are ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS and ALWAYS problems, setbacks, budget restraints, and numerous other hindrances.  As Wayne and Mark said, it will be when it will be.  What a pain in the ass.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 10, 2012, 11:43:56 PM
I agree, all this waiting is extremely nerve wracking.  At the same time I understand that whenever an electrical, mechanical or electro-mechanical device is being developed, there are ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS and ALWAYS problems, setbacks, budget restraints, and numerous other hindrances.  As Wayne and Mark said, it will be when it will be.  What a pain in the ass.

This is a very simple problem to fix or avoid, in a manner that would both silence skeptics definitively, and open the pearly Gates of Investment, not to mention starting the Scientific Revolution all over again.

Can anyone tell me what this simple fix, this utterly incontrovertible method is?

Anyone?

Yes, you, there in the back with the funny moustaches and the dapper demeanor.... Nikolaus something, or Nikita, was it? What do you say?

That's right, Nicky, very good. You NEVER take apart your working prototypes for any reason, and you display those WORKING prototypes whenever questions arise as to whether or not.... they work as claimed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on November 10, 2012, 11:46:14 PM
Red:

Thanks for this link...that book is great!  I am about half-way through and it is incredible to see how the "scientists that we have all come to know and love have fudged results now and then to make the experiment fit their theory.  Then, someone else builds on their work and it turns out they were right but, not exactly right.  Fascinating.

I listen to about 3-5 audiobooks/week and this one is great.

Thanks again.

Bill

The situation exists today in another way.  The "accepted" science of today in astronomy is that our earth wobbles causing the precession of the equinoxes.  However, the math does not work.  The scientists keep coming up with fudge factors and convoluted theories to explain why they need yet another fudge factor.  While the obvious answer that is simple and mathematically consistent is that our solar system is bound to SiriusA/B+ as a binary system with a 24,000 year orbit.  All the observational data for many thousands of years, and the precise scientific data of the last 20 years points to this. 

http://www.viewzone.com/sirius.html

I am a firm believer in the scientific method, but it appears that quite a few scientists only believe in it when it conveniently agrees with their learned prejudices or desired outcome.  I lost confidence in what the scientific community says years ago.  They say or prove whatever will bring in more funding to their projects.  Today, I have to consider the motivations of the scientists and where their funding comes from to help "interpret" their conclusions.  In other words, I take everything with a grain of salt.

I am very keen to proceed on this thread with an unbiased assessment of real data and how a ZED works, and leave all the conclusions out of it until the data is all in.  Believers, non-believers, and undecided should not matter to analyzing data.

~Dennis

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 11, 2012, 12:05:07 AM
Hi,
    Tinsel, thank you for thought experiment see-saw, my brain has been working on it while I do my ordinary work and I'm sort
of getting bits of it.
      Nothing ever became of James Kwok and his Hidro tower as far as I can see and nothing seems to happen with Wayne.
   I think what's needed is to work on ideas that are sensible and achievable. PV panels seem to be advancing quite nicely but
the big stumbling block is always storage, if only a battery could be developed that didn't degrade and was affordable solar
would become a major player.
   A permanent magnet excites many inventors, it can do a bit of, work but only once, just like a tensioned spring and that's
your lot.
     could anything be done with say a superconducting motor? I guess that once a superconducting circuit is switched it would
die which would then be of little advantage.
                                                                    John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 11, 2012, 12:09:50 AM
I've set up the simplest example of a single ZED. A Pod and 1 Riser and included aditional information of the formulas used and a drawing of the setup. The math is simple and should be easy for anybody to understand.
 
The Travis lift force advantage over a hydraulic cylinder is shown in green at bottom. Can anyone show why the logic used to get that result is wrong?
 
And 'I don't believe in OU' or 'My physics understanding states that is impossible' is not acceptable, show your proof.

The Excel data set is included at the bottom. On mine you need to move the right slide bar down to see it.
 
Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 11, 2012, 05:57:46 AM
Red:  Thanks for this link...that book is great!  I am about half-way through and it is incredible to see how the "scientists that we have all come to know and love have fudged results now and then to make the experiment fit their theory.  Then, someone else builds on their work and it turns out they were right but, not exactly right.  Fascinating.Bill  ...............................................

Hi Bill,
I am happy you are getting the same enjoyment out of the text than I did. 
Our Science repertoire is clearly made up of building block that get stacked on top of each other over centuries.  We build the next block on top of the previous, sometimes in a direct way, sometimes in a curved wacky way.  Wayne unwittingly discovered one of those major building blocks that expands our ability to build where we couldn't build before. Mark my words, history will prove them right!

Some good quotes,
Max Planck quote:  “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Isaac Newton quote:  If I have seen a little further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." (not by hiding behind)

This might also be of interest ,
The Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference:    http://globalbem.com/
The first conference is being held on November 9, 10, 11 in Hilversum Holland.  A world class program which will cover breakthrough technologies and their world-changing implications. A journey into the past, present and future of our energy landscape. With over 18 speakers, two conference rooms and a 3 day program, this event is designed to focus on the full scope of Breakthrough Energy Technologies.
The program :  http://globalbem.com/conference/program/
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 11, 2012, 06:17:59 AM
The situation exists today in another way.  The "accepted" science of today in astronomy is that our earth wobbles causing the precession of the equinoxes.  However, the math does not work.  The scientists keep coming up with fudge factors and convoluted theories to explain why they need yet another fudge factor.  While the obvious answer that is simple and mathematically consistent is that our solar system is bound to SiriusA/B+ as a binary system with a 24,000 year orbit.  All the observational data for many thousands of years, and the precise scientific data of the last 20 years points to this. 
http://www.viewzone.com/sirius.html
I am a firm believer in the scientific method, but it appears that quite a few scientists only believe in it when it conveniently agrees with their learned prejudices or desired outcome.  I lost confidence in what the scientific community says years ago.  They say or prove whatever will bring in more funding to their projects.  Today, I have to consider the motivations of the scientists and where their funding comes from to help "interpret" their conclusions.  In other words, I take everything with a grain of salt.
I am very keen to proceed on this thread with an unbiased assessment of real data and how a ZED works, and leave all the conclusions out of it until the data is all in.  Believers, non-believers, and undecided should not matter to analyzing data.
~Dennis 

Hi Dennis,
Seeing that video clip that describes our earth in double level reference frame (solar system/binairy star system), made me think about Wayne's invention in the context of a single reference frame with a variable influence between the two domains.
Your simulation will shed a better light on the workings and understanding of the Zed and the capabilities it makes available towards OU.  Good luck and looking forward to a interesting outcome
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 11, 2012, 10:36:46 AM
Hi,
    just a couple of points,I used to control my borehole pump with air over water and it doesn't work out,every few days it would
need re-pressurising. By using a diaphragm made it reliable.
   If one were to build a machine on the lines of the animation on H.E.R. shown at the moment I'm sure it would need a hefty motor
to keep the thing just circulating,with all those rams sliding and all that small bore tubing the losses would be tremendous.
                                    John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on November 11, 2012, 01:45:58 PM
TK
Times are Ruff ....
Is your invite still good at the water park?
 
I got two pails a gas and a box a puppy chow? {perhaps a slightly used T bone too??[like I said times are Ruff]]
 
?
 
Chet
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 03:52:20 PM
Can you explain how this spreadsheet anaylyses or compares the energy used to lift a mass for a Travis device compared to normal buoyancy. It doe not appear to do that.as it only considers.forces, and not the distances over which those forces can act.
If the pod and the riser aren't connected at the top (the drawing shows an air gap here) then the upward force due to pressure on the underside of the top of the riser, acting upward (psi x area of riser surface, acting upwards) .... is also acting _downward_ on the horizontal surface of the pod, in proportion to its surface area (psi x area of pod surface, acting downwards). Isn't it?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 04:03:43 PM
Hi,
    just a couple of points,I used to control my borehole pump with air over water and it doesn't work out,every few days it would
need re-pressurising. By using a diaphragm made it reliable.
   If one were to build a machine on the lines of the animation on H.E.R. shown at the moment I'm sure it would need a hefty motor
to keep the thing just circulating,with all those rams sliding and all that small bore tubing the losses would be tremendous.
                                    John.

But... but.... Nine Hundred and Sixty Percent.......
Quote
I decided that 160% was not good enough - and considering our latest physical testing of our TAZ is 960% - I think the timing is just about right.
(quoting from Mister Wayne's most recent missed deadline announcement).

Surely that's enough OverUnity to drive some fluid thru tubes and push those hydraulic rams around.

What I can't figure out is..... nine hundred and sixty percent of.... what?

If there's no input...... Well, as I've said before, Mister Wayne Travis is not using standard, universally understood methods of determining the efficiency of his device. The ratio of output work to input work is the general way it's done. If Mister Wayne's device has NO INPUT but is producing useful work output, then it has efficiency OUTPUT/ZERO, which is infinite. If you reject that and put in "960 percent" as the answer and work backwards, you find that for whatever work output, there MUST be a work input of about one tenth that output.

Of course Mister Wayne has never explained how the "160 percent" value was actually obtained, so why should he be required to justify the new, NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY PERCENT claim... since it's anybody's guess just what the 960 percent is a percent OF.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Hello friends,
I have seen great wisdom and maturity in the last few pages, I encourage you to stay on that path.
The process to the truth is to eliminate that which is untrue - speculation is not the path to the truth, stick with the facts as you have laid out the plan - keep your eyes open to see search, discover, study, share.
That is what makes us team members - not in our success or failure - not in our acceptance or denials, but in our journey.
Someone wrote a while back - (paraphrased) history does not favor the idea that new discoveries, new understanding, comes from those that claim to be experts in such fields, nor do the most educated see beyuond what they understand, or have been taught.
This is not an insult to the Pedigree - or an insult to the act of self protection that comes with the title - but a simple and humble fact of history.
From that - we can know that our work is not in vein, our work is the frontier, pass it by or grasp it with two hands - the choice is yours.
So my charge to all of you who look to see - what ever that might be - what ever you might see - well done brave men and women, welcome to the frontier.
Let no man have hold of your most precious gift, your mind.
 
Wayne Travis
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 04:11:57 PM
(ETA: What, are you running for office, now, Mister Wayne? That last post sounds very much like a politician who isn't about to say anything, actually, but enjoys talking nevertheless. How about telling us one simple TRUTH: Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, and how was that clear overunity measured?)

Well.... if force is the only important parameter, and distance of travel is irrelevant , which appears to be the case for LarryC's spreadsheet .... I have a system here that produces 1150 percent.

I decided that 100 percent wasn't good enough, so I asked the local Jehova's Witness youth group to come up with a new name for my system that produces 1150 percent. That's right, I put in 100 percent of my input force, and my system uses part of that for lift and returns a NET of 1150 percent force.

As soon as they've finished painting my new donated barn, I'll demonstrate my system that gives 1150 percent of NET back for use. You can use its output force in a practical way, too, for lifting cars up to change tires, or even pulling out old tree stumps from your pasture.

The JW Youth Group came up with the perfect name. They call my device.... the "lever".   Clever, isn't it?

(I see that Mister Wayne is still ignoring my posts and is still not explaining anything in his posts. Why has there been another delay? Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself? For how long has the NEW system run continuously without outside power or internal stored power? What is the ratio of input WORK to output WORK for this new device and how was it measured?)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 11, 2012, 04:37:57 PM
(ETA: What, are you running for office, now, Mister Wayne? That last post sounds very much like a politician who isn't about to say anything, actually, but enjoys talking nevertheless. How about telling us one simple TRUTH: Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, and how was that clear overunity measured?)
Well.... if force is the only important parameter, and distance of travel is irrelevant , which appears to be the case for LarryC's spreadsheet .... I have a system here that produces 1150 percent.
I decided that 100 percent wasn't good enough, so I asked the local Jehova's Witness youth group to come up with a new name for my system that produces 1150 percent. That's right, I put in 100 percent of my input force, and my system uses part of that for lift and returns a NET of 1150 percent force.
As soon as they've finished painting my new donated barn, I'll demonstrate my system that gives 1150 percent of NET back for use. You can use its output force in a practical way, too, for lifting cars up to change tires, or even pulling out old tree stumps from your pasture.
The JW Youth Group came up with the perfect name. They call my device.... the "lever".   Clever, isn't it?
(I see that Mister Wayne is still ignoring my posts and is still not explaining anything in his posts. Why has there been another delay? Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself? For how long has the NEW system run continuously without outside power or internal stored power? What is the ratio of input WORK to output WORK for this new device and how was it measured?)

TinselKoala,
Are you so desperate or so disappointed or so disenfranchised, to stoop to such a low level where even the street dogs do not want to tread !!
This is very disgusting & disappointing behavior !!  I held you in higher esteem before today.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 04:56:31 PM
TinselKoala,
Are you so desperate or so disappointed or so disenfranchised, to stoop to such a low level where even the street dogs do not want to tread !!
This is very disgusting & disappointing behavior !!  I held you in higher esteem before today.

And yet you do not dispute any of my points.

The spreadsheet from LarryC does not consider motion distances, only forces, right? Or wrong?

The 960 percent claimed by Mister Wayne is a FORCE ratio... isn't it? Nowhere has there been any consideration in Mister Wayne's reported numbers of WORK, only LIFT FORCE.

You think it's disgusting and disappointing behavior for me to point out in my clever way that a lever can be as "efficient" as one likes using Mister Wayne's definition of efficiency..... and to point out that it's cynical and wrong for him to involve a bunch of innocent kids in his fantasy and folly? ...... But you don't think there is anything wrong with THIS set of statements collected by powercat. I laugh at you and your "disgust and disappointment" and point out only that your disgust is misplaced and your disappointment is not due to any of MY actions, but rather due to the INACTION of your hero Mister Wayne:

Quote
Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
    I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts

    Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
    I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

    Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
    We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
    I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
    plc equipment and software.

    Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
    Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review

    Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
    We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
    - I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.

    Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
    Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.

    Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
    We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.

    Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
    After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
    world wide to bring this technology to the world

    Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
    Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.

    Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
    We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit

    Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
    No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released

    Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
    Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
    I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
    However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
    Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it over and over

    Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
    p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.

    Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
    It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.

    Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 on his web site
    We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
    and we will be ready for the Validation!

    Quote from: mrwayne on October 15 on his web site
    Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
    - I have been in clear and constant communication with them.

    Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 on his web site
    I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
    - we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

    Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
    Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
    Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
    are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation?
    Me too.


And I'll point out that today is the 11th of November and we still haven't heard anything from Mister Wayne that indicates that independent testing and evaluation is underway or even is going to start soon.  Does that disgust and disappoint you? It does me.
Instead... I invite you, Red, to summarize Mister Wayne's latest statement for us. Please include only those items that talk about his progress towards making a self-running machine, how it is to be measured, and what its output to input work ratio is.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 11, 2012, 04:56:40 PM
Red and Wayne keep offering promising words and delivering little that is scientifically factual,
Red keeps sounding like hes preaching the alternative gospel of OU and the repetitive rhetoric goes on and on and on,
unlike mrwaynes device that so far has shown no clear overunity in the real world.
Wayne is a liar and cannot be trusted on his word, he fails to produce any clear evidence apart from words,
he has had so much time to have his device verified, if he was a truly honest man he would not have made an announcement until he was prepared to follow it through, but of course that doesn't sound good to investors who want to hear Promising news. 
How many more times will he keep breaking his word and promising things he can't deliver. This is very disgusting & disappointing behavior
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 11, 2012, 04:57:52 PM
Hi,
   to run my house I use a 10kw diesel which is just about up to the job, how big, physically, would a ZED machine have to be to
meet my needs?
  As far as I can see practically all the energy we use is of nuclear origin,coal,oil,wind and water are all sun-powered.Let's have a
few suggestions of any alternative form of energy.
                                                                                  John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 11, 2012, 05:07:58 PM
If the pod and the riser aren't connected at the top (the drawing shows an air gap here) then the upward force due to pressure on the underside of the top of the riser, acting upward (psi x area of riser surface, acting upwards) .... is also acting _downward_ on the horizontal surface of the pod, in proportion to its surface area (psi x area of pod surface, acting downwards). Isn't it?

Yes it is. Good Question.
 
Instead of Archimedes calculation, let's calculate using the following.
 
Pod lift = Bottom PSI X Si - Top PSI X SI
Pod lift = (3.72 X 706.858) - (2.42 X 706.858)
918.63 = 2628.31 - 1709.68
 
I did these calculations on the spreadsheet to use it's internal precision for accuracy, so the numbers would calculate slightly different on a hand calculator.
 
So the answers are the same.
 
I agree this is only force. I previously showed the force over distance calculations in my System Rise Calculator and how that starting force can be maintained over the lift distance, when the proper amount of water is added between the Pod and the Pod retainer. It was very complex and the skeptics excuses then were that we can't trust these calculators because it could have mistakes or hidden manipulations.
 
This is a simple pod and 1 riser with no Visual Basic code and can be understood by all. More to come.
 
So I'll ask again 'Can anyone show why the logic used to get that result is wrong?'

Regards, Larry
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 05:11:59 PM
Hi,
   to run my house I use a 10kw diesel which is just about up to the job, how big, physically, would a ZED machine have to be to
meet my needs?
  As far as I can see practically all the energy we use is of nuclear origin,coal,oil,wind and water are all sun-powered.Let's have a
few suggestions of any alternative form of energy.
                                                                                  John.
Hi minnie
The only Wattage output figures we have ever heard or seen from Mister Wayne is the claim of, what was it.... 36 Watts excess power over that required to run the machine. This was for the version shown in the slide show on the Hydro website. That one looked to me like it was about ten feet tall and occupied floor space about like two standard parking places. Say a small, 2-car garage in footprint and 10 feet tall vertically, for 36 Watts usable output (for less than four hours  before it stops and has to be repaired or recharged somehow).

Of course, he is now achieving 960 percent, so presumably now that same volume will "generate" around 9.6 x 36 or nearly 350 Watts.
So to achieve the same power level as your 10 kW Diesel genset, you might need to build another barn, to house your 30 dual Zed systems. Plus if you want continuous power, you'll need several (ten or twenty) spare systems since they only self-run for less than four hours each; you'll need to do some hot-swapping. Probably need one or two fulltime technicians to manage things.

I really hope the neighbors don't complain about the noise.

The good news is that you can sell them your excess power during your own off-peak demand periods. Right?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 05:40:40 PM

Yes it is. Good Question.
 
Instead of Archimedes calculation, let's calculate using the following.
 
Pod lift = Bottom PSI X Si - Top PSI X SI
Pod lift = (3.72 X 706.858) - (2.42 X 706.858)
918.63 = 2628.31 - 1709.68
 
I did these calculations on the spreadsheet to use it's internal precision for accuracy, so the numbers would calculate slightly different on a hand calculator.
 
So the answers are the same.
 
I agree this is only force. I previously showed the force over distance calculations in my System Rise Calculator and how that starting force can be maintained over the lift distance, when the proper amount of water is added between the Pod and the Pod retainer. It was very complex and the skeptics excuses then were that we can't trust these calculators because it could have mistakes or hidden manipulations.
 
This is a simple pod and 1 riser with no Visual Basic code and can be understood by all. More to come.
 
So I'll ask again 'Can anyone show why the logic used to get that result is wrong?'

Regards, Larry

The pod is displacing 919 pounds of "virtual water"; this is the buoyancy force since your pod is weightless. This is the upward force due to buoyancy of the pod alone. This is found in either of two ways: taking the difference in pressure at the top of the water and the bottom of the water (1.3 psi) and multiplying that by the area of the bottom of the pod which is a little over 706 in2 to get 919 pounds force upwards, OR taking the weight of the volume of displaced water (36 x 707 x 0.0361 = 918+ lbs force).  The pod is being pushed up by 919 pounds of buoyancy force. You have this value in your spreadsheet. The pod is also being pushed _down_ by a force equal to the pressure of air acting against the top flat surface of the pod. This force, again using your numbers, is 2.42 psi x 706.5 in2 = 1710 pounds of air pressure force, acting downward. Isn't it?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 11, 2012, 05:59:54 PM
The pod is displacing 919 pounds of "virtual water"; this is the buoyancy force since your pod is weightless. This is the upward force due to buoyancy of the pod alone. This is found in either of two ways: taking the difference in pressure at the top of the water and the bottom of the water (1.3 psi) and multiplying that by the area of the bottom of the pod which is a little over 706 in2 to get 919 pounds force upwards, OR taking the weight of the volume of displaced water (36 x 707 x 0.0361 = 918+ lbs force).  The pod is being pushed up by 919 pounds of buoyancy force. You have this value in your spreadsheet. The pod is also being pushed _down_ by a force equal to the pressure of air acting against the top flat surface of the pod. This force, again using your numbers, is 2.42 psi x 706.5 in2 = 1710 pounds of air pressure force, acting downward. Isn't it?

Wrong, I showed the attached example back on September 23.
 
Let's see if you can comprehend and relate it correctly to my previous calculations.
 
Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 06:46:10 PM

Wrong, I showed the attached example back on September 23.
 
Let's see if you can comprehend and relate it correctly to my previous calculations.
 
Larry
Wrong. I show in my post how you get the same answer using either the differential pressure or the weight of the volume of displaced water, as you show in your example. There is no argument there. Your example does NOT show the force due to pressure acting downward on the top of the displacer, in fact you have it explicitly stated to be zero.

Now, I've worked your numbers in your example given earlier, and I'm in general agreement with the numbers you have but not the way that you are using them. I don't quite understand how you are calculating the "hydraulic lift force" though.
Consider this simplification. You simply have a solid riser of your dimensions, and a tub of water the dimensions of the outer retainer wall. This tub is filled to the level of 36 inches. Now you lower your solid riser into the tub. The outer water level comes up, and overflows, but that doesn't matter; as long as the resultant level in the outer wall chamber is 72 inches, you've displaced your "virtual water" and you have that full buoyancy force available, and it is 0.0361 pounds per cubic inch x 793.926 square inches x 36 inches = 1031.78 pounds of buoyant force. But your riser isn't solid and it has air pressure pushing it up inside. This adds 1920.27 pounds to the upward force experienced by the riser. But the non-solid riser doesn't displace the full 36 inches of water any more, it only displaces 34 inches, as some of the water goes up inside the riser and doesn't contribute to buoyancy -- it's not displaced. This brings the buoyant force down to 974.46 pounds, for a total lift force of about 2895 pounds, in broad agreement with your total lift value of 2839. The difference between what you got for your total, and what I got for my total, is accounted for by rounding errors and the estimate of 34 inches displaced.
Taking your "hydraulic lift force" value as calculated at 2716.65 and comparing it to the total force upwards experienced by the riser that I calculated, you do indeed appear to have a slight advantage of force ... less than ten percent. (2895/2717 = 1.065)
Note that I didn't even have to include any reference to a "pod" in my calculations, except by reference to your psi air pressure values.
But.... and this is the real question.... over what distance does that force advantage act?

Of course, there's another way to look at it too. LarryC/Travis/Pod lift = 2839. TinselLift, using a simple riser alone, no pod or extra ringwalls, and bubbling air into it to achieve 2.42 psi pressure inside and same outside water displacement = 2895 pounds, for an advantage of TinselLift of 2895/2839  = 1.02.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 11, 2012, 08:17:24 PM
Wrong. I show in my post how you get the same answer using either the differential pressure or the weight of the volume of displaced water, as you show in your example. There is no argument there. Your example does NOT show the force due to pressure acting downward on the top of the displacer, in fact you have it explicitly stated to be zero.

Now, I've worked your numbers in your example given earlier, and I'm in general agreement with the numbers you have but not the way that you are using them. I don't quite understand how you are calculating the "hydraulic lift force" though.
Consider this simplification. You simply have a solid riser of your dimensions, and a tub of water the dimensions of the outer retainer wall. This tub is filled to the level of 36 inches. Now you lower your solid riser into the tub. The outer water level comes up, and overflows, but that doesn't matter; as long as the resultant level in the outer wall chamber is 72 inches, you've displaced your "virtual water" and you have that full buoyancy force available, and it is 0.0361 pounds per cubic inch x 793.926 square inches x 36 inches = 1031.78 pounds of buoyant force. But your riser isn't solid and it has air pressure pushing it up inside. This adds 1920.27 pounds to the upward force experienced by the riser. But the non-solid riser doesn't displace the full 36 inches of water any more, it only displaces 34 inches, as some of the water goes up inside the riser and doesn't contribute to buoyancy -- it's not displaced. This brings the buoyant force down to 974.46 pounds, for a total lift force of about 2895 pounds, in broad agreement with your total lift value of 2839. The difference between what you got for your total, and what I got for my total, is accounted for by rounding errors and the estimate of 34 inches displaced.
Taking your "hydraulic lift force" value as calculated at 2716.65 and comparing it to the total force upwards experienced by the riser that I calculated, you do indeed appear to have a slight advantage of force ... less than ten percent. (2895/2717 = 1.065)
Note that I didn't even have to include any reference to a "pod" in my calculations, except by reference to your psi air pressure values.
But.... and this is the real question.... over what distance does that force advantage act?

Of course, there's another way to look at it too. LarryC/Travis/Pod lift = 2839. TinselLift, using a simple riser alone, no pod or extra ringwalls, and bubbling air into it to achieve 2.42 psi pressure inside and same outside water displacement = 2895 pounds, for an advantage of TinselLift of 2895/2839  = 1.02.

Love the way you spin the facts, to make it seem like you were correct all along.
 
But no issue, I'm content to receive this statement 'Now, I've worked your numbers in your example given earlier, and I'm in general agreement with the numbers you have but not the way that you are using them. '
 
FYI, The way I'm calculating and using the numbers is the same as the Team of engineers at HER, but i'm sure, you still think you know better.
 
Correct, the percentage is less than 10 as this is only a one riser.
 
More simple calculators to come.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 09:01:43 PM
As usual, Larry, you fail to address the MAIN POINT: I obtained the greatest of all three lift numbers without resorting to consideration of "pods" or multiple ringwalls. Is there something wrong with MY math?

All that I required was a riser open on the bottom and a means of bubbling air into it, and standard buoyancy of a single moving part.

And you have failed to tell me how you calculated your lesser, "hydraulic lift" value that you compare with.

But yet, you accuse ME of .... well, whatever it is you are attacking me for now.

I think you've got a problem. Why is MY result even greater than yours?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 11, 2012, 09:43:24 PM
As usual, Larry, you fail to address the MAIN POINT: I obtained the greatest of all three lift numbers without resorting to consideration of "pods" or multiple ringwalls. Is there something wrong with MY math?
All that I required was a riser open on the bottom and a means of bubbling air into it, and standard buoyancy of a single moving part.
And you have failed to tell me how you calculated your lesser, "hydraulic lift" value that you compare with.
But yet, you accuse ME of .... well, whatever it is you are attacking me for now.
I think you've got a problem. Why is MY result even greater than yours?

TinselKoala,  >>  RE: Why is MY result even greater than yours? >>>For a very simple reason, ask maggie, she knows!
                     >>  RE: And yet you do not dispute any of my points. >>> You fill me with disgust !
Larry >> What are you trying to do ?  >>  Do not present math beyond basic elementary level !  TK is not ready for that complexity level yet.

TK, Due to the stacked water column, the top and bottom experience the same base pressure level, therefore only the differential matter.
I don't know how you are going to figure out the Zed,  I think we need a better skeptic here !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 10:41:01 PM
TinselKoala,  >>  Why is MY result even greater than yours? >>>For a very simple reason, ask maggie, she knows!
                     >>  RE: And yet you do not dispute any of my points. >>> You fill me with disgust !
Larry >> What are you trying to do ?  >>  Do not present math beyond basic elementary level !  TK is not ready for that complexity level yet.

TK, Due to the stacked water column, the top and bottom experience the same base pressure level, therefore only the differential matter.
I don't know how you are going to figure out the Zed,  I think we need a better skeptic here !!
I am using LARRYC's numbers and calculating WITHOUT ANY stacked water columns, using only a riser that is open on the bottom and Larry's own air pressure numbers.  And I get a lift value that is greater than he does. And I have calculated using LarryC's configuration and I get the same values he does.
Quote
Due to the stacked water column, the top and bottom experience the same base pressure level, therefore only the differential matter.
Care to explain this in English, with numbers and references to LarryC's sketch? And show just how my calculations differ from LarryC's?
I think that if you disagree, you need to show where my calculation is wrong. But of course, since I'M DOING IT THE SAME WAY THAT LARRYC IS DOING IT.... then you will also be showing where he is wrong.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 11, 2012, 10:48:12 PM
Wayne's misunderstood program of scientific creativity was available in this thread, 
It centered to overcome the limitations imposed by education on "out of the box" thinking.

The 1.25 min. audio clip attached provides an interesting view on the polarization of this thread
The reasons for the discomfort and opposition to a new idea
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 10:56:08 PM
Here, Red. Try to follow along. Look at LarryC's diagram below, and imagine the riser pulled completely out. The outer water column will drop from its present height just under 72 inches down to 36 inches. Now imagine a tub of the same outer dimension as the outer retaining wall, and this tub full to the 36 inch level with water. Now imagine a solid riser, sealed across the bottom. The dimensions the same as the complex riser of LarryC. Force this riser down into your tub. The water outside will rise up until it overflows, but if your wall height is at 72 inches, that's the level you will have. What then, is the buoyant force that is attempting to lift this riser?
I say that it is about 1032 pounds. Do you disagree? Please show your work. After all the talk about "inverted Travis effect" and "virtual water" I should have thought that this point is not arguable, but I'd love to see your numbers.
Now, take that same system, open the bottom and apply an upward force of 2.42 psi x the area of the underside of the riser. What is this upward force value? It is only pressing DOWN on the water and UP on the riser itself, so there's no problem there, the downward reaction is transferred to the container and the ground. SO MY riser experiences the buoyant force PLUS this upward force from the air pressure I've bubbled in there. Do you disagree on this point? If so, why, and what are your corresponding calculations? I've reproduced LarryC's image so you can see where the numbers and the methods I used CAME FROM.
Now, since my riser is open on the bottom, it probably will allow some water up inside its "skirt".... just as you can see on LarryC's drawing. This will reduce the total displacement of the riser by a corresponding amount... so it drops my total lift figure so that it is less embarassingly greater than LarryC's figure. But if you want to omit this step... you may.
Now, do what you've insisted that I do. DO THE MATH, and tell me where I'm wrong.

While you are at it, and for the third time now, please explain where the "hydraulic lift" comparison value came from in LarryC's spreadsheet.... because to me, it looks like MY calculation is computing the true "hydraulic lift".

Or do you find it so much easier to just ignore my points and insult me instead, so tempting an alternative that you just can't resist?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 11:02:06 PM
Wayne's misunderstood program of scientific creativity was available in this thread, 
It centered to overcome the limitations imposed by education on "out of the box" thinking.

The 1.25 min. audio clip attached provides an interesting view on the polarization of this thread
The reasons for the discomfort and opposition to a new idea
There is no discomfort or opposition to new ideas THAT HAVE EMPIRICAL SUPPORT.

If Mister Wayne was able to demonstrate what he claims to have, do you really think we'd be having this conversation now?

Please hold Powercat's list of Mister Wayne's....er..... forward-looking statements in one hand, and your Mister Wayne's  "misunderstood program of scientific creativity" in the other.... and tell me which one is more convincing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: MileHigh on November 11, 2012, 11:21:50 PM
Check out my posting #3053 if you haven't read it.  I have a feeling it got lost in the shuffle.  Tick-tock!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 11, 2012, 11:42:05 PM
Hi,
  well done Tinsel,most enjoyable and keep at it! I trust Mr. Wayne will include a safety valve in his high pressure line and an over speed
limiter some where in the design.
   Remember what happened to Joseph Papp, a doubter unplugged the power cord, the engine over-sped and blew up killing a man.
Also remember John Searle, his machine over-sped and lifted off in to space. He's been trying for 50 years to re-create it and he
hasn't managed it yet.
                                      John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 11, 2012, 11:42:58 PM
Mr Red Herring, do you think they will ever be a point in time where you (might) admit Wayne's device doesn't work ?
will it be next week next month or next year ?  I get the feeling you really don't care as long as wayn keep saying
his device works you will continue to believe blindly despite the lack of real world evidence.(Not logical evidence)

There has been no verification......Wayne continues to lie.....looking like it will never happen now,
and if the team ever make it their the chances are they will be more excuses why they can't complete
ther tests properly.

There have been no successful replications showing clear over unity....despite you telling everyone
repeatedly that the information is easy to find, (it's so easy you have written a book for dummies)

As for proper Scientific Data that can be analysed correctly Wayne has stated that he will not release
this information.......hmmmm sounds like he's covering himself if any investors taken him to court.

One of the most interesting things is that it now looks like Wayne seriously under estimated the level
of experience on this forum when it comes to people makeing claims of OU,
his recent post today seemed like a very poor attempt at damage limitation (investors in mind)

Of course Wayne could change all this with proper evidence and verification instead of never ending promising words.

BTW good to see MileHigh is posting live again.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 11, 2012, 11:50:54 PM
Check out my posting #3053 if you haven't read it.  I have a feeling it got lost in the shuffle.  Tick-tock!

http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg343563/#msg343563
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 12, 2012, 12:09:14 AM
Consider this simplification. You simply have a solid riser of your dimensions, and a tub of water the dimensions of the outer retainer wall. This tub is filled to the level of 36 inches. Now you lower your solid riser into the tub. The outer water level comes up, and overflows, but that doesn't matter; as long as the resultant level in the outer wall chamber is 72 inches, you've displaced your "virtual water" and you have that full buoyancy force available, and it is 0.0361 pounds per cubic inch x 793.926 square inches x 36 inches = 1031.78 pounds of buoyant force. But your riser isn't solid and it has air pressure pushing it up inside. This adds 1920.27 pounds to the upward force experienced by the riser. But the non-solid riser doesn't displace the full 36 inches of water any more, it only displaces 34 inches, as some of the water goes up inside the riser and doesn't contribute to buoyancy -- it's not displaced. This brings the buoyant force down to 974.46 pounds, for a total lift force of about 2895 pounds, in broad agreement with your total lift value of 2839. The difference between what you got for your total, and what I got for my total, is accounted for by rounding errors and the estimate of 34 inches displaced.
Taking your "hydraulic lift force" value as calculated at 2716.65 and comparing it to the total force upwards experienced by the riser that I calculated, you do indeed appear to have a slight advantage of force ... less than ten percent. (2895/2717 = 1.065)
Note that I didn't even have to include any reference to a "pod" in my calculations, except by reference to your psi air pressure values.
But.... and this is the real question.... over what distance does that force advantage act?


At first I thought you were not serious with your claims, but seeing your post, apparently you are.
 
I made a drawing of your setup.
 
Your calculations on the Riser can be Archimedes or differential or PSI X SI, not more than one and only actual water levels can be used, no combinations of actual water and virtual water.
 
Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 12:19:34 AM

At first I thought you were not serious with your claims, but seeing your post, apparently you are.
 
I made a drawing of your setup.
 
Your calculations on the Riser can be Archimedes or differential or PSI X SI, not more than one and only actual water levels can be used, no combinations of actual water and virtual water.
 
Larry
What are you talking about? Close off the bottom of that riser and tell me what the buoyant force is. Is it or is it not what I said it was?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 12, 2012, 12:25:04 AM
I ran another set of numbers last night, done with the same starting parameters as the last one I posted per TK's request - with 2 changes - adding air and weight.
1. I added 50ml of air to the POD chamber, 50 to the next pocket and 100 to the outer.
2. Used the total weight of the last test as the base - and a 10Lb weight for the lift
Results attached.

A question or 2 for the number crunchers.
I'd like to analyze the steps as recorded and convert each to a "work equivalent".
That might make it easier to see what's put in VS what's returned.
IF - my math is anywhere near close... This was the method attempted -Valid : Not?

I took the median head for each 50ml step
Used a constant to try to see how much weight could be lifted using that median pressure the same distance as my total stroke.

If that's not a valid way to analyze the pressure / volume relationship of the fluid injected against the fluid returned - PLEASE - provide a proper method.

Dale


 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 12, 2012, 12:34:40 AM
What are you talking about? Close off the bottom of that riser and tell me what the buoyant force is. Is it or is it not what I said it was?

I could do that, but it would only be the first part of your claim. Better yet. Post or PM a drawing of your setup, rough hand drawn is fine. I will do a computer drawings and a calculator based on your claims.
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 12:37:54 AM
Quote
Your calculations on the Riser can be Archimedes or differential or PSI X SI, not more than one

Yet you add displacement lift ("Pod lift", buoyancy) plus psi x si to arrive at your total lift figure.Yet your "pod" isn't actually lifting, is it? Does it contact the underside of the riser? If it does, doesn't that remove the corresponding surface area for the "psi" to act on?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 12:44:48 AM

I could do that, but it would only be the first part of your claim. Better yet. Post or PM a drawing of your setup, rough hand drawn is fine. I will do a computer drawings and a calculator based on your claims.

In other words... YES, the buoyancy lift is what I said it was, with the bottom of the riser closed off.  But of course to get to your lift values, you have to do just what you forbid me to do: you add the buoyant lift of the pod, to the psi lift of the gas pressure.

Better yet..... now YOU show over what total distance your force advantage lasts.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 12:50:25 AM
Funny.... the pod rises up until it contacts the underside of the riser assembly. This presses upwards with the 919 pounds of pod lift... but it removes a lot of surface area for the gas psi to act against...
Or it doesn't rise up to contact.. maybe there's a blue spacer in there that allows gas pressure to get in there. The gas pressure that is also pressing down on the pod, with the same psi as it's pressing up on the riser...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 12, 2012, 12:51:11 AM
Yet you add displacement lift ("Pod lift", buoyancy) plus psi x si to arrive at your total lift figure.Yet your "pod" isn't actually lifting, is it? Does it contact the underside of the riser? If it does, doesn't that remove the corresponding surface area for the "psi" to act on?

Now, you're getting ridiculous.
 
The pod has spacers on top or below the riser as explained many times previously about the physical system. I don't show everything to be able to clearly show the values. Yes, each unit can have a different force calculation type and be added together. I'm amazed you don't understand these simple concepts.
 
   
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 12, 2012, 12:55:48 AM
Funny.... the pod rises up until it contacts the underside of the riser assembly. This presses upwards with the 919 pounds of pod lift... but it removes a lot of surface area for the gas psi to act against...
Or it doesn't rise up to contact.. maybe there's a blue spacer in there that allows gas pressure to get in there. The gas pressure that is also pressing down on the pod, with the same psi as it's pressing up on the riser...

Geez, you're obiviously on something. This is my last response, until you get back to normal.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 01:09:06 AM

Geez, you're obiviously on something. This is my last response, until you get back to normal.

Promise?

Let's see your spreadsheet model Mondrasek's actual physical system. Then you can tell him just where he's going wrong and why he isn't getting overunity from his system that has more layers than your example.

You can mock me personally all you like, LarryC, and perhaps my calculations might not apply or be wrong in some manner. I'm fully willing to be proven wrong by measurements on a real system, especially one that runs itself. Unfortunately the real systems for which we have data don't look anything like what you are modelling and all yield less performance than your spreadsheet.

It's too bad you can't run your house on your spreadsheet. And it's really too bad that work is more than just force.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 12, 2012, 01:44:31 AM
TinselKoala,  >>  RE: Why is MY result even greater than yours? >>>For a very simple reason, ask maggie, she knows!
                     >>  RE: And yet you do not dispute any of my points. >>> You fill me with disgust !
Larry >> What are you trying to do ?  >>  Do not present math beyond basic elementary level !  TK is not ready for that complexity level yet.

TK, Due to the stacked water column, the top and bottom experience the same base pressure level, therefore only the differential matter.
I don't know how you are going to figure out the Zed,  I think we need a better skeptic here !!

Agreed,
 
@Fletcher, would you please like to discuss post #3098, page 207?
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 12, 2012, 01:50:09 AM
100% free. 
 
The plane "kit" is a PDF so it was easy enough to re-color.  My 3 year old picked the colors!  I also sized it up from 1:33 to 1:24.
 
Paper is a wonderful modeling medium.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 12, 2012, 01:55:06 AM
And 3 year olds can be so much fun - sometimes.
Bet it was a great afternoon, you'll be surprised how much she will remember the time well spent !
Dale
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 12, 2012, 06:35:23 AM
Hi LarryC,  My advice, don't waste your time, you are being played like a "puppet on a string".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrs8CgpH980

Hey guys, it is time again for throwing some apples to see who can have a bite on the fly
Larry, throwing apples is more their cup of tea (3 yr old's according to wildew) .  I would guess that a XLS for a ballistic apple trajectory would get you a better response.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: fletcher on November 12, 2012, 09:06:02 AM
LarryC .. I'm on holiday for a few days so just visiting.

I suggest your request is better directed to Dennis [see3d] as he has a sim that is effectively a single Pod & 1 Riser analogue, when slightly modified almost identical to your spreadsheet picture - he is able to lock the Pod chamber piston in place to replicate your spreadsheet snap shot of static start conditions [including dimensions & water levels] just as you've used - then he can give you the dynamic analysis as the Pod & Riser is released [re Seamus's comments] - this will show capacity to do Work rather than static force analysis.

IINM he will need to know what the estimated mass of each component is so that he can work out the neutrally buoyant situation [the amount of precharge required in head] - my apologies if you have already stated this somewhere recently.

Dennis has been saying this for about 150 pages - he has an excellent resource & has put significant time & thought into building the sim so that it accurately predicts behaviour - what better way than to compare it to your spreadsheet of start conditions & give him some valuable feedback so he can make further progress & at the same time encourage him for his not insignificant efforts creating a dynamic model ?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 12, 2012, 09:06:23 AM
Hi,
    Wayne and Red_Sunset just ramble on these past few days, I think they might do better as politicians.
Tinsel has told me that even if the thing did work I would need a unit considerably bigger than my house!
To give you lot a bit of an idea what's needed is to look at the amount of water you have to shift through
turbine to give 10kw. You would need a head of say 30 metres and a flow rate of about 50 litres a second.
What's 50x60x60x24? That's a lot of water for just one day!
                                                                                          John
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 12, 2012, 09:35:14 AM
LarryC needs to realise that his spreadsheets as presented are meaningless in terms of demonstrating that the Travis Effect or some other equivalent hyrdraulic system is capable generating usable energy.

All is shows is comparison of forces at a single displacement value. It gives no indication at all of how those forces vary over the full range of displacements required to complete a single cycle.
Seamus, I concur with you in regards to the energy representation on the xls. >>Although I do not believe that his intentions were to document all the "wants" you mentioned in your post.<<
In my comment, I was referring to the so obvious and silly comments on the force calculation for the pod buoyancy element, the main aim was to deride, one of the few persons who produces something tangible on this thread.  Breaking down is way easier and more persons appear to be available for that task than building up ! Let them sit and wait, moan and complain, their world will not advance even if is being moved for them.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 12, 2012, 09:44:43 AM
Hi,
    Wayne and Red_Sunset just ramble on these past few days, I think they might do better as politicians.
Tinsel has told me that even if the thing did work I would need a unit considerably bigger than my house!
To give you lot a bit of an idea what's needed is to look at the amount of water you have to shift through
turbine to give 10kw. You would need a head of say 30 metres and a flow rate of about 50 litres a second.
What's 50x60x60x24? That's a lot of water for just one day!
                                                                                      John 

You are doing well John,
"Tinsel has told me that even if .........." >>  The BLIND are leading the Blind who are too glad to follow Blindly
Keep on going, it is your own risk, don't break a leg !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 12, 2012, 10:40:17 AM
Hi,
    I'm sorry Red_Sunset but lately you're just sounding pathetic. At least Tinsel puts some effort into explaining things and I can
agree/disagree.
    What happens to a red sunset, it disappears over the horizon and there's darkness. Change your name to New Day and let's
see some progress.
    I'm afraid a few milliamps lighting an led or similar won't cut it in the real world.
I've had immense enjoyment out of this subject, I was blown away with the video of that machine creaking and groaning, let's
see another incarnation.......can't wait!
                                                               John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 12, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Red very unlike you to not respond to my post so here he is again.

Mr Red Herring, do you think they will ever be a point in time where you (might) admit Wayne's device doesn't work ?
will it be next week next month or next year ?  I get the feeling you really don't care as long as wayn keep saying
his device works you will continue to believe blindly despite the lack of real world evidence.(Not logical evidence)

There has been no verification......Wayne continues to lie.....looking like it will never happen now,
and if the team ever make it their the chances are they will be more excuses why they can't complete
ther tests properly.

There have been no successful replications showing clear over unity....despite you telling everyone
repeatedly that the information is easy to find, (it's so easy you have written a book for dummies)

As for proper Scientific Data that can be analysed correctly Wayne has stated that he will not release
this information.......hmmmm sounds like he's covering himself if any investors taken him to court.

One of the most interesting things is that it now looks like Wayne seriously under estimated the level
of experience on this forum when it comes to people makeing claims of OU,
his recent post seemed like a very poor attempt at damage limitation (investors in mind)

Of course Wayne could change all this with proper evidence and verification instead of never ending promising words.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 12, 2012, 01:31:59 PM
 Hi,
    Red_Sunset, here's a little Tinsel type thought experiment. Take an average day for yourself and consider where every
last scrap of energy comes from.
   For one of my days almost everything is direct/indirect solar and possibly the tiniest fraction of man made nuclear.
I absolutely love being proved wrong!!!!!
                                                                        John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 12, 2012, 02:41:59 PM
Red very unlike you to not respond to my post so here he is again.

Mr Red Herring, do you think they will ever be a point in time where you (might) admit Wayne's device doesn't work ?
will it be next week next month or next year ?  I get the feeling you really don't care as long as wayn keep saying
his device works you will continue to believe blindly despite the lack of real world evidence.(Not logical evidence)

There has been no verification......Wayne continues to lie.....looking like it will never happen now,
and if the team ever make it their the chances are they will be more excuses why they can't complete
ther tests properly.  ...

Hi PowerCat,

What do want me to respond to ?  your speculation !
I have shared with you my views and opinions and technical facts as related to the Zed and Hydro Energy Revolution. 
One thing I do NOT DO is, to engage in speculation with anonymous individuals.
That is not the purpose of this forum topic.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 12, 2012, 03:38:37 PM
Hi,
   Red_Sunset, you seem to have given up. I can see this thing ending up like all the rest and just fading away. Like an apple?
                                      John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 12, 2012, 04:12:02 PM
Quote
One thing I do NOT DO is, to engage in speculation with anonymous individuals.
That is not the purpose of this forum topic.


Well you certainly do engage in speculation anyone can look through your previous posts and prove it, as for not engaging with anonymous people  then your family name is Sunset and your parents decided to call you Red.

When the information that has been given doesn't add up to factual evidence of overunity then there has to be anothe reason why the claim is still being made,and yes some will be speculation or if you like(logical speculation)
the rest will be based on provable facts like the fact Wayne is a liar.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 12, 2012, 04:42:27 PM
User 'mrwayne' has blocked your personal message

I received a PM from Wayne and when I tried to respond I got the above message, ridiculous
he feels the need to contact me but I can't reply back, the behaviour of a true preacher,
anyway just for Wayne.....Oh yes it has to be everyone else now, here's my response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a classic of a false overunity claim that have been seen on this forum so many times,
it's like reading a script You really should have done your homework and red some of other
threads there have been much more convincing claims than yours.

I would still love to think you're device could work I even have the space to build a big one, unfortunately
you've had more than enough time and all we get from you is excuses and delays a classic tale.

The evidence you have provided has not led to anyone producing clear overunity, you still have time to change that
and I suggest you stop using promising words and come up with some hard evidence and public verification.
Please please don't reply by saying it's going to happen very soon.....  Just get on with it.
I very much doubt this will happen as your profile on this forum is looking like a classic false claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 12, 2012, 05:03:49 PM
Hi,
    Powercat, my guess is that mrwayne doesn't want to tell lies, but, he's backed up into a corner. Red_Sunset has given up.
Red_Sunset and mrwayne just deal in riddles. Real people deal in facts,
                                                                                             John
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 12, 2012, 05:22:51 PM
Hi,
    Powercat, my guess is that mrwayne doesn't want to tell lies, but, he's backed up into a corner. Red_Sunset has given up.
Red_Sunset and mrwayne just deal in riddles. Real people deal in facts,
                                                                                             John

Ha,..Ha..Ha..You guys make me laugh!! ...given up !!   What idiotic talk !! 
Why on earth would I engage with you. There is nothing interesting you present , just hogwash.

Please present something worthwhile,  I might reconsider !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 12, 2012, 05:29:02 PM



Well you certainly do engage in speculation anyone can look through your previous posts and prove it, as for not engaging with anonymous people  then your family name is Sunset and your parents decided to call you Red.

When the information that has been given doesn't add up to factual evidence of overunity then there has to be anothe reason why the claim is still being made,and yes some will be speculation or if you like(logical speculation)
the rest will be based on provable facts like the fact Wayne is a liar.
A "fact" you say........... you have deluded yourself - you have drank from the blood you spill and have become drunk.
I gave you respect in advance. I shared our trouble and our success, I shared with you the discovery of a life time and the pitfalls of being on a new frontier - and you twist my words for your own personal gain.
I know that some people are wise enough to roll with change, some are brave enough, and others throw mud.
You take advantage of our open and honest format - listen....I tell the truth even when it hurts - is that what scares you.
Let me be very clear - we are succeeding - not "in spite" of your mud or your allies - but because we have what is important - a real purpose, a clear vision a truely overunity system and people who are brave. Lots of good brave people - crushing me is nothing to our cause - it was planned that way. As i said - this i s not about me - you waste your time.
Here is the fact about men or ladies of character - You and the few others do not define us - nor do you have any rights to demand anthing from us.
Prove your superior mind -you have what you need to analyze our system - stick with the Real Facts and get off of your personal attacks.
If you can't understand the system or are too tired -  call me what you wish - I will gladly be the kid you try to beat down, the wise and brave people see through you. Spend your energy on me - I can take it.
I have taken more than you can dish out for a long time, and I have learned wisdom from it.
I have added you to my prayer list. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001745/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 12, 2012, 06:05:53 PM
Hi mrwayne,
                   in your latest outburst you mention "sharing our success", nobody's seen any success from you yet. Give us a meaningful
update and most of us 'll shut up.
                                                   John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 12, 2012, 06:11:45 PM
Wayne Travis,
you are one that is seriously deluded anyone reading your statements below can see you do not keep your word, It is obvious it is plain to see and it is factual evidence something you don't believe in.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review

Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.

Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world

Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.

Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it over and over

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!

Quote from: mrwayne on October 15 on his web site
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation?
Me too.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on November 12, 2012, 06:59:53 PM
I absolutely love being proved wrong!!!!!
                                                                        John.

Ha! One of my greatest joys in life is being proven wrong.  It does take a certain amount of humility to realize the gain of being wrong.  An egotist will feel defeated, while a humble person will feel enriched.  One of the disadvantages of growing older is I don't get to be wrong as often as I used to.  The antidote is to keep moving into new areas of discovery. 

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 12, 2012, 07:11:43 PM
I wonder why you have started posting here again especially when taking into account your own words
in the statement below, I don't have to work hard to prove you're a liar, you're doing that all by yourself
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: mrwayne on October 07, 2012, 05:10:04 PM
To All,
The Validation team has now - for the third time - requested that I leave this forum.
I need to respect that wisdom - but I will miss your discussions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be completely blinded by your own faith in this device and I'm sure it has gained you
many followers and investors and good luck to you with that one,
but you really shouldn't go around on the Internet claiming that your device produces overunity
and not expect to get challenged and you shouldn't be surprised that people want proper scientific proof
and validation before believing,
so far what you have offered this forum has not produced clear overunity.
Clearly you are so anxious to silence people like me rather them getting on with validation and presenting
proper clear evidence,but I'm not surprised you seem to prefer preaching repetitive rhetoric instead.

All we ever get from Wayne & Red is words and more words and in all the months that have gone by has anybody produced clear overunity...NO so what does that tell everyone about those words.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 07:42:02 PM
100% free. 
 
The plane "kit" is a PDF so it was easy enough to re-color.  My 3 year old picked the colors!  I also sized it up from 1:33 to 1:24.
 
Paper is a wonderful modeling medium.
 
M.

Very nice indeed, it looks like a plastic model with molded parts!
 
Too bad you can't get a .pdf of a Zed system, print it out on, say, overhead transparency material, cut it out and assemble it. I don't think it would be nearly as complex as an airplane.... no compound curves or weird angles or flappy things to worry about, just a bunch of cylinders, end plates, and so on. You could even print out reinforcing struts or braces, so that once it's all folded and glued together it will be sturdy enough to hold the weight and pressure of the water. And as you point out, .pdf plans like this can be scaled without losing proportion.

Red could include the .pdf in his "Zed for Dummies" book and might be the first one to profit materially from Mr Wayne's scheme, by selling the book and the kits to..... well, to dummies.

But don't worry, you and I won't get any credit for this amazing idea, which brings the Zed system within reach of anyone with a printer and a pair of scissors and some various adhesives. Oh.... and a three-year old.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 08:19:51 PM
A "fact" you say........... you have deluded yourself - you have drank from the blood you spill and have become drunk.
Powercat has documented many things you've said that have not turned out to be true. This is a fact. Whether or not you are deliberately lying is between you and the God you cite so often. However, to accuse Powercat of delusion, spilling and drinking blood, even metaphorically.... says a lot about your psychology, Mister Wayne Travis.
Quote
I gave you respect in advance. I shared our trouble and our success, I shared with you the discovery of a life time and the pitfalls of being on a new frontier - and you twist my words for your own personal gain.
You did not share your raw data, you claimed to have a "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" which you have never shared by showing photos or data or information as to how the clear overunity was determined; you have never given energy balance data, you have never told us what the ratio of work in to work out is for any of your TEN alleged designs; you claim 960 percent of "something".... without justification of how that value was obtained or what it means (since you claim "NO INPUT"....); and finally.... who is "gaining" personally from quoting your exact words (not "twisting" them as you claim)? Nobody.... except those who may be deterred from wasting their investment money on your speculations and .... lies, if that is what they are.
Quote
I know that some people are wise enough to roll with change, some are brave enough, and others throw mud.

Indeed. Who is bearing the brunt of most of the mud being thrown in this forum? YOU? I laugh at you.
Quote
You take advantage of our open and honest format - listen....I tell the truth even when it hurts - is that what scares you.
Please read the description of this forum on the front page of the site. It is you who are abusing the OPEN SOURCE ideal upon which this forum functions. You have not respected that ideal, you are obfuscating and refusing to cooperate as someone who REALLY HAD what they claim could and would do. You are acting nearly exactly like so many others we have seen who make grand claims, cannot support them with facts, and then begin with the whining and delays and personal attacks against the skeptics who challenge them to prove their claims. You do avoid telling the outright lie which can be thrown back at you when it's discovered, but you've told plenty of lies, Mister Wayne, whether you are doing it deliberately or not. Perhaps you do believe in your system and you are primarily lying to yourself, I don't know.... but anyone can review Powercat's list and find lots of things you've said that didn't come true. Even the statement that "we" are taking advantage of "our" open and honest format.... is a lie from you. You PM people and refuse to allow them to PM you back! That is a clear abuse, whether or not you want to admit it.
Quote
Let me be very clear - we are succeeding - not "in spite" of your mud or your allies - but because we have what is important - a real purpose, a clear vision a truely overunity system and people who are brave.
What "success"? You say you have an important, clear vision... .but you don't have a functioning apparatus that does what you claim.
Your cynical involvement of youth groups and church groups is particularly egregious, in my opinion. What are those Boy Scouts going to do when they finally learn that you cannot deliver, in spite of your constant promises and constructions? How will they feel? Whether you are right or wrong about your Zed system, it was wrong of you to involve these innocent youths in your scheme.
Quote
Lots of good brave people - crushing me is nothing to our cause - it was planned that way. As i said - this i s not about me - you waste your time.
SO we are crushing you now? When all you have to do is to SHOW A WORKING SYSTEM THAT DOES WHAT YOU CLAIM, to shut up all skeptics forever?  Who is really wasting their time, Mister Wayne? I think it is you, and all the people you claim to have working for and with you.
"It" is indeed about you; you have made it so at every step. You are the one with the personality cult, you are the one who convinced your family members to back you financially, you are the ONLY ONE with an apparatus that is claimed to make overunity performance...... and you are the one that keeps posting verbiage on this forum, apparently against advice from your "team" and even in contradiction to your own statements. "It" is totally about you, Mister Wayne, Travis Effect, MisterWaynesBrain website owner.
Quote
Here is the fact about men or ladies of character - You and the few others do not define us - nor do you have any rights to demand anthing from us.

If you come to an OPEN SOURCE FREE ENERGY forum with claims that you have a device that does the things you claim, then yes, "WE" do in fact have the "right" to demand that you support your claims with facts. You can respect that right, or not.... but if you do not respect it, then let me respectfully suggest that you are in the wrong place, with your claims that cannot be supported.
Quote
Prove your superior mind -you have what you need to analyze our system - stick with the Real Facts and get off of your personal attacks.

Where are these personal attacks? Against whom are the majority of the personal attacks made? Where is the information needed to analyse your system? Where are the REAL FACTS about, for example, the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" that you have claimed to have? Where is your PATENT? What are the real facts on that, Mister Wayne?
Quote
If you can't understand the system or are too tired -  call me what you wish - I will gladly be the kid you try to beat down, the wise and brave people see through you. Spend your energy on me - I can take it.
I have taken more than you can dish out for a long time, and I have learned wisdom from it.
I have added you to my prayer list. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001745/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Nobody is trying to "beat you down" Mister Wayne! It's classically paranoid to think so. You are being called a liar, because you've made so many statements that aren't true. What else are you being called?
How is asking for you to prove your claims, and pointing out many things you've said that aren't true... how is that "beating you down"? Only if "we" are correct in our assertions that you are lying and cannot prove your claims, could any of that be construed as "beating you down". There is one sure way to counter all our arguments, and we all know what it is, and we all... even you.... know you cannot deliver it. SO you make these content-free posts that say nothing about your system, your progress or lack of it, your measurements, your validation schedule..... and in the final reckoning, you still have nothing to show.

Please remove me from your "prayer list", and use the time you save to TELL THE TRUTH to your fellow human beings on this Earth. You live but once, Mister Wayne, and each day brings you undeniably closer to the end of your one life. You do not have "all the time in the world".  Get yourself straight and take responsibility for your claims, your statements, your involvement of children, and your scheduling problems. Try to understand what your continuing difficulty in making a machine work according to your theory is telling you.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 12, 2012, 08:32:46 PM
To read this message,  please put on your 3D glasses (switch off the neon lights)
If you have any issues reading the response to Tinsel's post above, let me know

TK, I got a problem with line 33, it is unreadable, can you re-phrase.  In Line 48, the shit you spun is dripping on the shit below,  please can you make a correction to maintain that trash.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 12, 2012, 09:37:26 PM
 TK, Powercat, John - or maybe you have been mislead to what rights you have - as demonstrated by your recent demands.
Maybe this is the wrong class for you.... :)
Yes - I have been asked not to comment here - not because I do not have valuable information to teach - but due to your inability to accept or discern our system.
Do you want to know why I broke my silence??? (Its pretty good on our side of the ZED)... enough said  ;)
You do not get to dictate to me, sorry, I am not your dog... and for your benefit - respect I give you - that you have not earned in this thread - I refuse to treat you like one.
Your quest to demand authority over a project has added nothing to the education of the ZED system, it has confused others into thinking they have the right to make demands as well..
Build your own inventions, make you tubes and live a happy life. :D
I wish you the best.
In the mean time - we will move forward. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001749/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 09:42:48 PM
To read this message,  please put on your 3D glasses (switch off the neon lights)
If you have any issues reading the response to Tinsel's post above, let me know

TK, I got a problem with line 33, it is unreadable, can you re-phrase.  In Line 48, the shit you spun is dripping on the shit below,  please can you make a correction to maintain that trash.

Preserved for posterity. What have you been drinking, Red? Would you care to refute any of the actual points I made, or indicate just what you mean by your line numbers (which will vary according to screen width and browser used) and your "spinning shit" comment?

Or would you like to continue your personal attacks?

Note that I have again been proven correct. The only person being attacked personally around here, with insults, foul language, disrespect, claims that aren't supported .... is me.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2012, 09:45:31 PM
TK, Powercat, John - (snip) Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001749/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)

Stricken as non-responsive.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 12, 2012, 09:49:03 PM
Wayne Travis
why are you wasting your time arguing with me I'm not the one that made all those statements,
I'm not the one claiming I have clear overunity, you're the one promising everything and delivering
very little to prove your case, especially since what you have offered so far has not led to
anyone being able to prove clear overunity, except Red who believes it through (logical evidence)

Why would you care about what we think after all your device works..don't you know
that when you release it to the world we will all have to apologise to you.
yet you're so concerned about what we're saying, it sounds to me and a growing number
of members that all you have is words and a device that probably doesn't produce overunity,
therefore you must defend your words at all costs because that's all you have.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 12, 2012, 11:10:55 PM
Why is it that Wayne has decided to not update this board with all of the latest information on his device or continue to answer questions about his device?

The childish name calling, bickering and demanding on this board? Maybe.
The baiting and insult hurling? Maybe. 
The threat to steal Wayne's IP, to sell it, and throw the issue to the legal system? Maybe.

Until we reach successful validation, the skeptics will call the miss of any goals as pure lies and proof of deceit.
 
Just this weekend though, I had a big "miss" that I can somewhat relate to Wayne's situation. I was helping a friend that is opening a retail store in an old 1930's era building. I optimistically assured him that I could replace some woodwork and trim boards over the weekend. When I tore out the old wood though, I found structural issues from extensive water and termite damage. There was not enough solid wood that I could attach the new pieces to. There were also eight live, uncapped sets of wires hidden in the wall.

Did I meet my goal of being finished by the weekend? No.
Was it a lie that I did not finish according to my time estimate? No.
Why was it not a lie? Because I gave my best estimate given the information known at the time.

In discovery and invention, there are always unknowns. IMHO, If you want a development schedule according to a rigid timeline, this is not the project you should be following.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 12, 2012, 11:24:52 PM
Wayne Travis
why are you wasting your time arguing with me I'm not the one that made all those statements,
I'm not the one claiming I have clear overunity, you're the one promising everything and delivering
very little to prove your case, especially since what you have offered so far has not led to
anyone being able to prove clear overunity, except Red who believes it through (logical evidence)

Why would you care about what we think after all your device works..don't you know
that when you release it to the world we will all have to apologise to you.
yet you're so concerned about what we're saying, it sounds to me and a growing number
of members that all you have is words and a device that probably doesn't produce overunity,
therefore you must defend your words at all costs because that's all you have.
Really :) .......  Since my answer was not clear enough to you... let me share a non educational moment with you.
Do you know we are growing as a team - highly intellegent and educated members with understanding and respect for each other - it is great to be part of a good team and greater purpose.
We care about the education of growing intellects - moving beyond the rhetoric, finding the brave and diligent, finding the people with loyalty to character, and the willingness to see what is not so simple.
I am dumb compared to most who come - considering all things - but I am the inventor.... and that does let me understand things well enough.
Do you know what I noticed about those that join our private group - a common thread we have - we are willing to be wrong - maybe that goes along with people with eyes willing to see?
Look Power - You attacked me, and you attacked others while quoting your own attack on me.. you call calling your slander  "Fact" :o and then you repost it again and again - does that give you courage/confidence?
Your being a bully and a class disruption.
If you want to ask questions on how the system works - and get answers - start with an apology and accept the terms of mutual respect.
As RED suggested - You don't need to ask questions - most of the right questions were asked and answered already.
This is it with me - you have had your third, fourth and fifth chance - Otherwise - I will return you to the ignore list with "the others"
I hope you wise up, were moving on.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001766/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 13, 2012, 12:01:42 AM
Hi GreenHiker,
I can see the point you are trying to make and if we were talking about an isolated statement you would be right,
but if you read the list of Waynes statements he does this repeatedly on the same subject, and never apologises
for breaking his word, now I'm sure if you do this to your friend...repeatedly promising that you could fix
his woodwork and then failing to do so...don't you think he would accuse you of being a liar.
If you get a chance please read through that list with a completely open mind and then tell me
if you think this is a person that can be trusted, his first statement in the list should ring alarm bells.

@ Wayne,
am I making your investors nervous by RE quoting your own words back at you(Remember their your words)
I hope you wise up Wayne as you keep proving my point that you must defend your words because that's all you have,
You have been on this forum for months telling everyone how easy it is to produce clear overunity and no one
has managed to do that despite Red trying to show everyone how easy it is.

You have failed so far to show clear overunity on this (overunit forum) please do something else other
then offering people words that leave them nowhere, produce some proper scientific evidence.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 12:07:55 AM
Hi,
    mrwayne you just don't learn, you just go on and on spouting drivel. This is a test for you, I agree your machine works as you say.
How big will one of your machines be to run my house (10kw) a, as big as a garden shed? b, as big as my average sized house?
c, twice the size of my house? No need to say I'm attacking you or that you're going to pray for me 'cause I already know that.
                                   Have a nice day, warm regards,
                                                                                     John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 12:52:49 AM
Hi,
    mrwayne you just don't learn, you just go on and on spouting drivel. This is a test for you, I agree your machine works as you say.
How big will one of your machines be to run my house (10kw) a, as big as a garden shed? b, as big as my average sized house?
c, twice the size of my house? No need to say I'm attacking you or that you're going to pray for me 'cause I already know that.
                                   Have a nice day, warm regards,
                                                                                     John.
Hello John,
I have read your cute posts  ;)
Let me be clear - I do not care if you or anyone else believe me or not. I do not believe you are who you say you are - you sound like a puppet - but just in case - I will answer.
one note:
I read where you were mislead on your understanding of water and volumes and your assertions about the size of my system.
I get where you are comming from. You cheated off a classmate - who is failing the class.
That is a mistake - listening to others instead of doing your due dilligense - will not help you understand.
When you do try to understand - we have a very good support team to help.
May I suggest:
Go back and read the threads posted by me, by RED, by Neptune, by Larry, by SEE3D, by Wildew, by Chris, by Webby, they got thier hands wet.
I will give you this one answer - because I  know this is just a bait question to say once again -  I did not answer - even though that question has been answered five times in this thread - you need to do a little work of your own - read.
How big - to run your a 10kw house.
With our old system - the space a full size parking space - and ten feet tall.
Pretty big I would say - producing Net Enegry closed looped - no fuel no emmissions - and with proper lube - no noise. - plus and minus - but we would never had built one of those systems for 10kw too expensive.
Back then we had planned on 30kw, 50kw and 100kw. Our companies goal is to have a three to four year ROI to the consumer - that is liberation.
p.s. to give you a little flow help - we only move 2.2 cubic feet of water - pressure goes up not volume.
Our old system used virtual mass - something your helper missed or forgot to mention with his massive water calculations.
You do not qualify for questions on our new system until you understand the ZED.
You had your shot.
Good day.
Wayne
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 01:55:32 AM
Why is it that Wayne has decided to not update this board with all of the latest information on his device or continue to answer questions about his device?

The childish name calling, bickering and demanding on this board? Maybe.
The baiting and insult hurling? Maybe. 
The threat to steal Wayne's IP, to sell it, and throw the issue to the legal system? Maybe.


Maybe.

What then, is the reason that he doesn't update his own websites with anything other than more explanations of delay, then?

Or maybe not,

Quote
Until we reach successful validation, the skeptics will call the miss of any goals as pure lies and proof of deceit.
Kind of showing your bias there, aren't you? What if successful validation is never reached? And I think you will find that the objections to the continued delays and missed goals didn't start happening until the third or fourth consecutive incident, and by the tenth or eleventh straight incident.... well, some conclusions were inevitably tempting, wouldn't you say? After all, this has been going on for some time and you are a relatively new poster, so you might not be up to speed on just how many deadlines Mister Wayne has missed. Take a look again at Powercat's list.

Quote

Just this weekend though, I had a big "miss" that I can somewhat relate to Wayne's situation. I was helping a friend that is opening a retail store in an old 1930's era building. I optimistically assured him that I could replace some woodwork and trim boards over the weekend. When I tore out the old wood though, I found structural issues from extensive water and termite damage. There was not enough solid wood that I could attach the new pieces to. There were also eight live, uncapped sets of wires hidden in the wall.

Did I meet my goal of being finished by the weekend? No.
Was it a lie that I did not finish according to my time estimate? No.
Why was it not a lie? Because I gave my best estimate given the information known at the time.
But Tom, I'll bet there is one BIG and very significant difference between your experience and the case of Mister Wayne. You eventually finished your job and your repairs performed as expected.... and didn't require redoing ten times, didn't stop working after four hours, and didn't require prayers to God or the Boy Scouts.
Am I right?
Quote
In discovery and invention, there are always unknowns. IMHO, If you want a development schedule according to a rigid timeline, this is not the project you should be following.

Tom
But that's not what we want, Tom. We want proof of claims. I personally don't care WHEN you or anyone else makes a claim. But certainly, if they do make a claim, I expect them to be able to produce evidence for that claim AT ANY TIME thereafter.... otherwise the claim is suspect.
For example.... Mister Wayne claimed, some time ago, to have a "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" in those exact words. Present tense, clearly overunity, simple, by itself. And I have asked over and over for some support for this claim. He did NOT say, well, at some time in the future I am going to have that system. He said HAS, and IS. "We" are not pressing him for a development schedule according to a rigid timeline...."we" are pressing him to support his claims that he HAS SOMETHING NOW.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 02:01:55 AM
Hi,
    mrwayne you just don't learn, you just go on and on spouting drivel. This is a test for you, I agree your machine works as you say.
How big will one of your machines be to run my house (10kw) a, as big as a garden shed? b, as big as my average sized house?
c, twice the size of my house? No need to say I'm attacking you or that you're going to pray for me 'cause I already know that.
                                   Have a nice day, warm regards,
                                                                                     John.
Note that Mister Wayne accuses you of cheating in his non-response to your question.

Mister Wayne again makes claims that have no support. He says that with his system 10 kW can be made in a space that's ten feet tall and two parking spaces wide. The evidence that he has actually shown, though, indicate that that same device, that you can see in pictures on his website and in an early groaning video, makes only 36 Watts excess power .... if it even makes that much.... and has never been observed to run for more than four hours. So... unless Mister Wayne is prepared to demonstrate this 10 kW unit.... I think we have to go with what he HAS demonstrated and actually supported with some kind of data: the 36 Watts figure.
And for him to call you a "cheat"..... is rather amazing, since I... and you.... can easily confirm all the figures from looking at Mister Wayne's own posts and reports. The only "10kW output for zero input" unit there is, is in Mister Wayne's imagination.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 02:09:41 AM
Quote
I will give you this one answer - because I  know this is just a bait question to say once again -  I did not answer - even though that question has been answered five times in this thread - you need to do a little work of your own - read.
How big - to run your a 10kw house.
With our old system - the space a full size parking space - and ten feet tall.
Pretty big I would say - producing Net Enegry closed looped - no fuel no emmissions - and with proper lube - no noise. - plus and minus - but we would never had built one of those systems for 10kw too expensive.
Back then we had planned on 30kw, 50kw and 100kw. Our companies goal is to have a three to four year ROI to the consumer - that is liberation.

Amazing.
He is talking not about a system that he actually built, but a projection of a design idea. He never would have actually built one of those systems, and "back then we had planned" on lots of larger systems. And his company has a goal. And that's liberation.

Maybe... but it's certainly not an answer. Or is it? I think Mister Wayne is here telling you pretty much right straight out that he doesn't have a power producing system of any size... just goals.

Quote
Our old system used virtual mass - something your helper missed or forgot to mention with his massive water calculations.
You do not qualify for questions on our new system until you understand the ZED.
You had your shot.
Good day.
Wayne
Let's see.... LarryC berates me for talking about Virtual Water in my calculations AND USING IT .... and as I recall, it was MY experiment that quantified this effect for us all with actual measurements,  and put it on sound footing.... and now Mister Wayne berates me for "missing" or forgetting to mention it.
And then he tells you that you can't ask questions about the system until you understand the system. That's typical, from someone who sends PMs to people but won't receive their replies. Or is the "new system" not a Zed? The Boy Scouts will be disappointed.

Hey... Wayne..... you forgot to say "God Bless".
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 02:20:44 AM
Quote
You cheated off a classmate - who is failing the class.

Hmmm.... interesting. Would you say that this is a personal attack, or not? I can't quite tell.... But never mind....

But I suppose this means that Mondrasek and Wildew and Webby, who have built things that don't show any overunity behaviour, are also failing the class. Or maybe they are just getting "Ds".

By the way..... in every class I have ever taken, the teacher had credentials, and in some cases very impressive ones. What are Mister Wayne's credentials to teach?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 13, 2012, 03:04:47 AM

....  After all, this has been going on for some time and you are a relatively new poster, so you might not be up to speed on just how many deadlines Mister Wayne has missed. Take a look again at Powercat's list.



TK -

Surely you jest.  Or maybe you don't remember?

I traveled to Wayne's back in April.

I made the 5 Travis Effect fishtank demo's that are posted on YouTube by Stefan, Sterling and Wayne.....?

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 03:15:33 AM
Hmmm.... interesting. Would you say that this is a personal attack, or not? I can't quite tell.... But never mind....

But I suppose this means that Mondrasek and Wildew and Webby, who have built things that don't show any overunity behaviour, are also failing the class. Or maybe they are just getting "Ds".

By the way..... in every class I have ever taken, the teacher had credentials, and in some cases very impressive ones. What are Mister Wayne's credentials to teach?
Dear TK,
The stars are up and you take beautiful pictures.
You are right - I am nobody, just the inventor you can not deter...... I know you earned your credentials  - I get what you think are insults.
p.s. I was given my "credentials" by the star maker, I tried sharing the knowledge gleamed within me with you - you were too smart for me -Pun intended.
Back to "Ignore"
Good night.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 03:42:35 AM


TK -

Surely you jest.  Or maybe you don't remember?

I traveled to Wayne's back in April.

I made the 5 Travis Effect fishtank demo's that are posted on YouTube by Stefan, Sterling and Wayne.....?

Tom
Hello Tom!
Are you ready for this!
I am so excited!
I was at dinner tonight with a few of our early members - we were laughing about how we all got involved together - and how far we have come and we laughed about the TK show - One asked - does TK own the forum? How many posts a day omgosh.
He is famous lol - I don't mind at all.
Such a smart man, I wish he had gleamed understanding - Neptune really respected him - I had such high hopes.
He should write stories..... omgosh is he ever creative.
Anyway my point: At dinner - we all had a slightly different memory of our initial meetings - we laughed because we each remembered what we wanted to remember - this is just normal. I see it here every day...... six or seven times a day.
Thank you for all the video's - Number five was voted the most helpful - you did embarrass me pretty bad naming it the Travis Effect - and I received some hate mail over that -"how brash, how arrogant, how dare I place myself in the pedigree without approval of the pedigree" - lol. I did get a few apology letters when they realized they had been duped by others on this thread.
Yet - from your naming of the effect - the world knows what started it all now - thank you my friend.
See you soon,
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001749/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 13, 2012, 03:48:37 AM
Powercat –
In evaluating Wayne’s words I come from a completely different perspective than you. I started corresponding with Wayne in March and traveled to Chickasha to meet him in April. Shortly after that I did the 5 fishtank demos on the Travis Effect (I named it that, not Wayne). Since then, we have written and spoken numerous times. I also have spoken to and/or written often to other teammates. I consider Wayne a good friend. So from that admitted bias, I will tell you that I don’t believe your list to have lies in it.  I will add my thoughts to your quotes. It's a long one but here goes...

I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
I have never seen a lie from Wayne. I would have stated some quotes differently if they came from me, but no lies. He has misjudged the amount of time to accomplish certain milestones, but again no lies.

I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
To get across what I thought he was trying to say at the time, I would have said ….totally disappointed. He is not open sourcing the project. Period. But…for the open sourcing fans, Wayne will not sit by and let this technology get bought by big oil, etc. to be pigeon-holed and not brought out for the good of mankind. Also, from the beginning, all of the details of the technology were spread to a few trusted team members so as to assure that the IP would never rest with one individual. He will also not allow the technology to be priced out of the reach of the common man. People that want this technology spread to the masses at a reasonable price will be pleased.

We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group recommends. I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new plc equipment and software.
When the 48 hour run is made with Mark or his alternate, Mark has a group lined up that will validate the machine and release their findings to scientific journals. I don’t believe those plans have changed.  As far as I know the equipment and software were installed at the point mentioned.

Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review
Mark does have a team ready to evaluate the device after the 48 hour run. We are still waiting for the 48 hour run but Mark’s team is ready.

We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs   - I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.
The pre-test runs were not successful then, so Mark did not bring in his team

Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too. But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tomorrows Run.
The pre-test runs were not successful then, so Mark did not bring in his team

We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.
Again, the pre-test runs were not successful, so Mark did not bring in his team

After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams world wide to bring this technology to the world.
This is a plan after validation. We are not there yet.

Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.
As far as I know it was on Mark’s schedule but pre-test runs were not successful.

We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit
They were working on problems in anticipation of Mark’s next visit.

No, I am not sharing run Data with anyone, until we have the system ready to be released.
The data is being held for Mark’s validation team. This is just a smart business practice. Why risk someone from this board trying to upstage the validation/scientific journal article before Mark’s team has the chance to publish theirs?

Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator.
The accumulator was not getting charged properly at that point. I believe they then split the combined hydraulic system into separate systems for each ZED.

Mark - I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this. However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
 I agree with Mark’s statement. I think Wayne would too.

Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple physics can show it over and over.
I don’t think I would have said simple physics, but spreadsheets like those from Larry C. help technically oriented people understand how the device works. Personally I think that TK, “Seamus”, Mile High, etc. all understand the spreadsheets. They are too brilliant not to get it. They just won’t acknowledge it to be true until they see the physical evidence that supports it.

p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.
Wayne is not a scientist or an engineer. Depending on how you look at it, the machine does have an input, but is a closed loop. Some of the output gets routed back to the input. Figure it however you want, but infinity tells me it is closed looped only. Using the % figures, at least you get the picture how much over the self looped portion is excess free energy. 

It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
Just around the corner is a relative term….  ;)

We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery) and we will be ready for the Validation!
Expectations were not completely met. True

Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.

They do have to run for two days before Marks validation. Wayne has been in frequent communication with Mark.

I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

That was a deceptive quote. I believe the full quote said something to the effect “if all goes well”.

Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles, are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation? Me too.

Me three!

I hope this helps.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 13, 2012, 03:54:45 AM
Really :) .......  Since my answer was not clear enough to you... let me share a non educational moment with you.
Do you know we are growing as a team - highly intellegent and educated members with understanding and respect for each other - it is great to be part of a good team and greater purpose.
We care about the education of growing intellects - moving beyond the rhetoric, finding the brave and diligent, finding the people with loyalty to character, and the willingness to see what is not so simple.
I am dumb compared to most who come - considering all things - but I am the inventor.... and that does let me understand things well enough.
Do you know what I noticed about those that join our private group - a common thread we have - we are willing to be wrong - maybe that goes along with people with eyes willing to see?
Look Power - You attacked me, and you attacked others while quoting your own attack on me.. you call calling your slander  "Fact" :o and then you repost it again and again - does that give you courage/confidence?
Your being a bully and a class disruption.
If you want to ask questions on how the system works - and get answers - start with an apology and accept the terms of mutual respect.
As RED suggested - You don't need to ask questions - most of the right questions were asked and answered already.
This is it with me - you have had your third, fourth and fifth chance - Otherwise - I will return you to the ignore list with "the others"
I hope you wise up, were moving on.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001766/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)

Why are you on an OPEN SOURCE forum when you obviously do not work openly?  It clearly says: "Open Source" on the home page.  Did you overlook this?  I mean, this is a pretty big deal to the folks here but somehow, you think it is ok to post here and not work openly?

With all due respect, this is crap.  It is OPEN SOURCE here for a reason and why should that change just to suit you and your investors?

Of course, you do not answer any one else's questions so I suppose you won't answer mine either. 

I wish you luck.

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 03:58:26 AM
Hi GreenHiker,
I can see the point you are trying to make and if we were talking about an isolated statement you would be right,
but if you read the list of Waynes statements he does this repeatedly on the same subject, and never apologises
for breaking his word, now I'm sure if you do this to your friend...repeatedly promising that you could fix
his woodwork and then failing to do so...don't you think he would accuse you of being a liar.
If you get a chance please read through that list with a completely open mind and then tell me
if you think this is a person that can be trusted, his first statement in the list should ring alarm bells.

@ Wayne,
am I making your investors nervous by RE quoting your own words back at you(Remember their your words)
I hope you wise up Wayne as you keep proving my point that you must defend your words because that's all you have,
You have been on this forum for months telling everyone how easy it is to produce clear overunity and no one
has managed to do that despite Red trying to show everyone how easy it is.

You have failed so far to show clear overunity on this (overunit forum) please do something else other
then offering people words that leave them nowhere, produce some proper scientific evidence.
You chose "ignore."
Do you realize that smart tail comments does not really pass for intelligence - except around your like minded friends, you are surely impressing them.......enough said ......
Do your due dilligence ........the fame you currenlty "earned" is being served on a cold dish.
Good night
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 13, 2012, 04:03:08 AM
Pirate -

You must have been out at sea when this was last discussed.

Stefan (site owner) is the one that originally posted my videos of the Travis Effect on his front page. I was copied on Wayne's reply back to Stefan to confirm permission to post them.

I would direct your question to the owner of this site if you disapprove.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 04:26:34 AM
Why are you on an OPEN SOURCE forum when you obviously do not work openly?  It clearly says: "Open Source" on the home page.  Did you overlook this?  I mean, this is a pretty big deal to the folks here but somehow, you think it is ok to post here and not work openly?

With all due respect, this is crap.  It is OPEN SOURCE here for a reason and why should that change just to suit you and your investors?

Of course, you do not answer any one else's questions so I suppose you won't answer mine either. 

I wish you luck.

Bill
Hello again Bill,
I have answered this before, and thank you for the well wishes.
Open source - is a choice - crude or not - site name or not - we rebuilt the garden at the pregnancy crisis center and I am not obligated to be pregnant - but I get your point -
Stefan asked my motive, and he accepted what my intent was from the beginning - and since this is his site - I presume that is OK.
To be clear - I have read all the arguments and rants - I will share what I will with who I will.
I was more willing to share until some members began claiming they were here to steal and sell, and or turn in papers on the principal - we know not all people are good people. We are not naive and we have cleared what we share thru our attorneys.
The Fact of the matter is this:
My design has so many applications that it is truly a new frontier - we are gathering team members and connections to do what open source can not do - fund, protect, and provide assurance that this free energy device is delivered to customers.
p.s. we will be doing some of the funding.
Each of our members has the authorization to utilize our design, improve on it, and create new applications - we are open source in our protected, selected group - we came here to share teach and recruit. Those willing have made themselves known.
Open source in a selective manner - do you see how we have been treated here?
It has been worth it - we have met some great friends - and have been blessed by many visitors who would never post on this site - but heard about us thru it - this has been our invitation to some great men and women.
I was amazed that they were not deterred by the negativity - but I myself had never been to the site before - so everyone was like a new friend - well until the made it clear they had taken sides against us...... then it was clear.
And one more comment - just for fun - Pirate cruising on an open forum site - what gives.....spooky if I did not have such a solid IP.
Thanks Pirate - I appreciate your time and question. This whole process takes very good business planning, very thorough due diligence -
  Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001757/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 04:28:16 AM
Preserved for posterity. What have you been drinking, Red? Would you care to refute any of the actual points I made, or indicate just what you mean by your line numbers (which will vary according to screen width and browser used) and your "spinning shit" comment?

Tinsel,  I do not refute trash, I know you can serve more "to the power two".
Trash is trash !! 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 05:27:35 AM
Powercat –
In evaluating Wayne’s words I come from a completely different perspective than you. I started corresponding with Wayne in March and traveled to Chickasha to meet him in April. Shortly after that I did the 5 fishtank demos on the Travis Effect (I named it that, not Wayne). Since then, we have written and spoken numerous times. I also have spoken to and/or written often to other teammates. I consider Wayne a good friend. So from that admitted bias, I will tell you that I don’t believe your list to have lies in it.  I will add my thoughts to your quotes. It's a long one but here goes...

I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
I have never seen a lie from Wayne. I would have stated some quotes differently if they came from me, but no lies. He has misjudged the amount of time to accomplish certain milestones, but again no lies.

I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
To get across what I thought he was trying to say at the time, I would have said ….totally disappointed. He is not open sourcing the project. Period. But…for the open sourcing fans, Wayne will not sit by and let this technology get bought by big oil, etc. to be pigeon-holed and not brought out for the good of mankind. Also, from the beginning, all of the details of the technology were spread to a few trusted team members so as to assure that the IP would never rest with one individual. He will also not allow the technology to be priced out of the reach of the common man. People that want this technology spread to the masses at a reasonable price will be pleased.

We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group recommends. I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new plc equipment and software.
When the 48 hour run is made with Mark or his alternate, Mark has a group lined up that will validate the machine and release their findings to scientific journals. I don’t believe those plans have changed.  As far as I know the equipment and software were installed at the point mentioned.

Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review
Mark does have a team ready to evaluate the device after the 48 hour run. We are still waiting for the 48 hour run but Mark’s team is ready.

We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs   - I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.
The pre-test runs were not successful then, so Mark did not bring in his team

Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too. But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tomorrows Run.
The pre-test runs were not successful then, so Mark did not bring in his team

We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.
Again, the pre-test runs were not successful, so Mark did not bring in his team

After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams world wide to bring this technology to the world.
This is a plan after validation. We are not there yet.

Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.
As far as I know it was on Mark’s schedule but pre-test runs were not successful.

We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit
They were working on problems in anticipation of Mark’s next visit.

No, I am not sharing run Data with anyone, until we have the system ready to be released.
The data is being held for Mark’s validation team. This is just a smart business practice. Why risk someone from this board trying to upstage the validation/scientific journal article before Mark’s team has the chance to publish theirs?

Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator.
The accumulator was not getting charged properly at that point. I believe they then split the combined hydraulic system into separate systems for each ZED.

Mark - I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this. However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
 I agree with Mark’s statement. I think Wayne would too.

Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple physics can show it over and over.
I don’t think I would have said simple physics, but spreadsheets like those from Larry C. help technically oriented people understand how the device works. Personally I think that TK, “Seamus”, Mile High, etc. all understand the spreadsheets. They are too brilliant not to get it. They just won’t acknowledge it to be true until they see the physical evidence that supports it.

p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.
Wayne is not a scientist or an engineer. Depending on how you look at it, the machine does have an input, but is a closed loop. Some of the output gets routed back to the input. Figure it however you want, but infinity tells me it is closed looped only. Using the % figures, at least you get the picture how much over the self looped portion is excess free energy. 

It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
Just around the corner is a relative term….  ;)

We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery) and we will be ready for the Validation!
Expectations were not completely met. True

Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.

They do have to run for two days before Marks validation. Wayne has been in frequent communication with Mark.

I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

That was a deceptive quote. I believe the full quote said something to the effect “if all goes well”.

Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles, are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation? Me too.

Me three!

I hope this helps.

Tom
Thanks Tom,
And many others see it the clear way you do.
Mark has never set a timeline, and yes I agree - the longer it takes the less likely it will "seem" to be a success - and two minutes after we finish the last two phases of validation - no one will care or remember how long it took.
Missing my own dead line is my own problem. I am very conservative - but continually optimistic - they combat each other a bit. If this is the best someone can do....... that is a blessing.
Of course we all care - it is hard work the goal changes with each advancement, each discovery, each new gleamed understanding of the system.
Marks invitation is after our internal goals are completely met. The fist thing Mark will tell you - other than it taking a while - we are doing it right - and he is right.
Even with certain skeptics asked Mark to "out me" over and over - he has said to them - it will be when it will be.
That is the truth.
Thank Tom,
You are a good friend.
p.s. the quote on efficiency that TK posted from my web site - he conveniently left off the next line which explained how we calculated efficiency - get the picture - he needed a story, he wrote a story - pun intended. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001763/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on November 13, 2012, 05:47:08 AM
Is there a way we can fork off another thread from this one?  One with the sole purpose of sharing and discussing the collection of data from builds, sims, and spreadsheet formulas.  It should be heavily moderated so that all off topic or non-objective data related posts are immediately deleted.  This will make it possible for people to be able to read all the posts in a few hours instead of a few weeks to catch up with what was posted.

I am not being sarcastic here, I am serious.

I have come to the end of my available time to read through non-objective posts.  I am wasting an hour a day.  If there is no way to stay Laser focused only on the data on this thread, I will have to remove myself from reading and posting here.  I will have to do all my work through emails to individuals instead.  Everyone else can carry on with their head trips without me.  Life is too short for me to waste it associating with attitudes that are diametrically opposed to my own.

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 06:01:28 AM
Thanks Tom,
And many others see it the clear way you do.
Mark has never set a timeline, and yes I agree - the longer it takes the less likely it will "seem" to be a success - and two minutes after we finish the last two phases of validation - no one will care or remember how long it took.
Missing my own dead line is my own problem. I am very conservative - but continually optimistic - they combat each other a bit. If this is the best someone can do....... that is a blessing.
Of course we all care - it is hard work the goal changes with each advancement, each discovery, each new gleamed understanding of the system.
Marks invitation is after our internal goals are completely met. The fist thing Mark will tell you - other than it taking a while - we are doing it right - and he is right.
Even with certain skeptics asked Mark to "out me" over and over - he has said to them - it will be when it will be.
That is the truth.
Thank Tom,
You are a good friend.
p.s. the quote on efficiency that TK posted from my web site - he conveniently left off the next line which explained how we calculated efficiency - get the picture - he needed a story, he wrote a story - pun intended. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:%7BBA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745%7Dmid://00001763/%21x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)

Oh really? I think you are a liar, Mister Wayne, because here are a few more lines of the passage where I got the NINE HUNDRED SIXTY PERCENT quote on efficiency from your website:

Quote
Mark is right, and thank God that Mark is the skeptic that gives advice - I receive continual bad advice from others - that if I followed - we would have presented to the world our unfinished work - to meet their ego - not the needs of our business and future relationships. Mark advised me - that in order to get the right help - we needed to attract the right people - with the right connections - and that "WE" needed to supply the right answer to the energy question. I decided that 160% was not good enough - and considering our latest physical testing of our TAZ is 960% - I think the timing is just about right. Now we are buttoning up the details - part of every improvement we have made - we are getting pretty good at it with all the great people who volunteer. So the feeling to finish - will be meeting the "due diligence" as soon as possible. After last weeks update - one of the validation members asked me not to publish their schedules - and I will respect that wish. It is only the small things that we wrap up now - I read a quote that said: "Whomever can not be bothered with the small things, should not be considered worthy to handle the large things".
http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)

Please point out to me just where, in the next line, you explain how you calculate efficiency.

Get the picture? Mister Wayne needs a scapegoat to divert attention from his failure to produce evidence of his claims. So he makes up things about me, apparently out of whole cloth. Pun intended.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 06:03:09 AM
Tinsel,  I do not refute trash, I know you can serve more "to the power two".
Trash is trash !!

So that's a "no", then. You cannot refute any of the points I've made, so you prefer to continue with your personal attacks upon me, your insults, your foul language and mud slinging.....

I say that you are a hypocrite.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 06:08:19 AM
Is there a way we can fork off another thread from this one?  One with the sole purpose of sharing and discussing the collection of data from builds, sims, and spreadsheet formulas.  It should be heavily moderated so that all off topic or non-objective data related posts are immediately deleted.  This will make it possible for people to be able to read all the posts in a few hours instead of a few weeks to catch up with what was posted.

I am not being sarcastic here, I am serious.

I have come to the end of my available time to read through non-objective posts.  I am wasting an hour a day.  If there is no way to stay Laser focused only on the data on this thread, I will have to remove myself from reading and posting here.  I will have to do all my work through emails to individuals instead.  Everyone else can carry on with their head trips without me.  Life is too short for me to waste it associating with attitudes that are diametrically opposed to my own.

~Dennis
The kind of "moderation" you are asking for is actually called "censorship." There's a forum for that: Energetic Forum. Why don't you start a thread over there? You'll get just what you ask for, then. Anyone who doesn't agree with whatever claims happen to catch the eye of the operators of that site find themselves banned and deleted in short order. You'll fit right in.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 13, 2012, 06:08:27 AM
Hello again Bill,
I have answered this before, and thank you for the well wishes.
Open source - is a choice - crude or not - site name or not - we rebuilt the garden at the pregnancy crisis center and I am not obligated to be pregnant - but I get your point -
Stefan asked my motive, and he accepted what my intent was from the beginning - and since this is his site - I presume that is OK.
To be clear - I have read all the arguments and rants - I will share what I will with who I will.
I was more willing to share until some members began claiming they were here to steal and sell, and or turn in papers on the principal - we know not all people are good people. We are not naive and we have cleared what we share thru our attorneys.
The Fact of the matter is this:
My design has so many applications that it is truly a new frontier - we are gathering team members and connections to do what open source can not do - fund, protect, and provide assurance that this free energy device is delivered to customers.
p.s. we will be doing some of the funding.
Each of our members has the authorization to utilize our design, improve on it, and create new applications - we are open source in our protected, selected group - we came here to share teach and recruit. Those willing have made themselves known.
Open source in a selective manner - do you see how we have been treated here?
It has been worth it - we have met some great friends - and have been blessed by many visitors who would never post on this site - but heard about us thru it - this has been our invitation to some great men and women.
I was amazed that they were not deterred by the negativity - but I myself had never been to the site before - so everyone was like a new friend - well until the made it clear they had taken sides against us...... then it was clear.
And one more comment - just for fun - Pirate cruising on an open forum site - what gives.....spooky if I did not have such a solid IP.
Thanks Pirate - I appreciate your time and question. This whole process takes very good business planning, very thorough due diligence -
  Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001757/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)

MrWayne:

Thank you for the reply.  As Tom pointed out in his above post, I was not aware of those arrangements with Stefan.  I do not agree with it but, it is Stefan's site and I respect that.

I do greatly appreciate your prompt reply and I really do wish you luck.

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 06:30:35 AM
Is there a way we can fork off another thread from this one?  One with the sole purpose of sharing and discussing the collection of data from builds, sims, and spreadsheet formulas.  It should be heavily moderated so that all off topic or non-objective data related posts are immediately deleted.  This will make it possible for people to be able to read all the posts in a few hours instead of a few weeks to catch up with what was posted.

I am not being sarcastic here, I am serious.

I have come to the end of my available time to read through non-objective posts.  I am wasting an hour a day.  If there is no way to stay Laser focused only on the data on this thread, I will have to remove myself from reading and posting here.  I will have to do all my work through emails to individuals instead.  Everyone else can carry on with their head trips without me.  Life is too short for me to waste it associating with attitudes that are diametrically opposed to my own.
~Dennis

Hi Dennis,
You are right, the same has been also playing in my head for a while to get some normalized productivity back into the topic. The additional thread can include theory and SIM  together and the current thread can maintain its mud slinging status.

Proposed Hydro Differential threads
1.. Theory and SIM development  to delve into and unravel the science behind the Travis principle, for the serious technical minded people and to support the development of the sim.
2.. Tracking Wayne, prototype & debunkers thread, this can include all physical builds and replications, where the slingers,  skeptics like an akin TinselKoala, PowerCat, Minnie and others can track and project manage Wayne's and other builders.  Do their de-bunking, present their unsupported "can not work" statements and where all thrashing can take place here to their hearts delight. 

A separation along these lines will optimize the communication and reduce the unrelated disturbances we have seen this far.
Good idea See3D !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 06:34:24 AM
.............................................I say that you are a hypocrite.

This website supports "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
Therefore you are entitled to your opinion and to produce more trash !!

Just an observation on the standard flow on fact deduction by you and certain others here,
* You state   
"So that's a "no", then. You cannot refute any of the points I've made, so you prefer to continue with your personal attacks upon me, your insults, your foul language and mud slinging..... "
** Analysis to demonstrate your leap frogging from assumption to fact
So that's a "no", =               nobody said "NO"
then. You cannot refute any of the points I've made,  =           assumption based on the previous non-existing "No">> deduction>> into "FACT"
so you prefer to continue with your personal attacks upon me, =            Assumption of intent
your foul language and mud slinging....=            descriptive action content
...I say that you are a hypocrite. =           conclusion becomes "FACT" based on a previous "FACT" that was "NOT A FACT AT ALL"

This flow technique of "assumption , deduction" into "fact" can be seen all over this thread into the science of things
Some common examples:
**  "I don't understand" > then it cannot work as said >> it is impossible >>>it must be a lie >>> now LIE is a FACT  (at least in the head of the perpetrator)
**  " I cannot figure out how it works" > "I don't understand" >> I have not seen the work model yet>>> then inventor is a lie (same leap of the same frog)

Just poor logic,
It is sad to see such "unscientific leap frogging", a sad and poor performance from a bunch of assumed scientists/engineers/amateurs
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 09:02:04 AM
What is so interesting of the phenomen, as seen here as it is taking place here under our own noses ? It typifies a common human behavior that shows how the mind is so dominantly influenced by our emotions and other underlying usualy benefit interests.
The topic subject appears to be a pure science matter, if it would be that only, there would be no problem. But this science has great beneficial financial implications and this changes the playing field dramatically. It explains the rush of the last 100 posts in the last 2 days.

Why do I think that ?  Purely by watching the behavior flow.  It still puzzles me WHY someone who doesn't believe in the concept presented or its execution to be a working possibility, after stating his belief, REMAINS SO VEHEMENTLY domineering on this topic ?  WHY ?  What is his interest ?  What can he gain to stay here and what can he loose to leave ?
I think it is time we investigate certain individuals to their connections and interest domains.  This might be quite a eyeopener.

I believe that " WE NEVER DO SOMETHING WITHOUT REASON",  The more difficult this something is, the stronger the reason. The most common reason is financial benefit !

This brings up some pertinent questions
1,, Why does this behavior manifest here?
2.. Who are domineering this thread ?
3.. What is their target to be domineering?
4.. What is their purpose to act as they do ?
5.. I there more to their behavior than just technical or emotional enthusiasm ?
6.. Do they have something to gain by acting in a specific way?
7.. What is their possible short and long term perceived benefit by their action?
........ect  feel free to add on points of interest as you see fit
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hoptoad on November 13, 2012, 09:36:25 AM
snip...
But this science has great beneficial financial implications and this changes the playing field dramatically.
snip...

Potentially beneficial to some and potentially devastating to others.

Scientific debate will always involve some individuals whose potential financial gain or loss will greatly influence them, thus, potentially compromising their scientific objectivity. There are also many individuals who become so emotionally attached to their pet theories, they will inure themselves against any falsifying evidence.

Typical human nature persists everywhere, even (perhaps, especially) in the OU Nerd community. ...... KneeDeep
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 10:14:32 AM
Hi,
   mrwayne did answer my question on the probable size a machine might be.Thankyou mrwayne. From his answer I deduced that it
is much more than a gravity machine. To get the output I wanted via gravity would need a 30m head (40 p.s.i.) and a flow rate of
50l/sec.
           I think he was suggesting, only a guess on my behalf, an operating pressure of about 2250 p.s.i.
  I can't see any point in people, with air over water devices, messing about on their kitchen tables. I've pointed out that 30 yrs ago I tried to
use air over water to control my pump and over time the air disappears.
  Could someone explain the role of Red_Sunset, I can't work it out. He knows how this thing works, let's see it operating. These projects
are  very expensive, I know, I've tried a few myself. They can only go on for so long, perhaps they can tap into some "virtual funding"?
                                                                John
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 10:42:05 AM
Hi,
  Red_Sunset. To answer your question, "why am I here"  Well my interest started with Bedini and Bearden. Then Mike Brady, Richard Brace, Lee, Tilley, Lou Brits, John Christie, Joe Newman and many others. I came across the Travis Machine and because Mark Dainse was giving
the thumbs up I thought this one's a winner! So I've watched and watched and watched.......
  I don't have any financial or personal involvement save for the odd posts. I'm confident one day something will come along.
Solar PV. and advanced batteries are where I see something to offer poorer people and the efficiency of PV. is edging up all the time.
The major problem lies in degradation of expensive storage batteries-solve that one and you would be on a winner!
                                             warmest regards
                                                                           John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 13, 2012, 11:04:30 AM
The major problem lies in degradation of expensive storage batteries-solve that one and you would be on a winner!
                                             warmest regards
                                                                           John.
edison batteries... they've been around for 100+ years. ;)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 13, 2012, 11:32:50 AM
On the "open source" topic.
I, for one, have found Wayne and friends to be very open.
Maybe I'm not bright enough to be considered a threat, maybe I've approached the relationship differently.
Many thanks to all that have supported the team's efforts.

If there does become a common desire to create a collaboration group I can think of a few easy options.
Google docs ( not that I trust Google )
OfficeZilla
Yahoo groups
Any can be by invitation only - or at least provide a level of control.

The open debate is good though, to a point.
IMHO this group's gotten a little crazy this week, but it takes 2 to argue.....

Dale

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 11:59:21 AM
Hey Minnie..... you think Mister Wayne answered your question.... but his answer was speculative. I don't think you'll be pouring a slab for the base of your new Hydro Differential Pressure Exchange Overunity 10 kW power plant based on what he's told you. Will you?

Mister Wayne never lies. He says so himself, so it must be true.

(He just says things that don't turn out to be correct, or are just wrong in the first place, like his last accusation against me which I refuted easily by quoting the passage from his website where he does _not_ explain "in the next line"... or anywhere.. how his "efficiency" of 960 percent was obtained).

So ask him these questions, Minnie -- and see if you get a straight, simple answer:

Do you, Mister Wayne Travis, have at this moment, Tuesday November 13 2012, an OPERATING DEVICE -- one that operates right now -- running on NO INPUT, that produces USEFUL WORK OUTPUT , electrical or otherwise, for a reasonable length of time, say, long enough to heat up a standard water heater tank and provide hot showers for four people? If so, what are the "footprint" dimensions of this device?

Do you now at this moment have... or have you EVER HAD..... an operating device that produces an output of 10 kW, running on NO INPUT, for any length of time at all? If so, what is the "footprint" of this device? What is the nature of its output (electrical, mechanical, heat, etc?)

I'm going to make a wild guess here.... actually not so wild.... and say that the actual answers to these questions are "NO"... and "NO".


Imagine how easily I could be refuted for asserting this "trash".  Why, another paragraph or two of insults, dodges, and mockery should do it soundly, right, Red?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 12:18:04 PM
Oh really? I think you are a liar, Mister Wayne, because here are a few more lines of the passage where I got the NINE HUNDRED SIXTY PERCENT quote on efficiency from your website:
http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)

Please point out to me just where, in the next line, you explain how you calculate efficiency.

Get the picture? Mister Wayne needs a scapegoat to divert attention from his failure to produce evidence of his claims. So he makes up things about me, apparently out of whole cloth. Pun intended.
See3d is right.
"Head trip"
Moving on.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 12:21:11 PM
What an interesting post from Red_Sunset. He's turned paranoid!

What is so interesting of the phenomen, as seen here as it is taking place here under our own noses ? It typifies a common human behavior that shows how the mind is so dominantly influenced by our emotions and other underlying usualy benefit interests.
The topic subject appears to be a pure science matter, if it would be that only, there would be no problem. But this science has great beneficial financial implications and this changes the playing field dramatically. It explains the rush of the last 100 posts in the last 2 days.
Great beneficial financial implications.... explaining the rush of posts. Of a PURE SCIENCE MATTER. Odd, that "science" is mentioned in this context. Science, as it is practiced in the real world of scientists, proceeds very differently than the operation of Mister Wayne and his cohorts.  There is nothing of Science happening here. Where is the sharing of data, the rigorous testing of falsifiable hypotheses, the peer review and publication of information? Where is the straightforward response to challenges to produce data which supports the claim? You non-scientists who think that by shouting out "SCIENCE" when you get muddled really do upset me, because you give Science a bad name simply by your attempts to associate your pseudoscience tinkering with actual scientific investigation. But Red is talking about _financial interests_.
Quote

Why do I think that ?  Purely by watching the behavior flow.  It still puzzles me WHY someone who doesn't believe in the concept presented or its execution to be a working possibility, after stating his belief, REMAINS SO VEHEMENTLY domineering on this topic ?  WHY ?  What is his interest ?  What can he gain to stay here and what can he loose to leave ?
I think it is time we investigate certain individuals to their connections and interest domains.  This might be quite a eyeopener.
Am I reading this right? Is the paranoid Red_Sunset actually calling for an investigation of skeptics who want to see evidence for claims of overunity? Certainly I agree that investigation might produce results that would be "quite an eyeopener". Let's bring it on. Investigate where Mister Wayne's financial backing comes from, for example. Investigate where the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" went off to, and why it cannot be shown or discussed. Investigate the motivations of Red_Sunset, who seems like a shill if there ever was one.
Or even investigate ME. What will happen when you realise that I have no financial interest, no stake at all in anything, no funding and not even enough money to put together a bunch of discarded packing material to demonstrate overunity on a tabletop? What will happen to your paranoid accusations then, Red? Will you apologise to me, or will you continue to insult me, project your paranoid fantasies, and yet _fail_ to demonstrate the validity of any of your or Mister Wayne's claims?
Quote

I believe that " WE NEVER DO SOMETHING WITHOUT REASON",  The more difficult this something is, the stronger the reason. The most common reason is financial benefit !

This brings up some pertinent questions
Why does this behavior manifest here?
Why indeed. Mister Wayne definitely has a financial motive. What is Red_Sunset's financial motive? And finally.... what is MY financial motive? Can anyone show how I would gain, materially, from ANY POSSIBLE OUTCOME of this discussion?  Do you lot really think that someone is PAYING ME to sit here and point out the inconsistencies, false statements, and lack of proof coming from Mister Wayne?  Come on Red.... give some support for your paranoid contention that there is a well paid organised conspiracy to suppress Mister Wayne and his invention.... by assigning me to make posts on an internet forum. Yeah.... that will work, it's kept every other Free Energy technology from reaching the market so far!
Quote
Who are domineering this thread ?
What is their target to be domineering?
What is their purpose to act as they do ?
I there more to their behavior than just technical or emotional enthusiasm ?
Do they have something to gain by acting in a specific way?
What is their possible short and long term perceived benefit by their action?
........ect  feel free to add on points of interest as you see fit

I laugh at you, Red_Sunset. Who is paying YOUR salary?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 12:27:19 PM
So that's a "no", then. You cannot refute any of the points I've made, so you prefer to continue with your personal attacks upon me, your insults, your foul language and mud slinging.....

I say that you are a hypocrite.
Choosing not to refute bogus claims  - does not make those claims true - were tire of them - were moving on.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 12:31:11 PM
See3d is right.
"Head trip"
Moving on.

Wayne Travis, you accused me of not citing the complete quote where you "CLAIM" to have explained where your 960 percent value came from.  Did you or did you not?
Quote
p.s. the quote on efficiency that TK posted from my web site - he conveniently left off the next line which explained how we calculated efficiency - get the picture - he needed a story, he wrote a story - pun intended. Wayne Travis



So I cited the COMPLETE PASSAGE where I found your number, along with the link. This citation refutes your accusation, because NOWHERE in that passage is any explanation of how you arrived at your 960 percent figure. Here it is again in its entirety. No lines have been left out by me.
Quote
Creative Entropy Disruption 
 November 6, 2012 Hello Friends and Family, We are having a blast! Let me ask you a couple of questions...... Do you feel a sense of urgency in our development? Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles, are you ready for the internal validation, and the external validation? Me too! Some of you are new to our team - I will be the first to admit - I was eager to "jump the gun" four years ago. I had to grow up to the reality that due diligence is more important than feelings, the need for due diligence trumps desire, it trumps time-lines. That maturity does not mean that I do not still wish for all of this work to be finished and over - I assure you. Mark Dansie has taught me one thing "It will be when it will be" on the surface it seems too simple of an explanation - but a little deeper - it means "do not rush or be pressured by desires - yours or others .. focus on your diligence". Mark is right, and thank God that Mark is the skeptic that gives advice - I receive continual bad advice from others - that if I followed - we would have presented to the world our unfinished work - to meet their ego - not the needs of our business and future relationships. Mark advised me - that in order to get the right help - we needed to attract the right people - with the right connections - and that "WE" needed to supply the right answer to the energy question. I decided that 160% was not good enough - and considering our latest physical testing of our TAZ is 960% - I think the timing is just about right. Now we are buttoning up the details - part of every improvement we have made - we are getting pretty good at it with all the great people who volunteer. So the feeling to finish - will be meeting the "due diligence" as soon as possible. After last weeks update - one of the validation members asked me not to publish their schedules - and I will respect that wish. It is only the small things that we wrap up now - I read a quote that said: "Whomever can not be bothered with the small things, should not be considered worthy to handle the large things". (ask an astronaut if the small things matter) Yes they do - that is the purpose of due diligence. Remember - if you are a member of our team, please feel free to come by for a personal update - get your picture for posterity, or write me - I still answer e-mails each morning. Thank you for the many letters and prayers - I mentioned in our last private update about helping setup our hands on ZED discovery cove / Omni plex - for the ZED technology and development. We have the building donated - and we could use some hands on model builders to help put together some of the experiments we did over the last few years that helped us to understand the ZED Technology - I think this will go a long way to help those that will come. I had a gentleman share with me today that his granddaughter was entering the "Travis Effect" in her science fair - the word is getting out! Thanks again for the prayers. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives

Hence, you ....er..... said something about me that is not true, and I've proven that it is not true. Your response is as above, noted.

On this side of the river, Mister Wayne...... saying things about people that are manifestly untrue makes YOU a LIAR.

Pun intended.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 12:33:16 PM
Choosing not to refute bogus claims  - does not make those claims true - were tire of them - were moving on.

Is it a bogus claim that YOU DO NOT HAVE A WORKING MACHINE RIGHT NOW?

Shouldn't you be out in your barn getting ready for validation, so you can shut people like me up, for good?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 12:40:39 PM
The kind of "moderation" you are asking for is actually called "censorship." There's a forum for that: Energetic Forum. Why don't you start a thread over there? You'll get just what you ask for, then. Anyone who doesn't agree with whatever claims happen to catch the eye of the operators of that site find themselves banned and deleted in short order. You'll fit right in.
Protection of the innocent from targeted abuse  - is not censorship, this is the leadership standing up for the innocent -
Flood the class with trash - while the class is trying to study the data - that is Censroship
I think we have seen enough of that.
You might try a peice of your own pie
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 12:43:02 PM
MrWayne:

Thank you for the reply.  As Tom pointed out in his above post, I was not aware of those arrangements with Stefan.  I do not agree with it but, it is Stefan's site and I respect that.

I do greatly appreciate your prompt reply and I really do wish you luck.

Bill
Hey Bill
Do you know that Mister Wayne has made a patent application for his design? Not the new one, the tenth edition that operates by a new method, but one that is an earlier model like that shown on his website in pictures and animations. But there is a problem.... the patent application does not disclose enough information for anyone skilled in the art to make a self-running, power producing device using the information in the application. Not only does Mister Wayne claim to have this special relationship with Stefan, where he's not expected to tell how he manages to make his device run (or when....or IF he manages to make it run) he also apparently expects the same treatment from the USPTO.
Interesting, isn't it?
--TK
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Protection of the innocent from targeted abuse  - is not censorship, this is the leadership standing up for the innocent -
Flood the class with trash - while the class is trying to study the data - that is Censroship
I think we have seen enough of that.
You might try a peice of your own pie
YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO DATA, Mister Wayne, only claims without support.

You might try loading and using a spellchecker -- your continual typos make it seem like you are emotionally upset, or maybe just ignorant.


Are you just going to ignore the fact that you've been caught in a lie about me, and that I've given proof, TWICE NOW, of that lie?

And it's funny... I don't see your definition of "censorship" in any of the sources I've checked.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 01:22:21 PM
Hi Tinsel,
              it's no use asking mrwayne or Red_Sunset a technical question, they're more into politics.
How much water (gravity) would it take to run a 2250 p.s.i. 22 g.p.m. pump? You can have a head
of say, 10 mtrs.
                       Thank you John.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 13, 2012, 01:23:36 PM
Quote fm: mrwayne on Today at 12:52:49 AMro (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg344054/#msg344054)

May I suggest:
Go back and read the threads posted by me, by RED, by Neptune, by Larry, by SEE3D, by Wildew,
by Chris, by Webby, they got thier hands wet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the above statement you are implying that these people have done experiments to try and show
Clear overunit based on the descriptions you have been posting for many months,
Now they are names in that list that I know for a fact have not got their hands wet testing
Your claims, does that make you a liar.....when you added together with all the other misleading
information that you provide it certainly shows a deliberate intent to deceive with out remorse.

Those people that did actually get their hands wet and spend time trying to follow your words,
all failed to produce clear overunit.
What is more ridiculous is some of the people who are trying to support you and your claim now,
have not produced any evidence of them getting their hands wet and producing clear overunit.

Now of course you will see this as an attack, rather than trying to put me down
Why don't you show us where the people that did get their hands wet went wrong.
and while you're at it why not announce a date for verification.

I don't think you will do anything useful to help anyone apart from repeating all your rhetoric
that we have been hearing over many months that has led to no one here having clear overunit.

You and your disciples keep preaching to us that it works and it's easy you just have to read the thread
get your hands wet and Abracadabra you will see the light and have clear overunit, sorry that last bit
should read you will believe that Wayne has clear overunit.
None of your followers on this forum have been able to reproduce your claim,NO clear overunit anywhere.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 01:27:09 PM
Well my interest started with Bedini and Bearden. ................................
Hi John,
Did you read Bearden's theories ? 
Did they make sense to you ?
His principles to OU didn't make sense to me years ago when I read them. I understood what he was saying, but it was to me so  ideologically out of this world,  that I classified it as mungo jumbo hogwash.   That view changed relatively recent, it is possible.
and Wayne found the key to unlock it.
Mark my words !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 01:35:15 PM
On the "open source" topic.
I, for one, have found Wayne and friends to be very open.
Maybe I'm not bright enough to be considered a threat, maybe I've approached the relationship differently.
Many thanks to all that have supported the team's efforts.

If there does become a common desire to create a collaboration group I can think of a few easy options.
Google docs ( not that I trust Google )
OfficeZilla
Yahoo groups
Any can be by invitation only - or at least provide a level of control.

The open debate is good though, to a point.
IMHO this group's gotten a little crazy this week, but it takes 2 to argue.....
Dale

Dale,
That is a good suggestion, I like it and it would keep tabs on disclosure !
For me it would depend on Wayne intentions though,   I would never have the intention to do otherwise (and disregards the hand that led me out of the OU darkness).  Trust and dependability is high in my priority list.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 01:36:18 PM
So it would seem that you admit the machine has never actually worked for any length of time at all, and yet you seem convinced it produces overunity energy.

It's time to put some actual numbers to this. I and I'm sure many others would like to know how far from your goal you think you are.

What duration is the longest run to date?
What was the maximum power produced?
How long did it produce this level of power for?
What net amount of energy did it produce during the run?
I like your questions - becasue it is this the first time it was not followed by an insult?
I am sorry, but I am still not letting you or anyone else usurp the Validation team.
If you are sincere about knowing - show me you got your hands wet - or produce that "mathematical proof" you claimed against our machine. Simple
You are welcome to add a contribution - Just remember - you were not invited to evaluate our process - you were invited to learn and understand.
That is the order - my call - not yours.
I did not ask for an apology - just effort in learning our system - willingly of course.
To "Others":
a short recap in history - in case you don't have time to wade through the 213 pages.
I made the discover in 2008 (the Travis Effect) that lead to another design (the ZED) the first mechanical design to produce over unity - I had the design PE certified in 2009, I allowed Skeptics to come and make their own uninhibited evaluation - not one went away dissatisfied - (contrary to story tellers).
Actually none went away - they joined one way or the other to bring the benefit to mankind, good men/women....citizens.
We protected our designs in the normal Patent application method and began a much deeper research - As we researched our understanding - the process continually improved - so much so that our initial system become obsolete - before the world was ever to understand it.
It has been great for simple proof of "mechanical over unity" with just not so minor amount of effort to understand.
With the help of the Skeptics - a study was done on how to introduce this paradigm shift to the world.
The biggest obstacle to Free Energy - the current education system - careers were based on the belief in entropy and all that encompass the belief - if you do not know what I mean - read the educated entropy based insults for the last 215 pages - (not offering one shred of related disproof).
The conclusion led to a three fold effort - requiring three separate international teams moving in three separate directions but emerging together as one when all three goals were attained.
Now the final goal included a provision placed by myself to protect those other two teams - with undeniable, irrefutable, unprecedented proof - not for them - but for the world and all. They are brave men and women - they do not and will not be disrespected as I have been here on this site. My call.
The other two teams being fully aware of our internal process agreed to move forward to the world stage without my meeting my personal Goal of protection.
I stopped them - no - we will do it right - that is leadership.
Leadership is also delegating control - to the right people, Seamus - you are not the right people.
You made that decision for me - I wish you had done your due diligence - you seem very bright.
The "lack of relevance" of your questions comes after you do your work - many have.
Thank you for not insulting us this time, I still have hope for you.
If you come back with another barrage of attacks - you will have made your decision.
Good Luck. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001745/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
Hey Minnie..... you think Mister Wayne answered your question.... but his answer was speculative. I don't think you'll be pouring a slab for the base of your new Hydro Differential Pressure Exchange Overunity 10 kW power plant based on what he's told you. Will you?
Mister Wayne never lies. He says so himself, so it must be true.
(He just says things that don't turn out to be correct, or are just wrong in the first place, like his last accusation against me which I refuted easily by quoting the passage from his website where he does _not_ explain "in the next line"... or anywhere.. how his "efficiency" of 960 percent was obtained).
So ask him these questions, Minnie -- and see if you get a straight, simple answer:
Do you, Mister Wayne Travis, have at this moment, Tuesday November 13 2012, an OPERATING DEVICE -- one that operates right now -- running on NO INPUT, that produces USEFUL WORK OUTPUT , electrical or otherwise, for a reasonable length of time, say, long enough to heat up a standard water heater tank and provide hot showers for four people? If so, what are the "footprint" dimensions of this device?

Do you now at this moment have... or have you EVER HAD..... an operating device that produces an output of 10 kW, running on NO INPUT, for any length of time at all? If so, what is the "footprint" of this device? What is the nature of its output (electrical, mechanical, heat, etc?)

I'm going to make a wild guess here.... actually not so wild.... and say that the actual answers to these questions are "NO"... and "NO".
Imagine how easily I could be refuted for asserting this "trash".  Why, another paragraph or two of insults, dodges, and mockery should do it soundly, right, Red?

It is NOT the physical device that matters !! ,  that is purely a matter of following the path of evolutionary engineering. 
Alike to and no different from that of "cars, airplanes computers and the like....!

What matters is the Travis PHYSICS PRINCIPLE  !!!  The Travis physics principle opens the new world, the new technology frontier, not the prototype.

Do not let small minded people lead you astray !!  Think for yourself !!

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 01:59:20 PM
What an interesting post from Red_Sunset. He's turned paranoid! .................................
 And finally.... what is MY financial motive? Can anyone show how I would gain, materially, from ANY POSSIBLE OUTCOME of this discussion?  Do you lot really think that someone is PAYING ME ..........................................

Tinsel,  The two strongest common and natural impulses towards misdeeds in the world are,  emotions & money.

Glancing over the trash, I can see the emotions, it is possible that the money aspects are not far behind.
I know it is a guess, but one that is possible (do not confuse this statement in your natural way as fact or accusation)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 02:07:26 PM
Wayne Travis, you accused me of not citing the complete quote where you "CLAIM" to have explained where your 960 percent value came from.  Did you or did you not?


So I cited the COMPLETE PASSAGE where I found your number, along with the link. This citation refutes your accusation, because NOWHERE in that passage is any explanation of how you arrived at your 960 percent figure. Here it is again in its entirety. No lines have been left out by me.http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)

Hence, you ....er..... said something about me that is not true, and I've proven that it is not true. Your response is as above, noted.

On this side of the river, Mister Wayne...... saying things about people that are manifestly untrue makes YOU a LIAR.

Pun intended.

Switch and bait by you or my mistake, I was refering to the quote from the "Our system explained" page ..."What is the input and output and how are they measured?
We have our method:
 
How do we measure input - the simple answer is - We don't have an input - and the output is measured like any other device - work - or joules - power etcetera - we have an output system - not an input system.
 
Now - our engineers use the internal operating cost - the internal resistance to the systems own output - to determine the optimizations of our ZED.
 
So when we say - we have a 10-1 system - that means we have 1 unit of resistance - while producing 10 equivalent units - leaves us with 9 to provide to the consumer.
 
Yet we are completely allowing the Validation teams to measure anyway they choose - no restrictions and no secrets - we have nothing to hide - and any true validation needs to be as thorough."
 
 
TK, You have made countless GIANT LEAPS regarding our work and efforts - so I am not sure if you are playing games here or this was an honest mistake. I do not know how you could disect every sentence on my web site and miss the explanation you railed on about - as being missing - but OK.
I will accept the blame for this one,  I apologize for any insult or misunderstanding I might have caused regarding my assesment of your intentions in that case.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 02:10:07 PM
Hey Tinsel, 
You flooded these pages with so much unnecessary repetitive trash, can you ease it up somewhat?
Reading it all with comprehension takes too much time and much wasted time because of the repetitive nonsense.
Can you keep your mails smaller and more to the point, I would appreciate that.
Thanks in advance !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 02:18:12 PM
Hi Red_Sunset,
                        this thread comes under the heading "Gravity powered devices" and I wanted to try and show the massive amount
of water that has to be shifted to generate a useful output. Gravity is very weak and so a huge mass has to be moved.
 Perhaps a more apt heading would be the "Travis principle",
                                                                          yours, John.
                                                               
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: see3d on November 13, 2012, 02:28:57 PM
Another hour wasted.  I have my answer by volume of words.  This thread is not the place to make scientific progress and show it openly as I had hoped.  It is dominated by time wasters.  I will not name names, but you can take the number of words posted that have no new data content by each poster.  Find the top 90% by word count of the useless posts.  Those are the posters that are out of control and have ruined this thread.  It does not matter to me which side of the fence they are on, or who started what, or who is to blame -- only the time wasting result.

No time to read posts here anymore.  Signing off to do real work. 
I will decide later if I will post here again, but don't bother to address anything to me on this thread in the meantime, because I will not see it -- ever.

Now I return you to your regularly scheduled programming -- bicker away!

~Dennis
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 02:32:20 PM
Hi,
    I'm sure Tinsel has no financial interests, and as for emotions, Tinsel has a huge amount of patience trying to show others where
they're going wrong.
      There's one thing for certain "A man who never made a mistake never made anything"   also  "experience is something you get when you're looking for something else"
                                                   John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 02:46:28 PM
YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO DATA, Mister Wayne, only claims without support.

You might try loading and using a spellchecker -- your continual typos make it seem like you are emotionally upset, or maybe just ignorant.


Are you just going to ignore the fact that you've been caught in a lie about me, and that I've given proof, TWICE NOW, of that lie?

And it's funny... I don't see your definition of "censorship" in any of the sources I've checked.
Calling me a liar after what you have posted ...............  ;D
Censorship, I guess you can look it up and post another twenty pages about it -
Wasting our time. :)
I wish you had come to learn something. :D
We are so excited here - So cool - I wish you had proved to be some one we would like to have shared more with.
Good day.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 13, 2012, 02:52:33 PM
Another hour wasted.  I have my answer by volume of words.  This thread is not the place to make scientific progress and show it openly as I had hoped.  It is dominated by time wasters.  I will not name names, but you can take the number of words posted that have no new data content by each poster.  Find the top 90% by word count of the useless posts.  Those are the posters that are out of control and have ruined this thread.  It does not matter to me which side of the fence they are on, or who started what, or who is to blame -- only the time wasting result.

No time to read posts here anymore.  Signing off to do real work. 
I will decide later if I will post here again, but don't bother to address anything to me on this thread in the meantime, because I will not see it -- ever.

Now I return you to your regularly scheduled programming -- bicker away!

~Dennis

My apology for my part,
It is over for me as well, Sandy is better and I am not trapped in the house, and I will not be wasting anymore time - or reading rants.
Back to work.
I do Like Green's Idea.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 13, 2012, 03:19:23 PM

My apology for my part,
It is over for me as well, Sandy is better and I am not trapped in the house, and I will not be wasting anymore time - or reading rants.
Back to work.
I do Like Green's Idea.
Wayne

I like Green's and other's ideas, who came up with invitation only alternative to this site. Too bad, this site doesn't have that option.
 
I really enjoy working with the HER team and replicators, intelligent, respectful, and goal oriented. No ego's and crazies like here. It only takes a few crazies especially those with MMD (multiple member disorder) to completely disrupt, what could be a helpful learning process.
 
Worked with Dale last night comparing actual to calculators. Got some good results and a few issues. But, I wouldn't dare discuss them here.
 
On a new site, we could also invite the high caliber open minded skeptics like Fletcher and many others on different subjects here that like to solve problems, instead of cause them, to join.
 
Those with experience with any of the invitation only alternatives, and wishes to express their opinion, please do, so we can come up with a consensus.
 
Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 13, 2012, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: mrwayne on Today at 12:52:49 AM
May I suggest:
Go back and read the threads posted by me, by RED, by Neptune, by Larry, by SEE3D, by Wildew,
by Chris, by Webby, they got thier hands wet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the above statement you are implying that these people have done experiments to try and show
Clear overunit based on the descriptions you have been posting for many months,
Now they are names in that list that I know for a fact have not got their hands wet testing
Your claims, does that make you a liar.....when you added together with all the other misleading
information that you provide it certainly shows a deliberate intent to deceive with out remorse.

Those people that did actually get their hands wet and spend time trying to follow your words,
all failed to produce clear overunit.
What is more ridiculous is some of the people who are trying to support you and your claim now,
have not produced any evidence of them getting their hands wet and producing clear overunit.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 13, 2012, 03:40:47 PM
GreenHiker,
you joined this year and you only ever post in this thread the same as Red clearly a devoted follower,
It is interesting that you have come up with excuses for Wayne's lies and broken promises, have you ever considered
a career in politics ?  It's also interesting that wayn has thanked you for coming up with these excuses,
though he never felt that he should apologies to people for giving them false hope.

LarryC
It would be great to think this device would work but after all the evidence we have seen after all these months
are you saying you have something that we have all missed
I have not seen anyone produce clear OU and Wayne has failed to have his device validated, and the data you
have produced in your spreadsheets has been very debatable and no successful replications have come from it.

Now I'm quite prepared to stop posting and pay attention if anything NEW is going to happen
and if something new is going to happen I would also suggest that Wayne and his devoted followers
Stop posting repetitive rhetoric, and stick to scientific factual evidence(not speculative words)
Now if that's what's your suggesting that I'm happy to go along with it. ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 03:45:18 PM
Hi Red_Sunset,
                        this thread comes under the heading "Gravity powered devices" and I wanted to try and show the massive amount
of water that has to be shifted to generate a useful output. Gravity is very weak and so a huge mass has to be moved.
 Perhaps a more apt heading would be the "Travis principle",
                                                                          yours, John.                                                           

Hey John,
Who are you ? 
Where do you get this dis-information from ?
Do you know what the Travis principle is ?
You can look it up in the previous pages of this forum, it is documented there and once you understand you can make your statement.
It is clear that you have no clue and that you are only fly squatting  !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 04:20:12 PM
Hi Red_Sunset,
                       name's John, farmer U.K. sole interest the machine. Can't see how 2/3 ton machine small dimensions can do more
than charge phone/garden fountain using buoyancy/gravity. Have been waiting ages for James Kwok to come good and boy he can flare up in temper when challenged. 4 kids btw.
                                                          John
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 04:39:17 PM
Hi Red_Sunset,
                       name's John, farmer U.K. sole interest the machine. Can't see how 2/3 ton machine small dimensions can do more
than charge phone/garden fountain using buoyancy/gravity. Have been waiting ages for James Kwok to come good and boy he can flare up in temper when challenged. 4 kids btw.
                                                          John
John,
The 2/3 machine is a lab prototype, a test system for data collection.
The current system will surprise you, the leap frog that has been taken!
Rest assured, the whole picture will reveal itself in its proper timeframe.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 06:34:44 PM
Hi Red_Sunset,
                       thank you for your reply, I'll be patient, I don't mind waiting as it sounds as if there's a big surprise in store.
                                                               John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 07:34:16 PM

Switch and bait by you or my mistake, I was refering to the quote from the "Our system explained" page ..."What is the input and output and how are they measured?
We have our method:
 
How do we measure input - the simple answer is - We don't have an input - and the output is measured like any other device - work - or joules - power etcetera - we have an output system - not an input system.
 
Now - our engineers use the internal operating cost - the internal resistance to the systems own output - to determine the optimizations of our ZED.
 
So when we say - we have a 10-1 system - that means we have 1 unit of resistance - while producing 10 equivalent units - leaves us with 9 to provide to the consumer.
 
Yet we are completely allowing the Validation teams to measure anyway they choose - no restrictions and no secrets - we have nothing to hide - and any true validation needs to be as thorough."
 
 
TK, You have made countless GIANT LEAPS regarding our work and efforts - so I am not sure if you are playing games here or this was an honest mistake. I do not know how you could disect every sentence on my web site and miss the explanation you railed on about - as being missing - but OK.
I will accept the blame for this one,  I apologize for any insult or misunderstanding I might have caused regarding my assesment of your intentions in that case.
Wayne

So... it was a mistake, not a deliberate lie, then, for you to say this:
Quote
p.s. the quote on efficiency that TK posted from my web site - he conveniently left off the next line which explained how we calculated efficiency - get the picture - he needed a story, he wrote a story - pun intended. Wayne Travis
Right? That's what you are saying now, and you are apologising to me for this mistake of yours. Right?
OK, apology noted and accepted, and I'll be watching for the true sign of repentance: a change in your behaviour.

Now.... how is efficiency REALLY calculated? It is the ratio of output work or energy, to input work or energy. You can look this up in many different places. You claim repeatedly, including above, to have NO INPUT. NO INPUT means ZERO energy or work going in. So your efficiency calculated CORRECTLY is, again, just what I said it was: INFINITE.
Or, using your "960 percent figure" one may conclude, if you have NO INPUT, that your output is 960 percent of that.... in other words 9.6 times nothing. Your "no input" statement and your "960 percent efficiency" claim cannot possibly both be true, unless you are redefining "input" or "efficiency"..... and of course that is just what you are doing.
Can you justify, by reference to standard scientific and engineering work, your method of obtaining an "efficiency" number like the 160 percent or the current 960 percent? Your description of having one unit of resistance and providing 9 to the consumer.... makes no sense as any measure of efficiency. It is equivalent to saying that you have a wheel inside that turns one time, and you provide an output that turns ten times. Big deal, any clockwork mechanism can do the same thing. You are explaining nothing with that "explanation", it is not how efficiency is calculated by ANYONE ANYWHERE but you,  and you've not even provided any evidence that the numbers are even real!

Feel free to demonstrate, by ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS ON A REAL SYSTEM, your claims of zero input with usable work output, and your claim of "960 percent" of something. Once again, I assert that you cannot do these things, which is why you always reply with word salads.... salads that contain little nuggets that reveal that you still don't really have what you claim to have:
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 08:21:32 PM
Hi Tinsel,
              it's no use asking mrwayne or Red_Sunset a technical question, they're more into politics.
How much water (gravity) would it take to run a 2250 p.s.i. 22 g.p.m. pump? You can have a head
of say, 10 mtrs.
                       Thank you John.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. How much _water_? Why, it will take 22 gallons,  per minute of operation. Somewhat more, to make the power from a head of only 10 meters, to pump that 22 gpm at that pressure.

How much _gravity_? In my world, gravity isn't a consumable item, it doesn't run anything. Elevated heads of water are a way of storing energy in a lifted mass, which can be recovered by allowing the mass to fall back down. But something has to lift the mass in the first place.

So, with the restriction of 10 meters of input head, your question then apparently becomes "how much water flowing _in_ to a system at a head of 10 meters, is required to produce an output flow of 22 gallons per minute at 2250 psi?"
Right?

Mixed unit systems there... but OK. 2250 psi is equivalent to a head of (2250 x 2.31) = 5197.5 feet ! And that's 1584.2 meters, roughly. So you want an output flow of 22 gallons per minute at a head of 1584 meters, with an input of  "X" amount of water at 10 meters head.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pump-head-pressure-d_663.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pump-head-pressure-d_663.html)

Am I right so far? This 1584.2 meters number seemed really large to me so I recomputed it several times. But taking it as correct and proceeding:

Now we need the power required to pump 22 gallons per minute to a height of a kilometer and a half. The specific work, in Joules per kilogram ( or m2/s2),  required to raise water to a head of 1584 meters, neglecting losses in the pump itself like shaft losses, etc, is given by ( Head x gravitational acceleration), or (1584 meters x 9.8 meters/sec2) = about 15523 Joules per kilogram. 22 gallons is (22 gallons x 3.78 liters per gallon) = about 83 kilograms of water and you want to pump this much per minute, so that's going to cost you 83 x 15523 Joules per minute,  or about 1.3 megaJoules per minute, or about 21473.483 Joules per second, or about 21 and a half kiloWatts. This is true no matter where the power or energy or work comes from.... it is simply represents the gain in energy of lifting that much water that high, and the power required to do it that fast.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-work-turbo-machines-d_629.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-work-turbo-machines-d_629.html)

Am I right so far?

So now the question becomes, how much water at 10 meters head do we need to run thru a 100 percent efficient hydroelectric turbine to make 21.47 kiloWatts of electrical power? (Your superJacuzzi-for-elephants pump is electrically powered, right?)
And the next question will be to do the same problem using a 960 percent efficient Hydro Differential Pressure Exchange system. Right?

Well, I'll pause here for another cup of coffee and let you contemplate these numbers and point out any errors so far.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 08:34:59 PM
TK,

After that response this one should be a no brainer for you :)

Since you do not like Waynes method of calculating performance, setting limits on what the system can do so that people will not jump to the conclusion that you could just build a 2 inch widget and run the world, may I suggest that you provide such a method.

I suppose then you would also need to define what your version of input is, since when started this system has no input from the operator other than to control the timing of events.

Output is usable work out,, right??

Wayne measures input volume and pressure, that would be fluid into the pod chamber, and then measures work out from the risers lifting, then subtracts the value of input fluid and pressure from that to come up with a relationship,, so you can not do it that way because you have clearly stated that does not work.
Please cite a reference OTHER than Mister Wayne for his method of computing "efficiency". I can cite dozens that do it by comparing the ratio of output work to input work. I am not making this stuff up!

If there's no input but usable output.... well, you are dividing by zero. On the other hand, if the output is 960 percent of the input... and there's no input, then you are multiplying by zero.

I'd like to see some real refutation of this, instead of pointing to Mister Wayne's imaginary undocumented "measurements" on a fantasy system that doesn't actually exist.

Next, please give me some experimental data that shows any system, Mister Wayne's, yours, monds, ANYONE's.... producing usable output power with no input power..... and not "running down" as its stored energy is depleted.

When you've done that, I'll see about providing the method you ask for so sarcastically.

Would you care to address the question minnie asked, or my beginnings of a real answer to it? Now that it's becoming evident just what a power output of, say, 20 kW actually MEANS in a hydraulic system, thanks to minnie's excellent questions ....... it's got to make you think, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
I have here a TKbrand Automagic Bollard. The bollard itself is a sturdy steel cylinder, painted by the local Boy Scout troop to resemble a giant pencil shaft. It weighs three hundred pounds, and is set into the ground so that it is flush when retracted. Normally it would take a lifting force of 300 pounds, applied over the full 36 inch height of the bollard, to lift it up into place to work as a security barrier, or thorn in the side.
However, my patented (er....sorry, patent soon to be applied for) system of TKsprings takes one unit of resistance from the consumer and returns 99 times that as NET to the consumer to be used as work.
Thus, the TK Automagic bollard only needs a lifting force of THREE POUNDS, applied over the full 36 inches of lift, to be raised up and locked into position. When you are done with the bollard, that same THREE POUNDS is used to gently lower the heavy 300 pound shaft back into the ground. Thus, the work you put in at the beginning is given back at the end of the cycle of using the bollard.... ZERO INPUT in total, and an advantage to the consumer of (300-3)/3 or 99, or 9900 percent efficiency.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 09:11:57 PM
LarryC said,
Quote
It only takes a few crazies especially those with MMD (multiple member disorder) to completely disrupt, what could be a helpful learning process.

I believe he is here saying that he thinks that some people posting here on this thread have "multiple member disorder" or multiple accounts and usernames.

I challenge him to provide ANY evidence for this baseless and paranoid accusation. If he cannot.... I suggest that he withdraw it and apologise for making it.
Will he do either? What do you think, gentle reader?

I also ask Stefan Hartmann, the owner of this site, to provide any evidence he might have, that I or anyone else on this thread has more than a single account/username.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 09:34:56 PM
Hi TK,
        thank you for answering my question. The idea behind it was to show that it wouldn't be easy to make even a modest amount
of power from water and gravity.
    Talk about getting blood out of stone, that would be easy compared to getting some meaningful info. out of mrwayne!
 I give up- I'll wait and see if the laws have to be reworked when the machine is revealed.
    Tinsel, you do answer the question asked, explain things really well and seem to have limitless patience, I really admire you
for that.
                         John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
Now... to continue with Minnie's question.
We have calculated that it is going to take about 21473.483 Watts to pump 22 gallons per minute at 2250 psi.

But we are asked to use an input head of 10 meters, and we need to determine the flow rate of water at that head, to make the power for our elephant bathtub Jacuzzi pump.

Running the pump power equation backwards, we see that

Water horsepower = (Flow rate in gpm x total head in feet)/3960
so converting units and inserting the known values and solving for flow rate in GPM, we have
21473 Watts / (743 Watts/horsepower) = 28.9 horsepower, and 10 meters = 32.8 feet
SO
Flow Rate in gpm = (28.9 x 3960) / 32.8
Flow rate in gpm =  3489 gallons per minute

So in answer to your original question,
Quote
How much water (gravity) would it take to run a 2250 p.s.i. 22 g.p.m. pump? You can have a head
of say, 10 mtrs.
I arrive at an answer, neglecting losses and assuming 100 percent conversion efficiencies, of a flow of just under 3500 gallons per minute, at a head of 10 meters, to make the 21.473 kW of power necessary to pump 22 gallons per minute at a pressure of 2250 psi.

I am prone to misplacing decimals.... I've checked these calculations several times and I'm still getting this rather large number for an answer. Is anyone interested in checking my work? Or will insults be more satisfactory?

(Astoundingly, and as a check.... 22 gallons per minute x (1584.2 meters/10 meters) = 3485.2 gallons per minute. QED.)

Now... let's see if we can make our "input" stage 960 percent efficient. Then we get
3489 gpm / 9.6 = a bit over 363 gallons per minute, or about 6 gallons per second, at ten meters head pressure.
That's firehose territory, I think.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 09:55:31 PM
Hi TK,
        thank you for answering my question. The idea behind it was to show that it wouldn't be easy to make even a modest amount
of power from water and gravity.
    Talk about getting blood out of stone, that would be easy compared to getting some meaningful info. out of mrwayne!
 I give up- I'll wait and see if the laws have to be reworked when the machine is revealed.
    Tinsel, you do answer the question asked, explain things really well and seem to have limitless patience, I really admire you
for that.
                         John.

Thanks, we crossed posts there.

I guess you've seen my final answer of around 3500 gpm at 10  meters head, and that it can be obtained in two different ways, the full derivation and the easy check by head ratios and the pump power equation.

My patience isn't limitless, though, and I'm running out of it.

ETA: Note to the novice calculators out there: I have specified the units (feet inches meters seconds gallons whatever) at every step of the calculations, and the units can be seen to agree algebraically throughout ("pounds/square inch" x "square inches" equals an answer in "pounds", for example). This is also another important check of validity and accuracy that should be applied to _every_ calculation of this type: the units, as well as the numbers used, must agree from start to finish.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 10:18:46 PM
No sarcasm TK.

I am very aware of the method to determine efficiency.  The value is compared to an outside input, what if there is not one, then how can you find relationships and limits and all that?

My system ran in a single setup condition for weeks without me needing to recharge it, I put the system in a safe run condition so I could do a lot pf playing, put it away and just take it back out and play some more, I lost no air and no water,, that started later after beating on the side of the risers to help with the sticky sink, so now I have to set it up with the water level lower than the extension on the outside retainer.

M's system does not loose anything either and nor does Dales,, so where do you keep coming up with this fantasy loss, you took a leak and made it a normal part, why?
Your system does not operate on NO INPUT, does it? I don't think it does, and neither does Dale's. You are compressing and uncompressing a spring, adding and recovering work, but you aren't "creating" any extra usable work. And I'll bet your arms get tired after a while nevertheless.
I have referred to a possible "leak" being the cause of Mister Wayne's observation of short periods of "self-running" of his systems, giving him the benefit of the doubt.... which I am less and less prone to do these days, but there it is. I'm sure you could imagine a pressure leak that could result in a dual-cylinder system running for a while on stored "setup" pressure as the pressure leaks past seals and so on, into the right (or wrong) chambers during the cycling. Have you ever built and operated a simple Stirling engine? You should, they are easy and enlightening.
Your system doesn't leak. Fine, that's good. Assemble two of them and make your system self run. I'll bet you cannot. But I'll also bet that if you put the right kind of leak in there... it would run for a few cycles, until it went flat.

Mister Wayne has to give some kind of efficiency number to satisfy "bottomline" people like the accountants of investors. How can you do this if you claim to have no input? You cannot, so he has to come up with a new and different definition of efficiency that allows him to come up with a number other than zero or infinity. But since he actually does NOT have a self running system, and won't cite the original data from which his numbers come, nor even describe the system ..... the whole thing is still a big red herring, and is beginning to smell.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 10:34:58 PM
I just got back from a evening on the town
Am I seeing this right, is Tinsel writing now posts to himself ? Pretending to be a Zed expert !
Handling in & out posts single handed
An amazing twist of events.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 10:35:25 PM
Now, getting back to Minnie's question and rather pointy point for a moment...... I think you need around 20 kW available to run a modern house with comfort and confidence. You could cut that back to 10 kW if you only have one teenager living at home, maybe.....

So we are being asked to believe that a system using water and gravity can make 10 or 20 kW, in a space some unspecified amount smaller than 10 feet tall x 2 car parking spaces, without disturbing the neighbor's herd of invisible pink unicorns, or even waking up the chickens. When we have calculated that a 100 percent efficient system would need a flow rate of 3500 gallons of water per minute at a head of 10 meters (over 30 feet) to make a bit over the 20 kW needed. And even a 960 percent efficient system would need 350 gallons per minute at 10 meters head to do it.

OK. Great. I'll believe it when I see it.

(Now I know why hydroelectric power plants are so "dam" large.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 10:37:00 PM
I just got back from a evening on the town
Am I seeing this right, is Tinsel writing now posts to himself ?
An amazing twist of events.
My last five posts are in direct response to direct questions or false accusations about me, Red. An amazingly twisted view of events you have there.

Care to make any more twisted and easily refuted assertions about me?

Sorry... didn't capture your "Pretending to be a Zed Expert" assertion in there, you edit too fast. Please support your contention that I have ever claimed or pretended to be a "Zed Expert" with some evidence. While you are at it, point out something in my posts that is incorrect, and provide evidence that it is so.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 10:42:04 PM
My last five posts are in direct response to direct questions or false accusations about me, Red. An amazingly twisted view of events you have there.
Care to make any more twisted and easily refuted assertions about me?

No Tinsel, don't let me stop you, carry on !!
You doing good as I read that, one Zed equals one large hydro electric dam,  that is fantastic.
Carry on !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 10:45:14 PM
Well, Red? Where in those posts do I even refer to a Zed, or its operating principles? The posts where I am calculating have NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH ZEDS OR WAYNE TRAVIS's claims at all. They are entirely conventional calculations answering a question that minnie asked. I don't really expect you to be able to follow along with the math, but you could at least read the WORDS.
Then..... all I do is show that a Zed system that makes that much power must be very... special... indeed. That requires no expertise beyond simple algebra and a visual imagination.

But apparently you do not have the reading comprehension skills, either, because I have never said that "one Zed is equivalent to a large hydroelectric dam"... did I. It was MISTER WAYNE that said that, effectively.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 10:54:18 PM
whooooow.................unbelievable

the page count jumped from 212 to 217 for today only !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With 15 posts per page, that is a grand total of 75 posts

This thread must be popular,  there must be a strong support for WAYNE's ZED SYSTEM

About, ~ 75% of posts are Tinsel,  he is the best supported to keep the topic popular.
Although with this quantity, it looks more like a CYBER ATTACK
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 13, 2012, 10:58:13 PM
Well, Red? Where in those posts do I even refer to a Zed, or its operating principles? The posts where I am calculating have NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH ZEDS OR WAYNE TRAVIS's claims at all. They are entirely conventional calculations answering a question that minnie asked. I don't really expect you to be able to follow along with the math, but you could at least read the WORDS.
Then..... all I do is show that a Zed system that makes that much power must be very... special... indeed. That requires no expertise beyond simple algebra and a visual imagination.

But apparently you do not have the reading comprehension skills, either, because I have never said that "one Zed is equivalent to a large hydroelectric dam"... did I. It was MISTER WAYNE that said that, effectively.

Tinsel,
ARE YOU SURE,  I thought YOU said that somewhere in the ~50 posts or so of today, that "one Zed is equivalent to a large hydroelectric dam" ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 13, 2012, 11:07:55 PM
Tinsel,
ARE YOU SURE,  I thought YOU said that somewhere in the ~50 posts or so of today, that "one Zed is equivalent to a large hydroelectric dam" ?
I'll leave it up to you to provide a link to where you think I said that. Are you counting posts now? What kind of recreation are you returning from tonight, anyway, that makes you even more incoherent than usual, and so interested in counting posts, instead of providing evidence for your assertions?

Would you like me to ignore direct questions, to answer them incompletely, and to allow people to accuse me of things that are simply false, without allowing me to respond and refute them? I suppose you would. That might reduce my post count to some value... less than YOURS.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 13, 2012, 11:54:34 PM
Hi,
  I'd decided to give up but my brain keeps churning. I can visualise a machine as big as an up ended 20ft. shipping container, weighing
several tons, costing $50,000 and giving 500 watts.
  To those doing table top experiments there are a lot of things that may lead you astray, changes in barometric pressure, temperature,
contaminants in the water and reactive components in the build.
  In the demo. with tubs, weights and concrete as far as I know this complies with the known laws and gives no advantage, so if you do it
5 times, 5x0=0 ,this is the crucial part where I must look and learn. I'll be over the moon if I'm proven wrong....honest.
  I promise to give up now, but will keep watching....good luck every
                                                                                        kindest regards John.








one!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 14, 2012, 12:14:23 AM
Your system does not operate on NO INPUT, does it? I don't think it does, and neither does Dale's. You are compressing and uncompressing a spring, adding and recovering work, but you aren't "creating" any extra usable work. And I'll bet your arms get tired after a while nevertheless.
I have referred to a possible "leak" being the cause of Mister Wayne's observation of short periods of "self-running" of his systems, giving him the benefit of the doubt.... which I am less and less prone to do these days, but there it is. I'm sure you could imagine a pressure leak that could result in a dual-cylinder system running for a while on stored "setup" pressure as the pressure leaks past seals and so on, into the right (or wrong) chambers during the cycling. Have you ever built and operated a simple Stirling engine? You should, they are easy and enlightening.
Your system doesn't leak. Fine, that's good. Assemble two of them and make your system self run. I'll bet you cannot. But I'll also bet that if you put the right kind of leak in there... it would run for a few cycles, until it went flat.

Mister Wayne has to give some kind of efficiency number to satisfy "bottomline" people like the accountants of investors. How can you do this if you claim to have no input? You cannot, so he has to come up with a new and different definition of efficiency that allows him to come up with a number other than zero or infinity. But since he actually does NOT have a self running system, and won't cite the original data from which his numbers come, nor even describe the system ..... the whole thing is still a big red herring, and is beginning to smell.
In advance - See3d, I want to make one more attempt before we move to another forum.
TK, everyone is trying to help you understand.
You have confused yourself - you have made up so many things you think are facts - which are not facts.
Mark watched the self running system (you claim did not exist)
And Mark noted in his own video - that our system did not consume the air or water in the process - exactly what Webby is telling you -
You have the wrong idea about our system - and after 200 pages of words about what can and can't be - you are no closer to understanding.
Don't give me the pitiful benefit of the doubt that leaks caused us to stop running - that is your created idea.
I told you why we stopped running - we ran out of room for apples - that is a joke  ;D
We were not in the business to prove anything to you - we are in the business to design a system to use our technology that meets the needs of the world. I hated telling you our run times because of what I new you would do with the information - and you did.
Your a bright man - but you miss the mark - and that smell you mention - it is your goose  :o cooking itself.
We each have a purpose in this life - you make a perfect example of why this machine was not discovered before now - this is not an insult - just the pudding.
To the Data:
The energy Webby used to lift his hose - had the same value as the load he lifted - simple physics
and is exactly what we get "at that point" from a decently built three layer system.
I have said a hundred times with three layer systems - on the upstroke - the output of a three layer system is just about unity - the wonder is in the down stroke. Exactly what I showed Mark on his first visit.
His question - the best question from any skeptic so far - how does it do that?
I gave Mark my theory - but my theory does not matter.
When you have the machine to test - it is secondary - a great question which Michel worked very hard on.
As webby knows - a working machine is eye opening. Gets you out of the educational paralysis.
Which is also why I have begged you to get your hands wet - you spoiled your invitation to my house demanding you would keep nothing confidential - we have investors and a business to run - you don't get to make demands.
Where to start....
So what does Webby have at the end of a full cycle -
(1) a weight lifted to a higher level (paid for)
(2) the weight having the potential to return said work (where the "paid for" comes from)
(3) the energy to lift the load still in the system (stored energy) equal to the input - so what do we do with that?
1- minus 2 = 0 that's ok, because we still have 3
Your Bollard example is off the mark - we are not lifting three pounds - and getting three pounds back out - or using three pounds to push down - unless you can not look beyond the upstroke.
This is what many have told you - look at the whole stroke.
Trying to use your analogy in our example - we lift three pounds - paid three pounds to do it - then we get the weight of the bollard back - "not balanced" on the way down my friend..... only on the way up.
To say it again: We lift a load - and get the input plus the load back out - don't change the system to fit your expectations - look at the system and the test results of others.
It is not in your text books - but you do not need a pedigree to see it.
Webby Got it - and considering how many times you claim to be superior.... maybe a little pie is in order.
Your teeter tauter example - entropy lesson - is also off the mark - in our system - each teeter action adds a new apple, paid for by the "stored energy" and it does cost a bite from the apple to keep things going - internal input - but we have more and more apples.
Our efficiency numbers are based off of how much of each apple is eaten - compared to the total numbers of apples gained - and yes 960% and we have had 1300% with our new system - go ahead and laugh again your goose feathers are smoldering with each comment.
Our ZED technology is not complicated - unless you make it that way.
As far as your efficiency rhetoric - we have tried to tell you over and over - I thought you were pretending not to understand - and since you had boasted you would sell or preempt the discovery - I presumed you were just playing dumb trying to baiting out more confidential info. You set that stage for yourself.
But when you deny Data given by independent replication - I see your goose smoke.
It does not fit your belief system - and you keep throwing the truth and the proof away.
Now - I looked back at a few pages of your complaints - you create them - you talk about non related systems - you introduce non related ideas - that fit your paradigm - and then you argue we do not answer your own conjectures - off subject - no answer.
Have you been insulted??? - OMGOSH - who is the king of insults on this page - flying bikes, invisible unicorns, psychotic - delusional - what else have you said about us????
Start discussing our system - how do we lift a weight - (removed the load) without consuming the energy used to lift it?
And Yes- make even the simple three layer system obviously Over unity ........Very obviously - all a replication had to do was to get to 100% on the upstroke. Pressure and volume is simple enough.
Start here and you will begin to see why we are so excited - why Mark is very patient for our due diligence.
Don't waste my time on spelling errors or decimal points - If the physics work in the simple - no matter how complicated you make them - they still work.
Do you know how many engineers have been here - and how many walked away insulting us - none, do you know how many joined and have helped us - all. The truth is like a magnet to some 8) .
This is it with you - you have abused us long enough - if you go off on another rant about other systems - then you will be alone here with your unicorns  ;) . End of story.Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001770/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 14, 2012, 12:42:29 AM
Hi,
  I'd decided to give up but my brain keeps churning. I can visualise a machine as big as an up ended 20ft. shipping container, weighing
several tons, costing $50,000 and giving 500 watts.
  To those doing table top experiments there are a lot of things that may lead you astray, changes in barometric pressure, temperature,
contaminants in the water and reactive components in the build.
  In the demo. with tubs, weights and concrete as far as I know this complies with the known laws and gives no advantage, so if you do it
5 times, 5x0=0 ,this is the crucial part where I must look and learn. I'll be over the moon if I'm proven wrong....honest.
  I promise to give up now, but will keep watching....good luck every
                                                                                        kindest regards John.








one!
John, I went back and read all of your posts 25 in the last seven days - to try to see what you were elluding to in your opinions.
Your question does not represent our system -  Michel responded to you correctly.
 
Good luck.
 
Wayne
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on November 14, 2012, 03:34:15 AM

OK, I decided to study this more carefully to see if I could understand how the ZED works and how it is over unity.  I couldn't grasp it for a while, and I was getting a headache.  And then, it hit me.  If there is an effimp sitting between the two sides of the ZED, that would probably do it.  One effimp per layer on a three-layer system would certainly be over unity! 

Wayne, are you using effimps in your design, or have I simply stumbled upon another solution to the over unity problem?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 14, 2012, 03:49:44 AM
John, I went back and read all of your posts 25 in the last seven days - to try to see what you were elluding to in your opinions.
Your question does not represent our system -  Michel responded to you correctly.
 
Good luck.
 
Wayne

Your question does not represent our system?? What is that supposed to mean?

Minnie asked a couple of questions: how big would a HDPE system be that would run his house, and another question that didn't even mention a Zed or any of Mister Wayne's claims: simply how much water(gravity) at 10 meters head would be needed to power a 22 gpm pump at 2250 psi.

Based on the alleged output figures that were given for THE ONLY UNIT WE HAVE EVER SEEN MAKING AN OUTPUT... not even the one Mark videoed..... we have 36 Watts output in the big unit. So anyone can DO THE MATH for themselves. If you want to speculate about non-existent devices, that's up to you I guess, Mister Wayne.....

Is there something wrong with my calculation of the answer to minnie's question? The only application it has to any of mister Wayne's claims is that it gives everyone some real idea just what 20 kW represents in terms of flow rate, water and pressure head.

Your question does not represent our system. What a laugh. Your question shows that Mister Wayne's 20 kW system in a small footprint is a fantasy, that's what it does.


Now....we've had a bunch more verbiage from Mister Wayne. But you will note that there is still NO STRAIGHT ANSWER to these simple questions I asked earlier:

Quote
So ask him these questions, Minnie -- and see if you get a straight, simple answer:

Do you, Mister Wayne Travis, have at this moment, Tuesday November 13 2012, an OPERATING DEVICE -- one that operates right now -- running on NO INPUT, that produces USEFUL WORK OUTPUT , electrical or otherwise, for a reasonable length of time, say, long enough to heat up a standard water heater tank and provide hot showers for four people? If so, what are the "footprint" dimensions of this device?

Do you now at this moment have... or have you EVER HAD..... an operating device that produces an output of 10 kW, running on NO INPUT, for any length of time at all? If so, what is the "footprint" of this device? What is the nature of its output (electrical, mechanical, heat, etc?)

Oh.... wait.... those questions DO "represent" Mister Wayne's system. What are the answers? I do not believe Mister Wayne will lie to us. The answers are either YES, or .... NO.

(And it's "alluding", not "elluding". If you want to sound erudite, Mister Wayne, at least use a dictionary.)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 14, 2012, 03:53:55 AM
Webby... if you think you are attaining some kind of overunity performance... why isn't mondrasek? I'm sure he'd like to, as well. Maybe you can explain to him what he's doing wrong. Is there some critical difference, do you think, between cut-up tennis ball packaging material, and discarded pop bottles?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 14, 2012, 04:07:02 AM
Quote
Yet we are completely allowing the Validation teams to measure anyway they choose - no restrictions and no secrets - we have nothing to hide - and any true validation needs to be as thorough.

Any way they choose.... just not _when_ they choose. You are speaking in present tense. Are there, then, validation teams measuring any way they choose..... RIGHT NOW?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 14, 2012, 04:26:04 AM
Goodbye TK.
Larry will be sending invitations to our known support team members to our private forum. 
@ others - You may request an invitation by email.
Thank you Larry for the organization. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001746/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 14, 2012, 05:27:12 AM
 deleted
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 14, 2012, 06:42:08 AM
deleted 

Thanks Wayne for pulling the plug,  I am glad this idiotic circus is over !
Looking forward to some serious work with like minded people
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 14, 2012, 06:46:33 AM
maybe that is why he has my email addy.

I don't think, what I measured showed, just because you did not like my method which was quick, crude and only gave end results.

After all you still seem to think that we have to PUSH the risers back down, not even with my sticky sink do I need to push them and I still get fluid out under pressure.
Where did you ever get that idea? The weight you lift, pushes the riser back down in conjunction to the "suck" you produce by lowering your input vessel below "zero", does it not?
Or can you do what Mond can't, and take your weight off the top and still get a sink? I don't think so.
But I never said you need to add any force to push your risers back down. If I did.... please show me where.

And that's true of the automatic bollard, as well, in contradiction to Mister Wayne's interpretation.
I see from Mister Wayne's reference to the Automatic Bollard that he doesn't understand that simple device, either.
On the way up you have to pull up with three pounds of force. This is like adding a little buoyancy to a non-floating object that is just on the edge of floating. On the way down, it feels like it weighs three pounds, and sinks of its own accord. This is because you've now taken away the added "buoyancy" of your three pounds upwards force.  If you tie a string to it, you can have it pull something by the string on the way down. This is the effect of the "precharge" in its internal compression spring, which effect can be described, as I showed, in exactly the same words Mister Wayne uses to "compute" his 960 percent figure.

So once again, you 1) accuse me of saying or claiming something I never said, and 2) you refuse to correctly interpret or absorb the lesson of the automatic bollard.

And you are soooo sensitive about your choice of materials. But you got two thousand dollars! It would have been a small thing for you to take a fifth of that money and buy yourself some proper materials to work with.
Did I ever say, by the way, that I didn't "like" your method? I like it very much, in fact, and I thought I made that clear. It supports my contentions about Mister Wayne and his claims rather admirably, but could do so even better if it was built out of actual tubing instead of what you used.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 14, 2012, 06:53:34 AM
Thanks Wayne for pulling the plug,  I am glad this idiotic circus is over !
Looking forward to some serious work with like minded people

Care to make a small side bet, Red? I'll wager you one frozen pepperoni pizza and a bottle of Mogen David 20-20 that Mister Wayne will not demonstrate a self-running machine that has no input and makes usable output power and runs for 24 hours, before January 1, 2013.

If you lose, we can "double down" and extend the bet to Valentine's Day.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 14, 2012, 06:58:10 AM
Goodbye TK.
Larry will be sending invitations to our known support team members to our private forum. 
@ others - You may request an invitation by email.
Thank you Larry for the organization. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001746/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Thank you for not lying to us Mister Wayne.  Your refusal to answer my three simple questions with a "yes" answer can only mean this: You do not now have an actual working system that runs of itself with no input making usable output power, you never have had a working system that made 10 kW output with no input, and you do not have validation teams measuring anything they like right now at this moment.
Bye now. I'm sure we'll be reading about your salvation of mankind in the papers..... soon.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 14, 2012, 07:08:37 AM
I have started to send out invites to the new  'HydroEnergy Revolution Professionals' group at Yahoo Groups. Please bear with me in this process, as this is the first yahoo group that I have setup. Started invites with some of the most recent emails that I have received. So others, please don't feel offended.
For those other supporting members that haven't received an invite, I will need your email address or Yahoo id's to invite you. Please PM me.
There is also many who have expressed that they would not post in this hostile environment at OU. Please PM me.
We can work together in a stress free environment to advance the Travis concept for the sake of the world.
Regards, Larry
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 14, 2012, 07:19:10 AM
I have started to send out invites to the new  'HydroEnergy Revolution Professionals' group at Yahoo Groups. Please bear with me in this process, as this is the first yahoo group that I have setup. Started invites with some of the most recent emails that I have received. So others, please don't feel offended.
For those other supporting members that haven't received an invite, I will need your email address or Yahoo id's to invite you. Please PM me.
There is also many who have expressed that they would not post in this hostile environment at OU. Please PM me.
We can work together in a stress free environment to advance the Travis concept for the sake of the world.
Regards, Larry

So, this site is a "hostile environment" because folks ask simple, basic questions about an extraordinary claim?  When they do not receive any answers they ask again...and again and this is hostile?

Still no answers to basic questions and yet the lemmings decide to go elsewhere as it is too hostile here.  Well, good luck with that one.  With that kind of scientific scrutiny, we would all still believe that the earth is flat.  Sheesh and good riddance I say.

Let the lemmings follow themselves and answer yes to every question without any one raising any hard questions or generating any results.  Brilliant liberal logic:  The results do not matter, we will just save the world by saying we will try.  Well, trying is NOT doing.  Wake up.

Bill
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 14, 2012, 12:18:55 PM
Which reminds me , my offer of a USD $50000 bet that this device will not produce any energy within one year is still on offer to anyone who wishes to take up the challenge.

Seamus & Tinsel,
You highlighted exactly where our differences come in,
Money !!   Nooop, I am not into this for the money, money is not my primary motive,  more money would not improve my life, to the opposite, it just would make my life more difficult.
I am into this for the "LOVE of SCIENCE",  for the love of exploration, for the love of discovery,  for the love of creativity., for the fun  ......... to give me inspiration and zest for every new day.
            For example, Wayne and I discussed the device at times during the past months and certain logical suggestions could add up to a major improvement. His next reaction was to ask me how much I wanted for the idea ?  I was flabbergasted,  sharing technical aspects during a mutual beneficial discussion is a two way street,  money has no place in it.  What has place and is of greater value , is, enthusiasm, trust, diligence, respect.    You most likely you would not be able to relate to it,  so it doesn't matter.
Having more inside information than you do, I know that the device works but lets for the sake of argument hypothetically assume that this device didn't produce the energy, it wouldn't have mattered.
             Why ?  because, all information experiences of a certain quality add to your greater knowledge, knowledge is a gradual building process, one block at the time. All blocks aggregate and eventually will lift you to the next level by default, something that requires diligence and patience, it is an investment into your future .

**  How much did all those disruptive posts add to your future ?? and to others on this forum ??
      It could have been way different, Seamus last graphical attempt came unfortunately too late
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 14, 2012, 12:28:40 PM
I I'm not surprised Wayne doesn't like being here as he can't convert all the congregation,
he also doesn't like that members here can see his contradictions and lies.

Quote from: mrwayne November 14, at 12:14:23 AM
Quote
The energy Webby used to lift his hose - had the same value as the load he lifted - simple physics
and is exactly what we get "at that point" from a decently built three layer system.

And Yes- make even the simple three layer system obviously Over unity ........Very obviously

In all the months that have gone, Webby is the only one he is holding up as proof, I recall
at least two other members who had poor results and nobody helped them to get it right.

Quote from: webby1 on November 13, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
Quote
I was not setup to make any real test, I was playing but when I observed the repeatability of the lift
so I stopped and tried to  setup so that at least I could get some close numbers for the end results.

Webby if you were so convinced you have achieved overunity why on earth didn't you help the other members
achieve a similar result, I seem to remember you're attempting to help but they still got poor results,
Maybe that's $2000 that Mr Wayne gave you affected your judgement.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 14, at 12:14:23 AM
Quote
the best question from any skeptic so far - how does it do that?
I gave Mark my theory - but my theory does not matter.

You talk as if Mark has fully approved your device........now looking at the statement below he made
some time ago I would suggest Mark has very little confidence in your device being a continuous self-runner

Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
Quote
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.


GreenHiker & Red_Sunset I find it very suspicious that these two members only ever post in this thread
and always come to Wayne's defence, never with any proof or their own device showing clear overunity
but always words and excuses, Red is very well known for attacking people for challenging Wayne's claims.

So rather than stand and prove his claim or get on with verification Wayne Travis is running away to another
forum... Oh no he's joining a yahoo group, will it be one of those private ones that is hidden away,
that sounds like an honest man.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 14, 2012, 01:06:23 PM
...............................................................
GreenHiker & Red_Sunset I find it very suspicious that these two members only ever post in this thread
and always come to Wayne's defence, never with any proof or their own device showing clear overunity
but always words and excuses, Red is very well known for attacking people for challenging Wayne's claims.

So rather than stand and prove his claim or get on with verification Wayne Travis is running away to another
forum... Oh no he's joining a yahoo group, will it be one of those private ones that is hidden away,
that sounds like an honest man.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Hey man,  PowerCat,
Ja....Ja...ja....ja ...  Soft language is clearly not doing it, and I do not believe that blunt language will crack your thick skull either.
First look inwards for a possible cause , ... if you feel disappointed
Failing that,  read the forum again with more attention.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 14, 2012, 01:19:51 PM
Hey man,  PowerCat,
Ja....Ja...ja....ja ...  Soft language is clearly not doing it, and I do not believe that blunt language will crack your thick skull either.
First look inwards for a possible cause , ... if you feel disappointed
Failing that,  read the forum again with more attention.

Thank you for confirming that what I said about you was completely accurate,
before you come back and say it wasn't try reading my statement with an open mind
but as you are clearly so blinded by your faith in MrWayne, I will only expect you
to keep attacking me.

Quote from: powercat on Today at 12:28:40 PM (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg344361/#msg344361)
Quote
GreenHiker & Red_Sunset I find it very suspicious that these two members only ever post in this threadand always come to Wayne's defence, never with any proof or their own device showing clear overunitybut always words and excuses, Red is very well known for attacking people for challenging Wayne's claims.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 14, 2012, 03:27:19 PM
So, this site is a "hostile environment" because folks ask simple, basic questions about an extraordinary claim?  When they do not receive any answers they ask again...and again and this is hostile?

Still no answers to basic questions and yet the lemmings decide to go elsewhere as it is too hostile here.  Well, good luck with that one.  With that kind of scientific scrutiny, we would all still believe that the earth is flat.  Sheesh and good riddance I say.

Let the lemmings follow themselves and answer yes to every question without any one raising any hard questions or generating any results.  Brilliant liberal logic:  The results do not matter, we will just save the world by saying we will try.  Well, trying is NOT doing.  Wake up.

Bill

Hi Bill,
 
I'm sorry you came to this conclusion. I hope you reviewed what has been going on here, before you posted.
 
There is many who have various levels of understanding of the Travis Effect and wish to do research and development in a normal environment.
 
Please see Red's post 3250. Would you want to work at a research and development office where a psychopath, along with his clones aging him on, is allowed for 45 minutes of every hour, to run up and down the halls disrupting the work of others.
 
I never experienced that in my corporate life, nor would it be tolerated. There was always some opposing opinions, you would get your say in a pre-project meeting and then have to get on with supporting the team.
 
Didn't want to do this, but we were given no choice. And open minded sane skeptics will be invited, if they PM me.
 
So no lemmings here, just an intelligent business decision.
 
 
@All,
 
Thanks, to all those who have PM'ed. It will take some time to get to you all, but I will.
 
Regards, Larry
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 14, 2012, 03:28:26 PM
So, this site is a "hostile environment" because folks ask simple, basic questions about an extraordinary claim?  When they do not receive any answers they ask again...and again and this is hostile?

Bill, I see hostility not in the asking of anything.  But in repeatedly asking anything that has already been answered, even if the answer is that "I choose not to answer that," is badgering and hostile.  And when refusing to answer *again* and *again* one is libeled with statements similar to, "Your refusal to answer my question can only mean one thing...," followed by (often times very insulting) conjecture, then yes, this I see as hostile.
 
Personally I have seen off topic character attacks and outright lies about myself, my abilities, what I have presented, and even what my intentions are.  Yep, even what my intentions are.  Do I know your intentions?  Can you prove what yours or my intentions are?  Not realy.  But when I have openly explained my intentions it is not believed, and even ridiculed.  Yes, that is hostile.
 
Some would argue that anything that is the truth is not hostile.  However, some of what is posted here as the truth about me is known to me to be outright lies or false conjecture.  Also, some truth is far off topic.  And bringing it up, as truthful as it is, is only meant to be hostile.  It is similar to seeing a fat man on the street.  Is he fat?  Yes.  That is the truth.  And so yelling to the world, "Look at that man!  He is fat!"  Is that acceptable?  Is that hostile?
 
And that is the hostility that I have been presented with here.  The level presented to others is more severe.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 14, 2012, 04:49:31 PM
You are funny, mondrasek.

Has anyone called you a psychopath, a conspirator with financial motives to suppress Free Energy, accused you of having multiple accounts, of not being able to understand simple math, of saying the Zed is like a large hydraulic dam...... or any of dozens of other insults and canards that have been put forth about ME in this thread? You think people are attributing motives to YOU..... hah. You think someone is attacking or disrespecting YOU.... I laugh at you for that one, especially. You think it's repetitive and annoying for me to point out over and over that mister Wayne does NOT have what he claims to have...... well, it is. But as long as others are claiming that he DOES, and not providing any evidence for those claims, then my repetition is justified.

When I ask straight out whether Mister Wayne has a working device right now that runs itself and makes useful output power with no input.... why does he not simply say "Yes, I do... and here's a timelapse video of it running next to a calendar clock, one frame every minute, for three days". Or even simply "Yes, I do".  Wouldn't you? Wouldn't ANYONE who really wanted to convince you that he had what he says he has?
Instead he emits paragraphs of verbiage that say pretty much nothing. He won't lie outright..... so he cannot say "yes, I do". He also cannot say "No, I don't"... because that would destroy his position. So he does what he does best..... paragraphs of justification, complaint, reference to Mark Dansie's visit... omitting the fact that Mark was not at all convinced....... but he never says a simple "Yes, I have a 10 kW unit powering my house right now." The conclusion is inescapable: he cannot say "yes" because that would be a lie and Mister Wayne doesn't lie... not right straight out like that.

So fine, Mondrasek, you want to feel hurt because you need to see hostility somewhere... I suggest you examine where your own hostility lies and where it comes from. It's frustrating, isn't it, to build something in public, only to find that you aren't going to be getting any help at all from the other believers to make a system that applies to the claims being made, and to realize that the only real help you got... came from the skeptic who you are now turning against. Someone whose friend you claimed to be.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 14, 2012, 06:26:29 PM
You are funny, mondrasek.   .................................................................................................
So fine, Mondrasek, you want to feel hurt because you need to see hostility somewhere... I suggest you examine where your own hostility lies and where it comes from. It's frustrating, isn't it, to build something in public, only to find that you aren't going to be getting any help at all from the other believers to make a system that applies to the claims being made, and to realize that the only real help you got... came from the skeptic who you are now turning against. Someone whose friend you claimed to be.

** " So fine, Mondrasek, you want to feel hurt because you need to see hostility somewhere... "
** "  the only real help you got... came from the skeptic who you are now turning against."

I am utterly amazed.....and disgusted by the twisting of a xxxxx in the mud.
Mondrasek,  do not put any weight into TK response, there is no logical sense to what is happening here !!!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 14, 2012, 06:40:11 PM
@TK, the reply was in response to Bill.  As Dr. Phil would say, "It ain't about you!"
 
But I'll play if you want.
 
omitting the fact that Mark was not at all convinced.......

This is a pure misrepresentation.  Absolutely not what MD has presented.  It is only what you have decided to say he presented?

So fine, Mondrasek, you want to feel hurt because you need to see hostility somewhere... I suggest you examine where your own hostility lies and where it comes from. It's frustrating, isn't it, to build something in public, only to find that you aren't going to be getting any help at all from the other believers to make a system that applies to the claims being made, and to realize that the only real help you got... came from the skeptic who you are now turning against.

I'm not turning against anyone.  I have only stated my opinion of what has transpired in the context of the subject that Bill brought up.
 
I get plenty of help from the "believers" as you call them.  But I actually don't ask for much.  I communicate almost exclusively with those that I consider "investigators", not as you label them, "believers."  Very few have posted public testing data recently, and can you blame them?  Last time I did you nor anyone else bothered to check out or comment seriously on the data.  Shortly after I posted how that data appeared to be able to predict a maximum efficiency of 87% for a dual system.  Yes, 87, not 86 or 88.  Again, no one here commented seriously on that calculation.  I even specifically requested that you do those two things even later.  And did you? 
 
For those who want to test and analyze models and calculators of the ideas presented here, this is no longer the place.  Those efforts are drowned out by other "discussions."  I have no problem with those who want to have those discussion, or those discussions themselves.  But they get in the way with what some others want to do.  And so it is correct that we move to a place where we can do that.
 
M.

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 14, 2012, 06:48:53 PM
@TK, the reply was in response to Bill.  As Dr. Phil would say, "It ain't about you!"
 
But I'll play if you want.
 
This is a pure misrepresentation.  Absolutely not what MD has presented.  It is only what you have decided to say he presented?
 
I'm not turning against anyone.  I have only stated my opinion of what has transpired in the context of the subject that Bill brought up.
 
I get plenty of help from the "believers" as you call them.  But I actually don't ask for much.  I communicate almost exclusively with those that I consider "investigators", not as you label them, "believers."  Very few have posted public testing data recently, and can you blame them?  Last time I did you nor anyone else bothered to check out or comment seriously on the data.  Shortly after I posted how that data appeared to be able to predict a maximum efficiency of 87% for a dual system.  Yes, 87, not 86 or 88.  Again, no one here commented seriously on that calculation.  I even specifically requested that you do those two things even later.  And did you? 
 
For those who want to test and analyze models and calculators of the ideas presented here, this is no longer the place.  Those efforts are drowned out by other "discussions."  I have no problem with those who want to have those discussion, or those discussions themselves.  But they get in the way with what some others want to do.  And so it is correct that we move to a place where we can do that.
 M.

Mondrasek,        YOU ARE A REAL GENTLEMEN       (as in fine English tradition)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 14, 2012, 07:56:52 PM
I was incorrect in giving you the credit for telling me I would need to push the risers back down,, my bad.
And point 2 kettle pot black.  You need to be taught so you need to learn and listen,, not the other way TK.

Webby1,   you are a man to my heart.
A bit of assertiveness is a positive attribute,  and required to maintain a position.
Without any intent to take any shine away from you, may I rephrase the last sentence,
 **  "To learn, you need to be taught to listen",  a quality you haven't mastered yet
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 14, 2012, 08:50:04 PM
An internal validation hmmm that's a new one, I presume if he's not happy then the external one will not go ahead.
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 14, 2012, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: webby1 on Today at 07:01:45 PM
Quote
Well that is jumping to conclusions,, and then some.

I did say (maybe) and let's face it receiving $2000 can influence people, so I think it was not
unreasonable to say maybe, you also seem a bit vague on how much obvious clear over unity you got.
Quote
I am not the master of this process, I have a basic understanding that is allowing me to make logical steps into areas that may open the door of understanding, at least for me,, all the way.  I have been sharing what I think and what I have observed with those that I care to share with, including "new" items of interest.

Yes it is great when that is actually happening but that was quite some time ago, recently
all we get is posts from Red attacking anyone for suggesting that there isn't enough evidence,
I suggest if there was enough evidence why haven't the replicators achieve their goals,
And please don't blame it on the sceptics you can put them on ignore and not read their posts.

I have really enjoyed your input and I really believe that this was going to lead somewhere
But it's all turning out to be such a familiar story of no real overunity being proven.

Quote
For me to share the stuff I think I understand on this forum has become somewhat a waste of time, the little bits I try to put out there get lost in the plethora of noise.

And as for your information getting lost, anyone can click on your name and look at all
your previous posts, and you and the other believers can put the sceptics on ignore.

I would love to apologise and see real evidence that this device works, instead of getting
constant delays and excuses from MrWayne and attacks from Mr Red.
According to those two the information to produce clear overunity is obvious and in this thread.
I guess we all must have missed it as no one has shown any clear overunity.

Good luck Webby I really hope you're not flogging a dead horse.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 14, 2012, 10:20:03 PM
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives
I'm now posting this edited version of Wayne's words if you would like to see the original please use the above link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Validation:
so after I have our internal validation finished - I will report to the 'Investors Only' group
How far are we from finishing our internal Validation?
we will run rough shot - to see if we missed something - and then we will dial in - this will take at least two days
but from experience - lets give it 9 days.
We will be having extended runs during these 9 days and we will be making video's.
We may wait to send them out to external media -after Mark has come.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 14, 2012, 11:04:30 PM
@All who PM'ed me for Invite.
 
All my invites yesterday went okay. But it appears that the new ones today, didn't make it. I just rentered them and checked the activity list. So anyone, I PM'ed back that it was done and doesn't receive it soon, PM me again.
 
Thanks, Larry
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 15, 2012, 01:37:05 AM
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives)
I'm now posting this edited version of Wayne's words if you would like to see the original please use the above link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Validation:
so after I have our internal validation finished - I will report to the 'Investors Only' group
How far are we from finishing our internal Validation?
we will run rough shot - to see if we missed something - and then we will dial in - this will take at least two days
but from experience - lets give it 9 days.
We will be having extended runs during these 9 days and we will be making video's.
We may wait to send them out to external media -after Mark has come.

I see he claims "patent pending" for the Rotary Zed. What is the number of the patent application for this device, I'd like to look it up.

Quote
We had next system - the Rotary ZED - which is 'Patent Pending" reviewed carefully (one of our extended professional members whom I trust wholly), and he has added some valuable insight in protecting and improving or adding to the protection of our IP. He was very impressed - and that is great news to my ears confirming the excellent quality we have with out patent team members at Dunlap and Codding - great job men. If you need a great patent attorney - give them a call. This means that our team members have more quality IP - more value, more markets, and most of all - we are preparing a better IP package for our customers.


I sure hope this means that he's actually filed a patent application. What is the number of the application?

From the Wiki:

Quote
United States In the United States, according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office), the expression "Patent Pending" as such does not protect an invention until the actual patent is published and/or issued:
 "A patentee who makes or sells patented articles, or a person who does so for or under the patentee is required to mark the articles with the word "Patent" and the number of the patent. The penalty for failure to mark is that the patentee may not recover damages from an infringer unless the infringer was duly notified of the infringement and continued to infringe after the notice. The marking of an article as patented when it is not in fact patented is against the law and subjects the offender to a penalty. Some persons mark articles sold with the terms "Patent Applied For" or "Patent Pending". These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited". [5] The use of the term "patent pending" or "patent applied for" is permitted so long as a patent application has actually been filed. If these terms are used when no patent application has been filed it is deemed as a deceptive act and a fine of up to $500 may be imposed for every such offense.[6] Under the current interpretation of "offense", each mis-marked article constitutes an offense, which permits theoretical damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars for high-volume consumer goods.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending
(emphasis mine)

So what's the number of the patent application for the Rotary Zed?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 15, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Indeed you did, vague,, indeed I am :)

The lift set I reported that had me excited, that was over a dozen or 3 cycles, no water loss no air loss nothing, until I dropped the lift mass back on and blew the air out from under the risers.

The numbers I reported for lift distance were rounded down, the actual lift average was almost 1\8 on an inch higher, the reading was just under the line on my scale, the actual lift weight was 1 lb 9 oz as measured on my gram\lb scale later, the actual fluid used was 58g and at 2\3 descent of the reservoir it was half full,, the sink weight was also smaller, it was 4 1\2 oz by my scale later.

So the later weight measurements are fine for me but those were not done right before, during or immediately afterward so I felt they would be non-valid,, you don't clean up find your scale and then measure things,, bad science, sloppy.

So you do the math cause if I do it it will be called wrong or creative, use the first set of numbers I posted and use the 2\3 drop for a half full reservoir,, that is clear OU in my opinion.

EDIT:   SHOOT I forgot to include the 3 oz metal spacer I was using for the sink cup, coming down so close to the retainer I could not get my fat fingers in to hold the risers still, the lift was no problem hold it over bring the risers up then slide it on all the way.

No input figures of the Pre charge which is now an old argument from many pages ago and
as you admit yourself you were not set up for testing, you have quoted many different
figures it makes it difficult to have trust in any of them, here are 3 links to some
of your numbers and this one I will post in full below.
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg331415/#msg331415
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335735/#msg335735
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg338293/#msg338293

Quote from: webby1 on September 14, 2012, 11:40:47 PM
Quote
I am thinking that I have overstated the height that I need to lift the reservoir, as well as the drop in height before the unloaded risers sink.

I was paying closer attention today to the reservoir, I had to lengthen the hose for more pressure and I noticed a rather large delay in the water going down the tube when the reservoir was empty, overfilled the reservoir and moved it very slowly and the heights I was raising it to were lower, and then the drop was also much less.

So PATIENCE is another important piece you will need to build into any unit you make

TBZED seems to prefer a slow fill, small pipe, and a large pipe for discharge, rate is not so much but the large pipe,, no idea as to why that would be.

Lift weight for today has been 480g removable 190g left on riser for 670g total, stroke has been between 10mm to 25mm but with the big mass I was keeping to the 10mm most of the time, 25mm and it was easy to blow water at the end.

When I was using the 180g removable and the 90g left on riser for a total of 270g the precharge fluid was 7g, when using the 670g the precharge fluid was 20g, these brought the risers back up to the rest position, it was easier to put the mass on and then bring it back up than to try and hold still and bring the risers to hold.

Just some useless numbers,

409g 90g left 10mm lift AFTER PRECHARGE 20g water lifted 140mm.

480g 172g left 10mm lift AFTER PRECHARGE 20g water lifted 205mm

These were done several times each and stayed within a few mm + -

Today I have many more that were really bad,, several that were less than 30% most were around 80%

Those of us who try and take a scientific approach might turn a blind eye to your dubious figures
If other successful replications showing clear overunity had followed in your footsteps,
looking back through your posts I can see you tried really hard to get the other builders to
achieve the same result. Also why aren't we seeing other successful replications on the
Internet, Wayne's information is posted in other sites as well.

how many times have we seen this common mistake from people claiming overunity based on
poor measuring techniques which make them so convinced they've done it
I have witnessed this a number of times on this forum, and eventually it comes down to
can you make a self-runner ? now the big question is has MrWayne made a mistake since
We have not seen proper scientific evidence of a self-runner,all he gives is excuses
and delays, and let's not forget his henchmen Red who attacks anyone that has doubts.

Why don't all you believers click the (ignore) setting and avoid ever seen any posts
from any sceptic ?  But some of you would rather run away and hide.


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 15, 2012, 01:50:20 PM
No input figures of the Pre charge which is now an old argument from many pages ago and
as you admit yourself you were not set up for testing, you have quoted many different
figures it makes it difficult to have trust in any of them, here are 3 links to some
of your numbers and this one I will post in full below.
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg331415/#msg331415 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg331415/#msg331415)
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335735/#msg335735 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335735/#msg335735)
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg338293/#msg338293 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg338293/#msg338293)

Quote from: webby1 on September 14, 2012, 11:40:47 PM
Those of us who try and take a scientific approach might turn a blind eye to your dubious figures
If other successful replications showing clear overunity had followed in your footsteps,
looking back through your posts I can see you tried really hard to get the other builders to
achieve the same result. Also why aren't we seeing other successful replications on the
Internet, Wayne's information is posted in other sites as well.

how many times have we seen this common mistake from people claiming overunity based on
poor measuring techniques which make them so convinced they've done it
I have witnessed this a number of times on this forum, and eventually it comes down to
can you make a self-runner ? now the big question is has MrWayne made a mistake since
We have not seen proper scientific evidence of a self-runner,all he gives is excuses
and delays, and let's not forget his henchmen Red who attacks anyone that has doubts.

Why don't all you believers click the (ignore) setting and avoid ever seen any posts
from any sceptic ?  But some of you would rather run away and hide.
No my friend - we have plenty of good skeptics on our team - we are just tired of interuptions by less than respectful people.
You and a few others blew your oppurtunity to be part of this New Energy Frontier.
p.s.    We have not run away - Arrogance, Ego, Ignorance, Obscurificatiousness, and U ---  have been discarded.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 15, 2012, 07:58:21 PM
No my friend - we have plenty of good skeptics on our team - we are just tired of interuptions by less than respectful people.
You and a few others blew your oppurtunity to be part of this New Energy Frontier.
p.s.    We have not run away - Arrogance, Ego, Ignorance, Obscurificatiousness, and U ---  have been discarded.
Wayne

First you address me as your friend then you say I have been "discarded" truly you are a man of great contradiction,
how long do you think you will last in your private group when your words don't deliver what you claim,
and no one included you can deliver a verifiable self-running device.

Webby
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg344242/#msg344242

Well you disagreed with TK and your disagreeing with me that's fine, it would have been nice
if somebody else could have matched your clear overunity claim, maybe three months isn't
enough time, and maybe that money has had some influence...you never did come up with a
self-runner, well that's something in common you have with Wayne.

At some point in the future the truth about this will be obvious to all,
given the amount of time that this information has been out isn't it a bit strange
that we haven't seen more demonstrations of obvious clear overunity ? apart from
Mr Wayne and yourself.

TK,
these are Wayne's words  "the Rotary ZED - which is 'Patent Pending"
I think that must mean internal patent pending as looking externally this is the only one I can find.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 15, 2012, 11:02:57 PM
There are a lot of things that I disagree with TK on, my fresh made espresso is better than his instant,, so what.

(snip)

Interesting that you should mention that. When you add sufficient energy to some water to raise it up to 212 degrees F, and then add even more energy, you wind up increasing its volume by a factor of about 1600 times, rather suddenly. It is this increase in volume, inside a confined space, that drives the hot water/steam through your very fine grind dark espresso roast of your San Cristobal fair trade organic coffee beans. And further, it is this same pressure and superheated water vapor... aka steam... that you use to make Mrs. Webby's frothed skim milk for her cappuccino.

I'm sure you will have noticed that your espresso machine cannot achieve this pressure increase and steam production.... unless it is plugged into a power source. Of course you might have one of those muscle-powered ones with the big handle you pull down.... but you still need steam for your cappuccino.

Excuse me, you've made me thirsty, I think I need another cup of microwaved Folger's Instant.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 15, 2012, 11:08:42 PM
(snip)
TK,
these are Wayne's words  "the Rotary ZED - which is 'Patent Pending"
I think that must mean internal patent pending as looking externally this is the only one I can find.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957 (http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957)

Hmm. I wonder if it has been filed, but just not published yet. Or perhaps it's a typo, like listing Mark Dansie under the "investors" column was; maybe he meant to say "Patent Pending Pending". I mean, according to the Wiki, it is considered deception to use the term "Patent Pending" unless an application has actually been filed. In some countries, like Australia, you are even supposed to cite the number of the patent application along with the words "Patent Pending".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending
We know Mister Wayne is never deceptive. So we must be missing something somewhere.
Can anyone tell us where the patent application for the "Patent Pending" Rotary Zed can be found?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 12:04:14 AM
You can choose to not have them published from filing all the way until it is issued.
I see. So you know that he's applied, and selected this option of non-publication? Just the number of the application would be fine, I know that is supposed to be a matter of public record.
You might select non-publication as a way of keeping your IP secret, naturally. So you can talk about it on internet websites and with your investors, without actually having to reveal anything of substance in public. What are secrets for, after all?

I think that's probably why, in places like Australia, you have to include the application number along with the phrase "patent pending". Otherwise, anyone could claim "patent pending" for anything, and other people working in that area would be deterred, or worried about infringement....... even if no application has actually been filed.

This is kind of like the clever "NDA" ploy that is often used in cases of this type (and there have been quite a few). Rossi and Steorn and certain... other operations... come to mind. You invite outside engineers and scientists to view your device, making them sign an ironclad NDA first. Then you show them something they have to agree with; perhaps measurements of a system that demonstrates some basic principle that is alleged to be important to the claim... but of course they don't see an actual working free energy machine. Then, the claimant can say that he's had engineers and scientists visit, and that they came away impressed and in agreement that what they were shown was real. But the engineers and scientists themselves are gagged by the NDA and can't reveal what it was they actually saw or agreed with... and we never even get to know their names or affiliations.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 16, 2012, 12:13:32 AM
I know of several builders, but the three of us that have posted here are the only ones that have, that is all you know and all you can know.

That one made me laugh, and people have accuse me of being presumptuous.....Do you really think
in all the years I have been involved in the free energy community I have only looked at this forum ?
Get real but I guess that's your difficulty,
so we are going to have to agree to disagree on what we believe ?

It is my choice to post in this forum because I believe it allows for freedom of speech....They are also
great members here that will not be stopped by bullying to get to the real scientifically provable truth.

Good luck in Wayne's private group whatever you do don't say anything to offend him or you will get band,
probably after Red has given you a good telling off.

BTW I won't mention OUR Energetic places, and you won't find this forum has a thread titled,
                        "Hydroenergy strong symptoms of a scam"
Wake up and smell the coffee  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy6Q9J5gRT4&playnext=1&list=PL391FF5E9EB8C9A3C&feature=results_main
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on November 16, 2012, 02:06:01 AM
Wow, It's Quiet in here.
Where did everybody go?   8)
 
They caught the last train to the Coast...
The day, the music died !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 02:58:49 AM
I've been doing some more musings on the excellent question minnie asked about the pump power requirement. There is a lot to think about there. And it's absurd of Mister Wayne to claim that the question has no relevance to the Zed or Hydro power system.

From the question... how much water (gravity) at a head of 10 meters, would be required to run a 2250 psi, 22 gallon per minute pump.... I was able to derive a value of about 21.5 kiloWatts of mechanical power, equivalent to 3500 gallons per minute or about 58 gallons per second at 10 meters (32.8 feet) of head. A pretty good waterfall indeed. (2250 psi is a pressure head of nearly a statute mile.)

And sure enough, 22 gpm x 5197.5 feet = 114345 gal-feet/min, and 3500 gpm x 32.8 feet = 114800 gal-feet/minute... the calculation checks out, within rounding error.

Now consider what that means for a power generator system. We know how big a 20kW electrical generator is and what kind of horsepower it takes to turn it. There have been no claims of any special electrical efficiencies in Mister Wayne's system, have there ... so that means, in a 20 kW output Hydro Differential Pressure Exchange System using a Rotary Zed... or any other thing whatsoever... _something_ must be turning the shaft of that generator with a mechanical power greater than 20 kW (around 27 horse (or unicorn) power). And in a Mister Wayne HDPERZ system, unless I am mistaken, the thing that turns the generator/generators is a hydraulic motor/motors.

And those motors are turned by hydraulic fluid flowing at pressure. How much flow, how much pressure? Well....we have that, from Minnie's question. Since hydraulic fluid is somewhat less dense than water, we need correspondingly more gallons per minute at the same pressure as water, to make the same mechanical power as water. Right? So, if 22 gpm of water at 2250 psi requires 21.5 kW of mechanical power, then Skydrol with a density of 0.88 will require 22 gals/0.88 or 25 gallons per minute, flowing at 2250 pounds per square inch of pressure to make the same mechanical power. This mechanical power must be "NET"... that is, it must be what the hydraulic motor delivers to the generator, _AFTER_ whatever advantage of 960 percent or whatever is supplied within the HDPERZ system itself.

So... somewhere in Mister Wayne's 20 kW system, gravity powered, shifting the weight of a few pounds of water around....or hundreds of pounds or several tons of water, whatever.... there must be something that will result in enough hydraulic fluid flowing at a rate and pressure equivalent to somewhat more than 20 kW of mechanical power. More than 25 gallons per minute at 2250 psi....

By the way, 2250 psi of water corresponds to a pressure head of......
h=2.31 x (psi) / density
or 5197.5 feet for water
or 5906 feet for Skydrol.

  ( http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pump-head-pressure-d_663.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pump-head-pressure-d_663.html)  )

Twenty five gallons of Skydrol, per minute, falling down from a height of over a statute mile. (Or pumped up to that pressure and flow rate by the.... the...... the system of rams in a HDPERZ?)

Is there something wrong with my numbers or reasoning? I am afraid I simply do not understand how something like the animation of the Zed system on Mister Wayne's websites could possibly produce anything like a flow of hydraulic fluid of 25 gpm at a mile of pressure head to turn its generator. Can anyone who DOES understand the system explain this power generation requirement to me?

Did Minnie ever get a straight answer about the size of a HDPE unit that would run his house?

(ETA: Several sources on the internet tell me that a modern 3-BR house will require somewhere between 18 and 24 kW, depending on the number of appliances etc. Mister Wayne has said that a unit to power a single home will fit in the footprint of a toolshed. I'm guessing that is going to have to be a fairly large toolshed. )
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: cyber19 on November 16, 2012, 02:06:47 PM
Elvis has left the building! Please turn out the light!

Wow, It's Quiet in here.
Where did everybody go?   8)
 
They caught the last train to the Coast...
The day, the music died !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 05:23:11 PM
TK, 24 kw is 1 kw for 24 hours,, just thought I would let you know.

No, it is not. 24 kW is 24 kW, a measure of POWER. Run that demand for 24 hours and your utility will bill you for 576 kiloWatt-Hours of ENERGY.
1 kW (a measure of power)  for 24 hours is 24 kw-H, a measure of ENERGY.

Not the same thing at all. If this is where you are at with regards to your understanding of  POWER and ENERGY.....  I am afraid you might need to do some basic review of concepts.
You plug in an electric heater. It draws 1000 Watts. You leave it on for one hour.... you have used one kiloWatt-hour of ENERGY at an average POWER of 1000 Watts. You run your elephant jacuzzi drawing 20 kW for one hour, you have used 20 kiloWatt-HOURS of energy, and this is what you are billed for. Your home power supply must be able to power your full house demand..... between 18 and 24 kiloWATTS for a modern household. You may only need that much power for an hour..... 24 kiloWatt-HOURS of energy --- but your supply must be able to meet it on demand when you turn on your clothes dryer, your air conditioners, your entertainment system and your yard lighting, etc. all at once...putting a load of 20 kW on your supply......
Energy is always conserved. Power... instantaneous power, not necessarily conserved. By which I mean that you can apply, say, a steady 100 Watts to a motor/generator/flywheel arrangement, your instantaneous input power is 100 W. But you can draw off many kW of power from the flywheel... for a short period of time. Instantaneous power can be very high. But the total ENERGY out ... that is, the "average power" x time, will equal the total ENERGY in. Minus losses, of course.
Just thought I would let you know.
Quote

2500 psi is not a volume and the ZED puts out psi and volume, lastly your numbers would seem fair if you were only using gravity as your source then the lighter fluid could do less, but if not using gravity as your source then the difference does not matter.

2500 psi is not a volume. 22 gallons per minute is a VOLUME FLOW RATE. You can look at any number of online calculators and find the power necessary to move 22 gallons per minute at a pressure of 2500 psi (or 2250 as in the original problem.)

If the ZED is turning a generator with a hydraulic motor, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE POWER COMES FROM, from a 960 percent efficient Zed or a herd of pink unicorns .... the perfectly ordinary hydraulic motor will have to deliver 27 horsepower or a bit more to the perfectly ordinary generator shaft to make 20 kW of electrical output. And this will take a flow of hydraulic fluid of at least 25 gpm at 2250 psi. Again, there are plenty of calculators on-line that will take you to this point.

Where does the volume and pressure to drive a hydraulic motor with 27 horsepower come from? There is nothing in the animated cartoon that can do that, at the sizes and oscillation rate shown, and there is no way that a ZED, using gravity and water weight, can get that kind of power output in a footprint the size of a "tool shed"..... or in fact, at any size at all. I say that Mister Wayne's projections of being able to power a house with a Zed in a toolshed footprint are fanciful at best and impossible in practice.

Or maybe he's talking about a doll house.

Quote
TK, 24 kw is 1 kw for 24 hours,, just thought I would let you know.

Not to put too sharp a point on it... but do you then believe that 60 miles per hour is the same thing as one mile per hour, for sixty hours?
Of course not: 60 mph is a SPEED, and 1 mph for 60 h is a DISTANCE.  Exactly the same thing: a Watt is a Joule per second.
So 24 kiloJoules per second is certainly NOT 1 kiloJoules per second x 86400 seconds...... a "Joule" is not the same as a "Joule per second".

Again, this illustrates the point I tried to make earlier: if you use the UNITS in your calculations as well as the numbers, then if the units don't agree or work out algebraically, you know you've made an error.
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 07:48:07 PM
Funny how it is just 24kw that was being discussed but house use is in kw-H  and you talk about using the correct conventions.
Get your act together Webby. If you want to insult me or criticise me, at least be RIGHT once in a while.
House TOTAL ENERGY USAGE, what you get billed for each month, is POWER TIMES TIME.... kiloWatt-hours.
I have cited references for this.
The demand of your appliances, heaters, light bulbs, etc. is in POWER. If you turn on all the electrical drawing appliances in your house you  might draw as much as 20 kiloWatts of POWER. How much energy you use will be determined by how long you leave the stuff on.
To power a modern house you need 18 -24 kiloWATTS of service to your house.  I have cited references for this.
Look on your electric bill, you will see that you are billed not for WATTS but for WATT_HOURS. Look at the data plate of any appliance and you will see that it is rated in WATTS (or volt-amps) NOT WATT_HOURS. The amount of time you leave it on... is up to you, and that is why you have a METER on your outside wall that takes into account the TIME during which you use your appliances rated in WATTS.
If Mister Wayne wants to power a modern home his device must be able to produce 20 kiloWATTS at any instant and do that for as long as you have all your appliances turned on .....not one kW for 20 hours. This requires a generator that is capable of turning 27 horsepower of mechanical power into electrical power. This means that WHATEVER is turning the shaft of that generator has to be able to supply that amount of mechanical power, and a hydraulic motor needs the kinds of pressures and flow rates that minnie postulated in order to do that. LOOK UP HYDRAULIC MOTOR OPERATING PARAMETERS.  I did. I even found a motor that would deliver 20 HP, running on 25 gpm at between 2500 and 3000 psi. Not quite what we need to turn the generator of a 20 kW genset but close, ballpark at least. The hydraulic motor exists to do the job. The generator exists to do the job. But they have to be provided with the POWER to do the job -- equivalent to at least 25 gpm of hydraulic fluid at a density of 0.88 and a pressure of at least 2500 psi.... and that is nowhere to be found in a Zed as we have been presented it.

If the claims of Mister Wayne about power are also this muddled..... well, there it is then.
Quote
In my area the utility company has an employee who has as one of there tasks helping home owners figure out what size gen-set they need to use for power outages,, and that number is less than a 7kw system,, they said for mine I would need to have a 5 kw gen-set, but that was before the heat pump and that pump can draw a lot of power.

KiloWATTS, not kw-h. And FOR POWER OUTAGES. Are you really going to run your jacuzzi and your entertainment center and your air conditioner heat pump and your swimming pool heater during a POWER OUTAGE? No. You run your fridge and deepfreeze and the necessary lights and radios and a range element and maybe a water heater for hot showers. 7 kW is enough for that. And after a WEEK of trying to run a modern home on 7 kW.... you will really be glad when the power comes back on.
Why don't you take this series of posts and responses, starting with your " 24 kw = 1 kw for 24 hours" post over to that fellow, have him read them, and let him tell you what he thinks.

Quote

And most setups nowadays have a battery load kind of thing as well,, there are groups for just that kind of stuff and some of those people who are off the grid can get by with very little usage,, so that there solar panels are more than enough,, kind of amazing really.

Conservation is fine... and during power outages it is necessary. But ask your local home contractor, the one that is out there right now building 3 and 4 bedroom homes, what is the electrical service to the houses they are installing. If it's "seven KiloWatts".... I'll buy you a frozen pizza and a bottle of MD-20-20. If it is closer to 20 kW.... you can just chalk that up, once again....  to experience and study. This eighty-year-old house I'm sitting in right now has 16kW electrical service, and it has a gas stove and water heater !!
(yes, it's been rewired since built)


Really now..... is the "best" builder of a HDPE system we've got here -- the one that he thinks is delivering OU performance -- actually this muddled about POWER and ENERGY and the difference between them, in spite of all the information in this thread and on the internet?

ETA: Your _average_ power demand , averaged over the 720 hours in a month, may come out to one or two kilowatts ( your kW-HOURS total on the bill, divided by 720 HOURS). But your supply needs to be able to supply not your average demand, but your peak demand. That's why you don't have 4- or 8-amp circuit breakers in your breaker box, but you do have 15 amp, 20 amp, 30 amp and for the mains breakers, 80 amps.

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html (http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power)
http://www.baumhydraulics.com/calculators/motor_calc.htm
http://www.indianafluidpower.com/formulas.asp (http://www.indianafluidpower.com/formulas.asp)
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3584113 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3584113)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 08:39:25 PM
Please... let us review. Energy is conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. What comes out equals what goes in, minus losses. Whether you believe this or not is beside the point and irrelevant for what follows.

In the Systeme Internationale, the system used by engineers and scientists worldwide, the unit of ENERGY is the Joule.
One Joule of ENERGY has the units Newton-meters, or reduced all the way down, the units of kg-m2/s2 .  One Joule of energy is the energy you need to supply to lift a one Newton weight (about a hundred and two grams ) to a height of one meter, and is the same energy you get back when you drop that weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)
Quote
One joule in everyday life is approximately:
 the energy required to lift a small apple one metre straight up. (A mass of about 102 g = 19.81 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity) kg)
the energy released when that same apple falls one metre to the ground.
the energy delivered by a 1 watt solar panel every second.
the energy released as heat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat) by a person at rest, every 1/60th of a second.[6]
the kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) of a 50 kg human moving very slowly (0.2 m/s).
the kinetic energy of a tennis ball moving at 23 km/h (14 mph).[7]
 Since the joule is also a Watt-second and the common unit for electricity sales to homes is the kWh (kilo-Watt-hour), a kWh is thus 1000 (kilo) x 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ (Megajoules).


That is ENERGY.  It also has the same units as WORK.



Power is measured in WATTS. A watt is One Joule Per Second. A WATT is a RATE OF CONSUMPTION, dissipation, usage... whatever... it is a RATE. If you have an appliance rated at 1000 Watts, like an electric heater, it dissipates 1000 Joules every second that it is turned on.
The kiloWatt is a RATE of a thousand Joules of energy per second. The kiloWatt-HOUR, then, is that rate multiplied by the number of seconds in an hour. A kiloWatt-hour is the same thing as (1000 Joules/second) x (3600 seconds) = 3.6 megaJoules of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt)

Quote

 A person having a mass of 100 kilograms who climbs a 3 meter high ladder in 5 seconds is doing work at a rate of about 600 watts. Mass times acceleration due to gravity times height divided by the time it takes to lift the object to the given height gives the rate of doing work or power.[notes 1]
A laborer over the course of an 8-hour day can sustain an average output of about 75 watts; higher power levels can be achieved for short intervals and by athletes.[1]
 A medium-sized passenger automobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile) engine is rated at 50 to 150 kilowatts[2] – while cruising it will typically yield half that amount.
A typical household incandescent light bulb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb) has a power rating of 25 to 100 watts; fluorescent lamps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp) typically consume 5 to 30 watts to produce a similar amount of light.
 A typical coal power station produces around 600–700 megawatts. A typical unit in a nuclear power plant has an electrical power output of 900–1300 megawatts.


I've shown in previous posts what 20 kW means in hydraulic power. So.... does it really seem plausible to ANYONE that a 20 kW ZED system, working ONLY BY GRAVITY (including buoyancy which is just gravity misspelled)  AND SHIFTING WATER WEIGHT.... can produce 27 horsepower (more really due to inefficiencies) of hydraulic power to turn a standard hydraulic motor driving a standard 20 kW generator.... in a space the size of a "toolshed?"
It does not, to me. Drive a hydraulic pump with a Volkswagen motor... sure, then we have no problems. Drive it with the shifting weight of some water, and you WILL need the equivalent of a 30 foot high waterfall flowing at a rate of 58 gallons per SECOND, or more, in mechanical power to feed to the pump or rams providing the pressure and flow to drive the hydraulic motor driving the electrical generator.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 09:08:02 PM
http://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/2616/what-level-of-electrical-service-should-i-order-for-new-construction (http://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/2616/what-level-of-electrical-service-should-i-order-for-new-construction)

One hundred amp service at 120 V is 12 kW. 200 amp service at 120 V is 24 kW.

http://www.macfarlanegenerators.com.au/power-calculator.php (http://www.macfarlanegenerators.com.au/power-calculator.php)

20 kW is nearly 27 horsepower of mechanical power.

Where in a ZED is that power going to come from?  Using the online calculators and the "animation", you can actually compute the volume and pressure of each hydraulic cylinder in the total circuit..... or you could if you knew the diameters and strokes of the cylinders. OK, so you have some stage of the process that is 960 percent efficient.... you STILL have to provide more than 27 horsepower to the hydraulic motor powering the generator!! So somewhere in the system, there must be, if Mister Wayne's claim is true, something that turns 3 horsepower from the sloshing floating parts, into 27 horsepower of hydraulic fluid flow and pressure. Where is this component or system? It's sure not in the animation or the patent application.

OR.... even more implausibly, if you follow Mister Wayne's "explanation" of using One unit of the "production" to run the system leaving Nine units NET of the production for the consumer.... then there has to be around 30 horsepower "produced" total, so that three can run the system and 27 can be used for running the 20 kW generator. More, actually, of course, because the hydraulic motor and the generator are not 100 percent efficient.

Where does it come from?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 09:58:14 PM
Indeed, 960 percent does not tell you how much out he can get, it might be very little,, or things may have changed and it could be a lot bigger output.

I always thought that hydraulic generators were convenient but not so efficient,, just me I guess but I would take the output and use it another way, like my simple mechanical rectifier, why not just go straight to torque out?
The question Minnie asked, and that Mister Wayne answered in the "faqs" section of his website, is how big a zed system would have to be to run a house. Mister Wayne answered with a lot of words, mentioned 10 kW, 20 kW and 30 kW units, and in the website promised that units to run houses would fit in the footprint of a "toolshed". I've shown that a modern home needs at least a 20 kW supply, unless the owners are solar energy fanatics and read by candlelight at night. He has spoken many times "as if" such 20 kW output units existed or could exist. In this entire discussion I am addressing the issue of the possibility of the existence of a 20 kW output HDPE system, not one with "very little" output. I don't care if the Zed advantage is 80 percent, 160 percent or 960 percent.... something inside there is going to have to provide at least 27, and probably more like 40, horsepower to whatever is driving the 20 kW generator. How do you get around that fact? It doesn't matter, the Zed could be a miracle black box full of angels of God on treadmills or a fusion reactor running on bacon drippings .... the generator needs 27 horsepower at the shaft to make 20 kW electrical output. Or did Mister Wayne invent an overunity generator as well, that he's keeping secret just to make me look silly? I notice that he did not choose to answer me with a "YES" answer when I asked him if he had now, or EVER HAD, such a system operating at 20 kW output. To me... this is an honest way of saying NO that attempts to save face by not actually saying "no".

How are you going to turn the generator with your "torque out" from your mechanical rectifier?  Go ahead and assume a 100 percent efficient hydraulic motor if you like.... that is the 27 horsepower figure required to make 20 kW that I computed above.. If you use real world numbers like the 65 percent of an actual hydraulic motor, you need even more gpm and pressure to produce it. Do you have a "simple mechanical rectifier" that can produce torque out, continuously rotating a generator, with greater efficiency than a real hydraulic motor? If so, you should contact some hydraulic systems manufacturers right away and quit wasting your time with Mister Wayne.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 10:12:37 PM
TK, 24 kw is 1 kw for 24 hours,, just thought I would let you know.

2500 psi is not a volume and the ZED puts out psi and volume, lastly your numbers would seem fair if you were only using gravity as your source then the lighter fluid could do less, but if not using gravity as your source then the difference does not matter.

Are we just sweeping this under the rug, or do you get it correctly, now?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080124151747AAWHDxc
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2012, 01:54:06 AM
Hey TK,,  simple mechanical rectifier.

http://www.overunity.com/10629/simple-mechanical-rectifier/ (http://www.overunity.com/10629/simple-mechanical-rectifier/)

The one posted on this site is only one of the possible configurations, and the clutches can be had in over 300 lb\ft strength,, well that was a few years ago.

It does not need to be gear to gear either.

This configuration to me showed the simple relationship the best, and yes this is the finger toy I used in some play time experiments :)

It is apart, I have used some parts for this and that and a few interesting experiments along the line of what MoRo is playing with.
Nice. I'm using almost the same system (half of it anyway) on my top secret Gyroscope Forced Precession AntiGravity device, implemented with the one-way clutch bearing and main rotor shaft from an Align T-Rex 450 electric helicopter. This enables you to use a hand crank to drive the precession axis by making small gentle back-and-forth movements with the crank lever, while the system rotates faster and faster on the precession axis, the little clutch bearing grabbing and releasing the shaft, grabbing and releasing, depending on the direction of the crank motion. Then when you stop cranking, the clutch allows the shaft to continue rotating with a small drag penalty. I didn't have the patience or the need to make it a "fullwave" system that would drive forwards on both back and forth motion of the crank, though, and I'm using a cogged timing belt and pulleys, not gears, but same principle.
I hope I'm not infringing on your patent !!
And forget you read that, it's supposed to be a secret.

These one-way clutch bearings do add measurable drag in the "freewheeling" direction, though, so I imagine in your system that in each direction, you are not only pushing the rotating part but also pushing against the drag of the unlocked clutch.

ETA: So you are obviously familiar with gearing and what happens to power and speed with gear ratio changes. The same input power can provide lots of torque at low speed, or high speed with little torque, on the output. And our rectifier systems can only add power to the shaft if they can turn faster than the shaft is already turning, and provide more torque than the shaft is resisting with. Depending on the generator you are going to have to turn it a couple hundred RPM at least and you will have to provide the required torque. If you gear up the speed in your system, you lose torque, unless you've also invented an overunity gearbox. 
Zeds rock back and forth pretty slowly, I think, and there is still the problem of the gravity providing power by moving the masses. With your mechanical rectifier, the downward rocking part has to provide 27 horsepower plus losses, so that your system of gearing can speed that up and provide the torque x rpm to drive the generator.
It might be simpler and more reliable and even more efficient to use the rocking of the Zeds to drive the generator by your mechanical rectifier system... but the catch is still the same as with the hydro motor: the input power to the system driving the generator has to be "after" the Zed advantage is applied, and must be at least 27 horsepower, more like 40, to drive the generator.
And if the only source of power back of your rectifier system is the rocking of the Zeds, moving water, and using gravity.... you still need the equivalent of a 10-meter high waterfall flowing at 6 gallons per second or so (not 58 this time), then somehow apply the 960 percent advantage to get from 3 hp to 27 hp to feed your rectifiers..... or even stranger, following Mister Wayne's description, you need 30 hp coming from or inside the Zeds, to be able to take one part, 3 hp, to run the system and return 9 times that NET to the consumer, 27 hp, to drive the 20 kW generator.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on November 17, 2012, 02:19:45 AM
TK
Quote
This enables you to use a hand crank to drive the precession axis
--------------
Sigh,
A rookie mistake !! [to hard to maintain resonance]
 
 
Thx
Chet
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2012, 04:25:50 AM
@chet: I am not trying to achieve any kind of resonance with the system I described. I am just using it to drive a shaft, that has to be able to spin freely when it's not being driven, and I'm doing it "by hand" because it's important for the demo for the person operating it to be able to feel the input forces used to drive the system in precession... because this force changes in an interesting and mind-blowing way at a certain point in the process. Someday, after I do a writeup of this experiment, I hope to be able to share it fully, it's very interesting indeed. But no resonance is needed for my purposes. ( Maybe that's why I'm not having "david hamel" experiences... there are no holes in my ceiling from departing spinny things.... yet.)

@webby: the thing I'm using, the one-way drive bearing from the TRex 450, is made for 5mm shafts, operates powering a 1-kilogram electric helicopter doing extreme aerobatics, at between 2 and 4 thousand RPM. It costs about 5 bucks and comes with a hardened steel shaft insert to "bite" against. I don't know how they can make them so cheaply.
I also found a bin full of new-old-stock copiermachine  plastic gear parts at Active Surplus in Toronto.... and lo and behold, one type of gear in the bin had the one-way clutch bearing embedded in it. I got a handful for 50 cents (canadian) each. These aren't as good as the Align T-Rex bearings but they work fine and for the price.... can't beatem.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on November 17, 2012, 01:07:21 PM
TK
So when your spinning your shaft [by hand]
and you get to this part
Quote
"" this force changes in an interesting and mind-blowing way at a certain point in the process""
 
Dare I ask.......
what happens next?
Is there a cigarette involved??
Thx
Chet
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2012, 02:52:34 PM
@ramset: I can't really talk about that one yet, but if you watch this video, you will get an idea about what I'm trying to do as far as testing goes. The apparatus is built and I'm in the data-gathering stage but it's hard to work on and progress is slow. No... no cigarettes involved, of any color!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: ramset on November 17, 2012, 03:33:43 PM
So are you being "cruel" ATM ....Weaving a web to snare the softer minds?
 
Spinny things ...one way rachet bearings....moments of devine discovery...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghL6KJD3EWg&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghL6KJD3EWg&feature=plcp)
 
The possibilities of what can happen when spinning wheels come together and move
rachetty things around in claimed frequencies of modulating resonance.........
 
Ahhh
The good stuff !!
 
Where did my friend Quinn go?
 
Thx
Chet
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2012, 09:56:39 PM
So are you being "cruel" ATM ....Weaving a web to snare the softer minds?
You asked, I answered to the best of my ability. NDAs, you know. That is NOT an "open source" project, has nothing to do with this thread, and I've made no claims whatsoever about it, other than that it is interesting and mind-blowing.
Quote

Spinny things ...one way rachet bearings....moments of devine discovery...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghL6KJD3EWg&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghL6KJD3EWg&feature=plcp)
 
The possibilities of what can happen when spinning wheels come together and move
rachetty things around in claimed frequencies of modulating resonance.........
 
Ahhh
The good stuff !!
 
Where did my friend Quinn go?
 
Thx
Chet
Your video has nothing to do with how I'm using the ratcheting bearing; there are no resonance phenomena involved, as far as I can tell, in my project, nor are there in the Zed Hydro Differential Pressure Exchange Rotary Zed (or linearZed) system, that I can see.

In fact, I'd like to see Mister Wayne's system running at some resonance.

Tesla's Earthquake Machine couldn't hold a candle to a big Zed with tons of water inside sloshing around at a mechanical resonant frequency, hammering away, don't you think?

In fact... I'd like to see evidence that Mister Wayne's devices are capable of making 20 kW in a footprint the size of a "tool shed".

IN FACT.... I'd like to see any evidence of anything at all that supports any of Mister Wayne's claims.

Except of course the claim that the Boy Scouts painted the thing. That, I am willing to accept without proof.  At least until the Scoutmaster returns my call.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 21, 2012, 03:41:39 PM
 This is to all of you who never posted but followed the thread...... Thank you for following.
Our ZED Technology is exactly what I have described. (I know some have convinced themselves otherwise - so is life)
The Purpose of comming here was to educate others on how we developed a method of using Buoyancy to unlock the mechanics/method required to produce sustainable Free Energy.
Not Magical Free Energy - but Net Excess Energy.
Do to the constant interruptions, accusations and hijacking, it has become necessary to form a private group.
The group is called Hydro Energy Revolution Professionals.
So far consisting of twenty individuals set on three goals:
Understanding and analyzing the Principal of operation.
Educating the group in order to educate others.
and working together to bring the Energy to the world.
Great work is being shared.
The dynamics and diversity are great.
We are our own worst critics (good critics), and we have open discussions regarding claims - and each claim is answered with theory, then data collection (physical proof), and verified independently.
All of the replication members are present - and as the share information - a common theme has appeared - surprise and discovery.
No one in the group is required to "believe" in the Technology - but they are held to a professional standard.
As the group works to catch up in understanding the ZED principal - we will also be examining our improved models, the TAZ, and the evolution of our system - the SPAZ.
At my Lab - we are currently testing the TAZ, in its worst COP to date - 2.85 or 285% efficient (extreme overkill control of the process).
and the best COP 13 or 1300% efficient - run as close to nominal input as necessary.
The final run will likely be around 8 or 800%
The secret to our extremely high efficiency -
Two things:
Our "input" controls the relationships within the buoyancy of our system, the input is an indirect cause of the output.
Such as a rudder is to a boat - it steers the reaction or lack of reaction to the flow - but it is the flow itself that moves the boat.
We have unlocked the principal of operation of the ZED and reduced the process to the point that we can actuate the pressure and flow of the output - without direct input.
And Secondly - the momentum at the end of stroke has been captured and returns to reduce in the input further.
We are forging ahead - as always - I can be contacted @ my e-mail below and I update our web site almost weekly, Free energy at last....it has been a long and exciting journey.
At the end of the day - we have a fueless energy producing system - and we are working toward the design of the model for the public.
If you are interested in helping or Vision, the mission, or adding your skill to the adventure - you are welcome.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00000185/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: truesearch on November 21, 2012, 04:01:28 PM
@Wayne:


Thanks for your update here.


Are you still working toward having Mark Dansie come to your shop? What is your latest estimate/guess for that to potentially happen?


truesearch
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 21, 2012, 05:22:34 PM
Why don't you ask him these questions right up front:

Do you have right now a working model that runs entirely without power from outside, indefinitely, making usable power for external use?
Have you ever had a model that produced 20 kW of usable output power with no input, running indefinitely?
Have you ever had a model that could power your own home, without any input?
How long is the longest, unpowered, unattended run that you have ever achieved? Longer than four hours?

You will not get a straight, simple YES or NO answer to any of these questions -- because Mister Wayne does not lie.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 21, 2012, 05:50:43 PM
@Wayne:


Thanks for your update here.


Are you still working toward having Mark Dansie come to your shop? What is your latest estimate/guess for that to potentially happen?


truesearch

Wayne has made two public statements this month and as always they indicate verification is just around the corner,
his statements have been indicating verification just around the corner for over six months, and that is a fact.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles, are you ready
for the internal validation, and the external validation? Me too!

Quote from: mrwayne on November 14 on his web site
We have finished all known mechanical needs of the system.lets give it 9 days.We will be having extended runs
during these 9 days and we will be making video's.We may wait to send them out to external media-after Mark has come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite mrwayne saying he is giving out information no one so far on this forum has produced overunity beyond
reasonable doubt, and no one has made a self-runner, now according to MrWayne this was because of the sceptics,
so now that he has his own personal dictatorship forum can we expect to see a replication of a self-runner ?

It would be great if I could be proved wrong and Wayne starts to offer more then promising words and excuses.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 22, 2012, 12:59:14 AM
This is to all of you who never posted but followed the thread...... Thank you for following.
Our ZED Technology is exactly what I have described. (I know some have convinced themselves otherwise - so is life)
The Purpose of comming here was to educate others on how we developed a method of using Buoyancy to unlock the mechanics/method required to produce sustainable Free Energy.
Then why didn't you do so? Why doesn't your patent application contain sufficient detail for one skilled in the art to reproduce your claim of "Net excess energy"?
Quote
Not Magical Free Energy - but Net Excess Energy.
What is the difference? If your device works with NO INPUT, runs indefinitely and produces usable output energy (work).... and isn't running on a depleteable stored source..... then what it is doing is such "advanced technology that it is indistinguishable from magic". However, as we all know, you have not demonstrated this to be the case at all.... at least not here or anywhere I can find.
Quote
Do to the constant interruptions, accusations and hijacking, it has become necessary to form a private group.
Is that why, or is it because you could not honestly answer the questions being asked, without embarrassing yourself or actually outright lying? For example, here is one of the questions you cannot honestly answer: Where is the "simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (a direct quotation of your words, Wayne Travis)? How was its clear overunity determined, what is the ratio of output work to input work, and where is this system  now?
Here's another one you will not honestly answer: Do you now or have you ever had a system that would produce 20 kW output in the footprint of a toolshed?
And another one: Are you running your house on your system yet? If not... why not?
Quote
The group is called Hydro Energy Revolution Professionals.
So far consisting of twenty individuals set on three goals:
Understanding and analyzing the Principal of operation.
Educating the group in order to educate others.
and working together to bring the Energy to the world.
Great work is being shared.
The dynamics and diversity are great.
Yet, nobody has been successful in producing any "overunity" performance, have they. Spreadsheets don't count !!
Quote
We are our own worst critics (good critics), and we have open discussions regarding claims - and each claim is answered with theory, then data collection (physical proof), and verified independently.
Why didn't you do that here, from the very beginning?  I seriously doubt that you are "Professionals" in the area of hydraulic engineering and physics and mechanical engineering in that group.
Quote
All of the replication members are present - and as the share information - a common theme has appeared - surprise and discovery.
No one in the group is required to "believe" in the Technology - but they are held to a professional standard.
Do you mean that they are required to provide evidence that supports their claims? Why did you not do that when you were posting here regularly? I think it is because you cannot, and you still cannot, but your sycophants are too polite to challenge you.
Quote
As the group works to catch up in understanding the ZED principal - we will also be examining our improved models, the TAZ, and the evolution of our system - the SPAZ.
At my Lab - we are currently testing the TAZ, in its worst COP to date - 2.85 or 285% efficient (extreme overkill control of the process).
and the best COP 13 or 1300% efficient - run as close to nominal input as necessary.
The final run will likely be around 8 or 800%
Now you are just blowing smoke, and fooling around with your own definition of "efficiency" which no legitimate evaluator shares. Or can you cite references where your definitions and methods for calculating COP are used anywhere else, in any industry at all? Please do, if you can. But I think you cannot.
Quote
The secret to our extremely high efficiency -
Two things:
Our "input" controls the relationships within the buoyancy of our system, the input is an indirect cause of the output.
Such as a rudder is to a boat - it steers the reaction or lack of reaction to the flow - but it is the flow itself that moves the boat.
We have unlocked the principal of operation of the ZED and reduced the process to the point that we can actuate the pressure and flow of the output - without direct input.
And Secondly - the momentum at the end of stroke has been captured and returns to reduce in the input further.
You have said over and over again that you have NO INPUT. NO INPUT means no input, at least on this side of the Red River. Now you are prevaricating again....
Quote
We are forging ahead - as always - I can be contacted @ my e-mail below and I update our web site almost weekly, Free energy at last....it has been a long and exciting journey.
"Forging" is indeed an appropriate word for you to use.
Quote
At the end of the day - we have a fueless energy producing system - and we are working toward the design of the model for the public.
And every ten days or so you come up with a complete revision in the design. We here don't even know what a Rotary Zed is, or whether it actually IS "patent pending" or if that is another of your redefinitions of technical terms, like you tried to do with "Patent" some months ago, when what you really have is just a patent application. And now you've even gone beyond the Rotary Zed, apparently and are to the SPAZ.  No wonder you are still "working toward the design" instead of demonstrating a running model.
Quote
If you are interested in helping or Vision, the mission, or adding your skill to the adventure - you are welcome.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00000185/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
But TODAY.... at the end of TODAY.... you still do not have an ACTUAL PHYSICAL DEVICE, a system that IS RUNNING by itself without external input of any kind, MAKING AT PRESENT useful power and running "forever", powering itself and some load bigger than a few lamps, and not depleting some internal energy store.

Do you? Yes, or NO, Mister Wayne.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 22, 2012, 01:07:32 AM
Quote
Such as a rudder is to a boat - it steers the reaction or lack of reaction to the flow - but it is the flow itself that moves the boat.

Facepalm. Where does the energy come to move the "FLOW" ??? It comes from the boat's engines. powered with fossil fuels (stored sunlight) or nuclear fission (stored energy of supernovae) , or for a sailboat, the wind, which is powered by the living Sun.

Where does the energy come from in a SPAZ, or whatever you are calling it this fortnight? I think it comes from the same places, and is delivered to your home and barn thru wires.

Think of how easily you could prove me wrong, embarrass the hell out of me and make me shut up for good. All you have to do is to prove your claims. Living thru this winter with your home powered only by your own system, unhooked from the mains, would be a great way to do it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
@Wayne:


Thanks for your update here.


Are you still working toward having Mark Dansie come to your shop? What is your latest estimate/guess for that to potentially happen?


truesearch
Yes,
And thank you.
Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.
In Mark and mine's last conversation - just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again.
Will we be ready?
Depends - ZED or TAZ....
Well - we have agreed on certain conditions for preparation for the ZED, and I added a few more for the Validations "ease of access" and while we were doing that - the lab developed the TAZ - which is so easily verifiably Over unity - that the issues that existed with the ZED - no longer apply.
The issue with the ZED was - it was only 160% efficient (prior to converting to electricity for show) a dual three layer system - 60% is just not enough to overcome all the losses in the conversion process and give a robust show.
Mark has seen the Photo's of the TAZ, and private updates - but he has not seen it in person yet.
Mark knows our ability to measure and the quality of our team nd our engineers  - so I expect we may have a new plan with the TAZ being so easy to confirm.
My opinion is that we will be changing priority of the ZED for the TAZ.
Now - we would never had discovered the TAZ if it were not for all the due diligence and pursuit of the principal of operation of the ZED.
The Both function with the same principal - the primary change is how we activate the principal.
Hope this helps. We will bring Clean and Free Energy. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001893/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 22, 2012, 05:00:26 AM
Notice that Mister Wayne chooses, yet again, not to answer my simple, yes or no questions.

See... I told you that he does not lie. He simply doesn't answer, or, like the answer about MD's upcoming visit.... he talks paragraphs around the question but still does not answer.

Ask me that question and I might have said, "Yes, of course we are still working on getting ready for a visit from Mark, but since we don't have a self runner yet, we don't really know when that will be, so we haven't made any final arrangements. Yet."

"We both hope we are ready, after his two other appointments, sometime in the indeterminate future....we hope to be ready" is really a different answer to a different sort of question, I think.

I sure hope your measurement engineers are better at measuring than you are at spelling, Mister Wayne. After all.... they aren't even going to have spellcheckers or dictionaries to refer to. Principle and Principal..... different things, but who cares. Power and work.... different things.... but who cares.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 22, 2012, 09:01:24 AM
Hi,
   I only hope mrwayne's principal principle is not to hoodwink investors with his Travis Principle!
                                                      John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 22, 2012, 10:54:25 AM
Yes,
And thank you.
Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.
In Mark and mine's last conversation - just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again.
Will we be ready?


You need Mark there...you don't need Mark there....Make up your mind which one is it ? Come off it MrWayne reading
your recent statements you are a man of great contradiction and no doubt if there is a response to this it will
be full of excuses, I hope most members here can draw their own conclusions without being fed more propaganda.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements - we have selected a prevalidation member
to come this weekend if we are ready and Mark happens to be locked into a conference or is traveling. This member will
visit us and then report to Mark, at that point a decision will be made if we need to arrange schedules and add more
data collection, or if Mark can arrange a return.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 03:26:38 PM
Hi,
   I only hope mrwayne's principal principle is not to hoodwink investors with his Travis Principle!
                                                      John.
John,
principle principal.... very cute
Just a note on this fine Thanksgiving morning - to jog the memory a bit..
Mark Dansie has clearly stated that I am not a scam five + times when asked on the Smart Scare Crow show - you can find and verify that on you tube.
He states that our machine "Stopped him in his tracks" and that we are the .1% out of the 99.9% failed attempts at free energy.
That our team, team work, engineers are "Salt of the Earth"
This is the same conclusion visitors have reported on this site that visit - this thread has been hijacked by a rotation of speculators that have not visited.
I hope you are not just another alter ego of "OU bashers" - and are a individual - self thinking person.
My point:
One side of the argument has facts relating to our system and our team - the other has facts regarding their personal experience - separate from us.
Your concern for our support team:
We do have investors - and of the whole group --- about 48 are engineers...... now - the OU bashers woul dhave you think they are all just stupid??
No they are highly intelligent men and women who looked for themselves, made their own decision - and volunteered to join our purpose.
Not a single one was asked or solicited - "joined on their own" - "based on their own analysis".
What would you do if you understood the process properly - and realized the potential? Friend or foe?
Does foe make any intelligent sense at all? It does if you are not able to understand the system..... so I let it be.
Three camps have emerged:
The ones who sit back and wait -
The ones who join in and help with skills and life experience -
The ones who are above above looking -
.......
The result the first group is safe from the mistake of getting involved in something requiring change -
The Second group risks wasting their time or being associated with a world changer -
The third group tries to convince the first two groups to think like them -
.......
Good Luck with your journey - everyone in our group knows we are legitimate.
We are busy working thru it all, it is a long and hard process - we are not the first people to have mud thrown at us by those that fear change. I have the hijackers, mud slingers on "Ignore" freedom of speach does not include the requirement to be heard.Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001767/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Blanco69 on November 22, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
I'd asked this question a few months ago and Mr Wayne must have missed it because he didn't answer.
I notice on your website that the nice diagram showing a moving device is turning a wheel at it's centre. I assume this is a visual representation of the free (or not free) output as a force that is turning that wheel. My question is this:
If you remove the wheel from the system and there is nowhere for the force that is clearly turning it to go. What happens to the system? Does it:
A) Increase in cycle frequency until it shakes itself apart.
B) Increase in system pressure until it blows up.
C) Something else happens.

Please don't answer by saying C) without further explanation. I'm trying to learn here if you are trying to teach.

Thanks,

Blanco.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 22, 2012, 03:40:43 PM
Yet another promising speech more propaganda and now playing the blame game, I wonder which part of an overunity forum didn't Wayne understand....again he fails to answer simple questions put by TK and others.
(I know you're probably looking Wayne as you often contradict yourself)
Despite mrwayne saying he is giving out information no one so far on this forum has produced overunity beyond
reasonable doubt, and no one has made a self-runner, now according to MrWayne this was because of the sceptics,
so now that he has his own personal dictatorship forum can we expect to see a replication of a self-runner ?


It would be great if I could be proved wrong and Wayne starts to offer more then promising words and excuses. Unfortunately time and time again MrWayne proves me right
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 03:51:41 PM
I'd asked this question a few months ago and Mr Wayne must have missed it because he didn't answer.
I notice on your website that the nice diagram showing a moving device is turning a wheel at it's centre. I assume this is a visual representation of the free (or not free) output as a force that is turning that wheel. My question is this:
If you remove the wheel from the system and there is nowhere for the force that is clearly turning it to go. What happens to the system? Does it:
A) Increase in cycle frequency until it shakes itself apart.
B) Increase in system pressure until it blows up.
C) Something else happens.

Please don't answer by saying C) without further explanation. I'm trying to learn here if you are trying to teach.

Thanks,

Blanco.
I do remember the question - I have stopped teaching on this site and asked for private -e-mail so I could answer without twenty interuptions.
My apology if that was not clear - out of respect.
I will also forgive your tone - and take responsibility this one time.
The spinning thing is a hydraulic motor turnng a generator to consume the excess production - if it were to stop - that means the accumulators would eventually fill and the system our stop - dead head - until relieved at which time the system would begin running agan -
This was the Condition when Mark took that video November 2011, we had to vent the fluid or let the system stop.
Now we have a very nice monitored control system which stops and satrts the Genrators as well as the ZED function at need.
Hope this helps - if you are sincere about learning - write me for an invite to our professional forum.
headed to Mom's
Good day
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 22, 2012, 04:36:03 PM
Example questions:

Do you Mister Wayne have now or have you EVER had a unit that makes 20 kW usable output power, with no input and no depletable storage, in a footprint the size of a toolshed?

Example answers: "Yes, we do and it can be seen at any time, here's a photo and a shot of my last month's electric bill" or "NO, we do  not, the description given was speculative and represents projections based on calculations."

Another:
Do you, Mister Wayne, have a device RIGHT NOW OPERATING without input of any kind, running itself indefinitely without depleting its internal storage, providing useful output work IN ANY AMOUNT?

Example answers:"Yes, we do, here's a video and a notarized statement from 3 members of the mechanical engineering faculty at the U of OK in Norman (an hour's drive from Chikasaw) who have seen it running during an afternoon and overnight into the next day." or...... "No, we don't, sorry, there have been problems and we are behind schedule on our projections."

Easy, simple questions, that could be responded to with easy, simple answers.... UNLESS there some reason for not answering in complete, simple and grammatical sentences that actually answer the questions.

I can only think of one legitimate reason that Mister Wayne does not answer the questions affirmatively: Mister Wayne does not lie (he told us so himself), so he cannot answer "YES" to the questions.

The reasons that he cannot answer "NO" have to do with his self-delusion, his responsibility to his investors, and a bunch of really dissappointed Boy Scouts.


A 20 kW output device working ON ANY PRINCIPLE WHATSOEVER, that makes its output by turning an ordinary generator with an ordinary  hydraulic pump/motor, must have around 30 HORSEPOWER of mechanical power to be delivered as hydraulic pressure to the hydraulic motor... probably a bit more due to losses in the motor and generator. This represents a flow of 20 or 25 gallons per minute at pressures well over 2000 psi. LOOK IT UP.

Now we are told that, instead of NO Exhaust, the unit Mark Dansie videotaped had to have hydraulic fluid bled off.... EXHAUSTED......
Quote
This was the Condition when Mark took that video November 2011, we had to vent the fluid or let the system stop.

Of course that wasn't anywhere near a 20kW output device, was it. In fact.... it had NO generator and made NO usable output at all.... except for the vented hydraulic fluid????

Keep Mister Wayne talking...... with every post he makes, the inconsistencies and improbabilities continue to pile up.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 22, 2012, 04:43:39 PM
I am astounded.
Quote
This was the Condition when Mark took that video November 2011, we had to vent the fluid or let the system stop.

Yet we have been told over and over that that system was a self-runner that had no input, no exhaust and would run indefinitely. Now we are told that it had to have an exhaust...."vented fluid" or it would stop.   ("Let the system stop"... what a prevarication that is. You are doing everything you can to try to make it NOT STOP... .by bleeding out its working fluid.)  But it stops anyway when the fluid is gone. UNLESS OF COURSE you keep pouring fluid back in at the INTAKE so it doesn't run out of fluid.

No input, no exhaust, self running..... but it unless we want to "let it stop" we have to "vent fluid".... but what happens when the fluid that is inside is vented totally? It stops. Or the fluid has to be replaced. Right?

In other words... IT HAS AN EXHAUST... the vented fluid. IT NEEDS AN INPUT.... the fluid needs to be replaced. OTHERWISE IT WILL STOP.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 22, 2012, 06:04:18 PM
Hi,
   finally we're getting a couple of facts Ref. post 3333 "160 % is not enough"  "to overcome the losses"
And  on Mark's visit something about venting fluid or it would stop. To me this says that the ZED did not
work as claimed.
   Power is rate of doing work, so to get our 20 hp. we need to drop 50 tons of water through a foot
every 10 secs, ! guess the ZED does about 6 strokes/min.
 Come on you mathematicians, show me where I'm wrong,
                                                                                    John     
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 23, 2012, 04:07:49 AM
Hi,
   finally we're getting a couple of facts Ref. post 3333 "160 % is not enough"  "to overcome the losses"
And  on Mark's visit something about venting fluid or it would stop. To me this says that the ZED did not
work as claimed.
   Power is rate of doing work, so to get our 20 hp. we need to drop 50 tons of water through a foot
every 10 secs, ! guess the ZED does about 6 strokes/min.
 Come on you mathematicians, show me where I'm wrong,
                                                                                    John   
I see you are competing with TK - or yourself.
If you want to discuss the ZED - you should at least know how it works.
Welcome to the club of the "Deleted"
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 23, 2012, 08:50:33 AM
Hi mrwayne,
                   deleted from what? It was  you that said it doesn't work, 160% isn't enough to cover the losses.
Therefore if it doesn't work, what you're claiming about, it is deceptive.
                                                                                      John.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 23, 2012, 09:25:21 AM
Hi mrwayne,
                   deleted from what? It was  you that said it doesn't work, 160% isn't enough to cover the losses.
Therefore if it doesn't work, what you're claiming about, it is deceptive.
                                                                                      John.

What he means is that he's put you on his "ignore" list, because you ask him uncomfortable questions. So he doesn't even see your posts, he just gets a placeholder that says "you are ignoring this user".

I'll say it again: it does not matter if the Zed's principle of operation is a miracle, is from the force of gravity, is from the dancing of elves or if there is a hidden steam engine powered by a nuclear reactor in there. If the device is to turn an ordinary generator with an ordinary hydraulic motor and make 20 kW electrical output, then _something_..... Boy Scouts on treadmills, wrinkled old gnomes spinning of straw into gold, I don't care: SOMETHING must provide the  hydraulic motor with 20-30 HP of mechanical power in the form of high pressure hydraulic fluid at a high rate of flow: 25 gallons per minute at 2000-3000 psi, in that neighborhood.

Where, in any Zed system that will fit into the footprint of a "tool shed", will that pressure and flow come from?

Or, if Webby's force rectifier clutch bearings are used to turn the generator with some kind of rocking back and forth motion, then the imbalance that causes the rocking must be on the order that Minnie has pointed out, to provide the shaft horsepower to make 20 kW from the generator.

Yes, modern homes are built with 18-24 kW of electrical service. So a 20kW unit is the right size for home use to replace dependence on the mains.
So where is the horsepower coming from, in a Zed or Skuz or whatever you call it, sloshing water around in a toolshed footprint, for the 30 HP?

Sorry, the claim is implausible and sinks of its own weight.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 23, 2012, 12:18:41 PM
I see you are competing with TK - or yourself.
If you want to discuss the ZED - you should at least know how it works.
Welcome to the club of the "Deleted"

How arrogant you are MrWayne travesty no one is allowed to disagree with you, and as for your contradictions
You say you can't handle this forum and that you are leaving and yet here you are making posts again ??????
I wonder how long it will be before Red is back attacking people for speaking their minds and asking simple
questions, you and him are a great double act it's like Master Blaster from the Mad Max film Thunder dome.

Your own words say it all, first you say you don't need Mark to come as he is not part of the final validation team,
then you say because Mark is on honeymoon and has other appointments you will wait for his return,
even though in one of your posts you told everyone you made arrangements with mark that everything could go ahead If he was unavailable..........It would appear by your words that you seek out every possible excuse for delaying.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 23, 2012, 01:26:20 PM
How arrogant you are MrWayne travesty no one is allowed to disagree with you, and as for your contradictions
You say you can't handle this forum and that you are leaving and yet here you are making posts again ??? ???
I wonder how long it will be before Red is back attacking people for speaking their minds and asking simple
questions, you and him are a great double act it's like Master Blaster from the Mad Max film Thunder dome.

Your own words say it all, first you say you don't need Mark to come as he is not part of the final validation team,
then you say because Mark is on honeymoon and has other appointments you will wait for his return,
even though in one of your posts you told everyone you made arrangements with mark that everything could go ahead If he was unavailable..........It would appear by your words that you seek out every possible excuse for delaying.
Is this all you can come up with? Oh my.........goodness.............how far reaching you are...
My wife has been ill with a 2cm kidney stone - and this has delayed my work - which has made it possible to fit things into a new schedule - you are so childish.
You are an old knight fighting wind mills........except he was noble - even if his mind was gone...and it is not like we don't have enough real problems in the world - like an energy problem to deal with.
You are fired for putting your desires above the needs of the many :(
To ALL -
When you have a paradigm changing technology - which is continually improving - you change plans, when schedules of important team members change - you change to best fit the needs of the Vision of the company - The protection of the IP and the value for the customer and shareholder.
Do you know what kills a good idea - no ability to change with the flow of events, no ability to find an end around to a problem - or no ability to remove them. When life happens - schedules change - I will pick my wife over a machine anyway.
Here is another truth:
Our IP is solid and we will continue to tell the truth, and path we are taking - regardless of your continued childish attempts to slander our work.
Ask the children this;
Can can "you" tell the group how Wayne's system concentrates the effect of buoyancy enough to fit in a tool shed?
Let me answer for them - No - it is no wonder they avoid the fact - the primary effect of the ZED - because it is undeniable.
Then:
Tell them to go back and read the thread over - the answers are there - regardless of what they claim - or have been willing to understand.
p.s. have them skip their own posts - it will save about 85% of the reading - we don't want them confused with their own disinformation. ;)
Good Luck.
To those children - If you want to have facts to discredit us - well you can't - Sorry for you - we are telling the truth.  ???
To All.
Back to the Good work, to bring relief to the clean energy needs of the world ....starting right here at the Lab.
Wayne Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001777/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 23, 2012, 02:22:42 PM
Hi,
  I'm very disappointed, I really thought we were on to something here. How can mrwayne accuse us of not knowing how a ZED
works when he has said that it doesn't work?
    I'm a farmer in the UK. We use hydraulics to run machinery and I can tell you there's a lot of pressure.  When a pipe breaks
you're all too soon drenched in hot oil.
  In the thirties my grandfather pumped water for his farm with a thing he called a hydraulic ram, the water went through it and
was stopped by a valve, the shock sent some water up to a tank. There had to be a pressure vessel to even out the flow.
  The point I'm making with that example is that much kinetic energy must be wasted if you start to see-saw water, the only
solution has to be a very slow cycle.
  The idea of a rotary method is much more appealing, good luck with your TAZ mrwayne,
                                                                                                          John
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 23, 2012, 03:14:51 PM
Hi,
  I'm very disappointed, I really thought we were on to something here. How can mrwayne accuse us of not knowing how a ZED
works when he has said that it doesn't work?
    I'm a farmer in the UK. We use hydraulics to run machinery and I can tell you there's a lot of pressure.  When a pipe breaks
you're all too soon drenched in hot oil.
  In the thirties my grandfather pumped water for his farm with a thing he called a hydraulic ram, the water went through it and
was stopped by a valve, the shock sent some water up to a tank. There had to be a pressure vessel to even out the flow.
  The point I'm making with that example is that much kinetic energy must be wasted if you start to see-saw water, the only
solution has to be a very slow cycle.
  The idea of a rotary method is much more appealing, good luck with your TAZ mrwayne,
                                                                                                          John
A very smart man told me to avoid people twisting your words - define the meaning of words. ::)
What do you define as "doesn't work" - (and those are not my words or meaning of the conversation)
Is it a model ready for the Wal mart shelf? if so - You are wittedly right.
Or are you referring to "the paradigm shift in the understanding of mechanical energy production" -
that is how Mark Dansie described the ZED to me - after his second visit to see it running closed looped..... you forgot about that? ???
If so - well your wrong - I did not say that our system did not work, and will not say that - you are mislead or misleading.
The ZED technology is what it is, and it is a new understanding - obviously hard to some.
Now what I said in context - our first three layered model - is 60% over unity as is.... thats is not a failure - and is not a "It does not work statement".
In context "I" do not feel 60% overunity is enough to WOW the world - my call.
So we are presenting our newest model instead of our old one - the new one works much better - yes it is already built and being tested successfully. EOS (End Of Story) It is fine.....
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001775/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 23, 2012, 04:31:54 PM
HELP!
         would anyone agree that  "just not enough to cover all the losses" means the same as it didn't work?
 "Changing priority of the ZED for the TAZ"  means he's given up on one and is trying something new?
                                                                                             John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 23, 2012, 05:32:28 PM
HELP!
         would anyone agree that  "just not enough to cover all the losses" means the same as it didn't work?
 "Changing priority of the ZED for the TAZ"  means he's given up on one and is trying something new?
                                                                                             John.
OK - you did not do your homework - it appears.......
Let me help you. ;)
Our ZED is a self running pump - no external input - no emissions, no fuel - very over unity -
Do you want to see "free pumping?" we did that along time ago.

(Lots of call for that Agricultural pumping alone...it is a 1 billion dollar market.)
Now we have the ability to provide the holy grail of Free energy - enough power to pay for the conversion cost to electricity and still provide ample power, do it with a short return on the investment, clean and safe.

Now lets fix the context of what you siad earlier or you misinterpreted - I was answering a question  regarding our model 8 - with all of its Data collection and special equipment for the Validation team.

It was never designed to produce electricity - just prove the OU - which we did a year ago.
p.s  This has been coverd here on this thread five times.

When we were asked to use it to produce electricity also - we tried. I am not happy "ENOUGH" with the end result.

Now - If we chose to pump water? that's fine, our dual three layered system is 160% efficient - do we want to use the pressure and flow to make electricity? Well - that reduces the net output.

ps - the effeciency and net goes up with layers......160 was our least capability - built for expense and testing.

I hope this helps.

I can't blame anyone for being confused - it seems to be the agenda of many.

So maybe you can "HELP" me - don't jump on a band wagon - do your homework Wayne Travis

President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001801/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 23, 2012, 06:14:23 PM
Is this all you can come up with? Oh my.........goodness.............how far reaching you are...
My wife has been ill with a 2cm kidney stone - and this has delayed my work - which has made it possible to fit things into a new schedule - you are so childish.
You are an old knight fighting wind mills........except he was noble - even if his mind was gone...and it is not like we don't have enough real problems in the world - like an energy problem to deal with.
You are fired for putting your desires above the needs of the many :(

It would appear that you are reading my post despite you're saying I'm on ignore.
You can call me what you like it changes nothing scientifically factual, this is the first time I've heard
that your wife is ill, so you are now saying this is the reason for the delays on verification.
So why did you make the statements below, it all seems very contradictory.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
Yes,And thank you.Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.In Mark and mine's last conversation -
just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we
both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again. Will we be ready?

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements - we have selected a prevalidation member
to come this weekend if we are ready and Mark happens to be locked into a conference or is traveling. This member will
visit us and then report to Mark, at that point a decision will be made if we need to arrange schedules and add more
data collection, or if Mark can arrange a return.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.

As for the rest of your repetitive preaching about doing your home work and not understanding why the system can't work,
this has all been gone through a number of times by other members who would like to believe your claim but repeatedly
you fail to answer the simple questions, as you don't pay attention very often you probably didn't notice that I have
never said you're device doesn't work, all I have been asking for is more evidence.

Despite mrwayne saying he is giving out information no one so far on this forum has produced overunity beyond
reasonable doubt, and no one has made a self-runner, now according to MrWayne this was because of the sceptics,
so now that he has his own personal dictatorship forum can we expect to see a replication of a self-runner ?
and the weight goes on for the verification team but as Wayne says it's just around the corner, again and again
and again, I've lost count how many times he says it's about to happen and then comes up with an excuse.
Doesn't sound to me like somebody that can be trusted on what they say.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 23, 2012, 07:00:32 PM
It would appear that you are reading my post despite you're saying I'm on ignore.
You can call me what you like it changes nothing scientifically factual, this is the first time I've heard
that your wife is ill, so you are now saying this is the reason for the delays on verification.
So why did you make the statements below, it all seems very contradictory.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
Yes,And thank you.Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.In Mark and mine's last conversation -
just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we
both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again. Will we be ready?

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements - we have selected a prevalidation member
to come this weekend if we are ready and Mark happens to be locked into a conference or is traveling. This member will
visit us and then report to Mark, at that point a decision will be made if we need to arrange schedules and add more
data collection, or if Mark can arrange a return.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.

As for the rest of your repetitive preaching about doing your home work and not understanding why the system can't work,
this has all been gone through a number of times by other members who would like to believe your claim but repeatedly
you fail to answer the simple questions, as you don't pay attention very often you probably didn't notice that I have
never said you're device doesn't work, all I have been asking for is more evidence.

Despite mrwayne saying he is giving out information no one so far on this forum has produced overunity beyond
reasonable doubt, and no one has made a self-runner, now according to MrWayne this was because of the sceptics,
so now that he has his own personal dictatorship forum can we expect to see a replication of a self-runner ?
and the weight goes on for the verification team but as Wayne says it's just around the corner, again and again
and again, I've lost count how many times he says it's about to happen and then comes up with an excuse.
Doesn't sound to me like somebody that can be trusted on what they say.
Show me your efforts power cat - show me your replication.
and I will show you the others.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 23, 2012, 07:21:36 PM
1: No, my interpretation is that the overage is not significant enough for what Wayne wants to present to the world.

What happened to the 960 percent, then, that he claimed two weeks ago... and if he claimed it then he must have had it even earlier. Isn't that significant enough?  Or perhaps that's just a projection and he does not in fact have 960 percent now.
Quote

2: No, the TAZ is still within the scope of the ZED and is an improvement to the system as a whole, or may be an add-on to the system.

So far there are at least three known replications of a ZED from the information that has been made available, there performance may or may not be what is desired but they are built and they go up and down and lift a weight up and go down without that same weight left on the system.

So far the only mathematical model put forward to approximate the output of the ZED has been proved inaccurate by the replications.

Does that include LarryC's spreadheet? Does that include all of the modeling that Mister Wayne says has been done on his behalf?
Quote

So far a professional skeptic has seen the system in operation and is impressed by it and has not found fault in it,, further testing has been and should be required, this testing is planned to happen at the time the inventor is ready for it.
ORLY? Are you talking about Mark Dansie? Perhaps you should let him speak for himself. Are you talking about some other "professional skeptic" then? Where is that skeptic's report?

Come on Webby. THINK for a moment, please. Is this what you are saying:  You start with the moving parts down. You put a weight on top. You put in your lift water volume or pressure. The moving parts and the weight rise up. At the top you slide the weight off sideways. Then the moving parts sink back to the bottom and you recover all of the lift water or pressure that you put in to make the lift and so you have put in NO net work.

It sounds to me like this is what you are claiming.

IF SO.... then as I asked mondrasek earlier....(remember his response?)  then what is keeping you from moving ALL THE WEIGHT THAT YOU LIKE, tons, hundreds of tons, bazillions of tons a little at a time,  up to your platform, FOR FREE, which weight you can then let down later with any of a number of mechanisms, even a cuckoo clock, and get essentially an INFINITE return? Huh?

There is either something wrong with your description or my understanding of your description. There probably is something wrong with your understanding of the terms "work" and "energy", "gravitational potential energy", "power" and "kinetic energy". There is nothing wrong with my understanding of the physics involved here.

If you _do_  need to perform work to complete this cycle, with the lifted weight remaining up on the platform..... this is INPUT, isn't it? What then, is the ratio of the INPUT WORK to the output work? If you _do not_  need to perform work to complete this cycle, with the lifted weight remaining up on the platform, then just start lifting weights, for free --- use water, pump it up into an elevated reservoir then let it run back downhill thru a turbine. YOU HAVE INFINITE ENERGY if the system lifts a weight for free and can leave the weight lifted and do it over and over again without putting in any net work. Do you not understand that?


Now.... where does the mechanical power come from to turn an ordinary hydraulic motor, turning an ordinary generator, to produce 20 kW of output power? Where does the hydraulic pressure of 2000-3000 psi, and the flow of 20-25 gallons per minute, come from?
If your force rectifier system is used, what is the necessary torque  _at the generator's shaft_  and what is the "see-saw" imbalance required to make this torque? What in any Zed can produce that degree of shifting imbalance (minnie has already calculated the degree of imbalance required, and the rate of the see-saw.... slow.... but the generator shaft must turn fast enough to generate.....so your rectifier will need to be geared up.....)

Next: If you have to "vent" fluid from a system so that it won't stop running..... is that an exhaust or not? What happens when the internal store of fluid is all vented? It stops, right? Unless you replace the fluid before it stops. Right? Is that an input, or not?
If you've advertised a machine that runs itself without input or exhaust, but it behaves like that, does it "work" or not?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 23, 2012, 07:37:38 PM
Show me your efforts power cat - show me your replication.
and I will show you the others.
 
Wayne

That's not how it works, Sir. You have made extraordinary claims. It is COMPLETELY UP TO YOU to provide support for your claims. And you cannot.
Powercat is under absolutely no obligation to you or anyone to 'disprove' you. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to show beyond doubt that your claims are valid. What you have shown so far is that they are NOT valid-- the machine that MD saw needed to vent fluid overboard--EXHAUST-- or it would stop. It made no electrical output. When its internal fluid was all vented, it stopped. To run it again you must provide INPUT by at the very least, replacing the 'vented' fluid. And yet you claim it "worked".

You don't have a machine RIGHT NOW that actually runs itself, providing useful output power, with no input and no exhaust, and most especially not one that makes 20 kW power output in the footprint of a toolshed. How do I know this? Because if you did, you would simply say so, without your usual prevarication and word salad "explanations" that only dodge the questions.

You are still working, trying to implement your ideas in hardware, and they "almost work" but something always is wrong. So you redesign and rebuild, but you fail to realize what your hardware failures are actually telling you: the problem is not in the hardware.

Look here. I have a little machine that runs without fuel, no exhaust and no input. It's a low power demonstration version --- data gathering-- so there is no electrical generator attached.

This little machine will run forever, making useful output power. Scaled up to the size of a toolshed it will make 20 kW easy.  Professional skeptics have seen my demonstrator and agree that it works. (In fact, it was designed by a professional skeptic, machined from metal and plastic and carbon by one, and it's being operated in a laboratory full of genuine professional skeptics.)
You can see for yourself in the video that it works, and quite well too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovJzmCLdw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovJzmCLdw)
There is just one problem that I'm sure I'll be able to solve soon. The machine stops running after a while; for some reason the reservoir of hot water... the precharge.... becomes cool, as its heat is vented overboard. But this is easily fixed simply by replacing its cup of cool water, with some fresh hot water. By using the electrical output of the scaled up version and an ordinary electric water heater,  I will be able to heat enough water to power the machine itself and also provide hot showers for my entire family. When I am ready, I'll have a validation team of professional skeptics provide all the proof you need that I am telling the absolute truth, as God is my witness. When I am ready.



So far, Mister Wayne, your claim and mine above have exactly the same validity-- they are fanciful projections, based on misinterpretations of observations of the hardware. My hardware "works" just as yours does-- that is, partially, almost fulfilling the projections ... you can see for yourself that mine does, and anyone is welcome to come and see it, no NDA required.... it just isn't working completely up to our specifications 'yet' . The difference is that you have spent a lot more money than I did.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 23, 2012, 08:03:25 PM
Hi,
   I'm saddened that there are people out there that are blatantly out to deceive. This is not the way forward, it just poisons the
concept of sharing our knowledge.
 We need facts to work with, not riddles.
 Look at the website, we can power your house, your mall or whatever. When the truth comes out they can't even show an
illuminated LED.
                        John.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 23, 2012, 09:33:14 PM
I'm saddened as well.

Instead of simply providing evidence for his extravagant claims, Mister Wayne chooses to follow the exact same course that so many fraudulent claimants have done. He gives partial information and challenges his readers to figure out the rest. (Archer Quinn, Steorn, etc.). He goes through model after model, improving this and that, when he's already claimed to have a working model... but he never shows the actual working model, just talks about the not-yet-working new model. (Quinn, Steorn, etc.) He even shows a model "working", but not long enough or unambiguously enough to prove his claims are true. (Mylow, Quinn, etc. etc.)
He has site visits and visitors come away impressed, but without actually having seen what they came to see. The case of Sterling Allen and the South African Motor-Generator is a classic example of this. All the way around the world! From Utah to South Africa, paid for by the claimants and by Allen's fan club.  And of course Steorn's Kinetica "demo" of nothing, with visitors from the USA, travel paid for by Steorn's investors.



Oh... did I mention? My little engine above has been replicated many, many times by many independent builders, and it has been analyzed mathematically and spreadsheets (and actual patents) exist that will enable anyone skilled in the art to fully understand it, reproduce it, scale it up, whatever.
It even has a name.... not given to it by the Boy Scouts or even me.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 23, 2012, 09:54:49 PM
Hi,
   I'm saddened that there are people out there that are blatantly out to deceive. This is not the way forward, it just poisons the
concept of sharing our knowledge.
 We need facts to work with, not riddles.
 Look at the website, we can power your house, your mall or whatever. When the truth comes out they can't even show an
illuminated LED.
                        John.
Well that brought a smile to my face .......after you read the patent, reviewed the 7 video's, all the explanations, and answers to the many questions - the best you can say is..................... we forgot to light a LED........................
John - is an LED proof of OU to you? If that is all it takes - I should call a meeting with our engineers and tell them the last three years of hard work was for nothing.
Just a hint - the bar is actually a bit higher than that.................... You better have your stuff in order and throw out the garbage.
We will be powering homes, neighborhoods, and eventually cities around the world.
This is not a cell phone charger.......................... wrong forum page.
p.s. you should do your research before you make yourself sad - with "blatantly deceiving" conclusions.
Good night
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001781/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 23, 2012, 10:14:18 PM
Hi,
    I think I'm in for a surprise then, ought to go in to publishing as it looks as if scientific text books are going to have to
be re-written!
  You're going to be possibly the most famous man in the world- keep at it,
                                                                              John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 23, 2012, 10:32:29 PM
I'm saddened as well.

Instead of simply providing evidence for his extravagant claims, Mister Wayne chooses to follow the exact same course that so many fraudulent claimants have done. He gives partial information and challenges his readers to figure out the rest. (Archer Quinn, Steorn, etc.). He goes through model after model, improving this and that, when he's already claimed to have a working model... but he never shows the actual working model, just talks about the not-yet-working new model. (Quinn, Steorn, etc.) He even shows a model "working", but not long enough or unambiguously enough to prove his claims are true. (Mylow, Quinn, etc. etc.)
He has site visits and visitors come away impressed, but without actually having seen what they came to see. The case of Sterling Allen and the South African Motor-Generator is a classic example of this. All the way around the world! From Utah to South Africa, paid for by the claimants and by Allen's fan club.  And of course Steorn's Kinetica "demo" of nothing, with visitors from the USA, travel paid for by Steorn's investors.



Oh... did I mention? My little engine above has been replicated many, many times by many independent builders, and it has been analyzed mathematically and spreadsheets (and actual patents) exist that will enable anyone skilled in the art to fully understand it, reproduce it, scale it up, whatever.
It even has a name.... not given to it by the Boy Scouts or even me.
I read a few of your posts to see............................no growth yet...............no effort to understand ........
Lots of effort to rant and confuse others.
Yes ......"Sad"....... indeed.
I am waiting.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 23, 2012, 10:44:26 PM
Hi,
    I think I'm in for a surprise then, ought to go in to publishing as it looks as if scientific text books are going to have to
be re-written!
  You're going to be possibly the most famous man in the world- keep at it,
                                                                              John.
You don't need to be surprised - all the information needed is here.
 
I do not think they need rewritten - our system can be completely analyzed with the information available - it is a just a few "absolutes" that will have some clarity.
 
You have to believe that every possible discovery has already been discovered - if you think text books contain all the answers already.
 
I don't think so..... just my opinion.
 
p.s. Its not about fame - its about getting the technology out - that is why I work so hard to share.
 
it is about being part of a purpose bigger than you and I - that is why so many join us - from around the world.
 

 
If you truly think about it - you will understand why I keep trying to get the truth out between all the bashing, conjecture, insults and lies.
 
One thing for sure - they picked the right guy to fight for the people.
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001792/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 23, 2012, 10:48:31 PM
Hi,
  well mrwayne you sure have thrown down the gauntlet now. I'll be writing to Jon Stewart, he's a journalist with the BBC on
their science team and he does a programme on the world service. I'm sure he'll be interested if you're going to be powering
cities,
             John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 24, 2012, 12:05:07 AM
Hi Webby,
                you've just got to be a shill of mrwayne?
[size=78%]                                                                              John.                                                                 [/size]





Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Magluvin on November 24, 2012, 12:10:56 AM
Hi Webby,
                you've just got to be a shill of mrwayne?
[size=78%]                                                                              John.                                                                 [/size]
And youve just got to be a newbe that has come here to heckle. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 12:16:12 AM
Hi,
  well mrwayne you sure have thrown down the gauntlet now. I'll be writing to Jon Stewart, he's a journalist with the BBC on
their science team and he does a programme on the world service. I'm sure he'll be interested if you're going to be powering
cities,
             John.

deleted - no point
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
Hi Webby,
                you've just got to be a shill of mrwayne?
[size=78%]                                                                              John.                                                                 [/size]

Webby did his own thinking and testing  - he is no shill. That is uncalled for.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 02:26:52 AM
Thanks Wayne,

I guess that all these folks do not remember that in the beginning of all this I was calling you on points that I was not in agreement with, that I did the silly things like build small testbeds and crazy stuff like ask questions and came to my OWN conclusions on things, that I built TBZED to make sure I could build a reasonable copy of one of your units to actually test things,, no all that means nothing, nor does the fact that we have not been on the same page often,, and I continued as well as you did.

I guess that following a simple path of questions and tests to find the answer to an unknown is not the way things should be done.
Webby - I welcomed your challenges - you argued well and you engaged in the conversation.
Well done - are you up to the TAZ?
See you on the professional forum.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: roguetechie on November 24, 2012, 12:11:22 PM
After spending the last two months reading this thread from the very beginning I finally feel like I have something worthwhile to add to this thread!

To be perfectly honest there was a point where I was almost annoyed with TK's dogged determination to hammer certain points home for the audience at large reading this thread until I realized that he was doing what he was doing out of a genuine desire to see this idea stand or fall on it's own merits rather than see people taken in by the force of personality of any of the players involved. He has willingly and selflessly taken on the role of the bad cop in an effort to get people to ask the right questions.

He has let Wayne and his followers consistently try to make it about TK and his motives and motivations accepting the scorn heaped upon himself by pretty much all comers at one point or another all in the pursuit of seeing this idea actually prove itself or fail rather than become mired in partisan infighting that obfuscates the truth from all but the most dedicated investigator.

But what I really came to say is that Wayne may have left enough clues entirely unwittingly that might let us make a back of the envelope extrapolation of the theoretical power his initial ZED produced (The one that was "only 160 percent efficient") and that these back of the envelope calculations could give us enough information to do a very rough extrapolation of what the current zed at "960 percent efficient" is capable of power production wise.

Now bear with me because I'm going to move kind of quick here and this is only a very rough roadmap to a possible way to get at least an approximation of the numbers that Wayne so clearly does NOT want us to have on the current system.

At one point in the very early days of this thread wayne did describe a full cycle of the zed system as it was at the time (the one that was "only 160 percent efficient"). Now in addition  to this he also in these early posts provided us with solid numbers on how much weight was lifted and the PSI of the system at various stages of the cycle as well as approximate gap distances between the internal components. This combination of information in theory could provide enough information to give you a very rough approximation of how much fluid could possibly be moved in a best case scenario at what PSI through the hydraulic accumulator. Combine this with a rough count of the cycles per minute off of the YT vid of the run with Mark Danise observing and you can get a pretty good idea of the flow rate.

Or if you want go even simpler than that you can do what I just did and input in your handy TI-89 solve(.1x=37,x)ENTER at which point you'd get an x value of 370 giving you a grand total energy budget of somewhere in the neighborhood of 592 watts that the hydraulic accumulator needs to supply after losses to keep the machine running and have 37 watts left over if you assume that 10% of the total output can be dedicated to producing excess energy.

Now with these numbers you could do a further extrapolation that would give you a ballpark wattage if all other variables stayed relatively static but the efficiency jumped to 960%....

Personally I don't think there's any reason to do any more math though and here's why:

As TK and several others have pointed out with a volume of water as small as is in the very crowded ZED tanks at anywhere close to the pressures reported by Wayne Travis himself in the early days of this thread there is quite simply no physical way to move enough fluid over a short enough time to generate anywhere close to even 10 kilowatts. And considering that Wayne doesn't even want to bother building 10 kilowatt systems because he wants to focus on 25 and more kilowatt systems you're talking even more far fetched.

Bottom line is it's just not physically possible to use such a weak force as gravity at such low internal pressures in such small quantities and generate that level of power to spin your hydraulic motor especially when you consider that even if wayne jumped the speed of the machine a hundred fold wouldn't complete more than a couple hundred cycles per minute.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 24, 2012, 01:37:07 PM
Show me your efforts power cat - show me your replication.
and I will show you the others.
 
Wayne

It's all about confidence, when I feel confident that the device might work as claimed I will replicate,
Unfortunately the constantly delayed verification team is now looking like it'll never happen,
The three replications that we have seen so far... Two of them show underunity and one of them was not
beyond reasonable doubt,and strangely enough you had awarded that person $2000.
The other thing that could give people confidence is professional verification of the device,
we have waited and waited and excuse after excuse, so basically I have no confidence in you or your device
so at this moment in time I will not be attempting replication,
it is up to you to prove your claim is genuine.

Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 24, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
Hi guys,
           I've had immense enjoyment from this subject and would like to thank everyone for their input.
I've learned a lot about gravity machines and have now come to this conclusion. I agree that mrwayne's
device works as he claims. I do however have doubts about turning it into a practical machine that I could
keep in my garden.
                             John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 03:02:17 PM


Personally I don't think there's any reason to do any more math though and here's why:

As TK and several others have pointed out with a volume of water as small as is in the very crowded ZED tanks at anywhere close to the pressures reported by Wayne Travis himself in the early days of this thread there is quite simply no physical way to move enough fluid over a short enough time to generate anywhere close to even 10 kilowatts. And considering that Wayne doesn't even want to bother building 10 kilowatt systems because he wants to focus on 25 and more kilowatt systems you're talking even more far fetched.

Bottom line is it's just not physically possible to use such a weak force as gravity at such low internal pressures in such small quantities and generate that level of power to spin your hydraulic motor especially when you consider that even if wayne jumped the speed of the machine a hundred fold wouldn't complete more than a couple hundred cycles per minute.

I read the thread the whole way thru also, and I had hoped TK was just being the "Bad cop" - you missed a lot.
TK does not get our system - so instead of trying - he makes up fantasy stories.
 
My dissapointment with TK - whom I think is normally right - is that he has to be right -and in his attempt to prove he is - when he is not - he has mislead and confused the class - just like you.
Even now - you discount the obvious because of a bogus water flow assertion he made - or the value of gravity with in that volume of water.

You have asserted a common application of volumetric equivalents of lift and volume to our system to make such a conclusion.
Let me be clear - the entire point of the "Travis Effect" discovery - is to show that the potential to use gravity is "not" limited or controlled by volume.

So I admire your long answer - and I ask - did you miss that point - or are you just echoing another false assertion made by your "bad cop".

To be clear: and to repeat what you said you read in the thread:
You only need 1 gallon per minute to @ 1000 psi to produce 747 watts of electricity.
10 gallons - 8 kw
100 gallons 80 kw

I discussed this in the thread - Our 100kw model lifts 240,000 pounds continuously
If you want 1000 psi you need a capture cylinder of 240 si, and if you stroke 12 inches at 6 strokes a minute that is 17280 cubic inches a minute / 231 (conversion to gallons) that's 74 gallons a minute - or 74kw per set.

Of course - as we said in the thread several times - we do not design for Ideal all of our 100kw systems are actually designed for 140kw

We also said in the thread that we are using a crank shaft for the forces and structural integrity of our system.
So I have to say - when you wrote

"After spending the last two months reading this thread from the very beginning I finally feel like I have something worthwhile to add to this thread!"

I have to ask - did you skip some pages.................. you sound just like the man you claim we have abused?

And then you expose your objectivity by calling the ones doing actual testing and builds "followers"....... not very objective.....not very scientific - you take the rants of a few over the physical testing of others..... thats what TK does also........

"if the efficiency jumped to 960%".... in this quote from you -  you switched machines - compare the outcomes and concluded improperly - TK Does that too......

And Here you qoute TK and some of his fantasy members in thier conversation ......

"Bottom line is it's just not physically possible to use such a weak force as gravity at such low internal pressures in such small quantities and generate that level of power to spin your hydraulic motor especially when you consider that even if Wayne jumped the speed of the machine a hundred fold wouldn't complete more than a couple hundred cycles per minute."
So after reading your post - and your conclusion - You did not do your homework - you followed TK down a misguided trail, and you insulted the only people who actually did physical testing - or you are just TK Doing another Fantasy conversation with himself."
 
TO all - how much surface area do you need to lift 240,000 pounds with 34 psi?

Let me help 7058si, what is the diameter required, 95 inches or 7.9 feet

Do you all recall the design size I posted several times 8 foot Diameter, 10 to 12 feet tall 6 or 8 layers -

The Bogus conclusion posted by the new user -wants you to believe that a low force like gravity can not be used to make power - he is wrong.

And then He concludes that our 960% efficient system - which works so much better than the example I gave - is also as impossible - let me tell you - THEY JUST DON"T GET IT..........

We are on our way - Here is the problem with TK ......he made up trash and forgot he made it up.......he attacks anyone that tries to show thier work - and he ignores any data that conflicts with his predetermined ideas.............

If you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect diffirent results ............. Enough said

He needs to move to an area of his expertise - it is not here.

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001778/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 03:21:28 PM
It's all about confidence, when I feel confident that the device might work as claimed I will replicate,
Unfortunately the constantly delayed verification team is now looking like it'll never happen,
The three replications that we have seen so far... Two of them show underunity and one of them was not
beyond reasonable doubt,and strangely enough you had awarded that person $2000.
The other thing that could give people confidence is professional verification of the device,
we have waited and waited and excuse after excuse, so basically I have no confidence in you or your device
so at this moment in time I will not be attempting replication,
it is up to you to prove your claim is genuine.

Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Power cat -
 

 
I never asked for your confidence - I did  say that "I would be surprised if anyone could figure it out by just looking at the surface" -
 
So you are your own road block - if you don't want to "waste your time" - then stay in the dark ages.....
My concern for your learning the system is directly related to your effort. .....which at this point in time - the extent of your effort was and is to mis-apply quotes.
 
Since you are so cute to post Mark's one comment out of context ... why don't you hunt down a dozen or so of the ones where Mark has shared - repeatedly?
 
Makr has said that we  are "the .1 success at over unity - out of the 99.9 percent failures"......that would be enough to give me confidence .. that I might not be wasting my time ..........I do not know what your problem is.
 
(Should not be hard to find - he has said it over and over)
 
You have picked sides and ignore the facts - your confidence is limited by you, your ability is displayed by your own actions.
 
p.s.
 
When you try to imply something negative from Marks comment on the time lapsed during our development - and you don't post all the positive reports on the technology - such as where he tested our systems twice and stated over a dozen times and has added his continued support for us - and stated his lack of putting pressure on our timelines................
 
You display your character - for the world.
 

 
Do your replication - or quit displaying yourself this way.

 
 
 
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001778/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 24, 2012, 03:23:35 PM
Hi,
   commercial hydro electric plant 10 kw, head required 30 mtrs, flow rate 50 litres/sec.
  Need I say more?
                         John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 03:29:19 PM
Hi guys,
           I've had immense enjoyment from this subject and would like to thank everyone for their input.
I've learned a lot about gravity machines and have now come to this conclusion. I agree that mrwayne's
device works as he claims. I do however have doubts about turning it into a practical machine that I could
keep in my garden.
                             John.
John or TK - we never asked anyone to "believe" ... and we sold our cow.
Blind followers are no more help than your bull.... stop trying to smear those that do their homework - it is ignorant upon ignorant.
Do your homework - stop playing games - and test, verify, repeat, observe, ................... and then believe the facts.
Keep your bull to yourself.
WT
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 03:33:45 PM
Hi,
   commercial hydro electric plant 10 kw, head required 30 mtrs, flow rate 50 litres/sec.
  Need I say more?
                         John.
Yeah - do your research a little better - we don't use turbines - could you at least look at the patent.
We do not have a dam or a river - you are on the wrong thread again.
OMGosh ...... and you took the time to write that..........
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 24, 2012, 03:34:59 PM

We are on our way - Here is the problem with TK ......he made up trash and forgot he made it up.......he attacks anyone that tries to show thier work - and he ignores any data that conflicts with his predetermined ideas.............
If you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect diffirent results ............. Enough said
He needs to move to an area of his expertise - it is not here.
Wayne Travis


MrWayne is showing his true colours....what an ignorant egotistical self righteous person he is,
he could of done his homework and looked at other threads on the forum that TK is involved in
and seen for himself that TK helps many people and also follows others work...in fact right now
he's doing experiments on a circuit produced by another member and everyone on that thread is working
together in harmony.....Could that be because everything is in the open and no one is trying
to hide anything.....No doubt TK will speak for himself but really MrWayne you should do your
homework before opening your big mouth and making statements that are clearly false.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 03:56:56 PM
MrWayne is showing his true colours....what an ignorant egotistical self righteous person he is,
he could of done his homework and looked at other threads on the forum that TK is involved in
and seen for himself that TK helps many people and also follows others work...in fact right now
he's doing experiments on a circuit produced by another member and everyone on that thread is working
together in harmony.....Could that be because everything is in the open and no one is trying
to hide anything.....No doubt TK will speak for himself but really MrWayne you should do your
homework before opening your big mouth and making statements that are clearly false.
Me do my homework?
I have first hand experiance with TK's help.

Does flying bikes and invisable unicorns count as helping to you?

Does ignoring data and bashing a spelling error count as helping to you?
Does does thread hyjacking for fountains and bolloards, and dams count as helping to you?

Does calling the inventor names and making up psycological orders count as help to you?

Does attacking anyone who askes good questions - considered helping to you?

Does ingnoring the function of the machine entirely for 100 pages or more count as helping to you?

Does claiming that visitors who reported here are imaginary people count as helping?

Does threatening to copy and sell the system to his buddies count as help?

Does threatening to unlock the riddle and file papers for credit count as help?

Does leading people away from understanding the system count as help?

Does claiming we are "Just like others" to slander us count as help?
and that is just the tip of the help he has provided.
Do your homework or take your blinders off....

Now I will admit .......All of this counts as help IF.......

If your intent is to supress .....................well Power Cat.............It isn't working this time.

We are on our way,

Wayne

p.s. I am sure TK can speak for himself.

I appreaciate you standing up for the interuptor - we let him have his say - we let him repeated himself 8 times.

If you realy want to help TK - do a replication for him and give it to him.

I can not believe for a moment - after watching some of his you tubes - that he can't do it himself.

So what would your conclusion be...... enough said.

 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 24, 2012, 04:16:45 PM
Hi,
   commercial 10 kw hydraulic drive gen.  ONLY requires 2250 psi @ 22 gpm. Thank you,
                                                                       John.
 Wish I lived in fairyland!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 24, 2012, 04:33:04 PM
MrWayne
Yes, do your homework before making statements...... is this or is this not your statement ?
            "he attacks anyone that tries to show thier work"
I'm sure you would prefer not to come across as being ignorant but when you make statements like that
it is obvious to any members who have been on this forum long enough that you are lying.
It might have escaped your attention but this forum is not only about you and your device,
wake up and try to do research before making statements like that.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 04:34:32 PM
Hi,
   commercial 10 kw hydraulic drive gen.  ONLY requires 2250 psi @ 22 gpm. Thank you,
                                                                       John.
 Wish I lived in fairyland!
Gee - what's the efficiency on your commercial system?
Ours is only 640% - kind of reduces the costs a bit......... but you are not up to speed here yet ........
and now you switch from a hydro dam to a hydraulic driven system............
Look .... you waste your own time......
 
John or TK - neither of us live in fairy land - just one of us is limited to what they think they know - off the shelf is all you know - I don't believe that.
 
I am willing to tests and discover new things.
 
The character attacks on me and those doing testing - it is childish.
 
You are willing to treat others like trash because we disagree on what is possible????
 
One of us has worked very hard with international team members to verify and test a new system - which is not commercial yet.
 
When it is commercially available - you can quote it to the benefit of others.
 
Till then - you can not defeat that which you can not understand - or are unwilling to..... enough said.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001795/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 04:48:53 PM
MrWayne
Yes, do your homework before making statements...... is this or is this not your statement.
            "he attacks anyone that tries to show thier work"
I'm sure you would prefer not to come across as being ignorant but when you make statements like that
it is obvious to any members who have been on this forum long enough that you are lying.
It might have escaped your attention but this forum is not only about you and your device,
wake up and try to do research before making statements like that.
Powercat,
 

 
I know from your actions you are only here to try to twist my words into a way that makes me a bad guy.....
 
It is all you have added to this thread - you continue to ignore what does not fit your agenda... and it is clear to see...
 
You are wasting your own time.
 

 
Here is a few things you ignored -
 
TK blasted and ignored Larry's work -
 
He blasted and ignored Webbys work -
 
He blasted and ignored Mikes work -
 
He blasted and ignored the statements form visitors here to our lab
 
He blasted and ignored Dales work -
 
He blasted and ignored Se3d's work -
 

 
Does blasted and ignored sound like a contradiction - well let me explain - he blasted the person - but never addressed the facts provided...... agenda..... I think.....
 
and many more over what - a spelling error, a decimal point, a label in a spread sheet, -
 

 
I can overlook a spelling error - I make enough of my own - but to throw away the good data for that reason.....
 
and then to spend three days writing about how grievous the spelling error was -
 
You are wasting your own time trying to pin garbage on me for calling a cat for what the cat is ..... a cat.
 

 
Power Cat -
 
Those that wanted to have a learning environment - switched to a professional forum - and great work in being done -
 
spelling error and all..... enough said.
 
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001795/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 24, 2012, 05:07:13 PM
Accusing me of twisting things....why can't you face facts that you often contradict yourself and you break your word,
Here are this month statements from you that don't make sense now why would you call it twisting when they are your
words Not mine I didn't say them you did..........Now would you like to try and clear up the confusion
Do you need Mark to be present for verification or not ?  A simple yes or no would be a good start.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
Yes,And thank you.Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.In Mark and mine's last conversation -
just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we
both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again. Will we be ready?

Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements - we have selected a prevalidation member
to come this weekend if we are ready and Mark happens to be locked into a conference or is traveling. This member will
visit us and then report to Mark, at that point a decision will be made if we need to arrange schedules and add more
data collection, or if Mark can arrange a return.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 24, 2012, 06:02:43 PM
Hi,
   the efficiency of your device is infinite, nobody has come close!
 Why don't you show those commercial guys where they're going wrong?
                                                              John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 08:10:04 PM
Accusing me of twisting things....why can't you face facts that you often contradict yourself and you break your word,
Here are this month statements from you that don't make sense now why would you call it twisting when they are your
words Not mine I didn't say them you did..........Now would you like to try and clear up the confusion
Do you need Mark to be present for verification or not ?  A simple yes or no would be a good start.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
Yes,And thank you.Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.In Mark and mine's last conversation -
just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we
both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again. Will we be ready?

Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements - we have selected a prevalidation member
to come this weekend if we are ready and Mark happens to be locked into a conference or is traveling. This member will
visit us and then report to Mark, at that point a decision will be made if we need to arrange schedules and add more
data collection, or if Mark can arrange a return.
Now - Power cat -
Stay on subject - we just went over changing schedules to meet needs already - .....
What is your point anyway? every statement I made is true for the circumstances at the time.
Now Where are those Quotes from Mark where he says we have the first OU device - How about where he said we would replace wind generation, how about where he clarified that we are good and honest people - with good international support from around the world - ...
Doesn't fit your childish attack on me does it. So will research schedule changes but ignore it Factual information........
Links were posted to his interviews regarding the validity of our system. - But you can find them on You tube.
Now on your continued personal attack ...
You are wasting your time...
Everyone has seen my true colors - honest, hard working, and very patient with people like you.
............ enough said
I am feeling better - I had a bad headache today - back to the lab.
Wayne Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001765/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 24, 2012, 08:37:59 PM
Now - Power cat -
Stay on subject - we just went over changing schedules to meet needs already - .....
What is your point anyway? every statement I made is true for the circumstances at the time.


Talk about moving the goalposts......more slippery than a wet fish on the cold morning,
The point is you are unreliable and you promis things but you don't deliver time and time again.
You never apologise for giving people false hope that the validation was going to happen.
this has been going on for many months,and now you say the statements were accurate for that time,
that's as bad an excuse as "I was only following orders"
If we were talking about an isolated incident your excuse might seem reasonable But when we look back
at all the statements you have made about validation as well as a few others it seems to be a regular
habit of yours to give people false hope, now do I really need to post that long list of your words again ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 08:45:13 PM
Hi,
   the efficiency of your device is infinite, nobody has come close!
 Why don't you show those commercial guys where they're going wrong?
                                                              John.
John TK ,
Your argument needs to be valid
First - who said it was infinite - other than TK?
Second - the average car engine is about 35% efficient right - if you could use all of the value of the energy in the fuel - with no friction - you could get close to three times farther down the road on the same gas right (not exactly I know - but you jumped to infinity - I can be off a few percentage points).
Now if you installed one of our ZED's in your Yacht - you would never need to put gas in the tank, (assuming everything is electric powered - and you could drive as far as time, resources and desire would allow.
I would call that pretty cool - but Putting a ZED in your Yacht - is not going to give you the ability to pull every cargo ship in tow.
Your implied assumption on the term Infinity - is common when coming from institutions - anything "even close" to a COP of one or 100 percent is laughed at as an error - of assuming you could tow all the boats in the world -
It is no wonder I have to deal with ......cats.......... like you.  :(
Now Our Super efficient system has very clear and defined limitations - this is part of what we have been working on so hard - testing the limitations - part of good research.
SO you have two false assumptions - first what does actual Over unity look like - contrary to your assertion and secondly
That all the "commercial guys" have anything to do with this innovation -.................. which does not make a true conclusion - poor argument - take more time. ::)
 
p.s. DId I claim I could  get 100% or better out of Gasoline?  No and I can't
Can I build a feeless system that captures gravity "Like a flow" that provides NET and Free energy to the consumer - Yep - been their done that.
I hope you try to catch up - you are looking sad..... ;)

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 24, 2012, 08:54:43 PM
Talk about moving the goalposts......more slippery than a wet fish on the cold morning,
The point is you are unreliable and you promis things but you don't deliver time and time again.
You never apologise for giving people false hope that the validation was going to happen.
this has been going on for many months,and now you say the statements were accurate for that time,
that's as bad an excuse as "I was only following orders"
If we were talking about an isolated incident your excuse might seem reasonable But when we look back
at all the statements you have made about validation as well as a few others it seems to be a regular
habit of yours to give people false hope, now do I really need to post that long list of your words again ?

I really have to go now-
 
But you made me laugh so hard I almost spit in my soda....
 
Do you remember the children saying - to every insult:
 
"I know you are what am I"
 
That just what you sound like -
 
Let me bring you up to date - you are the one working to throw some sort of mud on my good name.
 
I have better things to do than to play - insult games with you.
 
All I ask - is this why do you put so much effort into twisting my words and ignoring the truth?
 
Did I become your target because I don't play dirty like you - well let me let you in on a secret....
 
Your are coming thru load and clear......................What you are made of ...... and it isn't puppy dog tails....... but close.
 
You can have the rest of the posts - I have to go - I will check back in a week to see your work.
p.s. If you do research our system and have questions - please feel free to ask question - I do answer them privately.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 24, 2012, 09:02:45 PM
All I have ever done is shown you your own statements there all your words,
so how the hell can I be attacking you when they are your statements ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: roguetechie on November 24, 2012, 09:29:28 PM
Wayne,

         Since you have decided to imply that I am no more than a fake poster TK is using to bolster his case against you I no longer feel like I need to be polite.

Here are the facts as I see them:

 You have a technology that may or may not have a basis in a hitherto yet undiscovered way to manipulate the relationship between gravity and buoyancy.  Unfortunately though whether or not you have a real phenomena you are choosing to operate in a pattern that is highly indicative of duplicitous intent.

Further while I want the phenomena to be real because the world could desperately use a win right now, I feel that as long as you are at the helm of the project it will not succeed.

You show heaping helpings of hubris as well as a host of other negative character traits that those of us sitting on the sidelines find to be extremely detrimental to any chances of your technology making it to market.


More or less what I'm getting at is whether or not you have a real phenomena I highly doubt that it will make it to market because of YOU.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 12:35:40 AM
Wayne,

         Since you have decided to imply that I am no more than a fake poster TK is using to bolster his case against you I no longer feel like I need to be polite.

Here are the facts as I see them:

 You have a technology that may or may not have a basis in a hitherto yet undiscovered way to manipulate the relationship between gravity and buoyancy.  Unfortunately though whether or not you have a real phenomena you are choosing to operate in a pattern that is highly indicative of duplicitous intent.

Further while I want the phenomena to be real because the world could desperately use a win right now, I feel that as long as you are at the helm of the project it will not succeed.

You show heaping helpings of hubris as well as a host of other negative character traits that those of us sitting on the sidelines find to be extremely detrimental to any chances of your technology making it to market.


More or less what I'm getting at is whether or not you have a real phenomena I highly doubt that it will make it to market because of YOU.
You are probably right.
Thanks for the input.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 12:36:55 AM
All I have ever done is shown you your own statements there all your words,
so how the hell can I be attacking you when they are your statements ?
Sorry Powercat,
I am sure you meant to be helpful.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 25, 2012, 03:24:41 AM
You are a liar, Wayne Travis. You misrepresent me and my work, you fail to address the solid points I've made... and now that some others are making the same points you react like a small child and start whining, rather than solidly refuting the points with your own calculations and REFERENCES.

Quote
...after you read the patent...
Lie NUMBER ONE: you have no patent, just a patent application. How long did it take to get you to admit that? Only after I pointed out that it might even be illegal for you to claim a patent when one has not yet been GRANTED you..... did you back off and refer to it correctly as an application. Have you forgotten, or has your patent actually been granted? If so, I apologize. If not..... then you should apologize to everyone you've mentioned your "patent" to, because it's no such thing.

And when you referred to your rotary Zed as "patent pending".... had you at that time filed an actual application for a patent, or not?

It's not necessary to go farther and list more of the lies, Powercat has done a lot of that. But you've betrayed yourself as a fraud with your laughable paranoid fantasy that the other people who disagree with you... are ME.

You might have the entire town of Chickasaw fooled, Wayne..... but it's getting pretty close to the time for you to show your cards, or fold. Your bluff cannot continue much longer.



And Webby.... you are the person who was paid 2000 dollars by Wayne Travis, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 03:45:24 AM
You are a liar, Wayne Travis. You misrepresent me and my work, you fail to address the solid points I've made... and now that some others are making the same points you react like a small child and start whining, rather than solidly refuting the points with your own calculations and REFERENCES.
 Lie NUMBER ONE: you have no patent, just a patent application. How long did it take to get you to admit that? Only after I pointed out that it might even be illegal for you to claim a patent when one has not yet been GRANTED you..... did you back off and refer to it correctly as an application. Have you forgotten, or has your patent actually been granted? If so, I apologize. If not..... then you should apologize to everyone you've mentioned your "patent" to, because it's no such thing.

And when you referred to your rotary Zed as "patent pending".... had you at that time filed an actual application for a patent, or not?

It's not necessary to go farther and list more of the lies, Powercat has done a lot of that. But you've betrayed yourself as a fraud with your laughable paranoid fantasy that the other people who disagree with you... are ME.

You might have the entire town of Chickasaw fooled, Wayne..... but it's getting pretty close to the time for you to show your cards, or fold. Your bluff cannot continue much longer.



And Webby.... you are the person who was paid 2000 dollars by Wayne Travis, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)
You are so right - I do not have a patent .
I should keep the wording straight.
and when people mimic you - I should not assume they are you.
Thanks TK.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 25, 2012, 03:56:51 AM
And youve just got to be a newbe that has come here to heckle. ;)

Mags

TK and Minnie went up the hill
To fetch a pail of virtual water
TK fell down and broke into multiple members
And Minnie came tumbling after
When they were reassembled
TK was Minnie and Minnie was TK
Then men in white coats came
And took the psychopath away.
 
@All, which one was the psychopath?
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 25, 2012, 05:14:48 AM
Yeah - never was fond of the thought that someone could be nurturing a pack of troll clones (user Id's) ready to unleash when an extra minion is needed for battle.  ;)

I did like the spawning of Dr. Mabuse on the Steorn site though, way back when. That was truely ROFL humor.
Never heard who created that character. Hmmmm...
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 25, 2012, 08:38:41 AM
And now the doggerel has started. LarryC, you couldn't be a sock puppet of Rosemary Ainslie, could you? No... her poetry may be better than yours, but she can't divide or multiply, and we know you can at least do that much.

I have one user account on this forum, TinselKoala is the only username I have EVER HAD here and I've had it since I first joined this forum what, in 2008 or so?
I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary.... you cannot, unless you just make it up out of whole cloth. I have two other aliases that I use sometimes ON OTHER FORUMS and all are anagrams of my mother's maiden name, Kate Allison.
 ;)


@Wayne: thanks for setting the record straight re your patent application. Have you done so to _everyone_ you've said "Patent...." to?

Also, you didn't answer about the "patent pending" statement .... have you already filed an application for your "patent pending" Rotary Zed, or is that just loose talk too?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 25, 2012, 08:41:40 AM
It sure looks to me like LarryC has just called two members of this forum...."psychopaths". How do you feel about that, Minnie?

I wonder if he is qualified to make a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of a few forum posts. Where did he get his degrees, I wonder. Also, I wonder if doggerel can be considered libellous.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hoptoad on November 25, 2012, 08:51:05 AM
@All, which one was the psychopath?
Clarry ? Is that your other you ?

P.S.

If you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 25, 2012, 09:48:30 AM
Hi guys,
            I've been looking at this site since about 2005 I think. This man is making a very big claim, a little more than getting something
out of a spent AAA cell.
  I just had the feeling that he was naive when faced with real life power systems. I'm sure that the commercial boys are striving to
get a balance between production costs and performance.
   Efficiency is the ratio of output to input in this case, no input, I need say no more!
 I'm agreeing that mrwaynes device works,but, the snag is I think a 10 kw output (electrical) machine will be hundreds of tons and
very expensive. Look at battery cars, basically toys for the rich.
  Solve the battery degradation problem though and you've cracked a major problem. My daughter was asking about why her battery
appeared full but didn't last. I told her, imagine a bucket of water, every day you fill it you also add a marble, after a while it still
appears to be full but in reality there' not much there.
 I really quite like mrwayne, he' got spirit, good luck mrwayne!  John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 25, 2012, 10:36:49 AM
Hi guys,
            I've been looking at this site since about 2005 I think. This man is making a very big claim, a little more than getting something
out of a spent AAA cell.
  I just had the feeling that he was naive when faced with real life power systems. I'm sure that the commercial boys are striving to
get a balance between production costs and performance.
   Efficiency is the ratio of output to input in this case, no input, I need say no more!
 I'm agreeing that mrwaynes device works,but, the snag is I think a 10 kw output (electrical) machine will be hundreds of tons and
very expensive. Look at battery cars, basically toys for the rich.
  Solve the battery degradation problem though and you've cracked a major problem. My daughter was asking about why her battery
appeared full but didn't last. I told her, imagine a bucket of water, every day you fill it you also add a marble, after a while it still
appears to be full but in reality there' not much there.
 I really quite like mrwayne, he' got spirit, good luck mrwayne!  John.

Hi Minnie, 
Your message shows good spirit and a balanced summary opinion, at last some sanity in all this madness.
You address some real engineering aspects that like any new invention will need to go through a process of refinement and optimization. How cost effective the system payback period will be will depend on many other outside factors as related to energy costs.
Good batteries will always have a prime place in the mobile power provisioning domain, and a new capability here would change the power world but one big difference is that they are a storage medium, not a power generating device.
Good luck, go well John, 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 01:54:53 PM
And now the doggerel has started. LarryC, you couldn't be a sock puppet of Rosemary Ainslie, could you? No... her poetry may be better than yours, but she can't divide or multiply, and we know you can at least do that much.

I have one user account on this forum, TinselKoala is the only username I have EVER HAD here and I've had it since I first joined this forum what, in 2008 or so?
I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary.... you cannot, unless you just make it up out of whole cloth. I have two other aliases that I use sometimes ON OTHER FORUMS and all are anagrams of my mother's maiden name, Kate Allison.
 ;)


@Wayne: thanks for setting the record straight re your patent application. Have you done so to _everyone_ you've said "Patent...." to?

Also, you didn't answer about the "patent pending" statement .... have you already filed an application for your "patent pending" Rotary Zed, or is that just loose talk too?
Thanks again TK,
Yes,  were pretty clear on where we are at in the process - but keep us on our toes - we need to be sharp.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 02:02:58 PM
Hi guys,
            I've been looking at this site since about 2005 I think. This man is making a very big claim, a little more than getting something
out of a spent AAA cell.
  I just had the feeling that he was naive when faced with real life power systems. I'm sure that the commercial boys are striving to
get a balance between production costs and performance.
   Efficiency is the ratio of output to input in this case, no input, I need say no more!
 I'm agreeing that mrwaynes device works,but, the snag is I think a 10 kw output (electrical) machine will be hundreds of tons and
very expensive. Look at battery cars, basically toys for the rich.
  Solve the battery degradation problem though and you've cracked a major problem. My daughter was asking about why her battery
appeared full but didn't last. I told her, imagine a bucket of water, every day you fill it you also add a marble, after a while it still
appears to be full but in reality there' not much there.
 I really quite like mrwayne, he' got spirit, good luck mrwayne!  John.
Thanks again for your input, opinions are great -
How do you figure "hundreds of tons" -  are you still thinking tons of water?
Teach me how to calculate effeciency when you do not have an input - to a system.
As I have said here - since we do not have and input -  we use the internal resistance of the system as the "Input calculation"
Thank you for your clarity.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 25, 2012, 02:57:07 PM
Sorry Powercat,
I am sure you meant to be helpful.
Wayne

Hi,
thank you for the apology...what I'm trying to do is get the truth based on facts, so if you're up for a civilised
conversation I would like to try and clear up some confusion, (Marks visit for verification) you have indicated
in the past that mark'did not need to be present as he was not part of the final validation team ?
What is the reason for the continued delays is it due to problems making the device self-run over a long period of time ?

On the question of replications I think it is not surprising that people have their doubts over Webbys replication because
he did receive a sum of money.......and the other two replications have not shown overunity so far.
Do you have any other examples of successful replications that you can show the forum ?  (Ones that are not verbal descriptions)

In the many years I have been on this forum I have seen a lot of claims of overunity and so far none of them have been proven right.
For me personally it comes down to one thing can you make the device self-run ?  Because if it can't then you haven't got free energy.

Now if you are claiming that you have a self-running device you should have it professionally verified and other people should
be able to successfully replicate it.  Unfortunately in the time you have been here none of this has happened convincingly.
I hope you can change this situation and soon as confidence in your claim is very low.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 25, 2012, 03:05:46 PM
Hi,
   I graciously concede defeat mrwayne, you've got me beat!
At my house 1 hp is 550 lbs raised a foot/second, whether by hot air, magnetism, water or whatever.
At my house when we analyse a system for efficiency we use the ratio of output. to input.
                                                            John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 25, 2012, 03:47:47 PM
Hi mrwayne,
                   this is obviously what's misleading me. On your homepage it clearly states "capture gravity".
                                                                         John.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Hi,
thank you for the apology...what I'm trying to do is get the truth based on facts, so if you're up for a civilised
conversation I would like to try and clear up some confusion, (Marks visit for verification) you have indicated
in the past that mark'did not need to be present as he was not part of the final validation team ?
What is the reason for the continued delays is it due to problems making the device self-run over a long period of time ?

On the question of replications I think it is not surprising that people have their doubts over Webbys replication because
he did receive a sum of money.......and the other two replications have not shown overunity so far.
Do you have any other examples of successful replications that you can show the forum ?  (Ones that are not verbal descriptions)

In the many years I have been on this forum I have seen a lot of claims of overunity and so far none of them have been proven right.
For me personally it comes down to one thing can you make the device self-run ?  Because if it can't then you haven't got free energy.

Now if you are claiming that you have a self-running device you should have it professionally verified and other people should
be able to successfully replicate it.  Unfortunately in the time you have been here none of this has happened convincingly.
I hope you can change this situation and soon as confidence in your claim is very low.
Thank you,
Mark is the "contact" between me and the Validation team - we are all working together to make sure they get to see what they need, and I can provide what they need.
We also wait on a few of our other scientists and engineers to finish some of their private work including data collection from their replications.
They are not the one holding things up - it is me - I have a lot to manage - can you imagine introducing a paradigm shift....
On this forum - In part I failed - I really wished TK would have dug in - you might think I did not respect him - that would be wrong. He could have been a valuable asset and part of the team - I just could not communicate with him.
I do regret that he did not understand the ZED, and that I did not speak the language he wanted..
Mark
To be clear - Mark has done his testing, he has had full access to our entire process and key engineers. Spread sheets and the functioning machines. He speaks for himself and has said so - but like you and I - the longer it takes to get this on the road - the confidence diminishes - even when seeing is believing.
Mark and I both thought the world would be excited by the discovery and jump to help - most respond like - well you have seen it here.
We thought having the most notorious critic of free energy technology - checking us out was what the world needed to see.
Now we do have 20 people from this forum helping - but almost none will post here. Some came from following Mark's confidence in us, and other came due to the Character of mine displayed here - (their words) most all said the ignored at first - buoyancy a tried and failed process.... tried a thousand times is a good clue that something might be ....yet discovered...
So Mark's third visit is to come back and make sure we have what the validation team needs - That it.
regarding the schedule and replacement -
We thought some of our team was further along - and we had moved on to our next design - which is immensely successful - so when Mark started his world tour Wedding, conferences and checking out a couple other technologies - we picked someone else trusted by the Validation team to come just in case we were ready before he returned. That's all that was about.
Now webby - he did not receive his money until after he built his system - I never met him - but I am honored by his efforts.
And he was brave enough to show it here - he also argued with me about very valid points - that other have made - Webby's was just the start.
Most of the validations were and are private - and several traveled - international to being me their results and to join our team - one actually brought me money to help fund things - ..... and one brought patent improvements.
All would be and some were called "shills" on this site - it is just the nature of an unprofessional forum I guess.
Now the best efficiency replications was from Canada - he demonstrated higher efficiency than I could get with a three layer system.......... he posted here - but was attacked as if he was me - you see just like several of the last few hate posters lol - he had a brand new login.
The Canadian had built several so called OU devices - none worked - until he built mine - so imagine his surprise - he has also now built a TAZ, and is working closely with our Sim team.
All of this will be released in due time - our time.
"Self runner" -and "What is the reason for the continued delays is it due to problems making the device self-run over a long period of time ?"
I understand - the first system Mark checked was just an input out put model -which verified our claims - but as I have shared before - his peers asked "can it self run" - as if that would somehow make the first test - more true - so we did that next - self run - and then his peers said - "well can it power something besides itself" - as if that would make the first second and third true -
Which I understand - but we also spent $45k in the process as well as adding data collection to a pointless machine - pointless meaning it was just designed to show input and out put - now we are adding and adding and adding to it - it reached its limit.
We also dealt with new issues with some new parts - one issue alone cost us three months.
Now in conclusion with that machine - the data collection turned out to be invaluable in selecting our current designs.
Do you know what is the next question - that many ask - are you using it to power your house- if you are not using it to power your house then the first three must be false........ it is a never ending circle. I have seen people make the argument - it doesn't work or else he would be powering his house - well one of my commercial models will be - but that comes after the hard work - not in front of it.
In retrospect - If I knew then - what I know today - so much time and money would be saved - but a new frontier is just that new - someone has to plow ahead.
That is why I took the path to educate - regroup and align with good people - Stefan first and then Mark have helped with that immensely.
As I said before - it is due to Stefan's initial help - the reason I spent time here - he forged into the frontier - before I knew of him.
And he wants dibs on the next video..... he never quits....good man.
Now -Every single morning and some Sundays - at 6:45 - I give a member a update on everyone progress to members of the Validation team and some other join to help make some decisions - they are keenly aware of what we are doing and where we are at in the process.
As you have no doubt noticed - I am not an engineer or scientist - I am a confident in my mechanical ability, physical testing and this invention.
I have had hopes that I tested and failed - so I know the difference.
Our Private forum is preparing all the answers you seek.
Thanks again
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001816/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 04:41:07 PM
Hi,
   I graciously concede defeat mrwayne, you've got me beat!
At my house 1 hp is 550 lbs raised a foot, whether by hot air, magnetism, water or whatever.
At my house when we analyse a system for efficiency we use the ratio of output. to input.
                                                            John.

Now you are begining to see the differance in what you described and my system -
The virtual mass energy in our system - has no weight - but it does allow us to capture a large field of gravity.
Thanks
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 04:46:37 PM
Hi mrwayne,
                   this is obviously what's misleading me. On your homepage it clearly states "capture gravity".
                                                                         John.

Yes - you have to understand - I did not say weight - but gravity - and we do not use weight to capture the gravity
Thanks
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 25, 2012, 06:52:05 PM
Thank you,
Mark is the "contact" between me and the Validation team - we are all working together to make sure they get to see what they need, and I can provide what they need.
We also wait on a few of our other scientists and engineers to finish some of their private work including data collection from their replications.
They are not the one holding things up - it is me - I have a lot to manage - can you imagine introducing a paradigm shift....
On this forum - In part I failed - I really wished TK would have dug in - you might think I did not respect him - that would be wrong. He could have been a valuable asset and part of the team - I just could not communicate with him.
I do regret that he did not understand the ZED, and that I did not speak the language he wanted..
Mark
To be clear - Mark has done his testing, he has had full access to our entire process and key engineers. Spread sheets and the functioning machines. He speaks for himself and has said so - but like you and I - the longer it takes to get this on the road - the confidence diminishes - even when seeing is believing.
Mark and I both thought the world would be excited by the discovery and jump to help - most respond like - well you have seen it here.
We thought having the most notorious critic of free energy technology - checking us out was what the world needed to see.
Now we do have 20 people from this forum helping - but almost none will post here. Some came from following Mark's confidence in us, and other came due to the Character of mine displayed here - (their words) most all said the ignored at first - buoyancy a tried and failed process.... tried a thousand times is a good clue that something might be ....yet discovered...
So Mark's third visit is to come back and make sure we have what the validation team needs - That it.
regarding the schedule and replacement -
We thought some of our team was further along - and we had moved on to our next design - which is immensely successful - so when Mark started his world tour Wedding, conferences and checking out a couple other technologies - we picked someone else trusted by the Validation team to come just in case we were ready before he returned. That's all that was about.
Now webby - he did not receive his money until after he built his system - I never met him - but I am honored by his efforts.
And he was brave enough to show it here - he also argued with me about very valid points - that other have made - Webby's was just the start.
Most of the validations were and are private - and several traveled - international to being me their results and to join our team - one actually brought me money to help fund things - ..... and one brought patent improvements.
All would be and some were called "shills" on this site - it is just the nature of an unprofessional forum I guess.
Now the best efficiency replications was from Canada - he demonstrated higher efficiency than I could get with a three layer system.......... he posted here - but was attacked as if he was me - you see just like several of the last few hate posters lol - he had a brand new login.
The Canadian had built several so called OU devices - none worked - until he built mine - so imagine his surprise - he has also now built a TAZ, and is working closely with our Sim team.
All of this will be released in due time - our time.
"Self runner" -and "What is the reason for the continued delays is it due to problems making the device self-run over a long period of time ?"
I understand - the first system Mark checked was just an input out put model -which verified our claims - but as I have shared before - his peers asked "can it self run" - as if that would somehow make the first test - more true - so we did that next - self run - and then his peers said - "well can it power something besides itself" - as if that would make the first second and third true -
Which I understand - but we also spent $45k in the process as well as adding data collection to a pointless machine - pointless meaning it was just designed to show input and out put - now we are adding and adding and adding to it - it reached its limit.
We also dealt with new issues with some new parts - one issue alone cost us three months.
Now in conclusion with that machine - the data collection turned out to be invaluable in selecting our current designs.
Do you know what is the next question - that many ask - are you using it to power your house- if you are not using it to power your house then the first three must be false........ it is a never ending circle. I have seen people make the argument - it doesn't work or else he would be powering his house - well one of my commercial models will be - but that comes after the hard work - not in front of it.
In retrospect - If I knew then - what I know today - so much time and money would be saved - but a new frontier is just that new - someone has to plow ahead.
That is why I took the path to educate - regroup and align with good people - Stefan first and then Mark have helped with that immensely.
As I said before - it is due to Stefan's initial help - the reason I spent time here - he forged into the frontier - before I knew of him.
And he wants dibs on the next video..... he never quits....good man.
Now -Every single morning and some Sundays - at 6:45 - I give a member a update on everyone progress to members of the Validation team and some other join to help make some decisions - they are keenly aware of what we are doing and where we are at in the process.
As you have no doubt noticed - I am not an engineer or scientist - I am a confident in my mechanical ability, physical testing and this invention.
I have had hopes that I tested and failed - so I know the difference.
Our Private forum is preparing all the answers you seek.
Thanks again
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001816/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)

I appreciate your answer though it is still lacking in actual evidence that proves your claim, don't get me wrong What you said sounds very promising and I hope the next time you suggest verification is about to happen......it is for real.

When it comes to replications we hear the words BUT the evidence is lacking, putting aside Webby for the moment, Can you show me any videos from successful replications showing clear overunity or a self-runner ?

You mention a Canadian member who apparently was put off from posting but that doesn't stop him from making a Youtube Video and you can even stop people from leaving comets, so there is no pressure whatsoever, but we have never seen any videos from anyone claiming to have successfully replicated your claim.  Apart from Webb

Should we get ever to a situation that someone has replicated a self-runner it is a normal request on this forum that they set up a lives video stream online of their device continue continuously running 24/7, Something you might want to consider.

So to sum up apart from the promising words you have offered and one debatable replication from Webby we have not seen any factual evidence that a self-runner is possible.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
Hello Power cat. Yes I agree,
That is the goal we are working toward - all things in order - validation and proof.
But we did not come here to this site for that reason - which seems to cause much angst among some, I get it.
I did not mind helping people to see it for them self... but still angst..
on a side note: I did not, and do not tell the replication members what to do and not do.
What I will tell you - their is a common theme - once they realize the teamwork, opportunity for discover, and the welcome to be part of a greater purpose - they count that as more valuable than OU itself.
We will be providing what you wish for - I can not promise you exactly when - I can state my goals - but that always gets me in trouble  ;)
I have to say this - I honor those that help us - and I have made promises to match.
Mark has promise - to do with video release and Stefan will get a Copy asap.
My head engineer has the promise to release the Virtual Energy equations that makes our system understandable
My son has the promise to present the engineering to the Validation team
The Validation team has the promise the present and publish the Scientific papers and journals
Dennis has the promise to present the educational model.
We have it under wraps - until we are all ready - but rest assured - you will get to see it all.
Thanks
and in the mean time - if you want to understand the system - I am still available.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001765/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 25, 2012, 07:55:09 PM

on a side note: I did not, and do not tell the replication members what to do and not do.


Why on earth don't you......  It would mean many successful replications would happen ? 
Your information has been on this forum for quite some time and apart from the alleged successful replication from Webby nobody else seems to have managed it,
So I hope you will change your mind on this one and give  precise information on how to make your overunity device, as your current methods is showing very poor results, Surely that would speed up your revolution and get it out to the world much quicker.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 08:59:19 PM



    Exactly Powercat because Mr Wayne is a liar and is now extracting money fraudulently from people.
It upsets me to see this in a world run on deception.

Enough Lies its time for the truth.
I feel the same way about frauds - but you are not protecting the innocent here - you are making false claims against me.
That is fraudulent, be careful to research before you slander.
I care for truth as well as you claim - and you now slander a true inventor.
I can imagine what you must have seen in your life - but prejudice against me is baseless.
Good day Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001779/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 25, 2012, 09:02:20 PM
Preserved for posterity.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
Why on earth don't you......  It would mean many successful replications would happen ? 
Your information has been on this forum for quite some time and apart from the alleged successful replication from Webby nobody else seems to have managed it,
So I hope you will change your mind on this one and give  precise information on how to make your overunity device, as your current methods is showing very poor results, Surely that would speed up your revolution and get it out to the world much quicker.
Because this is not about me being right, or proving people wrong, or breaking the law of physics - it is about getting the technology out - I respect the privacy of those helping.
And those people showed that they were open minded - enough to look - enough to try - we have a team of self motivated people - could you ask for more than that?
It will come in time - the right time.
And all the information I gave on our three layered model is accurate.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 09:23:04 PM
Such a quote is not slanderous if it is true.  Mr Wayne, you have been warned, stop lying about this machine.
Seamus -
What are you warning me about?
What is the lie?
Could you at least give a spec of fact behind your continued claims - I mean really...
I have PE certification and a physical model - for verification, I have Skeptic reviews and more than you will know.
Dunlap and Codding are my attorneys:
They are also engineers, and extremely competent regarding litigation and our Technology.
You may have forgotten - they refuse to handle our affairs until after they saw the validity of our claims.
We have been honest and dilligent.
Would you like to have a meeting with them?
Any way.......
What are you threatening - would you like to explain better?
Thanks
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 25, 2012, 09:35:59 PM
Because this is not about me being right, or proving people wrong, or breaking the law of physics - it is about getting the technology out - I respect the privacy of those helping.
And those people showed that they were open minded - enough to look - enough to try - we have a team of self motivated people - could you ask for more than that?
It will come in time - the right time.
And all the information I gave on our three layered model is accurate.
Wayne

You are the one on the Internet making the claim so Yes I can ask for more proper evidence,
as you say it works give precise details so that any confident hobbyist could replicate your results
and prove that you are telling the truth about your device (so far your information has not done this)

It all begins to sound like you won't give the answers because you don't know the answers,
If the information you gave out was any good why in all this time have we only seen one questionable replication,
Promising words are not evidence and based on the information you have given the results are very poor.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
You are the one on the Internet making the claim so Yes I can ask for more proper evidence,
as you say it works give precise details so that any confident hobbyist could replicate your results
and prove that you are telling the truth about your device (so far your information has not done this)

It all begins to sound like you won't give the answers because you don't know the answers,
If the information you gave out was any good why in all this time have we only seen one questionable replication,
Promising words are not evidence and based on the information you have given the results are very poor.
I can see and agree from your point of view and the information you have - would you be interested in signing our NDA and joining the inner discussion?
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 25, 2012, 10:01:28 PM
I can see and agree from your point of view and the information you have - would you be interested in signing our NDA and joining the inner discussion?
Wayne

You seem to be implying that the information you have given out so far is lacking in detail that can only be obtained by signing a NDA,
that does seem to contradict your statement that the information you have already given is enough to produce clear overunity.
The biggest problem if I sign the document is that if I become aware of something that proves you're device does works or not work
I am in no position to discuss it openly and as I have joined an open source forum I can't see how this can possibly work.
Now you either want to release this information or it is your intention to continue to keep it secret.
I have seen other claims of overunity also use a NAD as a bizarre way of saying they are being open.

Maybe Stefan could sign it on behalf of the whole forum and then everyone would be happy  ;D

Thanks for the offer but I hate secrecy...we should live in a transparent world where everyone is accountable.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 10:53:20 PM
You seem to be implying that the information you have given out so far is lacking in detail that can only be obtained by signing a NDA,
that does seem to contradict your statement that the information you have already given is enough to produce clear overunity.
The biggest problem if I sign the document is that if I become aware of something that proves you're device does works or not work
I am in no position to discuss it openly and as I have joined an open source forum I can't see how this can possibly work.
Now you either want to release this information or it is your intention to continue to keep it secret.
I have seen other claims of overunity also use a NAD as a bizarre way of saying they are being open.

Maybe Stefan could sign it on behalf of the whole forum and then everyone would be happy  ;D

Thanks for the offer but I hate secrecy...we should live in a transparent world where everyone is accountable.
It was an offer for you to see the inofrmation you don't know exists - because it is private.
I stand behind the statement that I have given enough information for a person willing - and motivated to discover our method of OU.
Many have, just from what I have shared here and with the unnamed legal filing  ;)
Stefan is welcome as well.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 25, 2012, 11:23:27 PM
.
I stand behind the statement that I have given enough information for a person willing - and motivated to discover our method of OU.


So why are you lacking in successful replications.  The only so called success anyone has seen is dubious
as you gave that person $2000............And your statements often contradicts the reality of your history.
Promising words....Excuses......and secrets are not evidence that you have produced overunity like you claim.
We will wait and see and hope that you will change the deadlock and produce some genuine proof and not only more words.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 25, 2012, 11:48:12 PM
So why are you lacking in successful replications.  The only so called success anyone has seen is dubious
as you gave that person $2000............And your statements often contradicts the reality of your history.
Promising words....Excuses......and secrets are not evidence that you have produced overunity like you claim.
We will wait and see and hope that you will change the deadlock and produce some genuine proof and not only more words.
. Power cat -
Here is where I have problems with forum members trying to get to the rest of the story -
I never said their was not a successful replication -
I said the treatment of forum members who have tried to share has been unprofessional - it was their choice to continue to share or not.
Yes - we have had Successful replications - and a couple I am not so sure about - what I do know - is they were good men, and they are now replicating our new system - the TAZ.
We are really excited here in NDA land.
I don't know how to help you.
You said you do not have confidence enough to build - if you changed your mind - I would tell you how to keep from making a mistake or two.
You have said you will not sign /respect our NDA (IP) - I understand.
I think Several other members already pointed that out that the mistaken notion put forward - before you - that no replications were successful - was based on lack of information not facts. - that came from a replication team member.
Lack of information is the key issue around here - half of it is IP protection and the other is reaction to unprofessionalism.
I see us at an impasse - you will not come to my level - and I can not release information before due time.
I look forward to our release as much as you.
Thanks for your insights, and especially for trying to have a tempered dialog.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001865/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: iflewmyown on November 25, 2012, 11:49:46 PM
@ PowerCat,
You said  [size=78%]Thanks for the offer but I hate secrecy...we should live in a transparent world where everyone is accountable[/size]
Would you care to share your real name and free energy experiments???
Garry

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 26, 2012, 02:38:55 AM
Will someone please explain to Mister Wayne the story of Steorn and Orbo and the Jury of 12 eminent scientists and the SKDB with its public and private layers and secret-secret inner "kernel"......

Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it.

http://www.insideview.ie/photos/covers/stoern.html
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 26, 2012, 02:47:39 AM
And now the doggerel has started. LarryC, you couldn't be a sock puppet of Rosemary Ainslie, could you? No... her poetry may be better than yours, but she can't divide or multiply, and we know you can at least do that much.

Thanks TK, you admitted I can do math or I know how to get my spreadsheet to do math. But, am I someone who can do complex ZED system rise math and you, who has shown none is totally incapable of comprehending the math. How is that possible?
 
But, go figure, the Canadian's replication has proven that a correctly designed ZED can produce very close results to my system rise spreadsheets. 
 
Of course, you will not believe my statement, so check with your some of your old buddies, who are in the new Yahoo group and have learned the truth.
 
So let's see if you are man enough to admit the truth or just wish to continue to mislead to justify your immense ego, which would make you a very pathetic excuse of a man.
 
After all, according to your previous pathetic statement, the entire town of Chickasaw, Ok. or 16,000 people have been fooled by Wayne.     
 
Larry
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 26, 2012, 11:56:50 AM
@ PowerCat,
You said  [size=78%]Thanks for the offer but I hate secrecy...we should live in a transparent world where everyone is accountable[/size]
Would you care to share your real name and free energy experiments???
Garry
That made me smile, just because it is true and wise.
Over a year ago - I was warned by Mark about open forums being preyed upon by Data Miners.
May or may no be the case here - I am not calling names.
People reveal themselves over time - not my focus.
But as a warning to other inventors - when your work is being insulted - many times it is to get you to emotionally react - to spill the beans you needed to keep secret - and it usually involves more than one person -  good cop bad cop games.
One of the best ways to stop a Data Miner - NDA, and file your paper work first.
Not because they respect the NDA - but they will not leave a trail connecting them to the theft.
I had a man claiming to be Patrick Flanagan pumping and pumping me for information on my discovery - when I asked for Photo ID - Gone.................for good - pun intended.
I had shared a bunch - until I realized that it was a one sided relationship - how could the famous Patrick Flanagan not have any advice or help to give a new inventor?
Now, when I see a brilliant person acting totally ignorant of simple proofs of concept - My professional red flags pop up.
Since I care more for gift our technology has to give and the benefit to mankind --- than the fame or money -
I work vey hard to balance showing enough to let people know what we have is real and throwing it away to  Data miners.
It is tough........it is working - we have gathers a very nice team of real thinkers - it is sad the world is not always honest.
 
How do you separate the Data Miners from the Actual research and discover types - people whom you need and want......the answer -  homework......
Stealing has one distinct characteristic - it does not require work, a true researcher thrives on the work portion - because of the special connection between thinkers and discovery.
I have heard the pathetic excuse - I have wasted too much time and energy - well our best replicator so far - the Canadian - he build a garage full of phony OU Devices too - why did he keep trying - he was in it for the discovery - that is the fuel of thinkers.
And the canadian - he originally built his TAZ wrong - and then fixed it - that was way cool -........
p.s. Thinking - is not always connected to Education - Having a pedigree is impressive - to say the least - but has never insured that a person is a thinker.....No different than saying a Business degree makes you a Leader..... It doesn't.
The hard part is - you have to put up protection from scoundrels and balance the information you do release - or else you die of old age with really good secrets....... I bet that has happened a time or two.
Gary, It was nice meeting you in person - you are an awesome man, thank you for making the trip...... you should see the TAZ..........I would buy you lunch - but then you might be called a shill lol....
"One way"...."Complete transparency" is not such a safe relationship, and asking someone to show their work is another good way to see if they do their homework. Thanks - I consider that a bit of wisdom from you.
  Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00000194/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 26, 2012, 12:09:16 PM

Thanks TK, you admitted I can do math or I know how to get my spreadsheet to do math. But, am I someone who can do complex ZED system rise math and you, who has shown none is totally incapable of comprehending the math. How is that possible?
 
But, go figure, the Canadian's replication has proven that a correctly designed ZED can produce very close results to my system rise spreadsheets. 
 
Of course, you will not believe my statement, so check with your some of your old buddies, who are in the new Yahoo group and have learned the truth.
 
So let's see if you are man enough to admit the truth or just wish to continue to mislead to justify your immense ego, which would make you a very pathetic excuse of a man.
 
After all, according to your previous pathetic statement, the entire town of Chickasaw, Ok. or 16,000 people have been fooled by Wayne.     
 
Larry
You are right Larry, Nobody here in Chickasha has been fooled, I will add - some don't even want to know how or why our system works - they just felt called to help.
When people come and knock on your door and ask what they can do to help ......... That is an awesome community.
My wife of one year now - asked me after seeing the people come together - why do they come, how do they know, why are they so excited to help???
My only answer - it must be a God thing..............
I know I get mocked for my faith by some - such a burden....and a blessing.
Take care - and you are right in your spread sheets - you figured out the ZED a long time ago.
Congratulations! Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00000194/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 26, 2012, 12:32:42 PM
 To all,
Here is a link to a power point Kevan and I prepared as teaching and talking points to a grant meeting a couple of years ago.
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8689161_65379893_837552 (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001782/!x-usc:https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8689161_65379893_837552)
It will help to see how we transitioned from the "Travis Effect" to the layering system, it will show how the additive pressure differential creates a liquid lever effect, how we benefit from the re - use of the operating pressures, and how we overcame the short lived value of the limited stroke.
With these combined attributes - we spanked the entropy mindset.
I hope this helps, they are talking points so not all the information is on the slides - but it might help to get us back to discussing the ZED Technology instead of the excursions/hijacking.
Thank you Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001782/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on November 26, 2012, 12:53:02 PM
@ PowerCat,
You said  [size=78%]Thanks for the offer but I hate secrecy...we should live in a transparent world where everyone is accountable[/size]
Would you care to share your real name and free energy experiments???
Garry

@ iflewmyown
How ridiculous that's as bad as me saying Wayne should get God to come on to the forum and support his claim because he believes in God,I guess you must be one of those that follows Wayne blindly and I failed to see the relevance  of me revealing my identity in any way is going to prove Wayne's claim of overunity, this forum is about open sourcing information related to overunity or did you miss that bit on the homepage? How would it be relevant for this forum to know my identity I'm not claiming overunity.

In case you haven't noticed the Internet can be a dangerous place to give out personal information there are too  many scan merchants out there.So until we get better governments with accountability and transparency little is going to change, and most of us will have to continue to be on our guard against those who take advantage.

@All
MrWayne appears to be back to normal and preaching "the big I am" and serving up more promising words again, I hope one day soon he will come up with some real genuine evidence for his claims.
and saying things like those people in NDA land know the truth is pointless as under the terms of the document they are not allowed to discuss any details. and as TK has already pointed out the(Steorn fraudsters) people who also used NDA as a deceitful way of saying they are being open about the technology but they must protect it.(nothing new in that one)
Wayne continues to say verification will happen and detailed information will be released but it never actually seems to happen and it all begins to sound like the same old story as all the other false claims we have seen over the years.
No offence meant Wayne but your picture fit so many previous false claims, instead of talking why don't you just get on with it you have been around on the Internet for long enough saying that it's all about to happen.


PS
As just saw your last post which I'm surprised by mainly because you have set up an alternative forum because you didn't like the situation here, though it now appears you do like the situation here so for the time being I will make this my last post, sit back and see if any anyone comes up with anything NEW that proved your claim is true.

Good luck who knows maybe my next post will be congratulating you.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on November 26, 2012, 12:53:17 PM
Mr Wayne said;
 I hope this helps, they are talking points so not all the information is on the slides - but it might help to get us back to discussing the ZED Technology instead of the excursions/hijacking.
Thank you Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC

 
Mr Wayne;
Shouldn't we be discussing the TAZ and SPAZ tech since the ZED technology is now defunct?
Is the TAZ / SPAZ technology now protected by a provisional application or is it patent pending?
 
Thanks,
Dave
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 26, 2012, 01:29:57 PM
Good luck getting a straight answer, Dave. I've asked him the same thing about his "patent pending" statement and as typical, he dodged it and didn't answer "yes, we've filed a patent application" or "no, we haven't and it was wrong of me to use the technical phrase Patent Pending when an application hasn't been filed yet." Instead ....well, you saw what he wrote. Getting a straight, Yes or NO answer from Wayne Travis is like fishing for eels with a coarse net. You'd think he'd be able to answer something like "have you filed an application yet" with a simple one word answer. But no......


I cringe whenever I see Wayne talking about "teaching." 
I don't know about you lot, but I've had many teachers over the years, and EVERY ONE OF THEM would answer questions fully and tirelessly until the student was satisfied. Even to the point of sacrificing their own time and meeting with students at seminars and extra discussion sections.... all of which were open to anyone.

Mister Wayne seems to be including "teaching" and "Teacher" in the list of terms he wishes to redefine.

Well, LarryC, I "C" you still can't address the points and would rather stick to the insult and the innuendo. Wasn't it you who called me (and minnie) a psychopath? Wasn't it you who accused me of having sock puppets here?  Let me ask you this: Have you got your tabletop perpetual waterpump working yet? How about an overunity Zed on a table top?  Has Mister Wayne paid YOU any money for anything?


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 26, 2012, 04:19:18 PM
Mr Wayne said;
 I hope this helps, they are talking points so not all the information is on the slides - but it might help to get us back to discussing the ZED Technology instead of the excursions/hijacking.
Thank you Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC

 
Mr Wayne;
Shouldn't we be discussing the TAZ and SPAZ tech since the ZED technology is now defunct?
Is the TAZ / SPAZ technology now protected by a provisional application or is it patent pending?
 
Thanks,
Dave
Good point,
The ZED worked to Prove Overunity was possible - and it has other applications.
I am still waiting for others to catch up.
Thanks
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 26, 2012, 04:22:28 PM
@ iflewmyown
How ridiculous that's as bad as me saying Wayne should get God to come on to the forum and support his claim because he believes in God,I guess you must be one of those that follows Wayne blindly and I failed to see the relevance  of me revealing my identity in any way is going to prove Wayne's claim of overunity, this forum is about open sourcing information related to overunity or did you miss that bit on the homepage? How would it be relevant for this forum to know my identity I'm not claiming overunity.

In case you haven't noticed the Internet can be a dangerous place to give out personal information there are too  many scan merchants out there.So until we get better governments with accountability and transparency little is going to change, and most of us will have to continue to be on our guard against those who take advantage.

@All
MrWayne appears to be back to normal and preaching "the big I am" and serving up more promising words again, I hope one day soon he will come up with some real genuine evidence for his claims.
and saying things like those people in NDA land know the truth is pointless as under the terms of the document they are not allowed to discuss any details. and as TK has already pointed out the(Steorn fraudsters) people who also used NDA as a deceitful way of saying they are being open about the technology but they must protect it.(nothing new in that one)
Wayne continues to say verification will happen and detailed information will be released but it never actually seems to happen and it all begins to sound like the same old story as all the other false claims we have seen over the years.
No offence meant Wayne but your picture fit so many previous false claims, instead of talking why don't you just get on with it you have been around on the Internet for long enough saying that it's all about to happen.


PS
As just saw your last post which I'm surprised by mainly because you have set up an alternative forum because you didn't like the situation here, though it now appears you do like the situation here so for the time being I will make this my last post, sit back and see if any anyone comes up with anything NEW that proved your claim is true.

Good luck who knows maybe my next post will be congratulating you.
Thank You
See you then.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 27, 2012, 12:41:28 AM
I cringe whenever I see Wayne talking about "teaching." 
I don't know about you lot, but I've had many teachers over the years, and EVERY ONE OF THEM would answer questions fully and tirelessly until the student was satisfied. Even to the point of sacrificing their own time and meeting with students at seminars and extra discussion sections.... all of which were open to anyone.

Mister Wayne seems to be including "teaching" and "Teacher" in the list of terms he wishes to redefine.

Well, LarryC, I "C" you still can't address the points and would rather stick to the insult and the innuendo. Wasn't it you who called me (and minnie) a psychopath? Wasn't it you who accused me of having sock puppets here?  Let me ask you this: Have you got your tabletop perpetual waterpump working yet? How about an overunity Zed on a table top?  Has Mister Wayne paid YOU any money for anything?

Hi TK,
 
Thanks, your stated experience with teachers, helps me understand, why you need everything given to you and can't learn on your own.
 
I had teachers, like you talked about, in grade school. High school was half and half. In College, they only point you in a direction and expect you to study the recommended readings, do research and learn on your own. They do this so you can go out and be a self starter in the business world.
 
Many people with self starter abilities, not just those with College training, but school of hard knocks, have come together to assist Wayne.
 
So, I guess you calling me an ignoramus is okay, but any back flak is not okay.
 
I only have a small TAZ on my tabletop, that I built to validate my TAZ spreadsheet. The Output Volumes from the Production TAZ are amazing for the input. But, of course, you would not be able to comprehend, due to your teachers.
 
As far as money between Wayne and me, that is private, but I will be proudly showing an item that I received later after the verification.
 
Larry   
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 12:51:28 AM
Quote
As far as money between Wayne and me, that is private, but I will be proudly showing an item that I received later after the verification.

So that's a "yes" then.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paid (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paid)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)


You have an interesting take on the college experience. I can tell you never attended a graduate seminar. Have you got any research papers published in peer-reviewed journals? How about your dissertation, those are usually kept for reference in your graduate school library. Did you manage to get it published?
I do, it is, and I did. But that means nothing to you, I'm sure.

I just want to "Comprehend" one thing: your work measurements. What is the ratio of output work, to input work, for your tabletop thing, and how is it measured? Are you claiming overunity performance.... or not? If so.... how do you justify and support your claim?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: LarryC on November 27, 2012, 01:58:11 AM
So that's a "yes" then.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paid (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paid)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)


You have an interesting take on the college experience. I can tell you never attended a graduate seminar. Have you got any research papers published in peer-reviewed journals? How about your dissertation, those are usually kept for reference in your graduate school library. Did you manage to get it published?
I do, it is, and I did. But that means nothing to you, I'm sure.

I just want to "Comprehend" one thing: your work measurements. What is the ratio of output work, to input work, for your tabletop thing, and how is it measured? Are you claiming overunity performance.... or not? If so.... how do you justify and support your claim?

So that's a "yes" then.
As usual, more incorrect assumptions.

But, you are correct in one point, I only have a BS. But, wow, I am impressed, please present your research papers published in peer-reviewed journals and your dissertation, which was published. I do understand and it does mean a lot to all of us, and you can finally prove that you are the genius, you claim to be. Looking forward to learning from a master.
 
Thanks, Larry
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: rubicon on November 27, 2012, 03:23:00 AM
It will help to see how we transitioned from the "Travis Effect" to the layering system, it will show how the additive pressure differential creates a liquid lever effect, how we benefit from the re - use of the operating pressures, and how we overcame the short lived value of the limited stroke.
With these combined attributes - we spanked the entropy mindset.
I hope this helps, they are talking points so not all the information is on the slides - but it might help to get us back to discussing the ZED Technology instead of the excursions/hijacking.

Ingenious looking system, but I'm left wondering if it can work for any length of time? It seems the re-use of the output to power the input of other side will eventually result in frictional losses that have to be replenished. How have you managed to get around that?

How much energy of the power stroke are you actually able to capture on an ongoing basis?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 05:42:40 AM
Preserved for posterity.

TinselKoala,
Somewhat puzzled !!!  How can this message (in picture) be message # 3416  and posted in message #3255, while the current message position is #327x ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 06:00:26 AM
Wayne, Larry, TinselKoala, PowerCat, Seamus, & all,
You all need to distance yourselves from this bickering for a while to see how silly it all looks when you revisit again after time passed.

You all have valid, points, concerns, arguments within your own right.
That each of you do not necessary agree with the other's positions, understanding, risk tolerance is clear.  That doesn't have to mean that those positions are wrong, rather unacceptable to the other.  That should be ok !, because in the end the truth will reveal itself when the "big fat Mama sings",  and sing she will !!, we are just undecided what song she will sing.
We should cherish "freedom of opinion" !!  it balances the fiction fluff into the reality.
Life is to great to waste,  it is better spent on discovering the magic around us

The mediator.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 07:49:42 AM
TinselKoala,
Somewhat puzzled !!!  How can this message (in picture) be message # 3416  and posted in message #3255, while the current message position is #327x ?

That is puzzling indeed. I've seen it happen before when threads have been severely edited by the moderators, eliminating whole posts that they didn't agree with. I am not saying that's what has happened here... but the screenshot is what it is, and I name the filename with a name that usually contains the post number too.
This reveals why I take screenshots of posts that I think need to be preserved: it prevents them from vanishing without a trace or being edited for meaning after-the-fact. I learned to do this while watching Ainslie's various threads on various forums.
Let me do a little research and see what I can come up with.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 08:11:00 AM
Fascinating. On August 20, according to my file datestamp, I captured the image of the post below. At that time it was number 1552. I've gone back to August 19, 20 and 21 in the thread and it seems that this post is now numbered  1421.  But.... it was quoted by LarryC! I've included that capture, made just now, as well.

I am astounded. It sure looks to me like posts have been removed. It is possible that this happened when Stefan upgraded the database and moved the site. Or..... posts have been removed by editing and-or moderators action.

Either way it sure looks funny to me. Thank you very much for pointing this out.

ETA: whatever the cause it must have happened Sunday night or Monday morning, because I made the screengrab Sunday and the larger count was shown then. Today the smaller counts are shown. I do not have an explanation other than the action of moderators or site owner.

Who is moderating this thread, anyway? I don't see a name listed as moderator.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 08:26:10 AM

So that's a "yes" then.
As usual, more incorrect assumptions.

(snip)
Is it? I wouldn't have to _conclude_ anything if you'd just answer the question honestly.

Example question: Has Mister Wayne paid YOU any money for anything?
Example answers: "Yes, he cut me a nice check and there will be more soon." OR "No, not one red cent have I been paid and I'd refuse compensation anyway".

Note the presence of the unambiguous words YES and NO, in these answers.

But this is how LarryC answers:
Quote
As far as money between Wayne and me, that is private, but I will be proudly showing an item that I received later after the verification.

Note the ABSENCE of the unambiguous words YES or NO, in this answer.

Like fishing for eels with a coarse net, it is, trying to get a straight answer from these people. What am I to conclude? I conclude that someone isn't telling me all the information and is deliberately trying to deceive me  with "answers" that answer nothing.


AND BY THE WAY... I am really pissed off about this thread numbering thing. It's clear that something fishy is going on. What posts are missing, what is the reason for the discrepancy in post numbers?
I only have a dozen or so screengrabs from this thread. They all have timestamps from the time I took them and they all include the header showing the post number as it was at the time I took the shot.
This looks really bad, fellows. What posts are missing? Who disappeared them? Did anyone trouble to archive this thread?

ETA: If someone gets banned, do all their posts disappear? This happens on some forums, but I don't know about this one. Has anyone gotten themselves banned lately?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 09:42:18 AM
Did you know that to insult someone is akin to crucifying him?

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 09:53:12 AM
..................................................................................
AND BY THE WAY... I am really pissed off about this thread numbering thing. It's clear that something fishy is going on. What posts are missing, what is the reason for the discrepancy in post numbers?
.....................................................................
This looks really bad, fellows. What posts are missing? Who disappeared them? Did anyone trouble to archive this thread?

ETA: If someone gets banned, do all their posts disappear? This happens on some forums, but I don't know about this one. Has anyone gotten themselves banned lately?

TinselKoala,

THE ONLY EXPLANATION !!!!  >>>      MEN IN RED and BLACK, doing their thing again !!!!!
Then this is the proof you has been looking for !!!   """"Suppression indicates the validity of the invention !!"""""
If that is the case, then this can be verified by looking if ONLY certain of Wayne's mails have been removed, the one's that reveal too much of his well kept secret.
A bit of Sherlock and spy mastery will come in handy here !

Or maybe this is the lead up to the "Aztecs predicted event" of  December 2012 !!
I also recently got automated speed fine on a date and time and place, where I could have never been as shown.

If it was old fashioned paper, we could look where the pages were torn out, this is going to be difficult now.
I hope you know how to tackle this,
Good luck

 


Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 10:00:30 AM
Did you know that to insult someone is akin to crucifying him?

TinselKoala,
You are right, I do not like the religious implication to that statement either.
I REPLACED IT with " AKIN TO FRIED" is more appropriate

Thanks for pointing it out !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 27, 2012, 10:19:40 AM
Hi,
  this thing is really doing my head in. I thought it looked promising as I would like something, cutting edge, to invest in.
Solar pv. is so volatile, government policies, rapidly evolving technology and manufacturing costs all being so unpredictable.
Wind would be viable if you could store economically, but as of now you can't.
  I was intrigued with Fletcher's device, but if it worked the scale would have to be absolutely huge because the acceleration
would be so poor that you wouldn't get much power out.
  "Capture gravity"? well say you put the whole device on scales, isn't that going to be it's total gravitational potential?
In this country we're absolutely flooded out at the moment, we've had an exceptionally wet summer and I'm scared about
this winter. Feed costs are at a record high and quality is really low, we have got some lovely autumn grazing but the animals
are trashing it because it's half under water.
    Surely there's someone out there who can put me right on what is going on inside this device?
                                                                            John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hoptoad on November 27, 2012, 10:33:23 AM
snip..
THE ONLY EXPLANATION !!!!  >>>      MAN IN BLACK, doing their thing again !!!!!
snip...
Singular doing plural. Now thats clever! I wonder if the men in black ever dress in red ?  :P
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 10:40:59 AM
Singular doing plural. Now thats clever! I wonder if the men in black ever dress in red ?  :P

You got it !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 11:04:57 AM
Did you know that to insult someone is akin to crucifying him?

TinselKoala,
For your reference, I replaced #1 with #2,  I think #2 sounds and rhymes better.
What is your opinion, I hope you agree with the change !
 >>>>>    Again my apologies for my initial impulsive and inappropriate reference.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 11:28:40 AM
Hi,
  this thing is really doing my head in. I thought it looked promising as I would like something, cutting edge, to invest in.
Solar pv. is so volatile, government policies, rapidly evolving technology and manufacturing costs all being so unpredictable.
Wind would be viable if you could store economically, but as of now you can't.
  I was intrigued with Fletcher's device, but if it worked the scale would have to be absolutely huge because the acceleration
would be so poor that you wouldn't get much power out...............................................
................................            John.

Hi John,
Are you fishing on a public forum ? 
How sharp do you want the cutting edge to look like ?
Remember this is still early days, Wayne is still in Oklahoma and there is still quite some road to travel West before he hits the Pacific in California.  Do not get misled by first impressions and looks, good business is build with sound principles on good foundations. That is the recipe that delivers !
You do not need me to tell you my opinions, I am sure you have gathered that lay of the land already
Happy fishing !.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 27, 2012, 02:17:26 PM
Hi,
  this thing is really doing my head in. I thought it looked promising as I would like something, cutting edge, to invest in.
Solar pv. is so volatile, government policies, rapidly evolving technology and manufacturing costs all being so unpredictable.
Wind would be viable if you could store economically, but as of now you can't.
  I was intrigued with Fletcher's device, but if it worked the scale would have to be absolutely huge because the acceleration
would be so poor that you wouldn't get much power out.
  "Capture gravity"? well say you put the whole device on scales, isn't that going to be it's total gravitational potential?
In this country we're absolutely flooded out at the moment, we've had an exceptionally wet summer and I'm scared about
this winter. Feed costs are at a record high and quality is really low, we have got some lovely autumn grazing but the animals
are trashing it because it's half under water.
    Surely there's someone out there who can put me right on what is going on inside this device?
                                                                            John.
Hello Again John,
I hope you downloaded the Power point I posted a couple days ago - it steps you through the design that utilizes gravity without mass - weight (or total weight - it is not weightless).
Here is the link again.
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8689161_65379893_837552 (https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8689161_65379893_837552)
As Michel Would say - you have to "open your mind" to understand - not to confirm what you think you know. This is not an insult at all - just the fact that the ZED is a Riddle to some.
Thanks
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 02:50:26 PM
I swing by this forum without logging in and since the service provider has changed I will see one set of post numbers and page counts then when I log in to respond they change, no missing posts that I can tell just the numbers and pages.

Webby,
The posts are numbered starting from "reply #1", the first reply post after the opening statement from the topic owner.
These number can technically not change their quantity from one day tot he other apart from increasing with new posts.
Reducing count could indicate posts skipped, but is also illogical. 
Maybe all this unhappiness or the men in red, are hacking this tread.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 27, 2012, 03:47:15 PM
Webby,
The posts are numbered starting from "reply #1", the first reply post after the opening statement from the topic owner.
These number can technically not change their quantity from one day tot he other apart from increasing with new posts.
Reducing count could indicate posts skipped, but is also illogical. 
Maybe all this unhappiness or the men in red, are hacking this tread.
I can not explain why the numbers changed - but the cause was moderation.
A now "Ex member" with three logins has been deleted along with that persons posts.
That dropped this threads page count by ten pages - or 150 posts.
Our goal and sharing has not been effected by the deletion - no relevant data - either direction - has been lost.
Wayne
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on November 27, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
I notice that the addware posts are not affecting the post count recently.  But was this always the case?  Could there have been a problem at one time that has now been corrected and thus altered the post count?  Just an idea.
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 04:18:19 PM
I can not explain why the numbers changed - but the cause was moderation.
A now "Ex member" with three logins has been deleted along with that persons posts.
That dropped this threads page count by ten pages - or 150 posts.
Our goal and sharing has not been effected by the deletion - no relevant data - either direction - has been lost.
Wayne

According to YOU.

If "no relevant data" has been lost, then WHY DELETE THE POSTS? Saving space? Give me a break.

IT IS THIS STRATEGY THAT I OBJECT TO THE VERY MOST.

Whoever deleted those posts is attempting to change history, and it is a game that I will not play.

That is why I capture screenshots and that is why FROM NOW ON, I am archiving this thread (and some others) daily .

Perhaps the posts that were deleted were libels against me. Perhaps they contained some revelation that Mister Wayne did not want discussed. Perhaps.... perhaps...... But now nobody knows, except the author and whoever deleted the posts.
THIS IS NOT RIGHT. A few weeks ago, this site's policy re editing posts changed. Until this change, one could go back and edit one's own posts at any time. Now it appears that one is only allowed one day to make edits. That is a good thing. But for moderators to return weeks and months after the fact and remove posts in the thread..... that is just wrong, an attempt to change the historical record.

If someone needed to be banned, well and good, I agree that there can be sound reasons to do that. But  IT IS WRONG to remove their posts, nevertheless, unless there is some strong legal reason for doing so. If the latter is the case, there had still better be some record preserved in case of legal action. Destruction of evidence IS ITSELF A CRIME.

Once again..... the deletion of posts in a thread, whether because someone has been banned or for other reasons.... is a strategy typical of Energetic Forum (Panacea U, Ashtweth and Aaron and them) and others of that ilk. It has happened here before.... many posts were deleted from threads concerning the debunking of Mylow, for example, by the moderator at that time.

Down the Memory Hole it goes. Mister Wayne, if you had anything at all to do with the removal of ANY posts from this historical --and legal--- document..... Shame on You.... but it is totally par for the course you are playing.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 27, 2012, 04:28:27 PM
According to YOU.

If "no relevant data" has been lost, then WHY DELETE THE POSTS? Saving space? Give me a break.

IT IS THIS STRATEGY THAT I OBJECT TO THE VERY MOST.

Whoever deleted those posts is attempting to change history, and it is a game that I will not play.

That is why I capture screenshots and that is why FROM NOW ON, I am archiving this thread (and some others) daily .

Perhaps the posts that were deleted were libels against me. Perhaps they contained some revelation that Mister Wayne did not want discussed. Perhaps.... perhaps...... But now nobody knows, except the author and whoever deleted the posts.
THIS IS NOT RIGHT. A few weeks ago, this site's policy re editing posts changed. Until this change, one could go back and edit one's own posts at any time. Now it appears that one is only allowed one day to make edits. That is a good thing. But for moderators to return weeks and months after the fact and remove posts in the thread..... that is just wrong, an attempt to change the historical record.

If someone needed to be banned, well and good, I agree that there can be sound reasons to do that. But  IT IS WRONG to remove their posts, nevertheless, unless there is some strong legal reason for doing so. If the latter is the case, there had still better be some record preserved in case of legal action. Destruction of evidence IS ITSELF A CRIME.

Once again..... the deletion of posts in a thread, whether because someone has been banned or for other reasons.... is a strategy typical of Energetic Forum (Panacea U, Ashtweth and Aaron and them) and others of that ilk. It has happened here before.... many posts were deleted from threads concerning the debunking of Mylow, for example, by the moderator at that time.

Down the Memory Hole it goes. Mister Wayne, if you had anything at all to do with the removal of ANY posts from this historical --and legal--- document..... Shame on You.... but it is totally par for the course you are playing.
Hello TK,
Have you analyzed LarryC's spread sheets yet?
John is asking the right Question.
You could be the one to provide him the answers.
If you unlock his question - you will explain how we use gravity as non conservative field.
Thanks Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 27, 2012, 04:48:05 PM
Hi,
  what we need is inventors, scientists, engineers, investors and consumers.What we need is meaningful discussion and facts.
We need discussion not arguments. I'm old now and I can see how we've ravaged resources in my short lifetime.
 We need your technology out there mrwayne, not fracking, not fission, we need something clean and we need it quick!
I thought Mr. Rossi was on to something, but all that seems to happen there is that it just festers.
Come on mrwayne
                             John.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 05:41:18 PM
Hello TK,
Have you analyzed LarryC's spread sheets yet?
John is asking the right Question.
You could be the one to provide him the answers.
If you unlock his question - you will explain how we use gravity as non conservative field.
Thanks Wayne

Hello Wayne

Have you analyzed John's question yet? He is asking the right questions but you are NOT providing him with the right answers.
Where does the mechanical power come from to run your ordinary hydraulic motor to turn a generator at 30 horsepower for a 20 kW output? No matter where it comes from, that will require a flow of 25-30 gallons per minute of hydraulic fluid at 2500-3000 psi. Where, in your HDPE system fitting inside the footprint of a toolshed, can this flow rate and pressure be found? It doesn't matter how you make it.... it must be made, to run the motor turning the generator. I see no way around this point. Even Webby's Force Rectifier will need to make that horsepower at the generator shaft, and that means the kinds of weights moving around at the kinds of speeds that John has pointed out. Where does it come from in your system? There is simply not room for it, no matter whether you are capturing gravity or using your own hot air.... or even the utility mains supply as you are now.

YOU could be the one to provide us all with the answers...... if you only had them yourself. It really sounds like you are trying the same thing that Steorn, Archer Quinn, and others have done: you want "us" to develop your system for you by finding out the "answers" and giving them to YOU.

If you _really_ unlock John's question and see the implications of it, you would realise that there is a valid point that needs to be addressed: where does the necessary hydraulic pressure and flow rate come from? Where does the mechanical torque come from? There is nothing in the systems that have been spreadsheeted, built in backyard gardens or tabletops, or simulated in animations that can either produce the heavily unbalanced rocking that Webby's rectifier needs, or the flow rate and pressure that a standard hydraulic pump/motor needs.

It is entirely up to YOU to explain how you break the laws of physics by "using gravity as a non-conservative field".... because everyone else who has tried to do so has proven to be a crackpot, and if you can't distinguish yourself from those others, why should I... or anyone else.... do your work for you?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 27, 2012, 06:00:01 PM
Hello Wayne

Have you analyzed John's question yet? He is asking the right questions but you are NOT providing him with the right answers.
Where does the mechanical power come from to run your ordinary hydraulic motor to turn a generator at 30 horsepower for a 20 kW output? No matter where it comes from, that will require a flow of 25-30 gallons per minute of hydraulic fluid at 2500-3000 psi. Where, in your HDPE system fitting inside the footprint of a toolshed, can this flow rate and pressure be found? It doesn't matter how you make it.... it must be made, to run the motor turning the generator. I see no way around this point. Even Webby's Force Rectifier will need to make that horsepower at the generator shaft, and that means the kinds of weights moving around at the kinds of speeds that John has pointed out. Where does it come from in your system? There is simply not room for it, no matter whether you are capturing gravity or using your own hot air.... or even the utility mains supply as you are now.

YOU could be the one to provide us all with the answers...... if you only had them yourself. It really sounds like you are trying the same thing that Steorn, Archer Quinn, and others have done: you want "us" to develop your system for you by finding out the "answers" and giving them to YOU.

If you _really_ unlock John's question and see the implications of it, you would realise that there is a valid point that needs to be addressed: where does the necessary hydraulic pressure and flow rate come from? Where does the mechanical torque come from? There is nothing in the systems that have been spreadsheeted, built in backyard gardens or tabletops, or simulated in animations that can either produce the heavily unbalanced rocking that Webby's rectifier needs, or the flow rate and pressure that a standard hydraulic pump/motor needs.

It is entirely up to YOU to explain how you break the laws of physics by "using gravity as a non-conservative field".... because everyone else who has tried to do so has proven to be a crackpot, and if you can't distinguish yourself from those others, why should I... or anyone else.... do your work for you?
Alright.
I presume that you will not be helping.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 06:16:48 PM
Hello Wayne
Have you analyzed John's question yet? He is asking the right questions but you are NOT providing him with the right answers.
Where does the mechanical power come from to run your ordinary hydraulic motor to turn a generator at 30 horsepower for a 20 kW output? No matter where it comes from, that will require a flow of 25-30 gallons per minute of hydraulic fluid at 2500-3000 psi. Where, in your HDPE system fitting inside the footprint of a toolshed, ................................................................

Hi TinselKoala,
Let me drop my few cents here, you are going around in circles.  I also promised myself to stay away from this site but there is an addictive flavor here in line with a soap opera, which make it as difficult as giving up cigarettes.

Wayne has addressed this hydro capacity and size issue several times before, but it doesn't seem to register and nobody looks back to previous postings. 
The Zed concept is a layered device, that re-uses gravity, not unlike the empire state building, gravity on the 1ste floor is the same as on the 90th or 120th floor.  This was shown also clearly during the collapse of the WTC buildings, gravity had a full hold on all floors of that building. it was not a case that the first 50 floor had used up all gravity and there was no more gravity left for the remaining floors above.  Gravity for each floor is additive for the buildings footprint. Same for the Zed.
The zed layering re-uses virtual mass in the process, since all layers are physically overlaid with the gravity force that acts on the layers.
What more can I say to get the point across. I think Fletcher might need your help also on a few details.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 27, 2012, 06:56:12 PM
Hi,
   yeah I agree, the power of Fletcher's wheel would be limited by the acceleration acceleration of gravity. You'd need a big
wheel because power is the rate of doing work, think of getting up any speed as in a gas motor and you'd leave your weight
behind.
        I think the multi storey building is a Tinsel "teaser"!
                                                                                         John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 27, 2012, 07:36:51 PM
Hi,
   yeah I agree, the power of Fletcher's wheel would be limited by the acceleration acceleration of gravity. You'd need a big
wheel because power is the rate of doing work, think of getting up any speed as in a gas motor and you'd leave your weight
behind.
        I think the multi storey building is a Tinsel "teaser"!
                                                                                         John.

John,
Acceleration is not under consideration and neither is there a teaser.  I am dead serious !
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: rubicon on November 27, 2012, 09:11:20 PM
I can not explain why the numbers changed - but the cause was moderation.
A now "Ex member" with three logins has been deleted along with that persons posts.
That dropped this threads page count by ten pages - or 150 posts.
Our goal and sharing has not been effected by the deletion - no relevant data - either direction - has been lost.
Wayne

That would be in your own rather skewed opinion Mr Wayne. As it happens those posts contained many pertinent observations and questions about this device that you continue to avoid answering.

It is outrageous that in a supposedly free public forum such as this that people who dare to point out fact that it is highly likely you are perpetrating a fraud on the public would have those post removed by some collusion of yourself and the site moderators, who by their actions also become complicit in that fraud.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 27, 2012, 10:23:05 PM
...those posts contained many pertinent observations and questions about this device that you continue to avoid answering.

As has been discussed months ago, Larry explained an easy way to search and archive this thread. I'm sure that since you feel so strongly about the content here, you have followed others' advice and made a back up copy for yourself. But wait, your ID was only created in the last couple of days so I'm sure you know nothing about that.

Hmmmm. Dogma Troll deleted, new Dogma Troll spawned. Again.

It is outrageous that in a supposedly free public forum such as this that people who dare to point out fact that it is highly likely you are perpetrating a fraud on the public would have those post removed by some collusion of yourself and the site moderators, who by their actions also become complicit in that fraud.

Now you are threatening the site owner with fraud accusations?
I'm sure that Stefan will be as kind to your new ID, as he was to your old ones.

Tom
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Gwandau on November 27, 2012, 11:43:28 PM
Mr.Wayne,
 
This is an open source forum.
 
If you are not going open source, you do not belong here.
 
Nothing personal, just facts.
 
Gwandau
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 28, 2012, 01:32:10 AM
Quote
I am really pissed off about this thread numbering thing. It's clear that something fishy is going on. What posts are missing, what is the reason for the discrepancy in post numbers?

What, nobody noticed the first time?
On 10-28 pg 188 ended with post 2819
On 10-30 pg 188 ended with post 2819 - but they weren't the same posts.....
3 pages went missing that time.
And yes, I do have every page saved.....
And also yes, they are backed up.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 01:37:35 AM
No, I didn't notice the first time.

I'm glad you have it all backed up.... you will have fun reminiscing in five or ten years, looking back and forth between your electric bill and this thread... which  might even still be going on then, as Mister Wayne develops the Square-Loop Xsed and the Tesseract CHED and the Tri_Zed triple 5-layer rotary system..... and puts off "validation" for another month.....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: wildew on November 28, 2012, 01:48:55 AM
I did feel right from the start that there could be some historical significance and value to saving the dialogue.
And I've seen stuff go missing before.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 03:19:43 AM
Mr.Wayne,
 
This is an open source forum.
 
If you are not going open source, you do not belong here.
 
Nothing personal, just facts.
 
Gwandau
Where is here............Gwandau......Just the facts, Nothing personal  ;) .
Wayne
 
 
 
 ;) Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: GreenHiker on November 28, 2012, 03:22:05 AM
Mr.Wayne,
This is an open source forum.
If you are not going open source, you do not belong here.
Nothing personal, just facts.
 
Gwandau

Gwandau -

Mr. Wayne is here by Stefan's invitation. Stefan even hosts the Travis Effect videos that I made, on his youtube channel.
If you have a problem with the way Stefan runs his site, I suggest that you take it up with him.
Nothing personal. Just the facts.

Tom
PS - Wayne beat me to the reply....
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 06:12:28 AM
Ah, if he only knew then what he knows now....

 :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
Alright.
I presume that you will not be helping.
Wayne

Helping you to build and install your 50 kW unit by the end of February? That's right, Mister Wayne, I will not be helping you to do that.

You had better get cracking, though. What with the December and January holidays cutting out two full weeks from your available time, you are going to be cutting it pretty close. Have you even got the foundation slab poured yet?

Oh....wait...... you don't even have a prototype that will put out 20 kW... or even 10 or 5 or ONE kW,  do you. But you have committed yourself....or at least you have _planned_.... to install 50 kW at the church. That will require around 65-70 Horsepower to the shaft of your electrical generators, allowing for some inefficiencies in your hydraulic motor and genset. We know from your explanations that you aren't using anything like Webby's force rectifier, so you are using hydraulic fluid. Around one hundred horsepower's worth of hydraulic fluid for a typical 60 percent efficient hydraulic motor. 

Where is the pressure and flow rate coming from? Not from anything in your Power Point "explanation", that's for sure.

Since you posted the link to your PowerPoint show here, I've exerted my rights under the DMCA to make a few screenshots from it for educational and critical analysis. The first one below immortalizes your "three month plan". May I ask just when the "three months" started? 50 kW is an impressive goal indeed, especially since you haven't yet demonstrated even one kW output.
The second one below..... well, I just have to say that I do not understand it. Surely there is some explanation for the depiction of water levels and the odd captions.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 05:12:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3doy-eyZew
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
Thanks TK,    Now were cooking with gas.   That is a good slide to talk about - as you know water seeks its own level - so does air in water.
The talking point of that slide was to show how the free flow portion of our Machine worked -
At the end of a stroke - the differential in one Zed is much greater in than the other - as cruedly shown in the drawing. The ZED portion is not shown in the drawing - we were building to that understanding.
In our system - when we let go - the air tries to equalize - this is well covered in our patent "application" (corrected for common use error, thanks for the help TK) and is extremely useful to recapture the internal input of our system - it is of course why we have two Zeds hooked together - it makes using this common equalization effect to transfer the buoyancy -"Laterally"
I am glad you looked at that, this time use two jars of water - and have most of the air in the first jar then let the air flow equalize - Does it matter that the two bodies of water are not connected, what is the common link that controls and causes the effect - Now raise one jar above the other - what happens? lots to learn here.
Cool Work -
Wayne
p.s. Thanks
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001899/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 06:08:55 PM
50 kW by the end of February, Wayne. How about a nice response to that?

And if you aren't going to answer my questions, you don't have any right to tell me what to do.

Especially since you have demanded.... and attained.... censorship of this thread.

I will repeat again: there is nothing in your patent application, your animation on your website, your power point display, or your "siphon" suggestion to me that will produce the nearly ONE HUNDRED HORSEPOWER required by an ordinary hydraulic motor driving an ordinary 50 kW generator. Nowhere, not in any size footprint.

Your censorship of this thread has put you into a different category now, Mister Wayne.

Quote
this is well covered in our patent and is extremely useful to recapture
Oh... your patent has been granted, then? When did this happen?

(Does anyone doubt that both situations "ordered" by Wayne will produce anything other than water levels that are the same depth below the water surfaces of their respective outer containers, and that this level does not change as the containers are lifted up and down wrt each other? What is to be learned from that, that has anything to do with the Zed? Is he claiming something else will happen?)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 06:39:35 PM
I am a USA citizen. Some years ago, the nation and peoples of Germany were in the grips of some rather severe turmoil. The ability of a person to say what he or she thought was severely curtailed and if you said the wrong things to the wrong people you would get the 3 am doorknock and the eventual bullet in the back of the neck.
Some people in the USA and Great Britain and other places didn't like this trend, and a whole lot of them DIED to regain and protect the German Volk's , and the other European people's, freedoms that we tend now to take for granted.... like the freedom from arbitrary censorship, the freedom to speak one's mind and the freedom to challenge hypocrisy and mendacity wherever it is found. I find it extremely ironic that this event has occurred on this particular website.
 My mother spent her teen years dodging Allied bombs in Munchen and Tuntenhausen, and after surviving, married one of the liberating army's sergeants, my father.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on November 28, 2012, 06:56:05 PM
50 kW by the end of February, Wayne. How about a nice response to that?

Something tells me that church is going to have a lot more candlelight services once they switch over to the ZED for their electrical supply...

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 07:21:28 PM
50 kW by the end of February, Wayne. How about a nice response to that?

And if you aren't going to answer my questions, you don't have any right to tell me what to do.

Especially since you have demanded.... and attained.... censorship of this thread.

I will repeat again: there is nothing in your patent application, your animation on your website, your power point display, or your "siphon" suggestion to me that will produce the nearly ONE HUNDRED HORSEPOWER required by an ordinary hydraulic motor driving an ordinary 50 kW generator. Nowhere, not in any size footprint.

Your censorship of this thread has put you into a different category now, Mister Wayne.
Oh... your patent has been granted, then? When did this happen?

(Does anyone doubt that both situations "ordered" by Wayne will produce anything other than water levels that are the same depth below the water surfaces of their respective outer containers, and that this level does not change as the containers are lifted up and down wrt each other? What is to be learned from that, that has anything to do with the Zed? Is he claiming something else will happen?)
Hello TK,
We are modeling 100kw systems... screen capture this..
We have discussed timelines many times - they change with improvements funding and discovery.
I am sure you have attended similar situations.
I know this seems hard to grasp, but keep going - you are a sharp guy.

Wayne Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001817/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Gwandau on November 28, 2012, 07:24:34 PM
Where is here............Gwandau......Just the facts, Nothing personal .
Wayne
 
 Wayne

Gwandau -
Mr. Wayne is here by Stefan's invitation. Stefan even hosts the Travis Effect videos that I made, on his youtube channel.
If you have a problem with the way Stefan runs his site, I suggest that you take it up with him.
Nothing personal. Just the facts.
Tom
PS - Wayne beat me to the reply....


OK, so this is no longer an open source forum.
 
I have noted the change. Error all on my part, of course. Don't let me disturb.
 
Please keep on with the farce. ;)
 
 
 
Gwandau
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 07:32:30 PM

your patent has been granted, then? When did this happen?


Oop's I forgot to kiss you.
I will fix it.
Thanks again
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 07:35:49 PM
TK you are attempting to censor this thread yourself, you are using all sorts of disinformation to twist and contort things, you are taking things out of context and making things up all in an attempt to do what?
How is asking for information "censorship"? How is pointing out inconsistencies in the "information" that is given, censorship? Have I EVER tried to suppress any information in this thread? You are really funny.
MAKING THINGS UP? What have I made up, and can you actually refute me? You accuse me of MAKING THINGS UP.... when Mister Wayne "plans" to install a 50 kW unit at his CHURCH in THREE MONTHS? ??? ?? You have got to be kidding me.
Quote
Freedoms, we are supposed to be free from harassment as well TK, you know that thing you have been giving Wayne for hundreds of pages.
Now you wish to redefine harassment as well Webby? If anyone is being harassed in this thread, it is I. Have I ever called Wayne a psychopath, for example? No.. I've called him a liar, for his constant references to a PATENT that he does not have.

Quote

Freedoms, and yet it is against the law to run into a busy establishment and yell fire.

It is very much against the law to take money from investors based on false claims of performance. It is against the law to claim to have a patent when one does not. Etc. Can you give me an example of something I've done that is against the law? No.... you cannot.

Quote

Wayne is sharing and YOU are demanding, just because it is not being given in the format you want it to be delivered in you have hounded and harassed Wayne.

Where is your proper use of freedoms for Wayne??

You distort and perhaps even lie. Wayne is not "sharing", HE is demanding. Where have I "hounded and harassed" anyone? Requiring someone to provide support for their claims, and calling them out when they do not, when they lie, and when they distort the truth in various ways, isn't hounding or harassment. 

But most important of all.....  do YOU really think, based on all you know yourself, that Wayne will be installing a 50 kW unit at his church in three months? DO YOU???

And let's not forget who was paid two thousand dollars for his support of Mister Wayne, shall we?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 07:37:08 PM
Oop's I forgot to kiss you.
I will fix it.
Thanks again

KISS ME? You mean you "forgot" to tell the truth, ONCE AGAIN,  MISTER WAYNE.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 07:38:30 PM


(Does anyone doubt that both situations "ordered" by Wayne will produce anything other than water levels that are the same depth below the water surfaces of their respective outer containers, and that this level does not change as the containers are lifted up and down wrt each other? What is to be learned from that, that has anything to do with the Zed? Is he claiming something else will happen?)
Here is where you need to think TK - recall all of the replicators that kept telling you that you did not have to push down on the system -
If you will follow the directions and make a new video - you might be able to tell the world. Pay close attention to referances.
By the way - good video - very clear.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 07:42:15 PM
It's a video that refutes the claims made in your Travis Effect videos, and that is where YOU need to think, Wayne.

And I am not in your employ. If you want a new video made, get Webby to do it.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 07:43:53 PM
KISS ME? You mean you "forgot" to tell the truth, ONCE AGAIN,  MISTER WAYNE.
TK, as cute as you can be, everyone who reads this thread has been informed at least five times about the status of my patent application's.
You are just acting like a train and we know it - but just keep tooting your horn.
It helps to prepare me for others.
With people like you trying to discredit our work - I need the help.
I am used to dealing with honest people - this has been a new world for me.
Wayne
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 07:47:40 PM
We are talking about Trinity Baptist, over in Paul's Valley, aren't we?

Trinity Baptist Church  (405) 238-3531  221 N Chickasaw St, Pauls Valley, OK
http://www.tbcpv.com/index.php (http://www.tbcpv.com/index.php)

I see that Pastor Dwayne Johnson is new to the Church, having started in August sometime.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 07:52:33 PM
It's a video that refutes the claims made in your Travis Effect videos, and that is where YOU need to think, Wayne.

And I am not in your employ. If you want a new video made, get Webby to do it.
TK -
I am glad you made the video and especially for your demonstarting your mistaken concept of the ZED.
Comparing your video to the Travis Effect - or the ZED demonstrates what you know.
I would like to get you over this debilitating hurdle.
Work with me, don't fight discovery, I am not at war with you.
I forgiv you every day that you call me a liar and such.
You are so passionate - you have so much potential - don't cross your arms.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001817/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 08:00:08 PM
I don't need or want your "forgiveness" Mister Wayne. I fully expect to receive the same expungation that you delivered to Seamus10n.  What I want from you is the TRUTH.

Are you now saying that it was not a lie for you to refer, constantly and over and over, to your APPLICATION as a "Patent"? I know Oklahoma is far from reality, but when a person in Texas says something knowingly that is not true, it is called a LIE and the person who utters that lie is called.... a LIAR.

I made the video to refute your silly drawing in your power point demonstration, and it certainly does that. And until you demonstrate a self running powerplant of 50 kW .... or 20kW in a toolshed footprint, or even a 1kW unit running your deepfreeze... I am afraid that it is YOU who have the "mistaken concept" of your Zed.

You want me to work with you? Then disclose fully and without NDA your full information, right here in the open. Cooperate by answering the simple yes-no questions you have been asked. But you will not do these things.... because to do so would reveal that you do not in fact have what you claim, only plans, theoretical models and halfway working hardware. YOU are the one with "closed arms", thou hypocrite.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 08:01:41 PM


OK, so this is no longer an open source forum.
 
I have noted the change. Error all on my part, of course. Don't let me disturb.
 
Please keep on with the farce. ;)
 
 
 
Gwandau
What is your open source?
Is it your secret identity and location - hidding behind tunnels......
Is it the constant supression by quick whitted smart posts........
Is it the trolling....spamming and attacks on discovery and the inventor..........
Is it the thread hijacking........
You just now think any open site can be open source...........
I thought is was tough to build a Free energy Machine - now you ask the impossible.
Good job catching up  ;)
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 08:11:06 PM
You should sign your posts

Whyne

not Wayne.

You would be surprised at what happens when people reveal their identities on the internet. The poster's privacy has nothing at all to do with the Open Source concept or execution. Neither does your presence here.

By the way, what are you doing on the Internet, here at one PM on a beautiful day? Should you not be working on your installation over in Pauls Valley? Tick tock, tick tock, Valentine's Day is getting closer by the minute.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 08:19:11 PM

But most important of all.....  do YOU really think, based on all you know yourself, that Wayne will be installing a 50 kW unit at his church in three months? DO YOU???



TK, I was going to ignore this because - well - I don't read many of your posts either. I lost interst after your loop repeated itself five or six times.
But The Power point was for the original Grant application written on November 9 2010.
So if you are going to insult us on our honesty - at least get it right.
Now you have confused Discerning Dave - kind of ironic lol
We did not get the grant - A passionate grant enginner said - "it has to be impossible" - I am so confident .... I refuse to throw my degree away by even looking". and he did not.
He has been fired.
What would you do with an engineer that based his decisions on opinion rather than fact?
So slam us for not getting the Grant, slam us for being held back a year and a half.
One more point - all our business plans and schedules changed after the Positive Skeptic Reviews - which you still ignore.
So any future referances to our timelines - you need to compare to the new model.
You are on the wrong side of right and wrong.
Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 08:21:24 PM
You should sign your posts

Whyne

not Wayne.

You would be surprised at what happens when people reveal their identities on the internet. The poster's privacy has nothing at all to do with the Open Source concept or execution. Neither does your presence here.

By the way, what are you doing on the Internet, here at one PM on a beautiful day? Should you not be working on your installation over in Pauls Valley? Tick tock, tick tock, Valentine's Day is getting closer by the minute.
TK,
I hear you begging, I hear your dare - but it is not up to me.
It is a wonderful day.
Lunch is over good call.

Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: dgoldman on November 28, 2012, 08:25:00 PM
TK, why are you here?

You have made it painfully clear you do not believe Wayne's invention will work as claimed.
You have repeatedly asked Wayne to provide proof, even though numerous times it has been explained this thread is not about providing proof.

I have been a silent reader for many months and only created an ID a few weeks ago to PM Larry.
I am not a scientist or an engineer and I do not know if Wayne has what he claims, but I sure would like to learn more.
I have learned a great deal from Wayne and those actively seeking discovery. I have even learned from you, on those rare occasions, when you have been engaged in the process.

You have now been on this thread for over 200 pages and clearly are not satisfied the information provided will allow you to discover for your self what Wayne claims to have discovered.

If you are not interested in participating in the manner established on this thread, I ask you again: Why are you here?

All the best,
DG
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 10:04:16 PM
Mister Wayne has just made my points for me.

He does not have what he claimed, he didn't install any electric generation plants anywhere, he does not have a patent, and so on and so forth.

And webby you are continuing to distort my words and what I have said. The Automatic Bollard describes very well what is happening in your and Mondrasek's system, as the tests you FINALLY PERFORMED according to my instructions showed. You and mond have an internal spring formed by the precharge that is doing most of your lifting for you.
The See-saw analogy was a thought experiment to illustrate the weight shift caused by the transfer of water/buoyancy that is TAKING PLACE IN THE ANIMATION. If you don't see that, that is your problem. The analogy still applies perfectly well.
And the "100 percent recovery".... that is your claim, isn't it? I certainly never claimed that you have "100 percent recovery" but I'm pretty sure you did.

Now, Mister Wayne posted a powerpoint slide show here a day or so ago. When he posted it, did he say that it was a year or more OUT OF DATE? No, he didn't. Did he bother to revise and update it so that it reflected his PRESENT CONDITION? No, he didn't. He offered it as "explanation" or evidence of what he's doing...... so you can take the rest of your bogus argument and lift it with your Zed.

Yes, I think that because Mister Wayne paid you two thousand dollars for a leaky stacked hydraulic cylinder, you just might be a bit biased in your viewpoint. Have you actually seen Mister Wayne's system making any substantial power, or not?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2012, 10:08:33 PM
Quote
Now, you show me where Wayne has made false claims on the operation of his device, not all the other nit picking you have been doing but actual proof TK, and I did state the operation of the device.
Ok, so the false claim about having a patent isn't allowed. And the false claims about doing this or that by certain times aren't allowed either. What about the false claim of having a self running device with no input and no exhaust, when the device Mark saw actually DID have to have its fluid vented.... an exhaust.... or it would stop running.... and to have this fluid replaced or it would stop running....an input...... and that did NOT run making usable power (it didn't have a generator remember) ... and that the longest run reported publicly has been "under four hours"...can I mention that? What about the false claim that a 20 kW unit can fit into the footprint of a toolshed.... or are claims about the future not allowed either? What about the false claim that he has a "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself".. a claim which he has never substantiated and which would be EASY for you, or mondrasek or me or anyone to prove if only it were true? Can I use that one, or is that against your rule too?

It's NOT UP TO ME TO PROVE HIS CLAIMS ARE FALSE. It is up to him to prove that they are true, and he has not done that at all.

And I'm tired of arguing with a known paid shill who cannot even support his own claims with real, usable and repeatable data, much less those of his boss.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 10:14:24 PM
I don't need or want your "forgiveness" Mister Wayne. I fully expect to receive the same expungation that you delivered to Seamus10n.  What I want from you is the TRUTH.

Are you now saying that it was not a lie for you to refer, constantly and over and over, to your APPLICATION as a "Patent"? I know Oklahoma is far from reality, but when a person in Texas says something knowingly that is not true, it is called a LIE and the person who utters that lie is called.... a LIAR.

I made the video to refute your silly drawing in your power point demonstration, and it certainly does that. And until you demonstrate a self running powerplant of 50 kW .... or 20kW in a toolshed footprint, or even a 1kW unit running your deepfreeze... I am afraid that it is YOU who have the "mistaken concept" of your Zed.

You want me to work with you? Then disclose fully and without NDA your full information, right here in the open. Cooperate by answering the simple yes-no questions you have been asked. But you will not do these things.... because to do so would reveal that you do not in fact have what you claim, only plans, theoretical models and halfway working hardware. YOU are the one with "closed arms", thou hypocrite.
You remind me of a little girl,
I saw two very young children at a scout camp maybe five years old - a boy and a girl. They were sitting on the front row - watching a brother or sister receive a rank advancement -  the ceremony group was dressesd as Indians.
 
The little boy (about six) said to the little girl - "I have Indian blood" and the little girls turned and said very excitedly "show me" ......... the boy was bewildered........ How could you ask such a thing? She crossed her arms and said - "Then you don't really have  any, your a liar" True story. To make the story fully comparable to day  if the Dad walked up and said he does have Indian blood - I am an Indian and I am his father - the little girl would have said "You are just a shill...... (sound familiar)." (the girl did not say "Shill" but it is what you have said about those that know the truth.
 
I have shown my blood and work here - it is in the physics - You have the right to cross your arms, I never demanded you believe me - the facts are discoverable.
 
To be very clear - your lack of understanding - only demonstrates itself- it is not proof against our technology.
Until you recognize you have ignored the obvious truth - you will not realize you have been fully disclosed too.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 10:34:51 PM
Ok, so the false claim about having a patent isn't allowed. And the false claims about doing this or that by certain times aren't allowed either. What about the false claim of having a self running device with no input and no exhaust, when the device Mark saw actually DID have to have its fluid vented.... an exhaust.... or it would stop running.... and to have this fluid replaced or it would stop running....an input...... and that did NOT run making usable power (it didn't have a generator remember) ... and that the longest run reported publicly has been "under four hours"...can I mention that? What about the false claim that a 20 kW unit can fit into the footprint of a toolshed.... or are claims about the future not allowed either? What about the false claim that he has a "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself".. a claim which he has never substantiated and which would be EASY for you, or mondrasek or me or anyone to prove if only it were true? Can I use that one, or is that against your rule too?

It's NOT UP TO ME TO PROVE HIS CLAIMS ARE FALSE. It is up to him to prove that they are true, and he has not done that at all.

And I'm tired of arguing with a known paid shill who cannot even support his own claims with real, usable and repeatable data, much less those of his boss.
TK
It is up to you to stop making up stories and then stating them as facts.
You Slander and Slander - it is beneath dignity.
I hold my original position after your first round of disinformation (were on round six).
You are certainly not qualified to analyze this system - by your own admission.
You have the amount of attention I could afford for now - enough said.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: dgoldman on November 28, 2012, 11:15:09 PM
I want to thank you TK for the effort you are putting in, i bet there are a lot of people reading this thread who agree totally with your sentiment,its well appreciated.

Only those that do not understand the purpose of this thread.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Gwandau on November 28, 2012, 11:39:20 PM


 I want to thank you TK for the effort you are putting in, i bet there are a lot of people reading this thread who agree totally with your sentiment,its well appreciated.

I absolutely agree, most of us are well aware of the discrepancy between mr. Waynes claims and substantial proof being the reason for TK:s amazing endurance and patience in his efforts to validate the claim.
 

Mr.Wayne, I'm sorry to say, but we are all quite aware that there has been a lot of talking and very little walking...
Your input hasn't hitherto carried the impact needed to convince anyone but a few devotees here, which is quite unfortunate if your claims are true.
 

And TinselKoalas dedicated efforts to get the neccessary parameters needed to make your claims scientifically valid has been nothing but an honest and devoted try to straighten things out.
As I understand you are not academically schooled and thus maybe somewhat unfamiliar with the rigid set of parameters needed to validate any discovery correctly.
 

Personally I really don't know what you are doing here. Are you stuck somewhere in the midst of you project and need input from new angles but don't want to expose that situation?

All kind of thoughts like that starts to circulate when someone seems to hold back on things.
 
We live in a world today that are moving towards a point in human history were greed is getting absolutely futile.
Open source is the only way to propel you discovery today. All other alternatives will play into the hands of the energy cartel.
 

But most important of all here at OU is:  If you want to gain trust you have to walk your talk.
 

Gwandau
 

 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 28, 2012, 11:50:55 PM

I absolutely agree, most of us are well aware of the discrepancy between mr. Waynes claims and substantial proof being the reason for TK:s amazing endurance and patience in his efforts to validate the claim.
 

Mr.Wayne, I'm sorry to say, but we are all quite aware that there has been a lot of talking and very little walking...
Your input hasn't hitherto carried the impact needed to convince anyone but a few devotees here, which is quite unfortunate if your claims are true.
 

And TinselKoalas dedicated efforts to get the neccessary parameters needed to make your claims scientifically valid has been nothing but an honest and devoted try to straighten things out.
As I understand you are not academically schooled and thus maybe somewhat unfamiliar with the rigid set of parameters needed to validate any discovery correctly.
 

Personally I really don't know what you are doing here. Are you stuck somewhere in the midst of you project and need input from new angles but don't want to expose that situation?

All kind of thoughts like that starts to circulate when someone seems to hold back on things.
 
We live in a world today that are moving towards a point in human history were greed is getting absolutely futile.
Open source is the only way to propel you discovery today. All other alternatives will play into the hands of the energy cartel.
 

But most important of all here at OU is:  If you want to gain trust you have to walk your talk.
 

Gwandau
You have not seen the walking because of all the T....al....K...... ing....... you set it up.... :)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 28, 2012, 11:53:04 PM
Hi,
   let me give you a little quote from the heading on this site "we will now bring to the market in the 21st. century".
That's what this should be about, not perpetual arguments.
  Mrwayne has made one of the biggest scientific claims I've seen in my life, no wonder he's going to get a bit of
stick.
      His website is deceptive, and the amateurish PowerPoint ambiguous as has been pointed out.
 I believe a working model is needed to get a patent on this sort of thing, why on earth does he mess with 50 kw or
100 kw , when a working 50 watt model would stun the world.
   Don't get me wrong, I would really,really,really love to see mrwayne succeed, my grandchildren need the resources
we're currently squandering, we need breakthrough technology.
  Come on mrwayne, show 'em!
                                                 John
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 29, 2012, 12:03:08 AM
Hi,
   let me give you a little quote from the heading on this site "we will now bring to the market in the 21st. century".
That's what this should be about, not perpetual arguments.
  Mrwayne has made one of the biggest scientific claims I've seen in my life, no wonder he's going to get a bit of
stick.
      His website is deceptive, and the amateurish PowerPoint ambiguous as has been pointed out.
 I believe a working model is needed to get a patent on this sort of thing, why on earth does he mess with 50 kw or
100 kw , when a working 50 watt model would stun the world.
   Don't get me wrong, I would really,really,really love to see mrwayne succeed, my grandchildren need the resources
we're currently squandering, we need breakthrough technology.
  Come on mrwayne, show 'em!
                                                 John
I little wisdom I learned as a child - when you see a need - you can stand back and point it out and feel like you have done something (symbolism) - or you can help (substance)......
 
I only add this because you said you cared, and you obviously must be a great web designer and great with power points..
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 29, 2012, 12:11:07 AM
Hi,
 just cut the crap mrwayne,
                                      John.
                             
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 29, 2012, 01:13:45 AM
Hi,
 just cut the crap mrwayne,
                                      John.
                           
Why are you here John, to help someone attempt to beat up on an inventor, or to help bring clean energy to the world.
Did you see some kids throwing rocks at chained up dog and grab you a handful....
Make a decision - to do your own thinking.
p.s. "it just can't work" and claiming it is to heavy and gravity is too weak,  is not trying to understand the system.
Good luck
If you have a question regarding the power point talking points - I would be glad to answer.
Wayne
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: roguetechie on November 29, 2012, 04:46:49 AM
I'm going to post a link as a sort  of food for thought for all of the people reading this thread and not commenting.

http://amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html  Now this link is a pretty good list of how to determine if a free energy researcher is genuine or not.

Now going through this list there are quite a few of the listed traits that most definitely apply to the ZED saga.

I'd like to submit a couple of other indicators not covered in this list though for the sake of thoroughness

1. The inventor claims they had a working machine at one point but they have since taken it apart, it has stopped working, or any other of a number of claims that keep them from conclusively demonstrating their technology in a conclusive manner

2. The inventor claims that while they did have a working machine at one point they are now focusing on building an even better machine that utilizes the same phenomena rather than just putting together a working proof of concept using the original build layout.

3. The inventor claims that he wants to see other people build replications but will never under any circumstances set about giving clear and cogent step by step instructions in order to do so

4. The inventor claims that he wants others to understand the core concept behind his technology, but he will never come out and directly say what this concept is and how it works. Instead he will string you along with hints and Youtube videos of phenomena he says were the inspiration for the concept.

Whether you are talking about the Papp engine saga or any number of other cases that are similar these are very telling signs of a dubious technology.

What Wayne Travis fails to realize is that most of us who are questioning him and not just taking him at his word or "getting our hands wet" based off of cryptic hints and sometimes contradictory information that he has given out in dribs and drabs over the course of a 224 page thread are not asking questions to harass him or because we want to see him fail.  Quite the opposite in fact! Most of us that are on this site are here because we want more than anything for a dark horse technology to come out of left field and save humanity from the inevitable brick wall we are heading towards right now.  It's the people that truly understand the urgency of the situation at hand that are the hardest on anyone who comes here and claims they have what we so badly need.

The plain fact is every day the world consumes one more whopping big chunk of it's remaining cheap energy! This means that every single day that's wasted by scammers and people who won't admit they don't actually have a viable technology is a day we can never get back!

So Wayne, You can either keep playing the victim or you can pull your head out and realize that this is truly a life and death struggle we are engaged in!  All we're asking is that you either give us a clear and unimpeachable proof that your technology is in fact viable or better yet give us the proof and then let us help!!

I can only speak for myself when I say that the first dark horse technology that comes out and has a team behind it that doesn't do more to sabotage any chance of bringing the technology to market than they do to help it is a technology i'll put every ounce of my being into promoting and improving for the good of the world at large.

Basically ... quit wasting our time and your investors money unless you're actually willing to make a real go of this.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 29, 2012, 05:49:23 AM
To all you arguing individuals,
I feel somewhat far removed from this mayhem due to my involvement in other interests, this allows me to be neutral and see your bickering through eyes totally devoid from emotional involvement. 

What amazes me is the great capacity of mankind to spent great fortunes on war and strife but lack the ability and capacity to do the same towards the good of our fellow men.
This is clearly visible on a large scale, when we look at what is spent on war in Afghanistan and Iraq versus the need within the USA that goes without.
This is is clearly visible on a micro scale, within this forum, it is it so much easier to break down than to build up, so much easier to say "no, can not work" than giving a good idea that could "possibly make it work",  so much easier to run Wayne into the ground rather than to help him succeed,  so much easier to hurt than to make someone feel good, so much easier to do bad rather than good.

I recommend you all re-evaluate how you see the world around you.  Step outside your skin for a while and look back at what you are doing.
It will change your life forever !!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on November 29, 2012, 03:00:35 PM

Now you have confused Discerning Dave - kind of ironic lol


TK did not confuse me.  I am only confused about the following things:

1) Why you think TK confused me.

2) Why anybody would believe your claims, much less invest, based on the "information" you have provided.


(Oh and TK, not that it matters now, but I think you found the wrong church.  You need to search for "Chickasha", not "Chickasaw".)

James

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 29, 2012, 04:10:03 PM
TK did not confuse me.  I am only confused about the following things:

1) Why you think TK confused me.

2) Why anybody would believe your claims, much less invest, based on the "information" you have provided.


(Oh and TK, not that it matters now, but I think you found the wrong church.  You need to search for "Chickasha", not "Chickasaw".)

James
First I never asked for an invenstment from you?
You suggested you saw room for improvement and I said "Come on......... "
Second - your dialog concerning my invention is so far removed from my statements regarding the design size and function for our system - common theme.
Let me give you an Example - The floppy drive had what capacity? and I bet when the flash drive came along claiming that something smaller than your fingernail could hold giga bites of information - it was lughed at - mocked ridiculed and then followed with - I wish it were true - we could use somethinglike that...... come latley
Here is what I already asked of you.
Look at our Machine.
Study the Facts
Study the Physics
Study the Design
Look at the Spread sheets,
look at the Patent application
Look at the replications,
Look at the team work.
I do not care if you believe in the tooth fairy - I certainly did not ask you to believe me.
Use what any engineer, scientist, skeptic, free energy searcher should do - look at the proof - not belief.
Like it or not - I am the teacher - you want the answers - show a smig of effort.
I sent you the power point to help you - what did your respond?
Good day.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 29, 2012, 04:59:08 PM
...............................................................
Here is what I already asked of you.
Look at our Machine.
Sutdy the Facts
Study the Physics
Study the Design
Look at the Spread sheets,
look at the Patent application
Look at the replications,
Look at the team work.
...........................................................................
Use what any engineer, scientist, skeptic, free energy searcher should do - look at the proof - not belief.
.............................................................
Wayne

Hi Wayne,
It is obvious that there are no further words available in the dictionary that will enhance the proof.  This is in a way similar to the large size color advert of a Mc Donald's burger,  flaunting it satisfying taste, but is no final proof to the burger advertised. 
The final proof is found in eating,  the same for the Zed/Taz.
The issue is no longer if the tomato’s are organically grown or the cows are free-ranging. From this thread viewpoint, the time has come.
Just my take,
Michel

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 29, 2012, 05:24:53 PM
Hi Wayne,
It is obvious that there are no further words available in the dictionary that will enhance the proof.  This is in a way similar to the large size color advert of a Mc Donald's burger,  flaunting it satisfying taste, but is no final proof to the burger advertised. 
The final proof is found in eating,  the same for the Zed/Taz.
The issue is no longer if the tomato’s are organically grown or the cows are free-ranging. From this thread viewpoint, the time has come.
Just my take,
Michel
Hello Red,
You know I am an optomistic person - but you may be right.
I have great hope for people  - we all grew and learned something at some point in our lives - because someone took the time and effort to share something.
I gave a speach at two Physic classes a couple of weeks ago - By looking out into the crowd - it would have appeared if just three were listening - but the subsequent conversations - made it worth the time an effort.
Same thing happens here - good people afraid to raise thier hand - but still out there.
Which Slide did you like on the Power point - I know its old - but it is all still relevant.
I think it is the basic understanding - and your book is the advanced understanding - after the last confusion on the water equalization - I think we need to start again at the basics.
I do not think giving up on the people is the answer yet.
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 29, 2012, 05:44:32 PM
Hi,
  what 're you doing here John?
 I had a ten year old daughter diagnosed with brain cancer, not much fun.
 In parts of UK. we've had to test lambs for over two decades because they're radioactive.
Materials from fission processes are known to be highly carcinogenic.
The people hate onshore wind.
The government has stifled most new PV.
No doubt the government will invest in fission to meet targets.
They don't really know what to do with the waste we already have.
Nuclear accidents are going to happen whatever anyone says.
The environment does manage to sort out things like oil spills eventually.
Contamination from nuclear processes is going to be around for probably centuries.
I'm getting on now, but we must try and act, now,  in a proper manner,
                                                             John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 29, 2012, 06:11:28 PM
Hi,
  what 're you doing here John?
 I had a ten year old daughter diagnosed with brain cancer, not much fun.
 In parts of UK. we've had to test lambs for over two decades because they're radioactive.
Materials from fission processes are known to be highly carcinogenic.
The people hate onshore wind.
The government has stifled most new PV.
No doubt the government will invest in fission to meet targets.
They don't really know what to do with the waste we already have.
Nuclear accidents are going to happen whatever anyone says.
The environment does manage to sort out things like oil spills eventually.
Contamination from nuclear processes is going to be around for probably centuries.
I'm getting on now, but we must try and act, now,  in a proper manner,
                                                             John.

Jon, I can not solve all those real problems, and I am sorry for them, and your daughter.
I do have the real deal - when we get past the nay sayers (supression) - and good people take the time to look - we will be a big step closer to providing the solution to some of the issues.
Anybody to bring a real clean energy system to market - requires an change in the hard fast belief in all things being entropic.
We discovered one that is not. Education is the answer to change We are building the teams that will supply the tools.
Some assume our goals are monetary - they do not know us at all.
I have invested over $165,000 of my own money to help stop issues like you describe - and I get called a fraud ----
It is amazing that God gave me the strength to go on - thru all of this - but I feel as fresh as the day I discovered the "Travis Effect" - controlled properly... it can be the answer.
 
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on November 29, 2012, 07:09:34 PM
First I never asked for an invenstment from you?
You suggested you saw room for improvement and I said "Come on......... "
Second - your dialog concerning my invention is so far removed from my statements regarding the design size and function for our system - common theme.
Let me give you an Example - The floppy drive had what capacity? and I bet when the flash drive came along claiming that something smaller than your fingernail could hold giga bites of information - it was lughed at - mocked ridiculed and then followed with - I wish it were true - we could use somethinglike that...... come latley
Here is what I already asked of you.
Look at our Machine.
Study the Facts
Study the Physics
Study the Design
Look at the Spread sheets,
look at the Patent application
Look at the replications,
Look at the team work.
I do not care if you believe in the tooth fairy - I certainly did not ask you to believe me.
Use what any engineer, scientist, skeptic, free energy searcher should do - look at the proof - not belief.
Like it or not - I am the teacher - you want the answers - show a smig of effort.
I sent you the power point to help you - what did your respond?
Good day.
Wayne

Ok, I am confused now, mrwayne.  What in blazes are you talking about?  Prior to your saying that I was confused, I had only made one post in the past two weeks.  And I did not say there was room for improvement.  And you did not reply with "come on".   And I didn't say anything about the design size of your system.  Unless I've lost my mind, you've confused me with somebody else.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 29, 2012, 07:36:33 PM
Ok, I am confused now, mrwayne.  What in blazes are you talking about?  Prior to your saying that I was confused, I had only made one post in the past two weeks.  And I did not say there was room for improvement.  And you did not reply with "come on".   And I didn't say anything about the design size of your system.  Unless I've lost my mind, you've confused me with somebody else.
My error - I crossed conversations with Minne and you.
My sincere apology.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DiscerningDave on November 29, 2012, 07:58:23 PM
My error - I crossed conversations with Minne and you.
My sincere apology.
Wayne

Accepted.  Thanks.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 29, 2012, 11:08:56 PM
TK did not confuse me.  I am only confused about the following things:

1) Why you think TK confused me.

2) Why anybody would believe your claims, much less invest, based on the "information" you have provided.


(Oh and TK, not that it matters now, but I think you found the wrong church.  You need to search for "Chickasha", not "Chickasaw".)

James

Thank you very much. That is why people ask questions, so that their understanding can be corrected by answers.
I was confused by the proximity of Paul's Valley to Chickasha and the address of the church there, on Chickasaw street.
There are Trinity Baptist SBC churches all over the place around these parts; there is a huge, very rich one in one of the chi-chi neigborhoods nearby me and their Lexi and Benzes and Expeditions clog the road for hours on a Sunday. But it gives them something do do, I guess, before relaxing in front of the TV for the game. You won't find Them sharing Sunday dinner with a random homeless person off the street, or trading shoes with one, though. Soup kitchens and closet-cleanout donations to the church rummage sales are good enough for modern charity. And acts of good work don't save you anyway, nobody comes to the Father except by faith in the Son, so kick back and relax.

http://trinitychickasha.org/ (http://trinitychickasha.org/)

I think I've found the sister city, in India: Chandigarh.
(scroll down for the image of the installed apparatus at an official government building, the premises of the Punjab Energy Development Agency )
http://web.archive.org/web/20070411001005/http://www.pugmarks.com/biz/gsmann/
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 29, 2012, 11:29:44 PM
Thank you very much. That is why people ask questions, so that their understanding can be corrected by answers.
I was confused by the proximity of Paul's Valley to Chickasha and the address of the church there, on Chickasaw street.
There are Trinity Baptist SBC churches all over the place around these parts; there is a huge, very rich one in one of the chi-chi neigborhoods nearby me and their Lexi and Benzes and Expeditions clog the road for hours on a Sunday. But it gives them something do do, I guess, before relaxing in front of the TV for the game. You won't find Them sharing Sunday dinner with a random homeless person off the street, or trading shoes with one, though. Soup kitchens and closet-cleanout donations to the church rummage sales are good enough for modern charity. And acts of good work don't save you anyway, nobody comes to the Father except by faith in the Son, so kick back and relax.

http://trinitychickasha.org/ (http://trinitychickasha.org/)

I think I've found the sister city, in India: Chandigarh.
(scroll down for the image of the installed apparatus at an official government building, the premises of the Punjab Energy Development Agency )
http://web.archive.org/web/20070411001005/http://www.pugmarks.com/biz/gsmann/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20070411001005/http://www.pugmarks.com/biz/gsmann/)
Hey TK,
Glad you have free time,
Have you answered these questions yet ?
"this time use two jars of water - and have most of the air in the first jar then let the air flow equalize - Does it matter that the two bodies of water are not connected, what is the common link that controls and causes the effect - Now raise one jar above the other - what happens? lots to learn here."
Still waiting.
 
Wayne
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on November 30, 2012, 12:23:13 AM
Hey TK,
Glad you have free time,
Have you answered these questions yet ?
"this time use two jars of water - and have most of the air in the first jar then let the air flow equalize - Does it matter that the two bodies of water are not connected, what is the common link that controls and causes the effect - Now raise one jar above the other - what happens? lots to learn here."
Still waiting.
 
Wayne

Hey Mr Wayne,
The forum still waits for your "hitting the ball out of the park" demonstration.
Where are you and your group on that demo?
Will this be a private demo, via special invitation only or will you be web casting for all of the world to see?
Such an event should be shared with your fellow mankind.. Don't you agree???
 
I have been following since May 2012.
Are you any closer to demo'ing a self runner ?
Dave
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 30, 2012, 12:27:58 AM
Hi mrwayne,
                   you've got to build up a bit of credibility. The P.P. diagram Tinsel focused on was quite stupid as it stood. Even the few
words that accompanied it made no sense. Why include something like that with no explanation?
  Give people facts and they'll be happy. Make unrealistic claims and you just end up looking silly. Show us a 30 watt machine running
for a month and I'll bet you'll have people queuing up to see it, and you for that matter.
  I could give you a whole string of those I've followed over the last ten years and not one of them has shown anything.
One thing that's really in your favour is your resilience, just like your ZED, knock you down and you bounce straight back up.
 The world desperately needs clean energy and I know you'll show us the way,
                                                                                                      John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 30, 2012, 01:16:26 AM
Hi mrwayne,
                   you've got to build up a bit of credibility. The P.P. diagram Tinsel focused on was quite stupid as it stood. Even the few
words that accompanied it made no sense. Why include something like that with no explanation?
  Give people facts and they'll be happy. Make unrealistic claims and you just end up looking silly. Show us a 30 watt machine running
for a month and I'll bet you'll have people queuing up to see it, and you for that matter.
  I could give you a whole string of those I've followed over the last ten years and not one of them has shown anything.
One thing that's really in your favour is your resilience, just like your ZED, knock you down and you bounce straight back up.
 The world desperately needs clean energy and I know you'll show us the way,
                                                                                                      John.
Gee, I never thought of that - should I invite a skeptic out to watch it run?
Should I let him make his own video?
On the power point slide - Can you add any valuable insights, or observation, or is "quite stupid" the extent of it.
Thanks
Wayne
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 30, 2012, 02:56:14 AM

Hey Mr Wayne,
The forum still waits for your "hitting the ball out of the park" demonstration.
Where are you and your group on that demo?
Will this be a private demo, via special invitation only or will you be web casting for all of the world to see?
Such an event should be shared with your fellow mankind.. Don't you agree???
 
I have been following since May 2012.
Are you any closer to demo'ing a self runner ?
Dave
Hello Dave,
In all your posts - you have had a level head - I agree with you.
Please recall that our first Demo back in May of 2011, it was a simple input and output system - only three layers and we demonstrated that the additive effect of the Pressure differentials were sound - and yes,   they matched Larry's spread sheets.
It was the first stage of an over unity machine.
In November of 2011 we demonstrated that original three layer unity self running - Over unity closed loop.
In the year that has passed since then - we worked way to long and hard to turn that model into a closed loop system that also converted the excess energy to electricity as well as gather Data throughout the system and all of its function.
In hind site - that was partially a waste of time - balancing budgets - meant we needed to reuses what we could. Reusing that three layer system was a mistake to accomplish all the goals - but we did get to use the Data to develop our Optimized systems.
And all of the work we did was very useful to gain the knowledge of mechanical limitations speeds and flow values.
I asked the group to regroup and decide if we should abandon the ZED, or build the optimized system -
More engineers joined the fight -
Timing was great,
We had new engineers who lent valuable effort to the cause - you see the design is not the problem - it is how do you use it.
With these additional engineers volunteering, Greece, Switzerland, Four from the USA - all helping to answer the question - can we make this little model meet all the demands we have on it?
The independently analyzed the system and agreed - YES - but barley - well barely was where we were at - and even with
a fueless system running over unity and over coming all the exchange losses - I did not see anymore value in it than the last demo.
SO I asked the group to optimize our design to "Hit it out of the park"
p.s. (I do not care about the barking dogs and their demands - I want what is right for the people helping and the needs the machine can meet).
For over thirty days I reviewed optimizations and designs - none were impressive enough, within the requirements they were given.
So I pulled out the next Model - it uses the same unique discovery - but with a unique input method - and I asked ten of the engineers to run numbers on it (COP).
We built three little models and used the data to verify the engineers.
The most conservative engineer came to me in a low voice and said "this is unbelievable - I am as conservative as I can be and you have a COP of 13."
I said to him, then design me one to build with enough output to "knock it out of the park" - and we built that one.
Our original COP on the finished model was 11, not bad since we can not slope the input (with my budget).
After my head engineer evaluated the system - he said double the input system to add more control and more options.
And we did.
Now Larry - has worked tirelessly on this system, along with our head engineer - with evaluations COG, Mass momentum and other things we have to deal with.
Currently we are running tests on using the New model to run the ZEDS, and we are also developing different output systems for the new model.
(I have no time for invisible unicorns and demands by people to show them something)
But this Web site has enabled many good men to bypass the unicorns and come straight here.
We had a Physicist Join today.
So we are setting up for the best ball game ever.
Now My wife has been very ill - so that has kept me close to here and I decided to see if anyone wanted to discuss the technology - and its merits. But alas - no takers, Red may be right.
All or nothing..........is all I hear............... I think our team deserves the rights to our release... enough said on that.
Dale, we are on steps of the release - do you know what will be said about all the truth I just shared -
TK and his ponies will say see see .... he admits he does not have anything - it is pure ignorance - all or nothing.
I know becasue they do it every week.
They will ignore again that we have had verified Over unity for more than a year. As they have for over a year.
p.s When I am wrong - I am quick to sit down.
If there is more than two ways to do the same thing - I do not see a need to argue.
I will not beat a man down because I do not agree with his politics or his faith, or lack of it.
And the scientific method has served us well - I encourage our detractors to start using it.
Thank you for being respectful - even if I do not provide exactly what you seek.
Yesterday I described myself as a chained up dog... a dog because I am loyal, chained up because I will not lie to suit my needs, the rocks are being thrown are the lies - those that think it is fun - are sick.
I will send Stefan Marks Next video, for those like you.
 Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001793/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 30, 2012, 09:43:44 AM
Hi,
    I've been giving this one some thought as I do my ordinary work.
I had an idea with a combustion engine to do away with a crank, in practice I didn't think much of it in the end.
It may however work on a gravity machine. Say you had  a long stroke and with permanent magnets on your rod
which would then pass through coils, you might be able to produce a linear generator? Do this on several cylinders
and you should get a steady flow.
   This should get round the horrific losses involved in hydraulics-electric conversion.
                                                                        John.



Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 10:56:13 AM
Quote
I did what you have not and yet when you can not argue the science, the math, you all go after the man,, what fucking ignorant morons you all are,, period end of story.

I've given you more REAL math analysis here than anyone else, Webby, thanks to minnie's great questions. I and some others have argued the SCIENCE until we are blue in the face, because you and Wayne are out of your depth when it comes to thermodynamics and energy and work and all the rest of that.

What "FUCKING ignorant moronic" claims have I made that need proving, Webby? The claim that he paid you two thousand dollars? You are the only one who can prove that, I suppose, I am just going by what YOU told me.

I've claimed that Wayne is a liar: and every time he refers to his "Patent" he proves me right.
I've "claimed" that he does not now have nor ever has had a 20 kW unit. Actually that isn't a claim at all, it is a demand for Wayne to prove his claims. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims here, fucking ignorant moron Webby.

And it is YOU who are going after the man here, fucking ignorant moron Webby. Or the Koala, rather.  I have asked for Wayne to prove his claims and he hasn't been able to do so. Have I attacked his character, called him a psychopathic fucking ignorant moron, insulted his family tree, made up bad poetry about him? No, I have not. I have called him a liar when he lies, and I have challenged him to prove that he doesn't lie about his HDPE system.

So again, FUCKING Webby, what FUCKING ignorant moronic claims do YOU claim that I've made?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 11:00:26 AM
Quote
To the rest of you, TK and the rest are saying that you are to stupid to make up your own minds and they are protecting you from your own stupidity,, how does that make you feel???

That's a lie Webby and you know it. Shame on you.

Or do you have a link to where I said that anyone is "to" stupid to make up their own mind? Of course you don't.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 11:28:21 AM
Hey TK,
Glad you have free time,
Have you answered these questions yet ?
"this time use two jars of water - and have most of the air in the first jar then let the air flow equalize - Does it matter that the two bodies of water are not connected, what is the common link that controls and causes the effect - Now raise one jar above the other - what happens? lots to learn here."
Still waiting.
 
Wayne
Yes I have answered, Wayne, and if you would read my posts you would see that I answered you already. What are you waiting on me for? YOU are the one who is always late. 50 kW at the church in three months ... and that turned out to be a year or more ago ...... I laugh at you.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: dgoldman on November 30, 2012, 01:48:51 PM
I think the post below got buried as it waited for moderation.
After the last exchange, I think maybe I will ask one more time:

TK, why are you here?

You have made it painfully clear you do not believe Wayne's invention will work as claimed.
You have repeatedly asked Wayne to provide proof, even though numerous times it has been explained this thread is not about providing proof.

I have been a silent reader for many months and only created an ID a few weeks ago to PM Larry.
I am not a scientist or an engineer and I do not know if Wayne has what he claims, but I sure would like to learn more.
I have learned a great deal from Wayne and those actively seeking discovery. I have even learned from you, on those rare occasions, when you have been engaged in the process.

You have now been on this thread for over 200 pages and clearly are not satisfied the information provided will allow you to discover for your self what Wayne claims to have discovered.

If you are not interested in participating in the manner established on this thread, I ask you again: Why are you here?

All the best,
DG

TK, I really do want to know. It is not just a thought experiment for you.

Thanks,
DG
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 30, 2012, 02:43:45 PM
Yes I have answered, Wayne, and if you would read my posts you would see that I answered you already. What are you waiting on me for? YOU are the one who is always late. 50 kW at the church in three months ... and that turned out to be a year or more ago ...... I laugh at you.
You and I are very different,  I very much avoid insulting people - Don't we have enough trash in the world to go around already.
Besides - I think most people do a very good job of insulting themselves thru their actions and words.
I have also found the the LOADER someone insults another - the more they are trying to hide - usually fear of being discovered.
You should not fear inadequacy - you should work to overcome it, or accept your limitations.
That is why I ask you - what Part of the ZED does not work - stop wasting all of our times with your smear campaign.
If you can not handle the ZED, it is ok - it is a hard puzzle.
I described it as playing a winning game of chess - not knowing the rules, not knowing the pieces, not knowing the strategy -
It is no wonder the ZED has not been discovered before now - it was a tough discovery.
One thing for sure - you have made a name for yourself - and Bully does not cover it.
Good luck.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com (http://www.overunity.com/mhtml:{BA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745}mid://00001790/!x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on November 30, 2012, 02:59:12 PM
dgoldman,
                 mrwayne's claim is profound, I stand corrected, but I don't think anyone since the time of Archimedes of Syracuse
has got water to flow uphill until mrwayne.
   Most basic scientific things can be demonstrated with quite simple equipment. Proof of concept. I adore the fire syringe,
how a diesel engine fires on a tabletop. I realise Diesel wasn't after that part of it, he was mainly concerned with efficiency.
                                                                                     John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on November 30, 2012, 03:42:23 PM
Quote
dgoldman :    TionselKoala, I ask you again: Why are you here?
Wayne: One thing for sure - you have made a name for yourself .

Speculation on a OVERUNITY FORUM  -  The question:  TinselKoala,  Why are you here?
My guess,
Tinsel & Maggie might be looking for a OU validation job ! One of the possibilities of reason (these are trying times of limited job opportunities, especially in the OU field) 
TK presented his credentials well in advance and his ongoing loud and aggressive maneuvering doesn't leave Wayne much choice in the end, other than to silence this noisy bird by hiring him.
Do you also think that this is TK's possible strategy ?
What is your guess?
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 30, 2012, 07:07:41 PM


  Just answer the question you **** and stop obfuscating!
Seamus,
Stop ignoring the previously presented facts.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on November 30, 2012, 09:38:48 PM
......and just think, this used to be such a peaceful and friendly town to visit.
Now the townfolk are at each other's throats; Name calling, back stabbing and slandering one another.
I guess this is HIGH DRAMA at it's best / worst!!
 
Can we get back to the matter at hand and learn...
There can be more than one student, but only ONE teacher in this class !!
 
Carry on Master Wayne... time hurries on and we won't EVER be this young again.......
 
The competition is hard at work !!
 
One of my countrymen is claiming;
http://searlmagnetics.com/investing.html (http://searlmagnetics.com/investing.html)
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 10:53:07 PM
That was a fun display TK :)

Thermodynamics, well that has been brought up a few times as a reason why this system can not function, I thought I had a pretty good understanding in this area but I touched base with it again anyway.

So I guess I am missing something about thermodynamics, and the only thing I can come up with is that there must be some part in there that states that the operator of a system can only extract an equivalent value from the system as the operator by themselves is putting into the system.

I would appreciate it if you could point out the section that has this in it, I must be miss-understanding or miss-interpreting that section so if you tell me where that is I will try and go over it better.

Here is the only response to you that is needed:

You have been bought and paid for by Mister Wayne, and the price was two thousand dollars.

Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 11:06:27 PM
A simple high level analogy.

A gas powered engine with an electric starter motor attached.
A generator attached to the crankshaft of the gas powered engine.
A battery connected to the generator.
A portable T.V. connected to the battery.
A switch pre-set so that when the battery is down to a low limit it connects the battery to the starter motor and the starter motor starts the gas powered engine, the gas powered engine runs the generator and the generator recharges the battery.
A switch pre-set for the high limit for the battery so that when the battery is at that level the switch turns off the gas powered engine.

So the ZEDs are the gas powered engine, the hydraulic assist rams are the starter motor, the large rams connected to the top of the risers are the generator and the output accumulator is the battery.

If you do not have the T.V. running off of the battery then when the battery is brought up to its high level setting the gas powered engine is turned off and with no drain on the battery the low level switch will not turn the gas powered engine back on because the battery is full.

You can also see with this analogy that the fluid used in the output accumulator is not used inside the ZEDs.

I can see your prevarication and mendacity, that is for sure. You have repeatedly claimed no exhaust no input, but you said right out that the unit had to have its fluid vented overboard or it would stop. And I inferred from that that it would eventually run out of fluid unless resupplied ... and stop.

DO THE MATH on this simple problem, instead of obfuscating with inapplicable analogies. That machine needed to exhaust fluid or it would stop. And it needed at the very least to be resupplied with fluid (at what pressure?) or it would stop. Therefore IT WAS NOT A SELF RUNNER WITHOUT INPUT OR EXHAUST.

How much money have you paid LarryC and RedSunset and Webby and your other shills? This is an unique event, flabbergasting in fact. You wouldn't trust a skeptic who was known to be on the payroll of "Big Oil", would you?  Good grief, none of you lot are trustworthy, because you've had money changing hands in exchange for secret work and secret information.

And you still can't show a selfrunning machine, can you.

Let me ask you this: that Power Point slide show promising to put a 50 kW unit at the church IF you got the investment you were asking for. You didn't put the 50 kW unit in because you DID NOT SUCCEED IN CONVINCING THOSE INVESTORS to buy into your miracle scheme. Right?

And you are complaining about not being able to convince me, a fucking ignorant moron (this is what your paid shill called me; I do not use that sort of language unless extremely provoked, as now). Well, your proposed investors must really REALLY be a stupid lot, because you gave them everything you had, in person, with full explanations, didn't you. Yet they were not convinced, they did not invest in the BIGGEST NEW INVENTION SINCE THE BUCKET. Why not? There can be only one explanation: you didn't convince them because you cannot show proof of your claims.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 11:14:26 PM
I think the post below got buried as it waited for moderation.
After the last exchange, I think maybe I will ask one more time:

TK, I really do want to know. It is not just a thought experiment for you.

Thanks,
DG
Lately, it's because I am being attacked and questioned and ...yes.... even lied to.
When I am called a fucking ignorant moron by a PAID SHILL of the claimant who cannot support his claims with facts and data..... what would you have me do? (And one who doesn't know his "to" from his "too", to boot-- calling me a moron. How funny is that.)

This is the most amazing thread I have ever encountered here. It is more amazing to me even than the Mylow saga. Paid shills! Secret Inner Circles! Investors who aren't convinced by the promise of a 50 kW unit installed in three months! Self running machines that keep on STOPPING !!! Overunity devices with batteries and no output other than groaning and clicking, like in Dansie's video! Censorship, removal of posts, altering history!!! A Ten Thousand Dollar Prize, offered only to people in the inner circle with access to more information than we out here have.

Why are you here, dgoldman, for the comedy and pathos of it all? I hope you are enjoying the show. It's better than Wheel of Fortune, for sure. Only thing is, you cannot buy a vowel.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 11:21:49 PM
Actually, as you can see, I do not need any response from you, I am simply using the ones you have already made.

Two thousand dollars, Webby. That buys a lot of words, a lot of loyalty. You have ZERO credibility. You accepted payment, and now you are supporting the person who paid you.


Here, choke on this, paid shill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 11:26:20 PM
Then why did Mister Wayne say that the machine Mark saw and videoed... the one with batteries that it could not charge because it had no generator output .... the one I have talked about in that context ... had to have fluid vented or it would stop?

You are a paid shill with no credibility. Do you want me to find the quote? Has it been removed or censored maybe?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 30, 2012, 11:37:08 PM
I can see your prevarication and mendacity, that is for sure. You have repeatedly claimed no exhaust no input, but you said right out that the unit had to have its fluid vented overboard or it would stop. And I inferred from that that it would eventually run out of fluid unless resupplied ... and stop.

DO THE MATH on this simple problem, instead of obfuscating with inapplicable analogies. That machine needed to exhaust fluid or it would stop. And it needed at the very least to be resupplied with fluid (at what pressure?) or it would stop. Therefore IT WAS NOT A SELF RUNNER WITHOUT INPUT OR EXHAUST.

How much money have you paid LarryC and RedSunset and Webby and your other shills? This is an unique event, flabbergasting in fact. You wouldn't trust a skeptic who was known to be on the payroll of "Big Oil", would you?  Good grief, none of you lot are trustworthy, because you've had money changing hands in exchange for secret work and secret information.

And you still can't show a selfrunning machine, can you.

Let me ask you this: that Power Point slide show promising to put a 50 kW unit at the church IF you got the investment you were asking for. You didn't put the 50 kW unit in because you DID NOT SUCCEED IN CONVINCING THOSE INVESTORS to buy into your miracle scheme. Right?

And you are complaining about not being able to convince me, a fucking ignorant moron (this is what your paid shill called me; I do not use that sort of language unless extremely provoked, as now). Well, your proposed investors must really REALLY be a stupid lot, because you gave them everything you had, in person, with full explanations, didn't you. Yet they were not convinced, they did not invest in the BIGGEST NEW INVENTION SINCE THE BUCKET. Why not? There can be only one explanation: you didn't convince them because you cannot show proof of your claims.
Who are you talking too?
And where do you come up with such a Fantasy. ..........omgosh
All of that work was when I was nearly on my own, doing it just JR and myself - changed when we passed the seventh level of validation - help came - we are now 130 people strong, who use their abilities to HELP ONE ANOTHER.
Most of our group pity you, some are angry at the lies - you are far out of line.
The start up trouble you laugh and mock us about - was long ago.
Study the ZED, add a mathmatical referance that resembles something to do with the ZED. Not yours and Minnies reinvention of the water fall or a Dam, we have a unique discovery - you and minnie are as far from the Zed as lead is from ballons.
When you ask for pity as you get tripped up by your own misdirections - is self inflicted...self inflicted ...listen to yourself - you have lost your own self respect, and credibility with your made up stories - just like the one you just posted..
Learn something - Stop it, I have no desire for your injury.
You have ade an Name for yourself - you will be in history.
Wayne
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on November 30, 2012, 11:41:14 PM
Then why did Mister Wayne say that the machine Mark saw and videoed... the one with batteries that it could not charge because it had no generator output .... the one I have talked about in that context ... had to have fluid vented or it would stop?

You are a paid shill with no credibility. Do you want me to find the quote? Has it been removed or censored maybe?
Before you embarrass yourself again, Mark has been here more than once - and seen the process as it evolves.
Stop this rudeness,  Study the machine so you will know what our group knows - and has tried to share.
Or move on.
Wayne
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on December 01, 2012, 01:25:06 AM
mrwayne (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mrwayne.25139/)wanted to have his whole account deleted.


Before I do this after having verified it was really him, I would advice saving the important posting.


Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mrwayne on December 01, 2012, 03:08:28 AM
Thank you Stefan,
And To those of you who followed with interest thank you.
Good Night
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: DaveBrit on December 01, 2012, 03:25:49 AM
 :-[  ....and Elvis has left the forum.
For good this time?  8)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 01, 2012, 05:47:10 AM
mrwayne (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mrwayne.25139/) wanted to have his whole account deleted.
Before I do this after having verified it was really him, I would advice saving the important posting.
Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)

Thank you Stefan, And To those of you who followed with interest thank you.
Good Night

Wooowh,  peace at last  !! 
This action should have happened ages ago, too much damage to this thread has been done by just one steamroller person.
Looking forward to Christmas with light powered by the Zed/Taz and the serenity of peace on earth.
Good night......
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 01, 2012, 07:09:59 AM


Damage? All Mister Wayne ever had to do to shut any such "steamroller person" up for good, discredit him and make him so embarrassed that he'd never show his koala fur around here again.... is to show the proof of his claims. But he did not.... because he cannot. You think you are going to enjoy Christmas under the power of a Zed-lighted tree? Think again. Mister Wayne's house is still grid-powered and still will be at Christmas.
If it's not.... I'll apologise in public on You Tube. If it IS-- if Mister Wayne is still not running his own home's electrical needs on a self-powered HDPE system..... then I think somebody will owe ME an apology. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

All "presently existing" pages saved as .html and zipped up in an archive, downloadable at
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?d7sdhi1l4112zoi

Complete, unedited and I didn't even redact my IP address.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 01, 2012, 07:53:20 AM
But it is fun going back over the old thread before it disappears.

For instance, in the post presently numbered #49, the Mark Dansie video was posted.

In post # 84, Stefan refers to the device as a "Rude Goldberg" device (sic).... I really am still lolling over that one. Incredibly appropriate, looking back from this vantage point.

In post #94, Mark Dansie stated his actual position at that time, clearly after he had made the video:

"I wanted to clarify some things.
I think this is a good exercise for Wayne being reviewed and this is just a taste of what he will have to go through when third party validation takes place. (the money people are a tough crowd) It is however hard to have a sensible argument or a full review when a lot of the information is missing, and while the technology is under development that has to be the way it is.
I have seen the device run in person in what I call manual mode. Over the last few months Wayne and his team have been working to fully automate it and gather data to assist in the new design.
I have not signed off on it and publicly stated this many times until I can see it run non stop for at least two days with no inputs.
However I am optimistic about this being achieved, especially seeing some of the data and discussions with his engineers.
The next hurdle once this is achieved it increasing the power outputs.
I am very happy you all asked the questions and many are valid, but on the other hand its difficult for Wayne to answer with his hands tied behind his back by not being able to disclose too much.
Once I have seen it run for two days non stop I will report back (with Wayne s permission)
Kind Regards to you all
Mark"

Emphasis mine.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on December 01, 2012, 09:37:09 AM
Hi,
   that's one of the best ideas lately, light a Christmas tree. Start with something achievable and show that to the world.
If this is a gravity  machine, 50 watts would be a good place to start, the acceleration of gravity isn't that good so expect
a small output.
                       John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on December 01, 2012, 10:05:00 AM
Hi,
    I think I've worked out a plausible reason for venting hydraulic fluid to keep it going. The thing was running on stored air
pressure from big cylinders but as the air reduced there wouldn't be enough force left to run the hydraulic system. Hence
by reducing the load that way would give a bit more run time.
  Even if you could get a gravity wheel to work you couldn't get any real power because the rpm would be so limited, the
weights would just get left behind at a certain speed.
                                                                                John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 01, 2012, 11:14:53 AM
......................................................... You think you are going to enjoy Christmas under the power of a Zed-lighted tree? Think again. Mister Wayne's house is still grid-powered and still will be at Christmas. ....................................................................
I think I was too fast, too optimistic.
Talking about the devil and you see his tail.  It must still be too early for Christmas and peace.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: powercat on December 01, 2012, 12:17:46 PM
As MrWayne has nothing new to offer most of us won't be disappointed to see him leaving again. and let's face facts He will be remembered for promising so much and delivering very little, and those of us who have experience of people who make claims of Overunity will know and understand how his profile is a perfect match of somebody making a fraudulent claim.


In all the time he's been here the best results he came up with was the $2000 Webby and all his other supporters and blind followers couldn't even match that's dubious results.  All MrWayne and his followers do is regurgitate the same old story of promising words excuses and not forgetting the latest one....it all works great in NDA land but of course no one is allowed to talk about it.


I wonder how long before MrWayne is back here preaching at us again that his device does work but for various reasons he can never Show any factual scientific evidence or have it professionally verified.  And no one apart from one person he pays money to can replicate any of his claims. MrWayne has been preaching here since April and has failed to deliver Overunity to anyone in the real world.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: mondrasek on December 01, 2012, 03:41:02 PM
Well, that could have gone better.
 
Believe it or not ;)
 
M.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 01, 2012, 06:10:56 PM
I apologize to the group and Wayne for my over reaction to the aspersions being cast against my person, I should of dealt with them in a better manner than I did.
......................................................................................

Hi Webby,
No problem MAN !!!  forget about it.
SHIT happens to all of us at one time or another.
We will all look back at this episode as a forum heatwave in the not so distant future.
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Gwandau on December 01, 2012, 11:07:08 PM
Mr.Waynes strange approach had to end like this, it was the inevitable outcome in an open source forum.
 
Anyone claiming COP>1 without presenting repeatable experimental information here at OU will get the same treatment of fair and dire criticism.
One thing to learn from all this is that either you go open source or do it the old greedy way, any in betweens just creates confusion and suspicion.
 

As far as I am concerned, keeping a COP>1 device for yourself is a greedy violation acted upon the present situation on earth.
Also, inherent in the very quality of such a device is the inevitable fact that it will make money worthless in the long run.
 

The only sound way to act today is to patent your device so no one can claim it, and then go open source.
That way you may allow anyone to build and sell it, thus making the introduction into the global market rocket fast, and still making yourself a wealthy man since you are one step ahead of everyone else.

 
Gwandau
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 02, 2012, 05:52:27 AM
I say
Where is the "simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (MrWayne's exact words)?
How was its clear overunity measured and what are the input and output WORK numbers?

But I thought you already had your little private forum where everyone is looking at their tabletop perpetual waterpump replications and wondering when they will stop running.
Oh... that's a preconceived understanding, sorry. Withdrawn.


Mister Wayne has told us of several replications. Where are they?
Oh... that's an attack, isn't it, because it puts Wayne on the spot and he's got NDAs up the wazoo.


What is my "agenda" for asking these simple questions? The TRUTH. I seek clear understanding of the TRUTH about Mister Wayne and his scheme.

I also say..... it was not ethical for you, Webby, to accept money from Mister Wayne, then become his chief advocate here. There is one way that you can regain  my respect and your own credibility: show me a receipt for a charitable donation in the same amount you got from Mister Wayne. Give it to the Trinity Baptist Church in Chickasha , for example. They could use it to pay their utility bills -- I think it's going to be a cold winter in Oklahoma, once it gets started.

You have information, some of which you won't share.....?
That's a good start, isn't it.  How about this: So Do I.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2012, 06:23:21 AM
Let us all start a new thread.
Simple rules of this thread.
First: ask questions with *no* agenda.
Second: No preconceived understandings
Third: No attacks
Fourth: to only seek an understanding.
I have information, some I will not share out of respect but that is not needed to understand the basic system.
What say you?

Hi Webby,
However good intended,  your proposition will degrade the forum from my viewpoint.
Nobody does or asks questions without a reason, a reason automatically implies an agenda, let it be small or big.
Nobody can be "not preconceived" or "biased", we are the product of our parents values and the environment where we grew up,  we all have opinions and position by default on everything although they can vary from indifferent to weak, to strong, to very strong, to unshakable,  to holy.

I agree, there should be discipline and attacks should be avoided in the forum, but it must allow for a difference of opinion and communicate with feeling and respect is essential. I believe this was the main component missing here. 
The disrespect flowed forth out of the outrage that was a result of expectations not being met.  The framework of expectations is set by the trend of previous topics and how they were dealt with on similar issues. 
This case was so different because there was a conflict between commercial interests and the desire to share the same information in order to network the concept.  I came to believe that the intent was to do this without hurting the commercial interest, a difficult task.
The main pivot point that made everything go haywire is that nobody was reading any longer with understanding.  It became a case of force feeding, pushing an opinion down somebody's throat.
By page #3 it was already clear that this was not going to be a full detailed disclosure for "open sourcing",  but the opposition by this time was already clearly trying to force the hand of Wayne to do their bidding and neither party never relented and some good stuff fell through the cracks in the process and killed the whole thread in the process.
Seek understanding, is directly related to point one, "what is your question and your agenda !!". Many people don't care how it works, but notwithstanding would like to have a controlling capability over that knowledge. Seeking knowledge is fundamentally similar than "hard work" an idealistic position, both should advance you in life, but as it quite often goes in life, a focused shortcut can shorten that path without the "hard work".

At the same time, to be part of a discussion and withholding information is disastrous to the topic, the topic will never achieve much and die a slow dead because of it,  this topic is a good example of that.  Technically, the topic could have been opened by a small document of a few pages that describes the whole concept in good detail and discussion commences based on that presentation. For many persons, the stretched release of information interleaved by too many non-relevant and non-technical posts made following the thread and to understand the underlying theory very difficult

My opinion, the forum should be WIDE OPEN and WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS and members should READ WITH UNDERSTANDING and REPLY WITH RESPECT and RESPECT DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, a disagreement once stated does not have to be repeated every second post. FOCUS ON TECHNICALITIES and not on business aspects.

This is a bit like the current argument in the media about controlling the internet,  control or self regulation ?
Michel
 
PS: TINSELKOALA, As I posted, there was again your by now non-relevant post, repeating for the 150th time the same thing we HAVE ALL READ, WE HAVE ALL UNDERSTOOD and WE DO NOT NEED TO HAVE IT SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS ANY LONGER.  NO NEED TO REPEAT "WAYNE's EXACT WORDS",  we also read the forum
WE ARE NOT STUPID, WE CAN READ ENGLISH WITH UNDERSTANDING,  THIS IS YOUR POSITION AND WE ARE FINE WITH THAT.
STOP SPOILING MY MORNING COFFEE  !!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 02, 2012, 07:22:36 AM
Is your morning coffee lukewarm?

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.  (Rev. 3: 15-16)

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Matt. 7:5)
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2012, 08:34:35 AM
.................................... I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.  (Rev. 3: 15-16) ............................................

PLEASE DO SO RAPIDO, THAT IS THE LAST PLACE in the world I WOULD LIKE TO BE !!!!!!!!!!
I just can not figure out how you thought I could have landed up there, especially knowing what non-kosher came out of there !!!

Your fellow man,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2012, 09:17:43 AM
Is your morning coffee lukewarm?
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, ..........................................................

Yes my dear TinselKoala,
I am sorry that I cannot be your "cold" nor "hot" forum pal but I am happy I do not have your dictatorial obsession, your insistence that "there is only one road that leads to Rome", only you have the truth, only you is right, and in the end it has nothing to do with who is right.  I am not referring to the "valid points" you have made, I am referring to your dogmatic, push down the throat BEHAVIOR STYLE !!
We have known too many dictatorial leaders in history and each ended up in shedding blood of too many people. Similar conflict behavior style !

Life can be way more simple, LIVE AND LET LIVE. (OU. 228:3407.LL)

This Korean guy can teach you a few things....GANGNAM STYLE.....!     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0)
Why not, do the easy steps....let it all out, ..it will do you good !!!   a more funny version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L66i_DghcCQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L66i_DghcCQ)

LIFE IS TOO GOOD TO WASTE ON CONFLICT....Build a ZED and learn OU...GANGNAM STYLE
We called in my younger days...FLOWER POWER....maybe that is considered now "lukewarm"?
Maybe the "Terminator" or "Rambo" style are more your cup of coffee?  If that is the case, sorry then we are not suited for each other, you will have to accept that. Please let it come to rest with one reply only. ( I can read with comprehension, repeat is not nessesairy)

I think you have still something to learn in life (before you depart to the prairie in the sky).
Do it now before it is too late.  (OU. 228:3407)
Michel
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on December 02, 2012, 10:37:34 AM
Hi,
    they're going to start fracking near here pretty soon, I hate the thought of that far more than fission. We've had a couple of
earth tremors after the first trial drilling.
    we need to get something sustainable going soon or this lovely land of ours 'll end up like the carcass of a dead bird.
 This can't be called a gravity machine because it's nowhere near massive enough. Physical bodies attract each other with a
force proportional to their mass, so with my magic see-saw to get 20 hp, we need to exchange 30 tons, stroke 1ft @ six strokes/min.
  I did a little experiment with a nut on a 3ft bit of string, when I swung it round vertically I found that the rpm I could
achieve was minimal and I conclude that the amount of power (rate of doing work) was so low that a gravity machine
wouldn't be practical, even if it worked.
                                                  John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 02, 2012, 02:27:42 PM
Quote
Please let it come to rest with one reply only. ( I can read with comprehension, repeat is not nessesairy)

Show me the sausages. If you cannot, or will not, even after all of this..... I conclude that your sausage machine does not work.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2012, 06:49:29 PM
Show me the sausages. If you cannot, or will not, even after all of this..... I conclude that your sausage machine does not work.
TinselKoala,
I am sure that Wayne will show you, but not let you taste the sausages when he has the barbeque started for the successful conclusion of the validation celebrations. Sooner than you think.
Regards, Michel

PS: This now concludes our "one liner" allowance.  Did you like the GangNam Style ?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 02, 2012, 09:33:25 PM
And later than you think. I say "never". When do you say? Would you care to make a small side bet, as to the date of the "validation"?
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: minnie on December 02, 2012, 09:58:35 PM
Hi,
   I'm not at all ready to give up on this one. Obviously mrwayne has got clever people on his team and I'm only a worn out
old farmer.
  Talk about getting blood out of a stone, I sure haven't got many facts out of mrwayne.
This has still got top place in my "It well may work" list.
I saved up for nine years to get a red Ducati, and oh boy, that was well worth the wait.
At long last the floods are subsiding, we may be able to get back on the land, who said anything about climate change?
 Come on mrwayne!
                               John.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 02, 2012, 11:21:37 PM
Straightening up in the DeepBunker today, waiting for winter here... I'm running the window A/C.... but I decided to show some of _my_ sausages. Here is _some_ of the apparatus I've used to investigate some of MrWayne's claims. I have scales, rulers, balances, displacers, incremental weights, heavy weights, stands, long tubes, short tubes, stacked tubes, nested tubes, water, air, pressure measuring manometers, timers and clocks, cameras, adhesives, cutting tools... and I've shown some of my results on YouTube but by no means all. Everything I've found with this apparatus, in spite of all "directions" and "teachings" otherwise, has been entirely consistent with conservation laws and the behaviour of ordinary nested and stacked hydraulic/pneumatic cylinders. You can multiply force at the expense of distance. You can cause movement when you release a restrained object, caused by the action of stored pressures and elevated masses. You cannot get anything "for free".  Or at least, I can't. If someone else can.... please report in, using SI units and properly accepted calculations of energy and work.
And anyone who accuses me of not "getting my hands wet" should see the prune-like appearance of my fingers after a day spent playing in Mister Wayne's water garden of forking paths and dissimulation.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on December 03, 2012, 01:17:47 AM
Hi All,

in the last few days there was too much hate going on here in this thread and I have decided to

close the thread now until we will hear the new testings from Mark Dansie in a few days including a new video.



Regards, Stefan,
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on December 11, 2012, 11:50:24 PM
Latest news from http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives) :

November 27 and December 4, 2012
Hello Friends and Family,
Some of you noticed I did not update the website last week, for personal reasons -
 I only sent out our private update list. Thank you all for your prayers - Sandy is doing much better.
 The surgery went very well, she had a reaction to the medicine which kept her sick until we figured that out - but now she is as good as new.
I don't mind being Mr. Mom - for a day or two - but 14 days was enough to say - Mom's work their tails off.

TAZ  The Taz is our big news right now - I have run over a dozen controlled experiments with it - to determine and verify that it can perform as designed -
We are very pleased with the results. So much so, that I have had conferences, and have conferences scheduled regarding the direction "it" is taking our company.

I will be revealing the details next week, we are holding off until we wrap up the ZED Replication Challenge, and the Sim and our internal Validation of the ZED. 

External Validation
  One of my conferences was with the head of the Validation team, We reviewed both the Unique phenomena that we incorporate in the ZED and the TAZ, we agreed to some very clear goals to accomplish, direction - and set a timeline that fits both schedules. We also discussed the next steps that will be taken after that successful testing. I will be presenting that information as a clear guide post for those who are volunteering their time and skills to our efforts. 

Internal Validation
Starting four weeks ago our "in lab team" went to the work and design modifications to make the adjustments necessary to determine if we can match the output system of the TAZ to the input of the ZED - to show "work" being done for our New energy. The alternative was to build a simple conversion system for the TAZ - separate from the ZED. The physical work for the connection of the two is now finished - and the next three days will tell us if they will get along. At the same time - Kevan is designing a stand alone conversion system for the TAZ - both as a back up plan and to simplify the Validation process. The ZED we have is New energy by itself - and the TAZ is also New Energy by itself - it will be a bit more explaining to have them both connected - so we will hopefully have both methods in short order. 

Mark Dansie and Teams
Mark is now Married to his beautiful bride, spent his honeymoon on a private beach - awesome pictures..... He is in the USA again, I talked with him yesterday and I will be sharing with him our progress this weekend, bringing him up to speed on the TAZ, and picking his brain and insight towards a direction under consideration. One of the issues "Political" we are dealing with now, and one of the harsh realities we are facing as a company - like it or not - is this; there is extreme prejudice concerning "Free Energy"............... we are discussing a company direction change - in our approach as a company to "brand" our systems as "Very Efficient" or High Output", and let the world figure out how good we are in the field.  (change this battle field to our advantage) The second Issue; The "Product" we are now working on the market entry, and deciding which product will give us the ability to move quickly and be accepted. This question effects our validation efforts - we are working on this now. 

Patent / Attorneys
  I have received confirmation form Dunlap and Codding that the US patent office has received our new application and they have assigned us a Patent pending number - for the TAZ and the next model - the SPAZ. 

Engineers
  These guys have been busting it on several fronts - Data collection and testing for the ZED SIM, The TAZ for the COG, Mass momentum, and more, Design improvements for the SPAZ, and COP optimizations.

A little help:

ZED = Zydro Energy Device
SIM = Computer Simulations
TAZ = Tilta ZED (ZED operational principle optimized)
COG = Center of Gravity
SPAZ = Spin a ZED
COP = Co efficiency of Performance


Private professional forum  I mentioned on the private update about our forming a private forum online.
We have 25 members / volunteers and innovators helping in our private forum so far, they are bright and motivated team members who are lending their talent in many ways to help us reach our goals. We are about to wrap up successfully a major accomplishment in that group - celebrate with a video montage showing a sweep thru the previous work and volunteering up till today - so I look forward to that - thank you who sent in pictures of your visits - their is still time if you forgot - But don't delay.

Faith and progress Something I want to share with our Missions teams, In my conference with the lead member of our "final" validation team - yesterday, He said he see's that our system will help missions around the world - and we will be partnering with the many groups already working to bring energy, pumping, and support for these needs.........this is how our story started ... and now it looks like it is how we will proceed...... Thank God - brother Kim has been telling me this from the beginning....awesome. If you are part of our faith team - you should really thank God for the types of hearts and minds he has brought to assist us............... enough said. GGT - Give God Thanks Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on December 11, 2012, 11:53:32 PM
Also from:
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives

December 11, 2012

Hello Friends and Family,

Very exciting weekend, Mark Dansie's visit went very well.
We brought him up to speed on the evolution of our systems and showed him our progress with the TAZ.

Mark has said he will have his complete report ready in 24 hours, we all know - "it will be when it will be" I do not put a "time limit" on Mark,
as he has not put one on our operation ;-) Mark spoke about his visit on the Smart Scarecrow show Monday night, here is a link.

http://www.youtube.com/user/smartscarecrow (http://www.youtube.com/user/smartscarecrow)

Mark begins discussing our project @ 15 min and 40 secs

Thank you Rick, Kevan, and Terry for helping out and especially for "Sandy" for making the arrangements and hosting!
We are pretty Jazzed our selves, Mark showed his "gift" for the ability to look and see "the big picture" -
He recognized that our improved TAZ design "solved" several internal concerns he had with the system, cost, complexity, construction, shipping, and limitation of "applications" (these are longer issues).

Now the work continues on the TAZ - we are only one step away from completely close looping the system and "completing the New Energy Technology Validation"
We are running all of the tests needed to ensure we get it right the first time.

Larry and Kevan have been having fun with the new models - Larry has been volunteering full time helping us - isn't retirement great - what a gift and blessing.

I believe the SIM for the ZED system is nearly complete some very good work has been underway for several months by a great team.
Our private professional forum is building up to the new challenges - I expect the great minds to come together for our common goal.
May you all have a Very Merry Christmas!

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on December 12, 2012, 06:03:17 AM
This is the transcript of  Dansie's interview on the last SmartScarecrow show:
 
 
 
 Dansie: I was down there, there's a project which we've been following for nearly eighteen months now, it was a buoyancy-gravty device- ah.. Wayne Travis, and ah.. It was something I had found that I wasn't sure either way, ah whether they could achieve what they are claiming, and that is a mechanical device, if you like, that could self-run and produce excess energy. And as you know in the history of Mankind, nobody's ever achieved that.  I saw enough evidence for me to be convinced that (shrug) yeah, it's worthwhile having a go at it. But it's dragged on a bit, but I have been impressed and encouraged by two things. It's TOTALLY (emphasis Dansie's) evolved into something else, there's no big tanks and all that now, it's nearly solid state, it's still moves but it's very simple, can (or can't? unsure here) be flat-packed, and they are very close.. to the point ...  where (hesitates) we we can actually.. where we can actually ah... where I think within the next month or two c
  learly d
  efine and test whether it is going to produce excess energy and self-run. Ah ..
 
 (Hendershot cuts him off for a commercial break....)
 
 after break:
 
 Dansie: The Wayne Travis buoyancy device...
 
 (Hendershot asks, laughing,  "What's going on in Oklahoma?")
 
 Dansie: Well... I'm still encouraged by what I've seen...ah However (emphasis) it's got down to the point now with the second device that... it's interesting he's got some very clever engineers and people, people flown from Greece and Switzerland and Canada to come and lend a hand, he's got some clever engineers, they've all predicted it will, ah, self-run and produce excess energy, but as you know the final proof (coughs) for me to see it self-run and produce excess energy. So they are very close for the latest prototype to be able to demonstrate that and that will bring it to conclusion one way or the other; I'm very encouraged, I still rank it highly, ah they are a very great group, a very honest group, ah However (emphasis) ah you know (come on? unclear) well half the scientists and engineers saying "hey this could really work", Half the scientists and engineers I know saying "pixie dust, this is a lot of BS" So, but they've done a great job, I can see why it had to evolv
  e, I can
   see huge improvements where from manufacturing and logistics point, you could flat-pack this like an Ikea system, they've got a third one in the wings that would be the one you'd throw in the basement...But I expect within the next two months that this will be brought to a conclusion. I am speaking positively of it yet but I have NOT signed off on it. So that's about as far as I can take it at this stage.

=====================================================================

Thanks to TK who compiled this.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.
Post by: hartiberlin on December 19, 2012, 04:55:00 PM
Updates from the website:
 
Celebrating Blessings and Direction 

December 18, 2012


Hello Friends and Family,

May you all have a Very Merry Christmas,   We are currently testing Rams to prepare to close loop the TAZ, the first tests today were very exciting - good to be here.     

Several visitors, one from Africa, Kansas, Tulsa, and even a complete coincidence - a minister stopping by to offer a good Word (he used to work as an engineer - should have seen his excitement...)     Mark's (unofficial) Visit went very well as I shared last week. 

 Mark agrees with the path we have taken to research and develop the TAZ, and he is impressed with the team work and support from all of you.. 

 Here is his report on his visit:     "Finally I get a chance to write this.[/color][/size] First of all I wish to thank Wayne and his family, for their wonderful hospitality, and friendship on my visit.

The visit was not for validation purposes but to evaluate what has happened in the last 18 months, and where the project is heading. The deign has changed radically from the one I last visited. There are no longer cylinders moving within cylinders, but simple to erect piping using of the shelf parts. I am impressed on how the system has evolved, the effort and expertise that has been applied since my last visit. This was all of course done an a minimal budget.

I always had some reservations about the first one given the logistics of manufacturing and transporting. The new design offers many advantages:

1. Reduced tooling and manufacturing cost.
2. Easy to “Flat pack “ reducing transportation and assembly costs
3. The ability to use low skilled labor for assembly
4. The elimination of seals and parts that could wear by moving against each other
5. The ability to engineer into a much smaller unit.


Some of the components have been used of the old system to gather pressure which can be converted to hydraulic pressure to assist with the self running, and be accumulated after each cycle to be bled of for power production. I am impressed with the number of engineers, people and other volunteers who have traveled from other countries and did their own assessment based on data collected.

There are a number of replications also underway. A lot of modeling and simulations has been undertaken by Wayne, his engineers and other helpers all concluding this is feasible. On the other hand there are many critics and historical evidence to date is no one has ever achieved a self running, freestanding device that could sustain itself running let alone provide any excess energy. It has been suggested recently that some other form input energy could be used and the device used to lever this to some mechanical advantage such as pumping water.


This could be explored further. The new device is functional, appart from an accumulator to harvest the excess energy. This would be in the form of either one or two hydraulic rams which would return any harvested energy to an accumulator tank.

Some of this energy is used to assist in the operation of the device. There has been much discussion on forums both private and public about the theory of this device, many simulations and projections based on data gathered.
Ultimately it gets down to demonstrating that there is a self running device that accumulates excess energy no mater how small.
I have witnessed three technologies where this is the case even though the scientists and engineers may argue about why it is accepted because of the data that supports the end result.

This can be easily monitored with the current sensors:

1. That monitor the pressure in the accumulators.
2. The measurement of start up pressure of water and air (known as the pre-charge) is maintained.
3. That water levels and heights are maintained in the device.

The device should run long enough to account for any energy used in the pre-charge phase. Wayne and his assistants agree on all of the above and are close to finalizing modifications and installing components so this test can take place. I also feel it would be also useful to take up Jim Dunn's offer of sending Ken Stafford for a review of the data collected to date, simulations, projections and assumptions made. This would give another level of confirmation and possible clarification of some of the principles that may be involved and not known at this stage. He may also suggest further engineering refinements. The amount of power generated at this stage is not as important as the ability for the device to self run and if possible produce a usable excess no matter how small.

This in itself is a monumental breakthrough if achieved. There is a high level of confidence amongst the consulting engineers and assistants, I personally remain positive, but can not sign of until we get the data by the approved methodology. Thanks you Jim, Rick, Wayne and please pass on my kindest regards to Sandy and the rest of your family and wonderful crew. Kind Regards Mark Dansie "     Before and after Mark's visit, I spoke with a couple of the Validation Team members, and I have invited them down to review our work and give guidance on the testing.     We could have visitors this week! This will go along way towards improving understanding and help us avoid errors.     


Single ZED Replication Challenge winner!   

"Dale Wilcox"   I called the winner of the ZED replications, it was a hard choice, we had five builds, an enormous amount of work that was put in to each of them.     In the end - what we gained was a fine group of builders and thinkers willing to test something outside the box. The model chosen for the prize was the one built well enough to be tested and was painstaking tested to assist in verifying the Simulation.     These Builds will be in our discovery center - when the builders are finished playing with them.     Very Honorable Mention - Chris Hamm, he built the only single ZED that was required less input than it could generate 147% efficient (for a single three layer system - that is pretty darn good) - I highly expect that Chris will be leading the group running for the Closed Loop Challenge!     Frankly - these were both better than my original system - so respect and hats off to them! All five participants were awarded share certificates of HER.     

Spreading the News - Welcome all the New members of HER. 

Thank you new members who have just joined our mission, your volunteering to add and to help this mission is very much appreciated .......as Mark said during his visit....... "You have been Blessed".     I am honored - and quickly acknowledge .....the Glory to God.   

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com