@ 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?]
....
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.
...
...
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.
...
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 -
...
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
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.
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
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
"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
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.)
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.
"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:
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...
:-\
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.
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.....
while creating a force of 5500 pounds and capturing it - self powered.....
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
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
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.
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
Other than that forget about it, this forum is not the place for your system.
Are you deciding this ? I guess not ! ;) ;D
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.
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.
It will aslo increase the Demand for Alternatives since the Return On the Investment is better than Fossil Fuel
Bull Shit.I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts.
I know exactly what you are doing.
Come on guy's don't be fooled by this man.
How many kwh can a 100kw system provide depends on the system
@All,Hello Jim,
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
Wayne,Milehigh,
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
How many kwh can a 100kw system provide depends on the system
Just a test reply to see why I can't post a reply with an attachment to this thread.
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]"
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
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.
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
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 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
My focus - Bringing clean, sustainable, and free energy to the world, and thanking God with every breath of clean air.
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
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?
in this way?
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. ???
The only thing he is going to share is overunity excitement ;D LOL
Place your bets please.
@All,Hi johnny874,
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
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
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?
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 hydraulicSorry, 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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
@mrwayne,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).
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.
Hello Johnny,
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.
Tongue in cheek question:Actually webby,
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
:)
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
The difference between my designs and yours is that IWayne,
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,Once again,
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,hi Wayne,
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
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
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
Johnny,
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.
hi Wayne,I know this is repeating, I presume you have not read the whole thread - no problem.
how many cycles it can run until the next initialization?
Alex
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.
(Correction) - Johhny, you have move from negativity to attack.
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.
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
Johnny,
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.
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
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
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. ;]Every time I use spell check it deletes my post -
Mags
@Wayne - great discovery.Hi Larry,
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
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.
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
g = 9.80665 m/s^2;
Ï(empty cup) = 7850 kg/m^3 (carbon steel - using advanced alloys (1800 kg/m^3), you can get slightly better efficiency);
Ï(water) = 1000 kg/m^3;
Ï(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)·Ï(air) = 1.0552 * 1.2041 = 1.27056632 kg;
m(cup) = V(empty cup) * Ï(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)·Ï(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)·Ï(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;
I have physics/mathematical proof that harnessing "the Travis Effect" (AKA Archimedes' principle) can't generate energy that I posted over @ PESN:Hello Kanshi,
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)
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.
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.
Hi Larry,Hi Alex,
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,Hi Larry,
Lets call this the complex Travis Effect and much harder to explain.
Hope this helps,
Larry
Hi Larry,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.
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.
@Travis,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.
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
wayneWhat force does buoyancy work against John? :o
tnis part of the forum is for gravity power,
your system is mechanical, it is disruptive to this part of the forum,
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.
in Wayne,s system, it is purely mechanical.
with hydraulic pressure. input equals output.
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?Good thinking,
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?
@mondrasek. Ok , I sort of understand that. Would you care to comment on my last paragraph, about doing away with the hydraulics?
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?
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.
I have been asked for support and permission to have the demo model build, I am keen on the idea.
@neptune,I`d love to see a working model built like this!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
@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.
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.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.
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?
Lastly - if you do this as a group effort - I will donate $2000 for materials. Should cover everything but your efforts.
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.
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 !
@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 am headed out -
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.
@Mondrasek: I am afraid that I'm not going to be able to build any intricate models this time, sorry.
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.
FULLY FUNDED doesn't mean anything so why are you using capital letters?
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.
Wayne, if your present system works, the one in the video, without supplied external power.... then you don't need to "guide" anyone.That is great, I really appreciate it.
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.
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.VERY GOOD,
M.
Yup, thats the animation I was referring to in my previous post.
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.
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.
www.hidroonline.com (http://www.hidroonline.com)
I'm not sure if this system uses Travis Effect or not, similarities are hydraulic towers, self perpetuation, electrical generation..........
It is patented in Australia and licensed in Indonesia by Inter Pacific Energy.
Yep. And it is PATENTED! Care to find that patent?
It is patented in Australia and licensed in Indonesia by Inter Pacific Energy.
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.
I am not sure how to find it, he gives patent numbers. Perhaps you could perform a search of the Aussie Patent Office?
So the patent should be online? Or is it different in Australia? Can you find it?
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.
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 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
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.Back when I did force calculations I would be quick to answer yes -
@Mondrasek, you are a star. Brilliant diagrams . That is exactly the kind of thing we need.
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.
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.M. Thanks,
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?
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.
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.
Check this out for clarity.Thanks, this will help a lot.
Wayne
Larry, thanks for giving this the mental horsepower I believe it deserves.
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.
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.You make me smile,
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.
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.Very simple - well forgive me - we have studied it for a long time -
Simply making the appuratus more complex and attempting misdirection won't wash.
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).Thank you,
The same test would apply to any air in the system.
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.Hello Seamus,
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.
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.
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!
. 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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.Three answers:
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.
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
Wayne,Thank you.
the request was for no involvement with Bessler.
His work will show what travis missed.
J
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
@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 .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 -
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
TK,A working replication from an outside source is awesome -
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.
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... ;)
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
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?
@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.
The work is done by the displacement according to Archimedes.
Little air/water just to make it to move.
Like in here:
Hello,thanks stefan... for not moderating your forum... AGAIN. ::)
I am unimpressed with you limited interpretation - of my decision to leave this forum.
Some of you have offered continual interuption, disrupted disc cussion.
Offcource this isn't correct.Hi Microcontroller,
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 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.
Hi Microcontroller,I found out how he does it - its here:
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
"Basically, he is using a variable displacement piston.(In yellow color, consisting of parts 1 and 2)Hi,
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/
@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?
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.?Another way of doing this would be to increase the density of the fluid, for example,
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.
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.just meant that by increasing the density. it would be possible to increase buoyancy forces = there is no need to dry anything.
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.
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".
Can I just ask, Is 5in^3, just a way of writing 5 cubic inches?
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 .
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.Hi M,
Thanks for that!
@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.
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 .
@Mondrasek> Have you meditated properly upon the Cartesian Diver?
Hi Seamus,
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.
@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.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.
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 .
@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 .Hi Neptune & everybody,
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 (http://www.blazelabs.com)
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.
It is easy to get accurate cuts using a compound miter saw or table saw.
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.
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.
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.Thank you.
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 ?
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?Hi M,
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:
'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.
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?
If there is a serious builder out there who understands the challenges and the concept... Yes, by all means I will CAD.Wow, that is an ambitious plan. Sweet, to much for me right now, need Clanzer.
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.
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
Just something that should help you understand what is going on (I have posted it on PESN as well):
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
So, 4 decimal positions is not accurate enough, are all engineers such precision fanatics?
@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'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.
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.Let's reiterate over facts:
P2 = P1 + h·ϱ·gwhere h is the height difference in the U-column of water in two neighbouring risers;
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?
@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.
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.
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:
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).
Do you finally understand?
LOL, what a load. I'll not waste time pointing out the obvious.
@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
@johnny874. All I can say is that it is fortunate that nobody pointed that out to him until after he got it working then.
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.
disconnect your battery then,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.
attacking math with words is weak,
ϱ(water) = 999,7026 kg/m^3 (at 10 °C);ZED:
g = 9,80665 m/s^2;
h1 = 2m;
h2 = 1.5m;
A = 1 m^2;
hydrostatic pressure: p = ϱ·g·h = h·9803.73350229;
p1 = 2·9803.73350229 = 19607.46700458 Pa (19.61 kPa);Hydraulic lift / hydro-pneumatic lift:
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);
p = (1.5 + 2)·9803.73350229 = 34313.067258015 Pa (34.31 kPa);Hydro-pneumatic lift with a pod:
F = p·A = p = 34.31 kN;
p = 34.31 kPa;The weight of air is ignored - as it is also ignored with ZED. It is only approx. 8.28N anyway.
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);
see3d,As has been stated, a simple model to demonstrate OU [not a self runner] would not need a battery .
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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 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.
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!).
I don't understand why the lift would be less.
may I remind politely.
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.
Cheers.Hi Mondrasek,
Cheers.Thanks, M.
Thanks, M.
But, It's not hanging right at the bottom, should look like Fig 14. I'll check my specifications.
Regards, Larry
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
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 ?
Let me think on this. It may not matter, like you say. Could be just my mistake!
Not 100% certain, but I think these spacers are shown in the patent.
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.
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.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.
@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.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.
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.
You're right, I forgot to split the difference for the two sides. The new attachment gets it to .25 gap.
@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?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.
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
@mrwayne. That was a very useful post. From a first reading I have learned a couple of thimgs.How about having the parts 3D printed?
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.
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.Hi Neptune,
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 .
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.
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 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 -
@mrwayne. That was a very useful post. From a first reading I have learned a couple of thimgs.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 -
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.
Wayne, is Mark still scheduled for the 28th?
Maybe a live video feed from Ustream?? :)
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi Seamus. Of course energy is added at every stroke. It comes from the output. This is called LOOPING.Hello Netptune
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.
One big suggestion - The .20 clearnance is for our 6 and 12 foot tall models.More difficult to build, but yes it can be done.
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?
@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?Thanks, actually it was tedious, but all the sizes were taken off the MTO spreadsheets.
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?
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.Thanks Seamus,
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.
@mrwayne,@M.
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.
@mrwayne. In your last post you told us of the importance of the pod-to-riser diameter ratio.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.
Question. Please tell us if the ratio of diameter of outer tank to its hight is an important one.
@M if I did not answer your question - I was not sure I understood the question?
Our available stroke length is 7.75 inches at 6000 pounds - we only stroke 3 inches (limited by Bag selection).
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.
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 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.Hello All,
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?
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.
And that's another twenty pages of OU in words.Hello Again Micro controller -
Seamus i'm still with you.
Wayne, Let's hope the world sees your discovery soon. (again)
@Larry,Row 26. Thanks.
Row 27?
Wow, Serendipity rears it beautiful head. ;DGreat Job Larry,
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
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,
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?
Just what i was thinking more words.
Seamus buddy i'm still with you !
Garbage... !
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.
I posted with permission from Wayne the 2 principle videos to my youtube account at:I made a comment on the two videos, but wants to repeat it here:
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:Hello Vidar,
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
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.
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.
@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,
p.s. running good today ;-)
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."
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.)
@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.Hello Kanshi,
@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 Vidar,it's hard to be clear in a non-native language ;)
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
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.
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.
@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.Hello Neptune:
@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.
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.
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...From my previous reply #836 to you.
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.
Just to pick nits :)Thanks, webby1,
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.
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.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?
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.
Hello all,Thanks for your update!
My wife and I have just returned from Wayne Travis' shop in Oklahoma...
@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.Hello M,
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.
@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.No,
@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?
Hello all,Thank you very much,
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.
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.
latest attempt to insert the idea that we have magical free energy
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 wish you were sincere;
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.
Wayne:You have dismissed everyone that has presented Data.
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
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.Hello Garry,
Garry
Mondrasek:First - what is that safety device in a steering wheel?
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
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
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 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?
I asked you some straight questions on behalf of all of the readers of this thread and I am requesting some straight answers.You made my day - that was funny.
Are we supposed to assume that you have a system that produces free energy and you won't tell us how you measure it?
Ask Questions that are sincere
Wayne:I answered before I read your rant ..
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 am sorry if you do not like me avoiding your laten and direct insults.
MHYou see nothing in the Travis Effect - OK..
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..
Hi EMdevices,Outstanding, that was a great explanation.
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 :)
I cannot agree with that statement.no one cares... mint?
no one cares... mint?Who cares?
Who cares?bullshit. i didn't "imply" anything... ::) don't go putting words in my mouth that i didn't say.
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.
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 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!
What you say is that the system is trivial, and it cannot work.
bullshit. i didn't "imply" anything... ::) don't go putting words in my mouth that i didn't say.OK. I'm sorry.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
We live in exiting times, and things may move faster than you thought possible.
@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.Just pointing out that a standalone ZED has similar non-linear characteristics to an auto air shock.
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.
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.
This last little RED statement worries me, pulls me up short. Have I missed something?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.
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?
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.
Wayne has stated that a 1" rise in the Pod water results in a 2" increase in the water head of each layer.Hello Larry,
Regards Larry
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...@Seamus101
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
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.
@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 Larry,Thanks Wayne,
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
Indeed. But then you need the fairies to push the pod back down for the next cycle, don't you?
Thanks Wayne,That was an internall adding error, thanks for catching it.
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
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 ...
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.
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.
Good work Larry,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 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.Hi TK,
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.
How much power is output by the device?
In what form is the output power?
How is the output power measured?
It is of no concern to me whether you beat your wife or not.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.Correct, i wouldn't be surprised either.
MileHigh
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
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!
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!
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 ?Hello Fletcher,
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
Thanks Mark,Happy Birthday Wayne, and please have many more. I envy you seeing Batman in the Imax, God rest the people in Colorado.
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
@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'm new to this forum as a registered user but not so new to the discussion or the development of this device.Hello Dale,
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
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.
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.
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).
Hello Larry,Hi Wayne,
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
@Wayne,Thanks Larry,
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
Just as an FYI,I remember those days - that was/is the "New Frontier"
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.
Polycarbonate sheets have a forming temp of 275 F, so roll your own and put them in the oven to "set" the curve.
WOw - that looks good.
What is the metal for?
Wayne
With the discussion turning to replication and potential materials selections: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.
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
With the discussion turning to replication and potential materials selections:Hello Dale,
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
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".
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.
...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...
Not so sure on that.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? ;)
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.
My bad, I was thinking of a post about simulating and I hit quote instead of reply.No problem.
Yes, I would agree with that.
Great.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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
Cartesian diver side note,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.
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?
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.I see where a mixup might be coming from.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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...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.
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?
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 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?
small sidetrack from the current discussion :)Would be nice to some pics or even video when its done. :)
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.
I know, I was looking similar questions among the many, when I got into analyzing this.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.
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.Not if the piston is locked, which it must be for your first condition to hold.
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.
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)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.
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.
But of course!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?
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.
Too bad people are wasting their time and money on this while they can save it for real projects.oh my gawd! you're a prophet! the world has been waiting for you! ::) where can i send you my money? ::)
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 !
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...
On a personal note...No PMs? The stator and rotor must be field wound EMs that are powered by the main supply.
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.
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)
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.
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.Way to go Webby1, you're an inspiration to us all. We need all the encouragement we can get, keep up the good work!
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.
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.
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,,
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.
Funny is it not, that you make this claim.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.
Things are not what Heavisides made it out to be.
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.
I thought of ways to break the thing before I built it :)
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
Micro controller you are an...... something else.....
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
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 discussion board.But thats just it. You are not discussing anything. You are just dropping paper bags of dog crap. And it stinks.
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
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
Sorry Larry but you are not correct. Work over a given amount of time, equates to power. Work/Time = PowerI had just deleted my post, because I didn't like parts of it, when I seen yours.
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
So don't tell people to keep their comments Wayne.can you apply this to your own comments ?
Bye Bye
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.
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.
Wayne,Hello M,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Excellent use of the language @M !!Thank you Dale,
Amen
And Thank You Mr Wayne for doing all of the above.
Dale
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.You have restated this very clearly, thank you M. for all that you do and have done.
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.
Well, MrWayne, you sound a bit "tetchy" today.Hello Tk,
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.
WELL I SUGGEST YOU GET 'R DONE THEN.MC,
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.
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.
Well Mr. mondrasek let me clear that out for you.Well MC,
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.
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.
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.
I recommend everyone take a short time out. Maybe an hour or two?
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
Currently we are stroking 6 total inches in a stroke - and capturing 30 cubic inches of pressurized hydraulic fluid @ 640 psiAnd
We stroke 3.7 times a minute.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
This is in conflict with this:Here we go again.......lol
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.
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!
@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.
Hi Wayne, and many thanks for your reply. So let me summarise what you said, as I understand it.Hello M.
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.
Thermal:Misinformation deterrence.
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
Here is an idea: TK will go see Wayne, and Wayne will host (tolerate) his visit.Sounds like a good plan,
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.
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
Can he fly?
I'm sure it does and i am sure you have a couple of those running as we speak.@ MC,
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.
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".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.
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
4 Riser requires much less time in all other phases. So back to the simple formula, Power = (Force X Distance) / Time.
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.
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.
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
Please go.
I will too pay you.
Shipping doesn't seem right.
We need somebody on the spot.
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.
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...
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.
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
I'm glad to hear that there are coming some better explanations of the effect.Hello MT,
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
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...
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
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
@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.Hi neptune,
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.
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
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? :
I always thought the Archimedes principle was depending on the displaced amount of fluid in relation to the weight
of the displacing object.
Well... that's fair enough, because honestly, I don't yet understand your explanations, either.TK, I have a great deal of respect for you and the effort you have given to help and protect others
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.
Well... that's fair enough, because honestly, I don't yet understand your explanations, either.TK,
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.
Thanks Wayne for the additional information.Our system relies on the effect gravity has on separate density - a rotation system would increase the system on earth and work in space.
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 ?
TK,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?
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 have discovered virtual water! And it has virtual weight, too. ;)
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)
Bah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfTqrmnQuw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfTqrmnQuw)
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?
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?Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model -
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.
@ 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
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
Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model -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?
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
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 loanâ€
I do believe that Mr Wayne is completely sincere in his beliefs & that is the motivation for his sharing what he can now.
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.
I am still laughing -- you made my day!
We all live in a virtual submarine...
Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model -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.
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.
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.
MrWayne said,OK - your decision has been made.
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.
TK you don't understand?That part's clear enough.
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 !
Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model -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.
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.
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 usHello Again Conrad - I still appreciate the wisdom you added last year - rough - but wise.
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
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.
@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
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?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.
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.
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.
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)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?
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
Thank you for explaining, Larry. Sorry about that crossed post above.Congratulations, you have just invented the lever.
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.
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
Hi Fletcher,
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)
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.
Work for system on LEFT >> work for system on RIGHT.
I have put users MileHigh, Seamus and Microcontroller on Moderation as they have trolling this
thread too much !
Regards, Stefan.
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.
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
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.
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
The Travis system Risers intersect and uses the pressures from each air column against each riser surface areas to produce lift.
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
(snip)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.
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
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.
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.
I have put users MileHigh, Seamus and Microcontroller on Moderation as they have trolling thisOften 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.
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.Profile>Summary>Modify Profile>Buddies/Ignore List
regards,
Marcel
@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?
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.
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)
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
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.Are you serious? How many time does that concept have to fail, before it is put to rest.
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2728359.shtml?cat=565 (http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2728359.shtml?cat=565)
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 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.
@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?
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".)
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.
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,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.
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
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.Thank You,
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
[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)
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?
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
(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.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?
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?I am sorry for the delay - very busy testing.
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?
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?
mondrasek said,
Thank you. This is a process that requires work, does it not?
I am sorry for the delay - very busy testing.
Several Points --
For TK
@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)
@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?
The Hydraulic tank is in the upper right corner - barely see it in that shot.(top picture)
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?
@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.
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"
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
tk,May I quote you on that?
compression slows the flow.
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.
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.
...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.
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.Hello TK,
;)
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.
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.
Component comparison of pneumatic cylinder to Travis pneumatic risers in first picture.Larry,
Regards, Larry
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.
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.
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]
And now for something completely different...
All I can find is this application. Can you please give me a link to the actual granted patent at the USPTO?It's funny that you put scare quotes around "application" and "granted patent" instead of around your patent.
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
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.
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.
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
Hi TK,Thank You,
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.
Your are correct in that I was mistaken in saying approved May 17, 2012, should have been publication date May 17, 2012.
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.Larry,
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
mr. travis,Thank you for being civil this round.
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.
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.
WHAT do you want me to talk about M.
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
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.
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].
It has nothing to do with overunity nor with surface instead of volume;Hello DG,
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 Webby,
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.
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 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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?
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.
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.
Hello Webby,Hi Mr Wayne,
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,Hello Larry,
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
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.
@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.
@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.Multi Question AHHHH my little brain.. just kidding.
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?
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.
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'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 tried AlgoDoo before I started my sim. It was fun, but frustrating to try to make a realistic ZED.
Oops. Looks like I forgot something...
;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khZtoyjF4aA
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.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.
A thought
Dale
@webby:Simple as it can get example of self centering.
That's interesting, I can't quite understand why that self centering would happen.
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.
@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.
It may even be possible just to float some plastic spheres of the right diameter on the water surface "ring" around the annular walls
For your amusement:Excellent demo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2M05d8J8fU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8OVSPVKLBI
:P
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.
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.I am a little overwhelmed at the quality of this response -
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.
@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.
tk,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?
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.
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
You think I am just clowning around,
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.Thank you Larry,
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
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.
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)
@mondrasek,
Sure, surface x height = volume of a cylinder, I read that height only was important (not volume)
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.
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.
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.
Jim:
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
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.
But you don't know me and don't know engineering and on your youtube channel,
not one mechanical build.
So... if I may be permitted to get back on topic for a moment....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 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.
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
Hi all,Hello Marcel,
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
@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?Good question;
Many thanks.
A test I did a while ago.Well Done!
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.
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.
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.
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?No, - we did not run a generator back then.
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, 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.
The Laughable point - don't ya thing Mark would have Noticed a power cord running from the shop as your friend claimed?
TK,
I must be tired - because your questions have been answered.
Wayne
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.TK to date
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,Who exactly is ranting? Perhaps you need to check the definition of that term. I am asking questions that you have NOT answered adequately.
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.
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.
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:And you have not answered properly.
You have asked about our input and out put
then Energy
then the patentThe PATENT APPLICATION, you mean....
then the sensorsPlease show where I have ever asked about your sensors.
then the pumpsI have asked you how the batteries get their charge, yes.
then the batteries
The run dataTwo 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.
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.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.
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.
you have thrown me away into the idiot file and picked me back out on to the rim.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.
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?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.
Thank you and good day.More sincerity? You are welcome, and I hope you have a good day too. I intend to, myself.
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.
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.
Hello mrwayne, TinselKoala and all.Thank you for the clarity.
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!
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?
:-\
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.Very Nice Larry and thanks for helping everyone.
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.
@mond: I do get them .... "believe it or not".... ;)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.
@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.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.
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.
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.
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.
@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 :)
@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?
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.Hello Neptune, yes we are back on track.
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.
I appreciate being included on the back Chanel conversations,, I would like to be included in ALL of them,, thank you.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.
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.
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
I have to over compress the risers with mass to start the reverse lift process,, HOW can *I* get rid of that problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.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.
"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
.... I am not sure Wayne is fully qualified to answer the questions but he does have some bright engineers on his team.
One small step at a time is MrWayne's stated intent so I'd say you are on the right track :)Dale, you are right.
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
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.
Hi allThanks Mark, and I do respect your advice -
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
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.
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.
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
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
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)Hello Larry,
Regards, Larry
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.
MrWayne, see3d or others:To@,
- 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 ?
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Where are the teams of engineering grad students, promised a large reward if they DO find something wrong with the claimed overunity performance?
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. )
The University of Oklahoma' s College of Engineering's School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in Norman is the mere "local college"?
Hello Artist,
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
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,,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.
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.
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
MrWayne, Excuse me... Asking why the ZED stalled in 4 hours does not reflect what you are willing to discuss.Hello P.
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
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)
Sure - thank you.
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
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.Perfectly funny!
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.
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 -
Mrwayne, it looks like you just updated your website.Wisdom.............
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.
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?
Mrwayne,Webby is doing a great Job, thank you.
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....
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.This is an old picture - but the head acts the same.
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
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.
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.
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
Hi fletcher,
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 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
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. :-)
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.Seamus,
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.
Anyone besides me thinking "Archer Quinn" at this point?
Anyone besides me thinking "Archer Quinn" at this point?
Yes, with bells on, how many times,That is funny.
"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)
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.
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.
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.Hello John,
Anyone know of what became of James Kwok? James's idea seemed very much along the same lines.
John.
GoOod MoOorning, Isaac. Glad you're gone. May you now bless the drought areas with your abundant rainfall.Good to know everyone is OK.
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
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
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
Dennis .. debugging & checking suggestions.
You could try simplifying your sim to check to check basic hydraulic facts - then add back complexity later...
@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.
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.
@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)
@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)
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]
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.
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! :-)
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.
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.Circular logic must prove itself, lest we accept the illogical as true, or that something has been left out of the ring.
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.
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.
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.)Step 1. Acquire two liter diet Pepsi product.
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?
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Yes, I can understand your approach of physical verification against model behaviour.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.
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.
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?
Seed3,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.
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?
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 (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P)
... 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...fletcher, thanks for providing parsid with that detailed description. A couple of points for the above quotes:
...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.
...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 ?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).
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.
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.
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.
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 resultsHi see3d,
The key is in the use of another ZED! The trick is ................................
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
................................................ 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
................................................
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.
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.
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.
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 .. 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 ?fletcher,
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.
(snipped)
patent applications protect your rights.
(snipped)
(snipped)
Learning is a process - this invention is a new frontier, the innovation will bring countless blessings.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution.com
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.
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
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.
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.OK........
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.
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.
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)
@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?
See3d, Tks for the link.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.
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.
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
if there is OU so easily capturable, it would have been done since centuries.
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
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
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.
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 toI 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.
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.
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.
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?
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 MichelA perspective point -
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
Hi,Hope this helps.
I showed this to my colleagues.
Marcel
A couple LEDs inside the inner pod (snip)...
Why does your pod have to be sealed on top? Could you have an open hole on top?
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!
p.s. if you try to stroke to far - overflow will continue to be an issue.
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! ;-)
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.
Hi,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?
I showed this to my colleagues.
Marcel
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.
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.
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?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.
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.
...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
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. :-)
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. :-)
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.Measuring the small air pressure differentials in a table top system might not be that easy.
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.
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.
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 !
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?@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
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.
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:
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.
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?
Data (as it is):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.
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.
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.
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
On another note, would I be the only one assuming that Red_Sunset and Mr Wayne are one and the same person?
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?
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.
@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?
Sorry, I forgot...Well... you can calibrate the raingauge without a digital scale, can't you? Got a syringe somewhere that's marked in mL?
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?
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.
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?
Hi .. nahh .. Michel's enjoying red sunsets in Saudi Arabia.
Goodbye until there is a drastic change in this forumDon't let the door hit you in the butt!
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.
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)
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.
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 »
I am running with 4 risers now and am back to using a reservoir that I raise and lower for the input.webby1,
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.
I will do what I can to help. I need to know what the setup needs to be...Thanks webby,
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.
No, not quite.
@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?
From TKOne good reason for this is a continually over looked principle of the system.
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.
From MTI 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.....
It would be indeed interesting, it is also not clear to me how adding layers helps here.
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!
@TK. The main question you are asking me, is where does D come from.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
- The big question: How far BELOW the starting point does that container need to go before the risers sink...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?
And how much of the potential of the lifted load will it take to get the input back up to the starting point ?
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
@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'm bit stuck in calculating work done for injection of water from bottom.
Marcel
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:
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
The fat lady didn't sing in 130+ pages i wonder if she can sing at all.
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.TK,
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...
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
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.
Marcel .. what Red proposes is technically correct, @ 5 PSI.Hi,
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.
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.
@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?
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
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.
This is a point of discussion, can the venting be used and still have the risers 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.
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.
Sorry for the delay in getting these to you,, I will play more and see if I can get at least an average value,,,Webby,
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.
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.
@TK,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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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".TK,
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
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.
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
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
What you are describing is how I understood your device to operate, and that is where the disconnect is.
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.
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.
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
My system resets by the weight alone.
(snip)
Just a small note that probably has been missed.This doesn't sound like resetting with weight alone, and I'm not convinced it's all caused by your sticking problem.
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.
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.
@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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Maybe I misunderestimated you. You can add up a whole bunch of infinitesimally small distances and get "zero".
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.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?
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.
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.
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 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.Hi Webby,
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.
@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.
@TK,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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Sounds like its time to get your hands wet.
Hi guys,Argghh..
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
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)
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.Hi neptune,
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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... :-(
@Webby1. I agree with every item on the "do you agree" list. You are doing great work.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.
@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.
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).
@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.
Welcome to the weird world of ZED.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.
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.
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 :-\
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?
So just like the "demo" videos where the lift is of a short value.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
(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.
Welcome to OverUnity.comI've highlighted the part that people seem to have trouble seeing.
The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum
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.
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?
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.
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.
...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.
.... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
"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
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.
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
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,My dear Sunset.... I was only quoting YOU.
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 !
(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
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"
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 '??'
@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?
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
........................................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.
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
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
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.
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
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 HydroGenRevQuote
"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)
...
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 ??? ??
.........................................................
................................................................
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.
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
Thanks PC,
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
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
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.
Raising / lowering 1200 grams 10mm by moving 74grams the same distance would seem,,, IMPRESSIVE.
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
That's a question I had hoped the engineers around here would be able to answer ;D
Physicists explain to us lowly Engineers why what has been observed is understandable.
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.
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 ?
It is interesting to note that this argument not only highlights how the answer is independent of r, but can be modiï¬ed to show that the answer is independent of the shape of the cross section of the ï¬ller pipe.
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).
.................................................... 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.
.................................................................
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
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...
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
@see3d: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.
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.
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
I do not claim to have all the answers to the problem, but I do have a very over unity device.
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
My models 5 and 6 were also over unityhttp://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)
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 ?
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:
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
For anyone having difficulty with the Archimedes Paradox that See3d mentioned, this a good discussion thread: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
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
TK, How do you explain the paradox where you can float a battleship with a bucket of water?It would only be a paradox if the bucket of water weighed the same with the battle ship removed _and no water added_.
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.
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.
Ha! Mommy's digital camera takes pretty good video too! And she is not a bad camera operator either. Uploading now.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.
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/ (http://winff.org/html_new/)
It would only be a paradox if the bucket of water weighed the same with the battle ship removed _and no water added_.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.
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.
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.
... OH, and for another future reference on video files.WinFF is the GUI for ffmpeg, and there are versions for Linux and Windows systems.
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.
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.
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.
a pressure differential is not the same thing as a pressureRelativity... what CAN be measured as anything other than a difference?
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.
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.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.
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 TK,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?
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.
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.
OK - I have a minuteRelativity... what CAN be measured as anything other than a difference?
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)
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.
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.
@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] ?
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?
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 installedCan that be converted to .159 Lbs lifted 6.5 inches for input and 2.7Lbs lifted .4 inches for output?
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)
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.
5.. What is the water height in the tube when you put the 1.2kg removable weight onI 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)
238 mm
6.. What is the water height in the tube at the end of the 10mm lift
284 mm
@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
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
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.
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.
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 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)Michel, I ran the lift test again as meticulously as I could. This time the heads were:
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).
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.
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
mondrasek (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mondrasek.7703/),Something's wrong with the link in your post. Try this:
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)
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:
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
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.
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.
@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.
"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
I am going to add one small thing for consideration.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.
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.
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
..............................................................
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.
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
Can you expand on your absolute statementNo, 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.
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 ?
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
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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.
The "magic" is in the precharge,, but the questions are, how is it put there and what all it can do.
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.
First I want to find a bon-i-fied "anomaly."WITH -- YOU -- THERE !! :-\
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
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
.............." Your device now seems to be violating Conservation of Miracles."
Just my opinion - That is my opinion too....Thank you Michel,
"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
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. ;)
..............................................................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. ..................................................................
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?
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.
163 pages and still not one joule of overunity energy... All somewhat tedious.LOL, thank you Seamus 01-02-03 you just made me chuckle again - your pompousness has become a point of conjecture.
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,
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.
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,I am in a really good mood, God has blessed us.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.Hi AmoLago,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I am thinking that you do not have a correct process in mind of the way the system works.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.
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.
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
MileHigh's posting of KanShi's analysis.... which her whole class of engineering students worked on..... unfortunately is only in our PMs.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'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.
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.
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.
Design your single ZED to be able to observe, measure, and record the: Base Line31.5"
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.2" head - not clear on volume
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"
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
Record the pressure and volume of that stroke from the neutral base line position..75" lift of 24 Lb takes 13 fluid ounces max head is 32.5"
Barely floating is at 24.5"
Now the preload -Added 8Lb to the completely unloaded riser
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.9.5" head barely floating - 17.5" at full lift
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 )
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.
@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.
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
Care to comment on or relabel as fitting 1 through 4 in the illustration attached for clarity?Is the blue stuff water? And is a "unit" a rectangle block? And at the top of the diagram it says "19 units water".
Dale
@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 itBe 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.
no, add the rest of the max lift weight,, or the other 16lbs so that you are back to max lift.That's right. This appears to be a test of my hypothesis that the setup preload is acting as a spring, I think.
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.
@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?
RE: Post #2411 by MRWayne on: September 25, 2012Hello Dale,
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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?;D
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
------------------------
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
A repost of some of "Wayne's" previous and most important postings
........................... Stop wasting time on it.
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.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 ;)
What do you think of that, CuriousChris?
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
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.
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
Hi Everyone,Hi see3d,
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,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.
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
Hi guys,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.
maybe an interesting observation...
Marcel
Hi guys,Very good observation, you are near one of the diamonds of the ZED.
maybe an interesting observation...
Marcel
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 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
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
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 Dennis,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.
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
@see3d: that looks very nice indeed.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.
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?
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.
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?
Any update on the "Zed for Dummies" book and where one can be purchased?My thoughts were to offer the book after the Validation.
@AmoLago:Hi TK,
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.You know what, I went back and re-read his post again and I see what you're saying:
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.
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?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.
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?
My thoughts were to offer the book after the Validation.Sounds good Wayne, looking forward to it
We are concerned that it would send mixed signals releasing it before.
Thanks for asking - Michel put a lot of work into it.
Wayne
..............................................
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 !
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 ?
Amolago ..
A simple thought for you to consider.
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 ?
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.
you may yet break thru the concrete brain barrier- - of even the simple minded experimenters ;D
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???
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
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
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,
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
You just made me laugh out load - I bet we have all had those "DUH" moments.
Max head is height x water layers - DUH :o
Dale
Hello 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
You just made me laugh out load -You're welcome Wayne ;D
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??Thanks for the compliment Webby.
Great job by the way!
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
Dennis is right - and I very much welcome true skeptics - and have and many who have visited our lab, and reviewed our improved models.
>:( 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
To All,
The Validation team has now - for the third time - requested that I leave this forum.
Wayne Travis
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.TK,
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.
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.
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
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.
@TK,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?
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??
Refute my points, Dennis. Can you? Do you even try, or would you rather just insult and denigrate me?TK,
AmoLago, I am sure you treat your one layer float as symmetrical, if you think it is, then the “out†will equal the “inâ€. 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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
The setup changes the performance of the system for recovery.Also ditto.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There are "sweet spots" in the setup where the choices made all work together.As in life, and everything else too.
I also found a way to increase lift height for very little extra input, and I believe that it also makes for more output.
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.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.
@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
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.
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.(emphasis his)
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)
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
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.
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)
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.
No pressure Ehhh M. ?? LOL
@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?
@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.....
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?
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.
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.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?
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.
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."
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.
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!
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?
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.
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??
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
Dale, you about ready to take over?
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.
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.
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,
So tomorrow is the big day ;DMore objectively stated: Can Wayne meet his stated goal this time?
can Wayne keep his promise this time.
So friday is drawing to a close in my part of the world and I'm off to local for a beer.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.
No sign of Mr Wayne's self imposed deadline being hit as yet. Time to write this off as a viable idea....?
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:Hi M.
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.
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 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.
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".
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?
Hello and Welcome,(sic)
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
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.Hi TK.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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?
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?As a quick reply,
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.
... 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.
TinselKoalaI 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.
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.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.
Evidence please.... who suspects me, what are their qualifications, and in what Diagnostic and Statistical Manual edition is this "CMPD" to be found?
Suspected of having Conflicted Multiple Personality Disorder (CMPD) which has spread across the Earth since the personalities don't get along.
ORLY? I challenge anyone to provide support for this assertion.
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.
Now also consider this - our system has been replicated by diligent people, those replications validate our claimsI have never seen a replication that has done what Wayne is claiming (self-run)
Check it Out!
http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://www.mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)
Regards, Larry
......................................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,
......................................
@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.
What about an infrared camera?Sometimes I think you aren't taking me seriously.
Sometimes I think you aren't taking me seriously.
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!
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?
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
...
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.
...
"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
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 ?
What do I mean.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.
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 like your wholehearted approach
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.
What do I intend to do.Good, this is exactly the motivation you need to start with point 1 "what do I mean"
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.Don't worry, the OU light will shine on you and repentance is a life enriching exercise
Red_Sunset I ask that you accept my invitation.You got it.
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
Surely you can understand the unicorn idea sounds just as convincing as Wayne's argumentI 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.
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.
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.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)
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 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.
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.
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.
I think if he added just a few more valves and pistons then the whole concept would become much clearer...
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...
........................... 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).
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.
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.
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.
YES
Thank you for your response, it was elaborate and well structured.To make it easy for me, go to the master himself,
On to question 2.
What Laws does it expand on?
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.This has all been done before, please refer to previous postings by Wayne and myself
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.My apologies, that was my mixup !
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.
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?
Now look again at the "head" on the outside of the outer jar.
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.
...RSS...
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
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.
Now take a look at the height of the plastic cup.
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.
Quote:Dave, I quite think you are pulling my leg. You, and the other Discerning Dave as well. Lateral gravity! Who knew?
"Oh, and don't forget: If you turn up gravity, the system works better."
or substitute H2O with a denser / hydrophobic fluid.
I've even suggested a convenient non-toxic alternative to mercury for such a system.
RSS...
Thank you for pointing this post out.
Please answer the following questions:
................................................ (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 itDave,
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!
In the animation ............................ What do these cylinders do? The top cylinders of these stacks drive, by pressure and suction, the horizontal weight-changing rams.The vertical hydraulic ram on top of the risers is the load and weight ram.
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.
TK,
Please share the alternative material name once again.
Thanks,
Dave
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,
(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.
................................. 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.Xavier,
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.
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.
Xavier,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?
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 !
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
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?
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.
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 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,
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.
Validation, the "yes or no" is dependent on the way how you look at the whole picture,Moving forward to implementation of this technology to the world. Validation is the next crucial step, without it this device cannot be sold.
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)
And with this TK also noted and interesting effect he was seeing with his Tinselzed Heron pump.
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.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.
"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.
snip...
IF... Gravity can be considered and proved to be a flow and not a force... That is HUGE.
........................................ 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.
..........................................................
Some spray cans come with these nice little spray tubes that are 6 inches long :)
Something for all of you to think about:
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.
Hey! Welcome back!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well that is seriously disappointing.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
...
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.
...
Video from last night should be available soon - depending on influence by Sandy....
http://youtu.be/Fwqif5q3_VY (http://youtu.be/Fwqif5q3_VY)
................................................... What isn't clearly stated is where that fluid comes from...........................................Hi Dale,
......................................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
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 changePowercat,
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
Marks visit is Wayne's idea, except he keeps putting it off again and again, very suspiciousSo Wayne is not fast enough? or you can not be more patient? or both? How important is that to you and why?
considering Wayne has made claims that all his devices producer Overunity (I can show the posts)
@ RedHi Powercat,
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.
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.
This gives a comparative piston value of 355 cm3/1.9 cm = 190 cm2.Hi mondrasek
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?
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%.
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.
Hi Dale,Thanks
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.
Nice job on that.Thanks Webby
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
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
@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 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
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
LIFT Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)Reduces fluid input and pressure but the symbols ">" show greater than?
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
@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 belowSorry, what is meant by ram cavity here?
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
Xaverius & MileHigh, (& Seamus, & Fletcher, & PowerCat & all)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.
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?
The system is very simple, the complexity is within the interactions of the air, water and pressure.nice explanation, thanx.....
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.
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.Hello Marcel,
Marcel
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 !
Wow, you think Seamus is the one blindly following? That's some serious irony!Discerning Dave,
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!
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 !
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.
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.
Bait-and-switch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch)How's that?
Bait-and-switch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch)TinselKoala.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Please TK,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.
would you show me the science. Not your objections but the science.
Sure.... as soon as you show me the system WORKING as a whole, driving itself and making useful excess output power.
Would you show me the understanding of the system as a whole.
Not your interpretation of what is happening.
You CAN NOT so get it or try,,,, or shut up.
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.
I tried with you but,, well you do not get it at all,,, you are missing the boat.
It is clear from previous posts that there was a reliability problem with the too often modified mark-1 system.
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. .......................................................
Let me translate that into English for you: It didn't work.
...................................................... dat zal je haren laten recht staan.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.
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 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!
Piffle. What we saw was various parts of the machine moving. No indication at all that it was actually producing any usable energy.
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
Nooop, that is where you are wrong.
A working mark-1 was shown on video, together with Mark Dansie inspecting the system.
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 ?
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.
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,
TinselKoala,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.
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,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.
All jokes aside,Mark Dansie was not satisfied, was he? And the items I point out in the video ARE there, aren't they?
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.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.
Let's not allow it to slide into the ridiculous
...............................................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.Dear TinselKoala,
IF, that is, such a system really existed.
Well, at least there will be a redecorated conference room.
Dear TinselKoala,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?
Any further comments or answers from my side would be futile and unproductive
Lets be patient and time will provide the answers you seek.
(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.
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.
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
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.
Sure, Mond, we will discuss whatever you like. Does LarryC's spreadsheet accurately model the behaviour of your system? Facts are, after all, facts.
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.
..........................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.
..............................................................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?Hi MileHigh,
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
For example, why would a skeptic lower himself to a low level to disprove someone's understanding on something he can not understand yet.
"please continue, Governor"
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.
Does LarryC's spreadsheet accurately model the behaviour of your system? Facts are, after all, facts.
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.
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.
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.
"please continue, Governor"You forgot to quote, or even answer, the question I asked in the first part of my post. Why?
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?
Do you have a working model?[/font](sic)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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....
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.
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
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.
@TinselKoalaLow? 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.
That is LOW !
WOW!
A personal attack on someone like M. ?!?
You need help.
Dale
@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?
For a contributor like Mondrasek to be attacked by anyone on this forum is ridiculous.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.
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
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:
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?
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.
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"?
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
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
.....................................This post is mostly for TinselKoala, because he tries so hard to show the errors of Mr. Wayne and his ardent followers.Some more page filler for good measure.
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
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.
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
..................................................... 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.
Powercat-
IIRC, Wayne was speaking about a single ZED with 3 layers vs. Two Zeds in tandem, each with 3 layers.
Tom
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?
Just some useless usage of some poor electrons.Webby1,
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.
I suggest you read the thread properly MileHigh has done this on a number of occasions as well as others,Powercat,
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>>
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.
Financial Investors:http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/special-thanks (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/special-thanks)
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.
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
............................................
......................................
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!!
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.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.
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.
.......................................................... 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.
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.
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.
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?TinselKoala,
.......................................
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.
...........................PowerCat,
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 ?
"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."
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.
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 .
This is purely based on your belief where are the successful replications that show clear overunity,PowerCat,
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.
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
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.
Strange human beings we are.
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.
Hi Michel,Marcel.
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
From TKYou 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?
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!
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
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_.
I'd actually like to see...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.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.
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
But I also like to be challenged -sometimes.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."
"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.
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.
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
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,
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.
As long as it doesn't happen on takeoff or landing.....Stuff happens.....
.......................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,
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.
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.
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
...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.
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.See3D,
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.Hi Seamus,
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.
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.I agree, how is that much VOLUME transferred the same distance as the input with greater pressure?
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 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.
I agree, how is that much VOLUME transferred the same distance as the input with greater pressure?
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.
Only the penny of realization and comprehension in your thinking mind need to drop, it will come, give it time, persistence pays !
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.
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 !.Hi Red,
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
MT,Thanks, it is more clear now. We will eventually get there.
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.
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.
.........................................................................................
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.
You have not explained what the Pixie Dust is or how it works,
Hi,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).
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.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 ....
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!
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Xaverius,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.
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 !
Hi,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.
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
@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.
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.
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.
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
or 2, prove your case by providing some experimental evidence.
@seamus103 - I completely agree with you there.Wildew & all,
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
@seamus103 - I completely agree with you there.Good idea Dale,
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!
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 ?
@Red_SunsetOK - please, enlighten me - all of us. Another clue perhaps ?Hi Dale,
This really isn't a challenge, just a question.
What is it then? Dale
................................................................
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.
I am only questioning your objectivity in relation to the zed, which is marred and influenced by personal disturbances between you and Wayne.
Wayne has always been too truthful, even on his animation.
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.
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)
I know you follow Wayne blindly and you decide to ignore the evidence that he is not to be trusted, so ifI 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.
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.
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
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 ...............................................
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
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?
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.
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).
(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.
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.
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?
Hi,Hi minnie
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.
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?
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.
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.
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, >> Why is MY result even greater than yours? >>>For a very simple reason, ask maggie, she knows!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.
>> 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 !!
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?
Wayne's misunderstood program of scientific creativity was available in this thread,There is no discomfort or opposition to new ideas THAT HAVE EMPIRICAL SUPPORT.
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
Check out my posting #3053 if you haven't read it. I have a feeling it got lost in the shuffle. Tick-tock!
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?
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?
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?
Your calculations on the Riser can be Archimedes or differential or PSI X SI, not more than one
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.
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?
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.
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 !!
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.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.<<
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.
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
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. ...
One thing I do NOT DO is, to engage in speculation with anonymous individuals.
That is not the purpose of this forum topic.
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
A "fact" you say........... you have deluded yourself - you have drank from the blood you spill and have become drunk.
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.
I absolutely love being proved wrong!!!!!
John.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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)
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.
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)
Wayne TravisReally :) ....... Since my answer was not clear enough to you... let me share a non educational moment with you.
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.
Hi,Hello John,
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Tom
Hi,Note that Mister Wayne accuses you of cheating in his non-response to your question.
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.
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.
Our old system used virtual mass - something your helper missed or forgot to mention with his massive water calculations.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.
You do not qualify for questions on our new system until you understand the ZED.
You had your shot.
Good day.
Wayne
You cheated off a classmate - who is failing the class.
.... 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.
Hmmm.... interesting. Would you say that this is a personal attack, or not? I can't quite tell.... But never mind....Dear TK,
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?
Hello Tom!
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
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)
Hi GreenHiker,You chose "ignore."
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.
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?Hello again Bill,
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
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?
Powercat –Thanks Tom,
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:%7BBA0E7C10-7514-4EB9-8921-F3B89DA6F745%7Dmid://00001763/%21x-usc:mailto:mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com)
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)
Tinsel, I do not refute trash, I know you can serve more "to the power two".
Trash is trash !!
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.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.
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
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)
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
.............................................I say that you are a hypocrite.
snip...
But this science has great beneficial financial implications and this changes the playing field dramatically.
snip...
The major problem lies in degradation of expensive storage batteries-solve that one and you would be on a winner!edison batteries... they've been around for 100+ years. ;)
warmest regards
John.
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:See3d is right.
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.
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.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_.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
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.....Choosing not to refute bogus claims - does not make those claims true - were tire of them - were moving on.
I say that you are a hypocrite.
See3d is right.
"Head trip"
Moving on.
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
Creative Entropy Disruptionhttp://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives
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
Choosing not to refute bogus claims - does not make those claims true - were tire of them - were moving on.
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 -
MrWayne:Hey Bill
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
Protection of the innocent from targeted abuse - is not censorship, this is the leadership standing up for the innocent -YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO DATA, Mister Wayne, only claims without support.
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
Well my interest started with Bedini and Bearden. ................................Hi John,
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
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.I like your questions - becasue it is this the first time it was not followed by an insult?
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?
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?
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 ..........................................
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.
YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO DATA, Mister Wayne, only claims without support.Calling me a liar after what you have posted ............... ;D
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.
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
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.
Hi Red_Sunset,John,
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
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
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 TravisRight? That's what you are saying now, and you are apologising to me for this mistake of yours. Right?
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.
TK,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!
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.
It only takes a few crazies especially those with MMD (multiple member disorder) to completely disrupt, what could be a helpful learning process.
How much water (gravity) would it take to run a 2250 p.s.i. 22 g.p.m. pump? You can have a headI 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.
of say, 10 mtrs.
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.
No sarcasm TK.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 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?
I just got back from a evening on the townMy 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.
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?
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,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?
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" ?
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.In advance - See3d, I want to make one more attempt before we move to another forum.
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.
Hi,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.
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
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?)
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.
deleted
maybe that is why he has my email addy.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?
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.
Thanks Wayne for pulling the plug, I am glad this idiotic circus is over !
Looking forward to some serious work with like minded people
Goodbye TK.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.
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)
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
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.
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
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.
the best question from any skeptic so far - how does it do that?
I gave Mark my theory - but my theory does not matter.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
omitting the fact that Mark was not at all convinced.......
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.
@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.
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.
Well that is jumping to conclusions,, and then some.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending
"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]
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.
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%
No input figures of the Pre charge which is now an old argument from many pages ago andNo my friend - we have plenty of good skeptics on our team - we are just tired of interuptions by less than respectful people.
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
There are a lot of things that I disagree with TK on, my fresh made espresso is better than his instant,, so what.
(snip)
(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)
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.
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.
Wow, It's Quiet in here.
Where did everybody go? 8)
They caught the last train to the Coast...
The day, the music died !!
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.
TK, 24 kw is 1 kw for 24 hours,, just thought I would let you know.
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.
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.
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.
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 = 1⁄9.81 (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).
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.
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.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".
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?
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.
Hey TK,, simple mechanical rectifier.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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
This is to all of you who never posted but followed the thread...... Thank you for following.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"?
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.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.
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?
The group is called Hydro Energy Revolution Professionals.Yet, nobody has been successful in producing any "overunity" performance, have they. Spreadsheets don't count !!
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.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.
All of the replication members are present - and as the share information - a common theme has appeared - surprise and discovery.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.
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.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.
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 -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....
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."Forging" is indeed an appropriate word for you to use.
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.
If you are interested in helping or Vision, the mission, or adding your skill to the adventure - you are welcome.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.
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)
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.
@Wayne:Yes,
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?
Hi,John,
I only hope mrwayne's principal principle is not to hoodwink investors with his Travis Principle!
John.
I'd asked this question a few months ago and Mr Wayne must have missed it because he didn't answer.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.
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.
This was the Condition when Mark took that video November 2011, we had to vent the fluid or let the system stop.
This was the Condition when Mark took that video November 2011, we had to vent the fluid or let the system stop.
Hi,I see you are competing with TK - or yourself.
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
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.
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 contradictionsIs this all you can come up with? Oh my.........goodness.............how far reaching you are...
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.
Hi,A very smart man told me to avoid people twisting your words - define the meaning of words. ::)
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
HELP!OK - you did not do your homework - it appears.......
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.
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.Show me your efforts power cat - show me your replication.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Show me your efforts power cat - show me your replication.
and I will show you the others.
Wayne
Hi,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........................
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.
I'm saddened as well.I read a few of your posts to see............................no growth yet...............no effort to understand ........
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.
Hi,You don't need to be surprised - all the information needed is here.
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.
Hi Webby,And youve just got to be a newbe that has come here to heckle. ;)
you've just got to be a shill of mrwayne?
[size=78%] John. [/size]
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.
Hi Webby,
you've just got to be a shill of mrwayne?
[size=78%] John. [/size]
Thanks Wayne,Webby - I welcomed your challenges - you argued well and you engaged in the conversation.
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.
Show me your efforts power cat - show me your replication.
and I will show you the others.
Wayne
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.
It's all about confidence, when I feel confident that the device might work as claimed I will replicate,Power cat -
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.
Hi guys,John or TK - we never asked anyone to "believe" ... and we sold our cow.
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.
Hi,Yeah - do your research a little better - we don't use turbines - could you at least look at the patent.
commercial hydro electric plant 10 kw, head required 30 mtrs, flow rate 50 litres/sec.
Need I say more?
John.
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,Me do my homework?
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.
Hi,Gee - what's the efficiency on your commercial system?
commercial 10 kw hydraulic drive gen. ONLY requires 2250 psi @ 22 gpm. Thank you,
John.
Wish I lived in fairyland!
MrWaynePowercat,
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.
Accusing me of twisting things....why can't you face facts that you often contradict yourself and you break your word,Now - Power cat -
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.
Hi,John TK ,
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.
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 ?
Wayne,You are probably right.
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.
All I have ever done is shown you your own statements there all your words,Sorry Powercat,
so how the hell can I be attacking you when they are your statements ?
...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.
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.You are so right - I do not have a 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)
And youve just got to be a newbe that has come here to heckle. ;)
Mags
@All, which one was the psychopath?Clarry ? Is that your other you ?
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.
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 again TK,
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?
Hi guys,Thanks again for your input, opinions are great -
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.
Sorry Powercat,
I am sure you meant to be helpful.
Wayne
Hi,Thank you,
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.
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.
Hi mrwayne,
this is obviously what's misleading me. On your homepage it clearly states "capture gravity".
John.
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)
on a side note: I did not, and do not tell the replication members what to do and not do.
I feel the same way about frauds - but you are not protecting the innocent here - you are making false claims against me.
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.
Why on earth don't you...... It would mean many successful replications would happen ?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.
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.
Such a quote is not slanderous if it is true. Mr Wayne, you have been warned, stop lying about this machine.Seamus -
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,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?
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
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,It was an offer for you to see the inofrmation you don't know exists - because it is private.
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.
.
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. Power cat -
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.
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.
@ PowerCat,That made me smile, just because it is true and wise.
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
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.
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
@ 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
Mr Wayne said;Good point,
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
@ iflewmyownThank You
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 ?
Is it? I wouldn't have to _conclude_ anything if you'd just answer the question honestly.
So that's a "yes" then.
As usual, more incorrect assumptions.
(snip)
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.
..................................................................................
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?
Did you know that to insult someone is akin to crucifying him?
snip..Singular doing plural. Now thats clever! I wonder if the men in black ever dress in red ? :P
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
Did you know that to insult someone is akin to crucifying him?
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,Hello Again John,
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.
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,I can not explain why the numbers changed - but the cause was moderation.
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
According to YOU.Hello TK,
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
Hello WayneAlright.
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?
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,
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.
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
...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.
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?
Mr.Wayne,Where is here............Gwandau......Just the facts, Nothing personal ;) .
This is an open source forum.
If you are not going open source, you do not belong here.
Nothing personal, just facts.
Gwandau
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
Alright.
I presume that you will not be helping.
Wayne
this is well covered in our patent and is extremely useful to recaptureOh... your patent has been granted, then? When did this happen?
50 kW by the end of February, Wayne. How about a nice response to that?
50 kW by the end of February, Wayne. How about a nice response to that?Hello TK,
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?)
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....
Oop's I forgot to kiss you.
your patent has been granted, then? When did this happen?
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.
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.
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.
Freedoms, and yet it is against the law to run into a busy establishment and yell fire.
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??
Oop's I forgot to kiss you.
I will fix it.
Thanks again
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 -
(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?)
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.
It's a video that refutes the claims made in your Travis Effect videos, and that is where YOU need to think, Wayne.TK -
And I am not in your employ. If you want a new video made, get Webby to do it.
What is your open source?
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
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???
You should sign your postsTK,
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.
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?
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.You remind me of a little girl,
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.
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?TK
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.
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 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.
You have not seen the walking because of all the T....al....K...... ing....... you set it up.... :)
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
Hi,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)......
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
Hi,Why are you here John, to help someone attempt to beat up on an inventor, or to help bring clean energy to the world.
just cut the crap mrwayne,
John.
Now you have confused Discerning Dave - kind of ironic lol
TK did not confuse me. I am only confused about the following things:First I never asked for an invenstment from you?
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
...............................................................
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,Hello Red,
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
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.
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.My error - I crossed conversations with Minne and you.
My error - I crossed conversations with Minne and you.
My sincere apology.
Wayne
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.Hey TK,
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
Hi mrwayne,Gee, I never thought of that - should I invite a skeptic out to watch it run?
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.
Hello Dave,
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
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.
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???
Hey TK,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.
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
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
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.
dgoldman : TionselKoala, I ask you again: Why are you here?
Wayne: One thing for sure - you have made a name for yourself .
Seamus,
Just answer the question you **** and stop obfuscating!
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.
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 think the post below got buried as it waited for moderation.Lately, it's because I am being attacked and questioned and ...yes.... even lied to.
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
Actually, as you can see, I do not need any response from you, I am simply using the ones you have already made.
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.Who are you talking too?
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.
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?Before you embarrass yourself again, Mark has been here more than once - and seen the process as it evolves.
You are a paid shill with no credibility. Do you want me to find the quote? Has it been removed or censored maybe?
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
......................................................... 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.
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.
......................................................................................
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?
.................................... I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. (Rev. 3: 15-16) ............................................
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, ..........................................................
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.TinselKoala,