Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 724411 times)

MarkE · « **Reply #1035 on:** February 14, 2014, 02:11:34 PM »

Wayne Travis has now been selling a false dream that anyone with the least bit of elementary physics knowledge, or ability to find someone with even elementary physics knowledge to analyze if for him would have known very early on has always been meritless for about six years. The sheer swagger Wayne still exhibits pitching outrageous claims that he has no factual basis for believing is awesome. Just look at how he does not even blink declaring his confidence despite the uninterrupted string of prototype failures. Look at the seemingly effortless way he changed his previous story as to what those aquarium videos meant. That kind of ability to set reality completely aside, stay on message and tug at emotions with invocations of God and country could make him a super effective: salesman, politician, diplomat, or remorseless fraud. Mr. Wayne's talents are wasted selling hopeless buoyancy based free energy schemes. He should be working for the CIA selling centrifuge components to Iran, or BATF selling traceable arms to Mexican drug lords.

It's little wonder that Wayne has sold complete BS to a number of people. Then there are those who within a few minutes of seeing what he had to show and say have asked: "What are we doing here?".

MarkE · « **Reply #1036 on:** February 14, 2014, 03:12:53 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 02:36:55 PM

MarkE, if I were talking about a dump condition as you are describing I would agree with you, but since I am not and did not talk abut using a dump,, remember I said I started with that but had a fix for it,,,

So why are you describing a condition that is not the one under consideration?

Webby, I repeat again that we are NOT TALKING ABOUT A DUMP CONDITION. We are talking about the steps as you have stated them. The figure pressure_equalization_potential_energy_loss.png shows on the left an initially charged cylinder: "A". The figure shows on the right that cylinder connected to a second cylinder "B". For purposes of illustration the "B" cylinder is held down by a stop instead of a payload weight. The two cylinders communicate "Air" through a volumeless line connected from the top of one to the top of the other. The pressures equalize with the result that the "air" water meniscus is at the same absolute depth in each cylinder. The pressures, and energies are shown on the figure.

The process of equalizing the pressures dissipated almost one half of the total stored energy. Now each cylinder holds only about 1/4th the energy that the first cylinder "A" held when charged. We have not even filled the "B" cylinder that will do the lifting all the way and we have already expended about twice as much work as we can possibly extract lifting the payload weight by your specified 15mm distance. The total volume of "air" is still the same as it was after we finished charging the "A" cylinder. We have not dumped any "air". The remaining steps of pumping air from the "A" side to the "B" side until the "B" side becomes neutrally buoyant and then lifting the payload weight end up costing input work that exceed both the energy just lost plus the energy extracted from raising the payload weight.

11 days ago you said that you would post your set-up and your calculations. You have not done so. I welcome you to post your arrangement and show what you think happens when you first equalize the pressure between the two cylinders, before you add more energy by pumping "air" from the charged cylinder to the cylinder carrying the payload weight.

mrwayne · « **Reply #1037 on:** February 14, 2014, 03:59:17 PM »

To those interested,

A couple of fun notes - apparently lost in translation last year:

First I mostly ignore all slander and misdirection - if a valid point is made in the middle - I would never know. Why would I listen to people who spit in my face first and last in every breath. (why do they think they add value to anything)?

I shared last year - some want to learn - others just want to be "read" - ask questions relevant to the understanding and do not try to take over the conversation.

My reading here is short - I have those that have proven they can not control themselves on "block".

...............

A few things missed by some -

In the ZED system - the stored energy is in the individual water columns in each layer.

(When you displace a fluid - as in Archimedes'- you also create an equal value in water column - hard to see in your drawings - but is there - and very usable - if so designed - the ZED is so designed.)

Our columns connect in series - transfer of the stored energy only requires access to one point in each ZED
(If you get stuck on one ZED - you ignore half the cycle - look at the whole cycle and OU stares you in the face.)

Moving one - moves all - this means the ratio of volume to movement is reduced with the number of series - or the number of water columns created does not add to the input volume. Making Operating speed optimal.

The same as Archimedes' in some aspects - there is a difference:

Even our single layer ZED with Pod - creates more buoyancy than the space it occupies - very simple to verify.
and It can lift many more times than the whole system weighs.
(P.s. john/Tk - that's where you should focus to understand the reduction in foot print to capture large amounts of gravity)

Few notes regarding slander:

Zydro Energy has 210 investors - they all have always known and had the right to a full refund with interest - one has exercised that due to handle a personal home issue - and another wanted to support another inventor - another inventor who did not have as many supporters - I returned his money and let him keep his shares.

They supported me and my efforts to bring good from our work - most of our investors read the slander and accusations on this web site, and most did their due research and saw the value to humanity.

Another truth:

Good people choose to take a stand - the fact less based slander spewed on this web site - added credibility to our efforts - those with character to see - saw thru it all - they gave us time to develop our other systems.

Our success adds credibility to all those that desired and tried - against the onslaught of opposition.

In regard to the "law suit" - my divorce 6 years ago. omgosh.. TK you will twist anything.. trying to twist it into to a claim against character, company, or systems - just pitiful. I am sorry you still do not understand the system - don't take it personally. I wish I had logged in that day so that you were ignored......

Where we are today:

I have on average five meetings a week with Utility companies, Inventors, Engineers, legal teams, political figures, and our new partners regarding our future alignments and focus - working together to bring reliable and clean energy to the world (None of those meetings are for investment - we are fully funded).

We also have five legal teams - Patents, International patents, Legal team for the contracting, CPA, and infringement and abatement.

Of course - In every meeting - I am introduced to extremely intelligent Engineers, ladies and gentlemen - who do not see the difference or value of our system - (without the distraction of slander and ego's) it takes on average two hours to teach them what Webby and Red, and a dozen other have discovered.....

TK you are "right" ....hands on models do make a big impact and open minds - several people on this web site built nice ones and were spammed out of desire to share. I think they are onto you.

Of all our visitors:

I have only turned away one visitor in six years. He thought I was seeking investment - I was not.

To All:

It is valuable to learn the logic that made the ZED possible to produce Net energy - we have applied that logic to four other systems which also now work to produce Net Energy. This is a new frontier - ready for open minds. The world might be able to stop a few people - but it can not stop a thought.... And thoughts are powerful.

I do not teach that logic here - it is more valuable than our machines.

A little hint - working with "ideal energy" will not produce Net Excess energy - and focusing on Energy Values in the system will not lead to Net Energy. Red has explained it right at least twice.

I highly highly recommend listening to those who have built models.

And to those that slander and spam them - your on your way out......

Pollution free energy is on the way.

The big picture,

Two of my son's spent last month in China and toured power plants - the air barely breathable even to the locals - fixing that around the world is what is important.

Nuclear waste is still spilling in Japan, most of our power plant are over 40 years old -

GRAVITY IS ALWAYS ON!

Maybe some of you have forgotten the reason for the search - the reason for this web site - I am sorry for those of you who missed the boat. I certainly tried to help.

Our system will help.

Best wishes to you all,

Wayne Travis

Grimer · « **Reply #1038 on:** February 14, 2014, 04:04:58 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 14, 2014, 10:36:50 AM

Frank, you might as well be describing a pink invisible unicorn carousel in detail... because it has just as much reality as your "Keenie" fantasy. No amount of your detailed description can alter the fact that IT DOES NOT WORK. So really, you should quit acting like, and claiming, it does, until you are able to demonstrate it. Until then it's just your fantasy, nothing more, and we are trying to discuss reality here, not yours and webby's fantasies.

I disagree. I think the Keenie did work and does work for the reasons I gave. Why not save the puerile insults and and address the arguments. Red ink is not going to make them go away.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1039 on:** February 14, 2014, 04:34:01 PM »

Quote

In regard to the "law suit" - my divorce 6 years ago. omgosh.. TK you will twist anything.. trying to twist it into to a claim against character, company, or systems - just pitiful. I am sorry you still do not understand the system - don't take it personally. I wish I had logged in that day so that you were ignored......

Somehow I don't think you are talking about your divorce six years ago, when you are talking about your lawsuit in your plea for new investment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A

Travis, you emit words endlessly, without saying anything of significance, but the Truth remains: You have withdrawn your overt claims of creating free energy from your public websites. You have changed the name of your operation. People do this kind of thing when they have received advice from lawyers as to the nature of their claims and the nature of their solicitations. You solicit investments, you mention your lawsuit.... People rarely if ever refer to their "divorce" as a "lawsuit" so I am afraid I believe the version of you in the video, not what you are posting here. You have NEVER YET produced any data that support your claims. Yet it would be trivial for you to do so, if you had what you claim to have. But you do not... so you cannot.

Why did you not complete your schedule with Mark Dansie? Why has Dansie not "endorsed" your claims? Why are you not in the news, every day? Why are graduate engineering students from over in Norman not pouring over your design, writing scientific papers and helping you bring it to fruition? I know why... and so do you.

Where is the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself", your words exactly, Wayne Travis? I challenge you: either show this system and explain why and how it is overunity in terms a REAL ENGINEER will understand ... OR admit that you do not have any such thing and WITHDRAW the lying claim to have such a thing.

MarkE · « **Reply #1040 on:** February 14, 2014, 04:34:20 PM »

Quote from: mrwayne on February 14, 2014, 03:59:17 PM

To those interested,

A couple of fun notes - apparently lost in translation last year:

First I mostly ignore all slander and misdirection - if a valid point is made in the middle - I would never know. Why would I listen to people who spit in my face first and last in every breath. (why do they think they add value to anything)?

I shared last year - some want to learn - others just want to be "read" - ask questions relevant to the understanding and do not try to take over the conversation.

What you have never done is shown a single iota of evidence that supports your outrageous claims.

Quote

My reading here is short - I have those that have proven they can not control themselves on "block".

...............

A few things missed by some -

In the ZED system - the stored energy is in the individual water columns in each layer.

(When you displace a fluid - as in Archimedes'- you also create an equal value in water column - hard to see in your drawings - but is there - and very usable - if so designed - the ZED is so designed.)

Archimedes' Principle rigidly conforms to CoE, as does gravity. Lifting and lowering objects in or out of fluids does not change the conservative properties of gravity, or thermodynamic laws.

Quote

Our columns connect in series - transfer of the stored energy only requires access to one point in each ZED
(If you get stuck on one ZED - you ignore half the cycle - look at the whole cycle and OU stares you in the face.)

If you believe that then you should be able to show that. After all you say that your physics is "simple". Yet, you have yet to show any evidence of energy gain across a complete cycle.

Quote

Moving one - moves all - this means the ratio of volume to movement is reduced with the number of series - or the number of water columns created does not add to the input volume. Making Operating speed optimal.

That's meaningless word salad.

Quote

The same as Archimedes' in some aspects - there is a difference:

Even our single layer ZED with Pod - creates more buoyancy than the space it occupies - very simple to verify.

This is meaningless with respect to any energy claims. Force is not energy. Force is not conservative. Force is easily multiplied. Levers, gears, pulleys, hydraulic pumps all rely on that fact.

Quote

and It can lift many more times than the whole system weighs.

Again, so can a block and tackle, or a lever, etc. It's the energy: the integral of F*ds that matters.

Quote

(P.s. john/Tk - that's where you should focus to understand the reduction in foot print to capture large amounts of gravity)

Gravity is not something that one "captures".

Quote

Few notes regarding slander:

Zydro Energy has 210 investors - they all have always known and had the right to a full refund with interest - one has exercised that due to handle a personal home issue - and another wanted to support another inventor - another inventor who did not have as many supporters - I returned his money and let him keep his shares.

They supported me and my efforts to bring good from our work - most of our investors read the slander and accusations on this web site, and most did their due research and saw the value to humanity.

So are you saying that you have cashed out all investors one hundred cents on the dollar or more who have asked to cash out? A simple yes or no will do.

Quote

Another truth:

Good people choose to take a stand - the fact less based slander spewed on this web site - added credibility to our efforts - those with character to see - saw thru it all - they gave us time to develop our other systems.

The failure to back claims, the failure to deliver, and the choice to continue promoting claims that you know to be false or promote in reckless disregard for the truth are all your actions.

Quote

Our success adds credibility to all those that desired and tried - against the onslaught of opposition.

If one measures success by how much investment one is able to obtain then you might well be successful. If one measures success by how well one delivers on their promises, you have not done well at all.

Quote

In regard to the "law suit" - my divorce 6 years ago. omgosh.. TK you will twist anything.. trying to twist it into to a claim against character, company, or systems - just pitiful. I am sorry you still do not understand the system - don't take it personally. I wish I had logged in that day so that you were ignored......

Where we are today:

I have on average five meetings a week with Utility companies, Inventors, Engineers, legal teams, political figures, and our new partners regarding our future alignments and focus - working together to bring reliable and clean energy to the world (None of those meetings are for investment - we are fully funded).

Unfortunately when it comes to any source of clean energy from your buoyancy devices, your hands are empty. You have nothing to contribute. Your buoyancy machines are incapable of delivering a single Joule of excess energy over that put into them.

Quote

We also have five legal teams - Patents, International patents, Legal team for the contracting, CPA, and infringement and abatement.

The infringement and abatement teams can phone their work in. No one can infringe something that has no utility.

Quote

Of course - In every meeting - I am introduced to extremely intelligent Engineers, ladies and gentlemen - who do not see the difference or value of our system - (without the distraction of slander and ego's) it takes on average two hours to teach them what Webby and Red, and a dozen other have discovered.....

Webby and Red have both demonstrated that they confuse force for energy. I would not recommend using either of them as references for the caliber of your technical team.

Quote

TK you are "right" ....hands on models do make a big impact and open minds - several people on this web site built nice ones and were spammed out of desire to share. I think they are onto you.

And just what about TinselKoala would they have discovered, or "be onto" with respect to the gentleman?

Quote

Of all our visitors:

I have only turned away one visitor in six years. He thought I was seeking investment - I was not.

Mark Dansie was to witness a promised 48 hour continuous demonstration over two years ago. Why has this not happened?

Quote

To All:

It is valuable to learn the logic that made the ZED possible to produce Net energy - we have applied that logic to four other systems which also now work to produce Net Energy. This is a new frontier - ready for open minds. The world might be able to stop a few people - but it can not stop a thought.... And thoughts are powerful.

The problem is that none of your machines have ever been shown to produce net energy. Nor have you ever shown that you have even a theoretical means to produce net energy. Lifting and lowering weights does not produce net energy, in or out of water.

Quote

I do not teach that logic here - it is more valuable than our machines.

A little hint - working with "ideal energy" will not produce Net Excess energy - and focusing on Energy Values in the system will not lead to Net Energy. Red has explained it right at least twice.

Unfortunately Red_Sunset has offered a good deal of double talk and no actual evidence that supports your outrageous claims.

Quote

I highly highly recommend listening to those who have built models.

That would be wonderful if any of those people actually offered energy balances for their models. None have.

Quote

And to those that slander and spam them - your on your way out......

Pollution free energy is on the way.

That may be, but no free energy is to be had from your machines.

Quote

The big picture,

Two of my son's spent last month in China and toured power plants - the air barely breathable even to the locals - fixing that around the world is what is important.

Nuclear waste is still spilling in Japan, most of our power plant are over 40 years old -

GRAVITY IS ALWAYS ON!

Gravity is indeed always on. One can extract the difference in gravitational potential by lowering a mass from a higher to a lower potential exactly once. After that they have to pay back the energy and more to repeat the act.

Quote

Maybe some of you have forgotten the reason for the search - the reason for this web site - I am sorry for those of you who missed the boat. I certainly tried to help.

Our system will help.

Nothing you have will do anything to produce clean energy. Your machines and concepts are as useless for producing energy as James Kwok's.

Quote

Best wishes to you all,

Wayne Travis

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1041 on:** February 14, 2014, 04:36:22 PM »

Quote from: Grimer on February 14, 2014, 04:04:58 PM

I disagree. I think the Keenie did work and does work for the reasons I gave. Why not save the puerile insults and and address the arguments. Red ink is not going to make them go away.

Claims without evidence, Frank.

Not worth the digital bits they are typed with. Your "thinking" something works....well, let's just say that you have been wrong, foolishly wrong, about that in the past.

Your record in these matters is rather miserable, actually. Why don't you just rest on your water-power-law laurels and quit squawking about stuff you can't support with facts, checkable outside references and/or demonstrations of your OWN.

MarkE · « **Reply #1042 on:** February 14, 2014, 04:36:37 PM »

Quote from: Grimer on February 14, 2014, 04:04:58 PM

I disagree. I think the Keenie did work and does work for the reasons I gave. Why not save the puerile insults and and address the arguments. Red ink is not going to make them go away.

Mr. Grimer, please take your discussion to the Keenie Device thread that I set up for you. It is unfair to anyone who might be interested in what you might have to say about Keenie to have to dig around to find it here. It is also very rude of you to keep disrupting this thread.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1043 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:01:35 PM »

Travis cracks me up. We haven't seen such blatant bloviation in quite some time. He had a great thread going here a year or more ago, then when the questions get tough he demands that the thread be closed. He puts people on "ignore", he says he isn't going to be posting here.... then he posts here and tries to dialog with people he pretends to ignore. Yet he cannot provide any real data, he just continues to emit the same kinds of verbiage that earned him such skepticism and so many challenges before.

He talks about paying attention to models.... when nobody (except ME !!) has actually demonstrated any kind of model of any of Travis's ideas or claims that actually "work" or perform "better" than some rational baseline measurement. This particularly cracks me up. I can precharge my PerPump, start it up and then stand back and watch it pump, for as long as its input reservoir contains water and there is room in the output reservoir to receive it. No further assists from my hands are required for it to keep on running. No other model of any Travis system can be shown to "run" without further input in this manner. Travis has, due to his egotism and his personal animosity towards me, entirely missed the fact that my PerPump Heron's Fountain withTinselZed is the _only_ model of any part of his system that actually "works". Not only that.... but it also fulfils the specifications for the "self running water pump" that he presented as a challenge to his sycophants and "model builders". And as far as I am aware... nobody else has ever even tried to present something that would fit the spec. But... just as with Sterling Allan and my Mylow replication... since my device isn't "overunity" in any way ... the person who emitted the challenge reneged on making the deserved award. As I knew he would.... and which makes me ROFL every time I think about it.

Quote

I highly highly recommend listening to those who have built models.

Yes, pay attention to the models, and to those who have built them ... and the hard results that those models provide. Let Travis -- or anyone else -- produce and demonstrate a model that shows the validity of his claims.

Well?

(sound of crickets chirping....)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1044 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:16:52 PM »

Let's break it down. Travis has claimed various output power levels, like the 50 kW unit he claimed he could install at his church three months after getting investments (the PowerPoint presentation). But let's just use the 20 kW claim that he's made "in the footprint of a garden shed".

First let's operationalize some constructs. What is the "footprint of a garden shed" in square meters of area? 2 meters by 3 meters? That's a pretty large garden shed for a city backyard, but we have to start somewhere. How _tall_ must such a shed be, even if it contains Zeds with six layers, to "capture" enough gravity to have an output of 20 kW? (This sentence cracks me up... capturing gravity! What a hoot!)

Next let's examine what we know. The large groaning unit that Dansie saw on his second visit shows an ordinary hydraulic pump/motor turning an ordinary wind-farm type alternator. There is nothing magic about either of these components, so for the output to reach 20 kW the hydraulic motor itself must be supplied with (20 kw / motor efficiency). Let's just call it 25 kW that must be supplied by hydraulic fluid flow and pressure to the hydraulic motor of 80 percent efficiency. Now.... where is this fluid flow and pressure supposed to come from -- continuously -- for as long as the system operates? And don't forget we have to do it within a footprint of six square meters.

Now let's do a little math, using some online calculators and formulae:

http://www.indianafluidpower.com/Formulas.asp#HydraulicMotorCalculations
http://www.cchydraulics.co.nz/need_to_know
http://www.hydraproducts.co.uk/hydraulic-calculators/output-power.aspx
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-power-d_505.html

What kind of numbers do you get? Is the light beginning to dawn yet? WHERE IS THIS REQUIRED PRESSURE AND FLOW RATE COMING FROM?

From Wayne Travis's fantasy, nowhere else.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1045 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:32:07 PM »

For people who are unfamiliar with logarithmic plots.... in the above figure, you locate the "20 kW" power level on the left hand axis... it is the second solid line above the "10kW" labelled line. Then you look at the colored lines that correspond to your available "pressure head" to find where it intersects the "20 kW" line. Then you read down to find the volume flow rate at that pressure which is required to make that shaft power output.

mrwayne · « **Reply #1046 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:46:56 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 04:34:20 PM

What you have never done is shown a single iota of evidence that supports your outrageous claims.Archimedes' Principle rigidly conforms to CoE, as does gravity. Lifting and lowering objects in or out of fluids does not change the conservative properties of gravity, or thermodynamic laws..

Let me help you out Mark,

We have a mutual friend that says you are smart and a good guy - to me - you are so prejudiced against OU .. you miss the simple things. Doesn't mean you are not smart - just that you picked the wrong fight this time. Good news - I hold no grudge.

When your eyes open - our mutual friend will invite you to celebrate.

It does not matter to me one bit if Buoyancy is conservative - that is not how we use it.

I forgive you for your self framed claims against me -also - I do not answer to you.

To All trying:

Marks quote above is the key to the error in evaluating our system -to all the incorrect evaluations of the ZED System.

Let me first say - since it keeps repeating itself in many ways and gives and ego to some - I agree, if you pick up a rock and drop it you gain a sore toe - that's about it.

I have tried to carefully to show the group - and has RED - that doing so is futile.

Even with a ZED - if you lift a weight and leave it on - you have nothing ---you have to change the parameters from one direction to the other.

I do not know how to do that with a rock----- I can change the parameters in a ZED - or on of our other four systems - by design, and altering the interactions between gravity, the atmosphere, and liquids -------Yes -several different ways.....

Until you recognize what RED was saying - everything you were taught in school will seem correct - and you are wrong in some cases.

Our whole system is counter intuitive - Engineers from Adapco recognized five - Of the engineers that have evaluated our system some trip up at the "counter intuitive" design process - not all.

Adapco said "you have presented at least five counter intuitive designs into your system that in reflection - are a requirement to defeat the law of conservation.

The counter intuitive: As an example from what I shared last year - short stroke is more efficient - why? because the ratio between input and free flow is improved.

Layers improve the ratio between input volume and lift = which can improve efficiency.

Adding static weight to the system improves efficiency (in the systems that have air) air does not compress and expand at the same volume at different pressures ---so a ratio between Ideal and air expansion can improve performance.

Don't fall into the trap of trying to get the most out of a system - then you are back to the rock drop.... counter intuitive

One more - the air is never used for lift......it is used as a transfer medium - which can be replaced with a non compressible - as long as the density is less than the other fluid.

These are tough and no doubt cause scoffing at the mention - that's why free energy has taken so long to be discovered....

I have work to do - I will check back later.

Moving on.

Wayne

Quit evaluating the process lke that of a rock - unless you want to stay n the caves.

If you seek "Ideal use of system" you will miss where the redirection must occur.
Along that same line - a long stroke is less efficient.
Taking all the energy out o a system leaves you with the rock scenerio

We do not do that with a ZED - I even posted drawing of two cylinders lifting weights

MarkE · « **Reply #1047 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:51:21 PM »

TinselKoala I suspect that there were a fair number of people who didn't know any better and wanted to believe Wayne Travis' false free energy from buoyancy machine claims. That would likely include most if not all of the small investors he attracted from among his family and neighbors. Most should know better now. The trouble is that for those early investors to get out, money from some new investor has to replace the old money. Eventually the music stops and the later investors are the ones burned.

For someone in Wayne Travis' shoes the question is whether he is better off with a bunch of angry neighbors, or a burned deep pocket. Either can make it their mission to exact justice. One can move from neighbors, and if none of them go psycho stalker, be done with them. Deep pockets are less predictable. Most just write off bad investments. Others don't like being played for fools. I know of one case where the deep pockets didn't stop until the principal con artist and more or less the whole clan of grifters were ruined and/or jailed. It took the deep pockets about a decade to methodically play out their rich man's justice through a combination of private actions and law enforcement nudging.

I am still in awe of how Wayne still spins his stories of how all is fine and well when he knows full well that every investor dollar is already lost.

MarkE · « **Reply #1048 on:** February 14, 2014, 06:01:44 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 05:46:54 PM

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg387260/#msg387260

I guess that you did not read my 2 posts of calculations either.

I can not find anywhere where I made a schedule, a time line to completion,, so why are you constantly throwing that out there?

So I did not make that a condition, no time line, and you did not read my transfer pump modality and you did not read my calculations

Webby,
1) Does or does not your scheme start with one cylinder "charged" IE in the up position against the stop with all water replaced with "air"?
You answered that in post 1035:

Quote

Offline webby1

Hero Member
*****
Posts: 965
View Profile
Email
Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1035 on: February 08, 2014, 02:16:20 PM »

Quote

...

Start with the cylinder in state2 with all of the volume under the cylinder filled with as much air as can be stuffed into it.

2) Does it not also start with the other cylinder, the one that is to raise the payload weight in the down condition with only water and no air under the cylinder?
Your post 1035 also answers that question:

Quote

...Start with the cylinder in state2

3) Does or does not your scheme require pumping "air" through your transfer pump from the "charged" cylinder to the cylinder that carries the payload weight?
And again post 1035 addresses this.

Quote

...I use a straight transfer pump connected between the top of the 2 cylinders, a transfer pump is a sealed chamber with a piston in it so that when the piston is on one side the other side has enough volume to hold the medium of one unit, then when slid over to the other side it pushes that volume out and into the unit it is connected to and at the same time will pull in the medium from the unit connected to the other side of the pump. simple.

You can figure out the weight that the cylinder can lift at full fill, place this weight on the starting condition cylinder and transfer the potential from the state2 cylinder into the starting condition cylinder, this is the cost of cycle.

So despite your new protests you have in fact described moving "air" from one fully "charged" cylinder to the other cylinder. A point will be reached where the pressures are equal. That is an important point to identify for anyone concerned with how much work has to be done. And what we find is that in getting to that point of equal pressures, the energy stored in the "charge" of the two cylinders combined is now only about half of what it was when we started with the one cylinder "charged" and the other at rest in its lowermost position.

MarkE · « **Reply #1049 on:** February 14, 2014, 06:20:45 PM »

Quote from: mrwayne on February 14, 2014, 05:46:56 PM

Let me help you out Mark,

We have a mutual friend that says you are smart and a good guy - to me - you are so prejudiced against OU .. you miss the simple things. Doesn't mean you are not smart - just that you picked the wrong fight this time. Good news - I hold no grudge.

Ad hominem attack.

Quote

When your eyes open - our mutual friend will invite you to celebrate.

It does not matter to me one bit if Buoyancy is conservative - that is not how we use it.

It's nice that you don't care how the universe works. Here's a news flash for you: Humans don't get to define how nature works. We only get to work within nature's constraints.

Quote

I forgive you for your self framed claims against me -also - I do not answer to you.

Forgiveness is a good thing. Maybe the people whose money you have taken under false premise will eventually forgive you if you ask them to do that. Remorse is usually a good thing at sentencing hearings.

Quote

To All trying:

Marks quote above is the key to the error in evaluating our system -to all the incorrect evaluations of the ZED System.

Let me first say - since it keeps repeating itself in many ways and gives and ego to some - I agree, if you pick up a rock and drop it you gain a sore toe - that's about it.

I have tried to carefully to show the group - and has RED - that doing so is futile.

That's great, because right there you have admitted that you have nothing. That further establishes scienter. Thank you. Lifting and lowering weights in or outside of a fluid is still just lifting weights. The weight of the displaced fluid volume is nothing more than a counterweight. How much of a counterweight depends on the relative SGs of the weights and the surrounding fluid.

Quote

Even with a ZED - if you lift a weight and leave it on - you have nothing ---you have to change the parameters from one direction to the other.

I do not know how to do that with a rock----- I can change the parameters in a ZED - or on of our other four systems - by design, and altering the interactions between gravity, the atmosphere, and liquids -------Yes -several different ways.....

Until you recognize what RED was saying - everything you were taught in school will seem correct - and you are wrong in some cases.

Red was as full of misdirection as you are. The energy balances don't lie. No one who supports HER, including you and including Red_Sunset have ever shown an energy balance that yields a net surplus. Always we see misdirection into forces and pressures, quantities that are not conserved.

Quote

Our whole system is counter intuitive - Engineers from Adapco recognized five - Of the engineers that have evaluated our system some trip up at the "counter intuitive" design process - not all.

Adapco said "you have presented at least five counter intuitive designs into your system that in reflection - are a requirement to defeat the law of conservation.

Supply the name of any engineer who thinks that you have violated any of the conservation laws and are prepared to sign an affidavit to that effect.

Quote

The counter intuitive: As an example from what I shared last year - short stroke is more efficient - why? because the ratio between input and free flow is improved.

Short strokes are indeed less inefficient than long strokes under your scheme. They are both solidly under unity.

Quote

Layers improve the ratio between input volume and lift = which can improve efficiency.

More layers simply increase sources of loss.

Quote

Adding static weight to the system improves efficiency (in the systems that have air) air does not compress and expand at the same volume at different pressures ---so a ratio between Ideal and air expansion can improve performance.

Duh, for a constant molar quantity of gas at constant temperature, the volume and pressure are dependent. Compressing and expanding gas just adds thermal losses to the other losses that are part of your scheme.

Quote

Don't fall into the trap of trying to get the most out of a system - then you are back to the rock drop.... counter intuitive

The most efficient ZED is no ZED at all. The ZED capable of delivering the most net energy is no ZED at all.

Quote

One more - the air is never used for lift......it is used as a transfer medium - which can be replaced with a non compressible - as long as the density is less than the other fluid.

The air has always been a red herring. How nice of you to acknowledge that.

Quote

These are tough and no doubt cause scoffing at the mention - that's why free energy has taken so long to be discovered....

You have not discovered free energy. You have rediscovered what many have known for a very long time: There are gullible people who will believe far fetched false stories that have no supporting evidence. Some of those people can be persuaded to give money to the storytellers.

Quote

I have work to do - I will check back later.

Moving on.

Wayne

Quit evaluating the process lke that of a rock - unless you want to stay n the caves.

There is a genuine chance that before all is done you will be in a cave like abode about 6' x 8'. That is still several years away.

Quote

If you seek "Ideal use of system" you will miss where the redirection must occur.
Along that same line - a long stroke is less efficient.
Taking all the energy out o a system leaves you with the rock scenerio

No ZED at all outperforms any ZED that can ever be designed.

Quote

We do not do that with a ZED - I even posted drawing of two cylinders lifting weights

Whatever "that" is.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 724411 times)

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

mrwayne

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Grimer

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

mrwayne

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel