Heh... I wish I could find my old slide rule. I'm afraid I use a calculator like just about everybody else these days. On the computer I usually use
SpeedCrunch
http://www.speedcrunch.org/
and at the workbench I use my trusty old Sharp EL-520W.

But calculations are only as good as the data that goes into them... if that. Some people evidently think that all you have to do is multiply everything together and write down all the digits that come out of the display. With SpeedCrunch... that could get to be a problem.

wow, you would never guess we are all meant to be searching and designing and inventing things together, you know, on the same side.

you gotta wonder that if we, a group who are dedicated to the same thing, cant stop bickering between each other, then how the hell does any invention brought here stand a chance of being spread?

as for those waiting for this guy, who hasnt even asked for us to look at his machine ,to put YT vids up. why not get off you back side and try some inventing your self and publish here.
we have all (well, at least some of us) spent money making things only to find out we missed something somewhere along the line.

even if this big thing doesnt work, we could take something out of it, the principals high lighted by this machine can inspire us all.

1) counter weight, work out a system of having weight A spinning around somehow, and haveing weight B counter balance A as A goes up. then detaches as A comes down only to reattach as A goes up again.

2) perhaps use counter balancing in another way. (see attached)

so, perhaps rather than waiting for someone else to do the work for you, you could stand up and try it your self.. if you really want to know if this machine will work or not, give it a go.

you missed the point.   you should  read from the beginning

I have been fixing cars for over 40 years, in that time I have run across variations of the method I put forward from many manufacturers.  I put the parts together that I discussed to solve for an identical problem.

This method is not new, it is within existing art.

The method that you are requiring only allows for a 1:1 volume transfer, my method allows for a 1:1 energy transfer.

With all due respect, there is no such thing known.  Any and all energy transfers have losses.  Some more than others but, there are losses just the same.

My 2.3765 cents worth.

Bill

I have been fixing cars for over 40 years, in that time I have run across variations of the method I put forward from many manufacturers.  I put the parts together that I discussed to solve for an identical problem.

This method is not new, it is within existing art.

The method that you are requiring only allows for a 1:1 volume transfer, my method allows for a 1:1 energy transfer.

Then you should have absolutely no trouble articulating your "method".  Don't forget to conserve the volume of "air" in your explanation.

   Webby,
              quote "my method allows a 1:1  energy transfer". I believe you need more than
        1 if you're to make this thing work. If you imagine shuffling 1 watt from side to side
         you're not doing any work.
                                          John.

In simple word
" webby need an amount of "external energy" to transfer "his energy" from one place to other  place" 
   
"external energy" is an energy which webby must pay along transferring,

if this "external energy"  was taken from "his energy", you can quess the  final  result, 

this  is the simple logic running on my head

but if using "magic method "  ........ .........    i would like to know  ........... ...........

Webby has cornered himself with a fantastic claim that he will not be able to support.  He has never had a means to perform the transfer retaining the original energy.  It is only in the past day or two that he even realized the energy transfer problem after it was pointed out to him.

As to whether shuffling about half of the "air" from the charged cylinder to the uncharged cylinder means that absolutely about one half of the the energy must be lost to heat, that is a bit more complicated.  What is absolute is that the stored energy post transfer in the combined cylinders is only about half what the pre transfer stored energy was in the first cylinder.  That dictates that the balance of the stored energy went into the transfer system.  If the transfer system met four requirements then it would be possible to reduce the losses. 

The first requirement is that the transfer system would itself have to include a third energy store capable of taking up at least 50% of the energy of a fully charged first cylinder.

The second requirement is that the transfer system would have to be able to divert the energy that would otherwise be lost by a simple direct connection between the first and second cylinder into store with low losses, while still transferring the "air" from the first cylinder to the second up to the point of pressure equalization between the first and second cylinder.

The third requirement is that the transfer system would have to be able to divert that energy out of its store with low losses, while transferring the "air" from the first cylinder to the second after the point of pressure equalization.

The fourth requirement is that a control means  would be required that manages when to put energy into and when to take energy out of the store, and how much.

    Hi,
       not one of our three proponents has managed to come up with one fact in
     support of the ou. that they are allegedly claiming.
        It looks as if we've reached the bottom of the barrel. I'm sad because I
      was I was hoping one of them would have come up with something original.
       I wonder if Mondrasek will manage to turn anything up with his efforts, he
       seems to be taking care and asking for help when he's unsure.
                                  John .

After six years, HER / Zydro continue to have nothing but hand waving.

I am interested to see how Webby is going to respond.

Well MarkE you are putting miss-information out once again.

These are a few posts.

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386204/#msg386204

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386349/#msg386349

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386367/#msg386367

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386475/#msg386475

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386568/#msg386568

First pic from MarkE that has the air where it belongs,,, why did he change it later?

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386740/#msg386740

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386819/#msg386819
Now the setup is changed,,why?

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386893/#msg386893

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386922/#msg386922
I correct MarkE's error.

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386998/#msg386998

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg387041/#msg387041
Me identifying the transfer pump.

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg387138/#msg387138

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg387140/#msg387140
MarkE blowing off the description of the transfer pump.

I have described the method, it is not my problem if MarkE can not understand a simple pump system,, but since he is now saying that I can NOT move a pocket of air without loosing 1\2 its potential,, that sounds fairly foolish doesn't it.

If you care to pay attention you will see that the system is 3 independent systems, pump, source and discharge and it is only the pump that sees all 3 parts.

Webby anyone who followed the thread could see that I took your descriptions and changes as you dribbled them out one at a time and posted drawings accordingly.  Anyone can see the sparse sketch that you threw out at the start.  Anyone can read the thread and see that you threw a fit when I proposed changing the piston height by less than 0.01% so that at least a miniscule bubble that you said you wanted would actually always be present between the top of the piston and the underside of the cylinder top.  And anyone can see that over the course of some eight days you still never produced a full description of your test set-up despite your promise to do so Feb. 3.

This is the description you offered of the transfer pump:

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.

One can easily work out that from an energy stand point the pump as you describe it, in the best case approximates a simple tube during the time that the source pressure exceeds the destination pressure, IE during the entire pressure equalization phase.  During that time the transfer pump acts like a hydraulic lock.

Now that the energy loss during equalization problem is inescapable you offer nothing to support your claim that you have a means to overcome that problem.  It's all on you webby:  You can support your claims or come away looking very foolish.  Decide what you want to do.