Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel  (Read 716198 times)

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1110 on: February 18, 2014, 11:17:47 PM »
The air is nothing more than a stored potential, energy in equals energy out.

When you try and use that stored potential directly against another system that has a reversed force curve both systems loose.

Take the potential out of the air all by itself, not against another air pocket you are trying to use or create, hence against the piston.

Think this one over.

Try and build the air pocket under the cylinder with NO resistance applied against the cylinder, I know your answer, now think it all over for a while.
We can ponder all day long.  What we do not have is you stating what methods you claim to have used to obtain your stated results.  There are many systems that store energy and are very lossy, IE energy out is much less than energy in.  It is up to you to state what method you used and show that it does not suffer the losses that I have shown exist:

Venting B to A and then using a transfer pump.
Using a transfer pump for the entire transfer from B to A.

Unless I messed up my numbers, even using a very large, nearly isobaric intermediate transfer store does not help.

Remember, you have posted numbers that are supposed results.  If the numbers are valid there is no reason why you should not be able to describe the method by which you obtained them.

Marsing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1111 on: February 19, 2014, 05:02:42 AM »
Marsing,

A simple method could be to have the weight as a large steel ball resting on a small track on top of the cylinder, when it reaches the top of the lift that ball is released and rolls over and onto a waiting platform that is held up by a string, that string goes over a pulley and down and runs a cam drive gear that runs the pump.  These are designed so that at the end of motion the ball and the cylinder are back down at the same height where the ball can roll back onto the cylinder.

With proper design, and if symmetry and CoE are valid considerations, then you can see that this system, baring frictional losses, can readily hit 100 percent efficiency.

webby,

this is exactly i want to know, how can you make ball roll back onto cylinder?.

maybe you can get second cylinder reach the top position, but you need "third energy" to put ball on top of the second cylinder,

when second cylinder reach the top position, and you think it have 100 % efficiency, i disagree..

i thing, the discussion about yours ZED is over, at least for me.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1112 on: February 19, 2014, 06:18:26 AM »
Marsing I believe that Webby's proposal is to use a ball as the payload weight.  When the A cylinder rises the ball is now at the same height as the B cylinder 165mm up.  The idea is that the ball is supposed to roll from there to some lever that will then operate the pump to restore the "air" to the B  side after of course the B side has been pushed back down and a ball has been loaded on top of it.  Ostensibly that ball would be the one that had rolled off the top of the B side at the end of the previous half cycle.  For any of this to work the system has to be at least 100% efficient.  There webby's claimed 83% is a major problem.  The less than 30% efficiency I claim as the actual best case makes the problem monumental.  I has been over two weeks and webby still isn't offering any explanation of how he got to his 83%.  I doubt that he ever will.

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1113 on: February 19, 2014, 09:15:52 AM »
  Hi,
      MarkE, have you looked at the HER patent application? If yes, do you consider that
  it to be of any value? A yes/no answer is fine by me.
    Another thing I think some here don't quite get is relevance of the acceleration due
  to gravity. Fletcher pointed this out to me and I found that even Sunset was confused
  by it. Anything driven by gravity is going to be necessarily absolutely huge.
                         John.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1114 on: February 19, 2014, 11:31:24 AM »
Minnie I have now read 13/292,954.  I find that it is junk  They will get killed on paragraph 0008 which is their perpetual motion from buoyancy claim.  That will earn rejection for lack of utility.  Most of the language construction is OK up to page 28.  Then on pages 28-31 they stab themselves in the chest multiple times by offering vague language that  refers to things like cost without specifying what is being spent. 

How they fare depends on who the examiner is that they get.  If they get someone who is on the ball, they will note that at the end of the day the machine just raises and lowers masses, making it a backyard artwork and not something that is capable of "capturing buoyancy forces to produce power consistently".

Yes, storing energy as raised mass has a very low energy density.  Lifting 1 m^3 of water by 1m takes about the same energy as contained in a pair of AA alkaline batteries.  A buoyancy machine has even lower energy density than a straight reservoir.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1115 on: February 19, 2014, 02:41:55 PM »
Well MarkE,

By your "take " on things I should be able to boil water in a heart beat,, I can't,, why is that IF you are correct,, I know,, it is because you are wrong.

By your numbers 70 percent straight into
Webby I see you are building straw men instead of buoyancy machines.  It's your claim that you made an 83% efficient device.  You offer no evidence that you did.  It was your promise to describe your device and your analysis.  In more than two weeks, all you have done is dribble out a crude and incomplete description bit by bit with no analysis.  When faced with the horrific inefficiency of what you have described you have countered with nothing more than hand waving that with some unspecified engineering the efficiency problems could be solved.  Yet, you claim you already built to 83% efficiency.  It's pretty obvious why you aren't describing what you built and how you measured or analyzed it.

You can protest and claim that I am wrong all that you like.  I have shown the factual basis for the efficiency problem that your described apparatus faces.  The longer you go without describing what you built and how you either measured or analyzed the efficiency, the more certain you make it that your claims are so much smoke.  You'll just be joining Red_Sunset and Wayne Travis with their equally empty claims.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1116 on: February 19, 2014, 05:00:21 PM »
For MarkE's solution to be the *ONLY* solution it *MUST* hold true for all conditions.

2 weights a string and a pulley, nope it does not hold true, a see-saw, not there either.

What does that mean, it means that MarkE's solution is *A* solution but not the *ONLY* solution.  I choose a solution that does not require the destruction of all that potential.

Haste makes waste, and MarkE jumped on the first solution he saw, I took a little bit of time and came up with a different solution.
Webby you are still welcome to post the method that you claim that you used to reach 83%.  In order to get there you need to show that your claimed method does not suffer the problems of the methods that I have described that include the method that you dribbled out using the transfer pump.  Like Red_Sunset and Wayne Travis you keep claiming that you have some marvelous thing behind a curtain.  When pressed for evidence of the marvelous thing, you wave your hands and show nothing.

Just in case you've forgotten here again is your original sketch, and your sketch with the transfer pump you described several days after posting your sketch.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1117 on: February 19, 2014, 06:03:58 PM »
MarkE,

The method I employed is simple, I used the stored potentials as a store of potentials, there are 2 of them at the end of the cycle.

Webby, there is:  The stored energy at the start, the work added, the work removed and the stored energy at the end.  We know that the A cylinder ends up at the end of the half cycle with the same amount of energy as was in the B cylinder at the start of the same half cycle.  We know that we extract the work of lifting the 26.5g weight by 15 mm.  What you steadfastly refuse to show is the work added via the pump.  I have shown that the means that you specified to move the "air" from B to A, a transfer pump loses ~50% of the energy stored in B at the start, which is in turn about twice the energy that is extracted lifting the weight.  You have failed to show that you in fact used some other method that does not suffer that loss to heat that then has to be subsequently made up by the pump.  You have failed to show by any analysis or measurement the energy that you claim to have put in over the course of the cycle.  You have failed to support your claims.
Quote

One store is within the air contained inside the cylinder under pressure, and the other is the force manifested by the cylinder moving up in the water column.

All the dogs that pull the sled assist in the sled moving, it is not like the smaller dogs pull against the larger ones.

I have agreed with your numbers and have no issue with them *IF* I were going to use the stored potentials in the method or fashion that you are choosing to use them.

I found another solution for use of those potentials that does not require the destruction of a large portion of those potentials, I would not be surprised if someone else could find a better solution than I did, I stopped looking when I found a system that met my needs.
Here we go back to your appeal that you have some magic method hidden behind a curtain.  I call BS.  You were surprised when I showed the loss and its root cause.  Since then you have flailed about claiming that you used some method that behaves magically better than what you described up to the point that I showed you the losses.  Despite the fact that if you had some means and were to show it, it would clear you from playing the fool, you refuse to identify this method that you claim that you used.  By far the most likely reason for your refusal is obvious:  You are blowing smoke just like Red and Wayne.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1118 on: February 19, 2014, 07:06:27 PM »
Wrong MarkE.

I not only pointed out the loss I pointed out why it is a loss when done using your method of transfer.

After the empty cylinder is first brought up to neutral buoyancy and then lifts the 26.5g, all of that potential can be freely off-loaded external to the system without your catastrophic loss, as well as the cylinder can be taken from empty all the way up to end of lift without all of the catastrophic losses you keep insisting must be there.

You are still requiring that the 2 independent systems can only work as one interactive system, this is not what my solution requires.
Webby this is just getting sad.  You specified the two cylinders.  You specified the transfer pump.  This is the configuration that you identified.  Referring to your post 1035:

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.

I come up with an 83 percent efficient transfer this way and a 33 percent efficient transfer for an open cylinder, that is no filler.

Only after I pointed out the loss in post 1091 over a week ago did you go off on this mystery behind the curtain method suggestion.

You have completely failed to show any configuration that will deliver your claimed 83% or anything close to that in net cycle by cycle efficiency.  You just keep claiming that you can shuffle energy around with little or no loss.  That's a big no sale webby.  Either you can show the work or you can't.  So far you have worked very hard for days now doing all you can to avoid showing any configuration that performs as you claim.  For all intent and purpose you are talking through your hat.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1119 on: February 19, 2014, 08:24:58 PM »
An interesting note.

When the cylinder makes its lift there is a volume of water that is moved, that volume is the 15mm diameter by the 15mm height, but the volume of added air is only 90 percent of that volume.

Where did the other 10 percent go?  It was pr-paid for during the process of bringing the cylinder up to a neutral buoyancy, that 10 percent fill of air moves up with the cylinder.

Want to spend less on the lift? reduce the filler to 80 percent and only pay 80 percent of the volume of added air at its highest cost.  You will be adding in more air to bring the cylinder up to neutral buoyancy, but is there a balance :)
Using the transfer pump there are five interesting states:

State2, B is fully charged, A contains only water
State3, The meniscus under B is at the same absolute depth as the meniscus under A
State4, The meniscus under B reaches the top of the piston under B
State5, The meniscus under A reaches the point that the A cylinder plus payload become neutrally buoyant
State6, The B cylinder is empty, the A cylinder is fully charged and the payload weight is removed.

For each of the four transitions you can work out how much work has to be applied to the pump to get from the starting state to the ending state.  Do you think that reducing the diameter of the piston helps in the end?  Try the problem out changing from a 14.23mm diameter piston to a 13.42mm piston and do the math.  Have you ever played "Whack-A-Mole"?

Go ahead webby:  Show your work.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1120 on: February 19, 2014, 09:59:06 PM »
Well, sure.

Even if B were fully off-loaded prior to changing A you could say that your states are met.

Then you could also compare the energy value of B lifted and A neutrally buoyant.
Well, sure?  Then where is your work webby?  It's just four little actions to get from State 2 to State 6.  Why is it that you are so reluctant to show your analysis of the outside energy required or gained taking each step?  Why are you fighting so hard against performing an energy balance of this process that you say is 83% efficient?

Marsing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1121 on: February 20, 2014, 10:19:53 AM »

hi... all

if i have a such system that have 100% efficient in full cycle,
then what can we do with that ?

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1122 on: February 20, 2014, 11:25:26 AM »
Good morning Webby, MarkE, Marsing, Mimmie, Tinsel, Powercat and others,

I see you had some nice (waistful) posts during my absence ( I call it fumbling around in the dark).
I saw also some posts from the Wizard of Oklahoma, inputs that were received as was expected.
I also see you are still chasing the elusive OU demon and the violation of conservation in the wrong places.

You are still ignoring and do not take notice of Wayne's and my posts statements,  that said,

1..  The invention does not violate any known physics laws (neither conservation, neither Archimedes)
        **  Wayne even said that "he didn't care about "gravity conservation", become it is not relevant to the invention, it is not impacted by it.
2..  From "my" basic assessment, the zed piston is efficient but is not OU and it does not violate any laws. It does not need to be OU.
       **  Check back in my posts a few weeks ago, that is exactly what I stated
3..  It was also stated that the Archimedes laws and paradox do not provide OU and do not violate conservation laws.  That the aquarium tests shown were interpreted incorrectly by MarkE.

Having all this information beforehand,  why are you still looking for OU in Webby's test pot ?.
At the same time you would know as an engineer, that any conclusion from Webby's setup would perhaps indicate a direction that merits more investigation but the test results would be inconclusive due to the construction material used.  The upside down plastic tennis ball containers would have to much flex and distortion to provide a consistent repeatable measurement.
 
I have offered to take you directly to the "cherry on the cake",  by you only acknowledging some basic fundamental start positions on which to build our progressive reasoning logic.  The progress steps would be only "one" at the time and open to discussion, But you are not prepared to do that.  Why ???  (I think we all know the answer to that, don't we)
I am still prepared to go that way but I need multiple confirmations.

The best mail seen was from "lightend", his message was encouraging.

PS: my access to internet is limited and replies might have gaps of 24hrs or more

Red_Sunset

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1123 on: February 20, 2014, 12:40:46 PM »
You are still ignoring and do not take notice of Wayne's and my posts statements,  that said,1..  The invention does not violate any known physics laws (neither conservation, neither Archimedes)       2..  From "my" basic assessment, the zed piston is efficient but is not OU and it does not violate any laws. It does not need to be OU.

And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU

Wayne Travis

There is clearly a claim of over-unity and there is clearly a complete lack of any credible evidence to support the claim.
webby has claimed in the past that he achieved OU (in the original thread), finally under scrutiny of his results he is now not claiming OU.


I have offered to take you directly to the "cherry on the cake",  by you only acknowledging some basic fundamental start positions on which to build our progressive reasoning logic. 
You have made this offer before in the original thread,September 07, 2012  
Quote
I could finish the cycle with putting everything on the table
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335268/#msg335268

you keep promising, just like Wayne to deliver things you have not got,  and you make claims you can't prove, it is a fact that both your history and Wayne's proves this.


Quote
PS: my access to internet is limited and replies might have gaps of 24hrs or more  Red_Sunset

More please, stay away for more time, when you're here you are repeating yourself, and make demands on other people, yourself and Wayne are the ones making the claim it is entirely up to you to prove your claim.  Don't come back unless you can do that.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1124 on: February 20, 2014, 01:48:46 PM »
Good morning Webby, MarkE, Marsing, Mimmie, Tinsel, Powercat and others,

I see you had some nice (waistful) posts during my absence ( I call it fumbling around in the dark).
I saw also some posts from the Wizard of Oklahoma, inputs that were received as was expected.
I also see you are still chasing the elusive OU demon and the violation of conservation in the wrong places.

You are still ignoring and do not take notice of Wayne's and my posts statements,  that said,

1..  The invention does not violate any known physics laws (neither conservation, neither Archimedes)
        **  Wayne even said that "he didn't care about "gravity conservation", become it is not relevant to the invention, it is not impacted by it.
In that case the machine is at odds with paragraph 0008 of the patent.  It also means that the machine does not do what Wayne Travis has been promising to the investors.  Are you advocating for dissolution of HER/Zydro?
Quote

2..  From "my" basic assessment, the zed piston is efficient but is not OU and it does not violate any laws. It does not need to be OU.
       **  Check back in my posts a few weeks ago, that is exactly what I stated
You are free to try and back the first claim with actual data.  The second claim requires context.  You can have lots of lossy things in a free energy machine.  After all the energy is free.  But you must have at least one thing that makes up for all of those losses with free energy and then some to have a net free energy machine such as HER/Zydro falsely claim to have.
Quote

3..  It was also stated that the Archimedes laws and paradox do not provide OU and do not violate conservation laws.  That the aquarium tests shown were interpreted incorrectly by MarkE.
It was the demonstrator Tom Miller who made the false claims in the videos that:  1) the videos demonstrated behavior contrary to Archimedes' Principle, and 2) that the supposed contrary behavior offered a means of obtaining free energy.
Quote

Having all this information beforehand,  why are you still looking for OU in Webby's test pot ?.
I am not looking for what I know webby does not have.  Webby asserts the claim that his arrangement is 83% efficient.   The facts betray that figure is highly optimistic.  If Webby has made fundamental errors as it appears he has in evaluating his scheme, then that reflects on his value as the ZED expert that Wayne Travis represents webby to be.
Quote

At the same time you would know as an engineer, that any conclusion from Webby's setup would perhaps indicate a direction that merits more investigation but the test results would be inconclusive due to the construction material used.  The upside down plastic tennis ball containers would have to much flex and distortion to provide a consistent repeatable measurement.

You are certainly free to criticize webby's experiments that Wayne Travis embraces.
Quote


I have offered to take you directly to the "cherry on the cake",  by you only acknowledging some basic fundamental start positions on which to build our progressive reasoning logic.  The progress steps would be only "one" at the time and open to discussion, But you are not prepared to do that.  Why ???  (I think we all know the answer to that, don't we)
I am still prepared to go that way but I need multiple confirmations.

You are free to try and make an argument for HER/Zydros claims at any time that you like.  To date you have appealed to such things as magic levers.  You have chattered endlessly claiming that you have some magic up your sleeve.  You have never delivered.
Quote

The best mail seen was from "lightend", his message was encouraging.

PS: my access to internet is limited and replies might have gaps of 24hrs or more

Red_Sunset
Why don't you use that quiet contemplative time to form an analysis that actually shows that HER/Zydro have a chance of delivering on their false claims?  Show that one can get the free energy that they claim without violating physical laws.  You can start with how that would not violate the First Law of Energy.  Or you can recant that claim and move onto showing how one may obtain free energy from moving masses cyclically in a gravitational field which is the essence of HER/Zydro's false energy generation claims.