Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel  (Read 650483 times)

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1185 on: February 21, 2014, 03:22:55 PM »


  Hi,
     I'm real confused now mrwayne. If you've got a 5hp. up and running what the f.
     're you doing grovelling round on this forum?
          Let's not mess round, if you've got something churning out 5hp. 24/7 for no
      fuel cost - you've well and truly cracked it! Congratulations,
                        John.
         

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1186 on: February 21, 2014, 03:36:11 PM »
Minnie, unfortunately for his investors, Wayne Travis does not have any machine that generates any net energy for free.  You might have noticed that he tried to bring Mark Dansie's name into this.  Mark Dansie has never endorsed Wayne Travis' claims.  Mark Dansie was at one time favorably impressed by some of the people who were optimistic about HER/Zydro's claims.  That optimism has never translated into any machine that performs and Wayne Travis and his companies have claimed.  Gravity remains a stubbornly conservative field.

Offline Marsing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1187 on: February 21, 2014, 03:37:11 PM »
;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Offline mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1188 on: February 21, 2014, 03:41:00 PM »
No Takers to learn the system?

Just more spit.

OK - work is done here.


To RED, Webby,

Let them be - we are moving up, and onward.

Wayne

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1189 on: February 21, 2014, 03:45:18 PM »



  Hi Wayne,
               have you got it or not? Yes/no?
                               John.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1190 on: February 21, 2014, 03:47:29 PM »
No Takers to learn the system?

Just more spit.

OK - work is done here.


To RED, Webby,

Let them be - we are moving up, and onward.

Wayne
Wayne what do you use to measure time?  That was a very fast year.  Instead of almost nine thousand hours, it lasted less than two.  I think that it is awesome that you keep pretending that you have discovered a means to over unity, when you have nothing.


Quote
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Posts: 492
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Online)

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1317 on: Today at 02:11:30 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 01:01:02 PM

    OK kids:  Assuming for a moment that over unity in any system were possible, what would be the possible efficiency values?
    Answer:  0-100%, and indefinite.  Net efficiency is net output over net input.  At 100% and greater efficiency, the net input is therefore zero.  X/0 = indefinite.  If one were to have a machine that supposedly put out 6X what went into it, 1X output reroutes to the input and now there is this 5X the original input coming out for zero input.  It is meaningless to talk about percentage gains of machines that do not consume net input.  The only meaningful values of such a hypothetical apparatus are the: continuous output power, volume, weight, cost, etc.


I was about to log off for another year - but this is very relevant for discussion.
...

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1191 on: February 21, 2014, 05:09:27 PM »

OK - work is done here.

Wayne
LOL, how many times have you said that, you just can't help breaking your word, your a sad individual, do you even realize that you keep making false and contradictory statements ?

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1192 on: February 21, 2014, 05:15:02 PM »

LOL, how many times have you said that, you just can't help breaking your word, your a sad individual, do you even realize that you keep making false and contradictory statements ?
Maybe he is related to Tommy Flanagan.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1193 on: February 21, 2014, 08:12:19 PM »
Since I said I would, here is my energy analysis of a full cycle.

The first half cycle is a 2 step process of adding in energy for the lift.

The second half cycle is a 3 step process of independently removing the energy that is present in the system after lift.

2.651555251cc open down cylinder  volume for fill

2.650718802cc top of up cylinder  increased volume after lift

(1.767145868×1.5)−(1.590375518×1.5)= 0.265155525cc

0.265155525cc pre-paid volume for lift. 

1.767145868×1.5= 2.650718802cc total volume of upper after 1.5cm lift
1.590375518×1.5= 2.385563277cc total added air for lift 

2.385563277cc+2.651555251cc= 5.037118528cc total volume of air added


2.651555251cc×904pa = 2397.005946904 energy to go from 0 to lift
2.385563277cc×1583pa = 3776.346667491 energy for lift

3776.346667491+2397.005946904= 6173.352614395 total cost


2.651555251cc×754pa= 1999.272659254 reserved in air after lift
2.385563277cc×75.5pa= 180.110027413 reserved from added air

1999.272659254+180.110027413= 2179.382686667 air reserve total

2.650718802×1583= 4196.087863566 reserve in load.

2179.382686667+4196.087863566= 6375.470550233

Cost    = 6173.352614395
Reserve = 6375.470550233

6375.470550233−6173.352614395= 202.117935838 profit
Good Lord, is that what you think that's an analysis?  Why don't you try stating conditions, and putting dimensions on all your values.  Track energy:  starting, added, removed, and ending as you advance through your states. Then you might check for obvious errors.  I see one right near the top.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1194 on: February 21, 2014, 09:27:06 PM »
Demonstration of overunity requires precision to the billionth part of a cubic centimeter? No wonder we mortal fools can't do it.


One would think that Mister Wayne Travis could, with all that fancy apparatus he's got, show some actual measurements that indicate some kind of OU performance, on an actual diagram --- once he's met his own challenge and actually _defined_ what he means by that term himself.

Like I did. I showed how a small weight, dropping a certain distance, can raise up a much larger weight _the same distance_ in the same time interval, thus producing a 200 percent efficiency level, a COP of 2.... a clearly OVERUNITY result, using only a simple no-layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, since its output work is twice the input work.

Right?





Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1195 on: February 21, 2014, 10:14:47 PM »
Demonstration of overunity requires precision to the billionth part of a cubic centimeter? No wonder we mortal fools can't do it.


One would think that Mister Wayne Travis could, with all that fancy apparatus he's got, show some actual measurements that indicate some kind of OU performance, on an actual diagram --- once he's met his own challenge and actually _defined_ what he means by that term himself.

Like I did. I showed how a small weight, dropping a certain distance, can raise up a much larger weight _the same distance_ in the same time interval, thus producing a 200 percent efficiency level, a COP of 2.... a clearly OVERUNITY result, using only a simple no-layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, since its output work is twice the input work.

Right?
Who knew that simple "U" tubes were over unity devices?

Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1196 on: February 22, 2014, 04:39:07 AM »
No Takers to learn the system?

Just more spit.

OK - work is done here.


To RED, Webby,

Let them be - we are moving up, and onward.

Wayne


I've been thinking about a hydraulic system in terms of the Keenie.


The essential functions of the Keenie are a spring and a valve. In the case of a hydraulic system a confined quantity of air could provide the spring and a valve would be no problem.


So I see no reason why the kind of thing you are proposing could not work because the Keenie certainly can.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1197 on: February 22, 2014, 06:19:51 AM »
No, it certainly cannot, and you cannot provide any evidence for your claim.

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1198 on: February 22, 2014, 01:56:06 PM »



 Hi,
     looking at Wayne's  5hp. unity there's no way it's gravity powered. If the whole thing is
  in the 7ft by 10ft size as he says will allow cylinders about 3ft diam x 6ft height .
     This will give about 2500lbs (water ?) and say a stroke of 2ft and he kindly admits
   to 3 rpm. This gives six power strokes per min. and if we can use all the weight we
   get 2x6x2500=30,000 ft lbs. min.
      What we're looking for is 5x550x60 = 165,000 ft lbs min. so we're about 135,00
    ft lbs short. This means that the thing is working at a huge pressure and the question
    is what generates this huge pressure?
                                  John.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1199 on: February 22, 2014, 02:18:20 PM »


 Hi,
     looking at Wayne's  5hp. unity there's no way it's gravity powered. If the whole thing is
  in the 7ft by 10ft size as he says will allow cylinders about 3ft diam x 6ft height .
     This will give about 2500lbs (water ?) and say a stroke of 2ft and he kindly admits
   to 3 rpm. This gives six power strokes per min. and if we can use all the weight we
   get 2x6x2500=30,000 ft lbs. min.
      What we're looking for is 5x550x60 = 165,000 ft lbs min. so we're about 135,00
    ft lbs short. This means that the thing is working at a huge pressure and the question
    is what generates this huge pressure?
                                  John.
Wayne Travis likes to talk about nameless engineers who supposedly back his false claims.  We never see any statements from any professional engineers, or any engineers for that matter.  Investors who rely upon statements by professional engineers can sue if the statements are negligent.