Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 724406 times)

MarkE · « **Reply #990 on:** February 11, 2014, 06:01:19 AM »

I would be happy to analyze a system of someone's choice if they:

1) Think that it is OU
2) Are prepared to describe it sufficiently so that a reasonably accurate analysis can be performed

Five days is more than long enough for such a person to describe what it is that they propose.

And yes, these schemes have never been shown to offer a chance at OU. In fact just the pressure equalization step where a "charged" side is connected to an "uncharged" side depletes a sizable percentage of the stored energy. Webby states that he thinks his riser scheme is about 83% efficient. Maybe it is more and maybe it is less efficient. Anything short of OU is by itself relatively uninteresting.

Perhaps someday: someone, anyone who thinks that there is something to HER's OU claims will diagram a mechanism that they think can actually have a chance at being OU. Shuffling incompressible fluid between cylinders over pistons is lossy as Webby found with his 83% figure. Shuffling compressible fluid increases the losses.

For a thought problem, consider what happens when equalizing pressure between one submerged column containing a tall bubble and another column resulting in two shorter bubbles. The total displaced volume of water remains the same. Yet the stored energy falls by almost half for the example. Increasing the percentage displacement fluid volume that is in the annular ring worsens the energy loss, asymptotically reaching 50% when only the annular ring holds displacing fluid. How can it be that the defenders of HER keep telling us how they hope to gain energy by leveraging a piston when the more piston there is, the greater the loss?

minnie · « **Reply #991 on:** February 11, 2014, 09:25:23 AM »

Hi,
what MarkE has shown me is that by discounting unwanted factors it makes
calculations much easier and basically unless you add energy you've just got a
pail of water.
Webby, I don't see it matters how many lift systems we have, to me I see the
device as a see-saw. Unless we get more than 100% from our first power stroke
the thing will wind down.
All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
John.

MarkE · « **Reply #992 on:** February 11, 2014, 09:47:36 AM »

Quote from: minnie on February 11, 2014, 09:25:23 AM

Hi,
what MarkE has shown me is that by discounting unwanted factors it makes
calculations much easier and basically unless you add energy you've just got a
pail of water.
Webby, I don't see it matters how many lift systems we have, to me I see the
device as a see-saw. Unless we get more than 100% from our first power stroke
the thing will wind down.
All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
John.

Minnie that is more or less true. However, because of this precharge business the various schemes run into a common problem seen in other areas, where transferring energy ends up being quite lossy. If for example we roll a 1kg ball going 1m/s into a 1kg cart with superglue on it where the ball hits, and frictionless bearings on the ground, then by conservation of momentum we know that the speed after the collision will be: 1kg * 1m/s / 2kg = 0.5m/s. But we also know that the kinetic energy before the collision was: 0.5 * 1kg * (1m/s^2) = 0.5J. After the collision it is: 0.5 * 2kg * (0.5m/s)^2 = 0.25J. The same problem happens if we charge one capacitor up and connect it to another capacitor of the same value that is discharged. The charge is conserved but half the energy is lost to radiation and heat. And so it also happens when we connect one uncharged cylinder to one that is charged. In my book, inserting very lossy processes is not a good start towards trying to get over unity.

Marsing · « **Reply #993 on:** February 11, 2014, 01:52:40 PM »

Quote from: minnie on February 11, 2014, 09:25:23 AM

All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
John.

don't forget the "magic lever" in your drawing.

MarkE · « **Reply #994 on:** February 11, 2014, 04:14:50 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 11, 2014, 02:54:15 PM

I do find it funny that information that gave out already is being shown as something "new".

MarkE,

You have not supported your claim at all, so please supply the actual support that allows you to say that the ZED can be reduced down to a single piston.

To do this would mean that you would have to run the numbers, so you could just show as all what those numbers were, not to mention that you would have to check a few conditions,, you can show us all that.

Since YOU seem to be the king of OU,, why don't YOU tell US how to do it.

You have not even covered which riser you would use,, they all have different potentials, I take it you are aware of that.

Webby yesterday you were inventing things that you had said. Now you are inventing things that you claim I have said. My comments have always been rather specific. If you wish to debate any of them, then kindly clip the quote and I will be happy to address any concerns or dispute you might offer.

The fact remains that you proposed to show something that would support HER's claims.

This is where you began Feb. 03:

Quote

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #901 on: February 03, 2014, 11:21:05 PM »

Quote

Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 11:05:21 PM

Since you already have tried to perform an analysis just show the work that you have done so far and we can go through that.

I will go over it again and draw a picture,, it will take me a bit I have some stuff that I need to do,,

The Hawks sure did trounce the Broncos

Eight days later you seem to have abandoned your efforts. You offered the one sparse sketch. You have objected to my drawings. That leaves it back to you to deliver on producing the work that you have done that leads you to your favorable outlook on HER. You can supply drawings and calculations that show something interesting: an energy gain somewhere, some refutation of Archimedes' Principle, etc, or you can leave your abandoned claims to sink into the same mud hole that has swallowed HER's extraordinary claims.

minnie · « **Reply #995 on:** February 11, 2014, 09:26:49 PM »

Webby,
one thing I find confusing is that obviously you supplied information to
Travis, therefore are you under any sort of agreement to withhold that information?
If not, have you still got said plans, and if the thing worked why not show us?
I feel that MarkE is giving 100% to this and that he should be allowed to have the
best info/drawings to save wasting his time.
I have to say that I've learned quite a bit about the scientific method for
analysing these sort of systems,
thank you John.

minnie · « **Reply #996 on:** February 12, 2014, 07:01:24 PM »

Webby.
thank you for reply, you didn't say if you could share that information or that
you must withhold it,
John.

MarkE · « **Reply #997 on:** February 12, 2014, 10:19:39 PM »

When I walk through a cycle of using a pair of these inverted cylinders to lift a mass by a small fraction of the inverted cylinder height, I get losses, losses, and more losses. When I look at the problem, I divide it into phases:

1) An initial charged state: One cylinder up with the entire bubble under it, the other cylinder down.
1.1) A payload weight gets slipped over the down cylinder.

2) The pressure between the two cylinders gets equalized by connecting the two with a volumeless, massless tube with zero resistance to flow.
This phase doesn't involve adding energy, but it loses a lot of potential energy by redistributing one bubble into two smaller bubbles each under roughly half the differential pressure of the first.

3) "Air" is pumped from the first cylinder to the second until water reaches the top of the piston in the first cylinder.
This phase requires a lot of added energy, and still manages to end up with less stored potential energy than at the end of step 2.

4) "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second until the second is completely filled with "air" and just becomes neutrally buoyant.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I have posted, this phase requires about half the added energy of Step 3. It increases the stored potential energy slightly.

5) The remaining "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second, lifting the payload weight. At the end of this phase the second cylinder is at the same elevated height as the first cylinder. The payload weight can be removed, thus delivering the useful work of lifting it. The stored potential energy has been restored.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I posted, this phase requires about 90% of the work extracted lifting the payload weight.

6) The neutrally buoyant first cylinder is pushed back down to the bottom position.
6.6) A payload weight gets slipped over this cylinder.

7) - 11) Repeat of phases 2) - 6) with the cylinders reversed.

The machine is now at the same state as at the end of phase 1).

The total input energy that I calculate is more than three times the work extracted lifting weights. A simple pulley and a string would have done much better.

MarkE · « **Reply #998 on:** February 13, 2014, 03:42:00 AM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 12, 2014, 10:49:04 PM

That is interesting MarkE,, I posted my number at 83 percent.

I also explained the change in the transfer pump.

How did you go from 90 percent to 33 percent? Seems to me that if that 10 percent were added the next cycle would still be 90 percent and still require 10 percent.

Webby, The 90% figure you latched onto is not a net cycle efficiency number. It is the amount of work that has to be added during the lift phase versus the amount of external work that is extracted during that phase. If we lived in such a wonderful world that the other phases did not require input work, then we would have a net excess energy out versus in. But, that is not the case. Each of the two preceding transfer phases require quite a bit of work. The work that must be added in Step 3 requires around twice as much work as that added in Step 5, and the work that must be added in Step 4 requires a similar amount of work as in Step 5.

I listed what happens qualitatively to the energy step by step. I have highlighted those statements below, just in case you missed them or I did not make myself sufficiently clear the first time. The losses occur despite stipulating a number of unrealizable conditions: a 100% efficient transfer pump, lossless and massless feed lines, massless cylinders, and massless, incompressible "air". Should you ever decide to post your hypothetical set-up as you promised you would back on Feb. 3, then we can go through the steps and put numbers to each step on your set-up. Assuming that your problem is similar to what was diagrammed before you withdrew, I get less than 1/3 net efficiency for that arrangement as well.

If your favorable impression of HER depends on getting free energy from a special transfer pump, then that transfer pump is the thing that IMO you should be analyzing and testing first. If not, then stipulating a 100% efficiency for the pump as we had previously agreed is generous towards HER's claims and investigation into a particular pump design expends effort without revealing anything about HER's claims.

Quote

Online MarkE

Sr. Member
****
Posts: 472
View Profile
Personal Message (Online)

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1100 on: February 12, 2014, 10:19:39 PM »

When I walk through a cycle of using a pair of these inverted cylinders to lift a mass by a small fraction of the inverted cylinder height, I get losses, losses, and more losses. When I look at the problem, I divide it into phases:

1) An initial charged state: One cylinder up with the entire bubble under it, the other cylinder down.
1.1) A payload weight gets slipped over the down cylinder.

2) The pressure between the two cylinders gets equalized by connecting the two with a volumeless, massless tube with zero resistance to flow.
This phase doesn't involve adding energy, but it loses a lot of potential energy by redistributing one bubble into two smaller bubbles each under roughly half the differential pressure of the first.

3) "Air" is pumped from the first cylinder to the second until water reaches the top of the piston in the first cylinder.
This phase requires a lot of added energy, and still manages to end up with less stored potential energy than at the end of step 2.

4) "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second until the second is completely filled with "air" and just becomes neutrally buoyant.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I have posted, this phase requires about half the added energy of Step 3. It increases the stored potential energy slightly.

5) The remaining "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second, lifting the payload weight. At the end of this phase the second cylinder is at the same elevated height as the first cylinder. The payload weight can be removed, thus delivering the useful work of lifting it. The stored potential energy has been restored.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I posted, this phase requires about 90% of the work extracted lifting the payload weight.

6) The neutrally buoyant first cylinder is pushed back down to the bottom position.
6.6) A payload weight gets slipped over this cylinder.

7) - 11) Repeat of phases 2) - 6) with the cylinders reversed.

The machine is now at the same state as at the end of phase 1).

The total input energy that I calculate is more than three times the work extracted lifting weights. A simple pulley and a string would have done much better.

MarkE · « **Reply #999 on:** February 13, 2014, 03:30:38 PM »

webby, on Feb. 3 you said that you would post your work so that we could go through it. You never did so. Now you are back to basically saying: "There is some magic behind the curtain." The available evidence doesn't treat that statement very kindly. None of the people from or supporting HER have ever shown actual evidence of an energy gain. There has been lots of hand waving around pumping gases into cylinders with pistons and such as supposedly being the basis for energy gains. However, as far as I have seen, such mechanisms are actually very energy inefficient. The only person who stopped walking was you when you objected to my proposal to trim the 150mm piston height by 0.01mm, which is less than 0.01%.

Declarations of cost are just claims until one does the book keeping through an entire cycle. If you are confident that you've got some combination of things that when you run them through a complete cycle, you end up with a net gain in energy, then just present that set-up and we can go through it together. You object to my drawings so it is up to you to diagram the arrangement that you propose.

Quote

If you had a hydraulic ram, you ran the pump and moved the ram 5 inches, when you stop how much of anything is left?? what if you could conserve 10 percent of the internal forces that YOU put into the system, what if you took that and added it to your next stroke, that would reduce your stroke input by 10%,,what if to set this up it cost you 5%,, so now your ram is only supplying 95% of the output but you are only supplying 90% of the input.

If you can view it this way you will notice that nothing new is being created, you have supplied all of the force to start with and that force is only being conserved and recycled.

Force is not a conserved quantity. Energy is conserved. If force were a conserved quantity then almost nothing in mechanics would work: levers, gears, pulleys, pumps, would all be impossible.

mrwayne · « **Reply #1000 on:** February 13, 2014, 04:03:23 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 13, 2014, 03:13:03 PM

John,

There is not "A" design or configuration that makes the magic.

I got what Wayne said in the first go round on this topic, but most missed it, I have brought it up again in this thread and still most ignore it, and right now MarkE is so close that when he does see it,, well that is how I felt when I finally got at least a small part of it.

The first hurdle to get over is the recovery, anybody remember me saying that?? and yet no one has tried to get into that at all.

MarkE, do you know why you can NOT compare a ZED to a single piston? because you *can* get recovery from a ZED and NOT from a single piston.

The build I was walking through will get you there, I found it easier to use 2 devices within each unit and then "sacrifice" some performance from one to have the other as free,, it was just easier to see and to accept.

There is no difference between the system I am walking through if the weight is on the cylinder or not, the weight is an added extra.

Buoyancy has its force trapped within the water column, that is the water supplies the motive force at the cost of setting it up,, but once you have that buoyant lift you have no more cost, then when you are done with using it you can recover your input.

If you had a hydraulic ram, you ran the pump and moved the ram 5 inches, when you stop how much of anything is left?? what if you could conserve 10 percent of the internal forces that YOU put into the system, what if you took that and added it to your next stroke, that would reduce your stroke input by 10%,,what if to set this up it cost you 5%,, so now your ram is only supplying 95% of the output but you are only supplying 90% of the input.

If you can view it this way you will notice that nothing new is being created, you have supplied all of the force to start with and that force is only being conserved and recycled.

Congratulations Webby,

It is hard to see, I know that the ZED system is counter intuitive -

I am Impressed that Mark tried to follow - and I do believe he will get it eventually.

I am also Impressed that you stuck it out and explained.

No doubt your explanation will be followed by pages of confusion by others - which is the case for 240 pages.

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

To all - the point Webby just made - is the mystery behind our system.

It is also why our Zydro Energy group has been quietly building our company.

For all those following - Contrary to the "false facts"

We are not seeking any investments - We are fully Funded.

We have been granted Patents in some countries - all others are under examination.

The Tom Miller Video's did an excellent job of showing the inception to our future technology - they were meant to help you see what Webby just described - not over unity.

And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU - if you simple store the recycled energy and return it on the next stroke, as I said two yeas ago - which you omitted every time you miss applied the context. As I said before - why add the extra effort and time - simply transfer between systems. Get over it - you missed it.

On another note - my contact information has never changed - to those that have tried to discredit me and our company all this time - those people never made one call or asked me one single question about their claims against us. Shame on all of you who slander by assumption.

If you realize you were wrong - I already forgave you - if not time heals - good luck to you.

p.s. I never tell people what to say or think - not Tom, Webby, Mark, Mike, or even those that are childish.

To the rest of the world:

Our Physics are simple and pure - obviously hard for some to see, but no matter;

THE BEST NEWS - The world will receive access to pure clean and reliable energy - as always - as we have been for four years - we are open to visitors.

We are blessed to be able to do this right.

Peace to all of you.

Wayne Travis

MarkE · « **Reply #1001 on:** February 13, 2014, 04:46:40 PM »

Mr. Wayne, if by "got it" you mean I understand the falsity of your claims, I "got it" two years ago when Tom Miller posted his five misdirection videos. There is no mystery. Contrary to Tom Miller's claims in those videos, the quantity of air is irrelevant to the buoyant lift of anything submerged in water. If you do not understand that then you do not understand either the St. Francis or Malpasset dam failures. In both cases the buoyant force of displaced water lifted and destroyed great dams. If you do understand Archimedes' Principle, then you have been telling deliberate lies all this time.

There is no and never has been any demonstrable "Travis effect". There is no energy gain to be had by building machines that lift and drop masses, be they fluids, solids, and/or gasses or some combination. You and HER can continue to make the extraordinary and false claims to energy gains that you have all that you like. The burden of evidence is on those who make the extraordinary claims. You, HER, and HER's supporters have completely failed to ever support your extraordinary claims. The reason is that you cannot, because your claims have always been false.

If you are going to introduce the issue of funding: Have any and all investors who have sought return of their funds received them?

It would be nice if the small investors who have been burned by your failure to deliver on your grandiose promises don't suffer badly for having placed faith in your knowingly false words.

In my book: "Doing it right." does not mean soliciting investment in knowingly false claims and promises that can never be delivered.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1002 on:** February 13, 2014, 05:23:52 PM »

There you have it: another clear statement by Wayne Travis that a SINGLE ZED is or "can be" OVERUNITY -- with no evidence provided AT ALL for this outrageous and insulting claim.

Come on, Travis. You have been crowing the same noise for years... and you have NEVER YET produced any evidence of your claims. You have demonstrated huge complicated kludgy devices to bamboozle the audiences, but you have never shown anything that "runs itself" and which produces excess energy.

Fully funded? So you found someone to buy out your early, dissatisfied investors, you prevailed in your lawsuit, and you'll be putting a 50 kW generating plant at your church "soon" ...... you make me laugh.

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

Now, I want to hear some explanation for why WEBBY, who you claim understands the system so well... .why hasn't WEBBY built anything that runs itself, or that clearly provides more WORK out than in, and recycles back to the same starting state... without extra input of work? Answer me that, Wayne Travis, whose "physics" is simple and pure. I know why... and so do you.

MarkE · « **Reply #1003 on:** February 13, 2014, 05:34:46 PM »

TinselKoala that video is flagged as private.

powercat · « **Reply #1004 on:** February 13, 2014, 05:34:52 PM »

Quote from: mrwayne on February 04, 2014, 03:14:52 PM

I have a product to develop - company to run - I won't be back.
Mr Wayne

Look who's back, and contradicting himself like most liars.

Quote from: mrwayne on February 13, 2014, 04:03:23 PM

[/font]Congratulations Webby,To all - the point Webby just made - is the mystery behind our system.Wayne Travis

Your system to pay Webby $2000 has only convinced Webby.
And your stooge is so convinced that he had his device verified and produced a self running model,.... oh no,,, [size=78%]strange how he hasn't done any of that, considering he made one of the most remarkable discoveries in history[/size]

Quote from: mrwayne on February 13, 2014, 04:03:23 PM

[/font]Our Physics are simple and pure - obviously hard for some to see, but no matter;Wayne Travis

You're not kidding "hard for some to see" what happened to Mark Dansie visit ? ? He's finding it impossible to see, and if you're physics are so simple why can't anyone else produce over-unity.

Wayne Travis you are a conman, a diluted one at best,
If anyone thinks I'm being over the top, this is the man that promised verification on numerous occasions and broke his word, this is the man that can't produce a continuous live streamed video showing his device continuously running, this is the man that paid a member of this forum $2000, strange how that person is the only one believing in the traverse affect.

No doubt Wayne and Red will have numerous excuses why no verification has been done and no proof of actual continuous working device has ever been shown, I put it to anyone with the slightest intelligence that the reason none of these things have happened is that there is no working device and never has been, and from my experience over many years on this forum Wayne Travis fits the profile of a conman = [size=78%]Somebody who is incapable of delivering what they claim.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 724406 times)

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Marsing

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

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

mrwayne

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

powercat

Re: Big try at gravity wheel