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 716134 times)

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #435 on: January 21, 2014, 10:32:35 PM »
Hi,
   thank you MarkE and Koala for putting me right on this subject. Grimer I don't think you
need your patent attorney just yet! When you do I hear that Dunnelt and Codding are very
good, they still may take a cheque, ask nicely, of course.
                John.

Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #436 on: January 21, 2014, 10:48:34 PM »
Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor?  That dark video that you linked just shows a motor.  What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.


Also I believe it on Hierarchical grounds. Functionally it maps one to one on the Carnot Cycle. And no, I'm not going to explain what that means because I think you are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about and you are obviously too arrogant to try. I suggested you read some of the papers on my web site to see where I was coming from. You didn't deign to or you would have commented on them.


« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 03:02:25 AM by Grimer »

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #437 on: January 21, 2014, 10:55:37 PM »



 to arrogant Grimer?
                       John.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #438 on: January 22, 2014, 12:15:11 AM »
MarkE,
You might be correct that the Travis Effect" was pinned to the wrong model demonstration.  I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact.  Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed.  To that purpose they were not misleading.
The Travis Effect referred to a distribution of pressures in the multi-layer pressure assembly. It made possible the asymmetry between the up & down stroke, and in turn the ability to harvest a positive energy balance.
Revisiting the topic pages and a bit of study would clarify this in greater detail.  The current model has evolved and is unrecognizable from the system shown in those pages with dramatic improved efficiency.
Although a principle remains a principle.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset their claimed point is absolutely false.  The upward force exerted on a submerged object is identically the weight of the displaced volume of the surrounding fluid, in this case water.    That is Archimedes' Principle discovered over 2000 years ago.  Submerging an object requires pushing (displacing) the surrounding fluid.  It is the same as lifting the displaced volume because that is what actually happens.  The net force up or down depends on what other forces act on the submerged object.  Obviously, the weight of that object, which for those examples is the weight of the plastic cups is one force.  Tom's hand or the diving weights are other forces applied at different times in the videos.  If the total downward force exceeds the upward buoyant force then the object sinks.  If is less, the object surfaces.  If it is exactly the same, the object can remain stable at any submerged depth.

There is no new principle underlying anything that HER have put together.  They have built a complicated machine that is good for baffling people.  It is not good for delivering a single Joule of energy in excess of what is expended charging it up and operating it.

HER can not now, and could not ever prove excess energy.  When people put together complicated contraptions they often try and convince people that they can come up with free energy by showing what turn out to be under close examination flawed analysis of forces that they then integrate to get to their energy numbers.  A sure fire sanity check against anyone's force integrations is whether or not they satisfy Conservation of Mass/Energy.  If they don't, then it's time to go looking for the mistakes.  For all the levers, valves, bellows, chambers and other mechanisms in the ZED and the TAZ, they are at the end of the day glorified buckets of water and air balloons.


MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #439 on: January 22, 2014, 12:22:31 AM »
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.


Also I believe it on Hierarchical grounds. Functionally it maps one to one on the Carnot Cycle. And no, I'm not going to explain what that means because I think you are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about and you are obviously to arrogant to try. I suggested you read some of the papers on my web site to see where I was coming from. You didn't deign to or you would have commented on them.
Grimer, that's great that you "were there", wherever "there" might have been. 

Did the creator claim the device makes free energy?
Did you personally inspect the device to determine somehow it made free energy?  If so, what tests did you, the declared non-experimentalist perform?
Did a subject matter expert inspect the device?  If so, what tests did they perform, and where may we find their report?
Did a subject matter expert reproduce the device and find a replication produced free energy?

Saying that you believe something is all fine and well.  I asked you what facts you relied on, not what beliefs

Do or don't do what you want.  If you want to convince me of an extraordinary claim then you will need to come up with compelling evidence.  You haven't offered any evidence at all.

camelherder49

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #440 on: January 22, 2014, 12:38:07 AM »
For Mark:

Do an experiment--

Hold a bowling ball under water at arms length and release it with
your nose barely touching the water

Then hold a volleyball(very near same size) at arms length and
release it with your nose barely touching the water.

See any difference??


MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #441 on: January 22, 2014, 01:23:49 AM »
For Mark:

Do an experiment--

Hold a bowling ball under water at arms length and release it with
your nose barely touching the water

Then hold a volleyball(very near same size) at arms length and
release it with your nose barely touching the water.

See any difference??
Camelherder it should come as no surprise that if we weigh each prior to the experiment that we will find that given identical volumes that the force we have to exert downward on the volleyball is identically greater than the force we have to exert on the bowling ball by the difference in their weights.  The math works as such:

Wdry_bb = weight of the bowling ball on land.
Wdry_vb = weight of the volley ball on land.
VOL_b = volume of each ball.
Fbuoyant = the buoyancy force exerted on either ball
Fnet_bb = the net vertical force on the bowling ball
Fnet_vb = the net vertical force on the volley ball.

Force direction convention:  -up +down

Fbuoyant = -VOL_b * 1kg/liter
Fnet_bb = Fbuoyant + Wdry_bb
Fnet_vb = Fbuoyant + Wdry_vb

Fnet_bb - Fnet_vb = (Fbuoyant + Wdry_bb) - (Fbuoyant + Wdry_vb) = Wdry_bb - Wdry_vb

camelherder49

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #442 on: January 22, 2014, 01:49:00 AM »
Doesn't matter. You still get a face full of volley ball in potential energy.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #443 on: January 22, 2014, 02:02:27 AM »
Doesn't matter. You still get a face full of volley ball in potential energy.
You do only because of all that water you have to lift in order to submerge the volley ball.  For equal volumes it's identically the water that you have to lift in order to submerge the bowling ball.  The bowling ball's extra weight  provides the extra assist.  Just mind the toes.

In Saugus California in 1928, and in Malpasset France 1958 entire dams failed because of buoyant lift from water that weeped under them.

Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #444 on: January 22, 2014, 03:01:37 AM »

I see that Mark hasn't being doing so well with his hypocritical pretence of co-operation so Screwtape has sent his friend TK to assist him by sowing FUD.


For the benefit of those who actually want free lunches I'll go over things again.


The cycloid is the fastest path of descent - and ascent for that matter.
A cycloid pendulum has a string connection between the bob and the pivot. A string cannot take bending stress (3rd derivative energy).


A conventional pendulum has a connection between the bob and the pivot which can take bending stress.


Th bob of a conventional pendulum takes longer from apogee to nadir than the bob of a cycloid.


Why?


Pehaps T(al)K thinks it's Mary Yugo's freudian slip pink unicorns which are holding it back.


It isn't.


It's the EG energy put in by the bending action, the same moment/couple that leads to the breaking of a falling chimney which is week in bending.


So the circular path bob on a conventional shaft arrives at the nadir with more total energy than the cycloid. If this energy is transferred from conventional to cycloid then the cycloid will manifest this energy as an increase in gravitational potential.


It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.


(Anyone not familiar with mary's pink unicorn can Google
"mary yugo" pink unicorn and find how fond she is of them).


orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #445 on: January 22, 2014, 03:05:13 AM »
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.


As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #446 on: January 22, 2014, 03:07:32 AM »
Quote
It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.

No, it won't. Conservation laws and practical experience and the reductio ad absurdum I presented all say it won't. The only thing you have presented as "evidence" for your assertion... it isn't even a claim... is a mistaken interpretation of the brachistochrone/tautochrone problem.

Get off your lazy ass and build something for yourself and see. Quit insulting your betters and quit making assertions that you cannot support with evidence or even a logical argument.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #447 on: January 22, 2014, 03:08:14 AM »

As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.

Exactly.

Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #448 on: January 22, 2014, 03:11:01 AM »


 to arrogant Grimer?
                       John.
Thank you for pointing out the typo, John. I've now corrected it.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #449 on: January 22, 2014, 06:17:38 AM »
Red_Sunset their claimed point is absolutely false.  The upward force exerted on a submerged object is identically the weight of the displaced volume of the surrounding fluid, in this case water.    That is Archimedes' Principle discovered over 2000 years ago.  ..............................................................
................................................................................... 

MarkE, 
Nobody is claiming that Archimedes was wrong or that the exact working principle of the ZED is what is shown with the cups. Nobody is claiming OU with the cups.   As I stated in my previous post, shown again below.....

Quote
POST #436............................................I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact.  Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed.  To that purpose they were not misleading.

Post #436 is conveying the message that the invention is based on the basic physics principles shown in the aquarium cup demonstrations. That was to refresh readers mind and set he stage of understanding for what follows.
The invention uses certain physics properties as shown in the demonstration to achieve the inventor's objective. Although the demonstration is not a direct representation of the invention, neither of possible OU,  only optimization or minimal requirements.
Please read and think beyond the start phase of any inventive property presented or you might/will miss the essence of their communication.

Red_sunset