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 716225 times)

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #615 on: January 27, 2014, 04:07:45 PM »
TK & co  OR  coTK

your post still lead to debate about self-running/OU/Claims and at the end just Blame each others among of us. 

 Are YOU  HAPPY ? 
Marsing,
To see a real trail of destruction left by these individuals, like bulls in a China shop
Check Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset

Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #616 on: January 27, 2014, 04:13:51 PM »

"... Of course you are right that the probability of getting exactly 1/6 is less as the number of trials grows large. But, just in case you really need this explained, repeating the _series_ of trials many times leads to "errors" or deviations from 1/6 that cancel out. Each series _asymptotes_ to 1/6, and some go above it and some below it. In the -really long run- these deviations again _average_ to an asymptote of 1/6.
Now, I don't believe for a moment that you aren't aware of this. Therefore your post must have been designed deliberately by you to misdirect.


Of course I'm aware of it, dear boy. The word "misdirect" is pejorative.


The extract was from my note, N 74/80
PROBABILISTIC DESIGN IN TERMS OF SYSTEM VARIETY


That particular bit was intended to shock the reader into carefully noting what I had written - not what he might carelessly think I had written.


The frightening thing is that even when what I had written was pointed out to Farmer he still insisted I was wrong.  In view of his responsibilities it won't be surprising if, like the Comet airliners, the AGR proves to be a reactor too far.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #617 on: January 27, 2014, 04:26:32 PM »
To repeat the conservation laws over and over and stay nicely in the mainstream by keeping to the general semantics is not helping here at all.  I have no problem with all your statements since they are describing a symmetrical and linear system, by falling back on those well known basics, you are evading the crucial point around which the whole debate is focused.
A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry. 

Forget about a moment about overunity.
Have a close looks at this asymmetry, why is it asymmetric ?
What is the cost of the asymmetry and what measures has Wayne employed to reduce that cost.

I know what your reaction is going to be,  explain it to me in detail (creating a lot of work for me) so we can keep on shooting it down with traditional symmetry without trying to look deeper into the concept.   
With an open mind you would be unbiased and assume a 50/50 position on the same concept until it has been dismantled from the ground up.  You possibly could improve on the concept strategy.
You may do something productive now or carry on ranting about basic physics and Archimedes
It depends on where you want to go in the universe

In General: Does anybody here have a framework that could lead to OU ?
OU is not possible in the framework of symmetrical physics, how could you tamper with the standard framework to achieve asymmetry, a requirement for OU. 
A model like that would put the search in the right direction for possible positive results.  Wouldn't it ?

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, you propose a premise:  "A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry.  "  Then almost as quickly you declare that you are unwilling to supply any evidence that such an asymmetry as you propose exists or can exist.  That is magical thinking.  You are welcome to think as magically as you like.  It does not make Wayne's failed claims any more credible.

Obtaining over unity is by definition not possible from a conservative field.  That leaves showing that some field is not conservative, thus creating a principle on which over unity could be obtained by exploiting such a field.  Wayne Travis and HER claim that they obtain free work from a buoyancy machine.  The operative field in a buoyancy machine is gravitational.  Neither Wayne Travis, nor HER, nor any other supporter including you have shown any evidence of an "asymmetry" in gravity, or other behavior by which gravity acts non-conservatively.  Magical thinking will not cut it.


Marsing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #618 on: January 27, 2014, 04:33:25 PM »
Marsing,
To see a real trail of destruction left by these individuals, like bulls in a China shop
Check Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset

Copied

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #619 on: January 27, 2014, 04:56:57 PM »

Mention has been made in this thread, by Red Sunset among others about the difficulty in communication of ideas, of getting people to understand what one is saying.


I have a particularly interesting example of that from my own career.


Normally my way-out notes and publications with Clayton were tolerated by my superiors. However, as I was approaching retirement the Buiding Research Establishment had the misfortune to end up with a director sicked up on us from Porton Down - a Dr Rex Watson.


When he read my internal note on Iterative Hierarchical Mechanics he went ape-shit and banned me from writing internal notes. I appealed against his decision and because of the nature of my work (anticipating failures) in the end the appeal went right up to Butler, the Cabinet Secretary.


Anyway, an expert panel was set up to examine the various unorthodox stuff Clayton and I had written over 3 decades.


The members were, Sir Alan Cottrell, Professor F R Farmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._R._Farmer
and Dr D Goodison.


They tried desperately to pick holes in our work but the only point they came up with where Farmer claimed I was wrong was this:


I had written,


"Chance and probability in terms of the observer


A simple point of entry to an analysis of probability is the paradigm of dice throwing. What do probability statements about the chances of a particular number resulting from a given throw mean. To take a specific example, what does it mean when I say that the probability of a 2 coming up in the next throw is 1/6? Is this an objective statement about the next throw, or about the dice; or is it perhaps a subjective statement about my way of looking at the world?


The most traditional answer, that the 1/6 refers to the outcome of a large number of trials is not very satisfying since it seems to get away from the point. I am interested in the next throw, not a large number of trials, and anyway, however many trials I make there is no guarantee that the percentage of 2's will be exactly 1/6. On the contrary, if I make 6N trials where N is a very large integer, even though the fraction of 2's could be 1/6 the probability of this is small and tends to zero as N tends to infinity."


Farmer claimed this was wrong. The other two "experts" remained silent which was rather cowardly of them.
Could we get Farmer to see we were right? No way.


So you can see the kind of thing I would be up against in trying to show a member of this forum how the Keenie worked and why. Perhaps when RAR is shown to work it will be easier.
Grimer your expression of probability is wrong.  You have conflated the definition of a random process with a means of evaluating whether a process is entirely random or biased.  A result is random if it is unpredictable based on ALL prior knowledge.  That means that it is irrelevant how badly you or anyone else might wish to predict the next result.  If the process is actually random, the probability of any outcome is the same as any other.  Nature doesn't care how satisfied or unsatisfied you might find that truth.

There are many processes that contain both stochastic and deterministic components.  At first glance some deterministic components may appear to be random, when they are really complicated and/or long sequences.


powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #620 on: January 27, 2014, 05:06:21 PM »
Marsing,
To see a real trail of destruction left by these individuals, like bulls in a China shop
Check Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset


And you're talking BS, Wayne kept promising independent verification, and he kept breaking his word, but you seem to think breaking his word again and again is acceptable, and turning the blame on other people now for Wayne traverses complete failure to produce any real evidence is BS and avoiding reality.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #621 on: January 27, 2014, 05:08:13 PM »
Hi Fletcher,
...I wrote a ~40 page pamphlet/booklet on it "The ZED for dummies", which I gave to Wayne as a base document for him to expand on as he wished and as a "thanks" gesture.

The asymmetry creation is an interference between the 2 half cycles.  The key is to be able to pay for that cost in a way that you pay for it without loosing any money in the process, so to speak.  ...

The successful outcome is a critical process but I am under the firm belief it can be done. Not necessarily in the form or shape as is attempted by these 2 inventors.
It is worthwhile to study these 2 inventions, yes !  although not for the purpose of a quick rip-off OU device(it is pre-historic) but to learn of a path that leads towards the light, absolutely !.  The reality of having the 2 inventions working at this point in time as the first OU system is not exactly the most important criteria here, although it would be nice and very encouraging if they did work.
Do I have (all) the answers ?, no, not yet.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset in your 40 pages of explanation did you:

1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?
2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?
3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #622 on: January 27, 2014, 05:14:15 PM »
...

If this system works then it must be using something, or doing something, that is not within the scope of the well known and understood methods.

If this system only uses and behaves in the same fashion as understood interactions then it can not work.

...
This offers opportunity to progress towards a common understanding.  So hopefully we can take the next step:

What evidence is there that any element, or combination of elements do not behave in the same fashion as understood interactions?

If such evidence exists, then it can be pursued to see if it is mistaken observation, or it is real and therefore OU should be obtainable by exploiting the observed behavior.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #623 on: January 27, 2014, 06:02:29 PM »
After the lift my system would eject the fluid at a higher pressure than the resting state pressure.

At the end of lift I had my reservoir at the same height that was needed for the lift and as such I believe that that means there was the same pressure still held within the system.

The input fluid was returned at a decreasing pressure value, that is to continue the descent of the risers I needed to keep lowering the reservoir until I had the reservoir back to the starting height.

This behavior is not in line with normal usage of hydraulics, in the normal use of hydraulics the instant the pressure source is removed from the fluid medium the potential is also removed.
Webby what is the starting state of your cycle?

I am not familiar with your device or the tests that you ran.  Will you please provide me a link to descriptions of each?

If your device uses pneumatics and hydraulics there is a good chance that you will see phase lags due to the inertial mass in the system and compressible gas.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #624 on: January 27, 2014, 06:36:28 PM »
Red_Sunset in your 40 pages of explanation did you:

1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?
2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?
3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?

MarkE,
1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?  * No

2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?  * Yes & No,
   ** 
The multi-layer piston changes the playing field because the piston makes an un-natural parameter (property) change at the midpoint cycle, so gravity reacts in response to those changes, not to the symmetry of the half cycle that preceded it.
This creates the appearance of non-conservation, but it all reactions are normal accepted physics behaviors.
No magic takes place or known physic's rules are broken in the process. Although the end result makes you believe different

3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?  * Yes

Your questions were answered already in a previous post that gave you a high level working overview of the ZED.  Re-read it and you might see more clarity?  Nothing will help you until you disassemble the set of inverted cooking pots.   It is a mind twister, give it time to assimilate.

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #625 on: January 27, 2014, 08:39:02 PM »
>>    MarkE = Mark Euthanasius  ??  <<


MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #626 on: January 27, 2014, 10:04:30 PM »
MarkE,
1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?  * No

2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?  * Yes & No,
   ** 
The multi-layer piston changes the playing field because the piston makes an un-natural parameter (property) change at the midpoint cycle, so gravity reacts in response to those changes, not to the symmetry of the half cycle that preceded it.
This creates the appearance of non-conservation, but it all reactions are normal accepted physics behaviors.
No magic takes place or known physic's rules are broken in the process. Although the end result makes you believe different

3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?  * Yes

Your questions were answered already in a previous post that gave you a high level working overview of the ZED.  Re-read it and you might see more clarity?  Nothing will help you until you disassemble the set of inverted cooking pots.   It is a mind twister, give it time to assimilate.

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset do we agree then that it all comes down to 2)?  Assuming that we do, then kindly walk me through your calculations of energy for the energy exchanges that take place for the half cycle before the midpoint, and the half cycle after the midpoint where you believe: "piston makes an un-natural parameter (property) change".

fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #627 on: January 27, 2014, 10:24:21 PM »
That would be a fair deduction Red - but your point of making it elludes me.

Isn't the ideal to set aside prejudices [or pseudonyms] & explore thought experiments & theory & experiments to find the path to OU, or conversely to find the 'show stopper' that returns our feet to earthly realms [rhetorical] - I welcome any intelligent & well crafted input that pits 'ingenuity against entropy' - so far entropy has the upper hand but that could change with one mechanical device or coherent theory which could be just a thought away, if only we could tease it out.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #628 on: January 27, 2014, 10:39:27 PM »
MarkE,

Nested risers with retainer wall separators between each riser, the separators go from the bottom up to just under the lid of the riser as such that each riser is in its own container of water and the only connection between the water is the air within each riser connecting each chamber together in a series fashion of air\water\air\water.

The concept for setup we were told is, 1\3 the weight stays on the risers and after lift the other 2\3 is removed, this was the main condition I would setup for.

My testbed started to fail shortly after building it, it was not intended to be used but was a test build to see if I could build a unit by rolling plastic around a form and gluing the ends together then using the previous layer as the bed for the next one,, it was made out of Tennis Ball tubes.

We were also given a basic start relationship of lift to height of the risers.

The information is all in the thread that has been linked to,, but that is a lot of digging and stuff,, I do not have the pictures on this computer so the next time I fire up my other one I will try and remember to post them,, but I am sure someone has them or a link to them directly.

The setup process consisted of getting the system pressures up just enough to hold the weight left on the risers, this also included maintaining a pressure on the input system that did not allow the water to be ejected out of the input at rest, so the whole system was brought into a pressure balance, then the reservoir was raised to increase the input pressure above the resting state pressure, when the risers came into lift potential they were released and the lift happened, then at the end of lift the risers were held against any further lifting motion and the 2\3 weight was removed, then the reservoir was lowered slightly and fluid began to return into the reservoir, at first the outside riser holding the weight did not move but the inside parts did start to move down, and as they moved down the fluid moved back into the reservoir and the reservoir was slowly lowered until it was back at the resting height and the risers were back into there resting positions.

funny you should mention the "lag",, even on a small scale that can be observed and can be put to use.  My best recovery’s were when I timed the lift to drop just right,, on the same token I had some of my worst by using the exact wrong timing.  I referred to that as some kind of wave motion within the system.
Webby, thanks.  A picture would be handy, but I'll work with your description.  I am going to offer my description so that you can tell me if I have the correct understanding of the arrangement:

1 A movable water reservoir connects to a set of concentric open (please clarify top or bottom ) pistons (risers) are located in a (please clarify:  sealed or unsealed) container.  Each piston rests on water where the water pneumatically connects by vertical air channels to the next outer and next inner where each channel forms an inverted "U".
2 The system starts with a weight placed on (please clarify: only the outside piston or all of the pistons)
3 Compressed air is added to the system (please state where) until all pistons clear the bottom surface of the overall vessel and water does not eject.
3a At this point pressure (please clarify measured where) is declared as at its resting state value.
3b At this point stops limit the upward movement of the pistons.
4 The movable water reservoir is then lifted by some distance.
5 The stops are removed
6 The system lifts the weight initially loaded.
7 At this point 2/3 of the weight is removed.
8 The reservoir is lowered to an intermediate point.
9 The pistons fall
10 When the outer piston has fallen a predetermined amount the reservoir is lowered to a new intermediate point
11 Steps 8-10 are repeated until the reservoir is back at its starting position.
12 After some time all pistons return to their positions at step 3b.

Since the reservoir and pistons cycle between the same fixed points, and the work done to the outside world was raising 2/3 of the weight from the step 3b) position to the step 6) position, in order to complete the cycle we need to determine what has to be done following step 12 to get us back to the condition of step 3b) where we have 100% of the weight on the pistons and they can again lift that weight to the position in step 6).

Please let me know if I have misunderstood the description, and correct as needed.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #629 on: January 27, 2014, 10:40:23 PM »
>>    MarkE = Mark Euthanasius  ??  <<
Yes. I am Mark Euthanasius, not to be confused with either Spartacus or Brian.  Referring to myself as MarkE spares people having to write out Euthanasius anytime they wish to address me.