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 716210 times)

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #660 on: January 28, 2014, 04:23:34 PM »
Hey Red, you are out of control there. YOU cannot present any proof of your conjectures, whereas MarkE has all of physics standing behind him.

Furthermore..... if a single Zed is, say, 99 percent efficient, how can two of them connected together be more efficient? 0.99 x 0.99 = a little more than 0.98. The only way to get OU efficiency from one unit feeding its output to another identical unit and back again, is for one or both units to be clearly OU themselves.

Even furthermore..... why isn't Travis showing all the self-running prototypes he and his engineers have constructed over the last several years? Where are all these self-runners? Nowhere, that's where. I do believe that if YOU, Red, had anything like what Travis was claiming three years ago, you wouldn't be having lawsuit or investor problems. I certainly know I wouldn't.

The conclusion from all this weight of actual evidence is that Travis, and by extension YOU, Red..... are simply FOS.

TK
What I find most incredible that you guys can not read, I am presenting a concept theory based on Wayne's ZED. I am not presenting or representing Wayne or HER or their achievements or proving their self runner, ...ect..

But carry on,  you wise cracks, Overunity will never be accomplished with attitudes and poor open minds as seen here.
You may throw logical reasoning out of the window and stick to your the physics standing, so where has it taken you thus far with the" in the box" thinking.  The world is for the adventurous!
What more can I say,  I can only to shake my head in amusement.

Red_Sunset

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #661 on: January 28, 2014, 05:29:10 PM »
TK
What I find most incredible that you guys can not read, I am presenting a concept theory based on Wayne's ZED. I am not presenting or representing Wayne or HER or their achievements or proving their self runner, ...ect..

But carry on,  you wise cracks, Overunity will never be accomplished with attitudes and poor open minds as seen here.
You may throw logical reasoning out of the window and stick to your the physics standing, so where has it taken you thus far with the" in the box" thinking.  The world is for the adventurous!
What more can I say,  I can only to shake my head in amusement.

Red_Sunset

I can read just fine, and I can prove it. You, however, seem to be unable to read your own writings deeply enough to provide a cogent logical argument that supports your opinion. Which is all you actually have: opinion. And your opinion in these matters (ZED, Travis, etc) is not supported by the numerous facts that we actually do know for sure.
You cannot provide instructions to construct a device which demonstrates the validity of the effects you claim. You are in the same position as many other claimants who are enamoured of an idea but cannot actualize it because "stuff" just doesn't really behave the way you want it to. Would you like to present a physical situation or apparatus that refutes anything I or MarkE have said? Please do so. We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures.  This isn't a joke, it's reality. Support your conjectures with actual facts, checkable outside references, proper calculations, or demonstrations of your own. You cannot, so perhaps you should stop being so critical of those who take the _many times proven_ main line of actual Physics here.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #662 on: January 28, 2014, 07:09:56 PM »
Yes.

I believe I did.

No I have not.

As I stated, the numbers may be evidence but not proof.

"Show me the sausages"  I think this is, in all actuality, the only thing that would bring an actual open discussion of things.
Webby, great that is progress.  Can you share the test procedure and test data that led you to believe that you broke even?  And would you be kind enough to share the explanation that you came up with?

Thanks.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #663 on: January 28, 2014, 07:18:24 PM »
I do not dispute that I am not the best in explaining this things without having to spend more time writing something up what has been written too many times
But that is not the issue, really and I tell you why,

Your quoteWhat was invalid ?
I told you twice.  Please reread.  And once more:  You conflated force and power for energy and you used a single point formula for energy when you need to obtain energy difference, IE you need to integrate.
Quote
What makes you think that your scrutiny was any good ?  the subsequent posts tell a different story
If you dispute facts kindly put the facts in dispute directly on the table.
Quote

So do you want to base your conclusions on your own inconclusive scrambled scrutiny?
You assert without offering evidence here.  Get the horse in front of your cart.
Quote

I do not understand that I have to prove something.  I have no obligation to educate you.  You can grasp it or you ask for clarification , you started on the wrong foot.
You have no obligations.  And no one has to buy your appeals to magic, or other illogical and unsupported assertions.
Quote
If you do not believe a high level process proposal, that is OK, refute with a proper counter argument, that is OK too.   But do not try to cover up your own inadequacies with unfounded opinions.

Red_Sunset
I have refuted.  You have offered objections with various illogical and unevidenced appeals.  Honestly, you went right over the top when you invoked "The Emperor's New Zed".  If only people "smart enough" to part with money to Mr. Wayne are smart enough to understand hand waving claims without evidence, then more power to them.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #664 on: January 28, 2014, 07:25:00 PM »
Webby,
Do yourself a favor, this guy was/is leading you and me on,  for someone who had multiple standing arguments 2 yrs ago on PESN forum about the same device with the same half cooked arguments, would know very well what the physical hardware is all about.
Now he comes across as if has never seen the ZED
He was just told in one of the earlier posts today that a dual configuration is mandatory, now he is talking about standalone cycling for your single unit.  This is not the only occurrence I have noticed of this behavior.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think MarkE,
He is hard of hearing or his intentions are not who he pretends to be, don't waste your time, he is far from having genuine intentions
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Red_Sunset
Ad hominem attack is a weak way to argue.  Evidence is welcome.  Kindly supply some that supports your assertions.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #665 on: January 28, 2014, 07:51:47 PM »
Webby that's too bad.  Hopefully you will find your notebook and we can explore what you observed further.  Thanks for looking.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #666 on: January 28, 2014, 11:46:43 PM »
Webby, the weight of the air is rather immaterial to the cycle by cycle energy balance.  The compressibility expends work put into the system as heat.  Driving out all of the air between sections reduces the composite of those sections to a hydraulic jack.  If we retain the last buoyancy section then it only gets slightly more complicated.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #667 on: January 29, 2014, 02:02:06 AM »
If the compressibility of air is removed from the system but the volume the air fills is not, then the buoyant lift component is left in tact and the hydraulic component becomes a reaction to the pressure increase and lift ensues, at the end of that lift the shifted water columns still retain the potential put into them when they were brought up to lift condition and will return that potential if allowed.

If the air substitute weighs as much as water then there would be no buoyant lift and no hydraulic lift either, it would just push the fluid out the last riser and over the last retainer.
The various concentric rings just become one hydraulic jack.  Put the air back and the fixture can be reconfigured to operate as one hydraulic jack with an air bubble in it.  This leads to a few questions:

1) What changes that is of any significance to the cycle by cycle energy balance when simplifying the system versus the system as described by HER? 

2)What physical principles are alleged to be responsible for such a difference? 

3) How can each 1) and 2) be tested?

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #668 on: January 29, 2014, 06:02:58 AM »
The various concentric rings just become one hydraulic jack.  Put the air back and the fixture can be reconfigured to operate as one hydraulic jack with an air bubble in it.  This leads to a few questions:

1) What changes that is of any significance to the cycle by cycle energy balance when simplifying the system versus the system as described by HER? 

2)What physical principles are alleged to be responsible for such a difference? 

3) How can each 1) and 2) be tested? 

MarkE
The pro's & con's of a reconfiguration of this type were discussed in Wayne's thread 2 years ago.
Have a look there on this site
Red_Sunset



MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #669 on: January 29, 2014, 06:28:40 AM »
Red_Sunset, then you should have no difficulty explaining what differences were found with respect to energy and why.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #670 on: January 29, 2014, 06:40:36 AM »
Red_Sunset, then you should have no difficulty explaining what differences were found with respect to energy and why.
MarkE,
Yes, I would have no difficulty in explaining most theoretical aspects and considerations surrounding the ZED. 
What is the point, most of that base information has been recorded already, here on this site "overunity.com", ready for you to read it if you are really interested.
So there is no point repeating.

For something new, no problem
Red_Sunset

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #671 on: January 29, 2014, 10:39:08 AM »
MarkE,
Yes, I would have no difficulty in explaining most theoretical aspects and considerations surrounding the ZED. 
What is the point, most of that base information has been recorded already, here on this site "overunity.com", ready for you to read it if you are really interested.
So there is no point repeating.

For something new, no problem
Red_Sunset
The point of course would be that if there were a significant difference you could simply state what that difference supposedly is even if that meant simply quoting a prior expression of the same thought.  If you are content to abandon your position without offering supporting evidence, far be it from me or anyone else to stop you.

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #672 on: January 29, 2014, 10:54:16 AM »



 Hi Sunset,
          There has to be a basic principle, all the rest is a hydraulic gearbox cum air spring.
   With Grimer's explanation and diagram it was easy to see what he was getting at.
       As far as CERN is concerned there is no known way of harnessing the actual field.
                       John.
   

Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #673 on: January 29, 2014, 11:13:01 AM »


 Hi Sunset,
          There has to be a basic principle, all the rest is a hydraulic gearbox cum air spring.
   With Grimer's explanation and diagram it was easy to see what he was getting at.
       As far as CERN is concerned there is no known way of harnessing the actual field.
                       John.
 


That's encouraging, John.


I see I shall have to prepare diagrams and an explanation of how the Keenie harnesses
gravity, if only for the benefit of at least one open minded reader.  :)

LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #674 on: January 29, 2014, 11:24:29 AM »


 Hi Sunset,
          There has to be a basic principle, all the rest is a hydraulic gearbox cum air spring.
   With Grimer's explanation and diagram it was easy to see what he was getting at.
       As far as CERN is concerned there is no known way of harnessing the actual field.
                       John.
 

Cern or anyone else would be correct. There isn't a way to harness it.  Gravity is conservative.

Work performed in a gravitational field is the integral of force with respect to displacment

It matters not that the first, second , third or nth derivative with respect to time may be non zero, as Grimer claims.