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 716247 times)

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #675 on: January 29, 2014, 11:26:10 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. 

Minnie,
How did you check out the fully integrated Sun Drop farm?
With only brak/salt water and sun, nothing else is needed not even soil.
To get aircon, electricity. fresh water, light...ect  with full automation in order to grow everything needed from a garden in the middle of the desert, including fish.
I thought that concept was brilliant.  With a fish pond, then not even fertilizer needed.
A good tried and tested model for Mars
Red_Sunset

PS:  There is a basic principle but one needs to remove the shades to see it

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #676 on: January 29, 2014, 11:37:49 AM »
......................................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.

EnergiaLibre,
If that is the case, what are we doing here ?
We must be the idiots who pre-empt their own actions before they have started !!
Like the dog chasing his tail !

So with this being a fact, I am inviting you all for a beer at the "Thirsty Lion"
Time: >>  After Minnie has put his sheep to sleep for the night
Red_Sunset

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #677 on: January 29, 2014, 12:47:49 PM »
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.
@@  Red_Sunset
You appear to have ignored this important post from TK, hmmm I wonder why ?  I will post its again in bold text

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.

In case you missed one of the main points,  "stuff" just doesn't really behave the way you want it to. but you just keep going on and on, if only we could harness the energy from your ego.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #678 on: January 29, 2014, 01:42:10 PM »
@@  Red_Sunset
You appear to have ignored this important post from TK, hmmm I wonder why ? .....................
......................................................

No..no my dear Cat,
If TK and "You by implication" would have read the preceding posts, he & you would have realized that what you are highlighting was not relevant.
You give me the impression that you are missing my regular posts,  if you do,  just say so in plain language.

In post #654,
I proposed a theoretical method in a rough high level outline to achieve asymmetry. 
Remember the statements
1..  " ** If YES, then our focus will be on creating that symmetry imbalance."
2..  "Don't assume this is the whole story"

But it is clear that it was not the right time for this type of disclosure.  So I shelved it for the time being.
I have no interest to discuss Wayne Travis private or business life, I am sure you would understand that.

If you have any further specific question on #654, I am glad to answer them.

Your statements that require clarification
PS1: >> "stuff" just doesn't really behave the way you want it to." << ,   What do you mean with "stuff"   (I understand with stuff, " fluffy stuff, like wool, haberdashery things")

PS2:  >>   "Would you like to present a physical situation or apparatus that refutes anything I or MarkE have said? Please do so."<<      Please give me some idea's,  to what you have in mind   

PS3:    >> "We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures."<<
Please do so,  I am interested.  This what it is all about, an open discussion, I am not claiming to be right.  Post #654 was a concept proposal, NOT A LAW ! 

 Just don't give me that "spelling, syntax and scientific notation"  crap MarkE came up with.  I don't do nuts and bolts.

Red_Sunset

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #679 on: January 29, 2014, 02:11:27 PM »
Good for you responding to the TK's post, just wish you could come up with some actual evidence, a continuous running device, or some scientific verification, also you keep making out that Wayne Travis has had to keep back a secret bit of information that is crucial to the device running successfully, how does that stopping him demonstrating a continuous working model ?  A simple web cam set up broadcasting the device running, would not disclose any so called vital information, but he has repeatedly failed to achieve this seemingly basic display of his claim

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #680 on: January 29, 2014, 02:26:30 PM »
........................................, how does that stopping him demonstrating a continuous working model ?  A simple web cam set up broadcasting the device running, would not disclose any so called vital information, but he has repeatedly failed to achieve this seemingly basic display of his claim 
PwrCat.

I would guess that your need to see proof is greater than his need.
I would guess that he wants to be ready with a production ability before he does that running public broadcast.
This allows him in the interim to stay focused on the business and development aspects to get a commercial model ready.( he is setting up and employing people now, you can join him if you are from USA)
When ready, I would guess that he will reveal and broadcast with a splash and channel media focus and publicity attention towards sales. This allows him also to have a head start on possible competition that for sure will enter the field fast.

Red_Sunset

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #681 on: January 29, 2014, 03:14:17 PM »
You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #682 on: January 29, 2014, 04:26:49 PM »
You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.

PowerCat.

With due respect,  you are not reading what is written
<< You make so many excuses for him >>
 I don't think so, I said "I guess",  that is based on a logical assumption because I have no idea what Wayne is exactly doing. I am on the other side of the world in relation to Oklahoma.  Seeing the weather report on CNN, I guess 
he must have some cold blustery snowy weather.  I don't know for sure because I am not there to be a witness.  But based on the information available to me, I shouldn't be too far off the mark.

<<is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind>> 
That depends on what strategy he decided on to follow. Notwithstanding you might be correct......I don't know.

<< your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus >> 
Real proof is understanding how it works, with a critical eye.

Video is no proof, have a look at YouTube,  with current hardware/Software available, you can create any deception you like.  So this is far from proof.

As in a crime scene, they say that the simplest most likely scenario is most likely what happened.

So with an invention investigation it is the same, there is a claim, then you look at what is presented, separate in modular functional components and then analyze and follow the expected basic physics behavior profile. 
Now if your assessment makes sense and your pieces when overlay-ed on the explanation of the inventor, and the puzzle matches, your are on to something.  At that point I start writing.

If there are doubts, you revisit until you can be confident that it is correct. If the doubt remains and its function is critical to the invention you most likely have a dud invention or you stumbled on Inventive Property that has not been declared by the inventor (he is trying to protect his invention).  Now you can apply your creative juices to try to reverse engineer that desired functionality, if you are lucky, you got it.  To reverse engineer you need to be of clear understanding of what the inventor is trying to achieve within the design. There are usually enough telltales to guide you.

NOW you arrived at a point that you understand this device inside-out, you say whooow because it was not your idea, it was someone else idea and you followed his logic thinking which perhaps took place over years for him to arrive at this final conclusion.  You had the advantage to leap frog over all his trials, failures, hours of thinking...ect, then you say Whooow.  Then you respect, you do not need to say "show me proof".  That obligation is now your own,

That is why I am cocky !!

<< you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality >>
You are correct, the cherry on the top is the physical execution of the idea.   At this point it doesn't matter.   You think the concept is logical and real, the execution is just a matter of engineering.  If it doesn't work, you know you can go back to redesign and try again, at least you are closer to the end goal then you were before.
I am pretty sure Wayne has several working models, but he has his reasons that he keeps it close in.   I know that his experience here at "overunity.com" changed his mind on the strategy for his inventions. He realized that there are more hungry wolves out there than initially thought.  It is the wild west out there. you know the thread, you wee there.
Understandable that he wants to safeguard his invention so it can deliver what he expects from it.  I agree with him.

The conflict situations
What I see is the main conflict what plays out here at overunity.com is "self-centering", me ...me..me.
The demands made are so very often more that what the presenter can live with.
Because: You consider your needs before and over the needs of the person who is sharing.

In other words, to want to take control away from the presenter, that usually cause a reaction

Red_Sunset

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #683 on: January 29, 2014, 05:03:17 PM »
You continue to make many excuses for him just like you have done in the past, it's like you're receiving some kind of share of investors' money, Wayne made it clear when he first joined this forum that he was looking for support and investors and that he was going to have the device independently verified, in other words he was going to prove his claim, but as we all know that never happened despite him promising it many times, when do you think he will show credible evidence ?  This year, next year the year after, in 10 years' time, 10 years now there's a good figure we have various threads on this site from another inventor that after 10 years still can't prove any OU whatsoever, looks like Wayne is joining Rosemary in continuously claiming OU but never being able to demonstrate it, for whatever plausible or ridiculous excuses he or she comes up with.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #684 on: January 29, 2014, 05:23:45 PM »
You continue to make many excuses for him just like you have done in the past, it's like you're receiving some kind of share of investors' money, Wayne made it clear when he first joined this forum that he was looking for support and investors and that he was going to have the device independently verified, in other words he was going to prove his claim, but as we all know that never happened despite him promising it many times, when do you think he will show credible evidence ?  This year, next year the year after, in 10 years' time, 10 years now there's a good figure we have various threads on this site from another inventor that after 10 years still can't prove any OU whatsoever, looks like Wayne is joining Rosemary in continuously claiming OU but never being able to demonstrate it, for whatever plausible or ridiculous excuses he or she comes up with. 

PowerCat,
You definitely got a hornet's nest under your bonnet!   

WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY ?

I DON"T CARE what Wayne does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!
I DON"T CARE what YOU POWERCAT does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!

What I DO CARE about is YOUR REPLY to the clarification request of post #704
Capish !  I hope that makes it clear

Red_Sunset

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #685 on: January 29, 2014, 05:30:21 PM »
Minnie,
How did you check out the fully integrated Sun Drop farm?
With only brak/salt water and giant outside energy source called the sun, nothing else is needed not even soil.
To get aircon, electricity. fresh water, light...ect  with full automation in order to grow everything needed from a garden in the middle of the desert, including fish.
I thought that concept was brilliant.  With a fish pond, then not even fertilizer needed.
A good tried and tested model for Mars
Red_Sunset

PS:  There is a basic principle but one needs to remove the shades to see it
Red_Sunset you are welcome to pull that pony out of the closet anytime you like.  Just repeating that there is a pony in there doesn't make it so.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #686 on: January 29, 2014, 06:00:13 PM »
You can be open minded, but you don't have to be.

If you choose to discuss something then that item needs to be discussed "as is" not modified into something that it is not.

The setup condition of changing the compressibility of the air with something that is not focuses the function into the main modalities that are present, that is plural from a singular input.

Please show me a hydraulic jack that works with NO seals and NO means of building pressure.


elsewhere I have stated my opinion on whether or not it is actually gravity that may be making these kind of things possible, and I do not think, at this time, that it is gravity actually doing the work.

The buoyant lift is created by gravity *and* the water,, but the lift force does not care about how far it moves in gravity,, that force value stays the same,, so if you  have something under the influence of gravity that does not care about how far it moves in gravity,, almost a paradox.  On the same token you have something that moves through gravity without changing by that motion.

Simple observations, according to the usual method I can not have something under the influence of gravity move in height without a change in potential.  Buoyancy allows this to be seen by the height of the water column and it is the height of the water column that makes the pressure that squishes the float upwards,, same float same lift no matter how deep or shallow, or how much pressure it is within.

Out of curiosity,, are there many other forces that care *not* how much the external potential changes?? or the internal potential as well for that matter.
Webby I posed those questions because if there is no difference then we can focus the conversation.  I contend that there is no material difference, which allows us to very quickly see that there is no way for anyone to get a self-sustaining device.  I allow that I am hardly omniscient which is why I posed the questions.  Answers that show reasonable evidence of a material difference would negate my assertion and we would not be able to reasonably simplify the device for purposes of analysis as I proposed.  So if you would be so kind as to answer my questions then perhaps we can make further progress towards a common understanding.

Ignoring the very tiny variation of earth's gravitational force with the kinds of heights that we are talking about, the weight of a fixed volume of displaced water is for practice and purpose constant, yes.  Why do you think that is paradoxical?  For these kinds of heights, neither does the weight of some other fixed object noticeably change.  What do you find strange about that?  All that it means is that the weight of the displaced water represents a force that helps going up and must be opposed going down.  It should be no more paradoxical to you than a counterweight used on an elevator.
 
Quote
Simple observations, according to the usual method I can not have something under the influence of gravity move in height without a change in potential.
This is a statement of the potential energy which is correct.

Quote
Buoyancy allows this to be seen by the height of the water column and it is the height of the water column that makes the pressure that squishes the float upwards,, same float same lift no matter how deep or shallow, or how much pressure it is within.
Buoyancy is not the result of the water pressure.  Buoyancy is the result of the displaced water weight.  If the net SG of a submersible is greater than 1, then it takes work to surface.  Work = Integral( F*ds ) F > 0.  That work can ideally be identically recovered by resubmerging to the original depth: Work = Integral( F*ds ), sinking F < 0.  If the SG of a submersible is less than 1, then it takes work to submerge:  Work = Integral( F*ds ), F > 0 submerging, and that work may identically be recovered surfacing:  Work = Integral( F*ds ), F< 0. 

There is no energy gain mechanism.  There is an offset force due to the displaced water volume that behaves no differently than if the submersible were an elevator car with a counter weight.  Use a counter weight greater than the weight of the elevator car and work has to be done to lower the elevator car.  Use a counter weight less than the weight of the elevator car and work has to be done to raise the car.  As with the buoyant object work is the Integral ( F*ds ), and in any cycle that ends with everything at the same height as each element respectively started, for the ideal case, the net energy in is identically balanced by the net energy out.  That's what it means to operate in a conservative field.  That's what we always observe with gravity.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #687 on: January 29, 2014, 06:12:25 PM »
You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.
Powercat the script goes on until there is no audience left:

P1 "We have something wonderful that redefines physics!"
P2 "That's great, please show me."
P1 "It's right here behind this curtain.  It's really wonderful."
P2 "OK please show me."
P1 "Really it's wonderful and it's just right behind this curtain."
P2 "You just said that, please show me."
P1 "You have a closed mind."
P2 "Please show me your wonderful device."
P1 "I told you it is right behind this curtain, what's wrong with you?  You just can't see it because your mind is closed."
P2 "I can't see anything because you refuse to show me anything.  Please just show me this wonderful device you claim."
P1 "It's people like you who keep wonderful inventions like mine from reaching the market."
P2 "If you want me to believe that your invention does what you say it does, then please just show your invention working as you claim it does."
P1 "You are being obstructionist.  I told you many questions ago that the invention is right behind this curtain."
P2 "Please just show me what you claim."
P1 "Really smart people can see that I wouldn't be standing here telling you all about the wonderful device behind the curtain if there wasn't really a wonderful device there.  You must be stupid to keep asking me to show you this wonderful device."
...

camelherder49

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #688 on: January 29, 2014, 06:14:15 PM »
What would be the formula to calculate the energy expended
in the evaporation of water, in the hydrology cycle,  to return
water back to height needed to spill over a dam to operate
a 10MW hydro generator? How would you go about proving
that it would equal 10MW?

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #689 on: January 29, 2014, 06:23:08 PM »
What would be the formula to calculate the energy expended
in the evaporation of water, in the hydrology cycle,  to return
water back to height needed to spill over a dam to operate
a 10MW hydro generator? How would you go about proving
that it would equal 10MW?
When one sets out to perform an energy balance they do not report their result in units of power.
The heat of vaporization has been determined by experiment.  It has been codified for many years.
The work done lifting or released lowering a mass in a gravitational field has been determined by experiment.  It has been codified for many years.

Anyone is free to set-up falsification experiments to try and determine if the codified principles and/or coefficients are erroneous.