Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 719101 times)

powercat · « **Reply #690 on:** January 29, 2014, 06:24:11 PM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 05:23:45 PM

PowerCat,

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 would like to hear is..... you don't know how to make an OU device, and that all you are doing is researching possibilities.

Your own words in the numerous posts you have made on this forum show you do care what Wayne Travis does, but as you clearly appear to have a distorted view of reality you will only believe what you want when it suits you.

All I care about is a genuine over-unity device, and people who make claims they can't prove need to be challenged, if you don't like it I'm sure you can look for another forum where everyone will agree with you. I seem to remember you joining one that Wayne set up when he left this forum, did you get fed up of everyone agreeing with you ?

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #691 on:** January 29, 2014, 06:54:26 PM »

Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 06:24:11 PM

What I would like to hear is..... you don't know how to make an OU device, and that all you are doing is researching possibilities.

Your own words in the numerous posts you have made on this forum show you do care what Wayne Travis does, but as you clearly appear to have a distorted view of reality you will only believe what you want when it suits you.

All I care about is a genuine over-unity device, and people who make claims they can't prove need to be challenged, if you don't like it I'm sure you can look for another forum where everyone will agree with you. I seem to remember you joining one that Wayne set up when he left this forum, did you get fed up of everyone agreeing with you ?

Powercat,
You have quite a fixation with Wayne Travis, that is clear.

Let me give you what you want so we can move on

So You want me to say.....,..... I know how to make an OU device, and that all I do is researching possibilities.
YES....that is correct

So You want me to say.....,..... I have never made an OU device, and that all i am doing is researching possibilities.
YES....that is correct

So You want me to say.....,.....I respect Wayne Travis as an inventor, and that does mean that I agree with whatever he does in his life, his contraptions,inventions...ect.
YES....that is correct

So You want me to say.....,.... I will only believe in what makes logical sense to me, I will triple verify everything and not just when it suits me. I do not just believe anything without validation
YES....that is correct

So You want me to say.....,.... I don't like it when people can not move on and are hung up on Wayne Travis like a demi God , I'm sure I can look for another forum if you agree with it ot not
YES....that is correct

You can consider both acknowledgements 80% PROOF
I have never said anything else to the contrary, have I ?

All jokes aside, lets move on to something more interesting, answer the clarifications requested from your earlier post.

Red_Sunset

powercat · « **Reply #692 on:** January 29, 2014, 07:15:27 PM »

You asked me the original question, and what a surprise you didn't like the answer, you must think the majority of people on this forum are stupid enough to take your word as fact, you really need to wise up most of us have been here for many years and seen your type of BS before, and believe me you won't be the last making out you know all about OU and are incapable of showing any evidence. Guess what I'm not going anywhere, I'm staying right here in your face.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #693 on:** January 29, 2014, 07:22:07 PM »

Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 07:15:27 PM

Y...................................... Guess what I'm not going anywhere, I'm staying right here in your face.

Oooh..no my friend, Cat
I don't want you to go anywhere, just answer those clarification questions
We do not want to be seen as fluff in the wind.
Red

minnie · « **Reply #694 on:** January 29, 2014, 07:36:02 PM »

Hi guys,
anyone know if Wayne's patent was ever granted? I suppose Dunlap Codding
must know how the thing works!
Sundrop farm obviously needed a huge initial investment. I think something that
individuals could do is far more likely to help mankind as a whole.
John.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #695 on:** January 29, 2014, 08:08:39 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on January 29, 2014, 06:00:13 PM

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

Webby,
One of the upside down cup aquarium demonstrations was exactly done to prove that Buoyancy is a FORCE due to PRESSURE . To understand buoyancy in this context is pivotal to understanding the working of the Zed.

I think MarkE has the wrong end of the stick here.

MARKE, that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct. But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure. It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter). Integral formula's do not aid understanding

Red_Sunset

minnie · « **Reply #696 on:** January 29, 2014, 10:23:27 PM »

Hi,
Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
John.

mondrasek · « **Reply #697 on:** January 29, 2014, 11:09:58 PM »

Quote from: minnie on January 29, 2014, 10:23:27 PM

Hi,
Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
John.

Archimedes Paradox is exactly what I believe I was witnessing in my testing. However I also saw behavior that led me to believe my test model's proportions were limiting it's performance greatly. And since I had no easy (meaning cheap) way to test further I stopped and waited for a simulation or better test model to appear.

The math on this construction is beyond my patience so I could not figure out if there would be a set of proportions (and layers) that could surmount Archimedes Paradox and unity (at best).

Oh how I wish I could see a sim of this particular construction (and not a simplification).

M.

fletcher · « **Reply #698 on:** January 29, 2014, 11:48:47 PM »

The Hydrostatic Paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_pressure_variation

Archimedes Paradox [hydrostatic paradox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_paradox

minnie · « **Reply #699 on:** January 30, 2014, 12:28:47 AM »

Hi,
nice one Fletcher, thank you,
John.

fletcher · « **Reply #700 on:** January 30, 2014, 01:11:47 AM »

You're welcome John.

Note that the Hydrostatic Paradox is a sub-set of Archimedes buoyancy - the important thing to note that there still needs to be volume displacement & replenishment if a piston moves etc, so whilst it can make for a powerful force the distance the force acts over is dictated by the volume displacement beneath the piston, IINM.

ETA: at the time of the original thread Mr Wayne [upon questioning] was adamant that air in the ZED cycle was not required i.e. that pneumatic principles [& air spring effect] had nothing to do with his principle or the OU claim - the air pockets could be replaced by a lesser density oil fluid for example - fluids are effectively non-compressible.

Compressibility would be a factor in his pre-charge psi so I guess that there was a gas bladder somewhere in the self-sustaining system - probably the accumulator IIRC.

LibreEnergia · « **Reply #701 on:** January 30, 2014, 01:47:18 AM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 08:08:39 PM

Webby,
One of the upside down cup aquarium demonstrations was exactly done to prove that Buoyancy is a FORCE due to PRESSURE . To understand buoyancy in this context is pivotal to understanding the working of the Zed.

I think MarkE has the wrong end of the stick here.

MARKE, that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct. But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure. It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter). Integral formula's do not aid understanding

Red_Sunset

This is the crux of the matter, and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.

Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME, nothing else.

A volume of water in water is neutrally buoyant because it weights the same as the medium that surrounds it.
A volume of air in water experiences a buoyant force equivalent to the weight an equal volume of water minus it's own weight. It does not matter what pressure it is at.

Everything ever described as the 'Travis effect' simply falls apart once you realise that.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #702 on:** January 30, 2014, 02:19:16 AM »

So a scuba diver's tanks, filled to 3000 psi or something like that, are no more buoyant than the same tanks when empty.

However, in the demonstrations of the "travis effect" there is an upward force due to the pressure component. Air is compressed slightly by the displacer; this results in an upward force that adds to the buoyancy. The pressure force acts in all directions but the system is only free to move upwards, and this pressure force only acts over a short distance. At least I think that's what I recall.
In the TinselZed, and also in Webby's construction, the fact that water levels in the various chambers aren't equal demonstrates that the air pressures aren't equal either.

ETA: The scuba tank's volume is fixed; therefore its buoyancy is also. The ZED, in Travis's device, as well as in my Heron's Fountan, and in Webby's nested tube array, has a variable effective volume in part controlled by the air pressures inthe chambers. It's like a Cartesian Diver, whose buoyancy is adjusted by changing its volume (and internal air pressure) by changing the external pressure applied to the outer container of the water it's floating in. All the lift of the Diver is from buoyancy, the air pressure changes only alter the floater's effective volume. But in the Zed the air pressure can act to lift, augmenting the buoyancy due to volume displacement.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #703 on:** January 30, 2014, 07:07:44 AM »

Quote

Hi, Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
John.

Quote from: webby1 on January 29, 2014, 11:04:14 PM

Please explain what it is you think I am missing.
I learn many things from many people,, if you are not learning you are not moving

Hi John,
" Hi, nice one Fletcher, thank you, John. ", THAT IS A POOR RESPONSE TO Webby,

You better come up with something more specific to make a statement like that
Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #704 on:** January 30, 2014, 07:19:06 AM »

Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 30, 2014, 01:47:18 AM

This is the crux of the matter, and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.

Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME, nothing else.
A volume of water in water is neutrally buoyant because it weights the same as the medium that surrounds it.
A volume of air in water experiences a buoyant force equivalent to the weight an equal volume of water minus it's own weight. It does not matter what pressure it is at.
Everything ever described as the 'Travis effect' simply falls apart once you realise that.

EnergyLibre and others,

What property do you think materializes buoyancy in FORCE equivalent to displace volume ?

"It does not matter what pressure it is at." (if you refer to depth location pressure) >> That is correct

The pressure we are talking about is NOT the depth pressure but the submerged pressure height of the obect,
Example, for a sealed air box of 1mtrx1mtrx1mtr, at a depth of 100mtr , the buoyancy pressure responsible for the box upward force is determined by the 1mtr box height, not the depth.

For a ship it would be the pressure height from the waterline to its bottom surface. And it is calculated by the weight of the water collumn, So heavier/denser liquid would produce more pressure

That is the crux of the matter, you can see that clearly when you step outside the convenience of formula's that often hide the essence of natural properties.

OK Guys, your turn now!
Red_Sunset

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 719101 times)

powercat

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

powercat

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

mondrasek

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

fletcher

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

fletcher

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

LibreEnergia

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel