Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 719585 times)

mondrasek · « **Reply #1200 on:** February 22, 2014, 02:32:26 PM »

Minnie,

I'd be happy to show you over on the Mathematical Analysis thread. We could walk through the math step by step if needed (Please don't think I'm talking down to you there. I just don't know what assistance you may find helpful).

M.

powercat · « **Reply #1201 on:** February 22, 2014, 03:36:02 PM »

What do we know about Wayne Travis ?

He has promised verification
He has promised newspaper coverage on his discovery
He has promised scientific journals coverage
He has promised a production line
He has promised open sourcing
He has promised run data
He has promised simple physics can show how this device works
He has promised that he has already given out the information required.(But you must look properly)
He has promised that his optimized system is over 600% efficient.
He has promised that he always keeps his word and tells the truth
He has promised it will all be happening soon (over two years ago)
He has promised that he's leaving the forum and won't be back

If anyone thinks of any other broken promises please post them.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1202 on:** February 22, 2014, 04:38:25 PM »

I like the one he made in the PowerPoint presentation, where Travis and someone named Kevan Riley, PE (405-694-7441), promised prospective investors that he would put a 50 kW "field unit" generating plant at Trinity Baptist Church within three months of getting funded. I believe this PowerPoint demo was first presented even before Travis opened his first thread here. According to data in the file it was made in November of 2010.

(those who are attempting to analyse the workings of Travis's devices should take a close look at the description in this ppt presentation)

So what's the hangup, Mister Wayne Travis? Where's the 50 kW field unit, groaning away, providing all the electrical power the church needs and then some, for no input cost? I know where, and so do you. It exists only in your fantasy "business plan" and your presentations to prospective investors. There is no such thing in reality. Why hasn't it been built? I know why, and so do you. You need to spend your money on Red Herrings so that your investors won't notice that your Zeds can't power themselves and in fact need lots of external power to produce any effects at all.

Grimer · « **Reply #1203 on:** February 22, 2014, 05:05:52 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 06:19:51 AM

No, it certainly cannot, and you cannot provide any evidence for your claim.

I'm not saying his system works. I would be surprised if it did especially as money is involved - always a bad sign.

I'm saying that there is no intrinsic reason why a hydraulic system should not work

MarkE · « **Reply #1204 on:** February 22, 2014, 05:10:48 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 04:38:25 PM

I like the one he made in the PowerPoint presentation, where Travis and someone named Kevan Riley, PE (405-694-7441), promised prospective investors that he would put a 50 kW "field unit" generating plant at Trinity Baptist Church within three months of getting funded. I believe this PowerPoint demo was first presented even before Travis opened his first thread here. According to data in the file it was made in November of 2010.

(those who are attempting to analyse the workings of Travis's devices should take a close look at the description in this ppt presentation)

So what's the hangup, Mister Wayne Travis? Where's the 50 kW field unit, groaning away, providing all the electrical power the church needs and then some, for no input cost? I know where, and so do you. It exists only in your fantasy "business plan" and your presentations to prospective investors. There is no such thing in reality. Why hasn't it been built? I know why, and so do you. You need to spend your money on Red Herrings so that your investors won't notice that your Zeds can't power themselves and in fact need lots of external power to produce any effects at all.

I hope Mr. Riley's Errors and Omissions insurance is paid up.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1205 on:** February 22, 2014, 05:29:27 PM »

Yes, I've pointed out that laughable misrepresentation of reality in Slide 26 before. I even made a video demonstration refuting it, as if that were really necessary. I'd love to hear the narration that must have accompanied that slide when the presentation was made to the prospective investors. Maybe that's why none of them "bit" or chose to invest in Travis at the time.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1206 on:** February 22, 2014, 05:32:11 PM »

Quote from: Grimer on February 22, 2014, 05:05:52 PM

I'm not saying his system works. I would be surprised if it did especially as money is involved - always a bad sign.

Yes, you have said that Keenie's system works. But it does not.

Quote

I'm saying that there is no intrinsic reason why a hydraulic system should not work

Yes, there is an intrinsic reason why a hydraulic free energy system should not work, and you cannot describe one that does.

MileHigh · « **Reply #1207 on:** February 22, 2014, 05:59:18 PM »

That PowerPoint presentation could probably be used as evidence against Wayne in a criminal trial. It's the "Russian Doll" pitch used to bamboozle gullible investors. An expert witness for the state could trash it with their eyes closed.

I would _love_ to see this guy get taken down. What goes without saying is that the whole "good Christian man of high moral values" shtick is all part of the game.

There is this creepy little-known Peter Fonda movie called "Split Image" that reminds me of Wayne.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084714/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_67
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_Image_%28film%29
http://www.allmovie.com/movie/split-image-v46155/review

Quote

Ted Kotcheff's film about a teenaged Olympic prospect who joins a cult takes an interestingly contrarian stand toward the period's conventional wisdom on the subject. The late '70s and '80s saw the rise of a wave of mostly fraudulent pseudo-religious organizations, which preyed on the naïveté and confusion of young people and existed primarily to separate those they solicited from their money. Kotcheff's film adds complexity to the stereotyped situation: The cult inductee (Michael O'Keefe) is something of a trophy son to his overly ambitious parents (Brian Dennehy and Elizabeth Ashley) and the group he joins is in most ways indistinguishable from a genuine religious organization. As many others did during this era, they call in a deprogrammer (James Woods) whose job is to return their son to them. This character turns out to be an unsettling hybrid of used car salesman and Marine drill sergeant and he takes the film in an unexpected direction. The film asks intriguing questions about the relative values of a dedicated, selfless life, and one of more normal pursuits, while ironically noting the brainwashing aspects of even the most benign religious groups. Woods gives a blistering performance as the fascist mercenary, a cure more dangerous than the ostensible disease. The stellar cast also includes Peter Fonda and Peter Horton.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #1208 on:** February 22, 2014, 06:46:19 PM »

Webby:

It's time to stop this ridiculous nonsense right now and be a man. You are telling us that you can't even make a presentation that is as organized and coherent as a kid's presentation on on how a flower grows in Grade 3 Show and Tell?

It's just totally ridiculous. I am assuming that you are a gown man and yet you seemingly can't comprehend how ridiculous you look. You have been asked repeatedly to show some kind of step-by-step process with diagrams and energy balances per step with calculations and descriptions of what is supposed to be taking place in each step. Your brain can't process that?

This is surreal and ridiculous and just the fact that the "Brain" endorsed your Tupperware party shows how freaky and crazy this whole story is. Personally, I would not bother trying to engage with you when you act like this. And if you feel that you are being "genuine" it just plays into how surreal and ridiculous this whole sham really is.

Rant off.

MileHigh

MarkE · « **Reply #1209 on:** February 22, 2014, 06:47:24 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 06:26:55 PM

All conditions are known, but this time I raised the whole system up so it is between 0 and 165mm and I used the actual pa value for those pressures.

(1.767145868×15)−(1.590375518×15)= 2.65155525cc full down volume

1.590375518×1.5= 2.385563277cc added volume for lift

2.385563277+2.65155525= 5.037118527cc total added volume

1.767145868×1.5 = 2.650718802cc full upper volume after lift.

101325 pa at 0 depth 0

101476 pa at 15mm 151

102079 pa at 75mm 754

102154 pa at 82.5mm 829

102230 pa at 90mm 905

102833 pa at 150mm 1508

102984 pa at 165mm 1659

102908.5 pa at midpoint 1583.5 150-165
102230 pa at midpoint 905 15-165
101400.5 pa at midpoint 75.5 0-15
102079 pa at midpoint 754 0-150

2.385563277cc×102908.5pa = 245494.738491154 added for lift step
2.65155525cc×102230pa = 271068.4932075 added for buoyant step

271068.4932075+245494.738491154 = 516563.231698654 total cost for lift

2.385563277cc×101400.5pa = 241897.309069438 air recovery
245494.738491154−241897.309069438 = 3597.429421716 loss

2.65155525cc×102079pa = 270668.10836475 air recovery
271068.4932075−270668.10836475 = 400.38484275 loss

2.650718802cc×102833pa = 272581.366566066 load recovery

272581.366566066+241897.309069438+270668.10836475 = 785146.784000254

785146.784000254−516563.231698654 = 268583.5523016 profit

Webby since this is several times through for you, it would seem that you do not know how to perform an energy balance analysis. You need to show specific states. You need to state and/or show what process you believe takes you from one state to another. For example: You could say that you are going to only recognize three states: A starting state where one cylinder is "charged" in the up position and the other is in the down position with the payload weight on it, a second state where all the "air" has been transferred from one cylinder to the other, resulting in both cylinders being raised and you remove the payload. And a third state where you have returned the now "uncharged" cylinder to its lowered position and placed a new payload weight over that cylinder. Under such a representation, you would then need to show how you get between the first and second state, IE what process do you execute, and how you account for energy that you need to add, and/or get to remove. Then you need to do the same for the transition from the second state to the third state.

MarkE · « **Reply #1210 on:** February 22, 2014, 06:50:38 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on February 22, 2014, 05:59:18 PM

That PowerPoint presentation could probably be used as evidence against Wayne in a criminal trial. It's the "Russian Doll" pitch used to bamboozle gullible investors. An expert witness for the state could trash it with their eyes closed.
...

MileHigh

A professional engineer is responsible for any serious omissions or errors that cause harm. Investors who relied upon the representations or similar ones later made by Kevan Riley can sue him for their losses.

MarkE · « **Reply #1211 on:** February 22, 2014, 09:16:25 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 07:12:22 PM

Day 6 MarkE.

1.767145868×1.5 = 2.650718802cc

1.767145868 surface area cylinder

0.883572934 surface area fill @ 50%

(1.767145868×15)−(0.883572934×15) = 13.25359401cc buoyant fill volume
13.25359401cc×102230pa = 1354914.9156423

0.883572934×1.5 = 1.325359401cc volume add for lift
1.325359401cc×102908.5pa = 136390.747917808

1354914.9156423+136390.747917808 = 1491305.663560108 total cost

13.25359401cc×102079pa = 1352913.62294679
1354914.9156423−1352913.62294679 = 2001.29269551 loss

1.325359401cc×101400.5pa = 134392.1059411
136390.747917808−134392.1059411 = 1998.641976708 loss

2.650718802cc×102833pa = 272581.366566066 load recovery

272581.366566066+134392.1059411+1352913.62294679 = 1759887.095453956

1759887.095453956−1491305.663560108 = 268581.431893848 profit

268583.5523016 profit 268581.431893848 profit "whack-a-mole" comparison

I have never claimed to be an engineer,, so take it and place it in what ever format you feel is required, since we all understand what the steps are,,

Just in case how about this.

Step one empty cylinder
Step two filled to neutral buoyancy with air
Step three added air for lift
Step four remove air after lift and recover energy
Step five recover payload energy

What out of this sequence is NOT understood.

Webby you are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper. I have explained to you the steps needed to perform an energy balance. The simpler that you declare the task while still failing miserably to perform it, the more question you draw to your skills.

powercat · « **Reply #1212 on:** February 22, 2014, 10:23:40 PM »

Thanks TK I have added it to the list

Wayne Travis
He has promised verification
He has promised newspaper coverage on his discovery
He has promised scientific journals coverage
He has promised a production line
He has promised open sourcing
He has promised run data
He has promised simple physics can show how this device works
He has promised that he has already given out the information required.(But you must look properly)
He has promised that his optimized system is over 600% efficient.
He has promised that he always keeps his word and tells the truth
He has promised it will all be happening soon (over two years ago)
He has promised that he's leaving the forum and won't be back
He has promised a 50 kW "field unit" at Trinity Baptist Church, within 3 months of funded.(over 3 years ago)

@ Any more, please post

MarkE · « **Reply #1213 on:** February 22, 2014, 10:43:59 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 09:45:03 PM

Right MarkE,

Lets see,, you can not speak against the numbers so you are going to speak against the method that they have been delivered.

Why don't you take the 2 scenarios I have solved for and make your own presentation of them, show me how it is done, and then show me how somehow in the middle of doing that the numbers do not stay the same. Show me that the cost to lift is more and the energy left is less.

Webby the numbers do not mean anything at all until you assign them based on some premises. Anyone can throw numbers at a page all day long. It is up to you to show the physical basis for the numbers that you assign. It is not for anyone else to second guess what you may or may not be thinking: right, wrong, or indifferent.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1214 on:** February 22, 2014, 11:57:46 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 07:12:22 PM

Day 6 MarkE.

1.767145868×1.5 = 2.650718802cc

What exactly do these numbers represent?

Quote

1.767145868 surface area cylinder

Is this the total surface area of a cylinder? Or what?

Quote

0.883572934 surface area fill @ 50%

0.8835.... is indeed 50 percent of 1.7671.... but how does this relate to "surface area fill @ 50%"? If you fill a cylinder 50 percent full, its ends will still have the same surface area as before... but if you are considering the entire surface area of a cylinder, filling it half full does _not_ reduce the surface area by 50 percent.

Let's stop here so you can clear up my questions above before I proceed further. And please PLEASE look up "significant digits" in WIKI or your other favorite reference.

Quote

(1.767145868×15)−(0.883572934×15) = 13.25359401cc buoyant fill volume
13.25359401cc×102230pa = 1354914.9156423

Flag this for the next question: why are you now multiplying by 15, when your earlier volume (?) computation used 1.5? What does the "15" value represent, what are its units, where is it on a sketch?

Quote

0.883572934×1.5 = 1.325359401cc volume add for lift
1.325359401cc×102908.5pa = 136390.747917808

1354914.9156423+136390.747917808 = 1491305.663560108 total cost

13.25359401cc×102079pa = 1352913.62294679
1354914.9156423−1352913.62294679 = 2001.29269551 loss

1.325359401cc×101400.5pa = 134392.1059411
136390.747917808−134392.1059411 = 1998.641976708 loss

2.650718802cc×102833pa = 272581.366566066 load recovery

272581.366566066+134392.1059411+1352913.62294679 = 1759887.095453956

1759887.095453956−1491305.663560108 = 268581.431893848 profit

268583.5523016 profit 268581.431893848 profit "whack-a-mole" comparison

I have never claimed to be an engineer,, so take it and place it in what ever format you feel is required, since we all understand what the steps are,,

Just in case how about this.

Step one empty cylinder
Step two filled to neutral buoyancy with air
Step three added air for lift
Step four remove air after lift and recover energy
Step five recover payload energy

What out of this sequence is NOT understood.

News:

User Menu