Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: nfeijo on May 03, 2013, 04:03:04 PM

Title: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on May 03, 2013, 04:03:04 PM
People in Porto Alegre, Brazil, are trying to build one big gravity contraption. Check at http://www.rarenergia.com.br/. Most of it is in Portuguese, but there is something in English.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Groundloop on May 03, 2013, 04:53:55 PM
You can say what you want, but these guys are thinking BIG. :-)

SNIP:
"We will build in Porto Alegre, at Av. Patria, 195 - a power generator that started by a
mechanic system, and exclusively powered by the gravity force.
It will be the first equipment with this technology in the world.
We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Av. Pedro
Ivo,933. The mechanic system was created under a special conception, to pick up and
take the energy contained in the planet gravity, at any moment and place, without
pollution or heat. Technology was completely developed by our Company and consists
in a continuos movement with some extra energy that can be taken, in a continuous
and perpetual mechanic movement. This equipment is similar to a combustion engine,
where a set of wheights represent the fuel and pistons that activate assemblies connected
to a crankshaft. Another similar equipment will be built in the U.S.A. at the Incobrasa
Industries Ltd plant, a Company of the group, located in Gilman, IL. Both equipment
are demonstration models with capacity to generate 30 KW, and will be ready in the
middle of the next year. The technique allows the building of great power generators.
RAR Energia Ltda."
END SNIP.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on May 03, 2013, 04:53:56 PM
http://patent.ipexl.com/topic/Reciprocating_piston_cylinder_head_cover_having_an_integrated_fluid_exchange_rotary_disc_valve_1.html
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on May 03, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
Where's the working prototype, in a YouTube video? It can't possibly be real unless there's a YouTube video of it working. And making lots of noise, from the looks of things.


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on May 03, 2013, 05:00:24 PM
My goodness. It is patented. Hard to believe.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8100103.PN.&OS=PN/8100103&RS=PN/8100103
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Groundloop on May 03, 2013, 05:00:49 PM
Where's the working prototype, in a YouTube video? It can't possibly be real unless there's a YouTube video of it working. And making lots of noise, from the looks of things.

TK,

I bet a dollar that you are impressed with the size of that thing. :-)

GL.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on May 03, 2013, 07:08:57 PM
You can say what you want, but these guys are thinking BIG. :-)


Or not thinking at all...


Vidar
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: e2matrix on May 03, 2013, 07:43:09 PM
Fascinating!   I have to believe that anyone putting that much money into a huge construction like that has down their homework and have built smaller working prototypes.  It resembles something I saw one time at EF and had briefly discussed with member Armagdgn03. 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: gyro on May 03, 2013, 08:28:52 PM
Try typing the url into Google, then click on the result and have it translate to english. Worked for me.
This is one big machine to be building if you did not know if it was going to work or not.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on May 03, 2013, 08:34:54 PM
It is possible that investors were somehow convinced enough to put money in to building this big device........more evidence is needed to prove this is not just another scam......looking forward to the video if one ever turns up ;D
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: camelherder49 on May 04, 2013, 12:00:40 AM
I just have to ask!!

If this invention works, what is the fuel that it uses
to continually rotate??
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on May 04, 2013, 12:16:01 AM
I just have to ask!!

If this invention works, what is the fuel that it uses
to continually rotate??


Weights. It's a gravity engine, so they have to feed it with weights.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: camelherder49 on May 04, 2013, 01:36:22 AM
What I actually meant by that question was that when
someone mentioned gravity being a fuel source the
topic went ballistic.  Weight by itself will power nothing.
Whatever causes the weight to move would have to be
the fuel.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on May 04, 2013, 01:40:44 AM
Of course you have to lift the weights first. But that's just a minor detail. You can also buy pre-lifted weights, but not in the basement.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on May 04, 2013, 09:27:43 AM
TK,

I bet a dollar that you are impressed with the size of that thing. :-)

GL.

I am impressed, all right, by the size and the evident cost. One of those bearing-arm assemblies is undoubtedly worth more than my automobile.

But my automobile starts right up when I turn the key, and runs for as long as it has gasoline in the tank.


If I had a working prototype of this device I'd certainly make a YouTube video of it running. Wouldn't you?  "But the smaller ones only turned a few turns, and the bigger ones turned a few more turns, and by making a graph we can see that if we make a _really_ big one, it will keep on turning and turning and turning".... so forget about the YT vid of a running small prototype, let's just go ahead and build the big one, since the theory, and the data from the smaller ones, indicate that when it's over a certain size it will start running on its own.


Notice how confident the builders themselves are? There is no apparent provision for a brake or RPM limiter. Of course maybe those parts haven't been installed yet.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on May 04, 2013, 09:29:18 AM
Of course you have to lift the weights first. But that's just a minor detail. You can also buy pre-lifted weights, but not in the basement.

LOL...  ;D
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Groundloop on May 04, 2013, 10:41:36 AM
I am impressed, all right, by the size and the evident cost. One of those bearing-arm assemblies is undoubtedly worth more than my automobile.

But my automobile starts right up when I turn the key, and runs for as long as it has gasoline in the tank.


If I had a working prototype of this device I'd certainly make a YouTube video of it running. Wouldn't you?  "But the smaller ones only turned a few turns, and the bigger ones turned a few more turns, and by making a graph we can see that if we make a _really_ big one, it will keep on turning and turning and turning".... so forget about the YT vid of a running small prototype, let's just go ahead and build the big one, since the theory, and the data from the smaller ones, indicate that when it's over a certain size it will start running on its own.


Notice how confident the builders themselves are? There is no apparent provision for a brake or RPM limiter. Of course maybe those parts haven't been installed yet.

TK,

I have looked carefully at the images, and so far all I see is linear rocker arms that convert a linear movement
to a rotary movement on the axle, 16 of them situated at every 22,5 degrees around the axle. I agree with you that
the machine must cost a fortune. :-)

GL.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on May 04, 2013, 09:55:04 PM
Just an idea:

May be it is just a big soybean processing machine and they are pulling everybody's leg? Some sort of advertising stunt?

They say that two machines are built, one in the US and one in Brasil. Also makes sense in case these are soybean processing machines?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:RAR_Energia_Ltda_Gravity_Motor (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:RAR_Energia_Ltda_Gravity_Motor)
http://www.incobrasa.com/pictures_and_media/pictures.html (http://www.incobrasa.com/pictures_and_media/pictures.html)

If they are serious about an OU attempt, it will be the biggest folly I have seen so far in OU forums. Great show!

Not so fast: how big a folly is this http://www.iter.org/mach (http://www.iter.org/mach) ? 13 billion Euros ! http://www.iter.org/factsfigures (http://www.iter.org/factsfigures)

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on May 05, 2013, 05:18:49 PM
What I actually meant by that question was that when
someone mentioned gravity being a fuel source the
topic went ballistic.  Weight by itself will power nothing.
Whatever causes the weight to move would have to be
the fuel.
You're right about weights and gravity. This machine (If it is suppose to be a gravity engine) it will not work as a solely gravity based one.
However, if the machine is big enough, the rotation of the earth might sufficiently offset something during operation so it actually works (Harnessing the coriolis effect). I don't know. Just a thought.


Vidar
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 07, 2013, 04:40:58 AM
Item # 25 quoted from the patent: (Bold type added by me.)

"25. A fluid compressor comprising: a cylinder having a central axis; an axially reciprocating piston housed within the cylinder;  and a cylinder head cover over the cylinder, the cylinder head cover comprising: a first plate having first and second opposite surfaces, a first and second channel in a first surface of the first plate, wherein the first and second channels extend in the first surface and do not extend in the second surface, and the channels merge together within the plate at a first opening extending at last into the second surface of the first plate;  a second plate over the first plate, the second plate having a pair of bores therethrough each aligned with one of the first and second channels in the first plate;  a fourth plate over the second plate forming a cavity between the second and fourth plates;  a third plate rotatably disposed between the second and fourth plates, the third plate having a pair of spaced bores therethrough for sequentially aligning with one of the pair of bores through the second plate, wherein the fourth plate has a pair of spaced bores therethrough aligned with the bores through the second plate, wherein during a full rotation of the third plate each bore through the third plate aligns with each bore through the second and fourth plates;  and an axle supporting the third plate, the axle having an upper bearing and a lower bearing, the upper bearing being supported in a recess in the fourth plate and the lower bearing being supported in a recess in the second plate. "

Fluid compressor?  I was taught that fluids can NOT be compressed which is the entire principle behind hydraulics?  Physics teaches us that there is no such thing as a fluid compressor.

What gives?

Bill
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Ghost on May 07, 2013, 05:35:15 AM
Question

Can you compress a liquid (water)?

Asked by: Guy Matthews

Answer

The answer is yes, You can compress water, or almost any material. However, it requires a great deal of pressure to accomplish a little compression. For that reason, liquids and solids are sometimes referred to as being incompressible.

To understand what happens, remember that all matter is composed of a collection of atoms. Even though matter seems to be very solid, in actuality, the atoms are relative far apart, and matter is mostly empty space. However, due to the forces between the molecules, they strongly resist being pressed closer together, but they can be. You probably have experienced compressing something as hard as steel. Have you ever bounced a steel ball bearing off a sidewalk? When you do that, the 'bounce' is due to compressing the steel ball, just a tiny little spot that comes into contact with the sidewalk. It compresses and then springs back, causing the bounce.

The water at the bottom of the ocean is compressed by the weight of the water above it all the way to the surface, and is more dense than the water at the surface.

A consequence of compressing a fluid is that the viscosity, that is the resistance of the fluid to flow, also increases as the density increases. This is because the atoms are forced closer together, and thus cannot slip by each other as easily as they can when the fluid is at atmospheric pressure.

Answered by: David L. Alexander
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae15.cfm
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Ghost on May 07, 2013, 05:53:44 AM
hmm, made me look this up:
differnce between fluid and liquid.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828065523AAC94FR
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 07, 2013, 07:27:13 AM
Ghost:

Wow, I learn something new every day it seems.  I am still not convinced that his compressor is really able to compress the "fluid" unless he is using a gas, which, by some definitions from your link is considered a fluid.  Now I am really confused.

Bill
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on May 07, 2013, 11:20:00 AM
Pirate,

I think I posted the wrong patent. I found five patents in the name of the inventor and picked up one of them. I am afraid I got the wrong one.

I am sorry. :(
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on May 07, 2013, 09:14:00 PM
My guess, the relevant patent is MX2012002607:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20120402&CC=MX&NR=2012002607A&KC=A (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20120402&CC=MX&NR=2012002607A&KC=A)
(on the left side of the page is a menu which gives access to the different parts of the patent application)

Corresponding US-Patent US2011209569 is attached as PDF-file:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110901&CC=US&NR=2011209569A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110901&CC=US&NR=2011209569A1&KC=A1)

A power multiplier lever system having a power multiplier lever system that provides an increase of mechanical power generated by the motor, thereby giving greater power to the piston, which makes air compression possible without needing to use a large quantity of mechanical power, comprised by levers, wheels, connectors and pistons. The wheels and levers are positioned at distinct angles which operate as a power multiplier when activated. The axle power/torque is multiplied from the power generating source due to the angles made by the levers position. Two wheels are connected directly to the motor axle and are also connected to the first levers. The last pair of levers is connected to the pistons.


Remark: The aim is to compress air with a piston. The piston is pushed with a lever system which generates the miracle power (in case you want to belive that). The lever system itself is driven by a conventional electric motor. The lever system is supposed to enhance the power of the conventional electric motor in a miraculous way.

The lever system driven by the electric motor will compress air with the piston. But where is the miracle or the increas of power? With a lever one can move a big weight a short distance by moving a smaller weight a long distance, but the product "weight * distance" is the same, no power increase!

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Groundloop on May 07, 2013, 10:45:38 PM
:-)
.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 08, 2013, 02:07:07 AM
Pirate,

I think I posted the wrong patent. I found five patents in the name of the inventor and picked up one of them. I am afraid I got the wrong one.

I am sorry. :(

No problem, I didn't even notice.

Conrad:

I agree about the leverage result being the same.

Groundloop:

OK, that explains it...I understand now, ha ha.

Bill
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Ghost on May 08, 2013, 02:40:06 AM
It would be nice if someone can replicate this in Working Model 2D or some kind of physics simulation program.
Things are becoming a little bit more clearer now and it seems like this system doesn't have to be huge in size to work.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on May 10, 2013, 02:59:42 PM
Wow! Nice build, does it work? :)

The patent for power multiplier reminds me of the stone crushers, a toggle joint with an extra arm attached.

"When the mechanism is reaching its toggle position, a small input torque can generate an extremely large output torque, where its mechanical advantage is being infinitely maximal. At such situation, the mechanism is called a toggle mechanism. The toggle mechanisms can be used in the situation when one needs to output large force subject to a short stroke, for example, the stone crushers and mechanical presses, etc."

http://www.mindat.org/glossary/toggle_joint
http://acmcf.me.ncku.edu.tw/model/page/model/ntut/D01.htm

So in order to make the short output stroke useful to drive the shaft they have to build massive.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on May 12, 2013, 06:41:16 AM
I bet you your next welfare check it doesn't work. care to double it? think you can fool mother nature using macro physics? lets triple it. what do you say? I will own your debit card.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on May 12, 2013, 06:43:30 AM
:-)
.

ground loop is on the money here. I love that picture. (perfect)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on May 14, 2013, 03:38:33 AM
Last one.(http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem29a.JPG)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on May 14, 2013, 04:14:33 PM
Hi,
  this has got to be a joke. Really it's part of a corned beef canning pant and someone's having us on.
There wouldn't be enough gravity in that thing to charge a mobile phone.
                                                                                   John.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on May 14, 2013, 07:44:23 PM
Interesting picture looking at what the crane is connected to ? It looks like more components are being added  ;D
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on May 14, 2013, 10:51:26 PM
This is the beginning of the third and last phase. ::)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on May 15, 2013, 03:12:51 AM
This is the beginning of the third and last phase. ::)


That is great news......so you can explain to everyone how the device works ? ?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on May 15, 2013, 04:05:44 AM
Me ? Why me ? I just translated what is written in the photo. You got the wrong man. I even do not believe a contraption like this can work.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on May 19, 2013, 01:19:14 AM
Last one.(http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem29a.JPG)
Why are the man inside the crane "Photoshopped" in place. The appearence of him looks very fake...


That said, potential energy from weights cannot deliver more energy than the potential allows. So this "generator" is probably something very different... Anyways, it is not going to work as a generator that is based on only gravity.


Vidar
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on May 19, 2013, 01:32:49 AM
hmm, made me look this up:
differnce between fluid and liquid.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828065523AAC94FR (http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828065523AAC94FR)
Did you know that glass is a fluid, and not a solid material?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Ghost on May 19, 2013, 08:32:23 AM
Did you know that glass is a fluid, and not a solid material?
no i didn't know.
interesting.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Ghost on May 19, 2013, 07:29:55 PM
weren't they going to show this machine working this month?

news?

or is it going be postponed like everyone else whenever there is a "break through" and will disappear never to be heard from again.

NEWS?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: iacob alex on May 24, 2013, 05:26:17 PM
.....uses the "legs" (same articulated mechanism ) ,as you can see at :


  www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAVv0uM0UvI


  .....but not for walking.


    Al_ex
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on May 25, 2013, 10:39:57 AM
Look at this beautiful contraption http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem35a.JPG , it is progressing.

This is putting your money where your mouth is. What determination, what believe in an idea, what grand scheme!

If you throw money away, that is the way to go. It deserves a place in the history books.

This is either a clever marketing stunt, or they go all the way to loony town, singing and dancing on the way.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: iacob alex on May 25, 2013, 04:24:36 PM
  Hi !
I think that we must take into consideration the possibility to play a diversity of trajectories , when we manipulate certains articulated mechanisms.


Let's take a look at :  www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8MOriH5QKc


and here especially at  (6:42 - 6:56 ).


Rarenergia can use some paired  "heavy points" , so to play a continuous unbalance , due to gravity fall and inertia ,only ?


Here is the main point , in my opinion...


Personally . I wish them success !
    Al_ex
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: smwerning on May 25, 2013, 11:30:55 PM
Did you know that glass is a fluid, and not a solid material?

Nope! Glass is an amorphous solid.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: iacob alex on May 29, 2013, 11:21:52 PM
.....seems to be , no more than  an enlarged Bessler's Wheel , unfolded on a crankshaft .


The "basics" you can find at :

     www.evert.de/eft784e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft784e.htm)


       Al_ex
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: iacob alex on May 31, 2013, 08:27:16 PM
.....seems to have as the "main actors", the "heavy points" (black semicircular spare parts , you can see at  www.rarenergia.com.br (http://www.rarenergia.com.br). and there "foto oficial No35"/24-05-2013 ).
The same spare parts , are intended to play at : http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gravity_Motors (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gravity_Motors)  ,then search "Patents"/Gravity powered rotational machine and method , especially Fig.12.
The similarity : the aim to obtain self-motion due to a continuous gravity unbalance.
The difference : the trajectories of the "heavy points" face to fulcrum/crankshaft .
The feasibility : ...let's see their practical tests.
     Al_ex
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on June 11, 2013, 03:11:57 AM
Now in the USA.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on June 11, 2013, 12:19:20 PM
Between 24-05-2013 (Foto n° 35) and 05-06-2013 (Foto n° 37) some parts (lower left corner of the machine) have been removed (cut off). See the attached picture and at http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/).

Design changes on the fly?

Very bold to start construction of the second machine before the first one is running!

Someone has money to spend. Kind of boring to spend money on a grand house or on a trophy wife. Why not spend it on a OU machine?

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on June 11, 2013, 05:55:25 PM
It started off looking reasonably simple, but as time has gone by and they have added more components it's now looking quite complicated, it kind of reminds me of this one  ;D  not as big but complicated nevertheless
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: vince on June 11, 2013, 06:51:02 PM
Must be something to this !  Check out a local release from  Gillman Illinois.


http://wglt.org/wireready/news/2013/02/00128_GravityGeneratorWeb_105637.shtml[/size]
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on June 11, 2013, 07:45:51 PM
Must be something to this !  Check out a local release from  Gillman Illinois.


http://wglt.org/wireready/news/2013/02/00128_GravityGeneratorWeb_105637.shtml (http://wglt.org/wireready/news/2013/02/00128_GravityGeneratorWeb_105637.shtml)[/size]

@vince: Nice find, so, they really seem to mean it?

I am impressed. The amount of money spent seems to be huge, which makes it an interesting story to follow.

What astonishes me most is that the "OU attempt" is in the field of "mechanics" which according to my unimportant opinion is one of most thoroughly understood areas in science.

If there is something behind that machine (more than a very costly delusion or deception), we will all say "why did we not think of that!".

May be Johann Bessler has reincarnated in Brazil and builds a 21st century version of his wheel  ;) . Let's hope he is not as paranoid as he was in his former life  ;D . (Yes, stupid joke, sorry.)

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MileHigh on June 12, 2013, 12:12:00 AM
I used to joke that the thing was a giant slicer for slicing giant loaves of bread.   Perhaps it is actually a giant soybean crusher for the first stage in processing soybeans.  If that's true then perhaps it's just a prank.  Somebody is taking pictures of a giant soybean crusher being built and calling it a free energy machine.

Strange that there is no smaller-scale working prototype for the alleged free energy machine.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: hoptoad on June 12, 2013, 11:55:47 AM
Nope! Glass is an amorphous solid.

As always, it depends on who you ask, and what your definition of solid or liquid is.

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/glass.htm

Cheers
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on June 16, 2013, 02:20:28 AM
Just arrived.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: AB Hammer on June 22, 2013, 02:48:47 PM
Out of all this construction of this massive device. You would think a video of a working prototype would have been shown as proof.  :o

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on June 22, 2013, 06:26:44 PM
Look at these strange "shields" (photo official n° 39, Reply #55) in the middle foreground (one pair for each "arm").

One would not want to catch or guide a steel bar with that, it would cause damage. But what one could catch and guide are plants which are cut to size, or already small plant material which kind of flows into the machine to be crushed.

I follow MileHigh's reasoning that it is indeed a real machine, but it will be driven by a conventional motor and will process something. Two identical machines are built (one in Brazil, the other in the US) and they do conventional stuff.

The whole thing is a marketing stunt. All other explanations lead to unreal ramifications: Huge amount of money spent, no word of a working prototype, two machines, no real useful information, not even boasts (just this one claim of being driven by gravity without further hints). Well, if a weight falls, it is exclusively driven by gravity, as long as one does not talk about how the weight was lifted.

An ax splitting wood is driven by gravity as long as you disregard the upwards movement before letting the ax fall.

If it is an attempt of using gravity as a continuous source of energy it is the biggest and boldest try I have ever heard of.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on June 23, 2013, 11:22:29 AM
Do you guys still believe that this "corn-machine" is an attempt to build an over unity generator?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on July 07, 2013, 07:32:43 PM
Just arrived.


For the latest photo (No.40) go to [size=78%]http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)[/size] and scroll to the bottom of the very long page.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: infringer on July 08, 2013, 06:24:41 AM
Hrmmm strange funny you don't hear anything about it in the news just silence.

If this works ..... I might have to take a trip out to IL to go visit this generator...
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on July 09, 2013, 09:26:44 PM
Hrmmm strange funny you don't hear anything about it in the news just silence.


Possible reasons,


1- Gravity cannot do work (For some reason it wont)
2- This is a corn or bean squeezing thing that has nothing to do with overunity or gravity.
3- It is finally powered with an electric motor or some engine. Not exactly a reason for big head lines...
4- A prime-stupid wealthy engineer overlooked something essensial when he designed an over unity machine.
5- Because of 4, this person has been digging a very deep hole in the ground - for himself.
6- One OU member has just photoshopped photos of a machine that looks like a gravity machine.


Vidar
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: markdansie on July 10, 2013, 08:12:54 AM
I like number 4 as most likely.
It can always be used as a work of mechanical art.
Mark
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: lumen on July 10, 2013, 03:52:58 PM
I agree, #4.
It looks like the machine is changing in design, n37 to n39.
 
If it was some plant processor, it seems the design would be established, but now that the "Gravity" machine does not work, they are making changes.
 
 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: vince on July 10, 2013, 04:10:32 PM
It seems we may not see any more progression on this machine no matter what it is. Ever since Sterling from Peswicki contacted them regarding a visit by him, and offered his services for possible investors or involvement in their project it appears they promptly shutdown any more posting on the progress.
I was looking forward to seeing what became of this. Judging from the money and work that was being done on their machine I really doubt they needed new investors or participants in their project (no matter what it turned out to be)






Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on July 10, 2013, 05:30:03 PM
...
What astonishes me most is that the "OU attempt" is in the field of "mechanics" which according to my unimportant opinion is one of most thoroughly understood areas in science.
...



I thought the properties of water must be "one of the most thoroughly understood areas in science" until I discovered the 4th, 8th and 12th power laws governing the vapour pressure of water; also the 6th power law governing the absolute pressure vs volume relation for water.


http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html)


It would be difficult to think of a more important liquid to mankind than water. After all, our bodies are mainly water.


There's a very apposite quote on people's failure to revise ideas in science by a lady philosopher. I'll have to see if I can find it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on July 12, 2013, 07:53:22 AM

It's an offset gyro situation.


In effect you have two angular conservations of momentum going on. One in the vertical plane and one in the horizontal plane. Gravity is acting on the one in the vertical plane just as it does with the offset gyro.


This means that the energy being generated is one derivative higher than Jerk, i.e. Snap. No wonder nobody's found it till now.


To get a feeling of what's going on imagine an offset gyro which is happily precessing around its tower. Now stop its precession. What happens? The gyro whips up doesn't it. Now supposing that whip up is prevented by a crank on a shaft. then the gyro will apply a force to that crank which will turn that crank-shaft an increment. That's RAR.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on July 24, 2013, 02:20:45 PM
It's an offset gyro situation.


In effect you have two angular conservations of momentum going on. One in the vertical plane and one in the horizontal plane. Gravity is acting on the one in the vertical plane just as it does with the offset gyro.


This means that the energy being generated is one derivative higher than Jerk, i.e. Snap. No wonder nobody's found it till now.


To get a feeling of what's going on imagine an offset gyro which is happily precessing around its tower. Now stop its precession. What happens? The gyro whips up doesn't it. Now supposing that whip up is prevented by a crank on a shaft. then the gyro will apply a force to that crank which will turn that crank-shaft an increment. That's RAR.
What you are describing reminds me of a power ball. I have one. Funny to play with. Ofcourse (At least I assume) that a very big power ball can be powered by the earth rotation. However, it takes 24 hours on one revolution...that might cause some practical challenges.


Vidar
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on July 29, 2013, 05:08:52 PM

The following four post are from another forum. Since the subject of the offset gyro has come up I thought I would reposte them here.


Quote
[cite]Posted By: Grimer[/cite]
Quote
[cite]Posted By: Grimer[/cite]The Eric GraviMobil can be simulated with a VentoMobil moving vertically.


A vertical alpha-atmosphere wind blows down the face of a sheer cliff.


Vertical rack rails are attached to the cliff and the VentoMobil is provided with pinion wheels running on the rack rails.


When pointed into the wind the Ventomobil will climb steadily up the cliff.


Suppose now that the pinion wheels of the Ventomobile come to breaks in the rack.


The Ventomobil will no longer be able to climb and will reach an equilibrium with the vertical wind. It will hang, apparently weightless, just as the GraviMobil on a tower hangs. We know of course that the Ventomobil equilibrium is a dynamic equilibrium, the wind driving the sails which in turn are providing torque to the pinions. The full weight of the Ventomobil is taken by the racks in the same way that the full weight of the offset gyro is taken by the tower.


Now it will be helpful to go further and have the GraviMobil actually driving up into the wind (and I will explain how to do this later) but that is not necessary for the recognition that GraviMobil is driving against the gravity wind and suspended against gravity by this drive just as the Ventomobil is with the atmospheric wind.


So Laithwaite is vindicated.


How on earth has such an important insight been missed?


The same way that the 6th power equation of state for water was missed.


By an inadequately complex model of behaviour. Galbraith's pin joints instead of moment distribution.


In the case of water no-one saw it in terms of two phase behaviour with one phase in tension, the other in compression. I saw it because I came from a background of research into the properties of clays where that mechanism is obvious.
Because people find it difficult to appreciate the dynamic equilibrium of a offset gyro or a magnet sticking to a fridge it is best to move on to an example where the harnessing of the gravitational wind is more obvious.


Somewhere, there is a video which shows a toy railway truck being driven by the reaction of an offset gyro hanging off the side.


I think Eric missed a trick there. He should have shown the gyro driving the truck up an incline, albeit a curved incline. By continuing the incline to form an ascending spiral and carefully accounting for frictional losses he could have shown that the system was gaining potential gravitational energy.


In the truck case Eric's muscles are not involved. It seems to me that Al's appeals to Eric's muscles was merely a device to balance the books since he didn't have strain gauges on Eric's muscles and can have had no idea what the muscular contribution was to the Eric demonstration.


I'll have to see if I can find a link to the truck demonstration.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Groundloop on September 06, 2013, 07:29:14 AM
So, what happened to http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Last website update was on (dd / mm / yyyy) 14 / 06 /2013.
Is there any member on this forum living near Gilman - Illinois USA?
If so, is it possible for you to take a look at the construction site of
the second gravity motor build, to see if there is any construction activity?

GL.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on September 10, 2013, 08:52:58 PM
Are you still discussing this corn machine? It isn't a gravity wheel. It is a tool. More than one picture is faked, etc. to make you believe this is a gravity machine project. Well, it's not. Move forward ;-)


Vida
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on September 11, 2013, 12:10:24 PM
They say it is working beautifully ! (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem44a.JPG)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on September 12, 2013, 04:26:37 PM
They say it is working beautifully ! (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem44a.JPG)
Maybe we should wait to see the machine actually running. I'm "surprised" that no one yet has posted a video of this machine in action.


Vidar

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 13, 2013, 04:20:34 AM
Maybe we should wait to see the machine actually running. I'm "surprised" that no one yet has posted a video of this machine in action.


Vidar

Vidar:

They have to wait until the corn harvest.  Then we will see it in action processing the corn as it was designed to do.  (Smile)

Do we have an address for this location?  Possibly, Google Earth street view might show something interesting?  They are really going wild updating those views.  We have like 5 camera vehicles running all around my small town over here in Kentucky.

Bill
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on September 13, 2013, 03:50:07 PM

It must be an over unity machine, because a corn processing machines looks like this: (I cannot see similarities between those.. :-))

http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/a7e/40c/self-made-machine-for-corn-processing-nisporeni.jpg (http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/a7e/40c/self-made-machine-for-corn-processing-nisporeni.jpg)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on September 14, 2013, 02:15:04 AM

I thought the properties of water must be "one of the most thoroughly understood areas in science" until I discovered the 4th, 8th and 12th power laws governing the vapour pressure of water; also the 6th power law governing the absolute pressure vs volume relation for water.


http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html)


It would be difficult to think of a more important liquid to mankind than water. After all, our bodies are mainly water.


There's a very apposite quote on people's failure to revise ideas in science by a lady philosopher. I'll have to see if I can find it.



I've found the quote in a BesslerWheel.com post of 2009




Simone Weil, had the situation bang to rights when in her essay, "La Science et nous" she wrote,


========================================
What is disastrous is not the rejection of classical science but the way it has been rejected. It is wrongly believed it could progress indefinitely and it ran into a dead end about the year 1900; but scientists failed to stop at the same time in order to contemplate and reflect upon the barrier, they did not try to describe it and define it and, having taken it into account, to draw some general conclusion from it; instead they rushed violently past it, leaving classical science behind them.


And why should we be surprised at this? For are they not paid to forge continually ahead? Nobody advances in his career, or reputation, or gets a Nobel prize, by standing still. To cease voluntarily from forging ahead, any brilliantly gifted scientist would need to be a saint or a hero, and why should he be a saint or a hero? With rare exceptions there are none to be found among the members of other professions.


So the scientists forged ahead without revising anything, because any revision would have seemed a retrogression; they merely made an addition.
========================================

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Enstenow on October 18, 2013, 07:04:22 PM
Hello,

RAR energia is a big hoax.
A big hoax invented by a Brazilian student.
This student works in computer graphics and design with a software of image. Very successful software.

Example:
(http://nsa34.casimages.com/img/2013/10/18/13101807292051550.jpg) (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=13101807292051550.jpg)


The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
Really, the shed is empty.


We shall not see a video. Never !

Furthermore,
The systems of lever (parallelogram of the strengths) by gravity are not overunity.
In movement, angles and strengths nullify.

The systems of variable lever (vertical and horizontal), and PABB (Parallel Arm Balance Beam) with weights and to counter weight.
These two systems are impossible for the perpetual motion.
Cycles or periodic balance are impossible.

In geometrical lever, the gravity does not work!


Sorry I do not speak English

 Enstenow ( retired engineer)

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on October 30, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Hello,
RAR energia is a big hoax.

Hi Enstenow, do ypou have any evidence it's a hoax? The image you attached is very good, but it doesn't demonstrate the skills you would need to fake all the images on rarenergia's website. The images look quite real to me.

I've been following this for months, and trying to figure out how it works. I think I can see the principle:

 - The position where the weight is carried on the down / up strokes is different.
 - The linkage to the weight changes from the 'arm', to the 'big silver bearing'
 - On the down stroke - the weight is held via the arm
 - On the up stroke - the weight is held by the bearing

Notes:
 - The guy - according to peswiki - has built proptotypes that work. So he knows the principle works. Apparently.
 - The machine is the first of this size - and they've clearly made some parts adjustable - and they've modified some parts - so they can try different things.
 - It is not a 'soybean crusher', or any other kind of normal machine, that's for sure.

If it's a hoax - it's a very expensive, kinda pointless one.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: lancaIV on October 30, 2013, 10:11:48 PM
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940818&CC=DE&NR=4304132A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940818&CC=DE&NR=4304132A1&KC=A1)

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19880128&CC=DE&NR=3621312A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19880128&CC=DE&NR=3621312A1&KC=A1)

The inventors,R.I.P. .


Sincerely
              CdL
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on October 31, 2013, 09:10:56 PM
... do ypou have any evidence it's a hoax? ....
Here is the evidence (That does not apply for singularity, however):


E=MC^2
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Low-Q on October 31, 2013, 09:16:08 PM
This picture is fake. The person that is suppose to run that machine is photoshopped in place. No doubt. Fake.
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/123542/image//
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: camelherder49 on October 31, 2013, 09:24:31 PM
The guy in the picture is operating the hydraulic
crane that you see in the background.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Enstenow on November 07, 2013, 01:09:41 AM
Hi Enstenow, do ypou have any evidence it's a hoax? The image you attached is very good, but it doesn't demonstrate the skills you would need to fake all the images on rarenergia's website. The images look quite real to me.

Hi Tim 123,

All RAR energia is a hoax ( Project, machine, press article, .... )

Example photographs N ° 40 : http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG

Look  ;)

http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2013/11/07/131107125729411914.jpg


The systems of lever (parallelogram of the strengths) and PABB (Parallel Arm Balance Beam) with weights and to counter weight.
The systems by gravity are not overunity.





Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on November 07, 2013, 10:48:19 AM
Hi Tim 123,

The systems of lever (parallelogram of the strengths) and PABB (Parallel Arm Balance Beam) with weights and to counter weight.
The systems by gravity are not overunity.

Hi Enstenow :)
  I made a meccano test rig - to see where the forces are. It doesn't look like OU to me now...

Pic attached.

Regards
Tim
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: ponto on November 08, 2013, 01:44:31 AM
And now we have a patent

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130256066
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Enstenow on November 08, 2013, 06:38:06 AM
Yes Tim 123  8)

With a parallelogram, the resultant of the strengths nullify = statics
These systems of lever are impossible for the perpetual motion.
With two axes + brace, the gravitation does not work in cycle. Nor in cycle 1/16.
Systems Underunity. Energy = 0

For the perpetual motion by gravity
Only possible solution: the pendulum !!  << Physical theory possible overunity  >> dixit Richard Feynman

An idea (the solution is certainly there)
 
=> http://youtu.be/1uKoAwFFwPY 

Regards

Enstenow
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on November 08, 2013, 07:55:32 PM
And now we have a patent
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130256066

Thanks Ponto :)
  It's an interesting read... I've given it some thought, played around with my model, and I can't disprove what it says. It makes some sense...

From reading the patent, I now know which way the thing is supposed to rotate - and that helps a lot. :D

 - The parallel bars make a 'Roberval Balance' (?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoU9_BFIWwE  - This is the default support for the weights.

 - As the linkage moves to the shaft connecting-rod - the center of mass does indeed seem to move out to the bar-end.

 - This means work must be done to lift the mass into that position. It says so in the patent too.

 - The lift seems to be done in about 25 degrees of rotation - and it then can usefully act on about 100 degrees as the crank descends. But these settings are adjustable - and he has locks too - which would definitely help.

 - So, yes I can imagine that the extra 'cylinders' of the engine might keep it going round...

The weight supporting arm on my model (the yellow rectangles) is quite short. From the patent - that arm needs to be longer...

I'm still undecided... I may have to build a full replica with 8 cylinders... Maybe not a full-size one though...
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: vince on November 10, 2013, 10:30:39 PM
Hi Tim123


I think you hit the nail on the head with your evaluation of the RAR Energia machine. It is indeed a roberval balance linkage and if they get there locking system correct I believe their machine can run itself.
If they can get the weight arm to alternately lock to the neutral vertical beam and one of the lower support beams they can produce some real torque and raise the weight back up at a fraction of the torque weight.


I was fascinated by their machine and made a little test rig ( shown in attached pictures).  The effect is real and quite an eye opener.
If you look at the pictures you can see that the weight arm is free to rotate around the lower pivot pin.
The weights themselves weigh 2.5 lbs.
Notice the weight arm has 2 projections with holes in them. These are the locking plates akin to the arch rings on the energia machine.
When no pin is in place the weight arm just flops down.
When the pin is locked into the hole on the neutral vertical roberval balance linkage it exhibits a force of 6.25 lbs measured at a radius of 3" from the central pivots.
When the pin is locked into the lower support arm of the roberval balance linkage it exhibits a whopping force of 18.25 lbs measured at the same 3 " radius.
That's a net gain of 12 lbs.
if they are successful at alternating the locking points on their machine each one of the cranks is going to make huge torque and easily lift the ascending weights.


Guys, I think this machine is real and may be a game changer.
Try the experiment for yourselves or just consider my test rig. The potential for their machine to work is high.


Vince


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: helloha on November 11, 2013, 01:16:04 AM
the wm2d version of rarEnergia (a simple edition),
 have fun playing around with it
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on November 11, 2013, 01:37:15 PM
...Guys, I think this machine is real and may be a game changer.
Try the experiment for yourselves or just consider my test rig. The potential for their machine to work is high.
Vince

Hi Vince :)
   Thanks for the info - nice test setup!

It really does look like it's possible... It'll be interesting to see if the patent is granted - and if so - what he does with it...

I'll have to spend some time thinking about how to do a decent replication... But, I'd really like 10KW to run my home - and a machine 1/3 the size would still be pretty chunky...

Idea: I wonder if the efficiency could be increased by getting the masses to swing - as pendulums..? Given the apparent change in mass - it could totally get over the 'sticky spot', and provide more push down too... It could also mean you don't need such big weights...

I guess either they'd not thought of that, discounted it as too tricky, or tried it and found it didn't work... I'll see if I can build it into whatever I make...
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on November 11, 2013, 03:25:38 PM
I've added the longer arm to my test rig, and I have some results to share:

Image 1)
 This shows the test setup. Blue cogs on the left are just weight for counterbalance.
 Rotation is clockwise.
 The crank is resting at the top. This is just before the down stroke.

The next stage lifts the mass at the end of the red rectangles, onto the crank-connecting-rod. This takes a lot of work to do - it's a massive 'sticky spot', and it goes all the way round to 90 degrees (the 3 o-clock position). (I was wrong before - it's a full 90 degrees)

Image 2)
  This shows the crank resting at the 3-o-clock position. It can go either way from there, up or down, given a slight push.

Image 3)
 This shows the bottom of the stroke.

Note the crank is resting at these positions - I don't have to hold it...

So, in conclusion, I'm not seeing any obvious mechanism for OU here. It takes a lot of effort to lift the arm from the 'neutral' position into a 'positive' position...
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on November 24, 2013, 11:25:07 AM
Yesterday, Sunday, there was a half a page add in the biggest newspaper in Rio de Janeiro, page 32, O Globo. It said that Rarenergia is selling an engine moved by gravity. I brought this picture from their site, www.rarenergia.com.br.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on November 24, 2013, 01:24:32 PM
This is the ad.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on November 25, 2013, 08:52:10 PM
This is the ad.

@nfeijo: thank you for posting the mysterious advertisment.

The same drawing can be seen here: http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem54a.jpg , http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem53a.jpg

The machine in Brasilia seems to be built http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem52a.JPG .
A second one in the USA in Gilmam - Illinois is in the beginning stages http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2012%20eng.JPG .

Very strange, it looks like we have to wait at least till the second machine is completed. I wonder if we ever get useful information?

It is incredibly optimistic to build two machines which seem to be quite expensive. Some one is either very foolish or very convinced that it will work. Let's hope this machine is not fading away without trace. I really would like to know whether that contraption works.

There is an axle which obviously has to be turned to set the gigantic thing into motion, but the photos and drawings do not yet indicate any drive motor. If it really works, it could be started by hand with a huge crank. The thing can definitely kill someone who comes too close.

Greetings, Conrad

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on November 25, 2013, 09:54:24 PM
Yes, Conrad, this is a big mistery. The guy is very, very rich and has five patents in his name. He made his money himself, what proves he is not stupid. And he spent all this cash building two big machines. How someone who is not dumb would waste his money this way ? I called them in Porto Alegre - I live in Rio de Janeiro, about 1600 km far - asking to see the machine working. They told me I had to wait, they were busy demonstrating the machine to other people. I really do not understand what is happening. I am working in this OU field for thirteen years now, but I never tried anything using gravity, because I do not believe there is any chance there. Maybe someone can go to Illinois and see personally.
My best regards,
Ney
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: lota on November 26, 2013, 08:33:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtb9fi7Ku14
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: PiCéd on November 27, 2013, 01:01:11 PM
I don't know but I wonder if they do the confusion with electrostatic, to see a big trick like that if it realy work it is not by the gravity.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on November 27, 2013, 01:13:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtb9fi7Ku14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtb9fi7Ku14)

@lota: nice try, I like the idea to use "meccano".

Here I identified the patent which is most likely relevant: http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg359666/#msg359666

But you might know that already.

The most important question is whether they need a motor to run the machine. I would be more inclined to believe in the machine if it only needs a motor to be started and then takes over by itself.

If the machine needs a motor constantly it will be a difficult case of establishing good input/output measurements and people will argue forever.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on November 27, 2013, 02:14:27 PM
*Incobrasa Industries, Inc.
 540 E. US Highway 24, POB 98, Gilman, IL 60938
 Phone: 815-265-4803
 Fax: 815-265-8082
 Email: Kathy_merkle@incobrasa.com
 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on November 30, 2013, 07:36:52 PM
More images in the RAR website.


www.­rarenergia.­com.­br (http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.rarenergia.com.br/&usg=AFQjCNHDUhU05tulTgdMocMOj05ddJTEbg)[/color][/font]


Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the latest.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 10:02:25 AM
I've been following this for months, and trying to figure out how it works. I think I can see the principle:
 - The position where the weight is carried on the down / up strokes is different.
 - The linkage to the weight changes from the 'arm', to the 'big silver bearing'
 - On the down stroke - the weight is held via the arm
 - On the up stroke - the weight is held by the bearing

 - It is not a 'soybean crusher', or any other kind of normal machine, that's for sure.

If it's a hoax - it's a very expensive, kinda pointless one.

The Renato Ribeiro mechanical motion energy generation machine
A viewpoint
The system principle applied in this machine by Renato is very well thought out and many working details can be discerned from the detailed photo’s presented. I thank the designer for sharing his brilliant mind with this innovation so we can al advance in knowledge to the benefit of mankind.

System shown
What Ribeiro showed in his picture is that the (large) system is an evolutionary flow of refining this larger version model. I would guess that it is to a certain degree different to the initial “prove of concept” model. We need to keep in mind that the construction scope changes dramatically when you need to move heavy weights at a certain rapid speed. Moving unsymmetrical weights at some speed is no easy matter. Remember energy quantity is proportional to force(weight) & distance per time unit. The “per time unit” is speed or cycles per minute.
The American model shown to be build appears to be the same than the latest (improved) Brazilian model.

The overunity approach
The required concept for any over-unity system is to have a greater energy return than what needs to be provided to keep the system cycling.  Therefore, the energy to lift a weight must be smaller than the energy returned during decent or said differently, the return energy must be bigger than the lift energy. This can not be done by a straight forward linear physics process as the symmetry of standard physics prohibits this.
Therefore the process choosen between lift and descend has to alter so that the equation is no longer symmetrical, to do this a different natural aspect must be applied between the up & down parts of the cycle ( the physics presentation must be different to get a different outcome).
 You basically need for an OU system to mess around with the physical process so that the “up” formula is different to the “down” formula (to achieve asymmetry). This messing around should not cost you more that you can gain, because we aiming to achieve a positive outcome balance sheet.  This is were innovation is required.

The Ribeiro overunity principle used
The principle used by Ribeiro to achieve energy gain is as follows (and I am open for possible correction and other viewpoints).
For the system to work, the upstroke should take less energy than the down stroke. To achieve this, the weight is levered down using a ~2x lever advantage. The weight is lifted using a 1x lever advantage. The travel height for the weight in both strokes is the same and this is where the advantage / gain is (and Ribeiro ingenuity was applied)
 
1.. Weight down stroke uses the extended lever effect (~2x distance x weight, being the parallelogram (roberval) and triangle distance from the fixed frame hinge)
2.. Weight up stroke uses the Roberval principle (~1x distance x weight, the triangle becomes part of the vertical roberval beam)

I would guess this gives the system a ~1x weight x distance energy gain advantage, it will depend on what the RPM the machine is capable off for how much energy it can deliver. (the reason for the multiple modifications).
The ingenuity is in the mechanical method used that changes the setup between up and down stroke. 

As you might remember from a previous tread where TK and others had a fall-out with Wayne Travis because they couldn’t see the point, It was the same principle used by Wayne Travis in the Hydro ZED, using a differentiation process between the up & down stroke of his hydro ZED system in order to create asymmetry and thereby to work around the standard physics limitation. A changed lever between up & down strokes but UNCHANGED travel height. It is difficult for many people to see the subtle principle but necessary difference that is applied here.  It requires some persistent visualization to swing your head around the concept.

As a pointer for this invention, you must have wondered by now, what is that triangle doing there mounted with these big silver shine flanges and do pay attention to that complete assembly interactions with the robervall.

SALUT to the inventors of the new world, for the shared knowledge that provides us great inspiration

Regards, Red Sunset




Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on December 02, 2013, 01:03:50 PM
I am sure that most people have no problem to understand, that any real "gravity OU machine" must have an "up stroke" which needs less energy than the "down stroke" will provide.

The problem is to conclusively prove by experiment (and not so importantly also by theory) that this is really possible.

Neither the Robeval balance ( compound lever, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm ) nor any lever system can provide that, as far as we know today. This is a well founded argument. But there might be some contraption which can do it, and the inventor of such a contraption must provide conclusive proof (best by providing measurements and by letting other people do measurements).

And as I have stated over and over again, the inventor has to prove that he has such a system, nobody has to and possibly can prove that such a system does not exist.

To make it very clear: we need "proof of existence", the "non existence" can never be proven. An easy to understand example: in order to prove that a flying horse is possible, you have to show a flying horse and you must allow people to test the flying horse. Nobody can ever prove that a flying horse is not possible. There are many good arguments against a flying horse, but may be someone will figure out how to breed or clone one.

So, we can not discuss the strange machine without being given details and most importantly we need conclusive measurements.

And I see great problems with measurements. It seems to be obvious that the strange machine needs a motor. Lets say the motor puts in 10 Kilowatt. It will be very difficult first to establish the exact energy input (because we have a big amount of energy put in) and then it will be even more difficult to establish energy output, because it should be an even bigger amount of energy. Expensive measurement methods will be necessary to measure electrical energy and most importantly torque in the Kilowatt accurately.

I really can not understand where Red_Sunset sees some proof that the machine is working. Did Red_Sunset talk with the inventor? Has Red_Sunset received any measurement results? Also the patents do not provide proof. And specially the nice drawings do not provide proof. The only proof we have is that a lot of money is spent.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 02:10:02 PM
I really can not understand where Red_Sunset sees some proof that the machine is working. Did Red_Sunset talk with the inventor? Has Red_Sunset received any measurement results? Also the patents do not provide proof. And specially the nice drawings do not provide proof. The only proof we have is that a lot of money is spent.
Greetings, Conrad

Lets not go on the path of being the 'Jury'.  The inventor is building a machine and says it is going to do xyz. The inventor is not looking for your approval, nor your acknowledgement that his invention is working, neither did he come to the "overunity.com", someone found the info on the internet and posted it here, with the question., Hey look at this, what is this guy building.

What you can do in turn, if you have the interest is look at it and see if you see anything interesting from which you can learn. The inventor made Hi definition pictures available to get a real close look.

It it your choice what to do with them

PS: No motor is needed to start. Also the output drive shaft can only turn in one direction for it to work.
The system can be proven with simple math and physics to work. It can also be build with simple metal parts.  Read my previous post with comprehension and it will become clear. The mechanism to alter up/down stroke is simple and the only difficult part.

Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on December 02, 2013, 02:50:14 PM
It can also be build with simple metal parts.  Read my previous post with comprehension and it will become clear. The mechanism to alter up/down stroke is simple and the only difficult part.
Red_Sunset

Hi RedSunset,
  I have a meccano model I built - pictures posted previously - which, I think, replicates the mechanism of one 'piston' of the machine...

It doesn't seem to show any signs of OU. The forces are still symetrical - as I showed in my previous post. But I could be missing something - and I'd be grateful if anyone could suggest anything that might make it work differently.

After playing around with the mechanism - I can't see any obvious way that it could work... I'm quite mystified by the whole proceedings TBH...

Regards
Tim
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: vince on December 02, 2013, 03:17:24 PM
Hey Tim
 Try your model again.  Look back at my post 88 you will see that indeed the force required to lift the weight back up if attached to the vertical arm is a fraction of the down force exerted if attached to any other arm. It is basic roberval linkage which  has been proven in science and commercially sold.
Look closely at their machine and you will see that on the upstroke the weight rests on the vertical beam via the arched lever and a permanent stop on that arch. At the top it has a hook that attaches the weight arm to the lower links therefore nullifying the roberval balance effect and using the full length of the lever arm.  The science is real and proven.
The question is,have they achieved the task of automatically and mechanically switching the point of attachment of the two link systems, and will the machine accomplish this task on its own without any external forces aiding the link attachment?
This is not rocket science! For those of you that do not understand what they are doing read up about the roberval balance and you will soon see that they are just exploiting this mechanical anomaly.


Vince
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on December 02, 2013, 03:41:41 PM
@@ Red_Sunset
nearly a year since you last posted on this forum, and your absolute blind belief that Wayne Travis is an honorable person and talks the truth is the biggest load BS I ever heard, and still after all this time no verification of his device, and note in his new look website that he has removed the monthly update section, you remember the one, he kept promising verification was going to happen very soon, and time and time again he broke his word. 
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)

I advise other readers to take anything Red_Sunset  says with a very large grain of salt, Wayne Travis and Red_Sunset  have repeatedly failed to prove in scientific terms that they have a working over-unity devise, let alone how to make one work, their history speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 03:46:17 PM
Hi RedSunset,
  I have a meccano model I built - pictures posted previously - which, I think, replicates the mechanism of one 'piston' of the machine...

It doesn't seem to show any signs of OU. The forces are still symetrical - as I showed in my previous post. But I could be missing something - and I'd be grateful if anyone could suggest anything that might make it work differently.

After playing around with the mechanism - I can't see any obvious way that it could work... I'm quite mystified by the whole proceedings TBH...

Regards
Tim

Tim,

From my viewpoint, you would have too much tolerance in your meccano model, for it to work.  Also you need to understand the working process before or when building, in that way you can apply corrections to the model to bring it within working range as needed. I can not see how you can build something without understanding it first.

The model doesn't need to be built as shown by Ribeiro, it could adopt different shapes,
The only requirement is,
1.. That weight on the downstroke needs to take advantage of a greater lever arm than the horizontal robervall arm length as measured from the vertical fixed pilar. (a leverage arm is an arm that is fixed for the whole length, or at least responds in that way). In this case this is the horizontal robervall arm + the horizontal part of the triangle and the triangle experiences a fixation to the horizontal part of the robervall arm. 
2.. During upstroke the weight only lever is the horizontal robervall arm. The triangle weight becomes incorporated into the total weight and becomes a synonymous part with the vertical arm of the robervall arm.

So we have two different levers applying torque to the rotation shaft (~ 2-1=1 =left-over).   I would imagine it will need a flywheel  to store intermediate energy for smooth running, because 1/2 cycle (rotation) is 2x power and 1/2 is 1x loss( alike to a combustion engine)

The location / position of the crankshaft has also an importance in the Ribeiro design since the pushrod plays a double role in the downstroke to promote 1-rotation and horizontal lever 2-fixation. For the same reason the initial start-up rotation has to be to my assessment counter clockwise (view as per pictures)

Without making a detailed drawing, it is difficult to explain. I would suggest to be clear on the required principle and then have have a good look at the pictures and ask the investigative questions, why, how, where....ect

That is the best I can suggest

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 04:02:23 PM
@@ Red_Sunset

I advise other readers to take anything Red_Sunset  says with a very large grain of salt, Wayne Travis and Red_Sunset  have repeatedly failed to prove in scientific terms that they have a working over-unity devise, let alone how to make one work, their history speaks for itself.

Powercat & Tim and others,

If you think you do not like my mungo jumbo, I have no problem to remove my posts and leave you in peace.
Let me know, I can still use the delete option within 24hrs

I just thought you could use a bit of help on Renato Ribeira.

Let me know soonest

Regards, Red_Sunset
 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 02, 2013, 05:05:28 PM
Powercat & Tim and others,

If you think you do not like my mungo jumbo, I have no problem to remove my posts and leave you in peace.
Let me know, I can still use the delete option within 24hrs

I just thought you could use a bit of help on Renato Ribeira.

Let me know soonest

Regards, Red_Sunset


On no account remove your posts Red Sunset. They make good sense to me.


As Cloud Camper has pointed out on BesslerWheel.com, the Roberval Balance puts strain energy into the balance ties and struts. The beauty of strain energy is that is weighs nothing and one can move it around without it being affected by Newtonian Gravity.


I believe that RAR works. Presumably they will eventually get around to posting up a video of it in action.


I think Stuart Campbell has the right idea about this development.


http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/ (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/)
[color=rgb(69, 129, 185) !important]Stuart Campbell (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/#)[/color][/font][/size] Moderator[/size] [color=rgba(30, 55, 70, 0.4)] David S (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/#comment-1140985164)[/font][/color]
•[/color] [color=rgba(30, 55, 70, 0.4)]5 days ago (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/#comment-1141877497)[/font][/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) !important]−[/size][/font][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) !important][/i] (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/#)[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]








That's because my thinking is not stuck in a block of concrete. Logic says it won't work.But there are people out there smart enough to say phooey to that and prove anyone wrong.Science is taught specifically to hold people within a square in their thinking. You are taught to think nothing will work, so you move within your limitations of your self imposed square.It's always those who step outside it who make the waves and the future happen.[/font]
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on December 02, 2013, 05:13:17 PM
Powercat & Tim and others,

If you think you do not like my mungo jumbo, I have no problem to remove my posts and leave you in peace.
Let me know, I can still use the delete option within 24hrs

I just thought you could use a bit of help on Renato Ribeira.

Let me know soonest

Regards, Red_Sunset

Whether you want to remove your posts or not is entirely your decision, and looking at your previous posting history you will say and do what you want anyway.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on December 02, 2013, 05:22:24 PM

That's because my thinking is not stuck in a block of concrete. Logic says it won't work.But there are people out there smart enough to say phooey to that and prove anyone wrong.Science is taught specifically to hold people within a square in their thinking. You are taught to think nothing will work, so you move within your limitations of your self imposed square.It's always those who step outside it who make the waves and the future happen.[/font]


That's a very good approach, and one that most people here would agree with, otherwise why would you join an over-unity forum, but making claims that you can achieve over-unity or you know that it works when you can't prove it is not going to help anyone, and given the energy crisis the world is facing we could really do with a genuine solution that actually works and can be proven to work.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on December 02, 2013, 06:14:05 PM
The question is,have they achieved the task of automatically and mechanically switching the point of attachment of the two link systems, and will the machine accomplish this task on its own without any external forces aiding the link attachment?
Vince

Hi Vince,
  the shift between the 2 linkages is the problem: In order to transfer the weight from the 'neutral' upright bar, to the 'positive' connecting rod, the full weight (i.e. the weight at the end of the lever) has to be lifted by the crank. (as far as I can tell)

You can do it either at the top, or the bottom of the crank - depending on rotation, but it still has to be done, and it's a big sticky point...

I can not see how you can build something without understanding it first.

This is the essence of all research. You build experiments to better understand things...

Quote from: Red_Sunset
1.. That weight on the downstroke needs to take advantage of a greater lever arm than the horizontal robervall arm length as measured from the vertical fixed pilar.
...
So we have two different levers applying torque to the rotation shaft (~ 2-1=1 =left-over).

Different leverage = different distance moved. It's not as simple as you assert... If you simply have different leverages on the up & down strokes - the weight will end up in a different place at the end of each stroke.

Red_Sunset, if you think you understand the machine, and you think it works - then please show us - build a replica, or post those detailed drawings you mentioned.

Regards
Tim
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
Quote from: Grimer on Today at 05:05:28 PM
    That's because my thinking is not stuck in a block of concrete. Logic says it won't work.But there are people out there smart enough to say phooey to that and prove anyone wrong.Science is taught specifically to hold people within a square in their thinking. You are taught to think nothing will work, so you move within your limitations of your self imposed square.It's always those who step outside it who make the waves and the future happen.[/font]

That's a very good approach, and one that most people here would agree with, otherwise why would you join an over-unity forum, but making claims that you can achieve over-unity or you know that it works when you can't prove it is not going to help anyone, and given the energy crisis the world is facing we could really do with a genuine solution that actually works and can be proven to work.

Powercat,
Interesting how you state these 2 quotes together and are acknowledged as such. 
I am convinced that NOBODY can be impartial, we are all the product of our upbringing exposure and that will be with us for life in varying degrees.

No matter what proof you seek , A video is no proof, neither a picture or even a physical demonstration can be deceptive, the biggest example demonstration of that fact was 911 & Iraq. 
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
Keep in mind that Invention is business, an inventor will release information but never innovative details that are key to the invention, not even in a patent, they are always held close to the chest.  When it comes to money, or prospective income, an inventor will do all in its power to safeguard the future of his work and himself and his position in business.

So if you are on this website to receive blue prints with explanations, you are going to have to wait for a very long time.

Regards, Red_Sunset


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 07:13:18 PM
………………………………………………….
………………………………………
This is the essence of all research. You build experiments to better understand things...

Different leverage = different distance moved. It's not as simple as you assert... If you simply have different leverages on the up & down strokes - the weight will end up in a different place at the end of each stroke.

Red_Sunset, if you think you understand the machine, and you think it works - then please show us - build a replica, or post those detailed drawings you mentioned.

Regards Tim
Tim,
Building carries an initial high risk, that is, a good working design could be considered failed due to bad or incorrect construction.  Knowledge gives you the advantage by enabling you to do troubleshooting. Building when you have the understanding reduces risk.  If you come from the electronics field, this might make more sense than in the mechanical field.

. It's not as simple as you assert... it sure isn’t and I do not want to minimize the effort and tweaks required to make it work. The key is that the distance should not change (much) because otherwise you reach the point of diminishing returns. The method used here is the key innovation of this invention.

Contrary to PowerCat statement, I never claimed or made a OU device. What I do is,  to look closer into analyse smart and creative devices in order to understand the innovative working principles and to stimulate my mind. I do not have any detailed drawings of this system other that quick references to features seen on the photo’s.
Distributed / Personal power generation is going to be the next revolution, so my interest leans in that direction.

Unfortunately that is as far as I can help here. Never expect to understand a concept all in one day. Allow simmering time for an observation to take on shape and relevance, to evolve and mature.
Good luck, remember persistence pays !!
Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on December 02, 2013, 09:26:03 PM

Powercat,
Interesting how you state these 2 quotes together and are acknowledged as such. 
I am convinced that NOBODY can be impartial, we are all the product of our upbringing exposure and that will be with us for life in varying degrees.

No matter what proof you seek , A video is no proof, neither a picture or even a physical demonstration can be deceptive, the biggest example demonstration of that fact was 911 & Iraq. 
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
Keep in mind that Invention is business, an inventor will release information but never innovative details that are key to the invention, not even in a patent, they are always held close to the chest.  When it comes to money, or prospective income, an inventor will do all in its power to safeguard the future of his work and himself and his position in business.

So if you are on this website to receive blue prints with explanations, you are going to have to wait for a very long time.

There are hundreds of thousan of patented inventions that can be replicated and have been scientifically verified, showing how an invention works does not take your rights of ownership away.

[/font]Contrary to PowerCat statement, I never claimed or made a OU device. What I do is,  to look closer into analyse smart and creative devices in order to understand the innovative working principles and to stimulate my mind. I do not have any detailed drawings of this system other that quick references to features seen on the photo’s.Distributed / Personal power generation is going to be the next revolution, so my interest leans in that direction.


Anyone can read your previous posts where you claim Wayne Travis's over-unity device works as claimed, they can also read your numerous posts where you defend Wayne travesties rights to keep back so called information on how the device actually works for commercial reasons, though at that time you and Wayne did intend to have the device scientifically verified by Mark Dansie as long as he signed a NDA to keep certain details of the device private, in the beginning this all seemed quite reasonable but as time went by it became clear what a load of BS yourself and Wayne were talking and that there was never any intention of having the device properly verified by anybody.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on December 02, 2013, 09:27:39 PM
Red .. here is a simple sim of a Roberval system, with lever arm & mass replacing one horizontal member - the lever arm can be latched [square pin joint] to either the vertical strut of the pantograph or the tilting arm to get up & down motion thru imbalance of forces - that is not & has never been in dispute AFAIK - run the sim to see the potential problem - I watch this RAR attempt with interest to see if they have a creative answer to the dilemma.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on December 03, 2013, 01:04:19 AM
A thoughtful post by MrVibrating at BW.com re observations on the RAR concept - includes a simple sim.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118005#118005
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on December 03, 2013, 12:33:46 PM
Hi,
   I've been looking at the Roverbial balance and irrespective of where you position
the weights on the trays the work done is the same so there is no means of obtaining
any gain.
    The machine in question is quite tiny when considering using gravity as a power
source. Fletcher pointed this out to me when we were discussing using pressure and
fluids. Even if something worked the operating speed would have to be kept so low that
the useful output would be minimal.
                        John
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 03, 2013, 02:45:15 PM
Red .. here is a simple sim of a Roberval system, with lever arm & mass replacing one horizontal member - the lever arm can be latched [square pin joint] to either the vertical strut of the pantograph or the tilting arm to get up & down motion thru imbalance of forces - that is not & has never been in dispute AFAIK - run the sim to see the potential problem - I watch this RAR attempt with interest to see if they have a creative answer to the dilemma.
Gents,
Hi Fletcher, good to hear from you. I spent some (too much) time today creating some pictures to clarify previous postings on the workings of Renato Ribeiro gravity system. Do keep in mind that the drawings only demonstrate the principle to OU used in the invention, NOT the workings of the whole machine as shown in the pictures. When it comes to the whole machine and the modifications done to it, I have also many questions. For example, why is the weight bar hinged and other trip assemblies….ect.
The drawings used are as close as possible to scale to the actual machine build, I overlayed one of the drawings to get the size proportions correct.

In the attached pdf,

Page1: Picture of the limit stops on the center flange (vertical vs crankshaft push rod)
Page2:  Picture of the end stop to fixate the crankshaft push rod to the triangle that holds the weight.
The weight loading creates the lever connection between the crankshaft and the weight.  In this position, the roberval has no other function other than a positioning guide for crankshaft push rod.
Page 3:  Picture of the stop that initiates the working of the roberval, this engages the triangle with the roberval (the lower lever endstop would be disengaged at this point). 
The alignments are made possible by the positioning of the crankshaft, crankshaft push rod and the arc stopper. The weight will always apply a counter clockwise pull on the setup.
Page 4: The model drawing pulled from the official drawing
Page 5:  Five positions are shown during one cycle of the system.
The first 3 show the down ½ cycle and the next 2 show the up cycle.,  shown is also how the system switches from lever mode to roverval mode. There should be enough detail on the pictures and associated text to make it self explanatory.
The approx. OU advantage is the horizontal length of the triangle

Regards, Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 03, 2013, 06:05:22 PM
Gents,

In an attempt to expand on my previous 5 step process sequence, by adding elementary force vectors to it, I am starting to doubt my initial understanding of work and rotation done here.
Can someone enter this into a simulator to calculate relative force and direction.  The rotational crankshaft seems to change the picture pretty drastically.
Attached is a relative force direction drawing in pdf format

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 03, 2013, 08:09:21 PM
Roberval functionality in RAR

My deduction is changing rapidly on the workings of this gravity engine.
Maybe there is some information missing, but with the info currently information seen, the roberval does not have the functionality initially thought off.
The only function it serves is to allow the triangular extender truss to remain near vertical at all times.
The force generation appears to be by weight, not by lever, so this working concept needs to be re-evaluated
Back to the drawing board.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on December 03, 2013, 09:30:13 PM
The Roberval balance.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 03, 2013, 09:50:52 PM
The Roberval balance.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm

Nfeijo, It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
<<Expression meaning>> It means that one should not presume to know the outcome of an event which is still in progress. More specifically, the phrase is used when a situation is (or appears to be) nearing its conclusion. It cautions against assuming that the current state of an event is irreversible and clearly determines how or when the event will end.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on December 04, 2013, 09:47:26 AM
Hi,
    if you want to know about asymmetry ask Wayne Travis-he knows! Good advice from
Sunset somewhere in the past.
   I find this machine intriguing, are those photos for real?
 One of the things I don't get in cases like this is the sheer size. A bench top model
would be worth just as much.
   Look at Rossi's megawatt, James Kwok's Hidro, Travis's thingy and the Newman
machine, none of them seem to do anything.
   I was comparing these gravity things to a water wheel but I see one big difference
the water wheel is able to exhaust the water at little cost whereas this machine
would have to halt the drop of the weight then raise it again at considerable cost
            John
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 04, 2013, 03:06:38 PM
New view - new pointer/discovery,

I am on the way out, and do have not much time now for more details,  but just a quick one to share.
The working view is changing, I didn't pay much attention to the weights used, expecting this not to be important. What I did observe and found puzzling was why the weight bars were hinged on the extreme left of the photos shown, it was also here, in this area were a lot of changes/modifications were taking place over the past months.

The reason is that the weights are on a balance bar, this balance is disturbed by the the weight lever and some supporting mechanism at a specific time (The weights are mounted telecopic on the bar, so the balance of the bar can be changed.  We can assume that the objective is to have heavy weights in the  downward 1/2 cycle and restoration of balance on the way up 1/2 cycle.
If interested, have a good look there, focus to look is attached. Observe in the drawing that not all bar are the same length, they are telescopic.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 05, 2013, 07:17:42 PM
Having had a chance to have a closer look into the mechanism of the gravity engine, confirmed my initial deduction that the principle working of the engine had no relationship to a Roberval & lever force mechanism as a force differentiator (although the roberval still performs a one sided and characteristic function )  .

The working principle is dependent on the ability of the mechanism to create a near neutral balance weight bar during the upstroke. At top dead center, an imbalance is triggered. The weight beam extends and the counter weight effect is removed by resting on the floor (as seen on the left side in the photo’s).
This combined effect applies the total weight as a load to the Roberval and onward to the crankshaft resulting in rotation.
At the bottom dead center, the beam returned to horizontal and the weight beam has shortened to it minimum size by telescopic action, regaining its near balance equilibrium.

This methodology is standard lift & drop of a weight, to create energy by using gravitational force of the weight on the downward stroke, and uses a counter balance to reduce the upward stroke energy.

The system incorporates a trigger mechanism to initiate the sequencing at predetermined points in the cycle.  The photo’s show several changes in the design to be able to get the sequencing and efficient working correct.
A good selection of pictures,drawings, patent are provided on the RAR website to supplement understanding.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on December 05, 2013, 08:35:31 PM
Hi Red_Sunset :)
  I'm glad I invested in the meccano... I bought a job lot on ebay a few years ago, and it has served me well.

It's often easier to build things than to simulate them. I appreciate you taking the time to do the drawings. It has clearly helped you further your understanding, and if you think you know another way it might work, let us know...

I'm beginning to seriously wonder if the guy built the machine without prototyping it. It did go thru a load of modifications, and all the 'tweaks' they've added - well... Were they to improve output, or were they hacks to try and get it to work?

The fact he's building another tells us nothing at this stage. Until #1 is running and proven... I'm still mystified.  :-\
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 05, 2013, 08:51:41 PM
Ribeiro Patent Application text
[0046] The force of gravity exerted over the weight is trans ferred to the assembly through the central shaft. This shaft, depending on where the locks are exercising the support, if they are on the positive or neutral arms and when, transfer more or less force to the blue bar. This in turn transfers the force to the crankshaft arm that is transferred to the crankshaft where the torque is applied.

Can this statement be true?

The positive bars are the horizontal arms and the neutral bar is the vertical arm of the 1/2 Roberval.    The central shaft is the hinge at the bottom of the vertical roberval bar.
The overall total weight (roberval + Triange weight bar + weight hanged) is supported by the blue bar that connects to the crankshaft. The weight would be a vertical down force.

Question: How can this weight change depending on how the weight triangle connects to the roberval?  by means of the arc locks.

We do have an horizontal force imposed by the arc lock on the blue connecting rod to the crankshaft, this force when in the same direction than rotation would aid rotation. But to my observation, it would be counter for 1/4 turn and then aid for a 1/4 rotation (this is approx), so not sure if this could be the essence of the statement

Any idea’s ?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 05, 2013, 09:02:41 PM
The fact he's building another tells us nothing at this stage. Until #1 is running and proven... I'm still mystified.  :-\

Tim,
Do keep in mind, the objective of what the guy is building is to get orders. He is in business to make money.  I don't think he is still trying to prove anything, only to get a good working demonstration going.

So long you have a good sound principle, the rest is just a matter of engineering.

From what I can deduct, he has done his homework.  Sure there are always newer and better idea's that come along. What I think he is doing is trying to improve the energy density. This will in the end determine the investment cost per energy unit. And make the system more attractive.

The working of the system should be clear (apart from some details), from what has been said in previous mails, or isn't?

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on December 05, 2013, 11:55:11 PM
Hi,
     looking at this from the point of view as a mechanical device I would guess that a 20 kw
motor would get it to turn over fairly sedately.
  There would be a massive amount of loss due to friction of bearings and sliders, also if any
speed was obtained inertia would become involved and the thing would soon shake itself
to pieces.
   You would probably need to find a couple of million ft/lbs per minute from somewhere for
it to go by itself. In theory I suppose that as some weights go down they would balance the
ones that are rising. Where the excess would come from is a mystery.
   Where is The Koala when he's needed? Hibernating? I really would like to see a successful
outcome here so I'll keep on watching and hoping!
  From the investment point of view I would guess you could buy a 30 kw genset and run it
a good few years on what this machine would cost to build,house and maintain. I can't see
it running for that long before major problems started.
             John
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Enstenow on December 06, 2013, 02:30:54 AM
Hi

Red_Sunset, It is useless to think (reflect) about the system RAR energia.

I still repeat :

The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
All the images are forged. Everything is false




1 ) Supporting evidence :

Official text RAR energia Ltda : << Another similar equipment will be built in the U.S.A. at the Incobrasa Industries Ltd plant, a Company of the group, located in Gilman, IL. >>

Official picture nº 01, June 10th 2013
=> http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem01be.JPG

But...
Update Google Maps by Digital Globe USDA Farm Service Agency, October 02nd, 2013
Official satellite picture : July 09th, 2013

The address of Incobrasa Industries, Ltd : 40°45'46.85"N  88° 0'44.25"W
The green arrow should show the building : Here (https://maps.google.de/maps?t=h&ll=40.763127700000034%2C-88.012281&q=+40%C2%B045%2746.85%22N++88%C2%B0+0%2744.25%22W&spn=0.0027632325522951146%2C0.00486432414869475&output=classic)

That's odd !! :o :o



2) - Supporting evidence :

Ted  Scheuring  of Chicago photographed places on September 13th, 2013

There is no constructed building ( Second picture )

 


Regards, Enstenow ( retired engineer)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 06, 2013, 08:51:04 AM
Red_Sunset, It is useless to think (reflect) about the system RAR energia.

I still repeat :

The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
All the images are forged. Everything is false

......................
...............................................
Regards, Enstenow ( retired engineer)

Dear Mr Enstenow,
Marvelous investigative report, I am impressed and you may be right or you may be wrong. 
I am not yet in a position to make final judgement (I am still open for more convincing evidence)

With the details presented by you, I have the following concerns,
1..  Going direct to "google earth",  the latest version map available is 14 May 2012.  I do not find the validation of your assumed date of 9-July 2013, your link picture showed also the same date of may 2012, look carefully at he bottom of the map picture.

2.. The picture #2 taken from the main road is not taken in the correct position, see the google map below and the associated pictures from the RARenergia website.   I have marked on the google map from where the pictures would be taken, 
**   Your posted pic#2 shows the low tree line before the building, marked as #1 and #2 on the google view.
**   The pic #7 shows the dirt road from the main rd into the property as seen in the google picture
**   The pic #8 shows the tall building to the right marked as #3 on google
**   The pict #11 shows to the left a building, also seen on the google view but not marked.


3.. In addition, the technical working aspects shown in the pictures and patent application are all within the normal physical domain and are very plausible to work as theorized.  It is clear that several modifications to the machine have taken place that could confuse, but the reasons can be presumed to be the result of normal procedural interactions between designer and construction team.

Your evidence makes a good case but doesn’t make a convincing case because the evidence is not exact enough to support your viewpoint.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on December 06, 2013, 04:16:16 PM
Red Sunset, I do not know about the American machine, but the Brazilian one is in Porto Alegre, exactly in the address they say and it looks like what appears in the photo. Nothing fake there. If it works I do not know.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 06, 2013, 06:00:19 PM
Red Sunset, I do not know about the American machine, but the Brazilian one is in Porto Alegre, exactly in the address they say and it looks like what appears in the photo. Nothing fake there. If it works I do not know.

Nfeijo,
This forum has quite a formidable ability to disprove any invention (most often unsubstantiated ) .
I do not see the equivalent ability to discover the newness presented in an invention.

Both abilities are required in an equal and balanced proportion to advance science.(since we build upon what came before)

It takes time and effort to be thorough and fair, but in return the rewards are plentiful.

Regards, Red_Sunset


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: nfeijo on December 06, 2013, 08:56:45 PM
Red Sunset,

Of course in a forum like this you can find all kind of people, believers and skeptics. But in general you find people open to new ideas, by the nature of the forum. I would say most people here tend to believe. But this is a swamp, with few flowers and many crocodiles. I am very curious about this particular invention.

Our friend the retired engineer thinks everything is a hoax. I can not say about the Gilman machine, but the Brazilian one, in Porto Alegre, sure is there, as advertised. I talked with someone, asking to see the machine working. He told me they were busy with demonstrations to prospective customers, he asked me to call in a few months.

I have been working hard trying to find something in this last 13 years, but always in the area of electromagnetics and electronics, never on gravity. I am not saying this is impossible. Who am I to say something is impossible ? As you said, it only ends when the fat lady sings.

I would be very, very happy if Renato Ribeiro had solved this problem of getting cheap energy from gravity. Maybe this would solve the problem of Africa and Third World in general. I have no interest in making money or being famous, but in helping poor people. Renato is so rich that I believe he would make this machine available to the poor.

We studied the patents and we are trying to make a simulation in Working Model, up to now without success.

Best regards,

Ney
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 06, 2013, 10:34:58 PM
..................................................
We studied the patents and we are trying to make a simulation in Working Model, up to now without success.

Best regards,

Ney
Hi Ney,
I know it is a wilderness out there and I do not have really a problem with it, so long they do not move in to closely with a demanding or negative agenda.
When it comes to the Renato's invention, from information seen,  he has 2 principle parts that lead to getting mechanical advantage.
One is described in the patent, and the second one "not shown in the patent" but implemented in the physical demonstration model.  I still need to do clarify some process details used for part2 and do a calculation exercise to quantify the possible gains for each instance.
You said "we are trying to make a simulation in Working Model, up to now without success",  with what part of the modeling don't you have success ?  Perhaps I can help.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Enstenow on December 07, 2013, 01:51:59 AM
Hi, Red_Sunset

On the previous page, all your arguments are erroneous
Your explanations are inaccurate.

No matter,
The truth will come out !

In a few months, you will understand that RAR energia deceives you, that Renato Ribeiro laughs at you.


Please...
Have you a mechanical and scientific explanation to justify these technical anomalies ???

- Official picture n° 39  (brazil) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem39a.JPG ( picture attach n° 1 )
- Official picture n° 40  (brazil) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG  ( picture attach n° 2 )
- Official picture n° 04 (Illinois) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2004%20br.JPG  ( picture attach n° 3 )

I repeat,
All the official picture is really computer generated images !


Regards,  Enstenow

 


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: gdez on December 07, 2013, 03:14:37 AM
Hey!
 Why don't we just see if it works? Now, we have satellite spying , creepers in commando suits, wtf!!If i EVER COME UP WITH THE ULTIMATE FREE ENERGY DEVICE.. i will certainly not tell you mother f r's. 
 Get a grip,
 greg
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 07, 2013, 08:16:39 AM
Hi, Red_Sunset

On the previous page, all your arguments are erroneous
Your explanations are inaccurate.
....................................................................
.............................................................
I repeat,
All the official picture is really computer generated images !

Regards,  Enstenow

Mr Enstenow,
I appreciate you have a specific view, and I would understand your argument so long you explain what you are trying to communicate.  I am not clear on the points you trying to make and their context to your argument.
I do understand that the pictures show modifications to the equipment.
They can be considered normal during the installation process for new equipment,  that is still developing and being improved. Or so we could assume, this being being most likely, since we have no further information details.
I can see no reason to assume, that there is a far fetched conspiracy theory with the information seen to-date, the scenario you presented.

Please substantiate you argument with information you haven't shared.  So we can have a productive dialog.

Regards, Red
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: PiCéd on December 07, 2013, 12:28:42 PM
Produce energy with only gravity is impossible, the result of is equation is 0, it is maintly time proven and it is the same thing for only magnetism.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 07, 2013, 01:36:48 PM
Produce energy with only gravity is impossible, the result of is equation is 0, it is maintly time proven and it is the same thing for only magnetism.

I fully agree, the laws of conservation/Thermo-dynamics state this very clearly.
Time has proven this position to be indisputable. Does this mean in perpetuity?
It is a high risk area to meddle in, I agree.   For a A-Z natural process flow, I agree. 

A process that has been interfered with, can make a totally different case.
Maybe if we do     look for a loophole, even if there is none, ignorance would be too bliss.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 03:09:15 PM
@gdez, @Red_Sunset, @PiCéd:

1) I guess that most people know permanent magnets and gravity can not provide energy for a motor according to conventional science.

2) I appreciate people who put time, effort and money into trying to overcome this conventional wisdom. Why not try? There are many things which we do not know, I would say we know almost nothing which is out there in the universe. If some one proclaims that he wants to try to build a machine which overcomes conventional science, so be it, very commendable. But please, do not announce success without proof. You will not find believers, only misguided people will follow you.

3) What I really hate are people who claim to have overcome conventional science without providing proof. And equally funny are people who immediately endorse such claims without having received proof. We have seen a great number of "inventors" proclaiming OU or who put forward other outrageous claims and who want to be believed without providing proof. This is very strange and we should not even talk to such idiots.

Conclusion:
It will be well received if you announce attempts, tries and research concerning OU or other so called "impossible machines". But it will cause ridicule and averse reactions if you want to be believed without providing good proof. If you want to keep a secret, shut up. Talking around a secret with stupid hints is totally useless.

Coming back to the two gigantic machines discussed in this thread (one in
Brasilia and the other in the USA):

To hope that it will work is o.k., to speculate that it will work is o.k., but proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.

The inventor or firm building the two gigantic machines are doing a bad job as far as convincing the world is concerned. Strange advertisements do not support credibility. Announcements without proof are not helpful. Why not do the obvious, why not let other people do independent measurements? Why not at least publish measurements and the measurement method? If there are no measurements at the moment, well, the announcement was then premature. Premature announcements are always very bad for ones reputation.

Of course, the inventor has no obligation to do anything. But if he wants to be believed, he should do the obvious.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 07, 2013, 06:00:57 PM
@gdez, @Red_Sunset, @PiCéd:

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

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

Coming back to the two gigantic machines discussed in this thread (one in [/b]Brasilia and the other in the USA):

To hope that it will work is o.k., to speculate that it will work is o.k., but proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.

The inventor or firm building the two gigantic machines are doing a bad job as far as convincing the world is concerned. Strange advertisements do not support credibility. Announcements without proof are not helpful. Why not do the obvious, why not let other people do independent measurements? Why not at least publish measurements and the measurement method? If there are no measurements at the moment, well, the announcement was then premature. Premature announcements are always very bad for ones reputation.

Of course, the inventor has no obligation to do anything. But if he wants to be believed, he should do the obvious.

Greetings, Conrad

Conradelecktro,

You have spoken some wise words, 
Nothing to delete,  only something to add if I may,

1.. To hope that it will work is o.k.,
2.. To speculate that it will work is o.k.,
 but
3.. proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.
4.. proclaiming that it DOESN'T WORK should only be done simultaneous with providing some proof or reasonable analysis to support.

Regarding your last line about a believable inventor
To be believable, as an inventor, you will have to bare ALL details about your invention to conclusively prove your claim, this is easily done in a boardroom with a selected audience. To broadcast those details on a public forum clashes with all business interests he might have with his invention.
We should never expect that we can take the easy way out by expecting an inventor to throw the blueprints with instruction data into you lap.  It will never happen.  Discovery will have to come from within this forum community by due diligence, not by way of a free lunch.

Regards, red




Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 07:45:11 PM
Nothing to delete,  only something to add if I may,

4. proclaiming that it DOESN'T WORK should only be done simultaneous with providing some proof or reasonable analysis to support.

We should never expect that we can take the easy way out by expecting an inventor to throw the blueprints with instruction data into you lap.  It will never happen.  Discovery will have to come from within this forum community by due diligence, not by way of a free lunch.

Regards, red

@Red_Sunset:

1) Nobody has to prove that OU is not possible. Just mention "conservation of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy). So, if someone proclaims an OU-device one cites "conservation of energy" and that is all the proof there is against it.

2) Nobody has to prove that a permanent magnet motor or a gravity motor is not possible. Classical science says that gravitational forces and also the forces of permanent magnets can not be used to drive a motor because these forces can not be switched on and off or can not be made weaker by shielding, the shield itself interacts with gravity or magnetism in a way to counteract the shielding. No more proof necessary. That is all there is to say.

So you see, demanding proof that OU is not possible and that a permanent magnet motor or a gravity motor are not possible is utter stupidity.

You might not like these standard proofs given by conventional science, but more proof is not possible.

Therefore, if you claim OU you have to give proof. If you claim a permanent magnet motor you have to give proof. If you claim a gravity motor you have to give proof. Conventional science says very clearly, that this can not exist. Why should any one repeat 200 years of science? Every inventor should know conventional science in his field. He might not agree with conventional science, but he can not demand that anybody teaches him conventional science.

3) Nobody expects that an inventor gives away anything for free. But if he wants to be believed by the general public, he has to publish credible proof. May be the inventor does not care about the general public, but why does he publish his claim in a newspaper advertisment? I see the "desire to be believed" in these strange advertisments.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 07, 2013, 08:43:32 PM
@Red_Sunset:
1) Nobody has to prove that OU is not possible. Just mention "conservation of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy). So, if someone proclaims an OU-device one cites "conservation of energy" and that is all the proof there is against it.
2) ...................................................
You might not like these standard proofs given by conventional science, but more proof is not possible.
.................................................
......................
Greetings, Conrad

Hi Conrad,
You present an interesting angle,
I agree that you can justifiable take a position of high standing, but that position is not going to serve you well.
The results will not be "well" either because you are not addressing both aspects (science/technical & business).
When there is a bi-directional interchange, things change dramatically. (like win-win for example)

3) Nobody expects that an inventor gives away anything for free. But if he wants to be believed by the general public, he has to publish credible proof. May be the inventor does not care about the general public, but why does he publish his claim in a newspaper advertisment? I see the "desire to be believed" in these strange advertisments.
Greetings, Conrad

I do not think any inventor in this field wants to be believed by the general public.  What would be the incentive ?  The general public would not be the direct users in any case. 
The prime objective would be to get the invention into production, now that needs help from the business world, finance and others.  To be believed by the academic world would have importance because it would provide assurance for the business world (investor confidence ...ect), but is not necessary essential.

For example, did someone came to you in the 80's (or general public) to get your buy-in to the workability of the concept of a cell phone network.  I don't think so. Were investors and other key businesses approached and the academic world consulted, I am pretty sure they were to get their buy-in, to get it off the ground.

I do not think that we were the intended audience of these strange adverts you are referring to.
Regards, Red
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 09:31:25 PM
Hi Conrad,
You present an interesting angle,
I agree that you can justifiable take a position of high standing, but that position is not going to serve you well.
...........
Regards, Red

I do not take a position of high standing and I do not defend "conventional science".

But I do not allow to turn the burden of proof around. (I am realistic enough to realise that nobody has to listen to me.)

Someone who makes an extraordinary claim (in science, in technology or in any area of human interaction) must provide proof. Nobody has to prove him wrong. Such is the nature of extraordinary claims.

If one makes an extraordinary claim and if one does not provide proof (for whatever reason), one will be ridiculed, scolded, taken for a fool and one's reputation will suffer severely. Such is the nature of extraordinary claims.

All the strange people who showed up in this forum with their extraordinary claims wanted to be believed without providing proof. Well, they were not believed and they disappeared and no working device ever surfaced.

I hope that the gigantic machines will be different, but so far everything happens like with all extraordinary claims:

- secrecy
- extraordinary claims
- strange revelations (which are absolutely not helpful)
- useless patent

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 07, 2013, 10:02:29 PM
I do not take a position of high standing and I do not defend "conventional science".

But I do not allow to turn the burden of proof around. (I am realistic enough to realise that nobody has to listen to me.)
....................................................................................
I hope that the gigantic machines will be different, but so far everything happens like with all extraordinary claims:

- secrecy
- extraordinary claims
- strange revelations (which are absolutely not helpful)
- useless patent

Greetings, Conrad

Having said all that, lets dig in a bit deeper  ( I agree that the world isn't perfect, and we do not always get our own way). 

So what do YOU want out of any exchange in this forum ?
    1.. A workable blueprint explained by the designer/inventor ?
    2.. Some knowledge that can possibly advance your own inventory of idea's
    3.. Or something else ......?

With reference to required info that needs to be supplied by the inventor,
As an example, lets focus on Renato Ribeiro, as an inventor (his profession), he made available publicly the most comprehensive documentation (drawing and explanatory text in the patent) and photo's of his invention on the website (the piece lacking as I read is the working video).  It is rare to have this much information available on a new invention.

Sure Ribeiro makes some (extra-ordinary) claims in his patent application.  He described the working principle of his invention.
   1.. Did he explain his idea well enough ?  If no, what did he garble?
   2.. Is he wrong?  meaning did he made assumptions that are not possible ?  If yes what and why are they not possible?
   3.. Is his patent application useless (do you think you should tell him not to proceed and waste his money) ?

Would all this satisfy the need for information discussed in this forum, I would assume it does.  Although I still see a lot of objections and denunciations.  Is there still something lacking ?.
If the answer is yes, please tell me, what is it !.  So we can utilize this forum beneficially !
Please enlighten me.

Regards, Red



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 10:23:01 PM
Well, Red_Sunset, you seem to have received enough hints to let you believe that the gigantic machine is indeed working. So be it.

I have not received enough hints. So be it.

I do not make the rules in this forum and I do not want to make them. But I do state what I like and what I do not like.

I do not like people who make extraordinary claims without providing proof. So be it.

Not having proof does not seem to bother you. So be it.

That is all there is left for me to say. You have won. I have lost (mainly time, which is my own fault).

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 07, 2013, 11:19:52 PM
Well, Red_Sunset, you seem to have received enough hints to let you believe that the gigantic machine is indeed working. So be it.
I have not received enough hints. So be it.
I do not make the rules in this forum and I do not want to make them. But I do state what I like and what I do not like.
I do not like people who make extraordinary claims without providing proof. So be it.
Not having proof does not seem to bother you. So be it.
That is all there is left for me to say. You have won. I have lost (mainly time, which is my own fault).
Greetings, Conrad 
Hi Conrad,   
I am sorry you feel this way, you seem to be limiting your world by your own choice and winning or loosing is not the point here.
I get the feeling that you need to "break a leg" over it before you consider it proof.  Sometimes it is only a hint that eventually leads to the proof.

The good hint (as you call it) is a plain explanation in the patent, section [0046], I made reference to this in a previous posting.

It says the following.
[0046] The force of gravity exerted over the weight is trans
ferred to the assembly through the central shaft. This shaft,
depending on where the locks are exercising the support, if
they are on the positive or neutral arms and when, transfer
more or less force to the blue bar.
This in turn transfers the
force to the crankshaft arm that is transferred to the crankshaft
where the torque is applied.

What is being said is, that the weight force to the blue bar is not the same all the time. It is more clear further in the patent, that there are two forces, a downward weight force and a lever force. Both aiding the rotation of the crankshaft.
I would guess that the effect of this additional lever energy quantity is relatively small (** due to the effect of initially opposing the direction of rotation and not optimum force angles).

I would guess this the reason for the additional changes seen in the pictures (with a balanced telescopic weight lever) and the reason it was not envisaged or documented in the patent.
Is this the proof you need ?, that depends on your own verification requirement, theoretical, practical or otherwise. Your choice.
But please do not say, he doesn't proof his claim.  He does says he verified this force effect and used it as the fundamental principle of his invention, what more can you expect from the inventor at this point.  In this case, where do you want to draw the line of "no proof to proof". We surely can put a certain amount of trust in his word, reputation...ect

 In the end, the absolute proof lies with you, (at least in this type of circumstance)  in the same way you verified in the class lab what was said in the theory class, peer verified.  This I would call "indisputable practical proof" .  A lot lies in the understanding of proof and the reasons why to want a specific level of authentication.  "Absolute indisputable proof" comes for me toward the end of the proof process. There are many steps in between.

I hope this helps
Regards, Red

This post last modification was 8 Dec 13  @ 7:07AM   OU-server time
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 28, 2013, 03:25:07 PM
Well said, Red Sunset. :)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on December 29, 2013, 04:49:11 PM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...

in other words, the onus is ALWAYS on the person/s claiming over unity to prove their case and not the other way round.

Poit
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 29, 2013, 05:35:53 PM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...
...


Whether or not the RAR device works you've got to admit, it's extraordinary.   ;D
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Liberty on December 29, 2013, 06:04:04 PM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...

in other words, the onus is ALWAYS on the person/s claiming over unity to prove their case and not the other way round.

Poit

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

What is the difference between a proof and extraordinary proof?

Can a woman be kind of pregnant?  She either is pregnant or she is not.  There is no in between.  So it is for Over Unity.  It is OU or it is not.  It is self evident with an accurate standard proof for those that are willing to admit it as a truth.  It becomes as muddy waters and endless proofs (extraordinary proof) for those that refuse to acknowledge a true proof.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 29, 2013, 09:59:31 PM

... 
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
...


Very true.


"Proof" has certainly come to me from the mental stimulus of the imminent RAR demonstration.


Thanks to BesslerWheel.com forum discussions over the four years since I joined, I've been able to link up all that "work", all that collection of concepts relating to the Keenie wheel mechanism.


I now understand why the Keenie generates an asymmetric gravity action and how the increments of that action are integrated by a succession of fall and recoil pulses of weights on the active side of the wheel.


I can illustrate this more specifically by quoting from a recent BW thread.


Quote from: Grimer
Quote from: jim_mich
...
The problem with gravity being the 'prime mover' force is that gravity is symmetrical.
Gravity is symmetrical but its effect on both sides of the wheel is not
necessarily symmetrical.


Quote
Gravity force is the same on both sides of the wheel.
But its effect on both sides of the wheel is not necessarily the same.


For example. If the wheel has a one way clutch at its axle then there will be a force opposing gravity on one side of the wheel and not on the other. In effect gravity will be switched off, neutralized, balanced on one side of the wheel and not on the other.


In these circumstances gravity will be acting asymmetrically and provide a torque which will drive the wheel. Gravity will be partitioned into two equal angular momentum components, one which is driving the wheel one way, clockwise say, and the other which is "driving" the wheel supports connected to earth, anticlockwise.


This is how and why the Keenie wheel works.


Quote
And gravity force acts the same on a rising weight as on a falling weight.

Indeed it does.


But the action of the one way clutch does not have the same result on a weight on one side of the wheel as on the other.


Quote
This symmetry of force is the reason that gravity cannot be a prime mover force for a PM wheel.
The asymmetry of the effective gravitational action introduced to the wheel by the use of a one way clutch is the reason that gravity can be a prime mover force for a PM wheel.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on December 30, 2013, 06:49:28 AM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

What is the difference between a proof and extraordinary proof?

Can a woman be kind of pregnant?  She either is pregnant or she is not.  There is no in between.  So it is for Over Unity.  It is OU or it is not.  It is self evident with an accurate standard proof for those that are willing to admit it as a truth.  It becomes as muddy waters and endless proofs (extraordinary proof) for those that refuse to acknowledge a true proof.

Do you have this "rar" over unity built in your garage? do you have the blue prints to build one? or at least get an engineer to build one? No you don't...

Lets say I was to tell you I saw a rat in my basement... I took a picture of it... even a video... that would be ordinary proof... its common place.. no real reason for you to doubt I saw a rat in my basement...

What if I said to you that I have captured an alien and have it tied up in my basement..... would a picture or a video suffice? of course not... because it is an extraordinary claim.. you would either need to come over and see it for your self or go capture your own alien!

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 30, 2013, 09:01:37 AM
Poit


I don't have to prove that the square on the hypotenuse is always equal to the sums of the squares on the other two sides by constructing physical right angle triangles for you to measure because you could always claim, and you would be right, that I had not constructed all possible right angle triangles.


Likewise, I don't have to prove the extraordinary claim that there are an infinite number of primes by counting them, another impossible task.


Of course, if through lack of education a person is incapable of appreciating the arguments of both claims then there is no way one can provide proofs to them.


In the case of the Keenie wheel for example, simple logic can show how and why it worked. There is no need to prove it by building one although no doubt someone who was not confident of their powers to reason correctly would take the same line as Didymus.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 30, 2013, 09:08:48 AM

===================================
The art of reasoning consists in getting hold of the
subject at the right end, of seizing the few general
ideas that illuminate the whole, and of persistently
organizing all subsidiary facts around them. Nobody
can be a good reasoner unless he has realized the
importance of getting hold of the big ideas and
hanging onto them like grim death .


A.N.Whitehead

Presidential Address to the London Branch of the
Mathematical Association., 1914
====================================
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on December 30, 2013, 10:32:10 AM
Alas, Frank. I see your appeal to authority Whitehead quote, and I'll raise you one Wiki article on logical fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

The fact that nobody has made a Keenie wheel work means that your reasoning, which leads you to believe it should work, is flawed. Not the other way around.



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 30, 2013, 12:09:55 PM
They will dear boy. They will.


And when they do your naive belief in the dogma that there is no such thing as a free lunch will be consigned to the scrap heap.   8)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on December 30, 2013, 07:38:33 PM
Alas, Frank. I see your appeal to authority Whitehead quote, and I'll raise you one Wiki article on logical fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

The fact that nobody has made a Keenie wheel work means that your reasoning, which leads you to believe it should work, is flawed. Not the other way around.

Well played sir :)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on December 30, 2013, 07:39:56 PM
They will dear boy. They will.


And when they do your naive belief in the dogma that there is no such thing as a free lunch will be consigned to the scrap heap.   8)

"They will....".... so you admit there is no proof then!!
like you said, you either have proof or you dont.. and you just admited you don't.. so case closed until "they will"!
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on December 30, 2013, 09:05:22 PM
Hi,
   for Grimer and those with similar thoughts I'm sure that you'll find that the Koala
will be one of the first to endorse the machine if it's proven to work. He'll make one
in his laboratory and show the video for all to see.
    Just look at the effort that went into the Tinselzed which was inspired by Wayne
Travis, and to proving Ainslie's circuit.
   Steve Weir and Poynt99 also tried hard with the Ainslie thing. One thing that did
transpire was that Steve Weir knew more about the Ainslie circuit that did either
Rose herself or her partner!
                   John
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 30, 2013, 10:55:31 PM
"They will....".... so you admit there is no proof then!!
like you said, you either have proof or you dont.. and you just admited you don't.. so case closed until "they will"!
I have proof, the same kind of proof Euclid had - but someone who can't instantly see the answer to the water and wine problem will be incapable of appreciating it.
I can spell, too.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 30, 2013, 11:03:10 PM
Hi,
   For Grimer and those with similar thoughts I'm sure that you'll find that the Koala
will be one of the first to endorse the machine if it's proven to work. He'll make one
in his laboratory and show the video for all to see.
   
It's called climbing on the bandwagon.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 31, 2013, 12:38:49 PM
You guys like to bitch like a bunch of OU (xxxx)!

We all can have an opinion, but that is not equal to fact. Neither does a view necessarily paint the whole picture.

If you did figure out the workings and found the forces not capable enough for the system to do as said,  a specific finding does not nail the door shut,  it only gives an indication that it is not exactly easy to open by just turning the handle. Knowing something is not necessary ALL the knowledge there is to know. 

I am not trying to make everybody believe that I got all the answers or would state that the RAR system shown works as stated. What matters more is the principle behind this system that could open the door to other design approaches. 
My intrigue is “why does an experienced designer/inventor thinks this can work”.  If the principle is sound, then working or not working is just a matter of engineering ability and available technology.

It is clear for this category type of OU design, we have a process that descends/drops a potential energy and then we expect (due to a process alteration) for the energy to be more during descend than what is required for ascent (one or a combination of both).
What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is clearly follows a similar thought pattern, using a mechanical leverage alteration in the drop cycle to refocusing force vectors onto the same hardware (a hardware setup that did not expect that under normal con-rod conditions).  This results in a greater force than expected for a given energy drop distance. Resulting in more energy out that was held by the weight drop distance.

What Ribeiro’s design is doing, is manipulating the forces transmitted towards the crankshaft through the con-rod.  For a given gravity down force, he adds a similar value lateral force. The cost of this value verses the benefit to be had is critical.
 In a standard con-rod driven wheel, the transmission of force is a trig sin/cos function for the gravity down force. Now we introduce a selective applied lateral force to the crank that is 90dgr out of phase.
In regular crank/con-rod, with a 1:1 ratio, the weight drop height is equal to the crank wheel diameter. We know that the actual path of the con-rod attachment is more than that distance by ~1.5 since it follows the circumference.  If we now supposedly can keep the force vector at full force for that distance, we introduce an additional total torque energy of 1.5 times the drop energy.
Renato is aiming to apply this force for somewhat more that 90 dgr but at double the force (the result vector).  To supplement this, using connection locks in the system that can be engaged at specific times, in the region where the force is in-line with rotation, the down force is increased without sacrificing stored lateral potential energy, by engaging an extended lever force.  Cost saving is achieved by using weight balancing during the triangular tilt storage increase process to minimize overhead. 

The theoretical gain is limited, so any additional advantage by optimization would improve the energy balance and I believe that being the reason for diverse weight manipulation models seen.  Although the patent application gives a fair account of the working process, it sure is not the whole story and neither would we expect this to be the whole story.

What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is in many principle aspects similar to the principle behind Wayne Travis zed described in a previous tread in this forum.  The basic difference is that Wayne uses an hydraulic leverage and Renato uses mechanical leverage.
Both principles use effectively a differentiation process between the down & up strokes with the result of an altered (increased) force over the same distance.  The differentiation is in how the properties of the same physical device are used, so that the use of a different property impacts and alters the energy balance
The result is a net energy gain.

Any constructive input is appreciated
Regards,  Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on December 31, 2013, 02:00:45 PM
An opinion is worthless... pointing out a fact is priceless..

and the FACT is no one has proven over unity!

Want to argue with that? then you are really stupid! the ONLY counter to that argument is provide actual proof of over unity!

Write your reply, I don't care... you can write and write and write.. doesn't change the fact that YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! NO PROOF!! NOTHING!! so go ahead and try and write and write until your hearts content, its all meangingless drivel!
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on December 31, 2013, 03:13:24 PM
Say we need 40 hp.
Say we have 15 weights.
Say they are 5000 lbs.
Say they drop 4 ft.
Say we can do 25 rpm.
Say by magic we get 5 percent  extra from gravity.
40 x 550 x 60 x 20 =26,400,000 ft/min required.
Take one weight 1,760,000 ft/min.
5000 x 4  x 25 divide by 20 because we get 5% = 25,000
Someone who does math needs to work this out
for me because I'm not too hot at it!
                John
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on December 31, 2013, 03:16:06 PM
Say we need 40 hp.
Say we have 15 weights.
Say they are 5000 lbs.
Say they drop 4 ft.
Say we can do 25 rpm.
Say by magic we get 5 percent  extra from gravity.
40 x 550 x 60 x 20 =26,400,000 ft/min required.
Take one weight 1,760,000 ft/min.
5000 x 4  x 25 divide by 20 because we get 5% = 25,000
Someone who does math needs to work this out
for me because I'm not too hot at it!
                John

Thats a lot of 'says'... just out of curiosity, how is any one suppose to work this out if "magic" is involved?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 31, 2013, 03:39:04 PM
An opinion is worthless... pointing out a fact is priceless..
and the FACT is no one has proven over unity!
Want to argue with that? then you are really stupid! the ONLY counter to that argument is provide actual proof of over unity!
Write your reply, I don't care... you can write and write and write.. doesn't change the fact that YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! NO PROOF!! NOTHING!! so go ahead and try and write and write until your hearts content, its all meangingless drivel!

I thought that the first line in my previous posting was descriptive enough. I am not here to prove anything neither to make anybody believe anything.  Although I do like a good structured argument/discussion that can take our knowledge to the next level.

Minnie,
It all hinges on a principle.  A small "one watt" energy gain cycled and multiplied one million times per second is not to be ignored.
Sure it wouldn't look like the RAR or the ZED, but it could utilize the same principle.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on December 31, 2013, 04:33:46 PM
I have proof, the same kind of proof Euclid had - but someone who can't instantly see the answer to the water and wine problem will be incapable of appreciating it.
I can spell, too.


talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered,  good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on December 31, 2013, 05:44:49 PM
talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered,  good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.
Hi Cat, I can not figure out to what text you are referring to, can you clarify,
1.. The riddle ?
2.. The promise of a solution or delivery?

It appears to me that people are waiting out there with hands open, for handouts.  Maybe I am mistaken, but you give me also the impression that a delivery is required/mandatory for top notch OU blueprints, triple proofed and guaranteed in perpetuity. 
I thought this was a incubator forum to share and discuss technical idea's with possible excess energy relevance.

Enlighten me pls,  Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on December 31, 2013, 06:48:53 PM
@ Red_Sunset
You have never liked my responses, so if you can't figure it out by reading previous posts there is no point in me trying to explain it,

When somebody says they have done it or they can prove it works, then yes I require actual real life evidence, otherwise there is a 99% likelihood that they are talking BS, we saw it all before with your support and belief in Wayne travesty and his BS, stop believing in people's hollow words and request actual evidence.

Nothing wrong with having a good conversation about what might be possible and what has have been tried and what could be attempted but don't tell me you've done it, you know it works, you can prove it, when you have no actual real evidence.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 07:08:01 PM

talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered,  good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.


But I can. I can show why and how the Keenie wheel worked.  8)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 07:56:58 PM
An acceptable proof for me, for the Brazilian machine, would have to include one or more of the following:

 1) A clear explanation of the principle - so i could build one myself.
 - I've read the patent - it's vague, & built the mechanism - it shows no possibility of OU, as far as I can tell.

 2) Independent verification by some respected experts.
 - Nothing to date - many, many months after #1 was completed...

 3) Coverage in the media / interchat
 - Months pass by... Still no news or verification...

Number (1) being the most important...

There's no point in filling up pages with unsubstantiated opinions. They're worthless.  Grimer, if you have any proof for any OU device then you would have already shown us it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 09:32:53 PM
An acceptable proof for me, for the Brazilian machine, would have to include one or more of the following:

 1) A clear explanation of the principle - so i could build one myself.
 - I've read the patent - it's vague, & built the mechanism - it shows no possibility of OU, as far as I can tell.

 2) Independent verification by some respected experts.
 - Nothing to date - many, many months after #1 was completed...

 3) Coverage in the media / interchat
 - Months pass by... Still no news or verification...

Number (1) being the most important...

There's no point in filling up pages with unsubstantiated opinions. They're worthless.  Grimer, if you have any proof for any OU device then you would have already shown us it.


I have.


Read the other Brazil thread.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 09:47:41 PM
I have.
Read the other Brazil thread.

Please provide a link to the exact post.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 09:50:43 PM



For your convenience I've pasted that post below:
==================================



The prime mover on the Keenie is the weight which is release on the right hand side, impacts the weight below and recoils to reset in its original position.
But the really important action is that of the one way clutch, the mechanical valve, which prevents the rest of the coupled weights rising up to meet that single weight. That valve allows the jerk energy, the angular momentum to be partitioned, one part remaining within the wheel and the other part going to earth.


It's massively ironic that Keenie brought the slingshot, the gravity, assist to earth long before Michael Minovitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Minovitch) in 1961.


In the Milkovic pendulum we also have a counter weight sitting on  the "earth" apparently doing nothing but in fact being prevented from falling.
Raymond Head has shown that the Milkovic can deliver over-unity.  In the RAR there are plenty of pictures showing weights sitting on the floor doing nothing. It is that action that is the key to the asymmetric action of gravity.


It's a pity that cognitive dissonance is too strong for people to recognise it.





Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 09:53:58 PM
Please provide a link to the exact post.


http://www.overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/#.UsMuh_RdXh4 (http://www.overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/#.UsMuh_RdXh4)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 09:57:04 PM
The prime mover on the Keenie is the weight which is release on the right hand side, impacts the weight below and recoils to reset in its original position. ... That valve allows the jerk energy...

Can you please provide a link to a full description of the device & how it works. I've not heard of it before, and those few lines aren't enough for me.

I'm open minded to OU coming through 'jerk' - or the 'rate of change of acceleration'. In fact i think it's probably *the* route to OU...

Quote
It's a pity that cognitive dissonance is too strong for people to recognise it.

Mate, most of us are old and cynical - with good reason... Have you noticed just how many frauds there are in this field?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 10:06:45 PM
Can you please provide a link to a full description of the device & how it works. I've not heard of it before, and those few lines aren't enough for me.

I'm open minded to OU coming through 'jerk' - or the 'rate of change of acceleration'. In fact i think it's probably *the* route to OU...

Mate, most of us are old and cynical - with good reason... Have you noticed just how many frauds there are in this field?


Go to BesslerWheel.com and you will find oodles of stuff on the Keenie, its history, etc.


I'm encouraged to see you are open minded about the 3rd derivative of position with respect to time. When ever I talk about Jerk on the Bessler forum I get a very frosty reception. As for Snap, Crackle and Pop - that makes them loose it completely.  ;D

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 10:15:36 PM
Go to BesslerWheel.com and you will find oodles of stuff on the Keenie, its history, etc.

For the sake of the leettle cheeldren, a link - not a trawl please.

Quote
I'm encouraged to see you are open minded about the 3rd derivative of position with respect to time. When ever I talk about Jerk on the Bessler forum I get a very frosty reception. As for Snap, Crackle and Pop - that makes them loose it completely.  ;D

Lol :D

I think deferred reaction - or 'critical action time' - is probably where it's at... Do before you think... Leap before you look. That kinda thing... :)

I'm a big fan of Davis and Stine... What a breath of fresh air & common-sense to read physicists saying 'nothing can react to an input in zero time'...

So reaction may be opposite and equal, but it *cannot* be simultaneous... ;)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 10:26:01 PM

You obvious don't believe in the exhortation DYOR.


Still, seeing that you are possibly capable of understanding I'll take pity on you.


This paper by Hans van Lieden is a good place to start.

http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm (http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 10:36:49 PM
Davis [1] said that the whole structure of science “is a cracked and sagging edifice held together with masking tape and resting on the shifting sands of constantly changing theory.  Nothing is known with any real certainty.Some things are merely more probable than others. Well-known theories and even laws turn out to be only partially confirmed hypotheses, waiting to be replaced with somewhat better partially confirmed hypotheses.If there is one thing we know about every theory in modern physics, it is that it’s wrong or at least incomplete.  Sooner or later somebody will come along with a more general theory of which the old theory is seen to be a special case.This is not a criticism of science, but merely a description of the scientific method.”

Ain't that a fact.  ::)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 10:45:06 PM
So now you're being insulting and patronising... And I thought we were friends... :(

You claimed to have a proof of an OU device, all I asked for was details. In response you tell me I don't do my own research.

The device you link to has never been shown to work. Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing. As I said before: Have you not noticed the large number of frauds in the field of OU?

Perhaps you think there is some benefit in just believing in things? Perhaps you think that by believing in things, it makes it more likely they'll work?

Belief is the opposite of knowing. It's worthless.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 11:35:14 PM
Calm down Tim.


I'm well aware that no one has been able to make it work except Keenie.


That's because people didn't appreciate how and why it worked.


I merely gave you Hans's paper as a good intro to the Bessler Forum threads on the subject.


I can't think why you thought we were friends. We've never even been introduced.   ;D


Ah well, Destry - or rather Cognitive Dissonance rides again.
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%] [/size]

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on January 01, 2014, 12:18:26 AM
So you have nothing.

I was being sarcastic with the 'friends' remark FYI.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on January 01, 2014, 02:01:37 AM
So now you're being insulting and patronising... And I thought we were friends... :(

You claimed to have a proof of an OU device, all I asked for was details. In response you tell me I don't do my own research.

The device you link to has never been shown to work. Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing. As I said before: Have you not noticed the large number of frauds in the field of OU?

Perhaps you think there is some benefit in just believing in things? Perhaps you think that by believing in things, it makes it more likely they'll work?

Belief is the opposite of knowing. It's worthless.

out of all the responses in this thread, it really does boil down to one line you just said .. "Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing."

Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 03:19:10 AM
So you have nothing.

...


Nothing for the "old and cynical".
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on January 01, 2014, 05:35:23 AM

Nothing for the "old and cynical".

The onus is ALWAYS on the person claiming the extraordinary... we "cynical" people don't need to prove shit... all we have to do is sit back and watch you fools make a mockery of the over unity scene...

That said, I can prove you have nothing...................................................................................... drum roll................ because... YOU HAVE NOTHING!!

a claim is nothing
and all you have to offer is empty claims... you even said they are empty....in not so many words (by saying you have proof and wont share it)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 08:02:29 AM
I have shared it. You haven't understood it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on January 01, 2014, 08:09:25 AM
I have shared it. You haven't understood it.

Yea, your right... I havn't understood it, neither has the other 7+ billion people on the planet... well done *claps very sarcastically*
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 08:32:22 AM
You guys like to bitch like a bunch of OU (xxxx)!

We all can have an opinion, but that is not equal to fact. Neither does a view necessarily paint the whole picture.

If you did figure out the workings and found the forces not capable enough for the system to do as said,  a specific finding does not nail the door shut,  it only gives an indication that it is not exactly easy to open by just turning the handle. Knowing something is not necessary ALL the knowledge there is to know. 

I am not trying to make everybody believe that I got all the answers or would state that the RAR system shown works as stated. What matters more is the principle behind this system that could open the door to other design approaches. 
My intrigue is “why does an experienced designer/inventor thinks this can work”.  If the principle is sound, then working or not working is just a matter of engineering ability and available technology.

It is clear for this category type of OU design, we have a process that descends/drops a potential energy and then we expect (due to a process alteration) for the energy to be more during descend than what is required for ascent (one or a combination of both).
What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is clearly follows a similar thought pattern, using a mechanical leverage alteration in the drop cycle to refocusing force vectors onto the same hardware (a hardware setup that did not expect that under normal con-rod conditions).  This results in a greater force than expected for a given energy drop distance. Resulting in more energy out that was held by the weight drop distance.

What Ribeiro’s design is doing, is manipulating the forces transmitted towards the crankshaft through the con-rod.  For a given gravity down force, he adds a similar value lateral force. The cost of this value verses the benefit to be had is critical.
 In a standard con-rod driven wheel, the transmission of force is a trig sin/cos function for the gravity down force. Now we introduce a selective applied lateral force to the crank that is 90dgr out of phase.
In regular crank/con-rod, with a 1:1 ratio, the weight drop height is equal to the crank wheel diameter. We know that the actual path of the con-rod attachment is more than that distance by ~1.5 since it follows the circumference.  If we now supposedly can keep the force vector at full force for that distance, we introduce an additional total torque energy of 1.5 times the drop energy.
Renato is aiming to apply this force for somewhat more that 90 dgr but at double the force (the result vector).  To supplement this, using connection locks in the system that can be engaged at specific times, in the region where the force is in-line with rotation, the down force is increased without sacrificing stored lateral potential energy, by engaging an extended lever force.  Cost saving is achieved by using weight balancing during the triangular tilt storage increase process to minimize overhead. 

The theoretical gain is limited, so any additional advantage by optimization would improve the energy balance and I believe that being the reason for diverse weight manipulation models seen.  Although the patent application gives a fair account of the working process, it sure is not the whole story and neither would we expect this to be the whole story.

What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is in many principle aspects similar to the principle behind Wayne Travis zed described in a previous tread in this forum.  The basic difference is that Wayne uses an hydraulic leverage and Renato uses mechanical leverage.
Both principles use effectively a differentiation process between the down & up strokes with the result of an altered (increased) force over the same distance.  The differentiation is in how the properties of the same physical device are used, so that the use of a different property impacts and alters the energy balance
The result is a net energy gain.

Any constructive input is appreciated
Regards,  Red_Sunset


Don't you find it strange that in 10/19/2013 - Official Photo # 49 the outboard weights comes to rest on the ground during part of their cycles - the same event that takes place with the Milkovic and the Keenie. At this point the weight disappears as far as the rest of the mechanism is concerned since its weight is lost to its lever and the rest of the RAR mechanism.


The inboard weights on the other hand never go walkabout, never get a rest.


Don't you find it strange that the amplitude of the outboard weights is much less than that of the inboard weights, as is also the case with the Milkovic where the amplitude of the counterweight is less than that of the pendulum.


The Milkovic pendulum also loses and gains weight as a result of the interaction between Ersatz and Newtonian gravity. For example, for an arc of 120 degrees, sixty degrees on either side of the nadir, a pendulum will weigh nothing at the top of its swing and weigh twice its static weight at the bottom. A similar effect will occur with the inboard weights of the RAR, the magnitude depending on the speed of oscillation.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 01, 2014, 09:41:15 AM
Yea, your right... I havn't understood it, neither has the other 7+ billion people on the planet... well done *claps very sarcastically*
Yea, your right... I havn't understood it, neither has the other 7+ billion people on the planet... well done *claps very sarcastically*

Happy New-Year Piot,  Peace,

Lets slow down the ranting a bit,   I do not understand what you are aiming for (I am sure that I am not alone), What will make you satisfied ?. Your replies are very general and not specific enough formulated to reply to with useful information.

In your last post, you say  "I havn't understood it" and in the previous posts to that you say “.you have nothing!!” &  “means nothing” repeatedly.  I do not see the relationship between these statements.
If you didn’t understand a technical explanation,  how can you state that “there is nothing” ?  I would expected a specific question on the detail that was not understood, or was in doubt or disagreed with.
 
Please allow me just for fun, to make a statement here that makes me also look as silly as previous posts,  "Can I ask you to produce the proof of the proxy’s that allows you to talk on behalf of the 7+ billion people !"
I can state categorically that you were definitively not talking on my behalf.

I gather that this is a technical forum, for specific technical idea’s and questions.  I do realize that this forum cannot be a 1 to 1 classroom to explain everything from a-z, without knowing the knowledge of the target audience.   Writing for posts take a lot of time and it feels unproductive if other parties do not do due diligence in their homework before they ask questions.
Sure we all WANT,  a solution answer to all our questions with blueprints to build our fabulous home OU power generator, tested & proven before we begin building.  Be aware that there are many steps in between, many wrong paths and turns.

Regards, Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on January 01, 2014, 09:53:35 AM
look.. its simple, post a PDF file of instructions (a lot like the tutorials on Instructables.com). Can't do that? then you have nothing useful what so ever! obviously in regards to over unity. Sure you can post details to make a super awesome paper weight, but this forum is OBVIOUSLY about over unity, hence the domain name overunity.com

You clearly seem to think there is a debate going on... there really isn't.

Let me put it another way, you either have it or you don't. let me give you an example of having it.

For this example, "HOW TO MAKE A JOULE THEIF"
http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/)

Step 1: PARTS
R1-1K
Q1-D882 or any npn transistor
D1-1n4007 or any diode above 5v
toroid-you will get one from an old cfl
C1-3300uF or any other cap to be charged

Step 2: WIND THE TOROID
wind both wires togather and connect the resistor to the begining of one wire and the ending of the other wire.

Step 3: MAKE THE CIRCUIT

Step 4: FINISHED

See how there is a begining and an end... and the end is the finish product. in this case its a joule theif in the case of an over unity device it would be over unity!

IS THERE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS ??? NO!!! SO SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU DO!

"I can state categorically that you were definitively not talking on my behalf." so you have these instructions then? enough talk, post it! let me make it clear to you that you are saying to me that you have detailed instructions on building an over unity device...... because if you do not then you "categorically" ARE included in the 7+ billion people comment idiot!

"I do realize that this forum cannot be a 1 to 1 classroom to explain everything from a-z" do you realize that you don't need to technically understand something to build it? in the joule thief example, do I need to understand how transistor functions in order to build a joule thief? NO!! so what gives? your an idiot!

"Sure we all WANT,  a solution answer to all our questions with blueprints to build our fabulous home OU power generator, tested & proven before we begin building.  Be aware that there are many steps in between, many wrong paths and turns." The point is that Grimer and others claim to have these blueprints, and it clearly bull shit! i'll eat my words if Grimers next post is these elusive blueprints he talks of!

If he and others do NOT have blueprints.. state it now and i'll shut up..
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 01, 2014, 10:20:17 AM

Don't you find it strange that in 10/19/2013 - Official Photo # 49 the outboard weights comes to rest on the ground during part of their cycles - the same event that takes place with the Milkovic and the Keenie. At this point the weight disappears as far as the rest of the mechanism is concerned since its weight is lost to its lever and the rest of the RAR mechanism.
.................................................................................................
.......................................................................

Hi Grimer, a Happy New Year,

I didn’t analyze in detail the RAR weight manipulation since I do not consider it directly part of the main principle (I assume).  Although the weights do play a major function in the mechanism in order to do “cost saving” and therewith increase the output.

The working forces are centered on the central shaft for gravity weight (roberval) and as a pivot for weight leverage. For the latter, the positioning of the weight ‘center of gravity’ becomes very important.
From my superficial view, the inboard weight is the main working weight (the reason for it to be most of the time in movement) and the outboard weights are counter balancing the inboard weights at certain times.  At predetermined positions, their counter balance is terminated by allowing then to rest on a ground support (angle dependency, the reason why they are not always in motion).
I can not see the RAR weight arrangement as a pendulum oscillation since it is far from free moving being constrained and controlled by locks to synchronize its movement to support the main lever mechanism.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 01, 2014, 10:37:11 AM
....................................................................
Let me put it another way, you either have it or you don't. let me give you an example of having it.

For this example, "HOW TO MAKE A JOULE THEIF"
http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/)
.............................................
...........................................
If he and others do NOT have blueprints.. state it now and i'll shut up..

Peace my friend,  lets not step into the new-year on the wrong foot.

It looks we are talking cross-wired,  your expectation and objective is very different to what other people (like Grimer & me) are aiming for.

You see it purely from a "Construction viewpoint",  when other see it from a "Theoretical working" viewpoint, this might include "hypothetical assumptions" that might lead to a construction viewpoint after all in's and out's have been well brain washed.

A construction 'to do list' with a 'parts list' makes for an easy package.  The theory might assume quite a different shape.
Can you refer to the exact workings of the Joule thief that describes how and why it saves energy. Do remember also that the joule thief is supported by standard accepted science.

Shall we try a scifi Joule Thief to complicate the parts list.
Lets not over-react in 2014

Red_sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 01, 2014, 10:42:35 AM
.......................................................................
.................................................
IS THERE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS ??? NO!!! SO SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU DO!

"I can state categorically that you were definitively not talking on my behalf." so you have these instructions then? enough talk, post it! let me make it clear to you that you are saying to me that you have detailed instructions on building an over unity device...... because if you do not then you "categorically" ARE included in the 7+ billion people comment idiot!

"I do realize that this forum cannot be a 1 to 1 classroom to explain everything from a-z" do you realize that you don't need to technically understand something to build it? in the joule thief example, do I need to understand how transistor functions in order to build a joule thief? NO!! so what gives? your an idiot!

"Sure we all WANT,  a solution answer to all our questions with blueprints to build our fabulous home OU power generator, tested & proven before we begin building.  Be aware that there are many steps in between, many wrong paths and turns." The point is that Grimer and others claim to have these blueprints, and it clearly bull shit! i'll eat my words if Grimers next post is these elusive blueprints he talks of!

If he and others do NOT have blueprints.. state it now and i'll shut up..

No further comments   (only disappointed)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Poit on January 01, 2014, 11:37:59 AM
What you want is fine.. but thats not what Grimer has said.

Who am I to judge people wanting to figure something out? thats cool.. but to claim you have proof is an entirely different matter!

you want 2014 to be a good year? lets ALL start by telling the truth?!

Something along the lines of "Hi everyone, my name is Grimer and I have previously said I have proof of over unity, I lied."

seriously. you reckon he will say that? or anything close!

no.. you want peace, fine, you and I can be peaceful, but gloves are off to Grimer and the likes that just sprout bull shit
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 01:52:17 PM
Hi Grimer, a Happy New Year,

I didn’t analyze in detail the RAR weight manipulation since I do not consider it directly part of the main principle (I assume).  Although the weights do play a major function in the mechanism in order to do “cost saving” and therewith increase the output.

The working forces are centered on the central shaft for gravity weight (roberval) and as a pivot for weight leverage. For the latter, the positioning of the weight ‘center of gravity’ becomes very important.
From my superficial view, the inboard weight is the main working weight (the reason for it to be most of the time in movement) and the outboard weights are counter balancing the inboard weights at certain times.  At predetermined positions, their counter balance is terminated by allowing then to rest on a ground support (angle dependency, the reason why they are not always in motion).
I can not see the RAR weight arrangement as a pendulum oscillation since it is far from free moving being constrained and controlled by locks to synchronize its movement to support the main lever mechanism.

Red_Sunset


Hi Red Sunset - and a Happy and Peaceful New year to you, sir.


Quote
From my superficial view, the inboard weight is the main working weight


I agree


Quote
At predetermined positions, their counter balance is terminated by allowing then to rest on a ground support


I agree. Moreover I consider this ground support to be essential in getting Newtonian Gravity to act asymmetrically.


It is interesting to note that the end elevation diagram does not show the outboard weights reaching the ground. I wonder if RAR even realise this is an essential feature and why it is essential. Perhaps they don't understand the nature of the grounding. Perhaps they don't perceive that it leads to the partitioning of jerk energy and allows one half to go to ground and the other half to drive the crank thus conserving angular momentum.


Alternatively, are they trying to mislead with that diagram to keep their discovery secret a little longer?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 01, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
What we need is someone like Michel Henkens to write a detailed explanation similar
to that done for Hydro Energy Revolution, then we'd all understand.
              John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 01, 2014, 02:31:26 PM
.................................
......................................................
I agree. Moreover I consider this ground support to be essential in getting Newtonian Gravity to act asymmetrically.

It is interesting to note that the end elevation diagram does not show the outboard weights reaching the ground. I wonder if RAR even realise ...................................................................................

Hi Grimer,
There is no good picture to give you a view, where these counter weights are parked on the ground. 
But I do think there is a high probability that they reach the ground at some point in the cycle for the following reason,
1.. The weights have feet to to account for a gap existing with the floor 
2.. The weights are mounted on a shaft allowing for positional rotation.
3.. The weights are mounted on a 180dgr hinge (this allows the inboard weight to increase height without impediment)
3.. The advantage to disengage the counter weight when the inboard weight is at its highest to achieve highest gravity force
See the 2 enlarged pictures attached

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 02:48:22 PM
Hi Grimer,
There is no good picture to give you a view, where these counter weights are parked on the ground. 
But I do think there is a high probability that they reach the ground at some point in the cycle for the following reason,
1.. The weights have feet to to account for a gap existing with the floor 
2.. The weights are mounted on a shaft allowing for positional rotation.
3.. The weights are mounted on a 180dgr hinge (this allows the inboard weight to increase height without impediment)
3.. The advantage to disengage the counter weight when the inboard weight is at its highest to achieve highest gravity force
See the 2 enlarged pictures attached

Red_Sunset


Well spotted.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 06:31:03 PM
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/EROI_-_Ratio_of_Energy_Returned_on_Energy_Invested_-_USA_zps21a21187.jpg)


This is test for posting images.


It does't work and it's stripped off the [img] tags.


It works with the originators of the software site who said they didn't have contact with Overunity.com and site owners were free to do they like with the software.


So what do I do to post an image?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on January 01, 2014, 09:23:39 PM
If you download the image to your pc, and upload it from there it works fine.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 10:37:18 PM
If you download the image to your pc, and upload it from there it works fine.


Thanks, Tim. I finally managed to sort it. I was trying to get it to show up in preview but it wouldn't. In desperation I finally hit the post key and as you can see it came up as an attachment.


I'm used to BesslerWheel.com where one can insert figures in the text rather than attachments at the end.


Images at the end are a bit of a pain if one has a long post but I 'spose I'll just have to put up with it.


Thanks again.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 10:57:30 PM

Had a Skype discussion with Cbucket (BW member) yesterday evening. He commented that the fat chap reminded him of Brunel in that classic photo in front of the Great Eastern. All Renato needs is a big cigar and stove-pipe hat to complete the image.


Here's something else Charlie Bucket gave me.


As you can see the rate of energy returned for energy invested is horrible for Bio-diesel - which probably explains the fat guy's interest in finding some cheap alternative energy source. Gravity will put him up there with hydro.


Charlie suggested that maybe he was having all the other bio-diesel producers in to make them an offer they couldn't refuse. Buy a machine or you'll soon be out of business and I'll buy you up.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 02, 2014, 03:34:09 AM
With free energy the economics of producing bio will be transformed.
The fat guy should know - he's an economist.


You will notice from the previous graph that even with the huge capital
investment involved in hydro the return on investment is way, way
ahead of the rest.
 
Not only that but there's only a limited number of places you can
build dams and these are rapidly running out.


Gravity engines can be built anywhere. In the desert, underground,
on the bottom of the ocean, deep inside a mountain.


Won't the Nimbys be pleased.  :)


And the tree huggers coz with gravity energy biodiesel will be carbon neutral.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 02, 2014, 11:24:28 PM
Here's a photo of the Brunel emulator when he was younger.


The text is a Google translation from Portuguese.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 03, 2014, 08:14:05 AM

I think I can now see my way to understanding what's going on with the RAR gravity engine.


These various mechanisms which are being discussed, the simple balance, the Roberval Balance and the RAR are all energy transduscers which convert the gravitational acceleration into different orders of energy and route that energy to different destinations.


The three lowest orders of energy we are concerned with are


1st order ..... velocity
2nd order ..... acceleration
3rd order ..... jerk


Fortunately for us we can forget about the next three higher orders,
snap(4th), crackle(5th) and pop(6th),


Starting first with a simple lever balance pivoted at its centre we can see that the equal 2nd order energy of two unit masses in free fall is transduced into equal 3rd order energy for the mass nearest (inboard) and the mass furthest (outboard) from the pivot.


Both masses have the same angular momentum in other words.


In contrast the 2nd order energy of the two masses is no longer equal.
The 2nd order energy (acceleration) is partitioned into a greater and a lesser.


The outboard mass has the greater 2nd order energy.
The inboard mass has the lesser 2nd order energy.


So we can see that the simple balance is a step up transducer.
The energy equality is stepped up from the 2nd to the third order.


In contrast the boundary case of a Roberval Balance leaves the energy order of two free falling masses unchanged.


In this boundary case the component masses of the balance tend to zero
and the vertical movement of the balance pan also tends to zero.


Now even without having a full analysis of the RAR certain things seem clear enough.


The 3rd order energy is being partitioned between the mass of the earth (as in the case of gravity assist) and the crankshaft.


The transfer of the partitioned jerk is takes place as the outboard RAR mass is grounded.


It's certainly a damned more complicated away of harnessing gravity than the Bessler or the Keenie.


I suppose one can view it as the gravitational equivalent of a Newcomen Atmospheric Engine.


 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 10:17:15 AM
No.

Until it turns under its own power, it can only be viewed as an incredibly complicated boat anchor.

Or rather, two of them, since there's one being built in the USA as well.

You have a remarkable ability to rationalize, Frank. The fact that nobody, nowhere, has ever been able to demonstrate any kind of working gravity motor doesn't deter you at all.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 03, 2014, 10:26:36 AM
No.

Until it turns under its own power, it can only be viewed as an incredibly complicated boat anchor.

Or rather, two of them, since there's one being built in the USA as well.

You have a remarkable ability to rationalize, Frank. The fact that nobody, nowhere, has ever been able to demonstrate any kind of working gravity motor doesn't deter you at all.


I would prefer it, Al, if you said I have a remarkable ability to reason.   ;-)


As for being deterred, if one doesn't have faith one is not going to move any mountains.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 01:31:41 PM
Faith alone never moved any mountains. It takes good works to move mountains. You haven't turned Protestant on me have you?


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 03, 2014, 01:41:52 PM
My 57 grandchildren are my good works.  8)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 03, 2014, 01:47:56 PM
And now I must go and play with 3 of them. Edwin, George and Joanna.


Only a few days of their holiday left.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 11, 2014, 06:42:19 PM
I've finally managed to sort out what is going in the Keenie and the RAR. [/size] 8)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 09:53:20 PM
But... but.... if there is no motion, either inside or outside, then there is no work. Nobody has seen the RAR device move at all; we've just seen stuff added to it, in almost a fractal manner. I expect to see little feathery appendages out on the very tips of the arms pretty soon.
And we know what we know about the Keenie device.... well, let's just politely say "through hearsay only" and rule it inadmissible as evidence.

As to work done "inside" and "outside" a system... I'd like you to define your terms, please. In my way of thinking, if something does work on something else, both things belong to the same "system".

I know you believe that gravitational motors are possible. But can you clear up one thing for me please: Do you believe in Conservation of Momentum?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 11, 2014, 09:59:07 PM
What momentum are you talking about? First derivative, second, third, fourth....nth?


This is something I posted in Fizzx some years ago:


"The the two conservation laws, momentum and kinetic (2nd derv) energy, are simply the same law at different levels.


Using a multi-storey building as an analogy the we see the conservation of momentum when we are on the same floor, the 10th say, as the action taking place. It is a conservation between batches. When the action takes place on the 9th floor we see it as a conservation of energy because we have not changed our viewpoint. If we move to the 9th floor and thus change our viewpoint to within batches then we see that the conservation of energy is simply a conservation of momentum within batches.


The floor below that, the 8th floor, is the jerk floor. If we move to it we will see the within component variance as momentum which is conserved. However, seen from the 10th floor it is the conservation of Jerk. Jerk has to be conserved because it is only the momentum lamb in wolf's clothing. "

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 11, 2014, 10:44:35 PM
...
And we know what we know about the Keenie device.... well, let's just politely say "through hearsay only" and rule it inadmissible as evidence.
...
That's not so.


We know it through written testimony as we know about the Bessler wheel through written testimony, an awful lot of written testimony as you will find if you read John's book.


But you will probably dismiss it as myth. You probably dismiss the whole of the new and old testament as myth too. You should have been named Didymus.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 11, 2014, 10:52:47 PM
But... but.... if there is no motion, either inside or outside, then there is no work. Nobody has seen the RAR device move at all;
That's not true. There are reports of people seeing it. But you won't believe it moves till your feet are crushed by those outboard weights.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 11, 2014, 11:32:26 PM

This is something else I posted on Fizzx which is appropriate here:




=========================================
The conservation of Jerk is simply D'Alembert's Principle of Least Action applied to the third derivative of position with respect to time as opposed to the second.


Force, Jerk, Snap, Crackle and Pop are simple convenient names applied to higher and higher derivatives of position with respect to time.


It is the derivatives that are important, not the names.


It is clear that D'Alembert's principle of Least Action applies to all these derivatives, all these actions, not simply the second. It not only applies to the action of Force (i.e. 2nd derv). It also applies to the actions of Jerk, Snap, Crackle, Pop and higher actions.


It also explains something which has been bugging me since the sixties. The ubiquity of power laws in material science.


I could see that these laws must be the ratio of large integrals but could not understand why the constants of integration disappeared at each step. In the light of D'Alembert's principle of Least Action it is clear that the quasi-Fluid (phase in tension) and quasi-Solid (phase in compression) components of a material which have vast numbers of independent particles are simple exhibiting D'Alembert's Principle of Least Action, a principle which applies to all actions, not simply force.


So more specifically we have:


D'Alembert's principle of Least momentum


D'Alembert's principle of Least acceleration


D'Alembert's principle of Least Jerk


D'Alembert's principle of Least Snap


..... and so on and so forth.


(I've not included Crackle and Pop since they are not officially recognised names for the 6th and 7th derivatives.

=========================================

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 12, 2014, 03:24:04 AM
The fact that nobody, nowhere, has ever been able to demonstrate any kind of working gravity motor doesn't deter you at all.

i am doubt this.  just wait ,  time will prove.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 12, 2014, 04:35:46 AM
i am doubt this.  just wait ,  time will prove.
What TK asserts is untrue. There is believable historical evidence that Bessler harnessed gravity with his wheel. Read John Collins book. No doubt TK also ignores Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and claims there is no evidence that Jesus existed.


Time will indeed prove - and jolly soon.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 12, 2014, 07:32:23 AM
................................................................
Using a multi-storey building as an analogy the we see the conservation of momentum when we are on the same floor,

the 10th say, .....................the 8th floor, is the jerk floor. ........................................................
Relativity applies to all of us,
"TK" is correct (on his floor) and so is "Grimer" (on his floor).  The floors happen to be "not the same floor"
That something hasn't been EVER/NEVER observed on one floor doesn't mean it can not exist on an other floor.   
The likely hood (chance) that it will ever be observed on the initial floor does become remote (something akin to winning the lottery). Although to say that NOBODY will EVER/NEVER  win the lottery is just as unlikely.
So do not nail all the doors shut.

We need to respect someone like "for example TK" to have a difference of opinion, so long he considers it "his" opinion, not the NEW general LAW for all mankind (as it is so often perceived by wording)
Our strength lies in diversity and difference, different ways of thinking, exactly the ingredients that drive prosperity. 
Do not squash it.  (as is done by to those extreme religious groups as related to religion...)
My 20 cents,  Red_sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 12, 2014, 08:44:48 AM
Relativity applies to all of us,
"TK" is correct (on his floor) and so is "Grimer" (on his floor).  The floors happen to be "not the same floor"
That something hasn't been EVER/NEVER observed on one floor doesn't mean it can not exist on an other floor.   
The likely hood (chance) that it will ever be observed on the initial floor does become remote (something akin to winning the lottery). Although to say that NOBODY will EVER/NEVER  win the lottery is just as unlikely.
So do not nail all the doors shut.

We need to respect someone like "for example TK" to have a difference of opinion, so long he considers it "his" opinion, not the NEW general LAW for all mankind (as it is so often perceived by wording)
Our strength lies in diversity and difference, different ways of thinking, exactly the ingredients that drive prosperity. 
Do not squash it.  (as is done by to those extreme religious groups as related to religion...)
My 20 cents,  Red_sunset



You're a miserable relativist, Red Sunset and relativism has been rightly condemned for denying the principle of contradiction. There's not your truth and my truth. Religious groups realise this. Only one can be correct. The rest that claim to be correct are in error.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2014, 11:00:10 AM
What TK asserts is untrue. There is believable historical evidence that Bessler harnessed gravity with his wheel. Read John Collins book. No doubt TK also ignores Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and claims there is no evidence that Jesus existed.


Time will indeed prove - and jolly soon.
When might soon be?  Bessler made his claims 300 years ago.  Since then no experiment has reproduced his perpetual motion claims.  John Collins is among those who have tried and failed.  Gravity stubbornly continues to demonstrate that it is a conservative field.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on January 12, 2014, 11:10:51 AM
September 2013 - machine complete:
19/10/2013 - Foto Oficial nº 52 - Final da terceira de três etapas
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

January 2014 - still no video of it running... Why not???  :(

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 12, 2014, 11:11:52 AM
................................................
.....................truth ...............Only one can be correct. The rest that claim to be correct are in error.
Grimer,
I regret to disagree, for the following reasons,
An OPINION is not a FACT, a persistent FACT become a "TRUTH" until it is proven to be no "persistent" fact any longer

It was frigging cold here a week ago. The temperature had dropped to +4dgrC.
At the same time, in contrast, CNN reported that the cold weather in Chicago had relented to a balmy -6dgrC.
There are many flavors of truth.

Sure if you decide on "one standard" reference, and then use this as your common yard stick. Then you are correct to ONE truth  >> but in context to that yardstick only !!  The way TK is correct in his standard yardstick view.

For sure there will be itemsof truth that becomes indisputable and unchanged and are recognized by many other yardstick references since no one has been able to come up with any good case of evidence to indisputable refute these accepted truth's.
Religion examples: Theft, murder...ect       
Science/physics examples: 1ste, 2de, 3th Law of thermodynamics.

Any of these laws can be refuted (changed, retracted...ect).  An extreme example would be, if your religion is cannibalism, or human sacrifice, murder would be accepted as normal in those circumstances. You can say the same thing about war, is it condoned murder?, I guess it is in specific circumstances (due to a thin borderline between killing and self-defence).   

Notwithstanding that the 1st/2de/3th laws are very correct, I am not convinced that they will remain absolute. In time, they will undergo addendum's.  So their truth will become a shade of gray with the work in "overunity.com"
Look at the Catholic church, they change the divine laws from time to time.  In the past, take certain South African churches, they officially condoned "apartheid" as ordered by god. You are a church member, you follow "blindly" the truth?.   Think about it, can you do an act that in your conscious is wrong but your religion organization says is isn't wrong ?
Do you think that democratic rule is the best solution for all people,  have a look if it does the best for American citizens? 

Truth is relative at any time

Amen, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2014, 11:17:33 AM
September 2013 - machine complete:
19/10/2013 - Foto Oficial nº 52 - Final da terceira de três etapas
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

January 2014 - still no video of it running... Why not???  :(
Those machines look like they are missing a large and powerful engine to drive them.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on January 12, 2014, 11:39:23 AM
Truth is relative at any time

I couldn't disagree more...

 1) Temperature:
  10C may be hot to a polar bear, and cold for a gecko, BUT
  water at sea-level *always* boils at 100C - absolutely.

Quote
items of truth that becomes indisputable.... Any of these laws can be refuted...

 2) Nonsense!
  Gravity didn't 'become indisputable'. It *always* was. Can you refute it?
  Murder didn't 'become' wrong. It *always* was. Can you refute that?
  A definition of LAW: A cause-and-effect which is universal and constant.

Quote
Look at the Catholic church, they change the divine laws from time to time.

 3) Law: I think you're very confused about what law is - but then people aren't taught it - deliberately...

There's a very big difference between the Laws of God (i.e. physics and morality), and the 'laws' of mankind.

The 'divine law' (canon) of the church is no such thing, it's a (vast) set of ridiculous rules imposed by creepy men in frocks who have an unhealthy interest in children, and who desire to enslave people in ignorance for their own enrichment.

The statute law of your democracy is again - not real law. It is neither constant, nor is it universal. Nor is it lawful.

 4) Relativity Vs. Absolute-ity

This is a big debate - and it cuts to the heart of both PHYSICS and MORALITY...
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 12, 2014, 04:03:16 PM
When might soon be?  Bessler made his claims 300 years ago.  Since then no experiment has reproduced his perpetual motion claims.  John Collins is among those who have tried and failed.  Gravity stubbornly continues to demonstrate that it is a conservative field.
Soon will be when RAR release details of their gravity engine. Keenie tried and succeeded. Bruce's Uncle tried and (unwittingly succeeded. I've no doubt when people realise that harnessing the gravitational wind is possible many other examples will emerge from the woodwork.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 12, 2014, 04:09:14 PM
I couldn't disagree more...
...................................................................................................
.................................................
............................................
 This is a big debate - and it cuts to the heart of both PHYSICS and MORALITY...
Tim,
You are absolutely correct on any ONE of the floors designated by Gimer (9th or 10th),  but do not across all floors.
I do not want to carry this any further since it is not an appropriate topic for this forum
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 12, 2014, 04:28:20 PM
...
Look at the Catholic church, they change the divine laws from time to time.
...
[size=78%]
[/font][/size]
No they don't.


The central core of beliefs and morals has never and will never be changed.


The dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, for example, which been solemnly confirmed  by the pope using his power of infallibility will never be changed.


The murder of unborn children has never been allowed and will never be allowed.


For an obviously intelligent and educated man your ignorance on these matters is astonishing. Why, even Setalokin knows better than that.



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 12, 2014, 04:39:19 PM
September 2013 - machine complete:
19/10/2013 - Foto Oficial nº 52 - Final da terceira de três etapas
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)

January 2014 - still no video of it running... Why not???  :(
Why don't you ask them - or do some research. I think they have given a reason somewhere.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 13, 2014, 09:25:30 AM
When might soon be?  Bessler made his claims 300 years ago.  Since then no experiment has reproduced his perpetual motion claims.  John Collins is among those who have tried and failed.  Gravity stubbornly continues to demonstrate that it is a conservative field.



and then from last 300 years , someone have proved that energy/power can be extracted from gravity.
and probably now thousand have made replica/modification for their own,
there were many others that works,

BIG QUESTION , KEEP  ANSWERS FOR YOUR SELF
-----------------------------------------------------
1. how can I ensure that John Collins has really failed ?
2. was I with him when device being tested ?
3. did I do experiment by Myself?
4. did John Collins know everything?
5. AM I only copy others post or wiki or other sources AND blindly accept that?
6. will my heroes give credit to me with supporting their posts?
 ...
 ... space for my next QS
 ... 
 ...
?.
-----------------------------------------------------

i was also skeptic, skeptic protect us from scam fraud etc..
till i found 99% gravity device do work, ( with simple math).
best word to say, it's EASY

the conservative field theory as a reason to deny existence of these will be obsolete, next you ( all of "conservative field"  MAN) will realize that "conservative field" is not the only one to judge,   
   
sorry for my words, and peace for all

marsing
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 13, 2014, 11:08:36 AM
...............................
The central core of beliefs and morals has never and will never be changed.
.......................................
Hi Grimer & all
I agree, that would take a revolution in its true'st sense.

I do not want to sound like a stuck record, if I may add the following text,  to be seen within the context of purpose for this forum.
The essence of my initial communication was, that I am of the opinion that in order to succeed in discovering the “free energy, as a  hook into the wheelwork of the universe (as Tesla said)”, we need to be able to think and reason “uninhibited”.  That is a taller order than you might think !.

Uninhibited does not mean to disregard known knowledge or start from square one.
It should mean to be open to new ideas and able to think and reason without being limited, the best equivalent is “discover like a child”.
That doesn’t mean that there a no limitation to what can be done, neither to ignore all physics theories and facts.  Just do not allow yourself to be limited by them,  do not allow existing laws to pre-empt or override logical reasoning. (I know, easier said than done)

For example, most people have already written off the RAR as unworkable,  that it is unworkable might be true. To know this you need to know how it possibly can work.  It is ok for anybody to say so, so long such a statement is supported by good logical analysis.
The best I have seen is thus far is MrVibrating with a SIM analysis.  Al the others are just purely speculation and guesswork work. That is no problem, but it should be recognized as such, an opinion not a fact.

We discover by perception >> perception forms an opinion by limited repeat observation >> confirmation with repeatable verification of an opinion turn it into fact >>  persistent confirmation of fact >> turns it into Law (~=truth).

Most of what I have seen here in “overunity.com” is the initial stage of perception leading towards fact confirmation, but with a great failure rate.
The result is that a lot of hard work gets trashed,  which makes many member apathetic to investing further new efforts. This leads to mainly “fast opinions” being tabled.  (although they are desired to be facts).

Some interesting revelations are still pending on this RAR. I do not like to post incomplete summaries

PS:  Some good words from Marsing, he makes a good point, 
Visualize, if YOU would have discovered the key to the holy grail, why would you post it here to be shot down.  At that juncture, you would have your hands full with much more important priorities.
Never under-estimate the dynamics of human motivation, (first tends to be always ...me first)

My 3 cents,  Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 11:09:52 AM


and then from last 300 years , someone have proved that energy/power can be extracted from gravity.
and probably now thousand have made replica/modification for their own,
there were many others that works,

BIG QUESTION , KEEP  ANSWERS FOR YOUR SELF
-----------------------------------------------------
1. how can I ensure that John Collins has really failed ?
2. was I with him when device being tested ?
3. did I do experiment by Myself?
4. did John Collins know everything?
5. AM I only copy others post or wiki or other sources AND blindly accept that?
6. will my heroes give credit to me with supporting their posts?
 ...
 ... space for my next QS
 ... 
 ...
?.
-----------------------------------------------------

i was also skeptic, skeptic protect us from scam fraud etc..
till i found 99% gravity device do work, ( with simple math).
best word to say, it's EASY

the conservative field theory as a reason to deny existence of these will be obsolete, next you ( all of "conservative field"  MAN) will realize that "conservative field" is not the only one to judge,   
   
sorry for my words, and peace for all

marsing
Marsing could you please point out a working machine that today is powered by gravity in the same sense as Johann Bessler claimed for his various wheels?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 11:14:40 AM
Below shows the difference in jerk energy between a normal pendulum swinging through an angle of two radians and a cycloid pendulum.


The difference is represented by the shaded area.


This is the reason that a normal the swing of a clock pendulum must be restricted to a very small angle so that it approximates to the brachisochrone. For the brachisocrone the period of swing is independent of the amplitude.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 11:46:37 AM



The generation of the 3rd derivative energy for curves that depart from
the cycloid can best be illustrated with a coin rolling demonstration.


If you roll a seven sided 50p coin (the large pre-1997 are best) along a
smooth horizontal plane the coin will initially jerk up and down with a
rattling noise. This is because though the diameter of the coin is constant
its centre of mass is not generally at the half diameter point. When the
coin is rolling fast enough the vertical oscillation of the mass centre is
sufficient to lift the coil free of the horizontal surface. The impact
when if falls back causes the rattling.


As the speed decreases there come a point where the rattling suddenly
ceases and the coin rolls smoothly.


This is the point where the vertical oscillation of the mass centre is
insufficient to lift the coin. It only varies the force applied by the
coin to the horizontal plane.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 12:03:06 PM
One can demonstrate the harnessing of gravity with a flexible pendulum which is allowed to swing freely from about 8 to 6 and wrap around a cycloid barrier from 6 to about 4.


It will be seen that the finishing point of the bob is higher than the starting point. The pendulum has gained gravitational energy.


Of course, to demonstrate this experimentally would require the facilities of a decent laboratory. I doubt that one could do it in  one's garage.


One would require a very flexible thin wire between the support and bob (carbon fibre?) and a vacuum enclosure to eliminate air resistance.


Obviously it would not be a practical device but it would demonstrate the principle and show that the gravity field is not conservative.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 12:20:22 PM
One can demonstrate the harnessing of gravity with a flexible pendulum which is allowed to swing freely from about 8 to 6 and wrap around a cycloid barrier from 6 to about 4.


It will be seen that the finishing point of the bob is higher than the starting point. The pendulum has gained gravitational energy.


Of course, to demonstrate this experimentally would require the facilities of a decent laboratory. I doubt that one could do it in  one's garage.


One would require a very flexible thin wire between the support and bob (carbon fibre?) and a vacuum enclosure to eliminate air resistance.


Obviously it would not be a practical device but it would demonstrate the principle and show that the gravity field is not conservative.
Grimer, if gravity is not conservative, then how do you account for very sensitive and well repeated torsion balance tests where large suspended masses have been shown to attract with forces indistinguishable from G*m1*m2/r^2?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 13, 2014, 12:27:50 PM
One can demonstrate the harnessing of gravity with a flexible pendulum which is allowed to swing freely from about 8 to 6 and wrap around a cycloid barrier from 6 to about 4.

It will be seen that the finishing point of the bob is higher than the starting point. The pendulum has gained gravitational energy.
....................................................
Hi Grimer,

Excellent presentation, although I never heard of these pendulum properties before, I learn something new, pretty fast by your logical presentation.
You underscore the exact principle path towards over-unity. The same base logic is employed (or at better phrased at this point "intended") by Renato in its RAR, and Wayne Travis in his ZED, where the energy requirement for the upswing is less than the energy gained in the down swing (or visa versa) in order to obtain a positive output balance.
The engineering challenge is in the transformation/morphing at BDC to switch cycle type and the requirement to execute this transition with minimal energy (less than possible gain), the core inventive property is there.
Well done.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 01:21:56 PM
Thanks, Red Sunset. That's the nicest compliment I've ever had for a post.  :)


And extraordinarily magnanimous considering I chewed you off about your
comment on the church. Sorry if I overdid it.  ;)


If you look up cycloid pendulums you will find that attempts have been made
to build them for timekeeping. Unfortunately the practical difficulties were greater
than the theoretical advantages.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 13, 2014, 03:45:21 PM
Thanks, Red Sunset. That's the nicest compliment I've ever had for a post.  :)

And extraordinarily magnanimous considering I chewed you off about your
comment on the church. Sorry if I overdid it.  ;)
.............................................
No 'thanks' is required,  Grimer ,
We are all human and try to show human behavior, it doesn't always work out as intended
I know "religion" is a sensitive topic at any time, by not following my own advice, your response was rightfully expected., no offense intended nor taken.
Quote
"practical difficulties were greater than the theoretical advantages",
with engineering & technology advancement, is just a matter of time to overcome difficulties, so long the principle is sound.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 04:12:45 PM
Grimer, if gravity is not conservative, then how do you account for very sensitive and well repeated torsion balance tests where large suspended masses have been shown to attract with forces indistinguishable from G*m1*m2/r^2?
I fear you've failed to follow the argument, Mark.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 05:03:41 PM

The situation can be understood in terms of Stafford Beer's restatement of Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety .....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)


..... as "Variety absorbs variety"


Just as a football team of 11 members can always overcome a team of 10 members (assuming equal skills, obviously) so also a higher derivative of motion can always control a lower derivative given the right mechanism.


In the cases of the Bessler, Keenie, Uncle's toy and RAR we have 3rd derivative energy (jerk) overcoming the second derivative energy (acceleration) of Newtonian Gravity.


I have never met Stafford in person but we did correspond and he read some of my stuff. He proposed that we wrote a joint paper. Unfortunately his heart attack intervened and the project had to be shelved. I believe our correspondence is in his archive.


Here is a video of one of his talks on Variety.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDRudRhNgy4
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 05:20:42 PM
Ain't Google search wonderful. I've actually found it.  8)


==============================================================


CHALLENGE TO PARADIGM, JULY 76 -END 1978 - Box 85 
This project was all about a book which was to be called "Challenge to Paradigm", which was to have several contributors-
 
Martin Canny
Brian Eno
Frank Grimer
Humberto Maturana
Alan Mencher
Charles Scudder
Francisco Varela
 
Not all of these people knew each other and SB kept them in ignorance of the identity of their co-conspirators by using nick -names. The fields covered by the proposed book included - Aesthetics, Anthropology, biology, botany, government, immunology, management, materials science, mathematics, neurophysiology, physiology, psychology, scientific method. The intention was that it would not just be a collection of interesting papers but a continuous narrative that expounded the view that the systems approach really works. "When it works paradigms are over thrown - and that's what constitutes the challenge". The records on this project in the collection are in an orange wallet folder within which the correspondence between Stafford and the other authors has been divided into separate slip files (one for each person), the contents is therefore dealt with in this manner -
 




CHALLENGE TO PARADIGM (letters to Wiley and all participants)
 
* several copies of letter from SB to all “players” dated 24th 
Jan 1978
* original letter setting out the project and the contents as contributed by each author
* letters between SB and James Cameron (Wiley) regarding publication of the book.


==============================================================

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 13, 2014, 05:31:23 PM
Marsing could you please point out a working machine that today is powered by gravity in the same sense as Johann Bessler claimed for his various wheels?

wow, your words are so deep.

"working machine that today is powered by gravity"
i got it  as  :=   gravity machine have accepted by whole world  or
                        there are company produce gravity wheel so i can point it out to you. 

sorry markE,    i can not,
beside, bessler is not my start point,
i don't know what exactly his claims,
and i don't want to make false claims.
and i don't know how many variant of his wheel.

well, i feel Good atmosphere here.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2014, 05:47:39 PM
One can demonstrate the harnessing of gravity with a flexible pendulum which is allowed to swing freely from about 8 to 6 and wrap around a cycloid barrier from 6 to about 4.


It will be seen that the finishing point of the bob is higher than the starting point. The pendulum has gained gravitational energy.


Of course, to demonstrate this experimentally would require the facilities of a decent laboratory. I doubt that one could do it in  one's garage.


One would require a very flexible thin wire between the support and bob (carbon fibre?) and a vacuum enclosure to eliminate air resistance.


Obviously it would not be a practical device but it would demonstrate the principle and show that the gravity field is not conservative.
Once again, you are wrong, and the experiments have been done over and over for many years. Please see "stopped pendulum" and "galileo's pendulum" in your favorite reference. No matter the shape of the stop, the bob will not rise higher than the initial release.
http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh15.html#15.1.4
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 06:19:13 PM
Once again, you are wrong, and the experiments have been done over and over for many years. Please see "stopped pendulum" and "galileo's pendulum" in your favorite reference. No matter the shape of the stop, the bob will not rise higher than the initial release.
http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh15.html#15.1.4 (http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh15.html#15.1.4)
I think the experiment I described is a bit beyond school science, Setalokin.


If I were you I'd stop digging.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2014, 06:35:41 PM
If you were me your confessor would be scandalized. You are making claims, once again, for which there is no evidence. But contrary evidence abounds. So it behooves you to provide some kind of actual evidence in support, if you want to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 07:16:44 PM
If I were you, Mr Hyde, I'm sure my confessor would be scandalized.  ;)


As for making up claims for which there is no evidence you should tell Euclid
he can't claim the number of primes is infinite until he's counted them.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 07:56:01 PM

By strange coincidence, Beer's brother, Ian Stafford Beer, was headmaster of Harrow School which is only about a mile from my house.


My three granchildren go swimming in their indoor pool on Saturday mornings.


It's a small world.


One's reminded of the six degrees of separation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 08:14:01 PM
By strange coincidence, Beer's brother, Ian Stafford Beer, was headmaster of Harrow School which is only about a mile from my house.


My three granchildren go swimming in their indoor pool on Saturday mornings.


It's a small world.


One's reminded of the six degrees of separation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation)


Edit: LOL - I've even found another link. Stafford left UCL just six years before I joined.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 10:13:32 PM
Marsing, I am sorry if I offended you.

wow, your words are so deep.

"working machine that today is powered by gravity"
i got it  as  :=   gravity machine have accepted by whole world  or
                        there are company produce gravity wheel so i can point it out to you. 

sorry markE,    i can not,
beside, bessler is not my start point,
i don't know what exactly his claims,
and i don't want to make false claims.
and i don't know how many variant of his wheel.

well, i feel Good atmosphere here.

Marsing when you said:

Quote
i was also skeptic, skeptic protect us from scam fraud etc..
till i found 99% gravity device do work, ( with simple math).
best word to say, it's EASY

the conservative field theory as a reason to deny existence of these will be obsolete, next you ( all of "conservative field"  MAN) will realize that "conservative field" is not the only one to judge,   
   
sorry for my words, and peace for all

marsing

Since we have been discussing gravity wheels, I thought you meant a Bessler, or Bessler like device was part of those 99% of the working gravity devices you mentioned.   I especially thought this when you declared:  "it's EASY".  Please clarify what sorts of machines are among the 99% of gravity devices that you have found work.  Are any of those devices gravity wheels?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 10:16:33 PM
I think the experiment I described is a bit beyond school science, Setalokin.


If I were you I'd stop digging.
Grimer are there any existing, replicated experiments that you can point to that show the gravitational field operating in a non-conservative manner?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 13, 2014, 10:31:54 PM
Hi Grimer,

Excellent presentation, although I never heard of these pendulum properties before, I learn something new, pretty fast by your logical presentation.

You underscore the exact principle path towards over-unity. The same base logic is employed (or at better phrased at this point "intended") by Renato in its RAR, and Wayne Travis in his ZED, where the energy requirement for the upswing is less than the energy gained in the down swing (or visa versa) in order to obtain a positive output balance.

The engineering challenge is in the transformation/morphing at BDC to switch cycle type and the requirement to execute this transition with minimal energy (less than possible gain), the core inventive property is there.

Well done.

Red_Sunset

Red .. Grimer has been presenting this hypothesis of gain in Pe [i.e. gravity force is not conservative] as fact for quite some time - he has been asked to provide repeatable experimental evidence of his claim both here & over at BW.com - IINM he has never 'produced the goods' - having a theory is one thing, promoting it as a fact or truth is another.

A couple of renowned commentators here have politely pointed out the contradictory evidence to the 'Grimer theory'.

Perhaps I am less quick to accept someone's musing as indisputable fact than you [my failing perhaps ?] & prefer to check facts as best I can before willingly becoming an acolyte - IIRC You-tube has some good experiments with pendulums, in such a manner as Grimer proposes, which do not show a gain in height.

Perhaps Grimer would like to provide his experimental basis for his theory so we can forever retire Gravity as a conservative force  & open the Pandoras box !
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 10:55:16 PM
Grimer are there any existing, replicated experiments that you can point to that show the gravitational field operating in a non-conservative manner?
You're new here, Mark, aren't you.


You suddenly appear over the horizon suggesting to Al that he cools things down with Rosemary.


You tell me who you are, who you work for and what your connection with Al is and I might think about answering your question.
Until then I suggest you think very carefully about the pendulum proof of principle.
After all, you can't be a little bit pregnant, can you.


Your employer might want your opinion on the proof so as he knows whether or not to short his shares.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 11:08:12 PM
Red .. Grimer has been presenting this hypothesis of gain in Pe [i.e. gravity force is not conservative] as fact for quite some time - he has been asked to provide repeatable experimental evidence of his claim both here & over at BW.com - IINM he has never 'produced the goods' - having a theory is one thing, promoting it as a fact or truth is another.

A couple of renowned commentators here have politely pointed out the contradictory evidence to the 'Grimer theory'.

Perhaps I am less quick to accept someone's musing as indisputable fact than you [my failing perhaps ?] & prefer to check facts as best I can before willingly becoming an acolyte - IIRC You-tube has some good experiments with pendulums, in such a manner as Grimer proposes, which do not show a gain in height.

Perhaps Grimer would like to provide his experimental basis for his theory so we can forever retire Gravity as a conservative force  & open the Pandoras box !


Hi Fletch,


I wondered when you'd turn up. ::)


We had this discussion on the Brachisochrone some years ago. I seem to remember that I pointed out that any curve that departed from the cycloid form must involve higher derivative energy. At that point you went silent.  ;D


As for Utube having the experiment I describe, I very much doubt it.
If you know of one together with the graphical proof I gave then I would love to see it.


Anyway, my argument doesn't need experimental proof any more than Euclids.


As far as providing experimental evidence is concerned that's not my job.


I was employed as a Scientific Officer when in government service, not an Experimental
Officer. I had people like you and Al to do experiments. Al had reluctantly agree to do the
Bruce experiment but I suddenly started having doubts about him and backed out.


He had got to the stage of sending me his address by email and I told him not to.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 11:29:54 PM

Replies: 24
Views: 527
(http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/templates/Classic/images/icon_minipost.gif)Forum: Community Buzz   Posted: 22nd August 2012, 4:12 am   Subject: Milkovic pendulum[/size]I can now see that the Bruce's uncle toy, the Milkovic pendulum and the Keenie all depend for their jerk energy generation on ground effect, on ground reaction twisting the gravity wind vector (cf. sailing where you have the interaction between the wind action and the water reaction).

I had a discussion sometime back with Fletcher where I pointed out that departure from the Brachistochrone curve must involve the third derivative of position with respect to time (jerk). The fall is slower because jerk energy is being generated. Now a vortex is just about as far from the Brachistochrone as you can get. Instead of the fastest time of descent you have the one of the slowest.

Fascinating - really fascinating.
[/font]
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 13, 2014, 11:43:06 PM

Hi Fletch,


I wondered when you'd turn up. ::)


We had this discussion on the Brachistochrone some years ago. I seem to remember that I pointed out that any curve that departed from the cycloid form must involve higher derivative energy. At that point you went silent.  ;D


As for Utube having the experiment I describe I very much doubt it. If you know of one together with the graphical proof I gave then I would love to see it.


Anyway, my argument doesn't need experimental proof any more than Euclids.

Ahhh yes - the brachistochrone, jack abling's wheel & omnibus's cummulative Ke.

I went silent because we had reached an impasse - conservative gravity force describes that if gravity acceleration is the only acceleration/deceleration in play on an object rolling [or swinging, or spiraling, or rotating] down a slope [straight or curved of any shape or steepness] then at ANY same loss of vertical height for direct comparison purposes, the object will have lost the same Pe as gained as Ke - IOW's the Pe lost & Ke gained is path independent.

Sorry Frank, perhaps someone else can find the You-tube experiments [very slow internet here].

All arguments need experimental proof Frank to transition to accepted facts & truth, else they remain theory's - I'd like to see your experimental evidence to compliment your theory - perhaps you could use the ball rolling down a vortex tube & measure the horizontal exit speed [well, even just the velocity in any direction will do, for a given height loss] to prove a gain in Ke above Pe lost ?

ETA: I see you added to your post - pity you backed away from TK's offer of help - you could of actually proved something ;7)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 11:44:07 PM



Here's a relevant thread from BesslerWheel.com

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4592&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=brachistochrone&start=0
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 02:36:19 AM
You're new here, Mark, aren't you.


You suddenly appear over the horizon suggesting to Al that he cools things down with Rosemary.


You tell me who you are, who you work for and what your connection with Al is and I might think about answering your question.
Until then I suggest you think very carefully about the pendulum proof of principle.
After all, you can't be a little bit pregnant, can you.


Your employer might want your opinion on the proof so as he knows whether or not to short his shares.
Grimer, if you have been reading my posts then you should know that I am not interested in personal battles.

You either have available examples that show or at least suggest that gravity is non-conservative, or you do not.  The idea that gravity is non-conservative is an extraordinary one.  It is made more extraordinary every day that we make careful measurements that reinforce the accepted idea that gravity is conservative.   All pendulum experiments that I know of that have actually been conducted have shown results that are consistent with a conservative gravitational field.  If you can point to a pendulum or other experiment that has actually been conducted and that you feel demonstrates or suggests that gravity is non-conservative, then please do.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 14, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
Since we have been discussing gravity wheels, I thought you meant a Bessler, or Bessler like device was part of those 99% of the working gravity devices you mentioned.   I especially thought this when you declared:  "it's EASY".  Please clarify what sorts of machines are among the 99% of gravity devices that you have found work.  Are any of those devices gravity wheels?

gravity wheels := bessler,  davinci,   Mikhail Dmitriev, etc.. .
in short :=  unbalance wheel.  ( tell me your defenition)
this all about pendulum, when i found something, how can i  still deny some others in similar field.

and a hard part :  "clarify"  for what?       
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 04:47:55 AM
Marsing are you saying that anyone has found that any of those unbalanced wheels work? 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 04:51:24 AM
Grimer, if you have been reading my posts then you should know that I am not interested in personal battles.
...
You're not interested in saying who you are either. Why not? I'm sure you've got nothing to be ashamed of.
I repeat. Who are you working for?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 04:55:16 AM
Grimer, please stay on topic.  Do you have any examples that demonstrate or suggest that gravity is non-conservative?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 14, 2014, 05:05:21 AM

@markE,
imagination is a great tool although never accurate.

@grimer,
what is that?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 05:07:44 AM
...
ETA: I see you added to your post - pity you backed away from TK's offer of help - you could of actually proved something ;7)


I backed away because I remembered the WhipMag.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyw5GKmOF64


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV7CO8No-CE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJy21fXhZMQ


And I remembered who Al was working for.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 05:16:53 AM
Grimer, please stay on topic.  Do you have any examples that demonstrate or suggest that gravity is non-conservative?
Whoever you are you're a pretty cool customer. I'll give you that. And you're not this side of the pond coz you'd be fast asleep by now.  :)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 05:23:03 AM
Grimer, if you have examples that show or suggest that gravity is non-conservative, then great, I would love to learn about them.  If you don't, you don't.  In that case, I would encourage you to devise a falsification test for your hypothesis that gravity is non-conservative, and then execute that experiment and report on it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 06:54:57 AM
Quote
He had got to the stage of sending me his address by email and I told him not to.

ORLY? This is the first I've heard of that.

I think you came to your senses and realized that you would have to pay up the 2000 pounds, and you still wouldn't be any better off than you are now.

Anyone with any sense can see that the non-existence of a self-looping coin funnel is sufficient disproof of your silly hypothesis (which you never bothered to state explicitly.)
       
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 07:32:30 AM
ORLY? This is the first I've heard of that.

I think you came to your senses and realized that you would have to pay up the 2000 pounds, and you still wouldn't be any better off than you are now.

Anyone with any sense can see that the non-existence of a self-looping coin funnel is sufficient disproof of your silly hypothesis (which you never bothered to state explicitly.)
     

O rly (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O%20rly&defid=1424794)[/size]
Internet slang, short for "Oh, really?". Used in the following ways; often sarcastic:

1. In response to someone who has said/pointed out something very obvious

2. In response to someone who has insulted you or has aggressively disagreed with you

3. In response to a boring, nerdy comment you don't understand or care about (i.e. a peice of trivia)

4. In response to a comment that seems hard to believe or a lie

Occasionally some will respond to an "O rly?" comment with "ya rly" or "rly", but this is lame (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lame)and not recommended.
1. A: Dude! Did you see this? There's an eye on the pyramid on the back of all these dollar bills!

B: O rly?

2. A: You're a fucking loser, A Cinderella Story was a shitty movie.

B: O rly.

3. A: Yes, but did you all know that the word "catapult" is of Hungarian and French origin and roughly translates to blah blah blah...... (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=...)

B: o rly?

4. A: My aunt is friends with Lindsay Lohan's agent's sister, and she's said that Lindz is totally not a cokehead, so stfu (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stfu).

B: O RLY?
========================================================


Not being a geek I had to look it up.
So I've given the meaning for the benefit of any other non-geeks who might be following this thread.


And by the way,  what happened to the WhipMag TK?



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 07:40:24 AM
...
I think you came to your senses and realized that you would have to pay up the 2000 pounds, and you still wouldn't be any better off than you are now.
...
   
I can easily disprove that theory. I'll send you a cheque for £2000. How's that for evidence. 8)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 14, 2014, 07:55:48 AM
What a bunch of bouncing heads, I found this morning,

It should be clear to all by now that we have an opinion, a theory and that no known "conclusive evidence" exist that proves that the gravity field is non conservative.
That grimmer had good intentions with tabling his postulate should be accepted. But to leap frog to "fact" will need some persistent observations.  I think some more work and water needs to flow under the bridge to confirm this theory/postulate.

As a hypothetical principle, it would promise great potential

Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 08:04:48 AM
What a bunch of bouncing heads, I found this morning,

It should be clear to all by now that we have an opinion, a theory and that no known "conclusive evidence" exist that proves that the gravity field is non conservative.
That grimmer had good intentions with tabling his postulate should be accepted. But to leap frog to "fact" will need some persistent observations.  I think some more work and water needs to flow under the bridge to confirm this theory/postulate.

As a hypothetical principle, it would promise great potential

Red_Sunset
If most of us agree that is the situation, then I think that a good next step then would be to come up with a falsification experiment that most if not all would agree is valid.  Ideally, such an experiment would be one that multiple people could replicate to their own satisfaction.  Towards that, I ask Grimer:  According to your ideas under what conditions is gravity non-conservative?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 08:22:19 AM
What a bunch of bouncing heads, I found this morning,

It should be clear to all by now that we have an opinion, a theory and that no known "conclusive evidence" exist that proves that the gravity field is non conservative.
That grimmer had good intentions with tabling his postulate should be accepted. But to leap frog to "fact" will need some persistent observations.  I think some more work and water needs to flow under the bridge to confirm this theory/postulate.

As a hypothetical principle, it would promise great potential

Red_Sunset
I see you're still half asleep, Red. It's Grimer, not grimmer. Accuracy is important in science and search engines are a bit dim when it comes to spelling.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 14, 2014, 08:47:28 AM
I see you're still half asleep, Red. It's Grimer, not grimmer. Accuracy is important in science and search engines are a bit dim when it comes to spelling.

Ooops, sorry a typo, my apologies, you are correct about the sleepy part.
Ja,ja,,,,ja...scientific accuracy,  "grimer/grimmer", should I also be concerned about scientific persona profiles for future generations to discover?

Red
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 11:22:51 AM
Ooops, sorry a typo, my apologies, you are correct about the sleepy part.
Ja,ja,,,,ja...scientific accuracy,  "grimer/grimmer", should I also be concerned about scientific persona profiles for future generations to discover?

Red


In my experience forum profiles are normally devoid of content. If you wish future generations to credit any intelligent contribution
you make to a historic scientific event you should certainly flesh yours out a bit. At present you are anonymous and can be libelled with impunity.
I'm not and can't as TK should know. I'm expecting a withdrawal of his scurrilous allegation about my motive, together with a fulsome apology.


 [size=78%] [/size]
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 11:36:32 AM

In my experience forum profiles are normally devoid of content. If you wish future generations to credit any intelligent contribution
you make to a historic scientific event you should certainly flesh yours out a bit. At present you are anonymous and can be libelled with impunity.
I'm not and can't as TK should know. I'm expecting a withdrawal of his scurrilous allegation about my motive, together with a fulsome apology.


 [size=78%] [/size]
Grimer, I would much prefer to see you do work towards developing a way to practically test your ideas than threatening libel lawsuits. 

Returning to the subject:  Would you please state a combination of conditions that you feel are sufficient for gravity to be non-conservative?  That would allow anyone here to start thinking about what kind of experiment could test your hypothesis.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 11:43:29 AM
Grimer, if you have examples that show or suggest that gravity is non-conservative, then great, I would love to learn about them.  If you don't, you don't.  In that case, I would encourage you to devise a falsification test for your hypothesis that gravity is non-conservative, and then execute that experiment and report on it.
You've just watched three videos with an experiment showing that the magnetic field is non-conservative. Why not deal with that first. Why not ask TK what's happened to it. I amazed at your lack of curiosity. Perhaps that's because you have it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 11:50:19 AM
You've just watched three videos with an experiment showing that the magnetic field is non-conservative. Why not deal with that first. Why not ask TK what's happened to it. I amazed at your lack of curiosity. Perhaps that's because you have it.
Grimer, please stay on topic.  The topic is your hypothesis that gravity is non-conservative.  Please state a set of conditions under which you think that gravity is non-conservative.  Then folks can start to think about how to test against that.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 01:19:45 PM
I am very much on topic. The topic is conservatism and the TK experiment has a bearing on whether or not fields are conservative.


We have TK's experimental evidence which shows magnetism isn't conservative (unless it was a fraud as DP alleges). Why are you refusing to discus it?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 01:30:42 PM
I can easily disprove that theory. I'll send you a cheque for £2000. How's that for evidence. 8)

Sorry, we don't take checks. Or cheques, either. You can send it in three equal monthly parts, via Western Union. Don't forget to deduct the cost of the toy...er... experimental funnel itself.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 01:33:55 PM
I am very much on topic. The topic is conservatism and the TK experiment has a bearing on whether or not fields are conservative.


We have TK's experimental evidence which shows magnetism isn't conservative (unless it was a fraud as DP alleges). Why are you refusing to discus it?
Grimer if you ever choose to come back on topic and state a set of conditions under which you believe gravity is non-conservative, then I will be happy to pursue that with you. 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 01:38:50 PM
Grimer, if gravity is not conservative, then how do you account for very sensitive and well repeated torsion balance tests where large suspended masses have been shown to attract with forces indistinguishable from G*m1*m2/r^2?
If gravity is conservative how do you account for my graph - and the WhipMag in the case of the alleged conservative nature of magnetism.


After all, the WhipMag is very much your field whereas gravity obviously ain't.

We are not talking about torsion balances and the inverse square law. We are talking about pendulums.
Your red herring is totally irrelevant to the topic.


What for instance is this remark of yours meant to mean.


"Those machines look like they are missing a large and powerful engine to drive them."


Was that a sneer, albeit milder than TKs.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 01:48:35 PM
If gravity is conservative how do you account for my graph - and the WhipMag in the case of the alleged conservative nature of magnetism.


After all, the WhipMag is very much your field whereas gravity obviously ain't.
Grimer, unless I have missed something your graph is not the result of an experiment.  As far as I know is an expression of an idea you postulate.  If you believe it describes or embodies conditions under which gravity is non-conservative, then let's talk about how that can be tested and see if we can come up with an accessible experiment.

Unless your ideas about gravity require magnets to make gravity non-conservative then that machine in the videos with the magnets is off topic.  If you are interested in that machine, then please find a suitable thread, or start one.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 02:14:46 PM
Grimer, unless I have missed something your graph is not the result of an experiment.  As far as I know is an expression of an idea you postulate.  If you believe it describes or embodies conditions under which gravity is non-conservative, then let's talk about how that can be tested and see if we can come up with an accessible experiment.

Unless your ideas about gravity require magnets to make gravity non-conservative then that machine in the videos with the magnets is off topic.  If you are interested in that machine, then please find a suitable thread, or start one.
I see that deep grooves have been cut in your mind by too much specialised education and that once in one of those grooves the blinkers come on and you are quite incapable of climbing out of it. Can't imagine you ever making that James Burke programme, "Connections". It's called lateral thinking - ever heard of it? - thought not.


As far as I'm concerned nothing is off topic. I should get back to your speciality if I were you and stop clogging up this thread with useless posts.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 02:20:32 PM
Grimer, I really wish you would come back to topic and state conditions under which you believe gravity can be shown to be non-conservative.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
Frank, have you gone off your meds again?

Mark E. has been asking you to support your claims, nothing more. It would be very useful if you did that.

YOU are the one making "useless posts", claims without evidence, and ad-hominem abusive attacks. You are the one bringing in extraneous and irrelevant material. You are the one who cannot defend his arguments with actual facts and checkable outside references.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 14, 2014, 03:09:21 PM
I see you're still half asleep, Red. It's Grimer, not grimmer. Accuracy is important in science and search engines are a bit dim when it comes to spelling.

What a day!
I should have stayed in bed, since everybody got out on the wrong foot today
Looking forward to Sunset, happy hour !
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 03:11:45 PM

Mark,


Let me explain something to you.


In the British Scientific Civil Service there are three grades of officer.


Scientific officers whose job it is to dream up new areas of research.


Experimental Officers whose job is to device experiments on those ideas
and carry them out.


Scientific Assistants who help the experimental officers with the donkey work and make the tea.


The rest of the service has a similar hierarchical division of Admin, Exec, and Clerical.


I don't do experiments, that's not my job. I don't devise them. I don't carry them out. And I would be absolutely useless if I did.


Like the centurion in the gospel I say to my E.O. go here and he goes, do this and he does it.


None of the experiments in my published papers were carried out by me. Design and implementation of equipment and procedures were undertaken by my E.O.s. They wouldn't let me touch anything in case I broke it.


So if you want to design and carry out an experiment based on my graph then be my guest. The idea is where my job begins and ends.













Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 03:22:59 PM
Frank, have you gone off your meds again?

Mark E. has been asking you to support your claims, nothing more. It would be very useful if you did that.

YOU are the one making "useless posts", claims without evidence, and ad-hominem abusive attacks. You are the one bringing in extraneous and irrelevant material. You are the one who cannot defend his arguments with actual facts and checkable outside references.
You can't help insulting people can you. I think you do it without realising it.


As you said in one of your posts. Taunting Rosemary is a sport.


Let's hope she never brings a libel action against you in London.
Your anonymity won't protect you as you probably realise.


It seems rather unfair that she can libel Al but Al can't libel her. But that's the price of secrecy.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 03:40:46 PM
Mark,


Let me explain something to you.


In the British Scientific Civil Service there are three grades of officer.


Scientific officers whose job it is to dream up new areas of research.


Experimental Officers whose job is to device experiments on those ideas
and carry them out.


Scientific Assistants who help the experimental officers with the donkey work and make the tea.


The rest of the service has a similar hierarchical division of Admin, Exec, and Clerical.


I don't do experiments, that's not my job. I don't devise them. I don't carry them out. And I would be absolutely useless if I did.


Like the centurion in the gospel I say to my E.O. go here and he goes, do this and he does it.


None of the experiments in my published papers were carried out by me. Design and implementation of equipment and procedures were undertaken by my E.O.s. They wouldn't let me touch anything in case I broke it.


So if you want to design and carry out an experiment based on my graph then be my guest. The idea is where my job begins and ends.
Grimer, OK, you don't do experiment design.  Let's move beyond that. 

In order to design an experiment we first have to define what it is that the experiment is going to test.  Gravity has been shown to behave conservatively in many tests under a broad range of conditions.  Repeating tests under any of those conditions would by all probability simply repeat the apparently conservative behavior.  If there is an exception to conservation with respect to gravity, that exception occurs under limiting circumstances outside what has been tested before.  What I need to know from you is what limitations you believe are sufficient.  Once you state those limitations, then anyone here, including me can think about how to devise a test that will impose those limitations in an accessible and repeatable experiment.  If the verified results of such tests show non-conservative behavior beyond the error bars, then the presently held view that gravity is a conservative field will be falsified by such an experiment.  If they fail to falsify then the required limitations may have to be expanded.

So, let's get started:  Please state limiting circumstances under which according to your ideas a gravitational field is non-conservative. 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 03:46:26 PM
You can't help insulting people can you. I think you do it without realising it.


As you said in one of your posts. Taunting Rosemary is a sport.


Let's hope she never brings a libel action against you in London.
Your anonymity won't protect you as you probably realise.


It seems rather unfair that she can libel Al but Al can't libel her. But that's the price of secrecy.

Frank, I can prove the truth of everything I've ever said about Ainslie. She is ignorant, arrogant, undereducated, a liar and a fool, paranoid and delusional, and she has threatened me several times. I have evidence for every allegation I've ever made concerning her. She, however, has accused me of crimes, she's made homophobic slurs against me, she has called and emailed other people seeking to malign me and destroy my reputation in their eyes. Needless to say, she has no evidence for any of her crazy allegations.  For a long time she believed that I was someone named Bryan Little, and she emitted many many slurs and libels against him, whoever he might be. Were she here in Texas rather than being in some unreachable backwater third world hellhole, I would sue her back to abject poverty for the things she has said and done against me.

Now.. shall we examine your last few posts for the insults you have emitted towards people like Mark E and myself?

Please give us a link to where I said "Taunting Rosemary is a sport". If you think criticising her "work" and her ridiculous claims with factual demonstrations is "taunting", then you have a different OED than I do.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 04:53:39 PM
Frank, I can prove the truth of everything I've ever said about Ainslie. She is ignorant, arrogant, undereducated, a liar and a fool, paranoid and delusional, and she has threatened me several times. I have evidence for every allegation I've ever made concerning her. She, however, has accused me of crimes, she's made homophobic slurs against me, she has called and emailed other people seeking to malign me and destroy my reputation in their eyes. Needless to say, she has no evidence for any of her crazy allegations.  For a long time she believed that I was someone named Bryan Little, and she emitted many many slurs and libels against him, whoever he might be. Were she here in Texas rather than being in some unreachable backwater third world hellhole, I would sue her back to abject poverty for the things she has said and done against me.

Now.. shall we examine your last few posts for the insults you have emitted towards people like Mark E and myself?

Please give us a link to where I said "Taunting Rosemary is a sport". If you think criticising her "work" and her ridiculous claims with factual demonstrations is "taunting", then you have a different OED than I do.


I would gladly leave her to her peace... but she refuses to cease and desist with her insults and libels against me (and you, and Sterling, and Stefan, and .99, and just about everyone else who has ever criticized her). And she's got a couple of sock-puppet sycophants who parrot her insults and add their own filth to the mix as well. She offended me greatly with many of her libels and her homophobic slurs and her threats, and as long as she persists I will stand up for myself and my work. I will not tolerate people lying about me or misrepresenting my work, even if they are doing it on an obscure and silly blog that contains nothing else of significance. Not only that, I am proud of my expensive education, and I have credentials that I worked hard for and earned at great expense, and my teachers and advisors were people at the top of their fields. Ainslie is an uneducated barbarian who thinks that reading Gary Zukov's popular book constitutes a physics education. I will not sit still for insults and disrespect from overweeningly arrogant and ignorant fools like Ainslie. Besides.... I've got some time on my hands, and it's kind of fun seeing what she comes up with next, how far down her own throat she can stick her foot, like in the August fiasco "demo" of incompetence and ignorance. She learned one lesson then: never give actual data or details, because they _will_ be examined and fabrications will be uncovered. So now we just get claims from her, no data or descriptions at all, and that's all we will be getting in the future.Thanks for the note, I'm glad you are still watching. Look at it as sport, because that's really all it is. As you note, from a scientific and technical aspect she has been utterly put down, long ago, and all that is left of her "work" and her "thesis" is a twitching mess, full of holes, contradictions, falsehood and fabrications.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 14, 2014, 08:31:09 PM
Jeez Grimer .. I don't think I've seen you so purposefully & wilfully derail a thread as this before - you can run but you can't hide.

Since it is established that you have a hypothesis & a theory, which you obviously wish to have taken seriously, then please ignore distractions & help those interested in your theory with some experimental design ideas & parameters to test your hypothesis.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 08:32:35 PM
I don't see anything in there about "taunting". I get my "sport" from building and testing, reporting and criticizing. If you want to see "taunting".... you should take a look at Ainslie's forum. Did you bother to read her words in the post images above? There are hundreds more examples like those, and not restricted, as you can see, to little old me.
The "fun" in the passage you quote is from seeing what she comes up with next.

Nice try, though. Most of my critics can't do nearly that well.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
I don't see anything in there about "taunting". I get my "sport" from building and testing, reporting and criticizing. If you want to see "taunting".... you should take a look at Ainslie's forum. Did you bother to read her words in the post images above? There are hundreds more examples like those, and not restricted, as you can see, to little old me.
The "fun" in the passage you quote is from seeing what she comes up with next.

Nice try, though. Most of my critics can't do nearly that well.
LOL. It took me a hell of a time to find it. Still, I did remember the word Sport - which is not bad at my age.  :)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 10:42:50 PM
Grimer, I would really like to get this thread back on topic.  I am still looking for some statement from you of a limiting condition or conditions that are sufficient for a gravitational field to be non-conservative so that I can start thinking about an appropriate experiment design.

As to your plot of a cycloid pendulum path versus a circular pendulum path, are you asserting that energy is gained or lost on either or both halves of the swing in the cycloid case?  If so, according to your ideas:  Does such an alleged gain or loss manifest in the KE of the bob at the bottom of the travel, or the PE of the bob at the top of the travel or the combined KE and PE somewhere between the top and the bottom? 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 05:49:21 AM
@ marke

why do you push too hard?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 06:26:01 AM
@ marke

why do you push to hard?
Coz he knows if he don't I won't get up off my arse.  >:(


I'm ready for the inquisition now. Watch this space.  ;)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 06:33:39 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid)


I know E.O. need visual aids so here's one for the Cycloid.  ;)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 06:48:18 AM

no motion ?


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 06:52:09 AM
Marsing, if Grimer is correct in his ideas that gravity is non-conservative then exploiting that would change the world.  In that case every day that we waste without proving it and getting it out there is a day that people suffer needlessly. 

@Grimer, I am glad you are ready.  Please address my question so that people can get to work on experiment designs:  What limiting conditions are sufficient to get non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?   If you offer that a cycloid pendulum or some device derived from a cycloid pendulum is enough, then where is the energy gain or loss due to the non-conservative field seen:  a) At the bottom of the travel as KE?  b) At the top of the travel as PE?  or c) Somewhere along the travel as combined KE and PE?


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 06:57:29 AM
I've modified it with a link. The blasted website doesn't seem to like animated gifs.


Did you know that if you watch that image of Bessler long enough he moves his eyes and sticks out his tongue. That gif seems to work. I dunno why mine didn't. And I don't know how to cancel the first of those images which is now superfluous.


More follows after I've said the Angelus, had a kip and taken the kids to school.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 07:03:05 AM
 OK ..

next
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 07:07:47 AM
 i thought that image want to say something to all of us

lol
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 07:19:41 AM
I dunno why mine didn't.

maybe ..
the file too big or file corrupt,
first try preview with explorer to ensure your file is Ok

i guest you have 1 hour to modify it, 
while modifing, clear checkbox above browse button and attach new one)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 07:22:44 AM
Grimer, if this involves cycloid pendulums or their parts perhaps I can save some time.

Suppose that we construct a pendulum that has a cycloid restriction on both sides.  The pendulum swings in Quadrant III on the left and Quadrant IV on the right.  We can test that pendulum and determine:

It's oscillation frequency: Fosc, velocity at the bottom of its travel:  Vmax, swing height: Hdelta, and the apogee: Hmax.

We can also observe as has been observed since the time of Huygens that absent friction, the cycloid pendulum is truly isochronous, where as circular swing pendulums even in the absence of friction are not quite isochronous.

Then suppose that we remove the cycloid restriction from the right hand side: Quadrant IV.  What we will find is that:

1) Fosc decreases slightly:  The time swinging in Quadrant IV is greater than the time swinging in Quadrant III.
2) The pendulum becomes slightly non-isochronous.  Different starting heights yield slightly different oscillation periods.
3) The swing height change Hdelta on the right in Quadrant IV is the same as the swing height in Quadrant III.  The change in PE is the same.
4) The velocity magnitude at the bottom of the swing going from Quadrant III to Quadrant IV is identical to that going from Quadrant IV to Quadrant III.  The KE peak magnitudes are the same.

You can prove all of this to your own satisfaction by doing the calculus.  If you object then please show an appropriate reference and/or the math.  The important points we need to agree on in order to resolve the energy are points 3) and 4).

In short what all of this means is that basically the path taken between two equipotential points in a gravitational field doesn't gain or lose energy.  It also means that any closed path taken in a gravitational field doesn't gain or lose energy.  In other words:  the gravitational field is conservative.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 07:42:36 AM
Spock 1


Back later.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 07:56:55 AM
Marsing, if Grimer is correct in his ideas that gravity is non-conservative then exploiting that would change the world.  In that case every day that we waste without proving it and getting it out there is a day that people suffer needlessly. 


changing the world have two directions.
people will be more suffer , people will be  better.
( people :=  who are really,  really, really  suffer at this time).
which one your direction?
you asked  grimer hardly to prove his theory,
now can you prove your  position.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 08:14:56 AM
Marsing, it is very difficult sometimes to parse your English.  If Grimer is onto something then I think that accelerating proving that is a good idea.  That can only be done if Grimer says what his idea is.

So far as I can presently tell, he is arguing that the amount of gravitational energy change between two heights depends on the path taken between those points.  We can easily construct experiments with pendula or marbles rolling on smooth 'U' shaped tracks with different slopes that dispute such an idea.  Those types of experiments won't help if Grimer is right.  What I need from Grimer is statement of some special limitation that has not been previously tested and shown to act conservatively.  Then we can design an experiment that if it does show a difference in energy will disprove that gravity is conservative.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 08:18:58 AM
Marsing, it is very difficult sometimes to parse your English.  If Grimer is onto something then I think that accelerating proving that is a good idea.  That can only be done if Grimer says what his idea is.

So far as I can presently tell, he is arguing that the amount of gravitational energy change between two heights depends on the path taken between those points.
The amount of gravitational energy in the drop is the same. It's the amount of Ersatz that's different. The dancer is doing more work pulling her arms in.


CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 08:25:17 AM
The amount of gravitational energy in the drop is the same. It's the amount of Ersatz that's different. The dancer is doing more work pulling her arms in.


CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!
Grimer do we agree on my bullet points 3) and 4):

3) The swing height change Hdelta on the right in Quadrant IV is the same as the swing height in Quadrant III.  The change in PE is the same.
4) The velocity magnitude at the bottom of the swing going from Quadrant III to Quadrant IV is identical to that going from Quadrant IV to Quadrant III.  The KE peak magnitudes are the same.

Work is the dot product of displacement against force.  Displacement normal to force does no work.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 08:38:15 AM
You can stick your bullet points where the sun don't shine.




I asked a question. Answer it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 08:55:03 AM
I think that accelerating proving that is a good idea.

 some will think different
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 08:55:56 AM
You can stick your bullet points where the sun don't shine.




I asked a question. Answer it.
Grimer, please calm yourself. 

I thought I answered your question.  I'll answer in more detail:

Referring to your figure, you have two NG vectors and two EG vectors.  The acceleration due to gravity is normal to the EG vectors.  E = integral(F*ds).  Where F is orthogonal to ds as it is here, F*ds = 0.  Therefore, there is zero gravitational energy associated with the EG vectors in your sketch.  You seem to acknowledge that the NG vectors have the same magnitude.  If we agree about that then the PEs are the same which is bullet point 3).  If you don't agree, then please explain why.

(This is my first try linking an image here. I hope it works correctly.)
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image// (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 08:58:51 AM
some will think different
Marsing why wouldn't any reasonable person want abundant and cheap energy?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 09:03:20 AM
I haven't the slightest interest in what you think.


We are here to discuss my ideas not yours.


I repeat. Answer the question. Don't keep trying to change the subject. If you never studied elementary dynamics say so.


Edit: Now I've got to take the kids to school. So you've plenty of time to unscramble your brain, Mark.  ;)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 09:10:04 AM
I haven't the slightest interest in what you think.


We are here to discuss my ideas not yours.


I repeat. Answer the question. Don't keep trying to change the subject. If you never studied elementary dynamics say so.

Grimer, the only question that you have posted in the past few hours is this one, which I have already answered twice:

The amount of gravitational energy in the drop is the same. It's the amount of Ersatz that's different. The dancer is doing more work pulling her arms in.


CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!
For the third time:  There is no gravitational energy associated with the EG vectors because the acceleration due to gravity is normal to those vectors. 

There is no "dancer" or "arms" in your diagram.  There are two pendula.  If you feel differently, then kindly explain why.

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image// (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 09:36:18 AM
Marsing why wouldn't any reasonable person want abundant and cheap energy?

you will find an answers by answering my question
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 11:53:22 AM
Grimer, the only question that you have posted in the past few hours is this one, which I have already answered twice:
For the third time:  There is no gravitational energy associated with the EG vectors because the acceleration due to gravity is normal to those vectors. 

There is no "dancer" or "arms" in your diagram.  There are two pendula.  If you feel differently, then kindly explain why.

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image// (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//)


I didn't say there was Newtonian Gravitational energy. It's Ersatz gravitational energy. If you don't know what Ersatz gravitational energy is then you've never watched Star Trek. How do you think Spock keeps his feet on the floor.


The tension in the tie between the bob and the pivot can be resolved vertically and horizontally. The horizontal component is analogous to a ballet dancer pulling a weight towards her body. She does work. She puts energy into the system.


The horizontal resolved force of the tie is doing work.


The horizontal force to the right is balanced by an equal and opposite horizontal force at the pivot.


I'll stop there to make sure you're following me.


And no more irrelevant stuff. If that stuff was any us the gravity problem would have been solved years ago. It's rubbish.


And the reason I'm being rude and not calming down is because I've got to rattle your brain until all the cognitive dissonance is shaken out of it.


If you don't know what cognitive dissonance is - Google it.

P.S. I'm going for my lunch. In the meantime read my stuff from p.15 onwards and get those little grey cells working hard on understanding it.


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 12:41:55 PM
Grimer, mechanical energy has a well accepted definition and that is:  E=integral(F*ds).  You have not specified any other source of acceleration or apparent force other than that of gravity accelerating parallel to the NG vectors and normal to the EG vectors.  As you have set the scenario up, the only source of work in this system is the gravitational field, and it cannot do any work in the normal, IE horizontal, plane.

A spinning ballet dancer has angular momentum and radial acceleration in the horizontal plane.  The pendula do not.  If you are alleging a source of acceleration along the EG vector, kindly state that source of acceleration.  Tension does not equal acceleration.  The Sword of Damacles doesn't go anywhere as long as the thread holds.

If you need to introduce some additional constraints to your set-up, then by all means do that.  Going off topic to science fiction TV does not add insight.

It would be great if you have insights into some set of conditions where gravity is non-conservative.  It would be an incredible breakthrough.  I am still waiting to learn of such conditions from you.




Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 03:38:54 PM
Oh dear.


I was using the dancer as an analogy. You've pressed it too far.


I'm using science fiction to jump your ideas out of the grooves they are running in. To try and get you to use you imagination for once. To think outside the box, Dr Bono's lateral thinking.


Didn't you ever play Cowboys and Indians as a child - on your own - running around with an imaginary gun in your hand shooting imaginary Indians?


You need to exercise that kind of imagination here. Its like trying to see a joke.


Do you have mild autism, Asperges syndrome? Do you have difficulty seeing jokes? People who have a detailed knowledge of a subject like you have of electronics are often mildly autistic. If you are I'm wasting my time because you are never going to "see" it. If so tell me now.

[/font][/size]
Have you ever watched Star Trek. Do you love it or do you think it's childish and boring.[/font][/size]

[/font][/size]
Are you capable of becoming a child again? Because you need to if you are to enter the kingdom of gravitational energy.[/font][/size]





Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 04:01:10 PM
This is an extract from one of the files on my website. As you will see, my [/pre]boss had the same problem as you. Lack of imagination. Lack of lateral thinking.[/pre]Lack of an ability to turn a problem inside out.[/pre]==============================================================================[/pre]
[/pre]There was an interesting incident occurred whilst we were making density measurements, an incident which illustrates two aspects of research which were later to become very important, the possibility of conceptual inversion and the psychological difficulty such inversion inculcated. To find the density of a piece of material one needs to measure two quantities. The weight of the material – straightforward enough, just stick it on a balance – and the volume of a material. Finding the volume of a material is easy enough when the material is a nice simple shape like a cube or a cylinder; you just make measurements and use the appropriate mathematical formula. When the material is irregular, like a roughly hacked piece of soil cement or a king’s crown then there’s more of a problem as Archimedes realised. The solution which came to him in his bath and led to him shouting Eureka and running through the streets naked (allegedly) has never been improved upon and it is his method, more specifically its inverse, which we used to find the volume of our soil-cement pieces. Nowadays Archimedes’ discovery is normally expressed in the form, “The loss of weight in water is equal to the volume of water displaced.” Strictly speaking, the loss of weight in water is equal to the weight of water displaced but since 1 cc  of water weighs one gram more or less, one of the more useful features about the metric system, we can jump directly from loss of weight to volume. Using this principle then the volume of a lump of stuff can be measured by hanging it by a thin thread from one arm of a lever balance to measure its weight and then letting out the thread until it is immersed in a beaker of water when its weight is again measured. The original weight is its weight. The loss in weight is its volume. So the original weight divided by the loss in weight is its density. The Concrete Division were using just such a system for measuring the density gradients of core slices cut from concrete roads. Because we didn’t have a suitable lever balance we thought we would be clever and do it slightly differently. Using a pan balance we measure not the loss in the weight of the specimen but the gain in the weight of the water when we hung a specimen in the water. On day our Division Head was walking through the lab and he happened to see me holding one end of the piece of cotton and calling out the scale readings to my colleague. He stood and watched for a while looking puzzled. “What are you doing Grimer?” “I’m measuring the volume of these soil-cement slices, sir.” “But the volume is equal to the loss in weight of the specimen. You are holding the end of the string. How can you measure the loss in weight like that.” “I’m not measuring the loss in weight of the specimen, sir. I’m measuring the gain in weight of the water.” “Are you sure you can do that, Grimer?” His incredulity was so palpable that I almost started having doubts myself. It was like when your wife asks you for the third time if you turned the gas off when you left. “Pretty sure. After all, the weight has to go somewhere, doesn’t it! It can’t just disappear.” He walked slowly away looking very unconvinced. In retrospect I can’t really blame him. When all your life you have been used to seeing a thing done one way, its very difficult to accept that it can also be done in completely the opposite way. Standing there holding one end of a thread  with the specimen dangling in a beaker of water at the other it must have seemed as though I was engaged in some mystic rite of pendulum divination. [/pre]============================================================================[/pre]Now go to my website and read the rest of the "Stuff" file.[/pre]
[/pre]Sorry about the lack of paras. the programme has destroyed my tags. Put in your own[/pre]Alternatively go to my website and read the extract in context.[/pre] [/pre]
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 05:05:04 PM
Oh dear.


I was using the dancer as an analogy. You've pressed it too far.


I'm using science fiction to jump your ideas out of the grooves they are running in. To try and get you to use you imagination for once. To think outside the box, Dr Bono's lateral thinking.


Didn't you ever play Cowboys and Indians as a child - on your own - running around with an imaginary gun in your hand shooting imaginary Indians?


You need to exercise that kind of imagination here. Its like trying to see a joke.


Do you have mild autism, Asperges syndrome? Do you have difficulty seeing jokes? People who have a detailed knowledge of a subject like you have of electronics are often mildly autistic. If you are I'm wasting my time because you are never going to "see" it. If so tell me now.

[/font][/size]
Have you ever watched Star Trek. Do you love it or do you think it's childish and boring.[/font][/size]

[/font][/size]
Are you capable of becoming a child again? Because you need to if you are to enter the kingdom of gravitational energy.[/font][/size]
Grimer, we don't need to go off topic with science fiction, childhood games, or analogies that require elements that are completely unevidenced in the case under discussion.  Again, I ask you to remain on topic. 

Do all the lateral thinking that you like.  Really, I encourage you to: ponder, imagine, play, think as non-linearly as you like.  Look for inspiration wherever you can find it.  Perhaps someday you will find inspiration that allows you to form insights that you have so far failed to supply.  Imagination is wonderful for conceiving ideas.  Rigorous analysis and / or experiments are how researchers test ideas.

We have your idea.  It is that gravity is not always conservative.  What we don't have is any expression of limiting conditions that would allow that against the myriad of conditions where gravity has been shown to behave conservatively.  I am interested in whether evidence that supports your idea can be developed or not.  If you cannot or simply do not identify some limiting conditions, then we are stuck with all the existing evidence that gravity is conservative and none for your idea.  At that point, your idea just fails.  No entertainment preferences can address that impasse.

If you ever do find insights that allow you to define a set of limitations under which you believe a gravitational field acts in a non-conservative way, then please share those insights and I will be happy to assist in developing tests for those ideas. 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 15, 2014, 05:21:22 PM
This is an extract from one of the files on my website. As you will see, my [/pre]boss had the same problem as you. Lack of imagination. Lack of lateral thinking.[/pre]Lack of an ability to turn a problem inside out.[/pre]==============================================================================[/pre]
...
Now go to my website and read the rest of the "Stuff" file.[/pre]
...........................................................................................

Mon ami, a web address will help.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 06:10:27 PM
Mon ami, a web address will help.



http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/


It's on my forum profile but since to get at it I have to click on the modify profile it's possible that only I can get at it.


Frankly, this website is the pits.


Mark seems to have given up (thank god).


I'll carry on the instruction with you if you like. From your posts so far you seem to have what it takes. I was impressed by your RAR diagrams.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 06:14:30 PM
This is an extract from one of the files on my website. As you will see, my [/pre]boss had the same problem as you. Lack of imagination. Lack of lateral thinking.[/pre]Lack of an ability to turn a problem inside out.[/pre]==============================================================================[/pre]
[/pre]There was an interesting incident occurred whilst we were making density measurements, ...
If a measurement or evaluation method is valid then it should be both verifiable, and comprehensible to people with reasonable skill in the relevant art. 

Archimedes' Principle is very basic.  The method you used was well known when I learned it many years ago.  Did you explain to your division manager that had you let the sample sink you would have gotten its weight, but by holding it submerged but by keeping it above the bottom of the vessel you got the weight of the displaced water and therefore the volume of the sample?  If you did it suggests that the division manager was either having a bad day or was due to refresh his basic physics.


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 06:41:03 AM
.......................................................
.....................
Mark seems to have given up (thank god).
I'll carry on the instruction with you if you like. From your posts so far you seem to have what it takes. I was impressed by your RAR diagrams.

Mon Cher Grimer,
I don't think so, that Mark has given up.
Even if he did, you are hooked. and that shouldn't be an excuse for you to run to the back door.

He asked a basic simple question and is entitled to a basic simple answer

Careful, I am pitching the ball, ......stretch your arms out to grab...

PS: No, you can not have,  can be a valid answer!

Greetings, Yellow_Sunrise
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2014, 10:35:20 AM
Mon Cher Grimer,
I don't think so, that Mark has given up.
Even if he did, you are hooked. and that shouldn't be an excuse for you to run to the back door.

He asked a basic simple question and is entitled to a basic simple answer

Careful, I am pitching the ball, ......stretch your arms out to grab...

PS: No, you can not have,  can be a valid answer!

Greetings, Yellow_Sunrise
Red_Sunset, thank you.
The conversation such as it was is presently at an impasse.  I don't think I have anything constructive I can add at this time.  If Grimer wishes to think of that as me giving up, that does not bother me.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 11:35:59 AM
http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/
It's on my forum profile but since to get at it I have to click on the modify profile it's possible that only I can get at it.
Frankly, this website is the pits.
Mark seems to have given up (thank god).   I'll carry on the instruction with you if you like. From your posts so far you seem to have what it takes. I was impressed by your RAR diagrams.
Hi Frank,
You are correct about the website, it is actually a web document repository, but it serves its purpose well.
You have a document there from the keely site, "the road to perpetual motion",  this heading is pretty much what MarkE is asking for, but focused in on the pendulum.

If I may add my 2 cents on this road. and I do not want to pre-empt the ball that has been kicked in your direction Grimer,  I only want to give the discussion an inertial push start.  We all have good idea's and a refinement by taking the best of each, we might be able to construct something better that each one "standing alone".

I am of the opinion that we should start with an open mind following accepted physics paths and we are out to break the LAW.  If our thought does not break the law, perpetual is out of the question before we have started.

We also know that a natural flow obeys to the known laws of physics (since they are derived from it), therefore I am of the opinion that a perpetual flow has to be un-natural.  The meaning of un-natural in this context, "is an outside interference that tampers with the process flow", and therewith introduces an asymmetry. 
If the cycle process is left to the natural symmetry of nature, OU can not be achieved since observations for centuries have never observed this behavior. 

In the context of the pendulum, I am of the opinion to achieve OU, the swing of the pendulum needs to be interfered with.  The interference needs to achieve a greater energy on the down swing than the upswing and be independent from the potential energy of the blob. The interference can be possibly, a one side string swing modification.

And so on & on

An alternative model for OU can be the RAR, some interesting concepts float around in that one.  One aspect that can fox you around in understanding is similar to what foxed may people around with the homo-polar generator

PS: MarkE, I am sure Grimer will pitch the ball, patience is a virtue !

Red_Sunset





Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 11:50:04 AM
Mon Cher Grimer,
I don't think so, that Mark has given up.
Even if he did, you are hooked. and that shouldn't be an excuse for you to run to the back door.

He asked a basic simple question and is entitled to a basic simple answer

Careful, I am pitching the ball, ......stretch your arms out to grab...

PS: No, you can not have,  can be a valid answer!

Greetings, Yellow_Sunrise


I think he is quite capable of realising that.


Reading through your posts I see that you have had trouble with TK aka Al Setalokin - even resorting to capital letters on occasion. ::)


 I don't think Mark is sincere. He certainly will not co-operate. And in those circumstances I consider my best course of action is to put him on my ignore list. To send him to Coventry. If everybody did the same with disruptive characters they would leave. If they came back under a new name one would soon spot them - especially if they were stupid enough to choose a name which was an anagram of the previous one.


As for being hooked. For a while I was. But now I'm the one that got away.  8)


I've replied to your PM.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 12:04:03 PM
.....................................................................
 I don't think Mark is sincere. He certainly will not co-operate. And in those circumstances I consider my best course of action is to put him on my ignore list. To send him to Coventry. If everybody did the same with disruptive characters they would leave. If they came back under a new name one would soon spot them - especially if they were stupid enough to choose a name which was an anagram of the previous one.
Hi Frank,
The focus is on a simple question, that deserves a simple answer.

What is required, choose the lease painful one...
   **    Stop circling the fire.
   **    In good English,  "hey Jo ....stop your duck and dive"
   **    As Tom Cruise repeatedly said in one of his movies.  "Show me the MONEY"

** Failing the above, as a last resort...Lethal injection

Anything short of that will not do.

Faithfully yours,  Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 02:17:19 PM

Below is a question I had from a BesslerWheel forum member who wanted me to explain my Two Flavours of Work post.
Since I also posted it here I thought I would post my BW reply here to for anyone who wants a layman's explanation.
I should point out that Mark is not the MarkE of this forum.


Quote from: Mark
For the sake of argument, let's say I'm not familiar with [even elementary] calculus. I believe you'll reach a larger audience if you are able to keep the discussion on an fundamental level. You know, layman's terms. One needn't know mathematics to understand the concept of a jerk [that's verb, not noun :-)].


You have used the term/phrase "jerk energy" several times in the past. In my previous post, I questioned the extraction of useful work that might be derived from tapping just the rate of change of an object's acceleration. The keywords there being 'useful' and 'just'.


Don't get me wrong, I understand that a moving object's kinetic energy can be tapped from any point between slightly altering it's velocity, and bringing it to a halt. But I guess my real question, Frank, is how much energy are you talking about? Are you talking about turning a generator, pumping water, lifting a box.





I've only just come across your post, Mark. I've been busy on the Overunity.com forum.


I'll do the best I can to answer it in layman's terms.


Firstly, the amount of energy I'm talking about.


Bessler has given us evidence of a minimum value. Though not much compared to a steam engine - which is presumably why people lost interest in it - that energy is free and available everywhere on earth - even underground.


The energy you are familiar with is the second derivative, force x distance energy known as kinetic energy.


But there are other forms of energy, thermal energy, radiation energy, etc. These can be transformed (I prefer the word transduced to avoid confusion with electrical transformation) into mechanical energy for running steam engines for example or used directly without transducing them into their mechanical equivalent (you've no doubt heard of the mechanical equivalent of heat) to keep us warm for instance.


Now Jerk is as independent a source of energy from the second derivative as heat is. But because it is so close in hierarchical order to the second derivative, Force x distance, people don't seem to realise this. They accept heat (the nth derivative) and light (the mth derivative) as being different because they are zillions of derivatives away from KE. But jerk is so close that it seems just an aspect of KE.


There is one clue however which should give them pause for thought and that is the conservation aspect. The first derivative, momentum is conserved, the second derivative, kinetic energy is conserved, and jerk (angular momentum) is conserved. All three conservation laws are independent like independent nations bordering each other.


Another problem that arises is the use of the word "energy". It can be used in the global sense of ENERGY which includes heat, light, atomic, etc. or it can be used in the local sense of second derivative, Force x distance energy. It's a language problem.


We should really think of the first three derivatives as velocity energy, acceleration energy, and jerk energy. Then each would have its own name, its own nationality, like Italy. France and Germany.


But you might protest  - but what about mass - where does mass come in?


Well we can think of these three as having unit mass - After all a velocity has to be the velocity of something. We can't have a grin without a Cheshire cat (except in Wonderland). So we can think of them as specific velocity, specific acceleration and specific jerk.


(If you wanted to go further, specific snap, specific crackle and specific pop)


Now I see gravitational "acceleration" energy as being mechanically transduced into jerk energy. This jerk energy is split into two.
One half goes off to earth and changes the angular momentum of the earth by an infintesimal fraction of its total angular momentum.


The other half is left behind as useful angular momentum which powers a mechanical device such as a wheel. 


After all, we are already tapping the earth's angular momentum with space vehicles so we know it can be done.


It's called the slingshot effect though NASA prefers the term "gravity assist".


I hope that goes some way to answering your question.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2014, 02:49:41 PM
Grimer, Newton's Second Law allows us to express energy entirely in units of: mass, distance and time:  A Joule = 1 kg*m^2/(s^2).  So that we may see their equivalence, please dimension the units for:  "velocity energy", "acceleration energy", and "jerk energy" in terms of: kilograms, meters, and seconds.  It will be helpful to show an example of energy in each form:

For example: 
Accelerating an unimpeded mass of 1kg at a rate of one meter / second / second over a distance of one meter requires 1 Joule.



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 05:14:35 PM
..............................................................................
I hope that goes some way to answering your question.   
Hi Frank,

Thanks for your write-up effort.
It is a nice theory that we can identify energy in several component parts. It appears like a sensible theory.
So I have no argument with any of what is presented, although I do not see where it takes us any further than where we were before you posted it.
There is more to come ?, or should I do more digestion to satisfy my hunger

My interest lies in how this can provide a conservation workaround as you initially theorized to.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 07:39:07 PM
Hi Frank,

Thanks for your write-up effort.
It is a nice theory that we can identify energy in several component parts. It appears like a sensible theory.
So I have no argument with any of what is presented, although I do not see where it takes us any further than where we were before you posted it.
There is more to come ?, or should I do more digestion to satisfy my hunger

My interest lies in how this can provide a conservation workaround as you initially theorized to.

Regards, Red_Sunset


I'd already prepared the following offline before I read your post so I'll paste it and add any other comments at the end.


==============================================================

To sum up the diagram of a previous post showing the paths of a cicular pendulum and a cycloid pendulum:


The cycloid pendulum arrives at the lowest point of the arc having the NG 2nd derivative energy of the NG drop length.


The circular pendulum on the other hand arrives with both the NG 2nd derivative energy and a EG 3rd derivative contribution.


How can this 3rd derivative energy be visualised?


When I was a young design engineer indeterminate structures were analysed with an approximate method called Moment Distribution invented by a US engineer, Hardy Cross, a method long since superceeded by computers and Finite Element Analysis.


The forces at the end of a member were diagramatically represented not only by the tension and compression straight vector arrows but in addition by circular arrows which denoted moment or twist.


So the circular pendulum shaft has NG energy and EG 3rd derivative twist energy. It is this twist energy, this moment energy that is released to take the bob higher than its start position as it switches at nadir junction from the slow circular track to the fast Brachistochrone track.
==============================================================


To actually carry out an experiment to demonstrate this would be a herculean task since one would have to have a pendulum shaft with asymmetric properties; stiff on the circular pendulum side and flexible on the cycloid pendulum side.


However, if one thinks about it one can see how a stiff pendulum shaft will be given a moment as it falls since there is a well know phenomena which demonstrates this in spades.


And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.


It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment which is sufficient to exceed its bending strength. The shear size and weakness of the chimney shows this up whereas with the pendulum shaft everything takes place below the threshold of perception - but not below the threshold of reason.  8)


No doubt sourpuss TK aka AS would like to call that rationalizing.  :-*

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 16, 2014, 08:38:14 PM
Hi Grimer,
            well explained, even made sense to me. Thank you.
                                 John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 09:15:51 PM
Hi Grimer,
            well explained, even made sense to me. Thank you.
                                 John.
Thanks very much, minnie.  :)


I wish the people on BesslerWheel.com could understand me as well as you do.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on January 16, 2014, 09:50:47 PM
And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.

It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment ....

I would like to offer an alternative explanation for the falling chimney:

See, chimneys are jerks who jerk off during the night because they do not like being watched jerking off.

Usually chimneys are blown up during the day. And when the chimney falls it wants to jerk off one last time. But the chimney cramps up in daylight and breaks because he applies a too great bending force.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2014, 01:41:23 AM

I'd already prepared the following offline before I read your post so I'll paste it and add any other comments at the end.


==============================================================

To sum up the diagram of a previous post showing the paths of a cicular pendulum and a cycloid pendulum:


The cycloid pendulum arrives at the lowest point of the arc having the NG 2nd derivative energy of the NG drop length.


The circular pendulum on the other hand arrives with both the NG 2nd derivative energy and a EG 3rd derivative contribution.


How can this 3rd derivative energy be visualised?


When I was a young design engineer indeterminate structures were analysed with an approximate method called Moment Distribution invented by a US engineer, Hardy Cross, a method long since superceeded by computers and Finite Element Analysis.


The forces at the end of a member were diagramatically represented not only by the tension and compression straight vector arrows but in addition by circular arrows which denoted moment or twist.


So the circular pendulum shaft has NG energy and EG 3rd derivative twist energy. It is this twist energy, this moment energy that is released to take the bob higher than its start position as it switches at nadir junction from the slow circular track to the fast Brachistochrone track.
==============================================================


To actually carry out an experiment to demonstrate this would be a herculean task since one would have to have a pendulum shaft with asymmetric properties; stiff on the circular pendulum side and flexible on the cycloid pendulum side.


However, if one thinks about it one can see how a stiff pendulum shaft will be given a moment as it falls since there is a well know phenomena which demonstrates this in spades.


And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.


It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment which is sufficient to exceed its bending strength. The shear size and weakness of the chimney shows this up whereas with the pendulum shaft everything takes place below the threshold of perception - but not below the threshold of reason.  8)


No doubt sourpuss TK aka AS would like to call that rationalizing.  :-*
Grimer, I see three statements that can be the basis for a testable hypothesis:

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.

Please correct any of these statements as necessary.  Once we are absolutely clear on the hypothesis I believe that I can define experiments that do not require Herculean efforts.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 17, 2014, 09:26:04 AM
Grimer, I see three statements that can be the basis for a testable hypothesis:
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Please correct any of these statements as necessary.  Once we are absolutely clear on the hypothesis I believe that I can define experiments that do not require Herculean efforts.
Hi MarkE,
From my viewpoint, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The cost factor introduced by the cycloid swing path interference will be the prime consideration in the final balance tally.
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2014, 10:18:29 AM
Red_Sunset, I think we have real progress here because I think that Grimer has said enough to that we can state his hypothesis clearly and unambiguously.  What we need now is for Grimer to either agree with the hypothesis as stated or make needed changes so that it accurately reflects his ideas.  I am optimistic that once we have the hypothesis nailed down in language everyone agrees on that I can propose experiments that will not require high cost or difficulty.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 17, 2014, 12:13:29 PM
Hi MarkE,
From my viewpoint, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The cost factor introduced by the cycloid swing path interference will be the prime consideration in the final balance tally.
Red_Sunset


Hi Sailor,  ;)


Yep. I have to admit that in spite of being thorough pissed off with him and suspecting him of being an agent for Big Oil -
 - a Battle of Waterloo carrier pigeon ready to fly home to his master as soon as it's clear that Gravity's not conservative -
 - that he has a point.


Of course if the logic is sound then we don't need an experiment, do we.
We don't need experiments to show that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on other two sides, do we.


If experiment fails to confirm the many cheerful facts about the square on the hypotenuse then so much the worse for the experiment.


I suppose its useful to have an experiment to show to those too dim to follow a logical argument.
We'll have to call it the Didymus experiment, eh!  ;D





Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2014, 12:32:16 PM
Grimer, no argument by itself is going to make all of the observations that gravity seems to operate conservatively go away.  If in the time of Euclid someone had shown that beyond some point there appeared to be no more prime numbers, and try as anyone could they could not locate additional prime numbers, then Euclid's assertion that there are an infinite number of primes would have been in great jeopardy.  Therefore it is insufficient to simply declare that you have an exception to the common observation and accepted conclusion that gravity is conservative.  If gravity is not always conservative that needs to be proven.  That can be done by showing through repeatable and reliable experiment that gravity is not conservative under some set of conditions. 

I have taken your statements and attempted to express what I believe you hypothesize as at least one set of conditions where gravity is not conservative.  Please either confirm that those statements reproduced for your convenience here accurately represent your hypothesis, or change them as needed so that they do.  Then we can proceed to work on an experiment design to test the hypothesis.

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 17, 2014, 12:35:35 PM
..............................................................
Of course if the logic is sound then we don't need an experiment, do we.
We don't need experiments to show that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on other two sides, do we.
.....................................................................
If experiment fails to confirm the many cheerful facts .................................................
................................................   
Mon cher ami, en face de la mer en angleterre,

Do not fear, there is no avoiding the inevitable meeting encounter with your maker.
Rice pudding with silver spoons await you when you pass his test. 
For sure, ... high risk, high return.  Although do not be intimidated, your imagination can be your greatest friend but unfortunately also your worst enemy.
If you want to cross the water, you need first to take the plunge.

MarkE does deserve a simple answer for his simple question.

Greetings, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 17, 2014, 01:51:50 PM
...
MarkE does deserve a simple answer for his simple question.
...


I thought I'd given it.


OK - I'll spell it out.


I can see no objection to his experimental proposal and I wish him the best of British luck.


But just as people on blogs point out that they are not giving financial advice to avoid
getting sued if things go Pete Tong so I should warn everybody that I have near zero
experimental experience and my view on such matters is virtually worthless.


During Elec Lab at Uni the meter on some part of the motor was winding its pointer around the stop.
So I disconnected it intending to connect it the right way round.
The motor (it was a big one) started to accelerate.


The face of the lecturer in charge of the proceeding went white and he
leapt for the controlling handle. When all the panic was over he eplained that my disconnection
had led to the motor accelerating to destruction.


After that the only thing I was allowed to handle was the small thingee one holds on the end of
the shaft to determine rpm.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2014, 03:29:20 PM
Grimer, I have not proposed an experiment yet.  I am waiting for you to confirm that I have stated your hypothesis correctly, or for you to make any needed changes to the stated hypothesis so that it accurately reflects your ideas:

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 17, 2014, 11:41:43 PM
Hi,
   we're obviously expecting our bob to end up higher than it was at the start point.
My question is: where will the bob be relevant to the pivot point, will the radius be
shorter than that of the original pendulum?
                                 John.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 12:41:28 AM
Hi,
   we're obviously expecting our bob to end up higher than it was at the start point.
My question is: where will the bob be relevant to the pivot point, will the radius be
shorter than that of the original pendulum?
                                 John.
Minnie for a given arm length, the cycloid pendulum extends less to the left or right at its apogee than a circular pendulum with the same arm length.  The arm has to flex around the cycloid barrier so the arm does not follow a straight radial line from the pivot to the bob at either the left or right apogee.  That means that if you draw a radial line from the pivot through the center of the bob at either apogee that radial line is shorter for the cycloid than it is for the circular pendulum.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 18, 2014, 12:51:41 AM
Hi,      we're obviously expecting our bob to end up higher than it was at the start point.
My question is: where will the bob be relevant to the pivot point, will the radius be
shorter than that of the original pendulum?                                   John.
Hi John,  "will the radius be shorter than that of the original pendulum? " I would say so, yes 
I came to a similar conclusion, the cycloid curve alteration as compared to the circle curve,  is a shortening of radius.  (I saw after posting that MarkE confirmed the same)
I need to work on a picture to show that more descriptively.

In the mean time, some thoughts on the cycloid/circular pendulum
Below are some assorted ramblings, assumptions, reasoning sequences as related to Grimer’s theory & MarkE summary in very plain English.  Comments, additions, alternate views are very welcome.

Swing Radius
1.. The radius utilized by the bob in a circular path remains the same throughout the swing
2..  The radius utilized by a cycloid path can be approximated to a progressively shortening swing radius as the bob approaches it apogee, 

The Period
The swing radius is the main property that determines the period of a pendulum

Inertia
The inertia possessed by the bob is influenced mainly by the swing radius of the pendulum rather than the swing angle.
1.. A circular path having a constant radius will therefore have a constant inertia.
2.. A cycloid path having an effective changing radius would therefore have a changing inertial profile.

Path
The arc distance of the cycloid path is shorter than the circular path

Force/Distance/Energy
The force-distance of an arc path (radian path) can be translated to a torque profile.
1... The circular path torque profile follows a cos pattern since its radius is constant
2..  The cycloid path torque profile follows a reduced ~cos pattern due to a changing reducing radius at its apogee. Its initial torque profile is reduced proportionately to its reduced swing radius. Its radius lever component increasing as it separates from the cycloid template former, when at the same time the force is reducing at a cosine rate.

The crux of our interest is how we can reconcile the PE (vertical height drop) of the bob to be different between a circular and cycloid path.

It has been theorized that the inertial energy (torque profile) acquired by a cycloid path bob is less as compared to a circular path bob when released from the same height.

It has been theorized that the inertial energy (torque profile) acquired by a circular descend path bob is greater than the energy required in a cycloid ascent path to the same height (the exit height attained by the bob is higher than the entry height).

Provisional conclusion
This theorized observation leads us to believe that the proportional reduction of radius lever in the cycloid swing account for the difference of energy.   
Possible ??  The definition of different flavors/harmonics of energy is a step in the right direction ?

Open to any comment,  Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 01:52:38 AM
A cycloid pendulum with a free arm length Y1 has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with the same free arm length Y1.  An ideal cycloid pendulum's period does not vary with peak swing angle, whereas the period of an ideal circular pendulum's period changes with peak swing angle.

I am waiting on Grimer to either confirm that my statement of his hypothesis is accurate, or to make any needed corrections.  A test cannot be designed until the hypothesis is explicitly understood.  Some other clarifications will also be needed such as a formula that describes the excess "third derivative energy" that Grimer contends is stored by the circular pendulum.  The reason that we need the formula is that all experiments have finite uncertainties and we need to insure that in any test the magnitude of the this extra energy that we are looking for will be big enough that it will not get buried in the experiment uncertainty.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 18, 2014, 07:57:57 AM


Hi,
   we're obviously expecting our bob to end up higher than it was at the start point.
My question is: where will the bob be relevant to the pivot point, will the radius be
shorter than that of the original pendulum?
                                 John.


If you go to the figure at the bottom of page 16 of this thread you will see that the pendulum
wraps itself around the chop (link below shows what a chop is).
http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf


You will see that the pendulum is bent into a curve so obviously the bob is nearer to the original
pivot at its apogee that it was at its nadir.


You will notice I wrote the "original pivot". The pivot for the straight line section is changing. This
means we have introduced an new variable, length of pendulum shaft, into our system.


We now have three variables, NG, EG and L, the length of the shaft.


Three variable systems have the potential of transducing motion from one scale to another.


The most familiar example is the Carnot Cycle where the three variables
are volume, pressure and temperature. Motion is transmitted from the very lowest scale of temperature to the engineering scale of volume
(rotation of the pistons crankshaft) via the intermediate variable of pressure which shuttles back and forth between the two.


A less familiar example is the WhipMag Cycle where motion is transmitted from the small magnet Al spins up with his thumb to the large wheel with many magnets arranged around the radii. An example which shows the the magnetic field is not conservative.


Though why on earth nobody found this out befor Al is beyond my comprehension since we already have the magnetic refrigeration
analogue of the inverse Carnot Cycle (see diagram below).



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 18, 2014, 09:16:50 AM
I forgot to attach my card.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 18, 2014, 10:59:47 AM
Hi Grimer,
             loved the antique horology thing. I must admit I'm well out of my depth but am
enjoying this all the same.
     What I wanted to know was if you could build on the increase in height by reversing
the cycle. My feeling is that if the bob ends up nearer to the pivot point you could not.
   One thing that I have discovered through this topic is that is that Newton was a very
clever man.
               Thank you John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 02:42:41 PM
Grimer, I am still waiting for you to either confirm or correct my statement of your hypothesis.  Here it is again for your convenience:

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 18, 2014, 05:25:48 PM
[/font]Hi Grimer,             loved the antique horology thing. I must admit I'm well out of my depth but amenjoying this all the same.     What I wanted to know was if you could build on the increase in height by reversingthe cycle. My feeling is that if the bob ends up nearer to the pivot point you could not.   One thing that I have discovered through this topic is that is that Newton was a veryclever man.               Thank you John.
[/font]

Clever indeed - especially with regard to action at a distance.


Below is a post from BesslerWheel.com on this topic.


===============================================================


Quote from: Grimer
Quote from: rlortie
If you will excuse me, and bear with me, I have some frustration that needs venting.


Gravity is the attraction of masses ...
No it isn't - and Newton thought the idea of attraction was daft. I don't have his quote to hand but it has been given more than once in these forums.


.......


Edit: Found it -


"The most amazing thing I (Tom Van Flandern) was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous.


This seemed unacceptable on two counts.


In the first place, it seemed to be a form of action at a distance.


Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton:


 "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it'".


===============================================================

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 18, 2014, 05:53:07 PM
An excellent book on Newton and his contemporaries which everyone interested in gravity research should read is:

The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universeby Arthur Koestler
It's available in paperback from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sleepwalkers-History-Changing-Universe/dp/0140192468


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 18, 2014, 06:22:56 PM
...
What I wanted to know was if you could build on the increase in height by reversing
the cycle.
...


Of course you could but it would be rather a fiddly process.


Below is a diagram I posted on BesslerWheel.com last October.


One would need a series of pendulums ready at each arrival station ready to take the bob up against the gravity gradient. It would be hopelessly impractical for generating energy though, obviously.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 08:10:24 PM
Grimer, are you ever going to confirm or correct the statement of your hypothesis?  Do you want your hypothesis tested or not?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on January 18, 2014, 08:50:06 PM
The flaw in Grimer's theory lies in the fact that one can not create a cycloid pendulum without putting energy in.

If I read the article http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf correctly, nobody could ever build a true cycloid pendulum.


The path of an pendulum on which only gravity acts is circular:

- this is obvious for a rigid arm pendulum (the rigid arm enforces it)

- this is obvious for a weight on a string because the string is always tight (does not bend or slacken)

What ever one does to distort the path of a pendulum to a "cycloid" path (e.g. by bending the pendulum arm or string) needs energy.


Besides this, Grimer shows the clear signs of a deluded person:

- nobody is clever enough to understand his outstanding mental achievements (he is quite aggressive in this respect, always questioning the mental powers of people asking straight forward questions; and one gets attacked fiercely if demanding clarifications of wild concepts)

- he states himself that his theory can not be  proven by experiment (which ensures that nobody can disprove his delusion)

- he thinks that his mental capabilities are so great that he does not need proof by experiment, just look how clever he is, you just have to believe

- he always wiggles away from clear statements and does not answer simple questions

- he invents new science terms and unproven concepts to support his delusion


He is allowed to do all this, but one should not waste time with people like him. Yes, I am attacking Grimer because his style is very annoying.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 09:36:16 PM
conrad, I agree that it takes energy to flex the suspending thread.  The really neat characteristics of a cycloid pendulum are that it is both isochronous, and has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with an equal length fully extended arm.

I have not seen evidence of the "ersatz gravity" energy or "third derivative" energy that Grimer contends exists and I highly doubt that it does.  His latest diagram suggesting that a series of pendula that are circular on one side and cycloid on the other appears to contradict other representations that he has made.  Those doubts aside, I am prepared to go down the road of testing for the existence of this "ersatz gravity" energy or "third derivative" energy that Grimer says exists. 

Grimer says that he lacks the skills to define and conduct proof experiments of his claims.  If he really believes his claims I should think that he would be anxious to see them evaluated fairly.  That cannot happen until he confirms a clear and unambiguous statement of at least one of his hypotheses.  If he holds out refusing to ever state any of his hypotheses in clear and unambiguous terms, then his hypotheses may as well not exist.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on January 18, 2014, 10:51:14 PM
conrad, I agree that it takes energy to flex the suspending thread.  The really neat characteristics of a cycloid pendulum are that it is both isochronous, and has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with an equal length fully extended arm.

@Mark:

I agree that a "cycloid pendulum" would be neat. But it does not exist ín nature. One can theoretically construct one, but this cycloid movement of a weight can not be done without investing more than gravity.

A pendulum swings and only gravity acts on it. So, you hang a weight on a string, you pull the weight to one side, you let go, and gravity does its thing and moves the pendulum back and forth (till friction stops it).

Now, to move a weight in a "cycloid pendulum fashion" one needs an apparatus which has to add an "other force" besides gravity to realize this cycloid path. This "other forth" could be an electro magnet pulling at certain moments with a certain strangth on little iron beads fixed in equal distances along the string holding the weight.

Whatever machine one invents to create a cycloid path for a suspended weight needs to use some "other force" besides gravity. Gravity can still be the major force, but something else has to be employed (a rocket, a diesel engine, an electromagnet) to deviate the weight the string or the flexible arm to cause the "cycloid path".

I think this is the gist of any counter argument to Grimer`s delusion.

I am convinced that Grimer does not even have a well formulated theory, just a bunch of misconceptions he dreams up when pressed hard. Some mushy believe, rooted in the will to be better, superior and different than people who did him wrong in his opinion, which might well be the world in general. Sorry, Freud just got the better of me. Some people in the OU forum awaken the hobby shrink in me. But I am serious about the need for an other force besides gravity to cause a pendulum to swing along a cycloid path.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 01:02:41 AM
The amount of energy needed to flex the string can be made vanishing small with the right design of string. Since Mark claimed to be able to design an experiment he should know this. As for the rest of the post I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:


Quote
I would like to offer an alternative explanation for the falling chimney:

See, chimneys are jerks who jerk off during the night because they do not like being watched jerking off.

Usually chimneys are blown up during the day. And when the chimney falls it wants to jerk off one last time. But the chimney cramps up in daylight and breaks because he applies a too great bending force.

Greetings, Conrad


I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations.



[size=78%]
[/size]
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 01:11:01 AM
Conrad, I agree that it takes some amount of work to bend the suspension arm in the cycloid pendulum.  There are also losses in an ordinary pendulum.  Air resistance, and non-zero friction in the pivot bearing also constitute losses in any kind of pendulum.  We can work to make these small, even going so far as to operate the pendulum in a low pressure bell jar.  But we cannot make them zero.  I do not know of any pendulum that does not run down.  For the cycloid pendulum, if the suspension arm is out of very high quality spring material, then the energy bending the spring gets released as it unwinds.  If we make the material very thin then the amount of energy that gets stored, and the amount of energy that gets released can be made very small, as can the energy that will be lost each cycle.  The up shot is that we will have losses but that we can make them small.

Grimer postulates that horizontal extension of the bob from the pivot requires an "ersatz gravity" energy.  He has posted diagrams showing this energy.  He has also called this energy "third derivative" energy.  If the energy that Grimer postulates were to exist, then depending on what determines its magnitude, we should be able to devise an experiment where according to Grimer's postulate it is much greater than the losses a pendulum suffers, and the uncertainties that would be present in our measurements.  So we could by one means or another detect this energy including over and above any losses that winding the arm around the cycloid chop introduce.  In order to design an experiment that could do that we need Grimer to state both his hypothesis, and how he calculates his extra energy.

I do not try to hide my skepticism of Grimer's extraordinary ideas.  I don't see any source for this extra energy he claims.  I also see disturbing self-contradiction of what I understand are his claims in his recent posts.  Based on the history of well controlled experiments before, I know that I expect new experiments will again confirm that gravity acts conservatively.  I am still willing to give Grimer's ideas the chance.  That requires that he state his ideas clearly and unambiguously.  Otherwise I don't know what it is that we are trying to test. 

At this point it is pretty much up to Grimer to fill-in the remaining blanks.  If he does, then great, I am happy to take things to the next level.  If he doesn't, then the conservative nature of gravity marches on unchallenged.  In that case he will have to find someone else to help him find evidence for his extraordinary claims.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 19, 2014, 06:30:46 AM
And you couldn't say it more plain or fairer than that MarkE.

Your agenda is at least clear.


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 19, 2014, 06:36:43 AM
........................................................
At this point it is pretty much up to Grimer to fill-in the remaining blanks.  If he does, then great, I am happy to take things to the next level.  If he doesn't, then the conservative nature of gravity marches on unchallenged.  In that case he will have to find someone else to help him find evidence for his extraordinary claims.

This is a simple case of a pending confirmation answer.
The answer is pending with clear indications of answer 'avoidance'.
No attacks are needed, all members are quite able to derive their own conclusions.
We all know where the ball came to rest in the court.
Nothing further needs to be said.

Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 19, 2014, 09:13:26 AM
Hi,
   it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
   You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
     I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
 Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
              John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 19, 2014, 09:19:44 AM
.......................................
 I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:
 I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations 

At this point, I think we have 3 options,

1..  PLAN-B,  discuss the Grimer's motivation
A discussion on why "Grimer" is avoiding to acknowledge the "MarkE" summary statement.
The summary statement appears to confirm pretty closely the theory statements that "Grimer" has postulated and published here already.
1..  What is "Grimer's" game?
2..  What is hidden ?   
3..  Does he think that he has overplayed his card to gain recognition?
4..  Would he like to retract his postulation?
5..  Did he assume that nobody would hold him to his word and put it to the test?
6..  Is he just playing with time for maximum exposure and attention ?

2..  PLAN-C,  proceed without Grimer
Proceed without "Grimer" on board.
The project definition as stated by "MarkE" is the basis for a verification test case.
Additional input is invited for evaluation to enhance the mission statement.
The next step would be the formulation of the test protocol and measurement requirements followed by
  1.. Test1 steps
  2.. Test2 steps
  3....ect....

3.. PLAN-D,   go home and do nothing.
Just ignore the ramblings as a distraction and go home.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 10:42:51 AM
Red_Sunset the trouble that I have with the Plan B options is the highly subjective nature of each.  I would much rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do.

Grimer has contacted me privately, but he has not offered confirmation or correction of my statement of his hypothesis.  While we wait to see if Grimer will perhaps come through, I will suggest things that we can think about towards devising an experiment under a Plan C, or if Grimer comes through a Plan A:

We can minimize air resistance losses up to and including placing the pendulum in a bell jar and pumping the jar down to a low air pressure.
We can minimize the losses bending the support arm around the cycloid chop through material selection and support shape selection.
We can take advantage of statement 1) in the hypothesis that notes a cycloid pendulum has only gravitational potential energy at its apogee.
We can take advantage of statement 1) and the fact that at its lowest point the cycloid pendulum's arm, like the circular pendulum's arm aligns to the vertical, and therefore the acceleration due to gravity is normal to the direction of travel at that point.
We can construct Gendanken experiments before setting up physical experiments that will help us predict expected results.
We can look to existing experiments to see if any cover part or all of what we ultimately choose to set-up in our own experiments.

Because gravity has so often been shown to behave conservatively, if Grimer believes as he says that he does that he has an exception it is very crucial that there is zero misunderstanding of his hypothesis as to the conditions under which he believes that gravity behaves non-conservatively. 

My proposed statement of Grimer's hypothesis repeated here again for Grimer's convenience to either confirm or correct:

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 10:51:05 AM
Hi,
   it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
   You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
     I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
 Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
              John.
Minnie, energy associated with the greater horizontal displacement at apogee is what Grimer has labeled his eG and called "ersatz energy".  I have asked him to provide a formula to calculate the "ersatz energy".  I am waiting for an answer.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 19, 2014, 11:22:26 AM
Red_Sunset the trouble that I have with the Plan B options is the highly subjective nature of each.  I would much rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do.
......................................................................... 
MarkE, 
I agree that you "rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do."  You can see this exercise as a scientific pre-test.

The Plan B cross-examines the relationship boundary between the "science idea/hypothesis" and the scientist (as a person in his social position/standing).
This interaction could have limited the disclosure and possibly nullify the hypothesis as it currently stands.
The lack of backing by the originator for the hypothesis puts a doubt shadow over the disclosure

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 11:46:48 AM
MarkE, 
I agree that you "rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do."  You can see this a a scientific extension.

The Plan B cross-examines the relationship boundary between the "science idea/hypothesis" and the scientist (as a person in his social position/standing).
This interaction could limited the disclosure and possibly nullify the hypothesis as it currently stands.
The lack of backing by the originator for the hypothesis puts a grave doubt over the disclosure

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true.  I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave.  Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone.  When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas.  I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a  mistake. 

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 19, 2014, 02:07:27 PM
Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true.  I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave.  Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone.  When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas.  I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a  mistake.
MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 02:49:14 PM
MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset my concern is more the effect anything that might look like an attack on Grimer's personality might do to discourage other people from proposing ideas out of fear that they would be treated harshly.  I think ideas should be encouraged.  I also believe rigorous analysis and test are absolutely essential when considering extraordinary ideas.

I am afraid that I am quite certain that the hypothesis as stated can be shown to be false without getting to physical experiments or at most only requires trivial physical experiments.  Without further input from Grimer, I believe that we are at Plan C or Plan D.  This is because according to the hypothesis the cycloid pendulum translates only between kinetic energy and GPE.  If the kinetic energy at the bottom of the travel for the cycloid case is the same as for the circular case, then we may conclude that the energies at the apogees are the same and since the hypothesis states that at the apogee the cycloid case has only GPE, then so must the circular case.  All that remains is to look up maximum velocity derivations from actual observations for circular pendula.  The hypothesis fails if any of the following are true:

1) The maximum velocity for a circular pendulum with massless free arm length Y1 and point mass bob mass M1, released from raised height Hdelta1 is the same for a cycloid pendulum with the same parameters.

OR

2) The computed kinetic energy for a circular pendulum at the bottom of its travel equals the GPE of the raised height of the bob at its release.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on January 19, 2014, 06:27:59 PM
As for the rest of the post I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:

I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations.

Sorry, my obscene post was not nice.

But the aloof and arrogant reasoning of Grimer made me respond with something as absurd as his arguments. Not everybody saw the joke, again sorry.

Please read this document carefully http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf (posted by Grimer http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg383571/#msg383571).

The document says that the "chops" do not cause a true cycloid pendulum movement (or a isochronous clock) and that they were abandoned by the clock builders quite soon for this reason.

So, as I said, there is no way of causing a cycloid pendulum movement with gravity alone (by adding some guides or chops).

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 07:34:34 PM
Sorry, my obscene post was not nice.

But the aloof and arrogant reasoning of Grimer made me respond with something as absurd as his arguments. Not everybody saw the joke, again sorry.

Please read this document carefully http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf (http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf) (posted by Grimer http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg383571/#msg383571 (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg383571/#msg383571)).

The document says that the "chops" do not cause a true cycloid pendulum movement (or a isochronous clock) and that they were abandoned by the clock builders quite soon for this reason.

So, as I said, there is no way of causing a cycloid pendulum movement with gravity alone (by adding some guides or chops).

Greetings, Conrad


Correct. Your obscene post was not nice. But since you've apologised we'll move on.


I looked again at the link I gave and found the there are no less that 60 references to "chops".


For your penance ;-) and to save me having to trawl through all 60 please could you tell me which reference to chops you are referring to.


Thank you.


Edit: I have now searched on the word "true" and it comes up with a much smaller number of hits.


I think quote on page 15 may be the one you are referring to.


Quote
But he deduced something else as well. When the work on the rigid body pendulum was published in Part
IV of Horologium Oscillatorium, Huygens put it unequivocally, at Proposition XXIV, “It is not possible to
determine the centre of oscillation for pendula suspended between cycloids.” The very reason this is true
means that cycloidal chops do not provide an isochronous path for a rigid body pendulum.


But as you can see from the diagram on page 15 below the above quote this is not the kind of pendulum we
are discussing here.


Wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 07:49:01 PM
Hi,
   it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
   You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
     I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
 Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
              John.


Of course you would have to move the pivot point. So what. No one's suggesting this as a a practical generator. It's to prove a point - a very important process in science.


You conclude "there is no, or minimal gain". But which?


Believe me there is an enormous difference being not pregnant and being minimally pregnant. ;-)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on January 19, 2014, 08:02:49 PM
I looked again at the link I gave and found the there are no less that 60 references to "chops".

For your penance ;-) and to save me having to trawl through all 60 please could you tell me which reference to chops you are referring to.

In this document (which was cited by you) http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf they talk about chops in old pendulum clocks which were supposed to cause cycloid pendulum movement but they did not. Therefore the clock builders abandoned chops and the idea of an isochronous clock.

"It is said that Huygens deduced that, if the chops were cycloidal, the bob of a pendulum would swing
along a cycloidal path, rather than the circular arc of the simple pendulum, and the pendulum would then
be isochronous."

My argument: there is no way to cause a pendulum weight to go along a cycloid path by gravity alone. No "chops" or any other "guides" can do that. One needs to introduce other forces provided by some additional mechanisms (which will consume energy and the consumed energy will be at least the energy gained by the cycloid path, if there is indeed some energy gained).

But my heart is not in "gravity machines", therefore I will not invest more time in this topic. I belive in experiments, theory is cheap.

Good science is derived from experiments. Every valid theory must be supported by real experiments. Of course you may decline experiments, but that will also decline your credibility. But again, count me out, I am interested in other strange things.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 08:06:55 PM


Quote
Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true.  I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave.  Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone.  When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas.  I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a  mistake.[size=78%][/size][size=78%]
[/size]






MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset


Newlands was a prime example of that


Newlands noted that many pairs of similar elements existed, which differed by some multiple of eight in mass number, and was the first to assign them an atomic number. When his 'law of octaves' was printed in Chemistry News, likening this periodicity of eights to the musical scale, it was ridiculed by some of his contemporaries. His lecture to the Chemistry Society on 1 March 1866 was not published, the Society defending their decision by saying that such 'theoretical' topics might be controversial.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 08:22:24 PM
In this document (which was cited by you) http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf (http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf) they talk about chops in old pendulum clocks which were supposed to cause cycloid pendulum movement but they did not. Therefore the clock builders abandoned chops and the idea of an isochronous clock.

"It is said that Huygens deduced that, if the chops were cycloidal, the bob of a pendulum would swing
along a cycloidal path, rather than the circular arc of the simple pendulum, and the pendulum would then
be isochronous."

My argument: there is no way to cause a pendulum weight to go along a cycloid path by gravity alone. No "chops" or any other "guides" can do that. One needs to introduce other forces provided by some additional mechanisms (which will consume energy and the consumed energy will be at least the energy gained by the cycloid path, if there is indeed some energy gained).

But my heart is not in "gravity machines", therefore I will not invest more time in this topic. I belive in experiments, theory is cheap.

Good science is derived from experiments. Every valid theory must be supported by real experiments. Of course you may decline experiments, but that will also decline your credibility. But again, count me out, I am interested in other strange things.

Greetings, Conrad


A very sensible decision. Good luck with your experiments.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 08:57:00 PM
Grimer, it is looking more and more like you will not confirm or correct my statement of your hypothesis.  If that is the case then I'll do what I can to resolve the hypothesis as stated.  My strong suspicion is that the hypothesis as stated is falsifiable on its face using existing experiment data.  If my statement of your hypothesis is not accurate, it would therefore be to your advantage to post a correct statement of your hypothesis.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 10:48:46 PM
Grimer, it is looking more and more like you will not confirm or correct my statement of your hypothesis.  If that is the case then I'll do what I can to resolve the hypothesis as stated.  My strong suspicion is that the hypothesis as stated is falsifiable on its face using existing experiment data.  If my statement of your hypothesis is not accurate, it would therefore be to your advantage to post a correct statement of your hypothesis.
The 2nd order derivatives are the same but the 3rd order derivatives are not.


If the problem were easy it would have been solved before, wouldn't it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 11:11:47 PM
The 2nd order derivatives are the same but the 3rd order derivatives are not.


If the problem were easy it would have been solved before, wouldn't it.
Grimer, there aren't that many options:  One is write down your hypothesis, and another is to keep avoiding it.  You can confirm my statement of your hypothesis that I faithfully derived from your stated comments, or if I didn't get it right simply state your hypothesis.  A third alternative is that you don't have a hypothesis.  That's OK too.  If that's the case, just say so.

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 11:29:57 PM
Mark


Why is the Brachisochrone path the shortest time of descent?


Why does any other path take longer?


Isn't it reasonable that going down some other path is going to leave its mark, its fingerprint.


If you only measure the 2nd derivative you won't be capable of saying down which path the
bob has come.


But if in addition you measure the 3rd derivative you will.


The paths are different, the third derivatives are different but not the second.


Newtonian Gravity is the same (2nd derv) but not Ersatz Gravity (3rd derivative).


You are concentrating on NG and forgetting about EG.


I PMed you about EG. I assume you got it.



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 01:58:32 AM
Grimer, in order to take things to the next step all you have to do is confirm or otherwise state your hypothesis.  If you haven't gathered your thoughts to the point of actually forming a hypothesis, that's really OK, just say so.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 20, 2014, 02:01:53 AM
I've just seen something.


There's a James Burke connection between the Brachistochrone[/font][/size] and the graph below.


More tomorrow.



Brachistochrone[ bruh-kis-tuh-krohn]

noun [Mechanics]


1.
the curve between two points that in the shortest time by abody moving under an external force without friction; the curve of quickest descent.


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 20, 2014, 02:43:49 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautochrone_curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 20, 2014, 05:58:56 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautochrone_curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautochrone_curve)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve)


Good addition to the armoury.


Thanks, Fletch.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 20, 2014, 06:28:06 AM

Good addition to the armoury.

Thanks, Fletch.

i was in hurry to open this page only for that,
lol
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 20, 2014, 08:46:25 AM
Below you see a host of optimum moisture content curves.


If we join up the maxima then we have a curve of optimum moisture contents analogous to the Brachi. If we move to the right we de-optimise. If we move to the left we de-optimise.


So we can see the Brachi as curve of optimum velocity. Move away on either side and we de-optimise.


Fastest average speed - or its inverse - shortest journey time.



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 20, 2014, 01:00:59 PM
Hi,
   oh where is Al when you need him?
Grimer said to a question I asked "of course you can", I would have loved a comment from Al
 like "no you can't"
                     John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 03:03:55 PM
Minnie asked,
Quote
What I wanted to know was if you could build on the increase in height by reversing
the cycle.

Grimer replied:


Of course you could but it would be rather a fiddly process.


Below is a diagram I posted on BesslerWheel.com last October.


One would need a series of pendulums ready at each arrival station ready to take the bob up against the gravity gradient. It would be hopelessly impractical for generating energy though, obviously.

Of course you can't.... because there is no increase in height in the first place.

(Momentum is conserved, after all.)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 03:24:13 PM
Grimer has expressed several ideas that go against conservation principles.  His diagram indicating that one could supposed daisy chain a series of half-circular / half-cycloid pendula to get higher and higher apogees both contradicts his earlier diagram and violates:  gravitational fields as conservative, momentum as conservative, and energy as conservative.  It is all fine and well that Grimer has these extraordinary ideas.  I don't see how anyone can take them seriously when he refuses to state or even confirm any statement of a hypothesis, offer any evidence, or even stay on subject.  His ladder diagram here, violates conservation of energy even if the "ersatz gravity" energy he claims could be shown to exist.  According to this diagram, he can extract that energy and keep it, while it regenerates itself for free.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 20, 2014, 03:39:00 PM
Hi,
   Grimer,think about this. If you get negative horizontal shift your pivot point will end
in outer space or if you keep shortening the pendulum going the other way you'll
dissappear down your own pivot.
                                        John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 20, 2014, 03:49:07 PM
Hi,
   Grimer,think about this. If you get negative horizontal shift your pivot point will end
in outer space or if you keep shortening the pendulum going the other way you'll
dissappear down your own pivot.
                                        John.
The reverse journey would be a mirror image of the forward journey.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 20, 2014, 03:54:08 PM
Hi,
   Rubbish Grimer,prove it!
                               John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 20, 2014, 04:01:37 PM
Hi,
Grimer I'm going to feed my sheep now , I'll ask a few of them, there are 400 plus, one of
'em should know!
     I'll apologise in advance if I'm wrong, it's that wet I might sink without trace or the
other possibility is that they're that hungry that they'll eat me
    good luck John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 20, 2014, 04:54:25 PM
Hi,
Grimer I'm going to feed my sheep now , I'll ask a few of them, there are 400 plus, one of
'em should know!
     I'll apologise in advance if I'm wrong, it's that wet I might sink without trace or the
other possibility is that they're that hungry that they'll eat me
    good luck John.


Apology accepted.  ;)


Good luck with the sheep. Hope you find the one that's lost.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 20, 2014, 04:58:32 PM
Hi,
   oh where is Al when you need him?
Grimer said to a question I asked "of course you can", I would have loved a comment from Al
 like "no you can't"
                     John.


I think he's Mr Hyde today (or should that be Mr Hide  ;D ).
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 06:08:00 PM

I think he's Mr Hyde today (or should that be Mr Hide  ;D ).

Please try to keep up, Frank.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 20, 2014, 07:08:58 PM
Hi,
  I asked my sheep and the best answer was Baaaa. This is a true story, once I took a ewe to
Rugby school. This fellow bought some of our ewes and lambs at Stratford on Avon market
and we had a phone call later saying one of the lambs hadn't got a mother. This one ewe had
dodged being loaded and hid in a barn so I had to put her in the car and take her to her lamb.
The lamb had ended up at Rugby school.
    Grimer, what ever I do I can't use the added height to do another cycle without  doing a
horizontal correction (which would require energy) I'd love to know how it could be done
         John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 01:46:26 AM
Please try to keep up, Frank.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV7CO8No-CE


Hi, Al. Nice to hear from you.


I see that your WhipMag video, the one that "got away", is still available on
YouTube.
I would have thought you'd be able to get Google to pull it on the basis of
copyright  - or something.


I was amused to see Desertphile's comment. Still, he does have the knack of
self publicity doesn't he. I wonder how his "hits" compare with yours.
Oops! TK's.


Bet they're not up to my granddaughter's though (Klaire de Lys). You should
watch her. She's got a Deviant art account too. I believe you're a bit of an
artist. You might be interested.


That WhipMag video is now 6 years old. Gosh! We are not getting any younger.
I can hear the grim reaper sharpening his scythe. ;-)


Still my mater lived to a 102 and as my pater used to say,
"There's no one so old that he doesn't think he's got another five years to live".


Cheers


Frank
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 04:15:35 AM
I see a video of an electric motor in dim lighting.  What's special?
Title: maybe
Post by: Marsing on January 21, 2014, 05:15:08 AM
 
I see a video of an electric motor in dim lighting.  What's special?

he was in deep  tunnel.....

btw i din't see others special yet

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 06:55:00 AM
Marsing, I don't know why Grimer finds that dim video of a motor demonstration so fascinating.  The narrator showed the motor starting up and running.  I didn't hear the narrator saying anything like the motor didn't need a power source.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 07:11:24 AM
Grimer is fascinated by that video because he believed (and may still believe) things about the device shown that were flatly contradicted by the builder. Grimer engaged in many long discussions where he, Grimer, would not accept the builder's clear statements that the device was not OU in any way, that its performance was perfectly in line with ordinary physics, and etc.  Now he seeks to use that video in some manner to criticize me.... when in reality, every time he posts a link to it, he is linking to his own naivete and hopeful ignorance. Notice that he does NOT post any of the discussions he had about the device with its builder. Not only is the device off-topic, since it has nothing to do with gravity wheels or Bessler, but also, Grimer is simply trolling. He has no point to make and no evidence to make it with.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 07:15:44 AM
TinselKoala if those discussions happened the way that you say they did then it is hard to understand what Grimer thinks he might achieve by bringing it up.  Did the builder ever say that motor did anything remarkable?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 07:41:40 AM
TinselKoala if those discussions happened the way that you say they did then it is hard to understand what Grimer thinks he might achieve by bringing it up.  Did the builder ever say that motor did anything remarkable?

Grimer is seeking to discredit someone by posting the video. He is displaying his frustrations. He is in the same position as a child is, looking at the "disembodied head" sitting on a table in a circus booth. Everybody around him knows that the head isn't really disembodied, that it only looks that way because of the carefully positioned mirrors that make the table look like there's nothing underneath it. But he persists in exclaiming that the head is in fact disembodied, and proceeds to construct all kinds of theories and explanations for how the disembodied head came to be and why it can still talk. Even when the carny builder of the table tells the child that it is just a trick, the child persists in his fantasy belief, and tells his friends about the disembodied head that could talk. For years, the child continues to reject sensible explanations and his own common sense, and thinks he saw a talking disembodied head. Years pass and memories are plastic; eventually the child might realize his silliness.... or maybe he never does.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 08:12:45 AM
I see a video of an electric motor in dim lighting.  What's special? 
MarkE,
Nothing, just interesting sideline distractions, like Sheep flocks, moisture absorption, high capacity lite batteries, pendulum acceleration curves, a 150yr old references that prevent an answer,  Koala’a mag motor... no problem!
Let me side step all this, for a quick note on the matter at hand.

An alternate theoretical view,
This summary addresses a flow of energy in Grimer’s proposal that bothers me, due too possible impact of the cycloid modification. The pendulum is of hypothetical construction for the purpose of analysis.

The downswing energy absorption is proportional to the cosine, the initial half absorbs the most energy per degr (radian) and lessens towards -90dgr.

The upswing energy reduction (attenuation) would follow opposite pattern, with least attenuation in the first 45dgr and greatest attenuation in the last 45dgr of travel.  The attenuation experienced also follows a cosine function and the angular energy release is proportionate to the sine.

The upswing is modified to follow a cycloid path, this introduces a complete different proportioned sub-pendulum using chops that effectively shortens the radius of the swing arm and repositions the axis.
After the point the arm engages the chop, the string arm angle increases more rapidly than it would have without chops, (the reason for radian speed increase) therewith also the change of the sin/cos values that affect attenuation and energy release. 
Without going into calculations, The blob travel will be attenuated faster but so will be the energy release with chops engaged.

Summary;
I theorize  that as the chops engage, due to alteration of swing angle , the energy gets consumed faster (cos) which is compensated for by faster energy release(sin).  This creates the possibility of balancing out to the same swing height than if we maintained the circular path. (ideal view, ignoring losses)

Your opinion?,
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 21, 2014, 08:41:43 AM
@markE

I think I found it,

Marsing, I don't know why Grimer finds that dim video of a motor demonstration so fascinating.  The narrator showed the motor starting up and running.  I didn't hear the narrator saying anything like the motor didn't need a power source.

you are joking,  din't find something interesting.
pay attention to  the motor not narrator.

Did the builder ever say that motor did anything remarkable?

narrator said something that should be Noticed, "  now, i gonna stop ....".

(just my opinion).
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 08:50:42 AM
@TinselKoala, that sounds sad.

@Red_Sunset, I see.  He's made it very clear that he doesn't want to state a hypothesis, and he's contradicted the best effort I could make to state one from what he's said.  So maybe Plan D is best all around.

On the cycloid chop thing, the original idea from Grimer was that the circular path had more energy at its apogee than the cycloid at the same height.  Whether one or the other has more energy we could determine by finding the maximum velocity at the bottom of the travel.  Both types of pendula swing freely at the bottom and no one has suggested some alternate energy source, sink, or store at that point of the travel.  So, we could do several things:  We could construct pendula experiments using our best approximation for a point mass and a perfectly flexible and mass-less arm.  Then we could see if there is any detectable difference in maximum speed at the bottom of the travel.  Or we could go through the math and calculate the expected velocity and energy at each point of the swing.  I don't have time to do that for the cycloid tonight, but it does not seem a particularly difficult task.  Of the several issues that I found with Grimer's idea that there is some "ersatz energy" captured and released by the circular pendulum is that Grimer seemed to ignore that tension in the arm goes to zero as the bob reaches its apogee.  He seemed to talk as though he thought the "ersatz energy" was associated with centripetal / centrifugal force on the arm, when at the instant the bob reaches apogee there isn't any radial force.

To answer your question:  the cycloid path is steeper than a circular path so the acceleration / deceleration is more pronounced away from the center.  That accounts for the cycloid having a shorter period than the circular pendulum of equal apogee.  An alternate way to look at this is use low friction tracks and rolling balls.  If we arrange various tracks with equal maximum heights, we turn the child's swing / pendulum into a roller coaster.  If we arrange these tracks with different curves then we can observe several things:

1) There is no curve that we can design where the ball released from one side will top the release height at the other side.
2) There will be at least one curve that results in minimum transit time from one end to the other.  300 year old math says that will be a cycloid path.
3) A track made with a cycloid path will result in the same oscillation period independent of the starting point.

3) is the fascinating property of cycloid paths.  It makes me think that the fairest pinewood derby track is one laid out as a cycloid as that would eliminate any advantage / disadvantage from slight misalignments at that starting gate.  Some parallel cycloid tracks arranged to simultaneously release balls from different starting heights in each track could make some interesting physical art.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 09:04:59 AM
Grimer is seeking to discredit someone by posting the video. He is displaying his frustrations. He is in the same position as a child is, looking at the "disembodied head" sitting on a table in a circus booth. Everybody around him knows that the head isn't really disembodied, that it only looks that way because of the carefully positioned mirrors that make the table look like there's nothing underneath it. But he persists in exclaiming that the head is in fact disembodied, and proceeds to construct all kinds of theories and explanations for how the disembodied head came to be and why it can still talk. Even when the carny builder of the table tells the child that it is just a trick, the child persists in his fantasy belief, and tells his friends about the disembodied head that could talk. For years, the child continues to reject sensible explanations and his own common sense, and thinks he saw a talking disembodied head. Years pass and memories are plastic; eventually the child might realize his silliness.... or maybe he never does.


Are you claiming that you committed a fraud, Al. If so you are much worse than Mylow whose fraud you took such pride in uncovering.


But you won't answer my question will you. You never have in the past. You won't admit it and you are not prepared to lie. You just resort to some childish insult.


And please stop all this nonsense by referring to the builder of the WhipMag as though he is someone other than you. Readers of this forum are not that stupid. If you keep talking as though Jekyll and Hyde are two different people then members of the forum will begin to realise they are dealing with a schizo.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 09:16:02 AM
Grimer would you please calm yourself down?  Where is this fraud you keep alleging?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 10:03:03 AM
....................................................................
  Some parallel cycloid tracks arranged to simultaneously release balls from different starting heights in each track could make some interesting physical art.

A pretty good animation that does that can be found here,
http://www.myphysicslab.com/beta/Brachistochrone.html (http://www.myphysicslab.com/beta/Brachistochrone.html)

Click on the curve to mark the ball on that curve in comparison to the others, since they all will launch at the same time.
Red_sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 21, 2014, 10:11:43 AM
Hi,
   if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
              John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 10:36:49 AM
Grimer would you please calm yourself down?  Where is this fraud you keep alleging?

Yes, Frank, please explain how someone telling you that a device is NOT OU IN ANY WAY, that it is perfectly ordinary and everything it does is in accord with normal physics, someone who actually REFUSED your cynical offer of money for the device .... is a "fraud", or how it compares to Mylow, who told everyone he had a working Free Energy Magnet Motor and took money and materials from people under those false pretenses. Let's see you reproduce some of the conversations you held, where YOU were arguing that it was OU when the builder kept telling you it wasn't. Those were a real hoot to read at the time.

Frank Grimer, like one or two others, was utterly fooled by a simple child's toy, in spite of everything he was told by the builder, in spite of physics, and now he's bitter about it. He _saw something_ and chose to interpret it through his rose-tinted glasses, and would not accept other interpretations as possible or real.  He also has funny ideas about internet identities.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 10:52:20 AM
Hi,
   if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
              John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!

There is NO extra height! You can put whatever "blocks" you like on one side of a pendulum's swing, and the bob will NOT rise above its initial release height -- unless it is 'released' with a push in the first place. No fiddling with flexibility of the support, fulcrum point or anything else that does not add energy, will cause the bob to rise higher than its initial release.

Imagine a pendulum with the first quadrant unconstrained and the second quadrant fitted with a cycloidal block. IF the pendulum bob reached a higher point than its initial release, you could simply swing the cycloidal block over to the other side (rotating around a vertical hingeline) at very little cost in energy, and let the bob fall, now from its higher initial height in the second quadrant, down its unconstrained arc and up over the cycloidal block which is now in the first quadrant.... where the bob would go even higher.... so you swing the block back to the first side, let the bob descend its circular arc and climb up the cycloidal block, getting even higher.....

I expect to see Frank's prototype swinging away, gaining height with each swing...... soon? No... Frank is not an experimentalist, he just has pipe dreams and berates people who DO build things and who tell him his ideas are FOS.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 12:21:02 PM
There is NO extra height! You can put whatever "blocks" you like on one side of a pendulum's swing, and the bob will NOT rise above its initial release height -- unless it is 'released' with a push in the first place. No fiddling with flexibility of the support, fulcrum point or anything else that does not add energy, will cause the bob to rise higher than its initial release.

Imagine a pendulum with the first quadrant unconstrained and the second quadrant fitted with a cycloidal block. IF the pendulum bob reached a higher point than its initial release, you could simply swing the cycloidal block over to the other side (rotating around a vertical hingeline) at very little cost in energy, and let the bob fall, now from its higher initial height in the second quadrant, down its unconstrained arc and up over the cycloidal block which is now in the first quadrant.... where the bob would go even higher.... so you swing the block back to the first side, let the bob descend its circular arc and climb up the cycloidal block, getting even higher.....

I expect to see Frank's prototype swinging away, gaining height with each swing...... soon? No... Frank is not an experimentalist, he just has pipe dreams and berates people who DO build things and who tell him his ideas are FOS.
TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with,  neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here.  The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 21, 2014, 01:45:22 PM
TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with,  neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here.  The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset

Yeah right, you know all about scientific analysis, remember you were the one totally convinced that Wayne Travis had a working OU device, when most people could see the BS.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 01:53:51 PM
Hi,
   if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
              John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!
Short of adding an external power source, I do not see how one can get extra height out of even one cycle.  The input GPE translates into KE and then back into GPE.  With zero losses the bob can only get back to starting height.  With even very small losses it won't do that. 

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 03:01:57 PM
Yeah right, you know all about scientific analysis, remember you were the one totally convinced that Wayne Travis had a working OU device, when most people could see the BS. 
Hi Cat,
Some advice, get yourself better informed, so you can see the wood from the tree's
Take a trip to Oklahoma and visit the ZED production line.
With due respect, never think you know everything because there are multiple sides to a coin. There is always something out there to outfox you.
Being reasonable and humble is a virtue that can serve you well
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 21, 2014, 03:37:15 PM
@@Red_Sunset
Some advice for you, take your head out of Wayne Travis backside, and get a grip on reality, he is a con man that does not have a working over unity device, but with your rose tinted way of looking at science it is no surprise that you fell for it.
Look at his website, he removed the update page, so that he could stop himself  repeatedly promising things that he could never deliver, the man is a liar and a fraud.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 03:41:42 PM
Red_Sunset, I am afraid that Hydro Energy Revolution has failed to show that they can produce any energy such as they claim.  All of their demonstrations of the supposed underlying "Travis Effect" were misdirection of ordinary, well-understood physics going back to the days of Archimedes.  In the various videos HER repeatedly misdirected with the false suggestion that material in a buoyant object is responsible for the buoyant force.  That is completely false.  The buoyant force is the gravitational force of an equivalent volume of the displaced surrounding fluid.  Under water, the buoyant force is the same on a lead filled ball as it is on a helium filled ball as it is on an evacuated ball of the same volume.  Dams have collapsed because of that force.  The net upward force is the difference between the buoyant force and the downward force of gravity on the buoyant object. 

In their first video HER displace most of the volume underneath the left hand cup using a sunken cement insert.  The amount of air underneath each cup is irrelevant.  It is the total volume of displaced water that generates the buoyant force for each.  The only opposing force for each is the weight of the cups themselves.  That is why it takes the same amount of diving weight to hold down each cup.

HER has never set-up the tests they promised to show Mark Dansie for almost three years now.  Instead they chimed constantly about how much progress they were making by constantly changing their rigs.  They claimed almost two years ago to have built their "instrumentation" rig.  No sign of free energy has ever come from that rig.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with,  neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here.  The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset

I am not concerned with whether or not I impress YOU, RS. I've seen your sycophancy and your misedutainment already in the Travis thread. In fact I would be quite surprised if you ever actually came up with a cogent argument of any kind, pro or con.

You also don't seem to understand my "very graphical picture", which is taken directly from Grimer's diagram. He seems to be saying that a pendulum bob that starts out on an ordinary circular arc when first released (at height H with zero initial velocity, on the right side of the apparatus) will, when encountering the cycloidal "block" after the first half-swing, rise higher than the release point H, over on the left side of the apparatus. Am I correct so far? Are you following? It's hard to tell just what Grimer claims, since he refuses time and time again to state a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis in operational terms. So please correct me if you think I am wrong about this first part.

So what I have said is that this is wrong; that the bob will not climb higher than initial release unless some extra energy is supplied from somewhere... and it's not coming from a cycloidal block, that's for sure..

And I've tried to get you, or anyone else, to imagine a simple, vertically hinged half-cycloidal block, the hinge being disposed along the line straight down from the pendulum's suspension point. The block is initially on the left side of the apparatus. When the bob has reached its maximum height on the left after encountering the cycloid block, one simply swings the block over to the righthand side about the hingeline. This allows the bob to fall on the circular arc again, converting its _gained_ GPE into KE in the normal manner, until it encounters the cycloidal block on the right side, where it will rise _even higher_ than before. Continually swinging the cycloidal block from side to side costs almost nothing, energetically, since the block isn't loaded and the hingeline is vertical. Therefore.... you now have a perpetual pendulum, at least.

Yet we have no examples of such a perpetual beast, anywhere, even though it would take a decent woodworker a morning's labor to make it. Why not? I know why... and so do you, and so does Frank.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 05:30:48 PM
Hi Cat,
Some advice, get yourself better informed, so you can see the wood from the tree's
Take a trip to Oklahoma and visit the ZED production line.
With due respect, never think you know everything because there are multiple sides to a coin. There is always something out there to outfox you.
Being reasonable and humble is a virtue that can serve you well
Red_Sunset

I'm sure we will all be very interested in reading YOUR report of YOUR visit to see the wood from the trees, Red. What happened when YOU went to Oklahoma to see the ZED "production line" ? Please do tell.

We'd especially like some details about the lawsuit, and the "hard doors closing" and "expectations not met". A working prototype that demonstrated the truth of Travis's claims would seem to be badly needed to fend off the evil litigants and disappointed investors. Unfortunately no such thing exists.... in spite of Travis's many claims to the contrary. Am I wrong? If you think I am, please provide some evidence, not more insults.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 21, 2014, 06:13:23 PM
Hi,
   Koala, if I'm reading the diagram correctly you pay for the height increase by the
bob ending up closer to the pivot, therefore you can't just swing the chops, it would
foul the cord. Once the bob gets higher than the horizontal things are going to go
wrong anyhow.
      I can' t see any comparison with Mylow, he was a total fraud. Do you remember
that farce when he visited Howard Johnson's grave?
                   John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 06:54:38 PM
minnie assuming a perfectly flexible arm, the only energy is GPE, ie height, and KE.  At the apogee on either side the KE is zero, therefore with no losses the GPE's are equal and therefore the heights are equal.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 07:47:51 PM
Quote
PowerCat  -   .................take your head out of Wayne Travis backside, and get a grip on reality, he is a con man that does not have a working over unity device, but with your rose tinted way of looking at science it is no surprise that you fell for it.
Look at his website, he removed the update page, so that he could stop himself  repeatedly promising things that he could never deliver, the man is a liar and a fraud.
PowerCat, You appear to be pretty well opinionated.
Quote
MarkE     ...............video'sof upside down cups
I agree with you on all your comments you made about the upside down cup video's.  They were only props,  intended to lead you towards understanding certain concepts of the invention.
Quote
TinselKoala..........................Yet we have no examples of such a perpetual beast, anywhere, even though it would take a decent woodworker a morning's labor to make it. Why not? I know why... and so do you, and so does Frank..
My point was that your beast was an exaggeration, far removed of what was speculated by Grimer. He never elaborated on the practical execution of his idea.  You appeared to have an alternative agenda for doing so
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can assure you that,
 I don't need a high priest trying to convince me what to believe in.  And neither would I insist in changing your believe.    My senses of reason are functioning well enough to make up my own mind based on information and evidence presented.
I can see that many members here have certain pre-conceived negative opinions on Wayne Travis and also of Renato Ribeiro, as seen in this RAR topic,  What amazes me that they want everybody to believe that their opinions are fact without an ounce of case evidence. I regret their loss!
Sure, everybody is entitled to their own viewpoint, just do not become the high priest, preaching short sighted opinions without supporting evidence.

Not finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means only that you have not found it yet.

Peace,  Red_Sunset
 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 08:27:46 PM
Red_Sunset the various aquarium and cup demonstrations were entirely acts of misdirection.  The claims that they asserted in those videos were false.  They claimed that they were showing something new and unique:  a "Travis Effect".  They did not show anything new or unique. 

They cannot to this day describe what the "Travis Effect" does that is different from the 2000 year old Archimedes' Principle.  There is a very simple reason for that:  the "Travis Effect" is all misdirection that tries to lead the viewer into thinking that the upward force of buoyancy depends on something other than the equivalent weight of fluid displaced by the volume of the sunken object.  The cement insert that they use displaces fluid just as well as an air bubble, and the results are the same when the cup is forced over the cement insert as if it were forced over an air bubble of identical dimensions, or anything else.  When it comes to buoyant force:  It's the displacement, it's the displacement, it's the displacement.

Despite that what they demonstrate is just Archimedes' Principle at work, in one of their videos they even claimed that they were showing a side by side comparison of the difference between the "Travis Effect" and Archimedes' Principle.  The demonstrator keeps saying something like: "Come on Archimedes!".  This leaves us pretty much with one possibility that they have such a poor understanding of science that they don't recognize Archimedes' Principle when the have right in front of them, or that their false representations are deliberate.  In either case they have nothing of value that they can ever deliver.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 08:31:00 PM
Quote
Not finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means only that you have not found it yet.

Or that it has been proven not to exist and you will never find it. Or any of a lot of other things.

Did you know that there is a ton of pure gold bullion bars buried directly under your house, Red? It's only 30 meters down. I know this because I have invented the TK GoldFinding pendulum, and I've dowsed the map with it, and it told me where you live and that the gold is there. It has never been known to fail! (This is the first time I've used it, but my theory is infallible, so I know it's working.)

Now... tell me.... will you start digging? Not finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, remember. And I've given you exactly the same degree of proof for your gold, as Travis has given us, as Grimer, as .....

Get the point, or not? There's no point in searching for something that you know is impossible. Yet, we both can imagine perfecly plausible and physically possible scenarios where there could indeed be all that gold under your home. Pirates, Russians, the NSA, smugglers, have dug a cavern and hidden it there.

Still, I predict you will not begin digging for it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 09:13:34 PM
Or that it has been proven not to exist and you will never find it. Or any of a lot of other things.
...
Get the point, or not? There's no point in searching for something that you know is impossible. Yet, we both can imagine perfecly plausible and physically possible scenarios where there could indeed be all that gold under your home. Pirates, Russians, the NSA, smugglers, have dug a cavern and hidden it there.
................................................................
Still, I predict you will not begin digging for it.   
TinselKoala,
I am in no position to disagree with you,  what you are saying makes perfect sense.
I am also aware of the embedded human drive to search and drive onward to the next frontier.

If Columbus would have accepted the belief that the ocean drops into the abyss just beyond the horizon, he would never have sailed.  Just a small glimmer of hope that what we belief is incomplete or not true is enough for us to pursue a solution.

"Or that it has been proven not to exist and you will never find it."  >> That is always a possibility, but it is a risk taken that is offset by proportionate rewards that keeps the attraction.  If that balance becomes unattractive, the process will stop.

** Discouraging people is counter productive, so is looking for "why it can not work, why it can not be OU". It just causes a lot of ill feeling emotions.
** Encouragement is productive, so is looking for  "How can it possibly work", " what modification would achieve the design objective".  Guaranteed to produce happy faces.

Red_Sunset


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 09:15:28 PM

[/size][/font]
Yes, Frank, please explain how someone telling you that a device is NOT OU IN ANY WAY, that it is perfectly ordinary and everything it does is in accord with normal physics, someone who actually REFUSED your cynical offer of money for the device .... is a "fraud", or how it compares to Mylow, who told everyone he had a working Free Energy Magnet Motor and took money and materials from people under those false pretenses. Let's see you reproduce some of the conversations you held, where YOU were arguing that it was OU when the builder kept telling you it wasn't. Those were a real hoot to read at the time.


Frank Grimer, like one or two others, was utterly fooled by a simple child's toy, in spite of everything he was told by the builder, in spite of physics, and now he's bitter about it. He _saw something_ and chose to interpret it through his rose-tinted glasses, and would not accept other interpretations as possible or real.  He also has funny ideas about internet identities.
[/size][/font]



Look how Setalokin won't answer the question about whether on not he is TK.
He says of me, "He also has funny ideas about internet identities."
What has he got to be ashamed about. Why does he continue to deceive people.


As for the WhipMag, it wasn't a simple child's toy. It was an experiment originally
suggested by "overconfident" on which you were co-operating (he will be turning
 in his grave at your betrayal of his idea).


The result you got was quite unexpected by you. I was there, remember.
Not physically but on the internet as you made the various timing measurements
as it slowed down. You're lying, Setalokin and you know it. I


If it was a toy explain to us how it worked. If it is a toy why don't you go to the
remaining video site and explain it was a toy made to fool your audience.
Frankly the idea it was a toy is ludicrous to anyone who know anything about
magnetic experiments.


That was an attempt to build a magnetic motor and to your and the viewers
at the time's amazement it succeeded. You put out the video on the web
then tried to get them back - probably on the instruction of your employer
who took over the motor. Unfortunately, one of the videos escaped and is
still out there on the web.


You did exactly the same thing to me on the
Not the [Word removed at the request of Steorn] Forum
(At that forum he is in his Al Setalokin persona. )


You put up a picture of a gyroscope experiment you were working on.
Knowing your anal retentiveness I immediately pressed Print Screen. :-)
Sure enough a couple of posts later it had disappeared.


Was he mad when I told him what I'd done!
 I think the expression is "He's got issues."


I fear in many ways I feel rather sorry for him. When I compare his
lonely life with mine, I feel, what a difference. When on one session
he complained about his miserable existence I said I'd pray for him
 (we are both Catholics except I'm practising and he's lapsed) he got
mad at that too and said he didn't want to be prayed for (I think that
was his Hyde persona speaking - I'd better start fasting too :-) ).[/size]


It's because I think he has great qualities that I want him to stop lying
about who he is and about the true story of the WhipMag -
even if his employer doesn't like it.


I should explain that Al's employer seems to be some dilettante who
pays Al to monitor the OU world. Isn't that right, Al.


Why would an employer do that?[/size]
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.






 









Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 09:28:36 PM
...
As for the WhipMag, it wasn't a simple child's toy. It was an experiment originally
suggested by "overconfident" on which you were co-operating (he will be turning
 in his grave at your betrayal of his idea).


The result you got was quite unexpected by you. I was there, remember.
Not physically but on the internet as you made the various timing measurements
as it slowed down. You're lying, Setalokin and you know it. I


If it was a toy explain to us how it worked. If it is a toy why don't you go to the
remaining video site and explain it was a toy made to fool your audience.
Frankly the idea it was a toy is ludicrous to anyone who know anything about
magnetic experiments.


That was an attempt to build a magnetic motor and to your and the viewers
at the time's amazement it succeeded. You put out the video on the web
then tried to get them back - probably on the instruction of your employer
who took over the motor. Unfortunately, one of the videos escaped and is
still out there on the web.



Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor?  That dark video that you linked just shows a motor.  What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 09:42:16 PM
Red_Sunset the various aquarium and cup demonstrations were entirely acts of misdirection.  The claims that they asserted in those videos were false.  They claimed that they were showing something new and unique:  a "Travis Effect".  They did not show anything new or unique. 
..................................................................
.......................................................... 
MarkE,
You might be correct that the Travis Effect" was pinned to the wrong model demonstration.  I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact.  Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed.  To that purpose they were not misleading.
The Travis Effect referred to a distribution of pressures in the multi-layer pressure assembly. It made possible the asymmetry between the up & down stroke, and in turn the ability to harvest a positive energy balance.
Revisiting the topic pages and a bit of study would clarify this in greater detail.  The current model has evolved and is unrecognizable from the system shown in those pages with dramatic improved efficiency.
Although a principle remains a principle.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 21, 2014, 10:32:35 PM
Hi,
   thank you MarkE and Koala for putting me right on this subject. Grimer I don't think you
need your patent attorney just yet! When you do I hear that Dunnelt and Codding are very
good, they still may take a cheque, ask nicely, of course.
                John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 10:48:34 PM
Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor?  That dark video that you linked just shows a motor.  What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.


Also I believe it on Hierarchical grounds. Functionally it maps one to one on the Carnot Cycle. And no, I'm not going to explain what that means because I think you are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about and you are obviously too arrogant to try. I suggested you read some of the papers on my web site to see where I was coming from. You didn't deign to or you would have commented on them.


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 21, 2014, 10:55:37 PM



 to arrogant Grimer?
                       John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 12:15:11 AM
MarkE,
You might be correct that the Travis Effect" was pinned to the wrong model demonstration.  I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact.  Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed.  To that purpose they were not misleading.
The Travis Effect referred to a distribution of pressures in the multi-layer pressure assembly. It made possible the asymmetry between the up & down stroke, and in turn the ability to harvest a positive energy balance.
Revisiting the topic pages and a bit of study would clarify this in greater detail.  The current model has evolved and is unrecognizable from the system shown in those pages with dramatic improved efficiency.
Although a principle remains a principle.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset their claimed point is absolutely false.  The upward force exerted on a submerged object is identically the weight of the displaced volume of the surrounding fluid, in this case water.    That is Archimedes' Principle discovered over 2000 years ago.  Submerging an object requires pushing (displacing) the surrounding fluid.  It is the same as lifting the displaced volume because that is what actually happens.  The net force up or down depends on what other forces act on the submerged object.  Obviously, the weight of that object, which for those examples is the weight of the plastic cups is one force.  Tom's hand or the diving weights are other forces applied at different times in the videos.  If the total downward force exceeds the upward buoyant force then the object sinks.  If is less, the object surfaces.  If it is exactly the same, the object can remain stable at any submerged depth.

There is no new principle underlying anything that HER have put together.  They have built a complicated machine that is good for baffling people.  It is not good for delivering a single Joule of energy in excess of what is expended charging it up and operating it.

HER can not now, and could not ever prove excess energy.  When people put together complicated contraptions they often try and convince people that they can come up with free energy by showing what turn out to be under close examination flawed analysis of forces that they then integrate to get to their energy numbers.  A sure fire sanity check against anyone's force integrations is whether or not they satisfy Conservation of Mass/Energy.  If they don't, then it's time to go looking for the mistakes.  For all the levers, valves, bellows, chambers and other mechanisms in the ZED and the TAZ, they are at the end of the day glorified buckets of water and air balloons.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 12:22:31 AM
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.


Also I believe it on Hierarchical grounds. Functionally it maps one to one on the Carnot Cycle. And no, I'm not going to explain what that means because I think you are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about and you are obviously to arrogant to try. I suggested you read some of the papers on my web site to see where I was coming from. You didn't deign to or you would have commented on them.
Grimer, that's great that you "were there", wherever "there" might have been. 

Did the creator claim the device makes free energy?
Did you personally inspect the device to determine somehow it made free energy?  If so, what tests did you, the declared non-experimentalist perform?
Did a subject matter expert inspect the device?  If so, what tests did they perform, and where may we find their report?
Did a subject matter expert reproduce the device and find a replication produced free energy?

Saying that you believe something is all fine and well.  I asked you what facts you relied on, not what beliefs

Do or don't do what you want.  If you want to convince me of an extraordinary claim then you will need to come up with compelling evidence.  You haven't offered any evidence at all.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: camelherder49 on January 22, 2014, 12:38:07 AM
For Mark:

Do an experiment--

Hold a bowling ball under water at arms length and release it with
your nose barely touching the water

Then hold a volleyball(very near same size) at arms length and
release it with your nose barely touching the water.

See any difference??

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 01:23:49 AM
For Mark:

Do an experiment--

Hold a bowling ball under water at arms length and release it with
your nose barely touching the water

Then hold a volleyball(very near same size) at arms length and
release it with your nose barely touching the water.

See any difference??
Camelherder it should come as no surprise that if we weigh each prior to the experiment that we will find that given identical volumes that the force we have to exert downward on the volleyball is identically greater than the force we have to exert on the bowling ball by the difference in their weights.  The math works as such:

Wdry_bb = weight of the bowling ball on land.
Wdry_vb = weight of the volley ball on land.
VOL_b = volume of each ball.
Fbuoyant = the buoyancy force exerted on either ball
Fnet_bb = the net vertical force on the bowling ball
Fnet_vb = the net vertical force on the volley ball.

Force direction convention:  -up +down

Fbuoyant = -VOL_b * 1kg/liter
Fnet_bb = Fbuoyant + Wdry_bb
Fnet_vb = Fbuoyant + Wdry_vb

Fnet_bb - Fnet_vb = (Fbuoyant + Wdry_bb) - (Fbuoyant + Wdry_vb) = Wdry_bb - Wdry_vb
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: camelherder49 on January 22, 2014, 01:49:00 AM
Doesn't matter. You still get a face full of volley ball in potential energy.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 02:02:27 AM
Doesn't matter. You still get a face full of volley ball in potential energy.
You do only because of all that water you have to lift in order to submerge the volley ball.  For equal volumes it's identically the water that you have to lift in order to submerge the bowling ball.  The bowling ball's extra weight  provides the extra assist.  Just mind the toes.

In Saugus California in 1928, and in Malpasset France 1958 entire dams failed because of buoyant lift from water that weeped under them.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 03:01:37 AM

I see that Mark hasn't being doing so well with his hypocritical pretence of co-operation so Screwtape has sent his friend TK to assist him by sowing FUD.


For the benefit of those who actually want free lunches I'll go over things again.


The cycloid is the fastest path of descent - and ascent for that matter.
A cycloid pendulum has a string connection between the bob and the pivot. A string cannot take bending stress (3rd derivative energy).


A conventional pendulum has a connection between the bob and the pivot which can take bending stress.


Th bob of a conventional pendulum takes longer from apogee to nadir than the bob of a cycloid.


Why?


Pehaps T(al)K thinks it's Mary Yugo's freudian slip pink unicorns which are holding it back.


It isn't.


It's the EG energy put in by the bending action, the same moment/couple that leads to the breaking of a falling chimney which is week in bending.


So the circular path bob on a conventional shaft arrives at the nadir with more total energy than the cycloid. If this energy is transferred from conventional to cycloid then the cycloid will manifest this energy as an increase in gravitational potential.


It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.


(Anyone not familiar with mary's pink unicorn can Google
"mary yugo" pink unicorn and find how fond she is of them).

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 22, 2014, 03:05:13 AM
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.


As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 22, 2014, 03:07:32 AM
Quote
It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.

No, it won't. Conservation laws and practical experience and the reductio ad absurdum I presented all say it won't. The only thing you have presented as "evidence" for your assertion... it isn't even a claim... is a mistaken interpretation of the brachistochrone/tautochrone problem.

Get off your lazy ass and build something for yourself and see. Quit insulting your betters and quit making assertions that you cannot support with evidence or even a logical argument.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 22, 2014, 03:08:14 AM

As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 03:11:01 AM


 to arrogant Grimer?
                       John.
Thank you for pointing out the typo, John. I've now corrected it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 06:17:38 AM
Red_Sunset their claimed point is absolutely false.  The upward force exerted on a submerged object is identically the weight of the displaced volume of the surrounding fluid, in this case water.    That is Archimedes' Principle discovered over 2000 years ago.  ..............................................................
................................................................................... 

MarkE, 
Nobody is claiming that Archimedes was wrong or that the exact working principle of the ZED is what is shown with the cups. Nobody is claiming OU with the cups.   As I stated in my previous post, shown again below.....

Quote
POST #436............................................I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact.  Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed.  To that purpose they were not misleading.

Post #436 is conveying the message that the invention is based on the basic physics principles shown in the aquarium cup demonstrations. That was to refresh readers mind and set he stage of understanding for what follows.
The invention uses certain physics properties as shown in the demonstration to achieve the inventor's objective. Although the demonstration is not a direct representation of the invention, neither of possible OU,  only optimization or minimal requirements.
Please read and think beyond the start phase of any inventive property presented or you might/will miss the essence of their communication.

Red_sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 07:38:41 AM
Red_Sunset, the videos claimed to demonstrate the "Travis Effect".  They failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle known for over 2000 years.  The videos claimed that this "Travis Effect" offers a way to create energy.  They did nothing of the kind.  There has never been any demonstrable cheat on gravity as a conservative field.  Since, buoyancy is simply gravity operating on a fluid, it follows that as long as gravity is conservative, anything that involves buoyancy is also conservative.  Buoyancy messes with some people's intuition because energy is stored by exerting work in order to submerge an object, and (almost all of) the work is returned surfacing the object.  Let gravity supply the work by weighting something down, and there is that much less energy available to recover by surfacing the sunken object.  Camelherder's volley ball and bowling ball example works great illustrating that fact.

I welcome anyone to state what they think the "Travis Effect" is supposed to be.  Despite their silly misdirection videos, no one at HER has ever stated what this "Travis Effect" is.  One would think that if someone is supposedly engineering machines based on some principle that they would at least know: right, wrong, or indifferent what the principle is.  That is not so at HER.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 07:38:48 AM

As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.
Interesting that you don't refer to Al by name.


It wasn't only me. Desertphile also insisted very volubly that the WhipMag video was proof of OU.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 07:50:48 AM
I see that Mark hasn't being doing so well with his hypocritical pretence of co-operation so Screwtape has sent his friend TK to assist him by sowing FUD.


For the benefit of those who actually want free lunches I'll go over things again.


The cycloid is the fastest path of descent - and ascent for that matter.
A cycloid pendulum has a string connection between the bob and the pivot. A string cannot take bending stress (3rd derivative energy).


A conventional pendulum has a connection between the bob and the pivot which can take bending stress.


Th bob of a conventional pendulum takes longer from apogee to nadir than the bob of a cycloid.


Why?


Pehaps T(al)K thinks it's Mary Yugo's freudian slip pink unicorns which are holding it back.


It isn't.


It's the EG energy put in by the bending action, the same moment/couple that leads to the breaking of a falling chimney which is week in bending.


So the circular path bob on a conventional shaft arrives at the nadir with more total energy than the cycloid. If this energy is transferred from conventional to cycloid then the cycloid will manifest this energy as an increase in gravitational potential.


It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.


(Anyone not familiar with mary's pink unicorn can Google
"mary yugo" pink unicorn and find how fond she is of them).
Grimer, all you need do is state an actual hypothesis and then we can approach the issue of setting up a good experimental test for that hypothesis. 

You keep asserting that there is an "ersatz gravity" or "ersatz energy" associated with the circular pendulum at its apogee.  You have associated that "ersatz gravity" to centrifugal / centripetal force.  That's a curious claim as the tension in the arm, IE the centrifugal / centripetal force at apogee is zero.  So, where is this "ersatz energy" and how does it manifest itself?  According to your sketches it appears that at the bottom of the circular pendulum travel this "ersatz energy" has all been released.  Why then is it that we do not observe any extra velocity at the bottom of the travel of a circular pendulum than predicted with zero "ersatz energy"?  Where does the "ersatz energy" go?  And if it goes somewhere other than KE, then how can it possibly be that it can be transferred to a cycloid pendulum that you state has no "ersatz energy"?

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 07:55:45 AM
Interesting that you don't refer to Al by name.


It wasn't only me. Desertphile also insisted very volubly that the WhipMag video was proof of OU.
Grimer, please take better care representing what is contained in references that you cite.  In the video that you linked that Desertphile character insisted that the video of the motor failed to prove over unity.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 10:39:17 AM
..................................................................
.....................................................
I welcome anyone to state what they think the "Travis Effect" is supposed to be.  Despite their silly misdirection videos, no one at HER has ever stated what this "Travis Effect" is.  One would think that if someone is supposedly engineering machines based on some principle that they would at least know: right, wrong, or indifferent what the principle is.  That is not so at HER.   
MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was.  I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.

For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1..  The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2..  The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.

We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate.  You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: LibreEnergia on January 22, 2014, 10:45:46 AM
MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was.  I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.

For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1..  The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2..  The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.

We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate.  You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.

Red_Sunset

Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'. His conclusions from the provided videos and demonstrations of the 'principle' are demonstrably false.
Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework that could explain how it might work.

Initially I think he was deluded, but now he acts fraudulently.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 12:38:13 PM
Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'. His conclusions from the provided videos and demonstrations of the 'principle' are demonstrably false.
Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework that could explain how it might work.
Initially I think he was deluded, but now he acts fraudulently. 
LibreEnergia,
You appear to hold similar opinions as MarkE.
Lucky for all of us, that opinions and hearsay are not upheld as evidence in the "court of law" otherwise we all would have been convicted a few times over, unjustly.

So you make 6 statements:
1..  Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'
2..  His conclusions from the provided are false
3..  Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework
4..  Neither did he ever explain how it might work.
5..  Initially I think he was deluded,
6..  Now he acts fraudulently.

Why would I just belief your opinions, especially since I received the same information as you did  from the forum, and I can testify that the first 4 knowledge items were addressed and understood from the forum.

In order to advance your understanding, Did you address these specific shortcomings in your understanding with Wayne ? If yes, pls state which messages they were.

What specific behavior or statements did he made, that you attribute to "delusion" ?
What action did he made to warrant a "Fraud" charge ?

Be careful, because assumptions and opinions are not allowable at this grave level of accusation. 
Also do consider that delusion or fraud must be of a non-technical nature since you already admitted to not understanding the first 4 items that encompass the technical nature of the invention.  This puts you in a peculiar position since our interests are of a technical nature.

Are you also of the opinion that Renato Ribeiro also falls into this same category?  After all this topic "Big try at Gravity Wheel " is his system that is under the spotlight. 

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 01:23:02 PM
MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was.  I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.

For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1..  The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2..  The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.

We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate.  You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, I agree with you that just bantering:  "Yes it is." / "No it isn't" opinions is not productive.   I trust that you are amenable to reviewing facts.  Please allow me to address your disappointment:   In 2012, I asked HER several times to state what the "Travis Effect" is.  Each time I asked, they refused.  HER are the ones who claim that this "Travis Effect" exists and is responsible for what Wayne Travis calls "disruptive technology" that allows for free energy from their gravity / buoyancy machine.

I also note that HER promised Mark Dansie many times over the past several years that they would have a machine available for him to observe during a 48 hour run down test.  To this day they have never delivered on that promise.

Do you agree that in order for HER to have anything worthwhile that:

1. There must be a "Travis Effect" and
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to exploit non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field 

If you do, then please point me to any declaration by HER of what the "Travis Effect" supposedly is.  Once we have a statement of what they claim makes their free energy machine possible, then we can rationally address how to test if such an effect is possible.  Do you think that is fair?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 02:21:53 PM
Red_Sunset, do you agree that in order for HER to have anything worthwhile that:
1. There must be a "Travis Effect" and
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?

Questions.
1. There must be a "Travis Effect"
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?

Answers.
The Travis Effect is a general grouping of characteristics that are instrumental to create an asymmetric behavior in the Hydro Piston/Lever,  that can be employed to milk the gravitational field.

If you go back to the Wayne's data, you would see that his pressure vs lifting capacity data presented are non-linear. 
1..  More Kg per psi in the high end pressure range (Ascent).   
2..  More pressure per Kg in the lower end range (Descend) .

Since this is a hydro system, water movement impedes the cycle rate, therefore it is important to minimize the water volume that need to be shuffled around (one of the aquarium demo's).
The inverted multi-layer piston as an asymmetric hydraulic lever, is the key to that asymmetry.  The cycle is played out over the same travel distance  (key important fact to differentiate it from a simple lever)

Renato Ribeiro with the RAR "in principle" does the same thing.  Sure he approaches it from a different design angle and it is mechanical, but the "fine print principle", is the same concept.  I have still some reservations about Renato's implementation and I "feel" that he is marginal in the differentiation between up & down strokes.  But that is purely an engineering issue that needs to be overcome.

Some assumptions of comparison, the ZED vs the RAR System.
*     The RAR would be able to achieve more cycles/min than the ZED,
**   Zed would be able to master more energy per cycle due to the greater force ability. 
*** The RAR would have a larger foot print than the Zed for the same capacity

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 02:53:37 PM
Grimer, please take better care representing what is contained in references that you cite.  In the video that you linked that Desertphile character insisted that the video of the motor failed to prove over unity.
No. He insisted it was a Effing Fraud - (or words to that effect  :D  )- because he realised full well that if it wasn't a fraud it proved overunity.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 02:56:45 PM
Hi,
   thank you MarkE and Koala for putting me right on this subject. Grimer I don't think you
need your patent attorney just yet! When you do I hear that Dunnelt and Codding are very
good, they still may take a cheque, ask nicely, of course.
                John.
I hope the sheep are doing well, John.  :)

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 03:04:35 PM
...
If you want to convince me of an extraordinary claim then you will need to come up with compelling evidence. 


I've no wish to convince you of anything, Mark.


As I said to Dr Blackman, before he began uncontrollably blubbing,  :'(
"You're free to have your opinion Dr Blackman but you must let me have mine."
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 03:09:00 PM
Questions.
1. There must be a "Travis Effect"
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?

Answers.
The Travis Effect is a general grouping of characteristics that are instrumental to create an asymmetric behavior in the Hydro Piston/Lever,  that can be employed to milk the gravitational field.

If you go back to the Wayne's data, you would see that his pressure vs lifting capacity data presented are non-linear. 
1..  More Kg per psi in the high end pressure range (Ascent).   
2..  More pressure per Kg in the lower end range (Descend) .
...
I'm beginning to like the sound of this "Travis Effect", Red. Where's the best place to read about it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 03:19:35 PM
Questions.
1. There must be a "Travis Effect"
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?

Answers.
The Travis Effect is a general grouping of characteristics that are instrumental to create an asymmetric behavior in the Hydro Piston/Lever,  that can be employed to milk the gravitational field.

I am sorry, but this opaque statement does not state anything specific. Please point me to where I may find a description of the "Travis Effect" by HER. Or alternatively, please state the specific characteristics that define it.
Quote

If you go back to the Wayne's data, you would see that his pressure vs lifting capacity data presented are non-linear. 
1..  More Kg per psi in the high end pressure range (Ascent).   
2..  More pressure per Kg in the lower end range (Descend) .

Since this is a hydro system, water movement impedes the cycle rate, therefore it is important to minimize the water volume that need to be shuffled around (one of the aquarium demo's).
The inverted multi-layer piston as an asymmetric hydraulic lever, is the key to that asymmetry.  The cycle is played out over the same travel distance  (key important fact to differentiate it from a simple lever)

Renato Ribeiro with the RAR "in principle" does the same thing.  Sure he approaches it from a different design angle and it is mechanical, but the "fine print principle", is the same concept.  I have still some reservations about Renato's implementation and I "feel" that he is marginal in the differentiation between up & down strokes.  But that is purely an engineering issue that needs to be overcome.

Some assumptions of comparison, the ZED vs the RAR System.
*     The RAR would be able to achieve more cycles/min than the ZED,
**   Zed would be able to master more energy per cycle due to the greater force ability. 
*** The RAR would have a larger foot print than the Zed for the same capacity

Red_Sunset
I reiterate that the aquarium demonstrations failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle.  I believe that it was the second video where Tom made the assertion that the demonstration had shown an avenue to gain energy by way of the so-called "Travis Effect".  The videos imply that the "Travis Effect" has something to do with the absolutely false notion that the amount of air underneath either cup had anything to do with the buoyant force exerted by the surrounding water which is in fact entirely defined as the equivalent weight of the displaced water. 

ETA:  Here is some food for thought.  A ways back in this thread, Grimer recounted his experience employing Archimedes' Principle to determine the volume of odd shaped samples.  Grimer and his coworkers measured the volume of their SG > 1 samples by suspending them submerged, in a volume of water.  They obtained the volume as the difference in weigh scale readings of the set-up with a submerged sample versus the reading with no sample and dividing that difference by the density of water.  What he did was completely valid.  Now, think about that with respect to any and all of the videos or any statements that HER have made.  Grimer's method relied on the absolute fact that the buoyant force is the equivalent weight of displaced water.  It did not matter that his samples had an SG > 1.  The buoyant force up on his samples transmitted through the container to the weigh scale below, identically increasing the reading by the equivalent weight of displaced water.

A cute experiment that you can try if you have a balance arm and a bucket is to hang matching weights on either side of the balance arm so that it is level with one weight hanging in the bucket while the bucket is empty.  Now gently add water to the bucket until the water is just short of the weight.  Note that the balance arm remains level.  Now add enough water to submerge the weight.  What happens to the balance arm?  Why?  See how much weight you need to add to rebalance the arm.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 22, 2014, 03:23:10 PM
 Hi Grimer,
    conditions are awful for the poor sheep. I've been working on this land for 55 years and this is the
 wettest I have ever seen it.
  I like you Grimer, you've got a sense of humour, a thing a lot of contributors don't seem to have.
I have been on  a similar journey with Fletcher-we never got anywhere, but I enjoyed the ride.
 Glad to hear you've got grandchildren, we've got a baby in the house at the moment and I just
can't imagine how my wife and me managed when we had four in under five years.
                                                      John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 03:28:19 PM

As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.
I seem to be the one whose being stalked at present.  :D
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 04:31:39 PM
I'm beginning to like the sound of this "Travis Effect", Red. Where's the best place to read about it.
Grimer,
Wayne Travis has a topic running on his invention, here at overunity.com, 200+ pages, address below
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI)
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 04:43:50 PM
I am sorry, but this opaque statement does not state anything specific. Please point me to where I may find a description of the "Travis Effect" by HER. Or alternatively, please state the specific characteristics that define it.   ..................................
MarkE,
You can find all published & public information on the Travis invention here,
LINK: http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI)
The inventor "Wayne Travis" is a member of this forum and can be reached through mail if needed.

Quote
.......................  I reiterate that the aquarium demonstrations failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle. .........................................................................
I ALSO reiterate that the aquarium demonstrations DO NOT demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principles.  No disagreement here.

This is the 2de or 3th reiteration on the aquarium, please do not insist to remain misguided.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 04:48:31 PM
Red_Sunset, would you kindly be more specific about where HER has stated what they claim the  "Travis Effect" is than just somewhere in a thread with thousands of posts?  Surely if HER spelled out what they claim that all important principle is you copied down their statement or know about when they stated it, or where the post is where they stated it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 06:32:30 PM
Red_Sunset, would you kindly be more specific about where HER has stated what they claim the  "Travis Effect" is than just somewhere in a thread with thousands of posts?  Surely if HER spelled out what they claim that all important principle is you copied down their statement or know about when they stated it, or where the post is where they stated it. 
MarkE,
HER never coined the word "Travis Effect", this was one of  Tom's terms he used to describe the effects that conspired to create a advantage.(Tom is not a HER employee, he volunteered to do these aquarium video's on a casual friendly basis)
Wayne Travis did not use this term to describe the working of his invention, or he was apathetic to the term if I recall correctly.  He tried to provide a progressive detailed flow that was partly thwarted by certain member with a brash disposition.(the reason for the high post count).
I already gave you a very high level short overview on the key principle in a previous post, To understand the details on how it works you will need to filter out all of Wayne's posts to get a reasonable progressive flow on the detailed working of the device.
Let me assure, the concept is not that easily understood instantly. Set aside a few weeks to allow everything to mesh into place.
There is no quick fix for this one.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 06:39:03 PM
..............................
Archimedes vs Displacement Replacement.
...................................................
................................................... 

Thanks Webby !!
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 06:49:16 PM
Red_Sunset at the end of the day HER make the extraordinary claim that they can extract energy for free, and indefinitely from a gravitational field.  Tom presented as their representative that the reason they can do this incredible thing is that they discovered what Tom, and Wayne, and many others call the "Travis Effect".  Yet, whenever anyone tries to pin down what it is that HER claim to have discovered by any name that they wish to call it, nothing substantial or specific comes back. 

Years after HER first made their extraordinary claim there is neither a statement of an operating principle that would allow for their claims, nor is there demonstration that evidences their extraordinary claim.  There are a series of videos that claim to show an effect that violates Archimedes' Principle when in fact they do not.  They misrepresent air as responsible for buoyant force when it is not.  They represent in the videos that they are revealing a discovery, when in fact they show nothing that hasn't been known for over 2000 years.

Extraordinary claims, no affirmative evidence, and misrepresentations add to: nothing of value.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 22, 2014, 06:54:32 PM
Quote
He tried to provide a progressive detailed flow that was partly thwarted by certain member with a brash disposition.(the reason for the high post count).

The truth is quite the contrary. Travis resisted over and over providing any real data. He continually claimed to have working prototypes that were self-running and producing excess power. In a pdf presentation designed to attract new investors he promised to put a 50 kW generating plant at his church in six months if he got funding. None of the investors who saw the full presentation, in person, along with whatever Travis actually had built at the time... none of them chose to invest. Years later.... there is still no working prototype that does what Travis claims. He has recently "gone private", removing from the public view most of the overt claims that he was making those years ago.

Travis paid Webby a fair chunk of change for demonstrating what we all were calling the "travis effect" in a nested set of transparent tubes. Yet.... here Webby is now, posting on gravity motor threads, instead of getting paid big bucks working directly with Travis in Oklahoma to bring his marvellous free energy machine to market. Flat packable like Ikea furniture! 20 kW in the footprint of a garden shed! No input, no exhaust, just power out for free. But where is the working prototype that he claimed to have? Why is Travis's home and workshop still connected to the grid? I know why, and so do you, Red. He has devices that almost work. They leak, they run down, they require lots of weird acronyms to keep the investors hopeful and out of the lawyer's offices. ZED, TAZ, rotary ZED, and more. Travis _asked_ for his thread to be closed, so that he would not have to field the hard questions. The questions... and the thread... remain, however.

Anyone who might be interested in Travis really ought to take a look at that old locked thread, to see the kind of things people were saying and what they did.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on January 22, 2014, 07:06:36 PM
Strange thought, gut feeling, after reading a bit the old Travis thread:

Red_Sunset comes over a lot like Travis? Are they the same person? May be not, but I got that impression from style and arguments put forward.

I may be wrong, it is not an accusation and I could not care less.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 22, 2014, 07:33:41 PM
IMO

Archimedes vs Displacement Replacement.

Work with fluids is pressure and volume.

The Displacement Replacement item occupies 90 percent of the vessel.

Each vessel is limited to a 10 percent lift of the height of the vessel.

Both vessels have the same dimensions.

Archimedes requires the full volume of the vessel to be moved.

Displacement Replacement requires 10 percent of the volume moved.

Archimedes lifts with no further input.

Displacement Replacement requires another 10 percent volume added.

For the same lift the Displacement Replacement vessel requires 20 percent of the input work as the Archimedes vessel.

OU? maybe not, but a more efficient method, yes.

Now transfer the stored potential into a second unit at the starting depth to make another lift.  By using the stored potential the input costs become the difference in pressure created by the change in height within the water column.

Again, the Archimedes requires the full volume and the Displacement Replacement requires 20 percent of the volume.

This is what the videos were trying to demonstrate.

There is a non-intuitive component to the multiple riser system that no video or demonstration was made for.  This is a strange phenomenon that I myself do not understand the "how" or "why" of, but it is present in the system.

The system response to lift and the force transfers to outside weight are not the same as the descent.  It is as if the weight left on the risers gets focused into the inner most riser\pod chamber and holds a higher pressure value on the ejected fluid from the pod chamber for a longer duration than it should, and it is this recovery condition that is an important part to the function of the system.

In the testbed I built, the motion of the pod\risers was not the same going up as they were going down.  If I used a solid single top riser kind of setup where I had all the risers locked together the system responded differently, if I locked some and not others, again the system response was different.

In short, it took less weight to maintain pressure on the way down than the system lifted with the same pressure.


Edit to Add:  IMO


What a lot of plausible sounding BS, $2000 is the only thing that you really believed in, after claiming you have achieved OU, you never had it independently verified or were capable of demonstrating a self-runner, and let's face it if you really had discovered OU why would you waste your time working on anything else ?, One over-unity device not enough for you ? 


Some people join this website to learn how to make (claims) of OU sound convincing without ever having to show proper evidence, there have been so many,(in fact all the threads so far have never had a real working OU device)
Luckily some of the threads are from genuine people, doing research in the hope that one day they will achieve OU, but we really could do with less idiots and conman who claimed they have done it and know how it works, but can never have it verified or demonstrate a working device under laboratory conditions,


For anyone that miss it Wayne Travis is a liar and conman.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 07:56:28 PM
The Hammerheads are here, circling !!
BEST APPROACH TO THIS FORUM, treat it like a flee market.
If you like something, check it out good and make your own assessment.
Do not rely on any by-passer to tell you what is the right McCoy!
There are some great treasure buys here, but use your head and do not loose it.
Stay cool !

Red_Sunset

PS: Conrad, they are not the same, but since you can not validate it, you can not believe it.
We are dealing with a virtual truth !
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 22, 2014, 08:17:55 PM
Warning in all markets they are conman trying to convince you they have great products and that they know what they're talking about, but don't worry they never stay too long,  people in time can see through there broken words and inability to deliver what they preach .
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 08:25:23 PM
Hi Grimer,
    conditions are awful for the poor sheep. I've been working on this land for 55 years and this is the
 wettest I have ever seen it.
  I like you Grimer, you've got a sense of humour, a thing a lot of contributors don't seem to have.
I have been on  a similar journey with Fletcher-we never got anywhere, but I enjoyed the ride.
 Glad to hear you've got grandchildren, we've got a baby in the house at the moment and I just
can't imagine how my wife and me managed when we had four in under five years.
                                                      John.


Yep, I've got grandsheep in spades - and hearts - and diamonds - and clubs.


Here's the three St Albans families in June 2000.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM
HER were supposed to have a system set-up for Mark Dansie to observe operating for 48 hours as an initial test over two years ago.  That never happened.  The "instrumented" machine was built and supposedly run two years ago this spring.  Again, nothing came of it.

HER is about five years in.  The lawsuit suggests that the early investors are getting restless.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 22, 2014, 10:34:29 PM
MarkE .. IIRC, HER is claiming to have found 'efficiency differences' between the upstroke & downstroke cycles, leading to a COP > 1, IINM.

This descriptive is interesting in itself, as they acknowledge that there is no OU, but that the ordinary system energy losses can be mitigated by different technology use at certain stages - and the combined result is excess useable mechanical output energy greater than the input energy.

How this is not COP > 1 I am not sure.

They were also adamant IIRC that environmental heat energy [or air pressure, for example] did not enter or leave the closed system as part of the Carnot Cycle re: adiabatic warming & isothermal cooling legs, etc.

FWIW my impression at the time was that the technology wasn't claimed to be OU or PM or contravene the known Laws of Physics - yet could somehow output more energy than input energy required, but didn't use any environmental energy input to supplement conservative gravity - perhaps my recollection has faded over the lapsed time period [I know my interest has] so don't take it as gospel.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 11:37:07 PM
Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor?  That dark video that you linked just shows a motor.  What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?
Tell me Mark. Do you know what's under the cover of "that dark video"? Would you like to know? Aren't you curious?


Because I know.  8) 


(of course if you're a sock puppet then you do know already  ;D

Edit: He's around chaps - coz he's just posted. Let's see if he answers.



2nd Edit: Well it's beddy byes time here in England - So Mark's got all night to think about a clever answer.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 12:41:32 AM
MarkE .. IIRC, HER is claiming to have found 'efficiency differences' between the upstroke & downstroke cycles, leading to a COP > 1, IINM.

This descriptive is interesting in itself, as they acknowledge that there is no OU, but that the ordinary system energy losses can be mitigated by different technology use at certain stages - and the combined result is excess useable mechanical output energy greater than the input energy.

How this is not COP > 1 I am not sure.

They were also adamant IIRC that environmental heat energy [or air pressure, for example] did not enter or leave the closed system as part of the Carnot Cycle re: adiabatic warming & isothermal cooling legs, etc.

FWIW my impression at the time was that the technology wasn't claimed to be OU or PM or contravene the known Laws of Physics - yet could somehow output more energy than input energy required, but didn't use any environmental energy input to supplement conservative gravity - perhaps my recollection has faded over the lapsed time period [I know my interest has] so don't take it as gospel.
Fletcher,  if presented with a black box that supplies energy there are two options:

1) The energy supply from the box is finite, limited to the potential energy stored within the box.
2) The box conveys energy beyond potential stored within it from an external source.

Storing energy in buoyancy is tantamount to storing energy in the lifted height of the working fluid.  That energy density is really low.  A fairly massive 5m * 5m * 5m machine can only cycle about 4kWh pushing water around.  If compressed air is used, then cycling between 1 bar and bicycle tire pressure of 100psi would best that by about 8X.

Given no statement of working principle, all credibility rests on the testing by an independent party like Mark Dansie.  Those tests just keep getting indefinitely postponed.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 12:46:18 AM
Tell me Mark. Do you know what's under the cover of "that dark video"? Would you like to know? Aren't you curious?


Because I know.  8) 


(of course if you're a sock puppet then you do know already  ;D

Edit: He's around chaps - coz he's just posted. Let's see if he answers.



2nd Edit: Well it's beddy byes time here in England - So Mark's got all night to think about a clever answer.
The video shows a motor. 

If you want to argue that there is something special about the motor in that video, then by all means present your argument and supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: AB Hammer on January 23, 2014, 01:03:16 AM
As far as I know. There are no videos of the machine being tested for any smaller test units either. The only way I can see this thing working is if someone figured out the secrets of Coral Castle. Maybe that is what is in the black box.

Alan
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 23, 2014, 02:09:00 AM
Fletcher,  if presented with a black box that supplies energy there are two options:

1) The energy supply from the box is finite, limited to the potential energy stored within the box.
2) The box conveys energy beyond potential stored within it from an external source.

.. snip ..

Given no statement of working principle, all credibility rests on the testing by an independent party like Mark Dansie.  Those tests just keep getting indefinitely postponed.

Yes, 'preaching to the converted' I'm afraid, & one who uses the same arguments ;7)

Failing options 1) & 2) it seems to only leave that gravity is not a conservative force [see your independent testing required comments].

My recollections were to draw attention to a very apparent red flag contradiction - how can a machine, no matter how smartly arranged or contrived to reduce energy losses to a bare minimum , that doesn't consume fuel or use an environmental effect, but does exist it a gravity environment, output surplus energy over requirements to run itself ?

Yet, this same machine doesn't break any Laws of Physics [Archimedes Law of Levers; CoE; CoM; CoAM; Laws of Thermodynamics] which also surmise that gravity is a field of acceleration resulting in a conservative force - if gravity force is not conservative then it is very likely that the Laws of Physics need a rethink & rewrite, so it seems impossible to have one without the other - but IIRC that was not their position - perhaps the task of stitching it all together coherently is very problematic & above most pay grades - see independent verification required, before unleashing the math hounds ;7)

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 23, 2014, 02:50:27 AM

Because I know.  8) 



Please tell us. Is there a greek letter atmosphere hidden under the workbench? The kind only you can see?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 03:31:22 AM
Yes, 'preaching to the converted' I'm afraid, & one who uses the same arguments ;7)

Failing options 1) & 2) it seems to only leave that gravity is not a conservative force [see your independent testing required comments].

My recollections were to draw attention to a very apparent red flag contradiction - how can a machine, no matter how smartly arranged or contrived to reduce energy losses to a bare minimum , that doesn't consume fuel or use an environmental effect, but does exist it a gravity environment, output surplus energy over requirements to run itself ?

Yet, this same machine doesn't break any Laws of Physics [Archimedes Law of Levers; CoE; CoM; CoAM; Laws of Thermodynamics] which also surmise that gravity is a field of acceleration resulting in a conservative force - if gravity force is not conservative then it is very likely that the Laws of Physics need a rethink & rewrite, so it seems impossible to have one without the other - but IIRC that was not their position - perhaps the task of stitching it all together coherently is very problematic & above most pay grades - see independent verification required, before unleashing the math hounds ;7)
The answer is that such a machine can output energy until it exhausts its internal store.  Gravitational stores on earth aren't very energy dense.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 03:32:36 AM

Please tell us. Is there a greek letter atmosphere hidden under the workbench? The kind only you can see?
What pray tell is a "Greek letter atmosphere"?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 23, 2014, 03:58:07 AM
What pray tell is a "Greek letter atmosphere"?


I don't know. Ask Grimer. He knows.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 23, 2014, 04:04:22 AM
The answer is that such a machine can output energy until it exhausts its internal store.  Gravitational stores on earth aren't very energy dense.

Weight driven clocks still need their potential replenished.

And so the argument circles back to whether gravity is or is not conservative, being or not being path independent.

If a machine can ever be demonstrated to be self sustaining & do external work [over & above internal losses], where gravity alone is the prime mover [including buoyancy devices], then it would indeed be miraculous - at least for a while - until new & accepted theories supplant the old Laws.

HER & RAR have worked the crowd - so far that is as far as the story for public consumption goes.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 04:30:57 AM

I don't know. Ask Grimer. He knows.
That sounds like another imaginary construct of his.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 06:54:18 AM
The video shows a motor. 
Wriggle, wriggle.  ;D


I guessed you wouldn't answer the question, Mark.


The video shows nothing of the kind.


The videos shows an inverted dinner plate type disc going round.
For all anyone knows it could be the white mice equivalent of a hamster wheel.


For someone interested in science you are amazingly disinterested in what
lies inside the WhipMag. But that's because you already know don't you.


You are a highfalutin  fraud, Mark. But as my Indonesian comrade pointed out
your presentation is too elegant for you to be a TalK sockpuppet.
So I can rule that one out.


Maybe you're his employer.  ???



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 07:01:05 AM

Please tell us. Is there a greek letter atmosphere hidden under the workbench? The kind only you can see?


Have you taken your meds, Orbut. I think that red herring must be upsetting your stomach.  :(
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 07:06:35 AM
That sounds like another imaginary construct of his.
I think you and Orbut should ask each other for a date.


Or take to the stage as a double act.  ;D
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 07:56:36 AM

I say, look at this chaps.


TinselKoala
Hero Member
Posts: 8038 (3.975 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 10-07-2008, 22:24:14


orbut 3000
Jr. Member
Posts: 66 (0.033 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 16-07-2008, 23:06:28




Really TalK, I'm surprised at you.


You should be more careful when you're
registering your sleeper agents to give
them a better legend than that.


Didn't your mummy ever tell you that
its OK to smoke those cigarettes but
you should never inhale.


Greek atmosphere LOL - wonderful.


You must be really desperate to steer
the thread away from the WhipMag.


Now your stupidity has lost you one
of your deep cover agents.





Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 07:58:59 AM
..............................................................
HER & RAR have worked the crowd - so far that is as far as the story for public consumption goes.
Fletcher & MarkE,
You have been busy overnight.  I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Why ?  The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects.
Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
A beneficial outlook could be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model.  A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.

Some more insight on Wayne Travis idea
The basic device
How could a OU idea look like,  lets take a simple lever as an example,
The output side of the fulcrum is 5mtr and the other side is also 5mtr.  Radian input travel 1mtr.
It is a balance seesaw, equal leverage on both sides with equal travel. The lever effect is bi-directional

The idea
If we change the input lever length, so would the output force and the input travel distance (keeping the same output travel)
If we could construct a lever that had a variable input length without impacting the arc angle or input travel distance, that would provide an ability break a direct relationship with the output. Possible ?? Lets for a moment say we can.

How would we use that lever, what is the final objective?
Having always the same travel distance (in & output) with this magic lever, we could choose to use a long lever as input >> Great lifting power at the output
We could use a short lever when we reverse the cycle, input becomes output >> That initial weight would return more than we inputted initially (on assumption that the short lever can deliver that over the same lift distance)

How would a magic lever look like.
The lever fixed travel distance requirement for various desired lever lengths is obvious key to break the energy relationship
Wayne does this using a multi-layer lever.

What does the multi-layer provide,
1.. An input using a fixed limited volume of fluid and pressure (acting as output on down stroke)
2.. Several integral lift surfaces
3.. The ability to manipulate sub-pressures
4.. Pressure vs lift force is non-linear (asymmetry)
5.. Input distance always equals output distance regardless of leverage factor
6.. Single input for all the layers using fluid volume & pressure on one side (reversible)
7.. Aggregated output with Force over Distance (reversible

So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
Force= pressure x area
>> up stroke >>   Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure

At this point you will say that is impossible ?
Is it really impossible ?    Check out Wayne multi-layer hydro lever, you will get far if you have the desire and persistence to learn something new.      http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI)
The hydro lever is only one form on the idea in one specific medium.  The basic idea can take on many different shapes in various mediums. 

OU is never simple like tying a few magnets to a rotor.  Never expect that nature is easily fooled and will lie down at your whim.  In the final execution of the idea, there is a fair amount of inventive property involved to achieve reasonable economical outputs. I call it interference with the natural process, a requirement for any OU process.   These were the details that Wayne was reluctant to reveal on a public forum, for good understandable reasons  (annoying TK to the limit, together with some others HiFlyers, destroying the communication for others)

PS: I will not reply or comment on opinions

Regards, Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 08:12:12 AM
Grimer, I am very interested in science.  Science is based on observation.  The dark video shows a device that behaves as a motor does, ergo it looks like a motor.  If you think that video shows something else, then you are free to express your hypothesis and state your observations that support that hypothesis.  Then anyone could try to test that hypothesis against existing information, or by experiment.

While you are thinking about that, then maybe you would like to explain in this diagram of yours, where you indicate you "ersatz gravity" at the circular bob apogee.  You have previously stated that "ersatz gravity" is centrifugal force.  Centrifugal force of a rotating object acts radially.  The radial force on a circular pendulum arm at apogee is zero.  So, why is it that with zero radial force you are indicating a non-zero "ersatz gravity" force?

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 23, 2014, 09:06:14 AM
Hi,
   according to Sunset "if you want to know about asymmetry  ask Wayne Travis".
I bet if you asked his investors' they'd know. Asymmetry in their bank balances!
  I think the Webby prize was an attempt to filch ideas. When Travis realised the
thing wouldn't work he was prepared to try anything.
   I wish the Travis machine had worked as intended and new scientific facts had
been established but at the present time it doesn't look too good.
           John
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 09:12:15 AM
Fletcher & MarkE,
You have been busy overnight.  I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Because by all available observation it is not possible, and by current physical theory it is not possible.  If anyone would like to change that, they need to show a cheat on the relevant physical theory, or build a working device.
Quote

Why ?  The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects. Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
The importance should be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model.  A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.
I disagree.  An OU device is a hypothetical construct that if it is real can be proven like anything else.  The proof requires evidence.  In the case of OU, physical laws that embody our best interpretation of observations to date make OU a very tough proposition.  The evidence must therefore be very strong.
Quote

Some more insight on Wayne Travis idea
The basic device
How could a OU idea look like,  lets take a simple lever as an example,
The output side of the fulcrum is 5mtr and the other side is also 5mtr.  Radian input travel 1mtr.
Do you mean vertical travel at one end, or do you mean angular travel of 1 radian?
Quote
It is a balance seesaw, equal leverage on both sides with equal travel. The lever effect is bi-directional
I agree.
Quote

The idea
If we change the input lever length, so would the output force and the input travel distance (keeping the same output travel)
So far so good, Ein = Eout.
Quote
If we could construct a lever that had a variable input length without impacting the arc angle or input travel distance, that would provide an ability break a direct relationship with the output. Possible ?? Lets for a moment say we can.
The motion and ratio of forces on a lever are defined:  S1 * F1 = S2 * F2.  Anything else is not a lever.   It is fine to hypothesize such a machine but as soon as you do you can no longer rely on the the properties of a lever for further analysis.
Quote

How would we use that lever, what is the final objective?
Having always the same travel distance (in & output) with this magic lever, we could choose to use a long lever as input >> Great lifting power at the output
We could use a short lever when we reverse the cycle, input becomes output >> That initial weight would return more than we inputted initially (on assumption that the short lever can deliver that over the same lift distance)
When one invokes magic, one can declare any behavior that one desires.
Quote

How would a magic lever look like.
The lever travel distance requirement for various desired lever lengths is obvious key to break the energy relationship
Wayne does this using a multi-layer lever.
You have defined a construct with magic properties and used those magic properties to explain HER's supposed device.  You could rephrase this as:  "Wayne uses magic."
Quote

What does the multi-layer provide,
1.. A common input/output using a set limited volume of fluid and pressure
Each successive gas layer results in a combined gas spring that exhibits greater and greater distance compliance per unit pressure.
Quote
2.. Several integral lift surfaces
3.. The ability to manipulate sub-pressures
More properly, the pressures fall out from the ratios used in strict accordance with 2000 year old hydrostatics.
Quote
4.. Input distance always equals output distance regardless of leverage factor

So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
In a magic machine one can define arbitrary relationships.  In a real machine the relationships are limited by the actual behavior of nature.
Quote
Force= pressure x area
>> up stroke >>   Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure

At this point you will say that is impossible ?
You have invoked magic to describe your mythical machine.  In a magic world that mythical machine might work.  In the real world a machine with the properties claimed cannot exist.  Just as the operating principles of a lever cannot be changed by fiat in the real world, neither can the principles of hydrostatics be waved away by declaration.
Quote
Is it really impossible ?    Check out Wayne multi-layer hydro lever, you will get far if you have the desire and persistence to learn something new.      http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI)
The hydro lever is only one form on the idea in one specific medium.  The basic idea can take on many different shapes in various mediums. 

OU is never simple like tying a few magnets to a rotor.  Never expect that nature is easily fooled and will lie down at your whim.  In the final execution of the idea, there is a fair amount of inventive property involved to achieve reasonable economical outputs. I call it interference with the natural process, a requirement for any OU process.   These were the details that Wayne was reluctant to reveal on a public forum, for good understandable reasons  (annoying TK to the limit, together with some others HiFlyers, destroying the communication for others)

PS: I will not reply or comment on opinions

Regards, Red_Sunset
The citation states that he has a combination pneumatic / hydraulic machine that has a series multiple gas and liquid sections each section with a different area.  He says that he realizes different forces through the use of common hydrostatics by changing the areas of successive sections.  That is all fine and well.   Now, let us examine what those statements mean in the real world:

Force can be multiplied by taking advantage of the fact that under static conditions the pressure in a volume is uniform.  If we construct an incompressible fluid filled device that has a small diameter piston at one end of area A1, and a large diameter piston at the other end of area A2, then we have our analogue of a lever, and:

Relative force:  F2/F1 = A2/A1
Relative displacement:  dS2/dS1 = A1/A2

We can couple multiple such devices together and the net result is:

Relative force:  Fn/F1 = An/A1
Relative displacement:  dSn/dS1 = A1/An

So just as with a single lever we can realize force gain, but energy:  the integral of force * dS is the same at the input as it is at the output.  There is no clever cheat on this.  It is yet another result of conservation of energy.  Force and distance we can manipulate individually at will.  The integral product of F*dS is energy, and it is conserved.

The effect of putting air pockets between these various hydraulic sections is to introduce gas springs that compress under pressure storing energy, and reducing motion at the output side of the machine compared to coupling sections with incompressible elements.


Title: Announcement
Post by: Marsing on January 23, 2014, 09:25:33 AM
=================================================================================
I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Why ?  The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects.
Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
A beneficial outlook could be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model.

 
A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.

===============================================================================

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 09:31:34 AM
I say, look at this chaps.


TinselKoala
Hero Member
Posts: 8038 (3.975 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 10-07-2008, 22:24:14


orbut 3000
Jr. Member
Posts: 66 (0.033 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 16-07-2008, 23:06:28




Really TalK, I'm surprised at you.


You should be more careful when you're
registering your sleeper agents to give
them a better legend than that.


Didn't your mummy ever tell you that
its OK to smoke those cigarettes but
you should never inhale.


Greek atmosphere LOL - wonderful.


You must be really desperate to steer
the thread away from the WhipMag.


Now your stupidity has lost you one
of your deep cover agents.

That earns a ROFL.

Frank.... your classic paranoia is showing.

I suggest upping your Haldol to 10 mg p.o. BID, to suppress the delusional thinking you have been exhibiting lately.


You have no evidence for your silly claim that I have "sock puppets" or any other accounts on this forum. You have, however, been presenting solid evidence for your mental illness, over the past several weeks.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 09:39:40 AM
Hi,
   according to Sunset "if you want to know about asymmetry  ask Wayne Travis".
I bet if you asked his investors' they'd know. Asymmetry in their bank balances!
  I think the Webby prize was an attempt to filch ideas. When Travis realised the
thing wouldn't work he was prepared to try anything.
   I wish the Travis machine had worked as intended and new scientific facts had
been established but at the present time it doesn't look too good.
           John

It was also an attempt to buy loyalty. At around the same time I received PMs from Travis where he said he and his "team" were considering hiring.... ME. In order to get me to sign an NDA and STFU, of course.

Remember the further "competitions" of Travis? The "competition" to produce a table-top, self-running water pump? Which I did, of course. My TinselZed Heron's Fountain fulfils the letter of the requirements Travis listed for that "competition". But alas..... it turns out, just like with Sterling, Mylow and my reproduction of that...... that Travis wanted an OU self running water pump. So he didn't acknowledge my clear victory.

Funny, though.... nobody provided Travis with an OU self-running water pump! After all these years, after Red_Sunset's clear explanations, after all those simulations, after the "inner circle" with their secret conclaves..... nobody can demonstrate any OU using Travis's ideas or his apparatus or even in the simulations when they are properly done.
Title: Re: Announcement
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 10:40:51 AM
Marsing, it is true that a faulty model makes bad predictions, sooner or later.  An example would be the CoE violating lever that Red_Sunset proposed as an analogy for HER's claims.  Models that represent observations past faithfully and make reliable predictions of observations that result from specified conditions are useful.  When it comes to proposed models that allow for working gravity wheels and HER's claims, those models fail against past observations.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 10:46:36 AM
........................................................................
So just as with a single lever we can realize force gain, but energy:  the integral of force * dS is the same at the input as it is at the output.  There is no clever cheat on this.  It is yet another result of conservation of energy.  Force and distance we can manipulate individually at will.  The integral product of F*dS is energy, and it is conserved.
............................................................
MarkE,

Thanks for taking "the mickey" out of my post.   No problem, I can appreciate the humor that came along with making your viewpoint
It is clear that you have stuck to the superficial view of the design and took the angle of "disproving OU" rather than "trying to figure out the inventors angle".
That is fine, although I would recommend you revisit the quoted paragraph above.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 10:47:43 AM
It was also an attempt to buy loyalty. At around the same time I received PMs from Travis where he said he and his "team" were considering hiring.... ME. In order to get me to sign an NDA and STFU, of course.

Remember the further "competitions" of Travis? The "competition" to produce a table-top, self-running water pump? Which I did, of course. My TinselZed Heron's Fountain fulfils the letter of the requirements Travis listed for that "competition". But alas..... it turns out, just like with Sterling, Mylow and my reproduction of that...... that Travis wanted an OU self running water pump. So he didn't acknowledge my clear victory.

Funny, though.... nobody provided Travis with an OU self-running water pump! After all these years, after Red_Sunset's clear explanations, after all those simulations, after the "inner circle" with their secret conclaves..... nobody can demonstrate any OU using Travis's ideas or his apparatus or even in the simulations when they are properly done.
If that was Wayne's intent it would have been a cute trick had it worked.
Do you know of anywhere that HER stated what principle they were supposedly leveraging to generate surplus energy?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 10:53:19 AM
MarkE,

Thanks for taking "the mickey" out of my post.   No problem, I can appreciate the humor that came along with making your viewpoint
It is clear that you have stuck to the superficial view of the design and took the angle of "disproving OU" rather than "trying to figure out the inventors angle".
That is fine, although I would recommend you revisit the quoted paragraph above.

Regards, Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset I trust that you agree that we can manipulate force or distance with machines such as: levers, pulleys, and hydraulic pistons, since we do that millions of times each and every day.  The thing that we seem to be unable to do is violate Conservation of Energy / Mass.  I would love to hear your take from the "inventors point of view" where HER or anyone else may get more energy out than in with any single element or any collection of elements in their machine.  Please explain the operating principle that supposedly would allow their machinery to delivery endless energy.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 11:14:09 AM
Red_Sunset I trust that you agree that we can manipulate force or distance with machines such as: levers, pulleys, and hydraulic pistons, since we do that millions of times each and every day.  The thing that we seem to be unable to do is violate Conservation of Energy / Mass.  I would love to hear your take from the "inventors point of view" where HER or anyone else may get more energy out than in with any single element or any collection of elements in their machine.  Please explain the operating principle that supposedly would allow their machinery to delivery endless energy.
MarkE
Reading fast with comprehension and understand at the same time shaded context relationships is an art.
The purpose of my post #499 was, "explaining at a high level, the operating principle of that lever"
You wouldn't want me to repeat the detailed workings with pictures of all that Wayne described in his topic line, would you ?
I hate duplication, it is all there, read it and see what he did to overcome the quoted limitation.
Do not be "pre-conceived" where the energy is going to come from.
Milking is the best way to describe it. You take part but you don't kill the cow

Maybe Minnie can help you and teach you the milking part !!

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 23, 2014, 11:39:01 AM



     Sunset,
               Consider the facts.
               Grravity very weak.
               Hydraulic lever very inefficient
               No chance of any decent operating speed.
  Nearly everything that goes on occurs in nature. From fusion to a brain.
  Lets look for a natural gravity driven process, a glacier, huge weight and
  snail's pace.
  Consider a diesel driven alternator, engine is huge when compared to the
  size of the alternator.
  Gravity/water bad place to start from.
                              John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
.............................................................
  Gravity/water bad place to start from.   John.   
Hi John,
You are correct, although the difference is that you are stating a practical consideration and previous communication is addressing a theoretical process.
You might enjoy this fable, works good to put the little ones to sleep

A FABLE - NEVER LOOK A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH

Once upon a time in a far away country,  close to a big forest and in the shadow of the castle.  There lived an old man with many sheep who was in possession of a 25kg gold bar that he had discovered buried in the field.
On a nice sunny morning he decided to do a good deed by sharing this treasure, by making a poor fellow wealthy.  So out of the goodness of his heart he decided to give away this 25kg gold bar to the first needed poor man he would encounter that morning.

He told the first poor fellow he encountered that morning that all his wishes would come true and that he didn’t have to worry ever again about where his next meal would come from.   The poor fellow was surprised at the goodness  shown to him by the old man and became immediately suspicious.  His suspicion turned into questioning the motivation of old man for giving this big gold bar away.  So he started to question the old man aggressively,
How do I know if it is really gold?
How do I know if it is solid gold?
Can you prove that it is gold?
Can you prove that it is solid gold?
The reason that you give it to me (for free) can only mean that it is not gold. I am not going to take your gold until you satisfy all my requests, if you don’t you must be a liar and a cheat.

The old man was utterly surprised and taken aback with the response to his good intended gesture. The old man replied that he didn’t expect anything in return for his gift, neither does he put down any conditions for giving away this gold.  He suggested that the poor man himself could let the goldsmith test the gold to assure himself that is was real and put his mind at ease.

The poor man was un-moving adamant that the old man should satisfy his demands and then he walked away scolding the old man for being a cheat and liar for not proving that the gold was real. That he was trying to hand him fake gold.  On his way home he told everybody he encountered how the old man was trying to cheat him.

A few weeks later did the old man hear that the poor man had died from starvation. The old man returned with great disappointment to his house and buried the gold bar in the garden where it remained until today.

Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 23, 2014, 12:48:27 PM



   Oh dear Sunset,
                         trouble is you're digging to find a gold bar in the most unlikely place.
  Many people have scanned your chosen site with the most up-to-date equipment and
  there's nothing there.
      Do some prospecting of your own, find somewhere that you're in with a chance.
  The laws that are known are quite robust, if they weren't you couldn't count on anything,
   simply, things just wouldn't work.
                            John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 01:15:07 PM
   Oh dear Sunset,
                         trouble is you're digging to find a gold bar in the most unlikely place.
  Many people have scanned your chosen site with the most up-to-date equipment and
  there's nothing there.
      Do some prospecting of your own, find somewhere that you're in with a chance.
  The laws that are known are quite robust, if they weren't you couldn't count on anything,
   simply, things just wouldn't work.
                            John.
Minnie,

You are quite a philosopher, some wise words spoken !
Idealism is hard to bury.

Red
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 23, 2014, 02:06:50 PM
Yet here TK is after all is secret work for propulsion labs and all that R and D work, instead of getting paid big bucks to come up with the nest best thing since sliced bread.

Pot Kettle BLACK there TK.

What a load of garbage that was,, I stated before and I will state again that I did not know that I was going to win anything, nor is money any form of motivation for myself.

So all understand,, I play with things that I find interesting, that may be from someone else or a question I ask myself from observations I have made, then I try and come up with a method to test for it.

I do all of my stuff with things I have lying around or have scavenged.  Seldom will I go and purchase items and when I do I keep those costs down as low as I can.

Unlike some who choose to do nothing but make comments I try and build things,, TK at least builds all sorts of things,, but his choice to belittle people and ideas when he is not able to figure something out or get exactly what he wants when he wants it is not a valid response.

Now, with all the B.S. put aside where is the refutation to what I posted,

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg384387/#msg384387 (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg384387/#msg384387)

where is the proof, show me the proof,, show me the sausages,, YOU CAN'T.


Quote from: webby1 on: November 14, 2012, 10:57:19 PM
Quote
use the first set of numbers I posted and use the 2\3 drop for a half full reservoir,, that is clear OU in my opinion.
Your words webby, so there are two conclusions, yourself and Wayne Travis are the only people to have successfully achieved OU in history, and you both have decided not to produce a working model, or have it verified scientifically,

the other conclusion is you are talking BS and the $2000 did influence your measuring capabilities. 

As for trying to make out that if you don't construct anything you shouldn't pass comments, you are mistaken certainly about me, as I have done and shown experiments on this forum, so instead of trying to divert, why don't you just admit that you never did achieve OU ?, But I guess having gotten into bed with a conman and taken his money you feel obliged to stick with the lie.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 02:20:51 PM
MarkE
Reading fast with comprehension and understand at the same time shaded context relationships is an art.
The purpose of my post #499 was, "explaining at a high level, the operating principle of that lever"
You wouldn't want me to repeat the detailed workings with pictures of all that Wayne described in his topic line, would you ?
I hate duplication, it is all there, read it and see what he did to overcome the quoted limitation.
Do not be "pre-conceived" where the energy is going to come from.
Milking is the best way to describe it. You take part but you don't kill the cow

Maybe Minnie can help you and teach you the milking part !!

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset long before I asked you, I like many others asked HER to state any operating principle that would allow for their fantastical free energy buoyancy machine claims.  Their opaque response to all was a bunch of hand waving ending with:  "Travis Effect".  Sadly, as we see in their videos, HER / HER's representative Tom fails to demonstrate anything other than misrepresentation of Archimedes' Principle.  Perhaps the real "Travis Effect" is how one can use fantastical claims to create a psychological force powerful enough to lift money right out of some investors' wallets.  I have asked you to state what principle would allow for HER's claims to be true and you offered by way of analogy a magic lever with fantastical COE violating properties.

Fantastical seems to be the operating theme with HER.  HER's claims of free energy from any device are on their face fantastical.  HER's claims that they have discovered a buoyancy effect distinct from Archimedes' Principal are fantastical.  HER's claims that buoyancy can be manipulated to yield net energy cycle to cycle lifting and dropping the same mass are fantastical.  HER's repeated claims that they would subject a working machine to a run down test have proven themselves false.  What HER have not done, and what no supporter of HER have ever done is state any principle nor demonstrate any machine that backs up HER's fantastical claims.

You insist that buried somewhere among thousands and thousands of posts there is a Ronald Reagan style pony that states an actual real principle that allows for HER's fantastical claims.  Great:  By all means go dig through those posts to your heart's content.  If you should ever find that pony in the form of a principle that allows for HER's claims without resorting to magic, then I will be happy to read it and discuss it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 23, 2014, 03:32:47 PM



  Sunset,
            so the poor man starved to death. You can't live on gold either.
 You made me realise how lucky I am!
I've got wood to burn,
Milk
Eggs
Meat
Wool
Water from a spring
Oats
And where does this all come from......the sun
That should give you a clue.
Were I to clad my roofs with pv. I'd have juice a plenty
One big snag I can't store that energy .
          John
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 23, 2014, 03:45:09 PM
@ webby

1,Did you achieve OU ?

2,Did you think you did at the time and now have changed your mind ?

3,you don't know what you achieved but you believe in Wayne Travis so you went along with it ?

Simple yes or no answer would help clear things up, but the likelihood is that you will give a vague response that doesn't commit  you.


Joined this forum in the hope of discovering OU one day, and whenever I see somebody claiming they have achieved this or know how it works myself and others who are interested in the subject will pursue them and demand evidence of what they claim.
and that is not going to change despite how many vague and misleading excuses they come up with.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 23, 2014, 03:49:41 PM



Yes Powercat I fully agree.
When I've perfected my flow battery everyone can have it for free.
            John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 03:58:06 PM
Red_Sunset long before I asked you, I like many others asked HER to state any operating principle that would allow for their fantastical free energy buoyancy machine claims.  ...   
MarkE,
I thought that I did that in the most simplest overview format, with the directive for you to do some homework.
I am going to make it simple for you.
You are putting me into the position of HER, I am not a representative of HER, I have no idea what HER has or is doing in detail. I know nothing about their investment schemes, expected returns, investor relations.  Or how they handle their business, I am quite at a distance. I have never been in Oklahoma state.
At the same time the business execution of a scientific principle does not change the principle. It would be just bad business sense.

I got interested in his invention learning about it from the forum.  I was guided by Wayne and the OU forum posts and I understood some of the  inventive property they have, within limits as presented by Wayne on the forum.
 I think that their concept is clever and can do some nice tricks of which OU would be part of (the milking part). I was quite impressed by it but found it too complex (fiddly) to replicate. So I can not say that I tested it (I DID NOT PROOF IT)

You want ot know about HER, then you need to contact Wayne or an associate.OK,
If you want to know the theory , then you need to go to the topic that Wayne (HER) directed. That this requires effort I do understand, I tried to make it simpler for you to provide high level outlines, but that effort was outright rejected.

I can not control what you do not see or understand or don’t believe, maybe you are right and I am wrong, I am even ready to accept that,  but you will need to come up with a more precise argument that can stick. General conservation statements will not do. If they would, I wouldn't be here.

As I said, I do not like repeating.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 04:09:54 PM
  Sunset,
            so the poor man starved to death. You can't live on gold either.
 You made me realise how lucky I am!
.................................................         John

Lucky you are John, for the mere fact that you are satisfied with what you  have. That is key.

Have a look at this farm, located in the middle of nowhere, in the Australian desert with only brak salty water, and running completely on solar. A fully integrated solution from a fluid heating solar collector.

Sun drop farms http://www.sundropfarms.com/ (http://www.sundropfarms.com/)

There are also contracted to build a similar setup in Qatar I believe and some other around there

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 04:44:47 PM
So it's just a matter of definition then? Your "OU" may not be what other people think of as "OU"? Well, at least that is consistent with Travis's story, where he repeatedly confuses force with energy and apparently believes simple and compound levers are "OU".

Webby.... pot kettle black ... at one time it was specifically part of my "job description" to read the newspapers. You have no clue as to the things I may or may not be working on in the "background", just as I don't know or care much about your hobbies. But _you_ are the one claiming OU from your experiences with Travis, yet here you are. I am here now, just as I have always been, seeking kernels of wheat amongst all the useless chaff. So far there's not enough to make a decent tortilla, much less a full loaf of nourishing bread. Why are you here, since you think you've already found the motherlode of the wheat?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 04:45:09 PM

...


Frank.... your classic paranoia is showing.


I suggest upping your Haldol to 10 mg p.o. BID, to suppress the delusional thinking you have been exhibiting lately.




You have no evidence for your silly claim that I have "sock puppets" or any other accounts on this forum. You have, however, been presenting solid evidence for your mental illness, over the past several weeks.


Going to tough it out, eh Al.  ;D
Like CEO, Shawn McCarthy did with the Big Engine. Remember that one?


I was a bit suspicious when Orbut turned up out of the blue but when he referred to Greek atmospheres I knew it must be you. Which is why I asked him if he'd taken his meds - one of your favourite insults to me.


Then it occured to me that you might have been stupid enough to register the Orbut membership at the same time as your own.


Bingo! Same year, same month, same week, same time of the day.


I see you've upped my prescription, Dr Jekyll. Normally it's just, "Have you taken your meds." But now we've got "Haldol to 10 mg p.o. BID" whatever that is. I'll have to ask my son, he's a pharmacist at the John Hunter.


For those members who are unfamiliar with the early days of the Steorn forum (see attachment below for their full page advert in the Economist Magazine) the CEO, Shawn, claimed that they had a "big engine" running on their magnetic energy. When someone pressed him for details of its power he eventually gave a figure of 550 bhp.


I called him a liar and was immediately jumped on by all his fan boys. They asked me how I knew. I said that someone with a foreign accent had told me. That really worried Shawn as they had a couple of east europeans on the staff and he thought they might have given the game away. Big investigation.


Some months later when Shawn eventually admitted that there was no "big engine" people asked me who the person with the foreign accent was.


I said it was Shawn himself when he claimed a value of 550 bhp for his big engine. As all engineers know, 550 bhp is equivalent to one horse power. It was clear that under pressure Shawn had just plucked the first bhp he could remember out of thin air.


Asked how I could justify saying that my informant had a foreign accent I pointed out that since the twenties Ireland has been an independent nation and that Shawn had a strong Irish accent.


Love and kisses to all three of you  :-* :-* :-*


Frankie
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 04:51:06 PM
You are slipping, Frankie boy. You need more than some perceived coincidence of dates or the fact that sometimes two people agree that you are FOS. I can prowl through the records until I find someone as silly as you, who registered on the same date. Therefore you are he, QED, right? Idiot.

I'll wager a thousand US dollars that neither you nor anyone else can PROVE your silly contention that I am "orbutt" or that I have any other accounts on this forum than this one. Come on, let's see what you've got, paranoid troll.





Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 04:55:53 PM
You are slipping, Frankie boy. You need more than some perceived coincidence of dates or the fact that sometimes two people agree that you are FOS. I can prowl through the records until I find someone as silly as you, who registered on the same date. Therefore you are he, QED, right? Idiot.

I'll wager a thousand US dollars that neither you nor anyone else can PROVE your silly contention that I am "orbutt" or that I have any other accounts on this forum than this one. Come on, let's see what you've got, paranoid troll.
:-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 04:58:21 PM
:-* :-* :-*

In real words.... YOU HAVE NOTHING but your delusions.

That gets a ROFL for sure.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 05:21:14 PM
...
As all engineers know, 550 bhp is equivalent to one horse power.
Grimer, I hope you meant to say:  "bhp is engine output power in hp as measured under a particular set of test conditions at a dynamometer brake."  Otherwise you are off by 550:1.

The CEO of Steorn you call Shawn McCarthy used to call himself Sean McCarthy, but now calls himself Shaun McCarthy.  Steorn have changed their business from supposedly developing magnet motors to supposedly developing geysers.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
Grimer, I hope you meant to say:  "bhp is engine output power in hp as measured under a particular set of test conditions at a dynamometer brake."  Otherwise you are off by 550:1.

The CEO of Steorn you call Shawn McCarthy used to call himself Sean McCarthy, but now calls himself Shaun McCarthy.  Steorn have changed their business from supposedly developing magnet motors to supposedly developing geysers.
I call him Shawn McCarthy because that's his legal name.
I looked up his birth certificate years ago.
He was born in Birmingham and his birth was registered in Aylesbury.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 05:45:06 PM
I call him Shawn McCarthy because that's his legal name.
I looked up his birth certificate years ago.
He was born in Birmingham and his birth was registered in Aylesbury.
I've never seen his BC.  He's going by Shaun at the moment.  If the mood or need arises perhaps he will start calling himself by yet another name.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on January 23, 2014, 07:50:50 PM
Steorn have changed their business from supposedly developing magnet motors to supposedly developing geysers.

Lol. But it's revolutionary technology - heating a block of iron with an induction heater - cutting-edge stuff! Sure to be OU. :)

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 09:24:15 PM
Lol. But it's revolutionary technology - heating a block of iron with an induction heater - cutting-edge stuff! Sure to be OU. :)
Steorn do not claim that it is overunity.  Sterling Allan at PESN claims that it is overunity.  Steorn's pitch is that it is more compact to store heat in a chunk of iron at 500C to 900C than storing water at 40C/60C/100C.  They don't seem to think that there are big drawbacks to storing heat for hot water in burning brands.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 11:09:40 PM
MarkE,
I thought that I did that in the most simplest overview format, with the directive for you to do some homework.
Red_Sunset I have done homework including asking HER directly.
Quote
I am going to make it simple for you.
You are putting me into the position of HER, I am not a representative of HER, I have no idea what HER has or is doing in detail. I know nothing about their investment schemes, expected returns, investor relations.  Or how they handle their business, I am quite at a distance. I have never been in Oklahoma state.
At the same time the business execution of a scientific principle does not change the principle. It would be just bad business sense.
If I understand you, you believe that you understand a principle that HER have communicated that allows for their claims to work.  All I have asked is for you to either point to the statement of principle by HER, or in the alternative to describe what you think the principle is.  The furthest that we have gotten is you have made an analogy to a lever with magic properties.
Quote

I got interested in his invention learning about it from the forum.  I was guided by Wayne and the OU forum posts and I understood some of the  inventive property they have, within limits as presented by Wayne on the forum.
 I think that their concept is clever and can do some nice tricks of which OU would be part of (the milking part). I was quite impressed by it but found it too complex (fiddly) to replicate. So I can not say that I tested it (I DID NOT PROOF IT)
Great, so please describe their clever concept as you understand it or just quote their statement of their concept, or just point to where they have said it with better specificity than buried somewhere in the middle of thousands of forum posts.
Quote

You want ot know about HER, then you need to contact Wayne or an associate.OK,
If you want to know the theory , then you need to go to the topic that Wayne (HER) directed. That this requires effort I do understand, I tried to make it simpler for you to provide high level outlines, but that effort was outright rejected.
I am sorry, but there is no external indication that there is a pony in that closet.
Quote

I can not control what you do not see or understand or don’t believe, maybe you are right and I am wrong, I am even ready to accept that,  but you will need to come up with a more precise argument that can stick. General conservation statements will not do. If they would, I wouldn't be here.
If you reject out of hand that which is observed and hold for that which has not been observed then we may well be at an impasse.  Conservation holds for me in the here and now because it has been tested an uncountable number of times without refute.  If someone comes up with compelling evidence of non-conservative behavior then I am happy to give that evidence a fair look.
Quote

As I said, I do not like repeating.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 11:38:39 PM
..................................................
............................. then I am happy to give that evidence a fair look.

Your Honour,

I rest my case !

Go well, keep looking,  Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 12:32:51 AM
When one rests their case they close the door on the introduction of any new evidence.  Are you sure that you don't want to point at something that will vindicate HER?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 24, 2014, 02:30:19 AM
Tell me Mark. Do you know what's under the cover of "that dark video"? Would you like to know? Aren't you curious?

Because I know.  8) 


Why don't you tell us?  Because you don't know?


(BTW, I can prove that I'm not a sockpuppet)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 24, 2014, 08:06:08 AM
...
(BTW, I can prove that I'm not a sockpuppet)
I'm sure you can. I'd already reached that conclusion from reading your posts.  :)


Al's reaction puzzled me because I never known him to tell an outright lie. That's
not his style. Whether your dig was spontaneous or prompted is irrelevant. It
came from the same lodge.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 24, 2014, 08:48:43 AM
Hi Grimer,
           I found this question quite fascinating : Does gravity travel at the speed of light?
 Because gravity is so weak it's quite difficult to measure-so they say.
    Have a nice day in Harrow.
                          John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 24, 2014, 08:50:01 AM
When one rests their case they close the door on the introduction of any new evidence.  Are you sure that you don't want to point at something that will vindicate HER? 
MarkE,

As I said, I have no business relationship with HER. I am sure HER is substantial enough to vindicate herself if she feels the urge or need to do so.  Although I don't she why she would need to do that.
Do you base that conclusion on the fact that you waggled your tail ?

Please assimilate:  I do not like to repeat myself or repeat any other person at length when recorded writings are available here or somewhere on the web.
Once you have informed yourself, discussing of specific design or working details is always a separate matter.

So I will not waggle my tail no longer on this HER subject

If you like, we can get back to the topic title, Big gravity wheel - RAR & Renato Ribeiro
  1..  What is your take on this lever system ?
  2..  What do you think Renato is aiming for in his design to warrant the title he has given it ?
  3..  How do you think he could accomplish that?
  4..  Or do you think it is all BS and impossible ? (so he is deluded, frxxx, ....ect as some people already stated)

What is your take?

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 24, 2014, 08:56:53 AM
Sunset,
        please keep at it, we'll get to the bottom of this one way or another.
                       John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 24, 2014, 08:57:17 AM
Hi Grimer,
           I found this question quite fascinating : Does gravity travel at the speed of light?
 Because gravity is so weak it's quite difficult to measure-so they say.       Have a nice day in Harrow.
                          John. 
Hi John,

Just curiosity,  what importance do you see in the speed of gravity ?, What difference could it make if it travels at half versus full light speed for example ?
The gravity source is commonly a progressive force, does not come about instantly or gets switched off at a instant like light.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 24, 2014, 11:06:15 AM
Hi Grimer,
           I found this question quite fascinating : Does gravity travel at the speed of light?
 Because gravity is so weak it's quite difficult to measure-so they say.
    Have a nice day in Harrow.
                          John.




I agree with Flandern.



"The most amazing thing I (Tom Van Flandern) was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous.


This seemed unacceptable on two counts.


In the first place, it seemed to be a form of action at a distance.


Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton:


 "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it'"

I view gravity at the earth's surface a equivalent to a wind blowing steadily downward. A wind which blows straight through materials and only impinges on structures much smaller than the nucleus. Celestial mechanics suggests its speed must be vastly greater than light and has yet to be measured.


Gravity only seems weak because the the amount of matter it is reacting with is infinitesimally small. The pressures on that matter must be gigantic.


I have long believed that materials are held together from without, not from within. I believe this from the experimental evidence you will find on my website.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 05:55:58 PM
MarkE,

As I said, I have no business relationship with HER. I am sure HER is substantial enough to vindicate herself if she feels the urge or need to do so.  Although I don't she why she would need to do that.
Do you base that conclusion on the fact that you waggled your tail ?

Please assimilate:  I do not like to repeat myself or repeat any other person at length when recorded writings are available here or somewhere on the web.
Once you have informed yourself, discussing of specific design or working details is always a separate matter.

So I will not waggle my tail no longer on this HER subject

If you like, we can get back to the topic title, Big gravity wheel - RAR & Renato Ribeiro
  1..  What is your take on this lever system ?
  2..  What do you think Renato is aiming for in his design to warrant the title he has given it ?
  3..  How do you think he could accomplish that?
  4..  Or do you think it is all BS and impossible ? (so he is deluded, frxxx, ....ect as some people already stated)

What is your take?

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, you closed your case without offering any evidence that HER's claims are true.  If you would like to reopen it and provide evidence, then I am happy to take a fair look.  The "waggling" has all been HER making extraordinary claims without the slightest bit of evidence to support those claims. 

1. The Incobrosa system looks like it will require a high power prime mover to make it cycle.  I have not seen such a prime mover in any of the pictures or diagrams.
2. I don't pretend to be a mind reader.  They have built these machines that they have yet to show can do what they say.  I do not know why.  I don't really care.  I will care a lot if they show what looks like a machine doing something that is seemingly impossible or at least very unusual.
3. What is the "that" which you would like me to comment on whether he can succeed at or not?
4. If you are asking do I believe that Incobrasa has shown anything that suggests they have found a way to build a self-sustaining gravity powered machine, then my answer is:  I don't see any evidence that they have.


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 06:03:56 PM
Hi John,

Just curiosity,  what importance do you see in the speed of gravity ?, What difference could it make if it travels at half versus full light speed for example ?
The gravity source is commonly a progressive force, does not come about instantly or gets switched off at a instant like light.

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset how long it takes for the mass and position of one body to impart force on another body's mass affects all motion dynamics associated with gravity.  On a small scale those effects might be hard to detect, but on a celestial scale they should show up.  It is an important question that continues to vex science.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on January 24, 2014, 07:15:08 PM
On a small scale those effects might be hard to detect, but on a celestial scale they should show up.  It is an important question that continues to vex science.

Hi Mark,
  this is an interesting question... Is it one that still vexes science?

 - "Yes we're vexed"
"Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed."
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

 - "No it's sorted":
 "General relativity assumes that gravity propagates at the speed of light, and when a PROPER accounting of forces, times, and positions is made, the end result are predictions that match reality based on this finite propagation speed for gravity. "
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10662.html

Hmmm...
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 24, 2014, 09:22:40 PM
Red_Sunset, you closed your case without offering any evidence that HER's claims are true.  ...........
....................................................................
4. .................. do I believe that Incobrasa has shown anything ...........................................................
..............................................................................................  I don't see any evidence that they have.

MarkE
Yes & OK !   Thanks.
Red Sunset

PS: My gravity interest curiousity was very much on a earthly scale,  light speed or more is "instantaneous enough" for me.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: tim123 on January 24, 2014, 09:39:56 PM
The thing about the gravity powered machine, is that is just might be possible... I  find the stories of Bessler's wheel to be beleievable, for some reason.

But Incobrasa...? What are they waiting for? Where is the video, the proof, the independant assessment. Anything.

As much as I wish it weren't the case, as time goes by, the more likely it seems to me that it's a rich-man's folly... :(
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 10:51:17 PM
MarkE
Yes & OK !   Thanks.
Red Sunset

PS: My gravity interest curiousity was very much on a earthly scale,  light speed or more is "instantaneous enough" for me.
The speed of light turns out to be painfully slow when navigating channels of copper burrs at current and soon to be released communication rates.  If light would only travel ten or a hundred times faster it would be a lot easier to design printed circuit boards that communicate at high data rates.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 25, 2014, 01:06:26 AM
The speed of light turns out to be painfully slow when navigating channels of copper burrs at current and soon to be released communication rates.  If light would only travel ten or a hundred times faster it would be a lot easier to design printed circuit boards that communicate at high data rates.

K. ... Whaaaaa?

M.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 25, 2014, 01:26:18 AM
I'm sure you can. I'd already reached that conclusion from reading your posts.  :)


Al's reaction puzzled me because I never known him to tell an outright lie. That's
not his style. Whether your dig was spontaneous or prompted is irrelevant. It
came from the same lodge.


Like your outright lie about the whipmag video? You still haven't answered the question.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 01:38:21 AM
K. ... Whaaaaa?

M.
When you want to push digital bits through PCB conductors at very fast rates the physical size of things that screw up the signal depends on how fast the signal moves.  The slower that the signal moves the smaller things have to be before they affect the signal in bad ways.  If signals could move much faster than the speed of light, things like the bumpiness of the copper foil would cause much less problems than they do.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 25, 2014, 01:44:38 AM
What does 'HER' stand for?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 25, 2014, 01:52:44 AM
What does 'HER' stand for?

Hydro Energy Revolution.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 25, 2014, 01:57:13 AM
When you want to push digital bits through PCB conductors at very fast rates the physical size of things that screw up the signal depends on how fast the signal moves.  The slower that the signal moves the smaller things have to be before they affect the signal in bad ways.  If signals could move much faster than the speed of light, things like the bumpiness of the copper foil would cause much less problems than they do.

Sure.  Of course.  But I thought you implied that "soon to be released communication rates" would be going faster than the speed of light.

Probably my mistake in reading the prose.  But please clarify that for me because it did make me think WTF for a moment!

BTW, thanks for joining the forum.  I've enjoyed your input quite a bit.

M.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 02:03:57 AM
What does 'HER' stand for?
HER stands for Hydro Energy Revolution, Wayne Travis's company in Oklahoma who claim to be able to generate unlimited free energy from buoyancy.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 02:20:58 AM
Sure.  Of course.  But I thought you implied that "soon to be released communication rates" would be going faster than the speed of light.

Probably my mistake in reading the prose.  But please clarify that for me because it did make me think WTF for a moment!

BTW, thanks for joining the forum.  I've enjoyed your input quite a bit.

M.
As far as we know we are stuck at subluminous speeds and that is one of the things that is making it harder and harder to push bits through printed circuit boards using electrical signals.  The 25/28Gbps generation that is coming in is creating big headaches for many people.  By the time we get to 100Gbps it is going to require some really ingenious thinking to keep from hitting a brick wall.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 25, 2014, 02:22:21 AM
HER stands for Hydro Energy Revolution, Wayne Travis's company in Oklahoma who claim to be able to generate unlimited free energy from buoyancy.
Interesting. Their Website looks like it's some kind of a church or cult and they don't sell any products.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 02:26:32 AM
Interesting. Their Website looks like it's some kind of a church or cult and they don't sell any products.
Wayne Travis acts very much like a tent revivalist.  The whole "Travis Effect" and undescribed principles that investors just have to have faith in could be likened to a cult.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 25, 2014, 02:32:06 AM
As far as we know we are stuck at subluminous speeds and that is one of the things that is making it harder and harder to push bits through printed circuit boards using electrical signals.  The 25/28Gbps generation that is coming in is creating big headaches for many people.  By the time we get to 100Gbps it is going to require some really ingenious thinking to keep from hitting a brick wall.

This sounds very interesting.  But (of course) I have some questions.  If you can indulge me, you imply that sub luminous speeds are a limiting factor, which I would have to agree with.

So how are the circuit manufactures surmounting the "light speed" barrier?  Have they found a way to have electric currents travel FTL or are they just shortening the circuit path, or what?

FYI, I am not trying to trip you up or anything.  This is extremely interesting to me and I would like to know more about it.

M.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 04:13:46 AM
This sounds very interesting.  But (of course) I have some questions.  If you can indulge me, you imply that sub luminous speeds are a limiting factor, which I would have to agree with.

So how are the circuit manufactures surmounting the "light speed" barrier?  Have they found a way to have electric currents travel FTL or are they just shortening the circuit path, or what?

FYI, I am not trying to trip you up or anything.  This is extremely interesting to me and I would like to know more about it.

M.
As much as FTL would be nice, it doesn't exist in any form that anyone knows about.  The circuit manufacturers just deal with the problems and they are getting exponentially more difficult as bit rates climb.  At 25Gbs, inside a circuit board, a pulse only goes about 1/4" in one bit time.  It is sort of good for the capital test equipment makers.  In order to play in the current space, one needs a lab with at least half a million minimum in test equipment.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 25, 2014, 01:54:37 PM
Hi,
   Neither RAR nor HER could be described as elegant machines. One can imagine the problems
with inertia with RAR and HER if anything of a useful operating speed were to be achieved.
   Has anyone heard anything of these machines recently. Sterling said of HER that he was to
wait 'till end of Feb. for any news-but didn't say which year!
                   John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 02:13:15 PM
I think that 48 hour rundown observations of HER's ZED by Mark Dansie were first supposed to happen in 2011.  Just as in the John Worrell Keely fan dance script, the schedule for any critical observations moves out, and out, and out.

I could be wrong, but I am not aware that RAR has ever promised any demonstrations of their machines operating as they claim.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 25, 2014, 02:27:36 PM
so.

what the answer you got when you asked them in 2012 MArkE,
did they promise you something?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 04:29:05 PM
so.

what the answer you got when you asked them in 2012 MArkE,
did they promise you something?
I got the run around. 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 09:29:59 PM
Did anyone ever get anything else but the run around from Travis (except Webby of course)?

The "Travis Effect" is a Red Herring. But the best Red Herrings are real fish, after all.

Ol' Wayne never liked me much, even though I was the only one (in public at least) who rose to his challenge to make a table-top selfrunning water pump incorporating the ZED effect.  Personally, I find this demonstration fairly dramatic, and I'm puzzled as to why it didn't cause more of a stir at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 25, 2014, 09:57:28 PM



  Koala,
         trouble is the Tinselzed stops. Travis had the same problem, his thing stopped
after four hours. He originally said that that was not a problem, but I think it was.
If it would have kept going for forty eight hours he would have been able to show it
off to Mark, wouldn't he?
                             John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MileHigh on January 25, 2014, 10:32:11 PM
This looks like a folding and respawning operation:

http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/
http://www.zydroenergy.com/

Surprise!

Quote
Zydro Energy is a Team of over 200 Men and Women from around this World - Connected in heart and conscious by Our common goal:

I don't believe it for a second!
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 25, 2014, 10:37:38 PM
Personally, I find this demonstration fairly dramatic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU

So did (and do) I!  Why didn't you point out, investigate, and/or explain more about what you demonstrated at that time?  I was hoping you would and was also disappointed that no one else asked.

Would you now?

M.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on January 25, 2014, 10:45:21 PM
Ol' Wayne never liked me much, even though I was the only one (in public at least) who rose to his challenge to make a table-top selfrunning water pump incorporating the ZED effect.  Personally, I find this demonstration fairly dramatic, and I'm puzzled as to why it didn't cause more of a stir at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU)

People do not like the truth because they want to believe in miracles. Debunking is not popular because it destroys illusions. Facts are boring because they prove a reality one wants to escape from.

Nice and clear measurements which demonstrate grave errors in wondrous machines are quickly forgotten. Facts which could easily be verified by everybody are constantly overlooked. Apparent false claims are believed instead of the overwhelming arguments against them.

But people just love to be bamboozled. They love sweet talk specially when god is brought into the equation. How nice it is if someone lies to support a long awaited miracle. How we all love tall tales and hints at things to come tomorrow, just not today, just a little more effort, and we get salvation from all worries.

Why are we lingering in this forum? Do we want to hear the big thing? Are we expecting the final OU proof?

I am just a little better than the deluded ones, just one step away from believing in the impossible. You may accuse me of false hope. I hope that one day the impossible will be done. I am just not far gone enough to believe in clumsy prophets with a badly designed machine and who contradict themselfs every fifth sentence.

But if the master deceiver appears I might as well fall for his spiel.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 11:04:20 PM


  Koala,
         trouble is the Tinselzed stops.
Yep, that's a problem all right.  But some might see it as "just an engineering issue" since the basic principle has been demonstrated. Hasn't it?    ;)

Quote
Travis had the same problem, his thing stopped
after four hours. He originally said that that was not a problem, but I think it was.
If it would have kept going for forty eight hours he would have been able to show it
off to Mark, wouldn't he?
                             John.

Well, I think a well-balanced, heavy teeter-totter can keep rocking back and forth for a long time with very little input. The Travis ZED thing was "precharged" with a fair amount of air pressure and elevated water, as I recall, and it kept stopping because it usually "sprung a leak" somewhere... meaning all its precharge was gone. Go figure. You'd think the boys never heard of Teflon tape.

So yeah, run it for 48 hours, but be sure to measure the _precharge levels_ before and after the run.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 11:05:45 PM
This looks like a folding and respawning operation:

http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/)
http://www.zydroenergy.com/ (http://www.zydroenergy.com/)

.....

You forgot this one:

http://mrwaynesbrain.com/
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 11:12:31 PM
So did (and do) I!  Why didn't you point out, investigate, and/or explain more about what you demonstrated at that time?  I was hoping you would and was also disappointed that no one else asked.

Would you now?

M.

The Heron's Fountain with active TinselZED produced a greater flow rate with higher head pressure than the same fountain with the TZED removed... but for a shorter time. As far as I could tell, the TZED operates like a "pressure lever" system that amplifies force at the expense of distance, or in this case volume.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 25, 2014, 11:29:38 PM
Conrad .. FWIW - these types of forums serve a purpose - they are a place where people can congregate & share ideas & opinions - we don't always agree & that diversity makes it interesting at times - some are quick to believe claims without iron-clad proof whilst others will remain skeptics until the bitter end - that is, unless a working model is produced & independently verified by qualified & trustworthy individuals, they will not look for a possibility in the known physics & math that could provide a pathway to OU & PM in the vernacular - both positions are polarizing & neither of particular merit - an open mind to possibilities is more an advantage to exploring new potential paradigms than to become a science bigot constantly falling back on what we have learned.

That said, this forum & others teach you more about human nature than science & the scientific method - if you can keep it in perspective & recognize these undercurrents of human nature, ego's & emotionally charged arguments you will find it an altogether more enjoyable experience [as I'm sure you do].

The benefit from this experience is that exposure to sometimes volatile & emotionally charged individuals & their arguments desensitizes you & then you begin to see the same patterns of communication everywhere around you in daily life & work environments - it is the human condition & it pays to understand it - soon you realize that entire markets are driven by the same precepts & even philosophy & economics etc are not immune to its covert influence.

An old adage I often keep in mind when reading this forum "trouble can't be where trouble can't go" - for me this simply means that if I understand the drivers for different personalities then I am less likely to respond out of character.

ETA: I also hope one day to be greatly surprised by something not easily explained, & that keeps me interested.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 26, 2014, 12:06:31 AM
The Heron's Fountain with active TinselZED produced a greater flow rate with higher head pressure than the same fountain with the TZED removed... but for a shorter time.

Now that explanation is what is predicted (expected) in accordance with the rules that science has developed from previous observations.  Not that those are wrong...

You tested an extraordinary claim and dismiss it without comparing it to a control experiment.  Or at least you never showed the control experiments and corresponding measurements.  Instead, you explain the higher head pressure away (understandably) using currently understood science.  Instead of testing.

Just how do you know the higher pressure manifested "for a shorter time?"

Please don't think I'm trying to goad you into performing more tests.  It is only that I am used to you proving your points by presenting excellent experiments and data.  Even when they are redundant to the point of being moribund.  I am just curious how you draw your conclusion.

M.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 12:22:01 AM
Now that explanation is what is predicted (expected) in accordance with the rules that science has developed from previous observations.  Not that those are wrong...

You tested an extraordinary claim and dismiss it without comparing it to a control experiment.  Or at least you never showed the control experiments and corresponding measurements.  Instead, you explain the higher head pressure away (understandably) using currently understood science.  Instead of testing.

Just how do you know the higher pressure manifested "for a shorter time?"

Please don't think I'm trying to goad you into performing more tests.  It is only that I am used to you proving your points by presenting excellent experiments and data.  Even when they are redundant to the point of being moribund.  I am just curious how you draw your conclusion.

M.
I thought that TK's conventional Heron fountain without the inverted ZED style plunger was TK's control experiment. 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 26, 2014, 12:41:03 AM
People do not like the truth because they want to believe in miracles. Debunking is not popular because it destroys illusions. Facts are boring because they prove a reality one wants to escape from.

Nice and clear measurements which demonstrate grave errors in wondrous machines are quickly forgotten. Facts which could easily be verified by everybody are constantly overlooked. Apparent false claims are believed instead of the overwhelming arguments against them.

But people just love to be bamboozled. They love sweet talk specially when god is brought into the equation. How nice it is if someone lies to support a long awaited miracle. How we all love tall tales and hints at things to come tomorrow, just not today, just a little more effort, and we get salvation from all worries.

Why are we lingering in this forum? Do we want to hear the big thing? Are we expecting the final OU proof?

I am just a little better than the deluded ones, just one step away from believing in the impossible. You may accuse me of false hope. I hope that one day the impossible will be done. I am just not far gone enough to believe in clumsy prophets with a badly designed machine and who contradict themselfs every fifth sentence.

But if the master deceiver appears I might as well fall for his spiel.

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad:

You are correct.  Some people like to be fooled and, to make sure that they really believe in being fooled, send money to the folks that have scams.  It is to reinforce their beliefs.  I detest those that take advantage of these poor folks.  I am not sure we can stop it other than by busting those bogus claims as we do here on this forum.  But, sometimes, you just can't help some people.

Bill
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 26, 2014, 12:46:42 AM
I thought that TK's conventional Heron fountain without the inverted ZED style plunger was TK's control experiment.

That could be.  But if so, it was unclear to me how the time factor is supposed to be measured.

Are both of those experimental setups identical so as to be an "apples to apples" comparison where we can compare flow vs. pressure over time?  Ie. no volumes changed?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 26, 2014, 12:48:04 AM
Did anyone ever get anything else but the run around from Travis (except Webby of course)?

The "Travis Effect" is a Red Herring. But the best Red Herrings are real fish, after all.

Ol' Wayne never liked me much, even though I was the only one (in public at least) who rose to his challenge to make a table-top selfrunning water pump incorporating the ZED effect.  Personally, I find this demonstration fairly dramatic, and I'm puzzled as to why it didn't cause more of a stir at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU)

Hey, isn't that the JonnyDolittle design that he clams that you stole from him even though you posted your idea a month before he came up his idea?  It is hard to tell because you actually built yours and he just has some design parameters that he has written down somewhere. He will actually build it someday...just wait and see.

It did cause a bit of a stir with ol' Jonny.

Bill
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 26, 2014, 04:36:08 AM
Conrad .. FWIW - these types of forums serve a purpose - they are a place where people can congregate & share ideas & opinions - we don't always agree & that diversity makes it interesting at times - some are quick to believe claims without iron-clad proof whilst others will remain skeptics until the bitter end - that is, unless a working model is produced & independently verified by qualified & trustworthy individuals, they will not look for a possibility in the known physics & math that could provide a pathway to OU & PM in the vernacular - both positions are polarizing & neither of particular merit - an open mind to possibilities is more an advantage to exploring new potential paradigms than to become a science bigot constantly falling back on what we have learned.

That said, this forum & others teach you more about human nature than science & the scientific method - if you can keep it in perspective & recognize these undercurrents of human nature, ego's & emotionally charged arguments you will find it an altogether more enjoyable experience [as I'm sure you do].

The benefit from this experience is that exposure to sometimes volatile & emotionally charged individuals & their arguments desensitizes you & then you begin to see the same patterns of communication everywhere around you in daily life & work environments - it is the human condition & it pays to understand it - soon you realize that entire markets are driven by the same precepts & even philosophy & economics etc are not immune to its covert influence.

An old adage I often keep in mind when reading this forum "trouble can't be where trouble can't go" - for me this simply means that if I understand the drivers for different personalities then I am less likely to respond out of character.

ETA: I also hope one day to be greatly surprised by something not easily explained, & that keeps me interested.

all  Readers, please read  fletcher post above ten times, it's universal

   you will find who you are, what role you are playing,
   don't be shy, they have noticed you.

attention : please don't drive to other topic with irrelevant comments.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 26, 2014, 05:38:17 AM
all  Readers, please read  fletcher post above ten times, it's universal

   you will find who you are, what role you are playing,
   don't be shy, they have noticed you.

attention : please don't drive to other topic with irrelevant comments.
aberbut waswhat tutdoes dasthat bedeutenmean?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 26, 2014, 06:07:57 AM
aberbut waswhat tutdoes dasthat bedeutenmean?

lol
BtTrThNktwC    Or Nothing
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 05:23:45 PM
Selected excerpts from Fletchers post #575
Position 1 & 2
1.. Some are quick to believe claims without iron-clad proof
2.. Others will remain skeptics until the bitter end –  They will not look for a possibility in the known physics & math that could provide a pathway to OU & PM in the vernacular.

Both positions 1 & 2 are polarizing & neither of particular merit
Position 3
3..  An open mind to possibilities is more an advantage to exploring new potential paradigms than to become a science bigot constantly falling back on what we have learned.   

Hi Fletcher,
A good post, well put, I enjoyed it,  If I may elaborate on your statements a little,

What does it mean, to keep an open mind?  >>  It would be neither position 1 neither position 2.
 *  An open mind is not polarized; it has no left or right position or overruling opinion.
 *  It can have temporary positions.
 *  It explores all the possibilities presented

This means that “an open mind” process is the initial step towards forming an opinion of fitness.
To form an opinion requires a process
The quality & thoroughness of this process will determine the outcome substance.
We do not like always to expose our process followed to avoid being shot to smithereens on the forum high street.  Especially (position 2) skeptics with demanding agenda’s without input.

At the same time, a quick believe is not necessary a head strong believe, rather an aim to focus in a possible feature with promise. When put on the spot, things tend to run quite rapidly out of hand and escalate in a process to defend a turf position (let it be only a temporary position).

I find the biggest shortcoming of the forum, the ability to present a point of view, conviction, opinion, even fact without any gain of supporting evidence. Some is better than none to document a viewpoint.

I do realize at the same time, that presenting evidence with appropriate graphical documentation takes a lot of work & time,  of which we have only a limited quantity.
This becomes definitely an obstruction in a discussion when both parties are not on the same level,  this would require a inordinate amount of effort on the part of the idea proposer to educate the opposer to a compatible level.

I sometimes get the impression that many members want to see an immediate clear cut OU solution , packaged A-Z including warranty. An impossible task or expectation at any time.

The symptoms of battle fatigue can also be seen,  the impatience because the zest to explore has been lost, previous time spent has become wasted time.

Just a few cents of observational anecdotes
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 26, 2014, 05:55:34 PM
Hi Webby,
            tried a few experiments and a float behaves just as expected, it experiences
gravity just like anything else.
    Try this, put open top container on scales, put water in and dip a finger in, watch
the weight increase!
                 John .
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 26, 2014, 06:10:52 PM
I guess if you call being given information in an open thread "the run around",, then there were many right along with me who got it.

An interesting thing about a "float" is that it does not care how far it moves in gravity,, it is like it does not see gravity.  Well that is unless I am gong to be told that a fixed dimension float has more "float" the deeper it is under water or something.

You "Got it"? Others "got it" too? Great! Let's see your self-running ZED system then, since Wayne explained it to you so well, and you "got" his explanations.

Any other members of the "inner circle", the private discussion group that started after Wayne begged for his thread to be closed.... did they "get it" too? Why then is Wayne in such trouble? Where is any demonstration of OU from anyone involved with Wayne Travis? Nowhere, that's where.

Except of course in your own redefinition of what "overunity" means.

You got the runaround too, Webby, but since he gave you all that money, your own cognitive dissonance is preventing you from realizing it.

(Apparently I'm not the only one that doesn't "get" Travis's "explanations"... since he's got at least one lawsuit to deal with, and some investors are gathering pitchforks and lighting torches....)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 26, 2014, 06:17:22 PM
Indeed Tk,, but then your test setup is so far away from the run setup information that we all were provided with that some might of just thought you were trying to ridicule the whole thing.

I think that it is indeed nifty, and IIRC I commented on that, that even setup up wrong it still assisted your pump in the beginning.

How is it "different"? How is it set up "wrong"?  It incorporates a floating sealed pod, inner and outer ringwalls which make chambers of different internal pressures, and so forth. It needs to be "precharged" just right to work properly. Just because it's a single-layer ZED and only "cycles" once.... so what? It still incorporates the _exact principle_ that some people have called the "Travis Effect" and it shows the lever-action "benefit". Force is increased. Unfortunately work is not. Just as in Travis's own models.

And of course I'm ridiculing the whole thing. It is called "reductio ad absurdum". If you believe that Travis's items are OU, then you must also believe that my PerPump v. 2.0 is also OU, since it demonstrates the same fundamental principles in the same manner.... except it works as I have described it, whereas Wayne's systems don't work as he describes them.... if at all.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 26, 2014, 06:27:19 PM
Hi Webby,
            tried a few experiments and a float behaves just as expected, it experiences
gravity just like anything else.
    Try this, put open top container on scales, put water in and dip a finger in, watch
the weight increase!
                 John .

That's right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E

Remember this PowerPoint presentation (linked below)? This was presented to a group of prospective investors several years ago. Note that in this PPT, Travis has a "three month plan" to install a 50 kW generating unit, with no input and no exhaust, at his Church. The investors were there in person to bask in Wayne's personality, they saw everything he had to show..... and yet not a single one "bit" and made an investment. There is no power plant at any church, today. Why not, if Travis is telling the truth?

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8689161_65379893_837552

Note especially Slide 26 in the ppt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3doy-eyZew
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 06:59:10 PM
Hi Webby,
            tried a few experiments and a float behaves just as expected, it experiences
gravity just like anything else.
    Try this, put open top container on scales, put water in and dip a finger in, watch
the weight increase!
                 John . 

Hi John,
How much is the increase ?
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 26, 2014, 07:08:09 PM
Hi Sunset,
            Archimedes gives us the answer!
                                         John.
   I could mark my finger and cut it off at the level and weigh it?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 07:13:48 PM
........................................................ Why not, if Travis is telling the truth?
........................................... 

TinselKoala,
There are several possibilities I can guess at,

1..   Optimization development to come within range of commercial viability (add-on components).
2..   Project /setup delays
3..   Business venture support
4..   We can never rule out a potential flaw  (Theory can not always neatly account for losses in the system)

I need to agree that a "proof of concept" mini system would go a long way to make a statement (even it it did light only a Christmas tree last Dec).

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 07:29:12 PM
Hi Sunset,
            Archimedes gives us the answer!
                                         John.
   I could mark my finger and cut it off at the level and weigh it? 
Hi John,
Don't cut it, because the weight wouldn't match,
rather fill a condom with water, that one would match the scale difference.
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: conradelektro on January 26, 2014, 07:44:01 PM

I need to agree that a "proof of concept" mini system would go a long way to make a statement (even it it did light only a Christmas tree last Dec).


After tons of double talk, con talk and meaningless insinuations we finally hear a useful statement from Red_Sunset.

There is a simple way to detect a run around: the con man never does the obvious. And the con man needs thousands of words to talk around the obvious and always avoids the straight forward thing to do.

But the con man is right, only by withholding everything tangible, everything concrete, people can be played along for years, as we see in this thread happening again, and again, and again.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 08:16:22 PM
I guess if you call being given information in an open thread "the run around",, then there were many right along with me who got it.

An interesting thing about a "float" is that it does not care how far it moves in gravity,, it is like it does not see gravity.  Well that is unless I am gong to be told that a fixed dimension float has more "float" the deeper it is under water or something.
Webby1, without outside help, and ignoring surface tension, the main forces on a "float" are gravitational:  The downward gravitational acceleration equal to the weight of the "float" towards the center of the earth, and an upward force equal the weight of the water that the "float" displaces away from the center of the earth.   From the bottom to the top of a 10m high tank on earth's surface the change in each force is less than 2ppm.

The work exerted or released changing the depth of a float is just the integral over the distance moved of the net force at each point in the path.  For something that has an average SG < 1 it takes work to increase the submerged depth and work is released going back up.  For SG > 1 net work is released going down and work has to be performed coming back up.  Ignoring losses to things like surface tension and heating / cooling of any gas volumes that get compressed or expanded, the work magnitude in each direction is identical.  The work balance does not change just because of the path taken or due to changes in the volume of the "float".
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 08:16:35 PM
......................................, people can be played along for years, as we see in this thread happening again, and again, and again.
Greetings, Conrad 
Conrad,
The world is never just black & white
Always try to see it in a bigger context.
Wayne didn't come to this forum to give away his invention, I believe he was still looking for a missing piece in his puzzle.
Nobody is gonna dish-up a golden nugget here.
Maybe you could pick-up something and turn it into a golden nugget.
That is the opportunity.
That people can be played is just as much fault of the people as it is of the player
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 08:21:59 PM
Red_Sunset, the missing piece is unfortunately the free power source that Wayne Travis promised and continues to promise.  The ZED is an energy storage device.  It is not an energy creation device.  The only energy that can be extracted from a ZED is the energy put into it in the first place loading and charging it.  Try as they might for years, HER have not been able break even, much less deliver a surplus.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 08:46:23 PM
Red_Sunset, the missing piece is unfortunately the free power source that Wayne Travis promised and continues to promise.  The ZED is an energy storage device.  It is not an energy creation device.  The only energy that can be extracted from a ZED is the energy put into it in the first place loading and charging it.  Try as they might for years, HER have not been able break even, much less deliver a surplus.
MarkE,
I am sympathetic with your OPINIONS, but without a more specific and intelligent technical description/assessment on where Wayne made the wrong conclusion or interpretation in the working process of the system,  the sticker doesn't stick, sorry mate,.
I have some conclusions of my own that I am quite doubtful about but without physically verifying it on a working system...it stays what it is 50/50.   I did crosscheck these items with Wayne and I was assured, but that still keeps it at 50/50.
What was important or worthwhile, so to speak was not the hydro system but the principle used towards playing with Nature with a crooked hand. The method by using known physics rules to get around it limitations towards OU.  It is clever!
It provided a complete new way of looking at the problem.

Your opinion does not help me, although a more precise detail that gave rise to that opinion would
Without it, we would always talk past each other.

Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 26, 2014, 08:59:53 PM
The Heron's Fountain with active TinselZED produced a greater flow rate with higher head pressure than the same fountain with the TZED removed... but for a shorter time. As far as I could tell, the TZED operates like a "pressure lever" system that amplifies force at the expense of distance, or in this case volume.

TK, please understand that I have no interest in the motivations behind whatever Wayne Travis might be doing in this post.  What I have is a very strong interest in what you showed in the TinselZED experiment.  If we confine my questions to that demonstration for the time being:

"The TinselZED produced a greater flow rate with higher head pressure than the same fountain with the TZED removed... but for a shorter time".  How are you defining "a shorter time?"  If it produced greater flow rate with higher head pressure and thus completed it's demonstration in less time that the control, isn't that good?  I mean, higher pressure, greater flow rate, in less time...  these are all gains, right?

If you are including the portion of the experiment where the TZED was running  _after_the_ZED_section_had_achieved_its_maximum_travel_  as part of the "timed" portion, I have to ask, "Why?"  The HER ZED system _only_ runs in ZED mode, so comparing any portion of the TZED where the ZED is not active appears to be mixing non-ZED performance that (no pun intended) waters down the superior ZED performance portion of the demonstration.

Your demonstration shows clearly that the ZED results in higher pressure and greater flow rate.  If you can clear up my time question maybe I can understand your point.  But if time is irrelevant in this demonstration (my position at the moment), then don't we need some other negative to balance out the two positives (higher pressure and greater flow rate)?

Thanks in advance for your consideration, and again for the wonderful TZED build and demo!

M.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 26, 2014, 09:41:04 PM
Conrad,
The world is never just black & white
Always try to see it in a bigger context.
Wayne didn't come to this forum to give away his invention, I believe he was still looking for a missing piece in his puzzle.
Nobody is gonna dish-up a golden nugget here.
Maybe you could pick-up something and turn it into a golden nugget.
That is the opportunity.
That people can be played is just as much fault of the people as it is of the player
Red_Sunset


You're talking such BS, he can't give away any golden nuggets of information because he hasn't got any, that's why he just keeps on talking and talking, and never has his device verified, nor is he's capable of showing a continuous running model, he could at least show a continuous running model without so called disclosure of golden nuggets. BUT NO

The best he can do is pay someone $2000 to agree with his theories and pretend they achieve OU, interesting how that person having achieved this remarkable goal, has completely failed in all this time to produce a working model or have his original model verified by anyone credible, it is obvious to most people that there is nothing credible about Wayne Travis, he came on this site to gain support and investors, he is a conman.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 10:50:38 PM
MarkE,
I am sympathetic with your OPINIONS, but without a more specific and intelligent technical description/assessment on where Wayne made the wrong conclusion or interpretation in the working process of the system,  the sticker doesn't stick, sorry mate,.
I have some conclusions of my own that I am quite doubtful about but without physically verifying it on a working system...it stays what it is 50/50.   I did crosscheck these items with Wayne and I was assured, but that still keeps it at 50/50.
What was important or worthwhile, so to speak was not the hydro system but the principle used towards playing with Nature with a crooked hand. The method by using known physics rules to get around it limitations towards OU.  It is clever!
It provided a complete new way of looking at the problem.

Your opinion does not help me, although a more precise detail that gave rise to that opinion would
Without it, we would always talk past each other.

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset contrary to mountains of evidence that gravity is conservative and therefore their claims are not possible, Wayne Travis and HER have come to the table without evidence.  If you think that gives them a 50% chance of being right, then bully for you and your opinion.

Neither Wayne Travis, nor anyone at HER, nor you have ever expressed a: "principle used towards playing with Nature with a crooked hand".   I have asked you over and over again what supposed principle HER have ever expressed.  As you may recall, you "closed your case" without either stating or linking to any such statement of principle.  That raises the question just what it is that you refer to when you say things such as:  "It is clever!", when you, like Wayne Travis steadfastly refuse to state what "it" is.  How can you know that something is clever if you don't know what it is or what it does?




Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MileHigh on January 26, 2014, 11:18:05 PM
Quote
the principle used towards playing with Nature with a crooked hand. The method by using known physics rules to get around it limitations towards OU.  It is clever!
It provided a complete new way of looking at the problem.

Right on, Mark.  There is often the attempt to 'slip in' unfounded statements in a longer posting.  It's an attempt to create the illusion that there is something there when it's not there.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 27, 2014, 12:08:35 AM
You have to put it in, somehow, before you can take it out. And unlike the USA economy, you can't take out more than you put in, in the first place. That's the rub.   :'(
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 12:45:29 AM
I understand that,, but the floatability of the float with a fixed shape does not care if it is 5 miles down or 5 inches down, the buoyancy is the same amount.

This then turns the float into a constant force and that force does not care about a change in height.

To move the float in the opposite direction that it prefers to move takes an input,, but to let it move where it wants does not, as a mater of fact, as you even stated, that is work that can be taken out.
Webby, the buoyant force is the weight of the displaced water which doesn't change much even 5 miles down, we agree.  The equations that describe the work going up or going down are independent of the float's weight.  What matters is that the net work performed in a closed cycle from one depth over any path back to that same starting depth is zero.  You can do whatever you want, but by the time you finish a cycle and return to the starting point for the next cycle, ignoring losses, the work available, and the work performed are both zero.  That's true independent of the "float's" SG.  The float could be filled with air or lead balloons and the mechanics are the same.  SG only determines whether work has to be applied to move up or to move deeper down.

One can no more gain energy with a buoyancy machine of any kind than one can gain energy with a coil spring.  In a buoyancy machine, the system can release energy once:  for SG > 1 going down, and for SG < 1 going up.  In order to return to the starting position, the same amount of energy has to be returned as the system gave up.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: LibreEnergia on January 27, 2014, 12:55:28 AM
I understand that,, but the floatability of the float with a fixed shape does not care if it is 5 miles down or 5 inches down, the buoyancy is the same amount.

This then turns the float into a constant force and that force does not care about a change in height.

To move the float in the opposite direction that it prefers to move takes an input,, but to let it move where it wants does not, as a mater of fact, as you even stated, that is work that can be taken out.

But it hasn't occurred to you that no NET work is produced when cycling the float through any range of depths and ending up at the starting location?

As and aside, do you think it would take more work, or the same to raise the Titanic  from its current depth of 3800m compared to a depth of say 100 metres.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 02:36:01 AM
With no changes I agree, with most changes they have a cost, I agree.

*IF* this system can effect a change at a lesser cost by changing the environmental relationships then things are not what is normal.  If this system can change those values so that a larger portion of the input work can be recovered from the system then the savings in that recovery are the gain.

No one at HER, nor any of their supporters has shown ANY evidence that: "this system can effect a change at a lesser cost".  Nor have they shown that any system can.  The statement itself is circular:  "If I could get a free lunch, I would eat for free."  The fact remains that carrying a mass up and down from a starting point back to the same starting point whether in:  a vacuum, or a fluid is in the best idealized case conservative.  In all real cases it is lossy.
Quote

Yes it has TK.

In the most basic view this system changes volume for pressure,, that is more input pressure but at less volume.  The system has no issue with having the lift be 100 percent efficient,, unless you are willing to say that energy can be destroyed, in reality I would doubt a 100 percent efficient lift when the input by itself is considered,, but myself,, I had way in excess of 15 percent, that is what was predicted IIRC.

Lift is a force.  Force is not conservative.  Anyone who has ever seen a lever in action knows that force is not conservative.  Energy on the other hand is conservative.  One can use any of many devices to manipulate force, but none of those measures alone or in any combination will gain output energy over the input energy.
Quote

*IF* after the lift, the stored potential is used to initiate a second cycle, then is it not probable that that input will reduce the actual input value needed by what ever value of stored potential is left?

Read again:  At the end of any cycle that returns all elements to the original starting point there is no additional energy anywhere at the end of the cycle than at the start.
Quote

At the end of lift the full pressure is still within the closed system, that pressure is above the pressure of a second system at the rest pressure,, which way will the fluid and pressure move if the two are connected together,, have you not considered that the pressure and therefore fluid MUST move from the higher value to the lower one?

Pressure like force is not conservative.  Energy:  pressure times volume is conservative.
Quote

*IF* I have my reservoir refilled 1\2 way when it has dropped 1\2 the distance,, is in not fair to say that I have a fair amount of potential coming back out from the system?

Should the actual question be: How much potential can be recovered from the system after lift?

The actual question should be:  How much energy can be removed in a cycle and complete that cycle with the same energy as at the cycle start?  The best case answer is zero.  The answer in any real system with losses is negative.  Net energy has to be supplied in order to sustain one cycle to the next or else the system runs down and stops.  Which is exactly what happens to the ZED and the TAZ.
Quote

You and I know that the pressure is still at its full value at the end of lift, then the question is in the rate of decrease in the pressure as the fluid is removed, and since the weight left on the system is the required weight to hold the system at rest pressure that value is the base line, that value is the lowest pressure value the system will fall to.

As TinselKoala's demonstration shows, the stored potential energy runs down.  Pressure alone does not define energy.  Pressure times volume defines energy.
Quote

I had many lifts that were 75 percent or better, so how much of that stored potential is needed for recovery,, that would be 25 percent,, correct?  Any more than 25 percent with a 75 percent efficient lift would be extra. 

In other words you never broke even.  Neither have HER broken even.  Nor will HER ever break even with energy.
Quote

My values were for the removed weight after lift to water weight to make the lift and the distances they both moved,, you know that but I thought I would put that back out there.

That then starts with the straight question of the expanding air, how much volume increase happens when the air expands to 1\3 its pressure, this is not even taking the funny behavior into account of the riser response difference.

If this is enough to get the second system from rest to lift potential then your Bollard effect happens.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: LibreEnergia on January 27, 2014, 03:34:19 AM


*IF* after the lift, the stored potential is used to initiate a second cycle, then is it not probable that that input will reduce the actual input value needed by what ever value of stored potential is left?


...if you have an endless supply of floats at the bottom of your tank, then yes you could. However most normal tanks are finite and only contain a few floats. Once they rise to the surface then the ability to tap that potential from them is gone.  To reset you need to get the floats to the bottom of the tank again.

No matter WHAT way you try to do that, there is an input cost exactly equal (or more) than sinking the float to the bottom. Even if you drain the tank, drop the float and refill it that energy cost does not go away. (In this case the energy input is in pumping the water up).

The system described by Travis just does not work.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 03:56:50 AM
The system described by Travis just does not work.
It has done a wonderful job of separating money from investors.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 10:38:47 AM
Quote
<LibreEnergia> The system described by Travis just does not work.<LibreEnergia>
and all others that keep on quoting basic physics, 

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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: LibreEnergia on January 27, 2014, 10:55:28 AM


A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry. 


Sorry, I won't mince words here... absolute bullshit.  I don't care if you describe  it is as 'asymmetrical' or 'non linear' or 'some-what like pink unicorns'.

You must show in clear and unambiguous terms how the integral of force with respect to distance (that's work to you and me) is different on the up down stroke and just WHERE in the cycle this so called 'asymmetry' occurs.  There is no point in analysing just a small part of the cycle and claiming See!.. there is excess here.

You must analyse the whole cycle and show how and where it produces NET output.

Don't tell me to read the ZED thread and the answer will somehow magically descend on me... It won't. All I can see is poor thinking and erroneous conclusions.

Wayne Travis, in his heart of hearts knows this thing doesn't work,  but is now far too deeply into it to admit it.





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 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

Red_Sunset
[/quote]
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 11:03:11 AM
Sorry, I won't mince words here... absolute bullshit.  ........................ 'some-what like pink unicorns'.
................................................................

Those Pink Unicorns bring back memories of ~2 years ago, where has the time gone.
>>  The times of Wayne thread in its last stages towards the abyss (in its dead-throws)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 11:13:44 AM
Sorry, I won't mince words here... absolute bullshit.  I don't care if you describe  it is as 'asymmetrical' or 'non linear' or 'some-what like pink unicorns'.
...
EnergyLibre
Thanks for your advice:  then there is no point in wasting my breath on "bull...."
One chip down, a few more chips to go!
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher on January 27, 2014, 11:54:27 AM
And there lies the problem Red - imperfect information - initially from Wayne Travis as he drip fed the thread, & now, opposing views trying to reconstruct the 'actual' principle that may prove a path to OU or be no more than ordinary physics - the independent verification of a self sustaining working model would have gone a long way towards credibility of the inventor & his claims, as I'm sure all are aware.

I do however agree that asymmetry of forces would be a requirement to find mechanical OU, if it exits to be found - and since force times displacement/distance [Work] under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP] equals energy, then I could speculate that the Equivalence Principle might not be consistent in all circumstances, if OU is ever demonstrated & verified.

And neither HER, nor RAR, nor Grimer, have been able to show in theory or practice that break in Equivalence Symmetry I think is necessary, AFAIK.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer on January 27, 2014, 12:06:31 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 (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.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 12:28:09 PM
And there lies the problem Red - imperfect information - initially from Wayne Travis as he drip fed the thread, & now, opposing views trying to reconstruct the 'actual' principle that may prove a path to OU or be no more than ordinary physics - the independent verification of a self sustaining working model would have gone a long way towards credibility of the inventor & his claims, as I'm sure all are aware.

I do however agree that asymmetry of forces would be a requirement to find mechanical OU, if it exits to be found - and since force times displacement/distance [Work] under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP] equals energy, then I could speculate that the Equivalence Principle might not be consistent in all circumstances, if OU is ever demonstrated & verified.

And neither HER, nor RAR, nor Grimer, have been able to show in theory or practice that break in Equivalence Symmetry I think is necessary, AFAIK. 

Hi Fletcher,
I appreciate your moderate approach to this sensitive topic.  I agree with you that the old Wayne topic has ran its course and it should not be the issue if Wayne has OU or not.
I think what is important is what of benefit can we take along out of that topic. The clever part I referred to was his approach toward asymmetry.
Did he really succeed ?, what snakes were hiding to prevent him to achieve his goal ? What hurdles was he able or not able to overcome is only known by him. 
It was definitely the best logical flow towards OU I have seen in a very long time. 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.  To say it in a different way, it cost energy that is already within the system, it is a redirection, a re-channeling, an optimization towards the output objective.
To understand this better, is to look a 2 people (Wayne & Renato), showing a remarkable similar high level approach (the reason I re-appeared here after 2 yrs absence).
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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MileHigh on January 27, 2014, 02:10:31 PM
Quote
The asymmetry creation is an interference between the 2 half cycles.

Unfortunately there is no information in that statement.  Two yeas later and there is zero progress from Wayne.  Don't expect Wayne's web site to ever change significantly.  There is no test data and the expectation is that there will never be test data or a demonstration system.  Has anybody looked up James Kwok lately?

It's the classic case where a proposition starts of with the sheen of respectability, appearing to be coming from a legitimate company.  Several years later and any legitimate company would have something to show for themselves.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 27, 2014, 02:42:36 PM
Unfortunately there is no information in that statement.  Two yeas later and there is zero progress from Wayne.  Don't expect Wayne's web site to ever change significantly.  ....................

MileHigh

You are too late, MileHigh, above is about an idea, you should post something like this four/seven days ago!!!
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 27, 2014, 02:44:41 PM
When making a claim of OU at the very least the inventive should be capable of,

1 Demonstrate a continuous working device.

2 Have his device independently verified.

3 give out information that leads others to be able to achieve 1 & 2

clearly Wayne Travis is not capable. Talking a lot and making many posts is not evidence of over-unity.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 27, 2014, 02:50:42 PM
When making a claim of OU at the very least the inventive should be capable of,

1 Demonstrate a continuous working device.

2 Have his device independently verified.

3 give out information that leads others to be able to achieve 1 & 2

clearly Wayne Travis is not capable. Talking a lot and making many posts is not evidence of over-unity.

No one make claim of OU here, and ok,  Wayne Travis cannot prove  his Claim,

Again, You SHould Post THIS One year Ago.
 
NOW is time to think How to make OU Possible,   

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 27, 2014, 02:54:51 PM
Hi,
   I thought, why not go to the top? So I asked a scientist at CERN.
I bet you can guess the answer.
                                      John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 27, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
@Red: don't you see any significance in the _fact_ that, in spite of your 40 page manual explaining the ZED and all the rest..... nobody, including Travis and his carefully selected mob of sycophants, nobody has succeeded in demonstrating a self-running device meeting the claims?

I see that as being highly significant. So you have two realms of failure to contend with: the theoretical and the empirical. There is no real theory to support Travis's claims, his device behaves just exactly as ordinary physics predicts. And there is no practical example of any device that demonstrates anything unusual, much less self-running overunity behaviour. Even my PerPump 2.0 Heron's Fountain runs on the stored GPE of the elevated water in the input reservoir.

Imagine a big tub, half filled with water. You can put this on the fulcrum of a see-saw and get the water sloshing back and forth. If you do it right it will rock the seesaw for a while. The dual ZED device of Travis is a complicated way of slowing down this action, that's all. Once the original "slosh" is dissipated as heat and noise, the thing stops until it is "precharged" and sloshed again.

@Frank: Can you say "asymptote" ? 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing on January 27, 2014, 03:43:40 PM
@Red: don't you see any significance in the _fact_ that, in spite of your 40 page manual explaining the ZED and all the rest..... nobody, including Travis and his carefully selected mob of sycophants, nobody has succeeded in demonstrating a self-running device meeting the claims?


 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 ?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Marsing 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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 (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.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 08:39:02 PM
>>    MarkE = Mark Euthanasius  ??  <<

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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".
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 27, 2014, 10:58:12 PM



Hi MarkE,
     if you Google Wayne Travis Michel Henkens you get some drawings and explanation.
If there's a net gain there's nothing to stop it!
                       John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 11:17:14 PM


Hi MarkE,
     if you Google Wayne Travis Michel Henkens you get some drawings and explanation.
If there's a net gain there's nothing to stop it!
                       John.
Minnie, thanks.  I found two pages of it.  Webby, is this drawing a good representation of what you are talking about?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 11:51:19 PM
Webby thanks for the links and pictures.  I am afraid the news from a stock analysis stand point is not good.  The machine can be simplified down to:  one hydraulic jack polluted by an air bubble that applies pressure to a water vessel that supports a float.  Hydraulic jacks rigorously conform to CoE as do floats.  Energy goes into changing the lifted height of the various constituent parts including water and the riser masses, and the weight on top.  In addition, energy goes into compressing air.  The act of compressing the air leads to heating losses as anyone who has ever used a bicycle tire pump can attest.  At the end of the day, this device performs more or less as a lever where the arm bends significantly under load.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 01:10:08 AM
No problem.

Well if that is your opinion then so be it,, I do still choose to disagree.
Webby I hope you understand how I went about simplifying it.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 06:22:40 AM
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.
Mark,
If I remember correctly, you were involved in discussions with Wayne in 2011-2012 ?
I don't exactly remember the name of the forum. So I would guess you are familiar with the ZED
Is that correct?
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 07:19:27 AM
Mark,
If I remember correctly, you were involved in discussions with Wayne in 2011-2012 ?
I don't exactly remember the name of the forum. So I would guess you are familiar with the ZED
Is that correct?
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset that would have been PESN in 2012.  PESN linked I think four of the five Tom Miller aquarium you tube videos and a couple of articles.  I think that PESN since cleared out all of the comments when they changed over to Disqus. 

I don't specifically recall Wayne Travis identifying himself posting at PESN.  HER was represented by several vociferous proponents including Tom Miller who posted for some time there.  The double speak surrounding the alleged but nonexistent "Travis Effect" made for some interesting conversation.

Webby's description and the two pages of the 40 page guide minnie told me how to find tell the same story.  There is nothing in there that offers any chance of some "asymmetry" or cheat.  Water and weights get lifted and dropped, some air gets compressed and expanded.  It's all very ordinary stuff.  But, if you or anyone else has some evidence to offer of something extraordinary, then I am all ears.

BTW I will be traveling the rest of the week.  It will take me longer than usual to respond to any messages.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 08:15:04 AM
.................................... The machine can be simplified down to:  one hydraulic jack polluted by an air bubble that applies pressure to a water vessel that supports a float.  Hydraulic jacks rigorously conform to CoE as do floats.  Energy goes into changing the lifted height of the various constituent parts including water and the riser masses, and the weight on top.  In addition, energy goes into compressing air.  The act of compressing the air leads to heating losses as anyone who has ever used a bicycle tire pump can attest.  At the end of the day, this device performs more or less as a lever where the arm bends significantly under load.

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, You are correct to the simplification, but the simplicity of what was said in previous posts has not sunken yet to see the point of essence in this hydraulic jack, for accuracy sake, it is a Hydro Jack.  With Wayne's base configuration, it is mandatory to have a dual balance system. One by itself will not give you any efficient or useable output due to energy recovery limitations. 

Fletcher,
I hope this summary helps, this should be enough to trigger an inquiring mind.
Don't assume this is the whole story

**  Can we agree that if we can asymmetry between up-stroke & Dwn-stroke, we could under the right conditions have excess leftover energy in a cycle ?

** If YES, then our focus will be on creating that symmetry imbalance.

A preferred imbalance is to get more out than we put in.  So if we can lift weight (add PE) and then recover this PE at a higher rate.
In a hydro system (buoyancy) & Hydraulics, force is developed by means of pressure on a target surface.

So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
Force= pressure x area

So for asymmetry we need,
>> up stroke >>   Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure

Energy is determined by:   Force over distance.
Force is in its physical property is determined by AREA size (and then Pressure)
Distance in its physical property is determined by Volume (proportionate to the area)

OUTPUT Energy is therefore >> AREA X PRESSURE X DISTANCE 
      with a weight loaded >>  WEIGHT X DISTANCE
INPUT Energy is therefore  >>  VOLUME X PRESSURE

So the energy output to input direct relationships are "Distance", "Volume", "Area"
Pressure (overall)  is a common input and output during descend.

For asymmetry we need to break some direct symmetrical relationships, in Wayne's Zed "Distance" and "Volume" are common between IN & Output.  The POD area volume is the only input volume and rise distance of the pod and other lift surfaces are the same since they are all interconnected.
The overall pressure is made up by the sub-level pressure of each layer. The variables are the different lift area's which we can influence by modification of the layering of the sub-level pressures, in order to change the lift characteristics of the jack/lever. 

So what is left >>  Area

If we can lift a weight to a predetermined  height with a given volume of fluid at a certain pressure, we need to input a certain amount of energy  .  We do the lift with the largest lift area possible.
Energy spent:   Volume x Pressure
PE acquired :  weight x height   =  area1 x pressure x height

Now, to descend we have the ability to reduce the lift area (at a very low cost, IP)
Let say, we do the descend with an area reduced by 1/3.  Now in order to hold the same weight on top of the jack, the pressure would increase proportionally to the reduction in area.  So or effective energy increase in the output volume returned is increased by 33%.
Energy output:  Volume x (Pressure + 33%)
PE released :  weight x height = =  area2 (-33%)   x pressure2 (+33%) x height
**  Remember that the volume of height parameters have not changed.  In a traditional symmetrical example, the change of lift area would automatically change the volume and/or height. This is a key point !

Unique details of the Jack
1..  Limited amount of water use (reason for the aquarium demo's), reduces cost
2..  Mufti-layered lift area's of different sizes (total lift area is an aggregate of different area's and pressures)
3..  Limited fixed lift distance
4..  Layers are liquid pre-provisoned

Regards, Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 08:26:20 AM
Red_Sunset that would have been PESN in 2012.  PESN linked I think four of the five Tom Miller aquarium you tube videos and a couple of articles.  I think that PESN since cleared out all of the comments when they changed over to Disqus.  .................................................................................
  There is nothing in there that offers any chance of some "asymmetry" or cheat.  Water and weights get lifted and dropped, some air gets compressed and expanded.  It's all very ordinary stuff.  But, if you or anyone else has some evidence to offer of something extraordinary, then I am all ears......................................
Hi MarkE.
yes, I think that is the forum.
About "nothing there" , I guess like "one's trash" is someone else his "treasure"
or like the picture in which we can all see different images.
In the past I have also been looking for things that were right in front of my eyes without seeing them.
It is a mindset to connect dots.......
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 09:49:48 AM
MarkE, You are correct to the simplification, but the simplicity of what was said in previous posts has not sunken yet to see the point of essence in this hydraulic jack, for accuracy sake, it is a Hydro Jack.  With Wayne's base configuration, it is mandatory to have a dual balance system. One by itself will not give you any efficient or useable output. 
Red_Sunset, one can lift and drop things all day long hoping that they will either produce more work when dropped or take less work when lifted up the nth time than the first.  Experience shows that anyone doing so is doomed to grave disappointment.
Quote

Fletcher,
I hope this summary helps, this should be enough to trigger an inquiring mind.
Don't assume this is the whole story

**  Can we agree that if we can asymmetry between up-stroke & Dwn-stroke, we could under the right conditions have excess leftover energy in a cycle ?

You are committing the fallacy of begging the question.  The question presumes that the cost is less than the benefit.
Quote

** If YES, then our focus will on creating that symmetry imbalance.

A preferred imbalance is to get more out than we put in.  So if we can lift weight (add PE) and then recover this PE at a higher rate.

What HER claims to gain is energy.  Slipping in rate yields power.  Power is not conservative, and easily manipulated.  Altering power does not yield the desired free energy.
Quote

In a hydro system (effective buoyancy) & Hydraulics, force is developed by means of pressure on a target surface.

So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.

Now you are slipping in force.  Force like power is not conserved, is easily manipulated, but does not yield free energy.
Quote

Force= pressure x area

So for asymmetry we need,
>> up stroke >>   Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure

For energy asymmetry that results in a gain you need:  Integral( F*ds )out > Integral( F*ds ) in.
Quote

Energy is determined by:   Force over distance.
  Energy is the integral of F*ds.
Quote

Force is in its physical property is determined by AREA size (and then Pressure)
Distance in its physical property is determined by Volume (proportionate to the area)

OUTPUT Energy is therefore >> AREA X PRESSURE X DISTANCE 
      with a weight loaded >>  WEIGHT X DISTANCE
INPUT Energy is therefore  >>  VOLUME X PRESSURE

Those simplifications are only true if pressure and volume are constant.  Otherwise you have to perform the integrals.  If you have variable force and/or pressure and use those formulas that only apply to constant force and pressure you will calculate an invalid result.
Quote

So the energy output to input direct relationships are "Distance", "Volume", "Area"
Pressure (overall)  is a common input and output during descend.

Again, you are applying a generalization that is not true.  The gas compresses under the changing pressure.  You are dooming yourself to "optimism by miscalculation".
Quote

For asymmetry we need to break some direct symmetrical relationships, in Wayne's Zed "Distance" and "Volume" are common between IN & Output.  The POD area volume is the only input volume and rise distance of the pod and other lift surfaces are the same since they are all interconnected.
The overall pressure is made up by the sub-level pressure of each layer. The variables are the different lift area's which we can influence by modification of the layering of the sub-level pressures, in order to change the lift characteristics of the jack/lever. 

So what is left >>  Area

If we can lift a weight to a predetermined  height with a given volume of fluid at a certain pressure, we need to input a certain amount of energy  .  We do the lift with the largest lift area possible.
Energy spent:   Volume x Pressure
PE acquired :  weight x height   =  area1 x pressure x height

No, energy spent, and PE acquired are both the respective integrals of F*ds in both cases.  Weight is easy to determine.  GMm is for all intent and purpose constant, so you can multiply change in height by weight to find the PE change from lifting or lowering a weight.  If you want to find the difference in energy for the pressure vessel you can subtract the static starting pressure and gas volume from the static ending pressure and gas volume.
Quote

Now, to descend we have the ability to reduce the lift area (at a very low cost, IP)
Let say, we do the descend with an area reduced by 1/3.  Now in order to hold the same weight on top of the jack, the pressure would increase proportionally to the reduction in area.  So or effective energy increase in the output volume returned is increased by 33%.
Energy output:  Volume x (Pressure + 33%)
PE released :  weight x height = =  area2 (-33%)   x pressure2 (+33%) x height
**  Remember that the volume of height parameters have not changed.  In a traditional symmetrical example, the change of lift area would automatically change the volume and/or height. This is a key point !

Sadly, the key point seems to be that if one performs the wrong calculations, one can get all kinds of crazy answers, some that might even appear attractive.
Quote

Unique details of the Jack
1..  Limited amount of water use (reason for the aquarium demo's), reduces cost
Are we back to the absolute fail to show any new principle or means of energy gain aquarium videos?  Really:  Lifting and dropping a weight inside a surrounding fluid only subtracts the weight of the displaced fluid volume from the operations.  Since that added or subtracted force appears identically in the F*ds integral for work performed and the F*ds integral for work extracted, it identically cancels out.
Quote
2..  Mufti-layered lift area's of different sizes (total lift area is an aggregate of different area's and pressures)
Changing the force changes the displacement.  Levers, pulleys, gears, inclined planes, and hydraulic pistons all trade force for distance.  Increase force by leveraging any of these mechanisms and the distance over which one must apply the reduced force increases identically by the ratio of increased force to reduced force.  Ignoring losses:  Integral(F*ds) in = Integral (F*ds) out
Quote
3..  Limited fixed lift distance 
Limits restrict the distance over which useful work can be performed or extracted.  They do not change the F*ds integral that defines the work in the first place.
Quote
4..  Layers are liquid pre-provisoned 
This only creates an accounting issue.
Quote

Regards, Red_Sunset
If you are going to try and convince anyone who understands physics that a gain is possible then you will need to:  Stop substituting power and force for energy, and perform the energy calculations correctly.  Your only alternative is to produce a working machine.  HER has not been able to do that in over five years.  2000 years of pesky hydrostatic physics explain why. 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 09:57:18 AM
Hi MarkE.
yes, I think that is the forum.
About "nothing there" , I guess like "one's trash" is someone else his "treasure"
or like the picture in which we can all see different images.
In the past I have also been looking for things that were right in front of my eyes without seeing them.
It is a mindset to connect dots.......
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset you are anyone else who thinks they've found the proverbial pony are absolutely encouraged to show that fine equine off.  Staring at an empty space and expounding upon the exquisite animal that exists only in the imagination does not create a real living specimen.  It is not encouraging that you compare forces as though they represent energies.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 11:00:45 AM
Red_Sunset, one can lift and drop things all day long hoping ......................................................
...................................................... you will need to:  Stop substituting power and force for energy, and perform the energy calculations correctly.  ...............................................

MarkE,

You are entitled to your opinion, the moot arguments and English Essay Syntax corrections.
Sure,  Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.
You know what was explained, not an accounting balance for the last penny of energy that is a surety.
I also get the impression that you pretend to know better before you even looked at the idea flow.
A hopeless approach! 

Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 11:27:54 AM
MarkE,

You are entitled to your opinion, the moot arguments and English Essay Syntax corrections.
Sure,  Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.
You know what was explained, not an accounting balance for the last penny of energy that is a surety.
I also get the impression that you pretend to know better before you even looked at the idea flow.
A hopeless approach! 

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, I welcome any evidence that you or anyone else might bring to the table of extraordinary behaviors or new discoveries. If the "idea flow" relies on erroneous concepts and/or methods, then it leads nowhere that is useful. 

Conflating force or power for energy are fundamental, not trivial errors.  No one can tell you truthfully how many Joules are in a Newton.  Nor can they tell you how many Joules are in a Watt because there is no equivalence between either force and energy or power and energy.  They are entirely different concepts.  On the other side, if one wants to know whether they have lost or come out ahead they have to account properly.  Using a method to calculate quantities that applies to a special case that is not operative in the situation being considered just yields junk answers.  If the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances.  If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny.

You can declare:
Quote
Sure,  Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.
all day long and it will not make your prior representations:

Quote
OUTPUT Energy is therefore >> AREA X PRESSURE X DISTANCE
      with a weight loaded >>  WEIGHT X DISTANCE
INPUT Energy is therefore  >>  VOLUME X PRESSURE

So the energy output to input direct relationships are "Distance", "Volume", "Area"

correct outside the special circumstances of:  constant pressure.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 11:38:24 AM
Red_Sunset, I welcome any evidence that you or anyone else might bring to the table of extraordinary behaviors or new discoveries. If the "idea flow" relies on erroneous concepts and/or methods, then it leads nowhere that is useful. 

Conflating force or power for energy are fundamental, not trivial errors.  No one can tell you truthfully how many Joules are in a Newton.  Nor can they tell you how many Joules are in a Watt because there is no equivalence between either force and energy or power and energy.  They are entirely different concepts.  On the other side, if one wants to know whether they have lost or come out ahead they have to account properly.  Using a method to calculate quantities that applies to a special case that is not operative in the situation being considered just yields junk answers.  If the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances.  If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny. 

MarkeE,
What you are saying is,
  That if we lift a weight of 100kg and put it on a elevation that is 5 meters higher,  we have not increased that weight PE with 500KgMtr ? I am not after the pennies or cents

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 11:42:21 AM
Red_Sunset I am saying that the pressure is not constant therefore you cannot calculate the "energy in" as you put it based on pressure at a single point in the travel.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 11:55:42 AM
Red_Sunset I am saying that the pressure is not constant therefore you cannot calculate the "energy in" as you put it based on pressure at a single point in the travel.

MarkE,

I thought you would have known some of the working details since you had many objections & opinions posted on PESN in 2012
So I didn't re-state that Wayne primes the jack to full pressure and then lets go for stroke, keeping the pressure constant during travel. 

Didn't I mention " Don't assume this is the whole story" at the beginning.
It is only a high level conceptual story, with the purpose to bring you up within range (or up to speed, so to speak). The rest you can figure out, I can see you would have no problem there with the finer details.

I normally appreciate questions structured more like: 
What is the reason? or why do you think that?, or how did you come to that conclusion?.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 12:02:01 PM
Red_Sunset, the gas is compressible.  The load changes.  Ergo the gas volume and / or pressure change.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 12:12:31 PM
Red_Sunset, the gas is compressible.  The load changes.  Ergo the gas volume and / or pressure change.

MarkE,
Sure it is, but that has nothing to do with the price of potato's

The liquid and gas are pressurized together while the piston is held, when reaching the set aggregate pressure,
On each level,
 > The liquid is under its destined sub-pressure
 > The gas is under its destined sub-pressurre
 > The lift surfaces are under their destined sub-pressures and exerting full lift force.

At this pre-stroke point, nothing changes, it is a steady condition untill the stroke lock is released.
At that point, the input only needs to keep up with displacement.  Inflow is only into the POD area at stroke pressure.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 12:24:01 PM
MarkE,
Sure it is, but that has nothing to do with the price of potato's
Sorry Red_Sunset but if you want to know the change in energy in a compressed gas volume, you need to know both the starting and ending volumes and pressures.
Quote

The liquid and gas are pressurized together while the piston is held, when reaching the set aggregate pressure,
In other words you are doing work compressing a gas volume and again, you need to know the starting and ending pressures and volumes.
Quote

On each level,
 > The liquid is under its destined sub-pressure
 > The gas is under its destined sub-pressurre
 > The lift surfaces are under their destined sub-pressures and exerting full lift force.

At this pre-stroke point, nothing changes, it is a steady condition untill the stroke lock is released.
At that point, the input only needs to keep up with displacement.  Inflow is only into the POD area at stroke pressure.

Red_Sunset
It is our good fortune that you are intimately familiar with the construction and operation of the machine.  That means that you should be able to perform an energy analysis through one complete cycle of the machine.  Since you insist that you believe that the machine can produce surplus energy, it is reasonable to surmise you've already undertaken such an effort.  So, now assuming that your purported beliefs are correct, all you need to do is show your work and have it hold up to scrutiny and all will finally be able to see that HER's claims have merit.  I look forward to your analysis.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 12:25:50 PM
Red_Sunset I am saying that the pressure is not constant therefore you cannot calculate the "energy in" as you put it based on pressure at a single point in the travel. 

MarkE,
The other reason why the ZED doesn't stroke with gradually increasing pressure is that the stroke distance is short due to the pre-provisioning of the levels.
Therefore, to stroke at max. constant pressure,  maximizes the output over that given short distance
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 12:30:10 PM
Red_Sunset, I am looking forward to your complete energy analysis over one cycle.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 12:32:26 PM
............................................... all you need to do is show your work and have it hold up to scrutiny and all will finally be able to see that HER's claims have merit.  I look forward to your analysis.

MarkE,
Since you have shown to be good with these details, it will be my pleasure to allow you that priviledge.
I am sadly very bad with pennies and cents.
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 12:38:32 PM
Sorry Red_Sunset but if you want to know the change in energy in a compressed gas volume, you need to know both the starting and ending volumes and pressures.In other words you are doing work compressing a gas volume and again, you need to know the starting and ending pressures and volumes..................................
......................................... 
MarkE,
The energy absorbed into the gas as a type of spring effect is not lost,  it is recycled.
So the gas volume quantity is not directly of importance except for design sizing and pre-provisioining
Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 12:39:49 PM
Red_Sunset are you pulling a brave Sir Robin of Camelot?  Going, going, ...
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 01:25:31 PM
Red_Sunset are you pulling a brave Sir Robin of Camelot?  Going, going, ...
MarkE,
My advantage is that I know what I am talking about after diligent research. 
Most members contesting here, are doing this like you "off the cuff".  That puts you at a great disadvantage.

I see my effort here as providing a contribution to the community,  sharing what I think is worthwhile to share.
It doesn't matter really to me if you or others believe me or not.  The knowledge I proclaiming is not even my own. (sure, a productive response is always preferable)
 I would never respond to a complex mail without sleeping over it for at least one night.  One can appreciate a well though through question rather than wasting time with off the cuff mungo jumbo noise which is often missing the point and is disturbing.

It is clear to me that you didn't understand the process presented and therefore revert immediately to the standard conservation responses or looking for spelling mistakes so to speak. I know that still some parts are hidden, like how the switch from big to small lift area takes place. I know you can not visualize how this can happen.  It took me also quite some time to figure this out but it can be done.  I believe that is specific Inventive Property, and is not exactly mine to reveal, I respect Wayne and I wouldn't think about it otherwise. If he chooses so, he can.

At this point there is no purpose to go further until there is some common ground.
I didn't feel you made any contribution in that direction, sadly to say.
Hopefully others can.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 02:23:17 PM
MarkE,
My advantage is that I know what I am talking about after diligent research. 
Most members contesting here, are doing this like you "off the cuff".  That puts you at a great disadvantage.

I see my effort here as providing a contribution to the community,  sharing what I think is worthwhile to share.
It doesn't matter really to me if you or others believe me or not.  The knowledge I proclaiming is not even my own. (sure, a productive response is always preferable)
 I would never respond to a complex mail without sleeping over it for at least one night.  One can appreciate a well though through question rather than wasting time with off the cuff mungo jumbo noise which is often missing the point and is disturbing.

It is clear to me that you didn't understand the process presented and therefore revert immediately to the standard conservation responses or looking for spelling mistakes so to speak. I know that still some parts are hidden, like how the switch from big to small lift area takes place. I know you can not visualize how this can happen.  It took me also quite some time to figure this out but it can be done.  I believe that is specific Inventive Property, and is not exactly mine to reveal, I respect Wayne and I wouldn't think about it otherwise. If he chooses so, he can.

At this point there is no purpose to go further until there is some common ground.
I didn't feel you made any contribution in that direction, sadly to say.
Hopefully others can.

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset no amount of obfuscation or deflection will remove the elephant from the middle of the room.  You have been offered the opportunity many times to show any condition under which conservation can be violated.  You have not done so.  You have offered: conflation of force and power for energy, incorrect calculations, argument from ignorance, and appeals to outright magic, such as your magic lever.  Now you are resorting to the Emperor's New Zed:  Only smart people understand the unstated principles of operation.   

Sorry, but you've made no sale.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 02:33:07 PM
Red,,

Taking a small amount of time and trying to explain things is all it takes to see if the person you are explaining things to is understanding what it is you are trying to explain.

MarkE,

Using the same old argument and pointing out the same old things means that you are only seeing the same old thing,, or more to the point that you do NOT see anything that is not normal.  Red myself and others see something that is not normal and that is why the communication breaks down.

In the first thread I posted a bunch of numbers from many lifts I made, some were good some were bad and some were just down right UGLY,, but there they are.

In all of those posts I kept trying to engage on the recovery,, the argument about the risers is VERY complex due to all the variables including that delay thing you mentioned, so I limited myself to looking at the lift for a close to unity value, which I had by the way, and then the recovery,, I do believe that the same pressure dropping down to 1\3 that pressure will provide at least 1\3 of the input back to the operator as per an accumulator,, that would be air over hydraulic.

This is what I put forward to you and this is what you did not speak to,, no problem, you are more than welcome to your opinion and it is not my job to convince you of anything.

In your analogy it would be closer if you used 3 terms, jack, accumulator and pressure (I was looking for the correct term to use and absent that) lever.  It has the attributes of all three of these devices and demonstrates them all at the same time using the same input.

And as a small note, I am one of a few people who have built and played with this device.
Webby did you:

Ever think that you broke even?
Identify any mechanism to realize non-conservative  behavior from gravity?
Ever get a machine to cycle until you forcibly stopped it?

The device as diagrammed in that document that Minnie led me to and according to your descriptions has:  a concentric compound hydraulic piston hampered by air pockets.  The piston ultimately pushes on a pool of water that holds a float.  So what we have are weights going up and down:  the water, the float, and the weight on top, air getting compressed, and a hydraulic force amplifier, IE the hydraulic equivalent of a lever.  There is nothing unusual about the individual components, nor has anyone shown any unusual, much less extraordinary behavior from the combination.  Red_Sunset has appealed that we use analogies of magic levers, or substitute force calculations for energy, or ignore integrals.  What no one has done has shown any mechanism that would allow for a cycle by cycle energy gain, nor have they demonstrated anything that even gives such an appearance.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 02:43:04 PM
Red_Sunset no amount of obfuscation or deflection will remove the elephant from the middle of the room.  You have been offered the opportunity many times to show any condition under which conservation can be violated.  You have not done so.  You have offered: conflation of force and power for energy, incorrect calculations, argument from ignorance, and appeals to outright magic, such as your magic lever.  Now you are resorting to the Emperor's New Zed:  Only smart people understand the unstated principles of operation.   

Sorry, but you've made no sale.

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 quote
Quote
If the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances.  If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny.
What was invalid ?
What makes you think that your scrutiny was any good ?  the subsequent posts tell a different story

So do you want to base your conclusions on your own inconclusive scrambled scrutiny? 

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.
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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 02:55:51 PM
Webby did you:
..................................................................
Ever think that you broke even?
Identify any mechanism to realize non-conservative  behavior from gravity?
Ever get a machine to cycle until you forcibly stopped it?

The device as diagrammed in that document that Minnie led me to and according to your descriptions has:  a concentric compound hydraulic piston hampered by air pockets.  The piston ultimately pushes on a pool of water that holds a float. So what we have are weights going up and down:  the water, the float, and the weight on top, air getting compressed, and a hydraulic force amplifier, IE the hydraulic equivalent of a lever.  There is nothing unusual about the individual components, nor has anyone shown any unusual, much less extraordinary behavior from the combination.  Red_Sunset has appealed that we use analogies of magic levers, or substitute force calculations for energy, or ignore integrals.  What no one has done has shown any mechanism that would allow for a cycle by cycle energy gain, nor have they demonstrated anything that even gives such an appearance.

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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 28, 2014, 03:27:37 PM
Hi,
   from what I can make out, by limiting the travel the whole thing must be a glorified
air spring.
          MarkE, I'm amazed at he patience that you've shown in this debate, Webby is
very lost as far as floats go and you've done your level best with him.
    This has ended up on a par with Ainslie, Steve Weir obviously knew far more about
the circuit and equipment than either of the pair that were promoting it. Steve just
soldiered on calmly until he got things done,
                       John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala on January 28, 2014, 04:05:15 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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


Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie 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.
   
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Grimer 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.  :)
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: LibreEnergia 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.



Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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."
...
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: camelherder49 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?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE 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.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 29, 2014, 06:24:11 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 ?
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 06:54:26 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 07:22:07 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 08:08:39 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 29, 2014, 10:23:27 PM



  Hi,
     Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
              John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: mondrasek on January 29, 2014, 11:09:58 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 30, 2014, 12:28:47 AM



 Hi,
     nice one Fletcher, thank you,
                                   John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: fletcher 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: LibreEnergia on January 30, 2014, 01:47:18 AM
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.










Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 07:07:44 AM
Quote
Hi,        Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
              John.

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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 07:19:06 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
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: LibreEnergia on January 30, 2014, 08:28:26 AM

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


The buoyancy force arises out of the difference in force between the top and bottom of the submerged object.  The top experiences a force equivalent to the weight of the column of fluid above it. The same is true for the bottom surface. The difference between the two equates to the weight of a column of fluid that is the vertical height of the object between the top and bottom surfaces.

If you integrate those forces with over any enclosed volume you can show that the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid of the volume displaced. Any standard fluids text book will give you a more mathematically rigorous treatment of the above so I won't do that here.

The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.

 
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 30, 2014, 08:42:48 AM



 Hello Sunset,
                  One thing that has emerged is that I now know the meaning of "travesty"!
                           John.
 ETA.  Fletcher knows a thing or two, he's obviously researched Travis quite thoroughly.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 09:07:11 AM
The buoyancy force arises out of the difference in force between the top and bottom of the submerged object.  The top experiences a force equivalent to the weight of the column of fluid above it. The same is true for the bottom surface. The difference between the two equates to the weight of a column of fluid that is the vertical height of the object between the top and bottom surfaces.

If you integrate those forces with over any enclosed volume you can show that the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid of the volume displaced. Any standard fluids text book will give you a more mathematically rigorous treatment of the above so I won't do that here.

The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.

EnergiaLibre,
You are not playing a fair game by ATTACKING Travis & his endeavors with accusations for which you appear to hold the WRONG end of the stick.  Please leave your attacks until it is proven that you are right, so you don't make a fool of yourself.

All you said is correct and matches which I stated in a previous post of mine, you are not saying anything new.
What point are you trying to make ?

Quote
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).

The Travis set of inverted cooking pot's terminate to the standard atmospheric environment (a hydro system),   So like the ship example in my previous post, no pressure above, only pressure below to provide the LIFT FORCE, we call buoyancy. 

Now the PARADOX,
The water that surrounds a floating object does not have to be as large in volume as the volume displaced.  A typical example provided in books is that you can float the USS Saratoga within the volume contained in a bucket full of water.  Sure this has not much to do with the voulume the USS Saratoga displaces.

But the importance lies in a slightly different viewing angle,
Lets assume we build a dry dock molded exactly to the hull shape of the USS Saratoga. We pour 1 bucket of water in it and some big cranes put the USS Saratoga in this dock, it will float. 

What is the lesson here, We can displace a 1,000,000 Tons ++ of weight  from standing to floating with just the volume of one bucket full of water,   We do not have to displace the volume 1,000,000 Tons++ of water to do it

This reduces the pumping cost and time.

An other example,
You might have seen a large smooth granite ball floating on a film of water.   The stone ball can easily moved by hand. The water pressure of the water film area matches obviously the weight of the ball.
Water volume displacement does not come DIRECT into the picture,  although it does so indirectly because it is a side effect not the primary effect.  Pressure can be directly equated to water column height

Over to you,  Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 09:11:13 AM
Hello Sunset,
                  One thing that has emerged is that I now know the meaning of "travesty"!
                           John.
 ETA.  Fletcher knows a thing or two, he's obviously researched Travis quite thoroughly.

John,
I do not doubt that Fletcher is very knowledgeable,  and is clever enough to save time by posting some wikipedia links to standard physics references to try to get everybody on the same level
But I do not see how does that changes your position regarding your previous post

Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 09:20:54 AM
..........................................................................
The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.

LibreEnergia,
This process of air compression that acts like a spring unfortunately adds a complexity to the system,  but it is not there to confuse, although it could induce that experience.
Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 09:50:01 AM
EnergiaLibre,

To avoid any confusion, I have been addressing STATIC BUOYANCY in my previous post.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: minnie on January 30, 2014, 09:59:18 AM



   Hi,
      can we add a gallon of water and raise our 1,000 ton ship?
                               John.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 10:37:14 AM
Energy Libre

A small add-on note on buoyancy to correct your erronious or incomplete statement "Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME,  nothing else"

The Buoyancy SYMMETRY
 Bouyancy Lift Force  = "Head pressure x horizontal float area"      of the float object
                                 =  "liquid volume weight of the displaced liquid"     by the submerged portion of the floating object   
                                 =  "Overall weight"     of the floating object

Can you now retract your previous statement ?,
Quote
This is the crux of the matter,  and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: MarkE on January 30, 2014, 10:45:32 AM
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
Red_Sunset your statement:  "bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water" is absolutely false.  Please avail yourself to a physics text.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 11:28:34 AM
Red_Sunset your statement:  "bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water" is absolutely false.  Please avail yourself to a physics text. 

MarkE,
That is not exactly what I said !
I said,
Quote
MARKE,   that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct.

This means to say that in practical & formula form the relationship is there! No dispute !
Then I said,

Quote
But in the workings of nature, buoyancy 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

This means "aside from formula's that equal the same answers for good reasons",  IN NATURE, what keeps the ship floating is a FORCE, called a buoyancy force,  without LIFT FORCE the ship would sink.

This means that
1..  The primary and most important effect is the Buoyancy LIFT FORCE that materializes due to Pressure
2..  The Secondary to that is an equivalence called "displacement" that matches the same (for good reasons), BUT this is not the actual manifestation in Nature that keeps the ship on the surface. It is a derivative !!!

That is what I said, spelled out for the second time today.
To play with nature it is important to understand nature, not just playing with mathematical formula's alone !!

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 30, 2014, 12:14:00 PM
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."
...

Great analogy of the show being put on by Red_Sunset and Wayne_Travis, it's like a bad magic act, all they have is words and more words, they can never shows something working continuously or have anything verified, they know themselves that the magic only works with words and faith.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: LibreEnergia on January 30, 2014, 12:30:04 PM


Now the PARADOX,
The water that surrounds a floating object does not have to be as large in volume as the volume displaced.  A typical example provided in books is that you can float the USS Saratoga within the volume contained in a bucket full of water.  Sure this has not much to do with the voulume the USS Saratoga displaces.

Except from an energy perspective there is no paradox.

The amount of energy required to lift any buoyant object a vertical distance is equal (or more than) its mass times the vertical distance it travels. The amount of energy we can recover from the descent of the object is (at most) the same as the amount used to raise it.

Lets say we have the USS Saratoga sitting in our close fitting dry dock and we add a gallon of water. How much energy is used in pumping the water in? How far would the ship rise? How much energy can we recover by letting the ship fall?
In all cases we need to return both the ship and the gallon of water to their starting positions or we are not describing a cyclical process that can be reused over and over.

Now, no matter what the geometry of the ships hull or the dry-dock or the sequence of events of pumping, holding etc. the amount of energy required on the up stroke is equal to the weight of water the ship displaces multiplied by the vertical height the ship moves. The amount of energy that can be recovered on the down stroke is at most equal to the amount used to raise it.

Lets hear your best shot at breaking this 'symmetry'. I'd love to hear a sequence of events that can describe how this could be broken. The analysis must analyse ENERGY , not FORCE.  (Energy is equal to force times DISTANCE  , remember.)

Bear in mind that if you move some water anywhere you have to return that water to the same starting height or you are not describing a cyclical process.

Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 01:05:26 PM
Hi PowerCat,

I am still waiting ! 
Do you want to abandon your claim to present situations and references and analyses?
If you do, I have no problem!

Quote
<< PowerCat>> We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures.  This isn't a joke, it's reality.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: powercat on January 30, 2014, 01:26:10 PM
Hi PowerCat,

I am still waiting ! 
Do you want to abandon your claim to present situations and references and analyses?
If you do, I have no problem!

Red_Sunset

You're such a control freak, and you keep distorting and twisting reality to suit your argument, despite being told numerous times by people that show your theory and opinion are flawed, you insist that you know better, here is a recent example of your twisted words.

[/font]I DON"T CARE what Wayne does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!Red_Sunset
[/font]

But you do care, anyone reading through your previous posts will see that, and after making that statement within a number of hours you make this statement

[/font]EnergiaLibre,You are not playing a fair game by ATTACKING Travis & his endeavors with accusations for which you appear to hold the WRONG end of the stick.  Please leave your attacks until it is proven that you are right, so you don't make a fool of yourself.Red_Sunset
[/font]

Are you struggling to find an argument that doesn't show you to be contradicting,  I know you want to talk about theories and promote your own opinions, you have already filled this thread with your arguments and opinions and virtually everyone disagrees with you, and virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence, but all you ever give back are more words.
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 01:35:48 PM
Except from an energy perspective there is no paradox.

The amount of energy required to lift any buoyant object a vertical distance is equal (or more than) its mass times the vertical distance it travels. The amount of energy we can recover from the descent of the object is (at most) the same as the amount used to raise it.

Lets say we have the USS Saratoga sitting in our close fitting dry dock and we add a gallon of water. How much energy is used in pumping the water in? How far would the ship rise? How much energy can we recover by letting the ship fall?
In all cases we need to return both the ship and the gallon of water to their starting positions or we are not describing a cyclical process that can be reused over and over.

Now, no matter what the geometry of the ships hull or the dry-dock or the sequence of events of pumping, holding etc. the amount of energy required on the up stroke is equal to the weight of water the ship displaces multiplied by the vertical height the ship moves. The amount of energy that can be recovered on the down stroke is at most equal to the amount used to raise it.

Lets hear your best shot at breaking this 'symmetry'. I'd love to hear a sequence of events that can describe how this could be broken. The analysis must analyse ENERGY , not FORCE.  (Energy is equal to force times DISTANCE  , remember.)

Bear in mind that if you move some water anywhere you have to return that water to the same starting height or you are not describing a cyclical process.

Hi LibreEnergia,

I know it is hard to admit that you were not exactly on the correct track ....!
What you are presenting now is good and correct, but I am not clear what you are trying to prove in relationship to the topic at hand..

The paradox only came up to demonstrate that you can create a large force (not dynamic displacement) with very little water.     The paradox concept is regular good physics that has not been claimed to violate any known rules.
The paradox concept has been used in the risers of the Zed to minimize the water requirement and flow during strokes (to reduce overhead and associated losses)  but it has no direct function in getting anything for free in the form presented by you.  I am not clear why you thought it would.

As to making the Saratoga float, you only have to bring the bucket up to the designed waterline and empty it.  Lets assume an XXL bucket is used,  sufficient to cover the whole designed underwater surface with a water layer of 1 mm thick, the Saratoga will float up 1 mm.  She will float due to the pressure exerted by the water layer height levels at the various underwater locations. So the deeper the hull depth, the more pressure per sq area.  The thickness of the water layer is immaterial for this theoretical example.  All energies expanded and PE accomplished will match.

Red_Sunset
Title: Re: Big try at gravity wheel
Post by: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 02:16:41 PM
You're such a control freak, and you keep distorting and twisting reality to suit your argument, despite being told numerous times by people that show your theory and opinion are flawed you insist that you know better, here is a recent example of your twisted words.



But you do care, anyone reading through your previous posts will see that, and after making that statement within a number of hours you make this statement



Are you struggling to find an argument that doesn't show you to be contradicting,  I know you want to talk about theories and promote your own opinions, you have already filled this thread with your arguments and opinions and virtually everyone disagrees with you, and virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence, but all you ever give back are more words.

PowerCat,
You amaze me, I know you are avoiding your claims, but I remember.
Why can we not stick to some good old fashioned technical discussion to take the topic at hand,  forward ?

Yes, I know they say that my theory is flawed but they do not demonstrate why ? (just mentioning conservation is insufficient). When it comes to Wayne, I have never met him. It is not Wayne but the principle he tried to convey to you all that you all so nonchalantly rejected , that aligns me favorable towards him.

What give me control, I know the knowledge is based on sound principles, we also know that you can not assimilate a decent argument and the posts you threw this far at me, you were unable to make stick, that is why I became cocky.

<<"virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence",>>
The asymmetry proposal provide the conceptual understanding on how the invention accomplishes the gain at the end of the cycle.  It doesn't provide the means on how is done in the implementation. You need to accept that.

What evidence can be provided has been provided, that should be clear by now.  You must realize by now that you can not get it all, this has not been promised. If you can connect the dots..you are entitled to it. Then you deserve it.
 Have you seen anywhere a question what follows similar lines to "What is the reason? or why do you think that?, or how did you come to that conclusion?." 
or do you see mostly accusations in 4 letter words like, deluded,