And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU - if you simple store the recycled energy and return it on the next stroke, as I said two yeas ago - which you omitted every time you miss applied the context. As I said before - why add the extra effort and time - simply transfer between systems. Get over it - you missed it.
On another note - my contact information has never changed - to those that have tried to discredit me and our company all this time - those people never made one call or asked me one single question about their claims against us. Shame on all of you who slander by assumption.
The first thing that you will want to be very careful with is the assumptions that you make with respect to the amount of work it takes to displace "air" or water in any of the chambers. A mistake can easily throw energy off by the ratio of area of the cylinder area to the annular ring area of the chamber. It is tempting to calculate force based on the smaller area in cases where it is actually a function of the much larger area.
If we ASSUME that the ZED is acting exactly as a hydraulic cylinder, then it would have to follow Boyle’s Law. The Integral of PinVin must equal the Integral of PoutVout. To find the lift that would result in this case requires that we find the Vout. Again I must also ASSUME that the output Pressure that the outer riser can provide is a linear function, starting at an initial pressure found from the buoyant lift force applied to the cross sectional area of the outer riser, and ending at a pressure of zero. The hydraulic lift force of ~82.590 grams results in an initial pressure value of ~795.980 Pa. The average Pout becomes half of that, or ~397.990 Pa. With Pin of ~872.257 Pa and Vin of ~2.1771 cc (from a previous post), we solve PinVin = PoutVout for Vout = ~4.771 cc. The lift of the outer riser is then calculated to be ~4.688 mm. This is drawn and analyzed (after redistributing the fluids properly) to see if it is neutrally buoyant or not.Something else that one needs to be careful about is evaluating integrals. Where the pressure which translates to force changes, we need to solve the integral. If the force or pressure starts at zero and goes to some other value then the integral is trivial. If the pressure / force starts and ends at non-zero values then we get both linear and quadratic terms.
The evaluation of this ZED shows it is definitely NOT neutrally buoyant. In fact, it sucks, literally. It is displaying a positive lift force from the pod of ~10.050 grams. But the risers are both negatively buoyant. The inner riser has a lift force of ~-7.238 grams and the outer riser has a lift force of ~-43.130 grams. The total is ~-40.31771688 grams. When we add the additional downward force of the ~8.168 grams the outer riser needed to weigh for the system to be neutrally buoyant in the setup position, the total lift in this analysis is now ~-48.486 grams, far below a neutral buoyant condition.
So this test failed. The ZED could never rise to the height calculated by Boyle’s Law. If the ASSUMPTION of linear pressure transfers are correct (or close) the ZED could only rise a bit less than 2/3 of the required value necessary to satisfy Boyle’s Law. Therefor we are left with the possibilities that a) there is a mistake in the math, b) the ASSUMPTIONS are greatly skewing us away from expected results, or c) an Ideal ZED is NOT analogous to an Ideal Hydraulic Cylinder.
M.
Something else that one needs to be careful about is evaluating integrals. Where the pressure which translates to force changes, we need to solve the integral. If the force or pressure starts at zero and goes to some other value then the integral is trivial. If the pressure / force starts and ends at non-zero values then we get both linear and quadratic terms.
Can you lend assistance with how to evaluate the PinVin integral properly since it starts from a non-zero condition in this setup? Or would it be necessary for me to start over with a setup that initially has no water in the pod chamber?Sure:
Also, to be clear, is there any issue with evaluating the PoutVout where Pout starts at non-zero but should end at zero?
M.
Take a volume where we are going to eject water replacing it with an incompressible fluid...
I wanted to put all of the dimensions in one place and it is easier for me to see the different pieces by using more colors. So, here is the initial state drawing. I would like to know whether we are stipulating that we got to this state, or that we are following some assembly procedure in order to get to this state.
OK so we will treat it that way: Allowing water admitted to AR1 to flow underneath in a very thin layer without consideration of surface tension, etc. Are you also OK with the assumption that any water we admit, that we admit through the bottom of AR1?
You have seen my older spreadsheet with recursive iterations performing millions of calculations to get the water levels in the risers correct during the rise, due to interconnection of air compression/decompression. I don't know how to do this it any other way, so I can not help with your calculations.
And your nested system is significantly different.... how?
1. You are confusing yourself with "Boyle's Law" pressure/volume calculations, because Travis and Red Sunset and Webby have all said that the air can be replaced with incompressible fluid. All chambers in your system should be filled with fluid that doesn't change in volume when it's under pressure.
1b. Air -- wet air -- is not an ideal gas and you will find that it deviates from strict Boyle-Charles law behaviour. How much? Enough to account for your numerical result? I don't know. Do you?
2. You should be able to demonstrate some actual gain in something, somewhere, using just three layers. Travis has told us so!
3. What, exactly, is the real "output" of your system? Is it a lifted weight? If you are counting pressing against a stop as "output work", that's not kosher!
All internal chambers have been replaced with an incompressible fluid. There is the water (SG=1), and the air (SG=0) that is ASSUMED to be incompressible for this ideal case.
I have never calculated the real Vout. Instead I have ASSUMED the system follows Boyle's law...
So what are you doing mentioning Boyle's Law at all? Boyle's Law is the relationship between Pressure and Volume of compressible (ideal) gases. You are assuming incompressibility at the top, then complaining that your system doesn't follow the law of compressible gases?
Maybe that's your problem then, since incompressible fluids do not follow Boyle's Law of the pressure-volume relationship of ideal, compressible gases.
And work is only performed when forces act over distances. Pressing against a stop with some pressure is not work. Does your butt do work on the chair you are sitting in?
So you are saying that Boyle's law does not apply to a fluid once it changes state from a vapor/gas to a fluid?Who is talking about phase changes here? Your device is filled completely with two incompressible fluids. No phase change happens. Boyle's Law does not apply to incompressible fluids!
I thought that once the fluid is incompressible then the volume cannot change.That's right: The pressure applied to the fluid is _unrelated_ to the volume of the fluid, it does not affect the volume, and no amount of applied pressure can change the volume of an _incompressible_ fluid, and no energy can be stored by "compressing" or applying pressure to an incompressible fluid.
And then Boyle's law of P1V1=P2V2 would reduce to Integral of P1 = Integral of P2. Are you saying this is incorrect?How many pounds per gallon does a speed of 60 seconds per bushel represent?
I'm not sure how this applies? Work is not being calculated while pressing against a stop. A non unity guantity of Energy is.In a previous post you stated that the pressure against the stop caused by your calculated excess buoyancy represented a gain, I thought. And work and energy have the same units, the Joule in SI. If you are calculating Energy you are also calculating Work and vice versa.
Who is talking about phase changes here? Your device is filled completely with two incompressible fluids. No phase change happens. Boyle's Law does not apply to incompressible fluids!
That's right: The pressure applied to the fluid is _unrelated_ to the volume of the fluid, it does not affect the volume, and no amount of applied pressure can change the volume of an _incompressible_ fluid, and no energy can be stored by "compressing" or applying pressure to an incompressible fluid.
How many pounds per gallon does a speed of 60 seconds per bushel represent?
I am saying that no pressure change will result in a volume change of an incompressible fluid, therefore Boyle's Law is irrelevant and inapplicable! So Boyle's Law reduces to P1V1 = P2V1 since volume cannot change in an incompressible fluid, and this relation is contradicted by experiment (pressures can certainly be different for the same volume of water, a nearly incompressible fluid) because Boyle's Law is not applicable to _incompressible fluids_ !! It is an IDEAL GAS LAW and ideal gases are ideally compressible ... that is what Boyle's Law tells you!
In a previous post you stated that the pressure against the stop caused by your calculated excess buoyancy represented a gain, I thought. And work and energy have the same units, the Joule in SI. If you are calculating Energy you are also calculating Work and vice versa.
Mondrasek, I think that the confusion here is in how does one measure the energy of a submerged buoyant object. For an object of constant height, the amount of force that we must apply to the object to initially submerge it changes from the value at zero submersion to the fully submerged value. From there on the buoyant force is constant and the amount of additional work required to submerge the object further is the difference between that constant buoyant force and the constant force of gravity on the mass of the object multiplied by the change in depth.
The attached graphic will hopefully help.
Do you have me confused with someone else?
But look again at Mark's diagram. Do you see what he is integrating? Do you see any need for an ideal gas law in determining the work required to submerge a _sealed_ buoyant object?
Now, if you were considering a Cartesian Diver (an _unsealed_ buoyant object) and didn't stipulate beforehand that all your fluids were incompressible, that would be a different story.
No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably). Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?No Mondrasek I am not a sock puppet of TinselKoala. And no when a gas is incompressible, the ideal gas law of which Boyle's Law, and Charle's Law are consequences do not apply.
Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!! We get to the Ideal gas law! Which is PV=nRT. Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in Boyle's law: PVinput=PVoutput.
Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?
M.
No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably). Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?Sure, Rosemary, you have finally tracked me down.
Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!! We get to the Ideal gas law! Which is PV=nRT. Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in Boyle's law: PVinput=PVoutput.
Not, as you have stipulated the Zed contains only incompressible fluids. So it is not comparable to the unsealed buoyant object like the Cartesian Diver, whose buoyancy depends upon the Volume of the compressible gas contained within it, which is open to the pressure of the surrounding incompressible fluid. Changing the pressure of the outer incompressible fluid changes the pressure _and hence the volume_ of the compressible gas within it, thus making the Diver rise or sink as its buoyancy is changed by the changes in the pressure of the surrounding incompressible fluid. Your Zeds, ex hypothesi, have only incompressible fluids, so no pressure changes can result in any volume changes anywhere. In an incompressible fluid, volume is conserved. The only way to get more or less volume is physically to add or subtract more of the incompressible fluid.
Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?
M.
I finally got to spending some time with your model today and have a couple of questions. The first is that when you admit water you want to fill up the pod chamber to 60mm height.
So you either must drop references to the gas laws in your analysis and workings, or you must use _compressible gas_ instead of one of the incompressible fluids in your model. I'm arguing for the former, as it will simplify your analysis.
Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?Of course.
Here is what I would propose to try next: Using the incompressible fluids in the model. Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?So it would seem, if I am understanding you correctly. However, consider the simple lever. If I "admit" a certain weight on the long end and it sinks, should that be equal to the Height Output as measured by the height change of the weight on the short end? I think nested hydraulic cylinders can act like a compound lever, and I think that the multiple layers might distribute an initial "volume input" over several outer risers, so the final "rise" might be small, but with increased force.
If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right? If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?
Of course.
Now you have lost me. Neutral buoyancy means that the mass of the displaced water is equal to the mass of the displacing object. Adding additional force pressing down on the "neutrally buoyant" object makes it sink, so is this extra force to be included in the figuring? Since your risers are "massless" I think you are once again up against a place where your assumptions are non-physical and may be leading you off the correct track.
MarkE, the volume of water admitted is only enough to fill the pod chamber to 37mm height. That is shown in the second diagram here:Thanks. That helps. 37mm will not cause an underflow / overflow problem.
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854
Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?The work calculation is still performed as the integral of F*ds. You can normalize by using the area of the feed pipe ID.
Here is what I would propose to try next: Using the incompressible fluids in the model. Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?
If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right? If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?
*sigh* Would you be so kind as to describe the correct method in the form of a mathematical relationship?Say you have a syringe full of water, connected by a tube to the input port of your device. You use a spring scale to press the syringe plunger into the syringe. You monitor the distance the plunger has travelled (s), you record the instantaneous force readings from the scale (F), and you calculate the integral of the spring scale's instantaneous force readings over the distance the plunger has travelled. (Integral from 0 to s of F ds.) This results in an input energy (or work) value. You can press the empty syringe the same distance to get a value for the syringe frictional work that isn't injected, subtract the latter from the former, and you then have the actual work injected into the system.
Maybe. Without knowing exactly what you mean I'm not sure. Recall that the surface area of a cylinder isn't cut in half when you cut the cylinder itself in half across its height, since the ends are still the same area as before... only the "wall" area has been cut in half.
Please refer to the start condition and the charged condition shown in the first two diagrams here:
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854 (http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854)
A specific volume of water is being added to the pod chamber (AR1). If the ZED is acting strictly like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder, then the outer riser should need to rise by an amount that would be equal to having received that same volume of water. That volume is calculated by measuring how much the outer riser lifts, I think. It is the same way we correctly measure your U tube diagram: Draw a box around the ZED. Then see what enters and exits that box. Since we are using incompressible fluids the volume of water entering "the box" must be equal to the volume of the outer riser that exits "the box." Is that correct?
Nope. The buoyancy of an item does not change as it rises; if it was buoyant at the start, it will rise until the mass of the displaced water is equal to the _entire mass_ of the object. Neutral buoyancy means that the entire volume of the item displaces the same mass of water as the item itself masses. If you now only want to count the part of the item that still remains under the water line in your "neutral buoyancy"... I don't think this is legitimate.
When the charged ZED is released to rise, it will rise due to buoyant force until it is neutrally buoyant.
If the above paragraph is correct, that rise amount should be the measured volume of the outer riser that lifts up (and out of "the box"). So the actual rise * cross sectional area of the outer riser = volume that exited "the box." That volume must be equal to the volume of water added during the charge.Maybe. How _far_ does the riser need to rise in order for that to be true? More, or less, than the distance you depressed the plunger of the syringe? Much less, I'll wager, since the syringe is of smaller cross sectional area. How much work is performed by that lift, though?
I propose to draw the ZED as if it has risen to satisfy having stroked by the exact same volume that has been added by the charge. The position of the fluids will be redistributed correctly due to the constraints of being incompressible. If the ZED is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder, then it should come to rest at this condition, and so equalize the buoyant forces caused by the charge and be neutrally buoyant. If it is found to be NOT neutrally buoyant in this condition, it would have to stroke less or further and definitely not be acting like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder.
Say you have a syringe full of water, connected by a tube to the input port of your device. You use a spring scale to press the syringe plunger into the syringe. You monitor the distance the plunger has travelled (s), you record the instantaneous force readings from the scale (F), and you calculate the integral of the spring scale's instantaneous force readings over the distance the plunger has travelled. (Integral from 0 to s of F ds.) This results in an input energy (or work) value. You can press the empty syringe the same distance to get a value for the syringe frictional work that isn't injected, subtract the latter from the former, and you then have the actual work injected into the system.
I thought we had already covered that.
Nope. The buoyancy of an item does not change as it rises; if it was buoyant at the start, it will rise until the mass of the displaced water is equal to the _entire mass_ of the object. Neutral buoyancy means that the entire volume of the item displaces the same mass of water as the item itself masses. If you now only want to count the part of the item that still remains under the water line in your "neutral buoyancy"... I don't think this is legitimate.
Maybe. How _far_ does the riser need to rise in order for that to be true? More, or less, than the distance you depressed the plunger of the syringe? Much less, I'll wager, since the syringe is of smaller cross sectional area. How much work is performed by that lift, though?
3) The water. SG=1. I don't know what you are using for acceleration due to gravity, or density of water. I use 9.80665N/kg for G0, and 0.9982g/cc for the density of water at 20C.
Hello Monderask,Isn't it funny then that you have shown neither math that works, nor a unit that works in six years of selling this snake oil?
I can remember when you were quite opposed to the ZED system, you were almost hostile - but you helped another engineer "Do the Math" and you asked me very hard questions.
I impressed with your intelligence and character, you did the math.
Our systems do not defy the math - and you are doing a great job presenting that.
Logically, that is obvious - a person should be able to prove or deny with the "math".
The right questions have to be asked - and the wrong prejudices have to be put on hold.
I hope you are able to teach others - You have certainly earned my respect.
Wayne
Isn't it funny then that you have shown neither math that works, nor a unit that works in six years of selling this snake oil?
Interesting, then could you please show why the math showing an efficiency of 153.94% in the attached spreadsheet is incorrect? The efficiency is in field B16. The drawing shows the process cycle.
Thanks, Larry
so I don't expect any kind of real answer to my questions.
And if that weren't enough... I still believe the automatic bollard is showing the same "anomaly" that you think you have found. Nobody has "done the math" to prove me wrong about that. Why not? Do you deny that the 300 pound bollard can be raised to its full height, and lowered back down again, with just a few pound-feet of work? Reducing the input, getting the big output, subtracting the input from the output to get the "net" gain in work .... it's all there in the automatic bollard. So?
Here's an incontrovertible fact: If your calculations show "overunity" performance, then you are making an error somewhere.
Here is where I see your automatic bollard example falling short: What big output? You put a little in, and it raises a far distance, but with no appreciable force! In fact the force it rises with is exactly equal to force you are putting in, minus losses.How can you say that? A three hundred pound bollard is lifted by its full height of four feet, which represents 1200 pound-feet of work! Yet the input was only, say, 5 pounds of manual lift over that same distance, or 20 pound-feet of work, for a "net gain" of 1180 pound-feet of work. DO THE MATH.
How can you say that all valid experimentation has failed?Rather, all valid experimentation has failed _to confirm Travis's claims_, a far different thing than saying that the valid experimentation has simply failed. The experiments have provided valid data that fails to support Travis.... this is a failure of Travis's theories, not the experiment.
The ZEDs amplify force at the expense of distance travelled, as you yourself have found and admitted freely,
but the output work will be less than the input work, because of the inevitable losses.
What about what Larry and Monderask have presented.
Any problem other than can't work.
Wayne
Which is the basis for absolutely no conclusions. Because I also freely admit that from what I have found, the Integral of the resultant force * distance does NOT equal that of the input. I never said the ZEDs amply force by a relationship to a reduced distance of travel that conforms to a conservative system.No? I could have sworn that you did, when you agreed with me here:
Of course the riser moves a much shorter linear distance than the syringe plunger, assuming a syringe with diameter smaller than the ZED's outer riser. That is why I proposed to compare volumes.
This is not what the Mathematical Analysis supports. It is your assumption and/or position, not a proven fact.It is my "assumption" and position, based on thousands of years of experimentation by hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, and amateurs like some of us. Nobody, nowhere, has ever demonstrated otherwise. Please see the quote from Feynman re the relationship between "theory" and "experiment".
On another related note, please tell me what you think about this. Imagine the ZED model surrounded by the "red box" I showed when analyzing your U tube joke. There are more than the two volumes I have shown in the analysis crossing that system barrier. Yes there is the input water, and the output riser stroke that cross the barrier. But there is also air that leaves and enters the system through the outer annulus (outside the outer riser) that is open to the atmosphere. So the ZED is an OPEN system, right? Also, it is the air that crosses through this opening that allows the fluid levels to redistribute and create a resultant buoyant force that is calculating to be not equal to the force predicted by the input.
Oh come on! And you also gave _no real answer_ to LarryC's question. He specifically asked how his MATH is incorrect. To do so does not require any more words. It requires math.Mondrasek, I have done some looking at Larry's spreadsheet. The first thing that jumps out at me is that it does not look like he accounts for the cross-section areas of his various cavities. For example on the '2 Zed' worksheet he lists four conditions: Start, Equalized, Ready to Stroke, and Stroke End. For each he lists two head values: Riser and pod. I gather these refer to the outermost annular ring, and the pod chamber annular ring heights. These values are shown as having very nicely rounded numbers: 95,50 65,35 51,28 and 35,20. Fluid moving in the various annular ring moves as V/28^2,V/27^2,V/26^2, and V/25^2. IE V/784, V/729, V/676, and V/625.
LarryC has presented evidence by the accepted method of science: A mathematical solution/analysis. If it is correct, it is correct. If it is incorrect, it is incorrect. There is no gray area. There is only one correct solution to the math. Checking his math and process is the only correct way to move forward.
I have also presented evidence by the method of a mathematical analysis. I have also asked for my math and process to be checked. I thank MarkE for his assistance so far and offer to double check. TK, your assistance with the math is also appreciated.
If anyone would like to work on LarryC's math question instead of my own, that is fine, as his work appears to show the same anomaly that I am trying to find the reason for.
Thanks,
M.
I want to get this straight, you lift a weight with one side of your device, you remove the
weight and use it, and it sinks by itself and also raises a weight on the other side of your device.
Now if that isn't a bit of magic nothing is!
John.
I have placed you on ignore out of respect.Math that does not reflect physical reality is just so many numbers on a page. The conservative nature of gravity does not change just because someone performs the wrong calculations.
---------- Your "incontrovertible fact" only applies to conservative applications - in which I would agree with you.
Your inability to see that the 'Math presented' perfectly defines a non conservative system - which in itself is a new realm of understanding - you continue to miss - we graciously tried to explain.
I know how you will respond - it will not be to analyze and learn.
Back to ignore
Good Day.
Multiple different people have shown now how our system can and does work.Wayne Travis where is one of these working systems, and who has verified its operation is as you claim?
You have said much....
The "can't work" is your misunderstanding.
Wayne
Multiple different people have shown now how our system can and does work.
You have said much....
The "can't work" is your misunderstanding.
Wayne
Math that does not reflect physical reality is just so many numbers on a page. The conservative nature of gravity does not change just because someone performs the wrong calculations.
Wayne Travis where is one of these working systems, and who has verified its operation is as you claim?
Mark,
I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.
The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.
Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.
This does not require higher math to understand or verify.
Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.
Good luck.
Why not give Kevan Riley,PE, a call? I posted his telephone number somewhere earlier. See if he still stands by the material presented in the PowerPoint slideshow. Ask _him_ why the Trinity Baptist Church is still paying for electricity.If he really is a PE, then he can be sued by any and all of the burned investors for his expressed support of HER/Zydro's false claims.
Demonstrate it, then. You cannot.
Show us your electric bills. You will not.
Your words mean nothing, against the lack of a practical demonstration of your claims. Just think how easy it would be for you to refute me utterly, had you what you claim. But you have not, and you cannot, because you DO NOT. Go ahead, prove me wrong by showing a valid demonstration.
I'm holding my breath in anticipation.....
NOT.
If he really is a PE, then he can be sued by any and all of the burned investors for his expressed support of HER/Zydro's false claims.
Mark,Wayne Travis it is not slander to state the fact that you are making false claims of among other things: A way to get non conservative behavior from gravity, free energy from cyclically lifting and dropping weights. The threat to you is from burned investors who have believed your false and reckless statements. They can sue. If there are enough of them with any influence they can bring law enforcement against you as well. You claim to have many legal groups. Have them look into the Acts: 1933, and 1934. See what they have to say about selling securities while making fraudulent statements.
I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.
The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.
Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.
This does not require higher math to understand or verify.
Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.
Good luck.
Then why hasn't it been? Why are you not running your house, shop, and Trinity Baptist Church on the wonderful output of your Zed system?
I know why, and so do you.
Once again - Our system is real - you are making a fool of yourself.Your system does not produce the free energy that you claim. We know it doesn't even give an appearance of something interesting because you have never lived up to the years over due Dansie demonstration. You can bluff and bluster all day long. The fact that you don't demonstrate underlies the simple fact that you can't demonstrate.
How hard is your apology going to come......that is if you have an honor.
You should really look at the spreadsheets Monderask and Larry shared - ask for their help if you do not understand.
Wayne
Wayne Travis it is not slander to state the fact that you are making false claims of among other things: A way to get non conservative behavior from gravity, free energy from cyclically lifting and dropping weights. The threat to you is from burned investors who have believed your false and reckless statements. They can sue. If there are enough of them with any influence they can bring law enforcement against you as well. You claim to have many legal groups. Have them look into the Acts: 1933, and 1934. See what they have to say about selling securities while making fraudulent statements.
The conservative nature of gravitational fields is an extremely well observed fact. If you wish to counter that you go up against known science at least back to Kepler and arguably back to the Greeks. The burden of proof is upon you. You haven't a shred of evidence, much less proof. That makes your false claims at a minimum reckless.
Larry has yet to prove anything, ditto Mark, and most of all: ditto you.
You know - I did not know that everything in the universe was taught to you when you went to school - Research should just stop now....Red_Sunset failed to present any evidence of a conservation breach. He did attempt to invoke such comic relief as magic levers. Your claims to investors of free energy technology and gravitational breaches are false and misleading. You know that they are false and misleading and/or are reckless in not recognizing them as such. For someone selling stock that's the end with or without a registration exemption.
What a waste ......
Or try learning something new - RED Sunset tried to show you that the conservative field of gravity - has been broken...
That's the end - and you are making such a fool of yourself calling me names and slandering,,,,
Do the Math - it tells the truth without predisposed assumptions.
Wayne
Mondrasek, I have done some looking at Larry's spreadsheet. The first thing that jumps out at me is that it does not look like he accounts for the cross-section areas of his various cavities. For example on the '2 Zed' worksheet he lists four conditions: Start, Equalized, Ready to Stroke, and Stroke End. For each he lists two head values: Riser and pod. I gather these refer to the outermost annular ring, and the pod chamber annular ring heights. These values are shown as having very nicely rounded numbers: 95,50 65,35 51,28 and 35,20. Fluid moving in the various annular ring moves as V/28^2,V/27^2,V/26^2, and V/25^2. IE V/784, V/729, V/676, and V/625.
Good thing Sock Puppets don't breath...Your characterization of me is false. This is the only alias I have ever used here, the only account. If you don't believe me, ask our host Stefan. You cannot provide any evidence for your claim that I may have multiple accounts or usernames here.
Lets get something clear -
You set the standard making claims against our ZED device using supposed indisputable mathematical proof.
Now you refuse to accept that same method as proof. you speak out of both socks at the same time...You are deluded, nearly as much as our dear old Ainslie. Believe it, Travis.... more than one person is able to see through your misrepresentations and outright lies.
You are hilarious! The QUESTION AT HAND is whether or not your claims are valid and true. Since you cannot produce any evidence that they are true, besides some spreadsheet numbers that you yourself didn't even come up with.... well, I think even a bright sixth-grader could DO THAT MATH.
The question at hand - no pun intended - is Mathematical analysis - if you are not interested - put the boys back in the dresser.
Your diversion is a waste of time.
Wayne
Let me help you TK - you can't rove our system is anything less than we claim....
End of story.
Good Day - I have a meeting.
Thanks for checking the math, any confusion that is perceive helps me to improve the example.
The water head in the Pod is equal to water in the pod chamber annular ring heights, however the water head for the riser is equal to the Outermost annular ring (O1) - Next inner annular ring (O2).
Thus the 95 represents 100 in O1 - 5 in O2. Then during equalization the water dropped 15 in the Pod to 35. When this occurs, the water in O2 follows up and rises 15 to 20 and the water in O1 follows down and lowers to 85. So now the water head is 65 which represents 85 in O1 - 20 in O2. That is why I brought up earlier that 1X changes in the Pod Water causes 2X change in riser water head as Wayne stated early is his thread.
You can see this effect in the drawings.
Larry
No, I don't think that is right. I considered this issue before when the "incompressible fluid" was replacing the air in the trapped chambers. The outer ringwall and the outermost layer of trapped whatever seals the rest of the system from contact with the outside air, and even in spite of that, there is nothing happening, or that can happen, in any Zed system that can change the pressure of the _outside air_.
Got hung up on explaining water head and forgot to mention about your volume point. In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser. These kind of calculations are done in my complex spreadsheet, but I was trying to keep this simple for easy understanding. I can add if that small difference is your hangup.
Larry, it is not my hang up. It is that the math does not represent the model represented. It's like estimating pi as 3. Whether or not that is close enough depends on the circumstances. In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences. That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable. It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions. Introducing ~16% error terms is a recipe for trouble. I don't care if you fix the ring dimensions for constant area or keep them on a 0.5" grid as long as your calculations represent the model faithfully.
Got hung up on explaining water head and forgot to mention about your volume point. In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser. These kind of calculations are done in my complex spreadsheet, but I was trying to keep this simple for easy understanding. I can add if that small difference is your hangup.
Heh... guess what, I don't have to "rove" or prove anything at all! YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING CLAIMS, it is up to you to "rove" them. But you cannot, all you can do is point to LarryC's apparently two dimensional spreadsheet numbers. Where is the self-running system you have claimed to have? Nowhere, that's where. Go ahead, prove me wrong. You cannot !
TK, here the "red box" has been drawn around the ZED system. The charge water is not shown in the diagram on the left, but is assumed to cross that barrier and enter the system into the pod chamber to result in the state of the center diagram. When doing so, air in the outer annulus (shown in yellow) is also pushed across that barrier. Then when the system is allowed to stroke, the Outer Riser (and the volume within it's borders) crosses the barrier at the top. When doing so, the initial volume of air in the outer annulus crosses back into the system, and is followed by even more air. Therefore the system is open to the atmosphere, right? Am I misunderstanding what you presented?
I am a really nice guy - so if this is too much - let me apologize up front:
Here is what I have learned from your last 300+ postings
Larry has demonstrated more intelligence and capability than I have ever seen from you and your socks.
You could learn three things from Larry - manners, due diligences (before slander), and how non conservative is possible.
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need. Stop wasting my time with your diversions.
Mathematical Analysis - take your time.
Wayne
In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser.
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need
In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences. That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable. It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions.
I am a really nice guy- brainwashing attempt
Larry has demonstrated more intelligence and capability- brainwashing attempt
and how non conservative is possible- brainwashing attempt
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need- brainwashing attempt
due diligences
How did your meeting go? Pretty short meeting. Did you cut it short to rush back here and insult me, yet again?
Wayne:
Without being specific to Larry because I haven't followed his spreadsheet, I note MarkE's comments:
And yet you endorse LarryC. You endorse Webby when he can barely explain himself. You are one piece of work.
With respect to you:
- brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt
That one I can latch onto and agree with.
Wayne, please demonstrate YOURSELF that YOU have something. That is the real due diligence.
Do you have anything? ANYTHING?
MileHigh
What would you do if I told you I was colorblind?
Just kidding. The outer part always sees the same pressure from the outside air, whether the yellow lines are out, in, or neutral. Therefore the outer air pressure doesn't make any difference between the three states. Open to the atmosphere is one thing, able to be affected by it is another. Your system is NOT open in the same way that the Cartesian Diver is, where the surrounding fluid pressure changes DO affect the buoyancy.
Larry, that helps. I will continue to go through the spreadsheet. Please confirm that the drawing below is correct:
Went ahead and added a riser gap that would give it the same SI as the pod gap. Wanted to see how big a difference it would make in the efficiency. Darn, it went from 153.94% to 153.56%.
Larry
That would suck on so many levels. But I think we could then resort to labels. But it would be so much harder to follow.
My apologies to any colorblind individuals trying to follow along.
TK, I never said that the atmospheric air pressure makes any difference to any pressures inside the ZED. Thankfully, it doesn't! What having the outer annulus open to the atmosphere does do is allow for the Vin to NOT equal the Vout. Because air also moves freely into and out of the system from the atmosphere and adds ANOTHER V (that is not costing us anything) that must be accounted for in an Energy Balance.
The air that freely crosses into and out of the system allows the water levels to redistribute to satisfy simple volumetric constraints. And when allowed to do so it results in a lift force that is due to BUOYANCY, not the usual pressure * volume relationship found in a simple hydraulic cylinder.
The interview went well.
Now that I am sure you know the concept of making ignorant claims against other people is wrong - I will apologize to you when you do.
Wayne
Show me the Sausages! (http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/06/show-me-sausages.html) A philosopher designs a marvellous sausage machine. A scientist comes to marvel at this wonderful creation, and raises an eyebrow.
The philosopher says, "Ah, behold the wonderful cogs and sprockets and temperature-controlled mixing chambers in my wonderful machine - surely you can see how it must produce the most fantastic sausages!"
The scientist says "Yes, that is all very interesting. Show me the sausages."
The philosopher says "How dare you, a mere scientist, question my wonderful philosophical reasoning?"
Scientist: "I'm not questioning your reasoning - I want to know if your machine really produces sausages."
Philosopher: "Can you point to any flaw in my argument that it produces sausages?"
Sci: "I don't know - I just want to know if it produces sausages. Here is some meat. Why don't you feed it through and see if you get any sausages?"
Phil: "And sully my wonderful machine with mere offal?"
Sci: "You said it was a sausage machine. I want to see the sausages."
Phil: "Are you questioning my ingredients?"
Sci: "I'm just questioning whether it produces sausages or not. Show me the sausages."
Phil: "Ah, so you cannot attack my premises and you cannot attack my argument. Therefore I'm right and you lose."
Sci: "Don't be such a melodramatic prancing arse. Show me the sausages."
Phil: "The sausages inevitably flow from the argument. You see my fine machine. You can even inspect the meat & onions. The sausages necessarily flow."
Sci: "Show me the sausages or I'm off to Tesco."
Phil: "You are a mere scientist with no understanding of philosophical matters."
Sci: "Bye."
The proper drawing of your red box would follow the outline of the surface of the outer liquid layer, I think, because that is the sealed surface. It rises and sinks, of course, but that's no problem as far as the boundary condition goes.
Larry, it is not my hang up. It is that the math does not represent the model represented. It's like estimating pi as 3. Whether or not that is close enough depends on the circumstances. In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences. That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable. It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions. Introducing ~16% error terms is a recipe for trouble. I don't care if you fix the ring dimensions for constant area or keep them on a 0.5" grid as long as your calculations represent the model faithfully.
Let me make a suggestion that will make it easier to keep simple numbers on the spreadsheet: Assign a constant to pi/4. Then you can represent all your circular areas in integer units multiplied by the constant. This should make it easier for you to audit your calculations. The other thing that can be an immense help is to use named fields. That saves a lot of chasing around. Instead of a formula looking like: = $H$2*F19*E12 it would look like: = riser_diameter*riser_length. My last suggestion you may or may not like: Using MKS units generally makes it easier to avoid mistakes between mass and force. I can work in whatever units you are comfortable using.
But that would require that the red box changes shape (edit: but NOT volume) as the Energy Balance is performed.
Maybe so. Could you explain further?
Larry, 28^2/26^2. Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there. The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers: 28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area: 55/51 ~8%.
MarkE,
Thanks for the suggestion, some will help.
But, don't understand your ~16% error, the .38% drop in efficiency was a ~.2% error.
PI/4 constant would help.
On the named fields, I do use them all the time for VBA modules. But, It is a good suggestion to use names on the constant parameter fields at the top for this example. I do like to use them at the multiple line level, in this case the 'Cycles', because when you copy one line to the next, the named fields do not increment its position. I use the 'Trace Precedent' to check formulas, it points to all the fields in the formula.
I agree with your points about MKS units. I don't use it because I've worked with many field engineers that use Imperial because the field workers that apply the specifications wouldn't understand and most times upper management wouldn't either. And I am more comfortable using Imperial, so thanks for working with my unit choice.
Larry
Consider a simpler system for a moment.
A syringe full of air is connected by a short tube to a deflated balloon.
Where do you draw your red box now? Do you include the outside air that the balloon expands into when you depress the plunger? How much of it? Or does your red box follow the actual perimeter of the "hard parts" of the system? Here, the outer air is displaced by the expanding balloon, isn't it? But its only effect on the expansion is its pressure, which remains constant no matter how big the balloon is.
Since the balloon is increasing in total surface area, the total _force_ exerted by the outside air grows.. but that doesn't happen in your Zeds because the surface area of the fluid column is constant.
Larry, 28^2/26^2. Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there. The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers: 28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area: 55/51 ~8%.
I am going through the spreadsheet now. I have created a new worksheet for the 2 ZED where I am using named formulas and have substituted the exact geometry relations. However, I see a fundamental error: It looks like you failed to integrate when calculating your energy. The force required to lift a column of water increases with the head. In order to get the actual energy we have to perform the integration. This should make intuitive sense if you consider punching a pin hole near the bottom of one of the columns. When the column is very full, the stream is very strong, and as the column comes down to the pin hole the stream dribbles off to almost nothing.
Larry, that helps. I will continue to go through the spreadsheet. Please confirm that the drawing below is correct:
Larry, if I have a capsule of water and lift that capsule from one height to another then I can just multiply the weight by the distance moved and I am done because the gravitational force on that capsule is constant. But if what I do is change the height of a column by pumping water in or letting water out then I need to perform the integration.
Hi MarkE,
Liked what you did with the drawing, but has a few minor issues, I'll respond later on that post.
You're too fast, so I'll also respond to your ~8% later.
But wanted to address your integration concerns as it is key to the process.
The Left avg. psi at E13 is the average pod psi from the end of equalization to the start of ready to stroke.
The Right avg. psi at H13 using the same technique. So left 3.233, right 3.992. Now when adding water to the right along you would multiply that average psi times the volume to get the input cost.
But, if at the same time we are allowing water to flow out the left at its average PSI, it is returning energy to the Right. This return of energy reduces the input energy applied to the transfer by the average pressure differential between the two units. So the Average PSI Differential shown at I13 is the average pressure required to transfer the fluid. I can show this process in a little different format if it would help.
In your pinhole example, if you had two columns of water with one having 25% less water and you had a small tube connected to the pinhole in each column. Would the water flow out as fast as your one column example or would the speed be reduced by 75%? Its all about the pressure differential.
Larry
Larry, OK I fixed that. Because the stipulation is equal cross-section area in each column, I changed the formulas to derive the diameters with the areas fixed at 51circular inches, IE 51*pi/4. Consequently, the formulas are:
MarkE,
Thanks for continuing, like your analysis technique.
Few minor issues in the drawing. The Riser Head bottom arrow should be even with the water height in the next column to the left. I have .48150 for D5 Riser Gap and the arrows are pointing at the pod water, should move to the right one column for the Riser gap.
Larry
I am sorry MH - you should ask Monderask or Larry to explain.
Your spreadsheet appears to be calculating energy by a series of linear adds and subtracts based on average pressure. That yields incorrect results. Integration is necessary.
I am sorry MH - you should ask Monderask or Larry to explain.
MarkE: the 2-d drawings don't seem to reflect the fact that, if all the fluid annuli have the same surface area, their thickness in the radial direction has to be getting smaller the further out from the center you go. In the 2-d simplification, as drawn, the thickness is the same, producing the same surface area regardless of layer number, but in the 3-d situation this isn't true anymore, the annuli must get thinner as the inner radius increases, if they are to have the same surface area.We are talking about LarryC's analysis of a hypothetical device. The walls have zero thickness, the "air" is massless and incompressible, and he has now stipulated that the annular widths get smaller in order to hold a constant 51 circular inch annular ring area:
Or am I interpreting "surface area" incorrectly?
We are talking about LarryC's analysis of a hypothetical device. The walls have zero thickness, the "air" is massless and incompressible, and he has now stipulated that the annular widths get smaller in order to hold a constant 51 circular inch annular ring area:The air is very compressible unlike the water which is incompressible for practical purposes.
The gap between the 25" diameter pod and the pod chamber wall, exactly 0.5", IE 26" diameter chamber.
The gap between the pod chamber wall and the riser wall, exactly: (727^0.5 - 26)/2", IE 727^0.5" diameter riser.
The gap between the riser wall and the vessel outer wall, exactly: (778^0.5 - 727^0.5)/2" IE 778^0.5" diameter vessel.
The air is very compressible unlike the water which is incompressible for practical purposes.Mr. Grimer, for purposes of the analysis LarryC has stipulated that the "air" is incompressible and massless.
Wayne Travis told us that HER / Zydro are fully funded and are not out trying to pull in new investor money.
Koala,
if we don't get an answer to question on 131 from Wayne we can take it
as a no I would assume.
John.
The proper drawing of your red box would follow the outline of the surface of the outer liquid layer, I think, because that is the sealed surface. It rises and sinks, of course, but that's no problem as far as the boundary condition goes.
Things don't always fit in little boxes...............You were absolute in your statements. Are you trying to weasel in modifications now?
Ah, pay attention to the language. Will and want are quite different.
Let me be clear - Our investors will not part with there part ownership in our company - none of them.
Again, language matters. Those who have stayed, have stayed. How many have asked to get out, and/or have gotten out?
They have been offered 10X returns by out side investors...........wanting in........ and our members flat walked away. It does not take long to realize how well our company is growing.......
Any trained engineer who thinks that there is energy to be gained by raising and dropping weights cyclically is incompetent. Full stop. The incompetence may be a temporary induced condition, but it is incompetence just the same.
The idea that any of them have been harmed is ignorance. (beside the fact that about 30% of our owners are engineers -good ones).
Only the records will tell whether that is true or not. And your record vis-a-vis truth is not so good.
I refused to let any of my friends and family support us unless they verified it was non risk money - and I have gifted much to needy friends and family.
Really? Again records would be the judge.
We never asked for money - and we always had exactly what we need to pay for parts, tests, legal fee's - tools.
So it's OK to take money under false premises if you don't spend it "lavishly"?
We did not buy cars - houses - jewelry, take vacations, or anything that would harm our ability or threaten the value of our members.
You've built an illusion on a stack of lies. There is no product. Your technology claims are false.
We built the product and the company.
........................Oh, this is new "Wayne speak". Your previous declarations were that you were both "fully funded" and were not seeking any new funds. Since the company has no source of revenue other than investors, either no investors have been cashed out, or your statement is false. The business records are again the better evidence of fact.
We "are" fully funded............... "Turnkey funded" and no investor has been paid off from other investors.
There is no future for HER / Zydro, because there is not now and never was the technology that you claim.
Paid off? you assume thay don't want to be part of our future............your mistake - your box.
The harm that has been done is your selling investment in a pipe dream that you know to be false, or are reckless in ignoring that it is false. The Acts, 1933, and 1934 do not distinguish between the two.
One day - you may realize the gross misdirection - harm done - by your good intentions - to the good people - on this web site.
No, Wayne Travis, you have no excuse. The physics is painfully simple: Gravity is conservative. You have no counter evidence.
Or not - I have always hoped your intentions may have been meant for good, but you have no excuse.
You have not made any physical discovery. You have discovered how a yarn skillfully told can separate people from their cash even when the yarn is utterly and entirely preposterous. Just as many people have fallen for scams claiming they've won a big lottery they never entered, there are people foolish enough to fall for the idea that there is free energy in a pail of water.
.......................
The gross error by critics on this subject has been "Stark faith in what was presumed "known" - and lack of due effort and discovery."
There it is! Yes, try and shift your burden of proof onto others. No Mr. Wayne you have no sausages. Just hope that isn't prophetically because someone of the temperament of Lorena Bobbitt has been burned by your shameless lies.
The demands that you be handed a operating system - after you ignored the originals, ignored original analysis, ignored replications - tells me one thing - misdirection. I am just not sure if thier is more than one puppet master leading the way.
All that you teach is the age old story that if the tale is pitched properly, some people will believe almost anything, no matter how preposterous.
Demands that you control the education - of what you did not understand - was arrogant. While you called me arrogant for trying to teach you....
That's right Wayne Travis: Stay on point. Keep insisting that you have a scientific discovery when you don't and never did. For you it's staying on message. For a prosecutor it is evidence of scienter.
HERE IS THE SAD POINT:
A fraction of the time spent slandering us, a fraction of that energy spent - would have been more than enough to share in our discover - don't give me more misdirection and excuses.
That's just what John Rohner used to say. And yet there was always more stock for sale. There still is.
The closing of the opportunity has passed.
......................."Show" being the key operative term. You can show props. You cannot show a working demonstration of the claimed technology, never could, and never will. Pails of water do not emit beams of glorious free energy from the heavens.
Yes, we are in the process of interviewing and selecting a full scale engineering team - to both develop our systems and applications, yes we have recently moved into temporary facilities while the permits for ground breaking are being processed and the 7-8 months required to build our show case facility -
That's lots of investor cash burn applied to something that you know is a lie.
As of Yesterday - we have hired 21 of our 27-28 people.
HER/Zydro cannot deliver anything to representatives of anyone. But you can sell worthless licenses and franchises to non-existent technology.
This first building will house our Management, Engineering, additional Research, legal, and training facility. It will be a show case for the visiting representatives.
That's what MediaFusion said.
Both City and state incentives have been negotiated, Both the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy, and the Oklahoma Senate has been prepared and briefed -on our discovery and progress.
Oh goody: You've found a mark with means and connections. Now, all you have to do is work out that exit strategy where the greatest thing since fire fails but not because it was always a lie. Hmmm, will it be the Men In Black? Madison Priest used the amnesia story. You can look for other story lines that have been used on day time TV.
Our Benefactor is well represented in Both the US Senate and Congress, and has an incredible legal team.
Imagine that: A politician talking up something that they do not understand. Will that senator still be your buddy when the house of cards inevitably collapses?
One Senator spoke at our company launch three weeks agp - "Oklahoma has been known for its creative Energy solutions - and now that legacy continues with ZYdro Energy."
Sure, that will happen right after JWK's systems get tied in. His investors have been waiting longer, so the JWK systems will get tied in first. Oh, and then of course the Inteligentry systems will have to be tied in first. And then hell will have to freeze over.
And yes - our facility will be grid tied - and powered by our systems - works great for the Training Department.
You're in good company: The scammer Rossi also likes to talk about his non-existent automated factories.
Our funding includes automated manufacturing - we will have another round of hiring in less than 12 months. Different locations.
There you go: Stay on message. "Get in now!" "Step right up!" "Surrender your common sense and cash before it's too late!"
This will also supply advancement opportunities for our first team members.
Why yes, it is God's blessing that you have been discovered. But that's not in the sense that you mean. "Lorena! No!"
...........................
It is only by God's blessing that we were able to survive long enough to be discovered, examined, and supported.
I know the truth: You are a shameless individual selling false dreams to gullible investors, all with your Bible in tow. You know the OT is full of stories of retribution. You better stick to the NT that focuses more on forgiveness. You will be needing to seek a lot of that.
.....................
MarkE, you have the skills - and after the replication teams - you have begun to put in effort - I hope you can handle the truth - when the realization sweeps over you.
Yes, you benefit everyday from OPM. It is difficult to say if you would be doing more harm if you didn't have access to that.
I am blessed to see it happen almost every day - it is good for the world.
Luck has little to do with physics.
How you handle that will determine much, reveal much, for you. Good luck.
And yet you have done nothing but repeat your empty talking points. There is no development.
....................
I was asked nicely - to update Overunity.com on our development.
God speed to the poor investors who have been foolish enough to believe your lies.
And that time has now been spent, God speed to all of you.
Wayne
Your spreadsheet appears to be calculating energy by a series of linear adds and subtracts based on average pressure. That yields incorrect results. Integration is necessary.
Larry, both the ZED and the "Archimedes" scheme rigidly conform to Archimedes' Principle. The fundamental problem for both the scheme using an insert and a scheme without an insert is that sloshing water around between filled and partially filled columns throws away a big percentage of the input energy. Using inserts reduces the amount of water moved around and therefore reduces the losses. A crude analogy is where one drives a car with one's foot on the brake: very inefficient, compared to driving applying less pressure on the brake: less inefficient, but still bad. There is an parallel to this situation in electronics where one charges multiple capacitors to different voltages and then connects the capacitors together. The energy relationships areas described by the same form of differential equations.
Thanks, MarkE.
Your example is using a CoE system and can never be > 100% efficiency. In my other spreadsheet for the flow between 2 Archimedes using the same energy calculations, you can change the yellow parameters all you want and it never goes over 100%. That not an override, just the math. So, If the energy calculations is the cause of >100% in the 2 Zed , I would be able to get over 100% in the 2 Archimedes system.
The only subtraction is for the Average PSI differential value. Without that the formulas would just use Pin average * Vin per cycle.
Since that seems to be causing your issue, we could remove using the differential and just compare the single Zed to the single Archimedes, where the Zed still shows a higher efficiency than the Archimedes.
The current 1Arch sheet has an input advantage and still is less efficient at 48.13% to the 1Zed at 73.76%. So I'm going to modify and resend, making the input volume the same and combining them on one sheet to make it easier to compare the two.
Hope you're willing to continue, as I'm learning a lot about the issue areas.
Larry
@mondrasek:
I may have been kidding about the color blindness (I actually have fine color vision according to Ishihara and other tests, even though my father was a deuteranope) but nevertheless I can't easily tell the Red from the Magenta when they are closely adjacent in your drawings. How about using a contrasting color for the "red" box outline?
RESEARCH INTERESTS: Geotechnical Engineering
Soil dynamics, rock mechanics, soil structure interaction, flow through porous media, constitutive laws of engineering materials (testing and modeling), mine system design and ground control, bridge approach settlements, expert systems, application of numerical techniques to complex geotechnical engineering problems, earthquake engineering, and geotechnical aspects of hazardous waste disposal.
Dear Professor Zaman,
Greetings and felicitations! I am writing on behalf of a few interested researchers who are looking into the claims of one Wayne Travis, dba "Zydro Energy LLC" located in Chickasha, OK, a short drive away from your Norman campus. Travis claims to have a mechanical, buoyancy driven system that "captures gravity" and which produces more energy output, by a large margin, than is input, and that will run itself with no input but will still produce usable "net" output energy. Needless to say, this scheme violates the law of Conservation of Energy as well as the conservative nature of the gravitational field. Travis has quite an operation going in Chickasha, he apparently has investors with deep pockets, and we are concerned that his claims might not actually be valid.
http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/)
I know you are very busy, but you may be amused by looking over this PowerPoint presentation, attached, that Travis presented to prospective investors in late 2010 or early 2011. I am wondering if you might have a stray graduate student looking for a thesis project, who may be able to look into this issue a bit more deeply. I myself cannot travel to Chickasha personally, but it may be convenient for someone from the Norman campus to go and have a look.
Thanks for your time and consideration, and I am looking forward to hearing your opinions about the claims of Wayne Travis and Zydro Energy LLC.
Sincerely, I remain
(name and contact info redacted)
aka TinselKoala
attachment: the ppt file
Mondrasek, I know you are busy today so don't feel the need to reply right away, I can wait.
Does your diagram represent your actual test system?
Koala,
if we don't get an answer to question on 131 from Wayne we can take it
as a no I would assume.
John.
Larry, both the ZED and the "Archimedes" scheme rigidly conform to Archimedes' Principle.
Larry, OK I fixed that. Because the stipulation is equal cross-section area in each column, I changed the formulas to derive the diameters with the areas fixed at 51circular inches, IE 51*pi/4. Consequently, the formulas are:
Riser area = (26^2 + 51 )*pi/4 = 570.9844647900
Vessel area = (26^2 + 2*51)*pi/4 = 611.0397711233
Riser diameter = (26^2 + 51 )^0.5 = 26.96293752543
Annular clearance = (26.96293752543 - 26)/2 = .4814687627128
Riser diameter = (26^2 + 2*51 )^0.5 = 27.89265136196
The precision of these numbers are not particularly significant once we defined the annular cavities to all have the same 51 circular inch areas and perform our calculations based on that stipulated area rather than calculated area.
Larry, 28^2/26^2. Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there. The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers: 28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area: 55/51 ~8%.
Larry, if you are about to make significant changes to your spreadsheet, then I will hold-off taking the time to go through the one you just sent.
Another point you made, that I said I would answer later. I see how you came up with 8%, but it has little relevance to the efficiency when dealing with pressure differential between 2 Zeds. FYI, I am working a clearer explanation for pressure differential energy calculations.
Larry
Larry, if you are about to make significant changes to your spreadsheet, then I will hold-off taking the time to go through the one you just sent.No effect to the one I just sent as it has no differential. It would only effect a new 2 Zed and 2 Archimedes version.
Minnie you will have to ask Larry. I guess that it means external energy added. Whenever the machine sloshes water from a high column to a lower column it loses stored energy. The whole gag has been misdirection by Wayne and company away from calculating energy values correctly over the course of a full cycle. Please see the next post.
Hi MarkE,
I've been looking at Larry's drawings and don't quite know what "flow assist" means.
I realise you're having to go back over all this stuff and more or less start again and I'm
beginning to sort of understand it.
Thankyou John.
Hi Larry,
could you please explain what is meant by "flow assist".
You show a stop to limit the travel, this would indicate that
there is stored energy to be accounted for.
Thankyou John.
The multiple connected columns require 1/3 the input Ft Lbs as the single column to have the same PSI.Oops is right Larry. You miscomputed the input work. Work is the integral of F*ds. The initial force adding your 1ft of water is zero. But the force at the end is: 4+1-2 = 3*0.65psi/ft. The added work is therefore the integral evaluation from 0 to 1ft of: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*z2 = 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*1ft2, which happens to be identically the difference between the starting and ending energies of: EINITIAL = 2*0.5*0.65psi*area*3ft2 = 18*0.5*0.65*area and EFINAL = 0.5*0.65psi*area*(12 + 22 +42) = 0.5*0.65psi*area*21.
Wouldn't it be great if someone could design a system to utilize and maintain the PSI in the multiple connected columns example.
Oops.
Oops is right Larry. You miscomputed the input work. Work is the integral of F*ds. The initial force adding your 1ft of water is zero. But the force at the end is: 4+1-2 = 3*0.65psi/ft. The added work is therefore the integral evaluation from 0 to 1ft of: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*z2 = 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*1ft2, which happens to be identically the difference between the starting and ending energies of: EINITIAL = 2*0.5*0.65psi*area*3ft2 = 18*0.5*0.65*area and EFINAL = 0.5*0.65psi*area*(12 + 22 +42) = 0.5*0.65psi*area*21.
Larry, under conditions where force changes as a function of distance (height) as it does in your example, then the integral of F*ds becomes integral(f(z)dz). The incompressible fluid in the three columns transmits pressure between each. At the end state: The right most column has a head of 4' that presses down trying to push the entire fluid volume towards the left. The middle column has a head of 2' the presses down trying to push the entire volume towards the right. The net pressure is: (4-2)ft*0.65psi/ft. The leftmost column adds one more foot of head that the input energy source has to push against. Now, the total pressure that the input source has to work against at the end is: (4-2+1)ft*0.65psi/ft = 3*0.65psi/ft. The total force at that point is: 3*0.65psi/ft*area. Therefore: the force that the input source has to work against changes from 0 to 3*0.65psi/ft*area as the input head changes from 0 to 1ft. The input energy is therefore the integral of: 3*0.65psi/ft*area/ft*z dz, evaluated from 0 to 1ft input z. That evaluates to: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area*ft in ft. lbs. work as the drawing shows. That input energy identically matches the change in stored energy from 18*0.5*0.65*area to 21*0.5*0.65*area. That is the inescapable physical reality.
MarkE,
Our Zed spreadsheet output formulas are F*ds as Force * Stroke. The input Ft Lbs formulas use P average * Volume of the fluid moving into the Pod retainer. That also increases the head in the risers.
The pressure rises faster than would account for just the input volume height, due to the riser head change. Are you now saying we have to account for the riser head change? That would be double dipping as its already factored in P average.
Larry
If you plug non-physical formulas into a calculator, spreadsheet, or computer codes, you simply create bogus results.
Larry, under conditions where force changes as a function of distance (height) as it does in your example, then the integral of F*ds becomes integral(f(z)dz). The incompressible fluid in the three columns transmits pressure between each. At the end state: The right most column has a head of 4' that presses down trying to push the entire fluid volume towards the left. The middle column has a head of 2' the presses down trying to push the entire volume towards the right. The net pressure is: (4-2)ft*0.65psi/ft. The leftmost column adds one more foot of head that the input energy source has to push against. Now, the total pressure that the input source has to work against at the end is: (4-2+1)ft*0.65psi/ft = 3*0.65psi/ft. The total force at that point is: 3*0.65psi/ft*area. Therefore: the force that the input source has to work against changes from 0 to 3*0.65psi/ft*area as the input head changes from 0 to 1ft. The input energy is therefore the integral of: 3*0.65psi/ft*area/ft*z dz, evaluated from 0 to 1ft input z. That evaluates to: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area*ft in ft. lbs. work as the drawing shows. That input energy identically matches the change in stored energy from 18*0.5*0.65*area to 21*0.5*0.65*area. That is the inescapable physical reality.
If you plug non-physical formulas into a calculator, spreadsheet, or computer codes, you simply create bogus results.
If you are having difficulty with these concepts, then I suggest looking at the situation in two places:
The incremental work that you have to do to pump in the first microinch, and the work that you have to do pumping in the last microinch. When you start the two 3 inch heads cancel the net force seen by the pump at the left most tube: F~= 0, and the work to pump in 1uinch head of fluid is also ~0. When you end, the input source is working against (virtually) the right head plus the left head less the middle head and the work is: E ~= F*s ~=3*0.65psi/ft*area*1uinch.
Larry, yes I picked up the wrong constant for water density. However, it drops out of the equations in terms of relative work. The initial stored energy is 18X 0.5*pWater*area/height, the final stored energy is 21X the same quantity, and the energy input is 3X the same quantity which is the exact difference between stored energy at the end versus the beginning. Energy is conserved. There is no gain.
MarkE,
I think you picked up my P average from the example and using it as .65psi/ft. Water is .43psi/ft. That's part of the confusion. So going from 0 to 3*.43 makes sense. But When the pressure change is linear, as in the example and simulations, the Integral resolves to Pin average * Vin, this was also stated by M. earlier. Now if you don't agree, I can write a program with your micro inch height change and calculating the force, but it should be obvious.
Larry
Larry, yes I picked up the wrong constant for water density. However, it drops out of the equations in terms of relative work. The initial stored energy is 18X 0.5*pWater*area/height, the final stored energy is 21X the same quantity, and the energy input is 3X the same quantity which is the exact difference between stored energy at the end versus the beginning. Energy is conserved. There is no gain.
Here is the drawing updated removing the specific density coefficient for water. Substitute whatever fluid for the water that you like, and plug in the corresponding density in the units of your preference. The equations still work the same way. The relative quantities do not change.
Larry comparing force or pressure with energy is a pointless exercise. They are not comparable quantities. I can get lots and lots of force and / or pressure with zero work or lots of work.
It is conservative. Never said there was a gain with the multiple connected column setup. Said that you can get the same PSI with 1/3 the input Ft Lbs (using P average * Volume). If you released, it would have the same 1/3 output Ft Lbs.
Smaller fluid volumes in and out for the same PSI reduces cycle time. Cycle time reduction increases HP. To take advantage of its properties you need a setup that can use the rise in water in the first column (Archimedes) and also use the PSI generated by the second and third columns (Riser dome).
Larry
Larry comparing force or pressure with energy is a pointless exercise. They are not comparable quantities.
The Integral of Pressure * Volume is Energy.No. You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances. Work is always the integral of F*ds. If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid. If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work. When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to: E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2.
The Integral of Pressure is equal to the average of Pstart and Pend for an incompressible fluid.
No. You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances. Work is always the integral of F*ds. If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid. If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work. When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to: E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2.
The energy is not stored in compression of the fluid for the simple reason that the fluid is incompressible. The energy is stored in the gravitational potential of the raised mass. Larry asserted that raising some cross-section by 1' to end up with the 1+2+4 configuration "cost only 1/3" of some other configuration. But it doesn't. The force went from 0 to 3X what it would have raising an isolated column by 1'. Identically, the amount of work performed was 3X that required to raise an isolated column by 1'. The force and the energy both scaled by 3X versus the isolated column. Had we done the exercise totally emptying the middle column, then the force would have gone from zero to 9X over a 3X stroke. Kf would still be 3*pWater*area, and the integral would be: 0.5*3*pWater*area*(32-0) = 27*0.5*pWater*area, IE 27X the energy of raising an isolated column by 1' and 3X the energy of raising an isolated column by 3'.
I've got a feeling if you used liquids with different sg's instead of air the thing would
work just like a hydraulic jack.
Larry, I've looked at the latest spreadsheet. There is still a good deal of work to do here. Please refer to the drawing below:
We need to either insure that the starting and ending energy states are identical, or else account for the stored energy in each state. No matter what, we do need to calculate the work added and going from each state to the next. Knowing the stored energy at all states provides a good sanity check. Please be aware that each time water equalizes from a taller single column to two or more lower columns that we lose stored energy. The drawing includes formulas for calculating stored energy under the assumptions previously stated:
20C
G0=9.80665m/s/s
zero thickness walls
25" diameter pod
26" diameter pod chamber
51 circular inch riser gap and riser head areas
No. You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances. Work is always the integral of F*ds. If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid. If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work. When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to: E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2.
The energy is not stored in compression of the fluid for the simple reason that the fluid is incompressible. The energy is stored in the gravitational potential of the raised mass. Larry asserted that raising some cross-section by 1' to end up with the 1+2+4 configuration "cost only 1/3" of some other configuration. But it doesn't. The force went from 0 to 3X what it would have raising an isolated column by 1'. Identically, the amount of work performed was 3X that required to raise an isolated column by 1'. The force and the energy both scaled by 3X versus the isolated column. Had we done the exercise totally emptying the middle column, then the force would have gone from zero to 9X over a 3X stroke. Kf would still be 3*pWater*area, and the integral would be: 0.5*3*pWater*area*(32-0) = 27*0.5*pWater*area, IE 27X the energy of raising an isolated column by 1' and 3X the energy of raising an isolated column by 3'.
No, MarkE, you are misunderstanding me. When I said:If you stick with integral of F*ds there is no room for confusion. See for example LarryC's example of 0+3+3 columns versus 1+2+4, picking pressures or average pressures and volumes easily leads to non-physical results, whereas integrating F*ds yields the correct result every time.
The Integral of Pressure * Volume is Energy,
it was in reference to the analysis of the ZED. The Volume I was referring to is that which moves into and out of the system. The input Volume is water. The output Volume is that which is encompassed by the portion of the outer riser that lifts up above the original start condition height.
Sorry I did not make that more clear. I realize you are looking at several things at once and I did not point out exactly which case I was making reference to.
Correction, noticed that the Pod Lift values wasn't squared.Larry, the height used in a calculation is the height of a single column. In your Stored energy calculations it looks like you took the water column height, subtracted one and then doubled it.
If you stick with integral of F*ds there is no room for confusion. See for example LarryC's example of 0+3+3 columns versus 1+2+4, picking pressures or average pressures and volumes easily leads to non-physical results, whereas integrating F*ds yields the correct result every time.
Larry, the height used in a calculation is the height of a single column. In your Stored energy calculations it looks like you took the water column height, subtracted one and then doubled it.
You need to track the energy in each of the four water volumes as shown in this picture that I posted previously.
Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work.
LarryC, energy is the integral of F*ds. The force that must be exerted to go from the 3+3 state changes from 0 to pWater*area*3ft of total head because the column in the middle counterbalances the column on the right, so it is the difference between those heads, plus the head that we develop in the left hand column that determines the net weight: IE force that we lift each increment of distance as we pump water into the left hand column.
MarkE,
In your multiple connected column example you used 4-2+1. The Zed is a multiple connected column based system, so why wouldn't it be Riser Head - Riser Gap Head + Pod Head.
Don't understand the 'doubled it' comment. I'm summing the fields and the -value is only used once.
Larry, pressure is no measure of work or power. I can create lots of pressure instantly without doing any work. In column K you labeled values as Stored Energy in Ft. Lbs. In row 8 you have a value of 329.63. The corresponding head is 35". The work to fill a column to 35" is: Integral F*ds = 0.5*62.316lb/cuft*0.27816sqft*(35/12)ft2 = 73.69 ft. lbs. You've calculated a value more than four times that. You need to calculate energy for all four parts that the drawing identifies:
MarkE,
Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work.
With a pump that is rated for 1 cubic foot per minutes. Then the single column would take 3 minutes and the multiple connected columns would take 1 minute to create the same PSI in each system.
"Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work."
Larry, pressure is no measure of work or power. I can create lots of pressure instantly without doing any work. In column K you labeled values as Stored Energy in Ft. Lbs. In row 8 you have a value of 329.63. The corresponding head is 35". The work to fill a column to 35" is: Integral F*ds = 0.5*62.316lb/cuft*0.27816sqft*(35/12)ft2 = 73.69 ft. lbs. You've calculated a value more than four times that. You need to calculate energy for all four parts that the drawing identifies:
Misleading statements caused Librenergia to take it out context and put his big foot in his mouth, when I know just as much about work and power as most of you and apparently with better comprehension, since most of you cannot understand how the Zed works.
Sorry. ..You have only confirmed my hypothesis.
It matters not one bit that a Zed compared with Archimedes might have different power characteristics. When you move from identical starting states to identical ending energy states only the change in energy is important, not how long it takes to transition between those two states
Consider the two statements
1. How much energy would it take to raise the Titanic from the bottom of the sea, vs
2. 'How much power would it take' to raise it.
The answer to 1 is a fixed amount irrespective of time. , The answer to 2 is 'any amount of power you happen to have available.
The ZED is no different to that scenario. Stop using power considerations to explain why the ZED 'works'. It just doesn't. Any person with even modicum of understanding of physics or engineering understands why.
LarryC, energy is the integral of F*ds. The force that must be exerted to go from the 3+3 state changes from 0 to pWater*area*3ft of total head because the column in the middle counterbalances the column on the right, so it is the difference between those heads, plus the head that we develop in the left hand column that determines the net weight: IE force that we lift each increment of distance as we pump water into the left hand column.
Larry, good if you know about energy and power, then kindly correct your spreadsheets once and for all so that they evaluate energy as the integral of F*ds. Stop using averaged pressure between multiple columns and other methods that you must know from your declaration of your personal expertise are wrong. Kindly stop uttering physically meaningless statements such as:
I am calculating energy for all four parts, you need to learn to use the Trace Dependents and Trace Precedents button. The 35 in J8 is not used anywhere, it is a visual double check for me to make sure I set the newly added Inner and Outer riser water ht correctly so they equal the original riser heads in column C. The Inner and Outer riser water ht is used in the store energy calculation.
Never said pressure is a measure of work or power. You would have known, I was talking about the multiple connected columns is the basis for the Zed design as I have stated many time. The PSI is used in the Risers the same as in a pneumatic cylinder and does create Work during the stroke. Getting the PSI up and down with less input volume is key to increased Power.
In the spreadsheet the volume input to get to Ready to Stroke is 22 for the Zed and 81.02 for the Archimedes and the Output Ft Lbs is 33.55% greater for the Zed. Based on the fact that it would take much longer for a pump to ready the Archimedes than for the Zed, the Zed will cycle faster. Cycle faster increases Work done over time or Power.
Misleading statements caused Librenergia to take it out context and put his big foot in his mouth, when I know just as much about work and power as most of you and apparently with better comprehension, since most of you cannot understand how the Zed works.
Getting the PSI up and down with less input volume is key to increased Power.
Larry, good if you know about energy and power, then kindly correct your spreadsheets once and for all so that they evaluate energy as the integral of F*ds. Stop using averaged pressure between multiple columns and other methods that you must know from your declaration of your personal expertise are wrong. Kindly stop uttering physically meaningless statements such as:
If you understand energy then you know that there isn't any stored in an incompressible fluid. You should also know that pressure and volume are meaningful with respect to energy only under special conditions. You should also know that power is not a measure of energy. You should know that energy is the integral of F*ds. So since based on your claimed expertise you know better, please cut the BS.
MarkE,
Testy, I gave you your Stored Energy calculations, the other calculation are for working field engineers so they won't be removed.
I knew when the Stored Energy calculations didn't help you explain the 33.55% increase, you would have to find some other excuse not to admit the Zeds excess output, which is BTW calculated as Force * Stroke.
So thanks for your time, you have helped in a lot of ways. As a business, we are trying to increase Horsepower in the Zed and you may have inadvertently helped.
Larry
Our engineers have a lot more than a modicum of knowledge and with the ability to comprehend the Zed.
You should go back and review what has been posted and than make some knowledgeable statements, instead of trying to show off with these simpleton examples.
Larry, you can toy with the power all you want. What you can't do is deliver excess energy. You've got formulas in your spreadsheet that are flat wrong. There is no excess energy in that system: not 1% not 33%, zero, zip, nada, de novo. Once again: Energy is the integral of F*ds. Only in the special case where F is constant does that evaluate to F*s. In these devices where water is being pumped in and out of columns, F is not constant, and energy is not F*s. If you are still unclear on that point then I have not helped enough.
I'd like to ask these engineers to reveal themselves.
If in fact they exist and belong to any professional or governmental body that attests to their competence to hold the title 'Engineer', I'd like to formally complain to that body as to their competence to continue practising in that capacity.
They should be ashamed of themselves for believing such nonsense.
They do exist, but why would they be ashamed of having better comprehension abilities than you. You should be wondering why you don't have the ability to comprehend the system.
Yes indeed Larry: flat wrong, even in your latest spreadsheet you labeled a column "Stored Energy in Ft Lbs" that calculates values that do not represent such values. That is indeed: flat wrong.
MarkE,
Flat wrong?
No Larry, it is not common sense and it is incompetent for an engineer, particularly a hydraulic engineer to say that P average * V equals energy without qualifying that to very limited circumstance that do not apply here. Use the wrong formula in the wrong circumstances and get the wrong result. Insist upon doing that after having pointed out is just incompetence or worse.
It has always amazed me about the Physicist wannabees on this site that think they know better than actual working engineers including a hydraulic engineer. They do use P average * V and F average * stroke when P or F is linear, that is just common sense.
No Larry, each incorrect calculation I have pointed out was in fact wrong. You still insist on relying upon the same invalid premises to obtain the same invalid results.
So, what is wrong with the Stored Energy calculations that I added for you. Every time you said a calculation was in error, I've had to explain to you why it was correct.
State where it is now incorrect and I'll fix or explain why it is correct, then you can tell all why there is no excess energy.We have been through this before: The stored energy in each of the four columns is separately obtained by integrating F*ds for the respective columns. The work applied is obtained by integrating F*ds applied to the input. You can insist on using incorrect methods and get the resulting incorrect results all day long. And as the time has come and gone to show that the supposed results are correct in a physical embodiment HER / Zydro of which you count yourself a member have seen that the embodiments do not reflect the results of the calculations you show.
I trained as a professional mechanical engineer at a reputable university for 4 years. I don't claim to be an engineer now however as my speciality is software development. During the time I studied engineering however I developed more than enough comprehension to understand why the ZED system cannot possibly work as claimed.Any shareholder who relied on the expressed opinion of a professional engineer for their decision to invest in HER/Zydro can sue that engineer for professional negligence.
I will state again, Any professional engineer would agree with me that this machine does not work as claimed. Those who disagree could only be described as manifestly incompetent to retain the title 'Engineer'.
So I reiterate, who are these engineers and to what professional or regulatory bodies are they affiliated? It's time for them to put their reputations on the line.
Here is LarryC's latest spreadsheet with decomposition and reduction. Larry is free to defend the physical basis he thinks justifies his model.
So can someone please tell me what _exactly_ is meant by "FLOW ASSIST" ... ?
Some of the Pressure left in a first ZED at the end of its "power stroke" is allowed to "Free Flow" to a second ZED that is at the bottom of its stroke and therefore at a lower Pressure. This equalizes the Pressure between the two ZEDs and requires no additional Energy. But it does not bring the second ZED up to the full Pressure necessary to perform its "power stroke." So additional Energy is required and is called the "Flow Assist." The Energy for the "Flow Assist" is a recycled portion of the excess energy that is supposed to be harvested during each "power stroke" where the rising ZED is pumping fluid under pressure into a hydraulic accumulator. The harvesting portion of the system is not being shown in the spreadsheets currently being analyzed, AFAIK.
Uh-huh. So what part of pumping fluid into a hydraulic accumulator and getting it back out is "overunity"? You get the same work out from an accumulator as you put into it, minus losses. Did you check out the PDF file I linked to up above (or maybe in the other thread, this is pretty silly having this discussion in two threads.) I think, based on that PDF, that hydraulic systems are pretty darn well understood, and in fact in that PDF you will find illustrations of every individual piece of any Zed system that I have ever seen diagrammed, with the proper equations to compute pressures, volumes, flow rates..... and, after page 33, ENERGIES.
So to get more work out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, you will need to supply some outside source. It really sounds to me like you need to get more _volume_ out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, and that situation will not last very long.... and the longest _confirmed_ reported run of any of Travis's devices that I can find is only about four hours.
It is obvious that the need for "flow assist" means that the output of the single Zed is not OU. So where does the pressure for the "flow assist" come from ON THE INITIAL CYCLE? The only possible places I can identify are from the pre-charge, which will eventually run out, or from outside the system. And the "flow assist" only resets the second zed back to the start condition, right? So _where_ is the excess whatever coming from? Do the zeds create fluid volume out of nothing?
That's why I asked my question about the Heron's Fountain that was ignored. If a small Heron's Fountain with 100 mL reservoirs will pump a head to, say, 10 cm above the highest level in the reservoirs, and continue doing that for, say, about a minute, as mine do.... what would happen if you had reservoirs of 10,000 liters, elevated by 5 meters above your reference level? How long would you expect it to run, pumping a head of, say, 1 meter? Long enough to impress the money, er, "heck" out of the observers? I've had educated people accuse me of faking Heron's Fountain runs on the tabletop system, it is so unbelievable to them.
TK, the only way a ZED system could work, IMHO, is if a single ZED somehow is able to produce more Energy output than it is supplied Energy input.That seems right to me, unless extra energy is added from outside. Since the Zed system on the first cycle needs "flow assist" for the system to reset to the start state.... well, that in itself proves that the single Zed is not OU enough to complete the action on its own.
And that is what I started this thread to check for. You keep citing the known behavior of conservative hydraulic systems. Presumably because you are convinced that a ZED is acting as a simple hydraulic cylinder (under ideal conditions).No, a _compound_ hydraulic cylinder, full of Red Herrings swimming around inside, all of which will be found to obey real physics.
But I don't know why you lot are fiddling around with Travis Employee LarryC's dualzed spreadsheet. We have been told by his employer, you may recall, that a SINGLE ZED is already OU by itself, and that there _exists_ a three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself. Why are you lot not analyzing THAT simple system to see if Travis's claims about it are true?
So are you saying that your three layer system is the same one that Travis refers to in the famous quote? It isn't something _he has_, a real tangible object, but is actually only something that exists in the spreadsheet you have calculated?
hi larryHi Marsing,
did you scale the pod height ,water height, .. etc in this picture?
Hi,
the reference to hydraulic accumulator is a load of crap. You can't store energy in a
non compressible fluid. Hydraulic accumulators are gas or spring sort of things and are
used to even out the flow in systems. I suppose a water tower is a type of hydraulic
accumulator, but look at how high you have to pump the water to be able to store an
appreciable amount of energy.
John.
Larry, you can easily just plug in the final formulas into a pair of cells, referencing the corresponding source cells and see that you get the same answers so long as you don't muck around with the ring diameters / gaps.
MarkE,
Impressive. I'm not anal enough to review, unless someone brings up an issue. If anyone would like to check, it is easy to see all the formulas at once in excel by pressing Ctrl`. The accent is next to the 1 key.
Some of the Pressure left in a first ZED at the end of its "power stroke" is allowed to "Free Flow" to a second ZED that is at the bottom of its stroke and therefore at a lower Pressure. This equalizes the Pressure between the two ZEDs and requires no additional Energy. But it does not bring the second ZED up to the full Pressure necessary to perform its "power stroke." So additional Energy is required and is called the "Flow Assist." The Energy for the "Flow Assist" is a recycled portion of the excess energy that is supposed to be harvested during each "power stroke" where the rising ZED is pumping fluid under pressure into a hydraulic accumulator. The harvesting portion of the system is not being shown in the spreadsheets currently being analyzed, AFAIK.As has been shown several times, allowing fluid to flow from a column filled to some height H1 to a second column H2 such that the ending heights equalize at an intermediate height H3 loses energy. For the HER/Zydro claims that creates a deficit that they then would have to overcome with whatever it is that is supposed to be over unity in their process. Unfortunately for HER/Zydro, there is nothing over unity in their process.
The comedy here is that Wayne Travis, Red_Sunset et-al claim to have a found a way to breach the conservative nature of gravity. No spreadsheet that relies on gravity being conservative, IE treats the GPE of a mass the same based on its height the same no matter what its history of getting to that height happens to be, is going to show such a non-conservative behavior. So in order to buy into the cult's promise of 72 ever flowing water towers one first has to find a demonstration of this non-conservative gravity claim. No one at HER / Zydro has, or ever will come up with such a demonstration.
Hi,
let's try a little mind experiment. Say you had to stake your life on either the laws of
physics being right or Travis's Overunity being true?
I know which option I'd plump for, which would you choose?
John.
I feel that it's pretty much over here. Not one fact has been offered from HER or it's
supporters to substantiate the OU. claim.
Hi Mondrasek,
are you claiming verifiability? If you can we'll call it a fact. Do you know of
anyone else who has proven OU. with this device?
John.
"John", anytime you would like to discuss the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED I would be pleased to engage further. However, your present course of questioning takes us off topic and onto the path that TK is also inclined to head down. That path is this argument: If the Physics premise is true, then why have we not seen the Physical Representation of a Functioning Device released? Ergo, if no Physical Representation of a Functioning Device, then the premise to build one must be false.Monderasek, there are two ways to go about a discovery: Show it in theory or experiment. HER/Zydro have claimed to have working apparatus for years. HER/Zydro claimed that they had their instrumented data collection unit cranking away two years ago. They were to install that 50kW unit at the church three years ago. Wayne says he has all the money HER/Zydro need. Yet the experiments do not happen. Any math that is applied to a problem must be based on underlying assumptions of the physical rules that must be enforced. First principles dictate that energy is conserved. That then becomes the verification mechanism for any mathematical analysis. That means that for practice and purpose the analysis can stop before it begins, because any conservation violation will be treated as an error that needs to be tracked down.
That argument is a "chicken or the egg" type of thing, isn't it? Ie. Which comes first, the Mathematical proof of an exploitable Physics phenomenon, or the product (or video?) which shows the utility of that phenomenon for the first time?
I am claiming that the math does not support the preconception that an ideal ZED performs identical to an ideal Hydraulic Cylinder. I have requested from this forum that others check it out for themselves and either show me the error of my math and/or methods or confirm the same findings. This process is similar to what is known as "Peer Review."
I have openly become an exposed target for proclaiming what I have presented so far. Feel free to shoot me down. Please do it in the language of Science: Mathematics.
M.
Hello Monderask,It's good for anyone to do such a thing. It's not something HER/Zydro seem interested in publishing.
Keep up the good work - a true Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.............
Great focus.
Wayne
Monderasek, there are two ways to go about a discovery: Show it in theory or experiment. HER/Zydro have claimed to have working apparatus for years. HER/Zydro claimed that they had their instrumented data collection unit cranking away two years ago. They were to install that 50kW unit at the church three years ago. Wayne says he has all the money HER/Zydro need. Yet the experiments do not happen. Any math that is applied to a problem must be based on underlying assumptions of the physical rules that must be enforced. First principles dictate that energy is conserved. That then becomes the verification mechanism for any mathematical analysis. That means that for practice and purpose the analysis can stop before it begins, because any conservation violation will be treated as an error that needs to be tracked down.
HER/Zydro make the extraordinary and non-physical claims that they:
Generate free energy,
Generate free energy by violating the conservative nature of gravity,
Generate free energy by lifting and dropping weights in quantities that are orders of magnitude off if they simply dropped the weights.
HER/Zydro face the burden of showing not just any, but all of the above. The fact is that they cannot show any of the above. They cannot show under any circumstance that they can carry a weight through a closed path and end up with more gravitational potential energy when they return to a starting point than when they left. In other words: They cannot show their claimed violation of the conservative nature of gravity. Since by their own claims they rely on that supposed breach as their energy source, they are stuck on the free energy point. And the last point is simple arithmetic.
I checked the results before I posted. They agree with the spreadsheet to five digits. The 51 is the constant annular ring area expressed in circular inches that you agreed to use: IE the area of the annular gap between the pod and the innermost ring wall. 40.06 is what you get when you convert from circular inches to square inches, which the constant K1 rolled-up along with the density of water.
MarkE,
You guys really need to wait for results.
It took a while to figure out the parenthesis problem in your output formula, creating unbelievable output. Attached, shows your results from your new reduction formulas. I did make some changes as the 51 was your constant, but the spreadsheet was using 40.06. Also the Pod Channel area is not 676 SI, but 530 SI.
Bottom line, your calculations increased the efficiency of the Zed from 66.14% to 81.84%. Don't believe it increased, so there must be an issue. Please check.
After we correct this issue, you need to send your Archimedes formulas to compare the two efficiency's.
The Mondrasek three layer ZED.
Yes, Virginia using incompressible fluids it behaves just like the serpentine hydraulic piston that it is.
One must take into account a couple of key points:
1) The increasing area of the annular rings means that there is force gain from the innermost annular ring to all other annular rings. So, when pumping water into the inner most ring, the so called pod chamber, while we displace a like weight in each of the other chambers due to using incompressible fluids, the weight that reflects back to the inner most ring decreases as we move out. The total force that opposes the input energy source at the end of filling 37mm is the weight of the 37mm added to the innermost ring plus the loss of the same weight as a counterbalance in AR2 times the area ratio of AR1/AR2, plus the same weight times the area ratio of AR1/AR3, etc out to AR7.
2) The correct energy values are always obtained by integrating F*ds. When we do this, we get 3.412mJ total stored energy in the various water columns at the end of the first state where we fill annular rings 2-7 up to 32.5mm high.
3) The added energy required to pump 37mm of head into AR1 works out to 2.099mJ. This is identically the difference between the 3.412mJ stored at the end of the first state and the energy that one obtains by calculating and summing the stored energy in each of the annular rings at the end of State 2: 5.5111mJ. IOW, ignoring things like friction loss, the device is completely conservative pumping water in. Gravity has not been cheated.
4) Releasing the risers and allowing them to rise causes the the water levels in the various annular rings to move towards equalized heights. As I have already shown, anytime we take two columns one filled higher than the other and allow them to move towards equalization, we lose energy to heat.
MarkE, thank you for double checking everything up to this point. I'm glad that we agree so far.Are you saying that you agree with the analysis through State 2? It is OK if you don't, but I will then want to know specifically what you object against.
MarkE, you did not finish the test. And I must insist that you do. Because it is only when again measuring the Energies AFTER the lift that I am finding things do not add up. And, unfortunately, the rise (stroke) is the hardest part (for me at least) to calculate. I cannot simply calculate the final resting position that the ZED will rise to if allowed to do so where all the buoyant forces induced by the water charge sum to zero. I would have to do this iteratively and it would take forever. You and LarryC would probably write a VBA program to do that. I lack that ability.
So I took a different approach: I ASSUMED first that all the added Energy from the input charge would convert to motion of the outer riser by F*ds. I then re-drew the ZED model with that exact amount of rise and re-distributed the water. If all the added Energy had been converted to motion of the outer riser then the sum of the buoyant forces in the system should be zero at that state. When I did that analysis the sum of the buoyant forces was NOT zero. It was a positive value that meant the ZED would need to rise even further.
I checked the results before I posted. They agree with the spreadsheet to five digits. The 51 is the constant annular ring area expressed in circular inches that you agreed to use: IE the area of the annular gap between the pod and the innermost ring wall. 40.06 is what you get when you convert from circular inches to square inches, which the constant K1 rolled-up along with the density of water.
Maybe you are not familiar with the concept of circular area units. They get used in power electronics quite a bit. A circular area unit is the area a square would take that has the width of a given circle's diameter. The relationship between circular area and absolute area is: absolute area = circular area * pi/4. With a pod of 25" diameter, the circular area is 252 = 625. The ring wall at 26" diameter is 262 = 676. The area difference is of course the sum of the two diameters = 51 circular inches. We can work in these more convenient units throughout the problem before applying the common constants pi/4 and the density of water, and our conversion from cubic inches volume and inches height to cubic feet and feet height.
My reduction simply reproduced the net total of the spreadsheet formulas in algebraic form.
Are you saying that you agree with the analysis through State 2? It is OK if you don't, but I will then want to know specifically what you object against.
You have stipulated that the pods and risers are massless. Unless you specified some sort of payload someplace that I missed, going from State 2 to State 3 therefore does no work, but we know that it is lossy, because any increase in the internal volume requires the water columns to move towards equalization. The cylinder volume from the Riser 3 OD inward increases only at the expense of a reduced water column in AR7. Water volume from AR7 and AR6 go towards equalization, as do AR5 and AR4, and AR3 and AR2. The internal volume can increase no more than the ratio of the area of riser3 to the entire area including AR7 multiplied by the water volume added in State 2. And we know that equalizing columns is a lossy process. So before I go off to show the specific changes going to a State 3, I need more information from you about what useful work you intend this thing to do going from State 2 to State 3. As long as it can be shown that work is less than the energy loss going between those two states, then the machine is lossy.
Our design requires three layers to be equal to or better than a Hydraulic cylinder.
But let me say - a single Zed system can demonstrate a gain over the operating cost
Let's see you reconcile those two quotations from you, Travis.
Let's see you reconcile those two quotations from you, Travis.
TK, MarkE and I are currently working through the analysis of a SINGLE ZED that is composed of THREE LAYERS.
I think that Wayne drops in once in a while to try to do some damage control. He desperately wants this this thread to create the illusion that the Zed is real and his company is real for the true hard-core rabid believers.
MH, I disagree. From what I can tell, Mr. Wayne drops in to encourage us to finish the Mathematical Analysis. I have done mine. I was surprised. I asked for a double check. And I still wait for that double check to be completed.
You, or anyone else, are welcome to perform a double check. Now that MarkE has performed and presented his analysis right up to the final step(s), and I have confirmed that his results conform to my own, you could skip those steps and just pick it up from there.
The results I have found, if corroborated by anyone, would definitely require a triple, and even a quadruple check!
I agree with your analysis through State 2. Everything adds up exactly as I also found.It all depends on what one wishes to determine.
I utilized the same analysis method for the output rise as was used for the input of the water charge: F*ds as expressed for the case of a Volume of a Fluid that is being moved by a change in Pressure that either starts or ends at zero: Paverage*V. The riser initially will want to move with a Pressure that can be calculated from the buoyant force sum of the pod and risers. That Pressure should drop linearly to zero as the ZED reaches equilibrium at the end of the rise. The physical device that would restrain the initial Pressure and allow it to drop to zero while performing the rise is not important for the analysis I think. Please let me know if you think otherwise.
Great Work Mark E and Monderask.Engineers "jumped to your conclusion". You are a hoot. The seemingly effortless way that you continue to shamelessly keep suggesting that you have something behind your tattered curtain is really awesome.
You have worked thru the Math to properly analyzed the "Ideal charge"
That deserves a victory Lap for the Math so Far - well done.
Again - Great work thru the first step.
Note to Mark, "Ideal charge" is great for Monderask's question.
It is incorrect to use that state of a ZED or Marks stated operation as any conclusion, you have one wheel on the Gravity Wagon so far..Smile
p.s. Don't feel bad - almost every engineer jumped to your conclusion - you will get it soon.
Wayne
To All,Wayne Travis you do not speak for me. Larry's spreadsheet remains broken. The analysis above shows that there is no gain to be had with the serpentine piston. As soon as we release the device, we lose energy that we paid. There is no sign of over unity. There are only losses.
The drawing all lend confusion to our process.
Non show a static load - we used Hydraulic resistance as the load - above the risers.
This resulted in a state where the charge to lift a load is balanced - once buoyancy to load neutral is reached - any additional input resulted in overcoming the resistance and resulted in stroke and output.
Also important to understand - at the end of the desired stroke - a mechanical stop is used to keep the precharge and stroke input from being released.
In effect - the load was removed during stroke, and then the precharge and stroke input recaptured.
As Webby described - we invented several methods to improve the value of that re use of the precharge and stroke input.
- The Video Mark Dansie took - we recaptured 57% of the input. (was our first three layer ZED system)
This resulted in a simple input reduction to the over all process.
The comparisons to a Hydraulic cyclnder - which Larry has shown - is for one simple realization.
When we configure the ZED to upstroke loaded - with the same or better value than a simple hydraulic cylnder - and then re-use any portion of that input - the result is a input reduction.
Just as Fletcher described.
Our design requires three layers to be equal to or better than a Hydraulic cylinder.
The seal less jack comparison - with resuse is simple and clear - it continues to surprise me - that the men who slander me - won't see that.
............
Larry and Mark have agreed that a single layer and pod system is in the 60%'s area, I agree.
Watch what happens when you add two and then three - you can stop at three if you like - but you do not have to. smile
............
It took three minutes to realize the value of the ability to recycle input in a ZED system......... no magic, no fuss, no agenda.
Just good hard work.
Wayne
MarkE,Who cares how much less horrific one scheme is than another? The HER/Zydro claim is for a gain in energy. No such gain occurs. Do you drive your car around with the emergency brake on? Do you get excited about a huge boost in gas mileage when you release the emergency brake?
Added the Integral F*ds for the Archimedes and they also agree with the original spreadsheet results. So we still have a 33.55% efficiency increase for the Zed over the Archimedes that needs to be explained.[size=78%] [/size]
The majority of people coming to learn about the Zed would not understand your math approach and would think that we were trying to fool them. But they do easily understand concepts like buoyancy, pressure, force, volume, water levels, etc., which can be used in simple easy to understand math formula. A few that come, will like you, insist on Integrating F*ds and now I understand that we need to have that available. So, thank you for the heads up.
Larry
Wayne Travis you do not speak for me. Larry's spreadsheet remains broken. The analysis above shows that there is no gain to be had with the serpentine piston. As soon as we release the device, we lose energy that we paid. There is no sign of over unity. There are only losses.
It all depends on what one wishes to determine.
1) Since we agree that there is no energy gain going between State1 and State2, we have established that the "ideal Zed" you have set-up can only do something that you find interesting by buoying the risers and pod.
2) The risers and the pod have zero mass, so no energy is gained by their increase in height.
3) Buoyancy force is just acceleration due to gravity operating on fluids.
4) Gravity acts conservatively on any mass independent of state: solid, liquid, gas, plasma.
5) Now that you are using the integral of F*ds, you know that as soon as we release the risers, that the stored energy will go down.
Do you agree with all of that or not?
I think that Wayne drops in once in a while to try to do some damage control. He desperately wants this this thread to create the illusion that the Zed is real and his company is real for the true hard-core rabid believers. Hence he himself, Red_Sunset and LarryC always try to imply that everything is real with their cynical manipulative use of the English language. Where else could Wayne possibly get money? It's only from the hard-core rabid believers with deep pockets. Think of the people that built replications of the Mylow "motor." There was one wealthy person that was paying a machine shop to build his replication.
There is gold in them thar hills and Wayne wants that gold.
I will repeat again, I am so creeped out by his fake quasi North Korean "Leader" persona mixed in with the all of the religious jargon and fake preaching. Big Wayne is going to give you sausages and soothe your soul. Eeeeek!!!
So you must be building away in secret then, so that you will be the FIRST actually to show on a real system, more output work than input work, and a real self-runner. Certainly nobody on Travis's payroll can do that much.
And let's not even mention the little incident involving calculations that brought you and me together in the first place, shall we?
MarkE, I agree with all of it except for your statement #5. And that is because I have done the math and did not find those expected results for this unique construction (ZED). I would fully have expected your statement to hold true due to my training and experience (and knowledge of history). But I could not find the classical expected result to present itself. And so I did, and still do, ask for a double check of the analysis of this 3-layer ZED model.Mondrasek, take two columns and connect them with a pipe at the bottom. For the moment we will use identical cross-sections only for simplicity of the illustration. Now, fill each of the columns to a height H1 and calculate the stored energy:
LarryC you obviously have not been paying attention. But since you now agree that the algebraic reduction is correct, feel free to try and justify that those equations represent the physics. If you succeed you fail, because by your own words they do not yield even close to unity. And if you fail you establish that for all your claimed expertise you still have not modeled the system correctly.
MarkE,
Where is it broken now? You've proved that our Engineering calculations that you been saying were wrong, are correct, as they match your Integral F*ds calculations.
Engineers "jumped to your conclusion". You are a hoot. The seemingly effortless way that you continue to shamelessly keep suggesting that you have something behind your tattered curtain is really awesome.
Thanks Mark,Wayne Travis, it's awesome that you misrepresent so freely. Your claims of excess energy and breaches of conservative behavior by gravity are in fact completely unevidenced falsehoods. You choose to ignore what has already been proven. That's a big sign of scienter.
I have warned you that our system is counter intuitive - and you are trusting your intuitive - and it is good - Not the best I have seen - you get lock jaw when you trust in what you already know - is making you blind.
Richard is one of the best - and when he found what he thought was a dead end - he said - How did you get around "this" and he learned the system very quickly.
Jumping to conclusions is a big mistake........... and I believe - that is why our system eluded the world.
The Math will reveal the truth, Keep up the good work.
.....................................
You do not need me - you are on the right path to either conclusion.
Wayne
Wayne Travis you do not speak for me. Larry's spreadsheet remains broken. The analysis above shows that there is no gain to be had with the serpentine piston. As soon as we release the device, we lose energy that we paid. There is no sign of over unity. There are only losses.
Mondrasek, take two columns and connect them with a pipe at the bottom. For the moment we will use identical cross-sections only for simplicity of the illustration. Now, fill each of the columns to a height H1 and calculate the stored energy:
Right you are - my bad for the inclusion..There is not and never was net energy. You can tell that lie all you want. It has never had any evidentiary support. It is a bald-faced lie.
You have a one track mind - what you think the end is going to be..........
Get to the end of the Math - show the errors - everyone is appreciative.
The end is a three layer dual ZED system - Net Energy.
They are both figments of the imagination.
The new end of discussion will be; What is the Difference between a Non conservative Net Energy system and O/U.
Any engineer who believes your lies needs to go back to school.
That difference is what required our engineers to rethink of the black box.
Hey maybe Bubba will be calling you something else in a cozy 6'x9' for two. Only time will tell.
We let people call it what they understand - for now.
Wayne
No, MarkE. I will only discuss the Analysis of the unique construction of the ZED that you have participated in so kindly so far.Do I understand you to be saying that you refuse to discuss basic physics as it directly applies to your example? Your example in going from State 2 to State 3 moves the water columns towards equalization, does it not? The same physics applies to each pair of annular rings divided by a riser wall as it does to my example, does it not?
M.
Do I understand you to be saying that you refuse to discuss basic physics as it directly applies to your example? Your example in going from State 2 to State 3 moves the water columns towards equalization, does it not? The same physics applies to each pair of annular rings divided by a riser wall as it does to my example, does it not?
There is not and never was net energy. Only time will tell.
Let us presume for a while that the mathematical analysis as presented by LarryC is correct, in that it shows an energy increase or identically speaking a 'reduction in input' over a full cycle.
1. The first point would be to qualify that 'an energy increase' is in fact the same as a 'reduction in input', and simply a matter of semantics as to where you consider the lowest energy state of the cycle to be. I'd be interested in Wayne or LarryC's comment to that.
If the above is agreed, then question then becomes, where did this energy increase during the cycle come from? It must be transferred from somewhere, unless you are going to challenge the first Law that states energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nowhere have I seen a coherent explanation of this process.
We have claims of non-conservative gravity. This would imply lifting some mass was somehow easier when inside a ZED compared with outside of it. Certainly one can use levers to achieve lower force requirement but this is at the expense of displacement so we would expect in a conservative field such as gravity that the energy requirement remains constant.
If it works, then the ZED must break that symmetry. No where have I seen coherent explanation as to how this occurs within the ZED.
Does it somehow 'modify gravity' locally? From all accounts the machine doesn't becoming lighter while working, the workers are not floating away while working on it and I don't think Wayne is claiming that this is the working principle, so we can discount this.
So, from the agreed starting point given in point 1. I'd like LarryC or Wayne to provide a coherent explanation of how that happens. The description must explicitly state how and where the energy increase occurs. It cannot contain reference to time-based quantities such as power, as that is only valid when certain conditions are true that cause time to be eliminated from the math.
Perhaps, when this explanation is offered, we can then use mathematics to model JUST that process, as it is the only interesting part of the machine cycle.
Hi,
thank you mrwayne for answering my question- by not answering!
Now I feel I have enough information from Mondrasek and MarkE
to be able to have a crack at the maths myself. It'll take me some
time but between us we'll get to the bottom of it in the end.
John
I appreciate your turn and tone from trying to discredit our engineers - to asking a good question.
I think Monderask is taking a logical and clear method.
With the proper Math - of the whole system - opinions are not part of the equation.
Thanks Wayne
MarkE, I am refusing anything but to discuss the MATH. That is the only thing that matters, AFAIKS.Mondrasek I have presented you with math that irrefutably describes the physics. It is a fluid model. The added fluid volume redistributes across the cross section. The incompressible water and "air" then redistribute accordingly. There is no need for iterative calculations. Ordinary algebra yields the values. However, the character of the result is already known. Yet, you refuse to discuss that indisputable fact.
Principals of basic physics can be discussed later. But first, please finish your math when you can. Also, I am happy to help out since the volume changes in each annulus due to the changing height of the risers gave me a pause (once again). Luckily I had encountered that issue a few years ago in the original discussion on this subject and was able to quickly recover again due to my previous "learning curve." I'm happy to share that knowledge if it would expedite your own learning curve. And, of course, I have no doubts that you can get by the tricky part that I found! But the offer stands if it is useful.
Am I confused or what?Gravity is indeed "Always on", and contrary to your false claims it is always conservative.
I thought you were just a simple farmer who had friends that did the math you could not understand? ;)
p.s. trying to create stories to support your other stories - is just.... TK (thats "Thumb Knitting" - or sock puppetry).
Gravity is Always on :)
Wayne
Gravity is indeed "Always on", and contrary to your false claims it is always conservative.
TK, I see no reason why you keep making things like this up, and stating them in the form of a fact that you will repeat as true unless some "proof" is given that they are false.
TK, you can bring up the "mondrasek wheel" (please Google it if you want to see it everybody) anytime you please. But it appears you are trying to "shame" me for a mistake from my past, rather than discuss the Mathematical Analysis. And you have tried that before. And the last time you did so I think I was open and transparent about what happened during that occasion as well. So why the thinly veiled threat again? I openly admit I made a mistake then and that you were instrumental in helping me realize that fact. I have thanked you multiple times for helping me to find the error in what first brought me to OU.com and "Energy research" in the first place. So, what of it?
Just finish the Math....... I don't expect anything or ask anything else from you.
and No, You are not done - you just set the simple baseline.
Stay on Subject.
More fake creepy pseudo social engineering from sinister minister Wayne.The hilarious part is that actually doing the math, which I have and is presented above in clear, easily audited form, refutes Wayne Travis' false claims. The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel. One puts energy into it, gets no work out, and then has to replenish the lost energy. It does make a little heater. A piece of resistance wire is a lot cheaper.
He has the answer but he won't tell you, you have to work for it. Sure. Join the Wayne Drone Club and work hard for your secret decoder ring. You all were born with and suffer from the sin of not knowing. You are not worthy but keep working. Eeeek!
Lets score:
People who independently built ZED's and then analyzed to understand the system - are trying to share with the ones that would rather not.
And you have what to offer?
..........................................OK
Got it.
Wayne
Oh, it can go on for much longer. Remember Sean McCarthy and Steorn, 25 million Euro burn over five or six years, nothing delivered, five or six different iterations, a flat-packable Ikea-stocked Orbo (just kidding about that one), e-orbo, SSOrbo, kinetica toy, all of that? A couple of genuine red herrings too, the Core Effect pulse motor and the magnetic bearings, improper use of test equipment to produce misleading results.... a secret inner circle private Steorn Knowledge Base club with layers like an onion .... he's still running around from pub to pub in Dubalin-town and has changed products, or rather imaginary products again.... and is burning still more cash with no end in sight.I don't dispute that. Some scams go on for many years. Then again others get ripe enough and guys with badges and guns visit and they are in no mood for coffee and donuts.
So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3. Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem? Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3? Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors? Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?
The hilarious part is that actually doing the math, which I have and is presented above in clear, easily audited form, refutes Wayne Travis' false claims. The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel. One puts energy into it, gets no work out, and then has to replenish the lost energy. It does make a little heater. A piece of resistance wire is a lot cheaper.
Lastly - the Hydro Assist is the external input - which can be powered by the Production.Is there really any need to say more?
Monderask - I hope you do not mind,The math simply shows the physics that has been known for over two millennia. It is the same physics that proves you are selling lies for cash.
MarkE,
The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.
With you it is always acting.
I will act as you were never told the states - for sake of time.
So many words you utter, so much attempt you make to distract with utter bull shit. Nothing you have shown or can show will result in an energy gain from cyclically lifting and dropping weights. The "Ideal ZED" as Mondrasek has laid it out is a less than useless machine that expends energy while doing no useful work. It is an allegory for what investor funds in your sham companies do: No useful work.
So lets get your states set up, and in order.
...........
Conditions
ZED A Sunk remaining head due to riser weight and any added weight - ZED A will be the receiving ZED,
ZED B is at the end of delivering a load and in the raised position - and was not allowed to Bob up after the load was removed.
.................
State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
p.s. Adding weight is counter intuitive - most people assume adding weight induces losses
Lesson to be learned - trying to achieve Ideal usage results in self determined conservative process.
The next state is post free flow - this is where the other ZED A and B have equalized between the stroked ZED and the sunk ZED. No riser movement in either ZED - only fluid and pressure.
Note: Free flow results in equalized pressure - but not equalized volume.
The next State is changing from Free flow too "precharge"
Full precharge is the end of the state between free flow and enough buoyancy to nuetralize the determined load and no riser movement either ZED.
The process to get to the full precharge state - two inputs are utilized :
One - the continued consumption of pressure from the ZED B - and the hydro assist.
The hydro assist adds enough pressure - that when combined with the exhuast from the other ZED - reaches load neutrality (buoyancy). This is full precharge for ZED A.
Note: ZED B will not sink until the stored head has dropped below nuetrality of the risers and any added weight.
The Hydro Assist continues to be combined with the Pressure from ZED B - the input cost is the differance between the sinking ZED pressure and the stroking pressure required.
The next state is the Production Stroke of ZED A. ZED A stroking and ZED B sunk is the first half of a Dual ZED cycle - the process repeats in the other direction - notice I did not say reverses.
.................
To understand Stroke - you must determine both the proper load and the proper stroke.
The proper load is the lift safely available at the determined end of stroke.
Iterations are helpful..... I will give you a rule of thumb - Do not make the stroke longer than 1/11 the height of the ZED.
(another counter intuitive - short stroke is a more efficient process)
Use your baseline calculator already prepared to determine what the load is at that height - and that is a good load - presuming riser weight and any added weight has already been considered.
.........................
Unlike the states Mark described - the precharge and stroke is only released into the other ZED - not bobbed up or consumed as production.
The transfer of the precharge and Stroke is made mechanically more efficient as Webby described and posted two of our methods.
but you do not need to add those improvements to find the outcome.
.......................
Last notes - when the full precharge is reached - any additional volume input into the ZED A results in production - so once precharge is hit - no consumption of the previous pressure occurs - the ZED B hits bottom at the end of the production stroke on ZED A.
In simple observation - the true cost of stroking a half cycle is all of the stroking Pv ZED A, minus the sinking ZED B Pv, and then repeat for a full cycle.
A full cycle is a return of ZED A to "Sunk.
MarkE - if you do understand these States - you should be able to see how we transfer two sets of PV left and right - not consuming that value and truely reducing the total input cost.
Lastly - the Hydro Assist is the external input - which can be powered by the Production. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production - you will understand why I have been so patient.
Wayne
The math simply shows the physics that has been known for over two millennia. It is the same physics that proves you are selling lies for cash.With you it is always acting.So many words you utter, so much attempt you make to distract with utter bull shit. Nothing you have shown or can show will result in an energy gain from cyclically lifting and dropping weights. The "Ideal ZED" as Mondrasek has laid it out is a less than useless machine that expends energy while doing no useful work. It is an allegory for what investor funds in your sham companies do: No useful work.
Is there really any need to say more?
So do you give up? it is simple from here.Your shamelessness is awesome. I have proven that the "Ideal ZED" is less efficient than a brick.
it is simple from here.
Lastly - the Hydro Assist can be a external input - or powered by the Production leaving excess. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production
The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel.
So from this description, the most efficient embodiment of the device would be to connect the 'Excess Output' directly to the input of this 'hydro assist system' and use it in the same stroke... would you agree?As you are no doubt acutely aware, Wayne Travis' wall of words is just a bunch of flim-flam hand waving. Mondrasek put up his configuration of an "ideal ZED". Wayne Travis wrote several posts approving Mondrasek's configuration. Yet analysis shows that this "ideal" device is quite lossy. A cinderblock brick would be more efficient. Faced with that, Wayne belted out his wall of words suggesting that there is more to it. One needs to hook up two of these lossy things together to make up the losses in volume. Then our correspondent Wayne Travis filled out a long post of: do this, do that, blah, blah, blah, but yet in the end he is still lifting and dropping weights, where we have just shown that doing is not only underunity, if done incompetently as in the "Ideal ZED" it requires input work and yields no useable output work. It takes work to go from State 3 to State 2. Going from State 2 to State 3 yields no useable output. It does dissipate heat. A rope, a spring, a rock would all be more efficient and useful than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".
After all as the system is stroking and producing the excess output then some or all of that could be redirected to assist input, surely? Capturing it, storing it and moving it, even if it is to another Zed can only result in losses compared with using it directly. I see no reason to the contrary.
I'd be interested in your opinion as to why/why not. I'm only trying to help you achieve the most efficiency here.. which appear to be LarryC's stated aim too.
Bill, thanks. What's fascinating to me is the absolute conscience free chutzpah of our correspondent: Wayne Travis. It apparently matters not to Mr. Travis that the "ideal ZED" is shown to be an energy wasting contraption. Wayne just brass balls his way right past those inconvenient facts and alludes once more to some supposed secrets behind the curtain. Wayne is so busy trying to talk fast that he's missed the fact that the curtain blew away a long time ago.
Mark:
That is very funny indeed. Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.
Excellent terminology and very, very funny.
Well done.
Bill
How about this? How about we secretly replace the "air" in the "ideal ZED" with water? Why by gosh and by golly: Praise Jesus! It gets more efficient. How about we get rid of the serpentine chambers? Praise Jesus again! A simple hydraulic piston is like a rock, a spring, or a rope more efficient than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED". The best ZED, the most efficient ZED is no ZED at all. A glass of water is more efficient than a ZED.
So from this description, the most efficient embodiment of the device would be to connect the 'Excess Output' directly to the input of this 'hydro assist system' and use it in the same stroke... would you agree?
So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3. Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem? Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3? Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors? Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?
Mark:
That is very funny indeed. Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.
Excellent terminology and very, very funny.
Well done.
Bill
I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.If you have too many Red Herrings, things start to smell pretty fishy. Besides, a three-pronged teeter-totter is clearly just too weird.
I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.
I realize you did not mean this seriously;
But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.
That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.
SO check ion never check out - exactly
Wayne
The design of the system was just to mechanically amply force - by request we spent the money to self loop itself - even in its infant stage of development - with no engineering - that was possible.Now you are piling lie upon untruth. Mark Dansie DID NOT CERTIFY that system as self running. It has a tummy ache on one side, to boot. And you are practically admitting in this statement that you do not in fact have a self runner any more than my Heron's Fountain is a self-runner. You can waffle about and dodge the direct question as much as you like, you can invoke God's blessings... but you cannot deny that for some reason, God did not permit you to put up that 50 kW plant that you "expected" to be able to install at TBC years ago.
Once again here is the link to that self contained closed loop system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)
The arguments will always come from some...
Thank You
The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.
Thanks.
I realize you did not mean this seriously;
But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.
That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.
SO check ion never check out - exactly
Wayne
The design of the system was just to mechanically amply force - by request we spent the money to self loop itself - even in its infant stage of development - with no engineering - that was possible.
Once again here is the link to that self contained closed loop system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc
The arguments will always come from some...
Thank You
The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.
Thanks.
The bad thing so far there is no energy can be extracted from the system.
every cycle you need to allocate some external energy .......... ALWAYS....... ::) :o
The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.
what is this mean ?
DOn't know what you are referring to?
The LOAD - is the energy extracted, with every half cycle?
We use Hydraulic production as the load - because it can be used to both apply Hydro assist and rotational output to a generator (thru a hydraulic motor).
Thanks
I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.
Eout - Ein = extracted energy, and of course with full cycle
do you have a self running machine ?
The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.Ah another wall of BS text from the shameless huckster Wayne Travis. One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.
... Wall of pointless blather ...
Wayne Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com
One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.
To All;Those are just more lies from you Wayne Travis. You do not now have and have never had a device or a method to generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights as you claim. The analysis of the "ideal ZED", the device model that you so glowingly approved, shows that the device is completely useless. You can post as many walls of text as you want. What you cannot do is get that ridiculous contraption to even match the efficiency of a brick. Each time one goes from State 2 to State 3, a transition that performs no useful outside work, one loses 28% of the internally stored energy which must be replaced in order to return to State 2 to set-up for the next futile cycle.
... Wall of text ...
Since the inception of the NET Energy producing system - We worked hard to develop the systems, business, contact, and friendships.
I have put up with the nonsense from TK and his bandwagon now for two years for this reason.
Now we are hiring, we have Turn Key funding. We have selected 18 of our start up of 27 members.
We are hiring now, and we have temporary offices while our world class LEED building is being built.
.............................
We have Patent application pending in almost every county - some granted - some being exercised.
If you are interested in Clean and Green energy future - that has the only Alternative ON DEMAND CAPABILITY:
Welcome, our door has been open.
Wayne Travis
ZydroEnergy.com
Those are just more lies from you Wayne Travis. You do not now have and have never had a device or a method to generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights as you claim. The analysis of the "ideal ZED", the device model that you so glowingly approved, shows that the device is completely useless. You can post as many walls of text as you want. What you cannot do is get that ridiculous contraption to even match the efficiency of a brick. Each time one goes from State 2 to State 3, a transition that performs no useful outside work, one loses 28% of the internally stored energy which must be replaced in order to return to State 2 to set-up for the next futile cycle.
MarkE, please look at the ZED in State 3. There is still a positive water head on the pod and each riser! Therefore there is still much buoyant Force to be resolved. Ego, the ZED could NOT come to rest in this condition. It must stroke further if unrestrained. This proves that the ASSUMPTION that Energy in is equal to Energy out was wrong. Unless you have some other way to resolve the remaining buoyant Force without more stroke?Mondrasek, would you like to bet? The system as presented is physically and mathematically correct. Why? Because of the venting necessary to create State 1, the pod and the risers are stable as you stipulated as a requirement for the State 1 condition. You will recall that I went to pains to discuss with you how the system would be brought to State 1.
I realize you did not mean this seriously;Your piece of junk machine is a sink for energy. The special features of: A serpentine hydraulic piston corrupted by pockets of air, and with an outer venting column all take a useful machine: a hydraulic piston and turn it into a lossy piece of junk. This is of course contrary to your often stated lies that those very features enable you to cheat gravity.
But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.
That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.
SO check in never check out - exactly
Wayne
Ah another wall of BS text from the shameless huckster Wayne Travis. One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.
Maybe the lying huckster wasn't completely honest with us about his investment situation.
Maybe the lying huckster has some fish he is trying to reel in and he doesn't want them to see the empty bag he is trying to trade them for their cash.
Note that in his entire wall of text, Wayne Travis cannot refute anything in the analysis. Note that in the entire wall of text Wayne Travis fails to bring in any actual new information that supports his false claims of getting free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights.
Mondrasek, would you like to bet? The system as presented is physically and mathematically correct. Why? Because of the venting necessary to create State 1, the pod and the risers are stable as you stipulated as a requirement for the State 1 condition. You will recall that I went to pains to discuss with you how the system would be brought to State 1.
In State 2 3108 cir mm2*mm was added to the system. Unrestrained that volume lifts the entire cross-section by a distance equal to the volume divided by the cross-section as shown. A rising tide does indeed lift all boats.
If you object to State 3, then you must object to your own stipulations for State 1. At the end of State 1 the massless materials: The "air", the pod, and the risers are all in effect simply floating on the surface of one pool of water. State 2 holds those masses restrained while water is pumped in. State 3 releases those masses so that the water can equalize. They rise, gaining no work because they are massless and the previously lifted water falls, losing a great deal of the energy added during State 2.
Your piece of junk machine is a sink for energy. The special features of: A serpentine hydraulic piston corrupted by pockets of air, and with an outer venting column all take a useful machine: a hydraulic piston and turn it into a lossy piece of junk. This is of course contrary to your often stated lies that those very features enable you to cheat gravity.
MarkE, I was going to draw your State 3 and dimension the remaining heads on the pod and each riser that need to be resolved. But I ran into an error with your stated water height in AR2: 49.651mm. That is obviously not correct. Could you provide the correct value? And you should try calculating the buoyant Forces that remain on the pod and each riser that still need to be resolved. The ZED cannot remain in the position you show in State 3 unless restrained. It has more Energy that needs to be released due to the still remaining buoyant Forces.If you opened the spreadsheet, you will see that was a transcription error. The value posted was the height of the air from the top of the innermost ringwall down to the surface of the water. The correct value: 11.349mm is simply that value subtracted from the ring wall height.
I would have liked to just present my own diagrams again, but I see you calculated the rise based on Volume in = Volume out. This is another error since there is a third Volume of air that is interacting with the system by the nature of the outer annulus being open to the atmosphere.
I calculated my lift distance based on the ASSUMPTION that Energy in = Energy out, not by simple volumes. That results in a stroke that should be 1.9094mm. But the results are similar in that the system could not come to rest at that larger lift distance either. There is still 31.828 grams of buoyant lift force at that larger lift distance. So again, the lift would have to be even further to resolve the remaining buoyant Forces.
And FWIF, no iterations need to be performed for this simple analysis. The iterations would be needed (for me at least) to find the final resting state of the charged ZED. That state requires that the sum of all the internal buoyant Forces be zero. That is definitely not the case in your State 3, nor in the one I calculated via an Energy Balance approach.
DOn't know what you are referring to?Gee, Mr. Wayne, where is the load bank?
The LOAD - is the energy extracted, with every half cycle?
We use Hydraulic production as the load - because it can be used to both apply Hydro assist and rotational output to a generator (thru a hydraulic motor).
Thanks
Two years ago - one of the TK "likes" said something Similar - meant to be an insult:Ah more lies from Wayne Travis. As can be seen from the analysis of the "ideal ZED", and LarryC's spreadsheet, one has two basically two choices: make each successive annular ring narrower and narrower to hold constant area per ring, or watch as the change in water height in the outer rings and therefore the stroke converges towards zero. The ultimate ZED as opposed to the "ideal ZED" is a device with just one riser, and just one pod, where each are very, very wide, and the vertical stroke approaches zero. In the limit, such a system approximates but never quite matches the efficiency of a brick.
Why not just continue hooking the ZEDs together to forever..
In reality - the layering system works in much the same effect - but with reduced Capital cost and reduced foot print.
Net is the Product - two Six Layer ZEDs can be optimized to put out the same Net production as four three layer systems, in roughly the same foot print.
............
So it is a business decision - and a structural mechanical (Cost) limitation - to continue to up size each system.
Wayne
With Respect - I am sharing what I am not contractually bound to reserve.Once again the lying huckster Wayne Travis appeals to claims that he has something magic behind the curtain. No worries Wayne. Bubba is anxiously keeping his magic something for you with him in his cell.
Our Contract gives our Benefactor exclusive rights to first utilization of the manufactured models and their absolute first public demonstration.
Previous to that contract, we allowed a Skeptic to video our early model.
The Link has been posted.
Thank you.
If you opened the spreadsheet, you will see that was a transcription error. The value posted was the height of the air from the top of the innermost ringwall down to the surface of the water. The correct value: 11.349mm is simply that value subtracted from the ring wall height.
Once more: Under the stipulation that you set that the system is stable, unrestrained in State 1, it is similarly stable unrestrained in State 3.
The materials are incompressible. Did you get that? They are incompressible. One more time: They are incompressible.
I am sorry MarkE,If your last line is a promise to keep spamming your wall of text, I don't think Stefan will appreciate that.
You seemed to miss this post. I will post it again.
... Wall of pointless text ...
Nonsense video with no measurements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)
Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com
Every time you or TK, or the puppets come back.
MarkE, one might wonder why you are ignoring my two posts that point out a mistake in your presented values as well as a couple in the methods in your final Stage 3 presentation. It is an invalid "Energy Balance" Analysis, as well as completely ignores that works was done in the form of F*ds.You are absolutely wrong. The spreadsheet correctly shows all of the math. Each energy value in the spreadsheet explicitly calculates energy as the integral of F*ds. All of the math reflects real physics. The drawing had one transcription error, picking up a value one row off from the spreadsheet.
In the condition you show in your State 3 drawing the pod is still submersed in 28.537mm of water. It is displacing 89.652 cc of that water. Are you saying that does not create a buoyant Force equal to ~89 grams? What is keeping it from rising further? Where is the equal and opposite force that is cancelling this buoyant Force that remains?I have shown all the work in the spreadsheet in convenient easy to read algebraic form. If you aren't going to bother to read and understand the work, then there is little hope for you. Either you accept your stipulation that the system was vented in State 1 so that there was no net force up or down on the risers, or you change your problem definition. If you accept the former, then what you have is no different than objects floating on a volume of water at the end of each: State 1 and State 3. State 2 added volume to the water which because of the restraint on the Russian Dolls of Ignorance was forced into AR7. Once the restraint was released at State 3, the added fluid effectively redistributed to an equal height across the entire cross-section as required by fluid behavior. Ergo, we poured some water into Archimedes' bath and his rubby ducky, Spanish Armada playset all rose with added water.
The three risers are likewise still positively buoyant due to the head difference of the water on their OD and ID, right?
MarkE,Despite the complications of detail that you try and use to obfuscate the fact that you have nothing of value, the fact is that at the end of the day, you lift and drop weights. There is no energy gain to be had from doing such a thing. You have never shown the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary.
I am still patient with you.
As far as your insinuations and slander, my motives have been clear and consistent from my first post.QuoteYes you are selling lies to investors. That has been clear for years now.
......
I know, our ZED system is tough to wrap your head around for some, you are very close - don't give up.
I see it for what it is, not the illusion that you try and misrepresent.
If all you see is lifting and dropping weights - you missed the production which is removed before dropping, and the re use of each half cycles charge.
You should be more concerned about where your burned investors might want to drop rocks.
That is not dropping a rock twice.
Wayne
You are free to show by competing analysis and / or demonstration that I got anything wrong in the spreadsheet. If you do, then make certain that you apply actual physics and not contrived ideas such as you have so far.
The math shows exactly what I told you and that you refused to discuss: That equalizing water column heights as occurs in the transition from State 2 to State 3 loses stored energy without doing any useful work. The most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.
I have shown all the work in the spreadsheet in convenient easy to read algebraic form. If you aren't going to bother to read and understand the work, then there is little hope for you. Either you accept your stipulation that the system was vented in State 1 so that there was no net force up or down on the risers, or you change your problem definition. If you accept the former, then what you have is no different than objects floating on a volume of water at the end of each: State 1 and State 3. State 2 added volume to the water which because of the restraint on the Russian Dolls of Ignorance was forced into AR7. Once the restraint was released at State 3, the added fluid effectively redistributed to an equal height across the entire cross-section as required by fluid behavior. Ergo, we poured some water into Archimedes' bath and his rubby ducky, Spanish Armada playset all rose with added water.
MarkE,Webby do try and pay attention. State 1 was stipulated by Mondrasek. AR7 increases in height over the State 1 stipulated equilibrium condition just like the entire rest of the cross-section does. That's what fluids do webby: They flow to fill the available area. The outer walls of the base assembly define that area. The Russian Dolls of Ignorance configuration does not change that reality.
There is no way the system you have presented will stop in this position.
This system will continue to lift until the water level in AR7 has been drawn down below the water level in AR6 to counter the decreasing buoyant lift of the other 2 risers and the pod.
It will be the negative buoyant condition of the 3rd riser that stops the movement, and your setup has not reached that.
The duckys are playing submarine,, and they are filled with air!
MarkE, the venting allowed for assembly without inducing buoyant Forces and kept internal Pressures neutral. It is the fact that there is zero water head between the OD and ID of each riser (and no water around the pod) that determines that each element is being acted on by no buoyant Forces and therefore in equilibrium. In your State 3 there exists positive buoyant Forces on the pod and all three risers that are yet unresolved. How do you wish to resolve those Forces? Or can you point out an equal and opposite Force that is neutralizing the remaining buoyant Forces?Mondrasek, again you are flat, stinking wrong. Under the condition that you again reiterate for State 1 above, the act of adding water in State 2 is to move that condition to one where the water level rises by the added water volume divided by the cross section. If you are going to continue to dispute basic physics then go find a suitable reference to support your absolutely incorrect argument.
MarkE, your math is not in question. But it results in a paradox, right? If you solve to balance Energy, you end up with unbalanced Forces left over (this is what your analysis shows). If you solve to balance the Forces, then the Energy balance is not correct. Do you disagree? Are there not unbalance buoyant Forces in State 3 of your analysis?Monderasek, there is no paradox. The behavior is all very well understood. If you think that this is a paradox, then you must think that connecting one charged capacitor to a second uncharged capacitor is a paradox as well. There is no more paradox here than there is to slowing down your car by applying the brakes. Your latest incorrect assumption is that the stored energy remains constant. You insist on this incorrect position even when the physics have been explained to you multiple times. This whole foolish contraption is a glorified pool of fluid. Add more fluid and it rises. End of story.
There was useful work performed that you have ignored. The ZED in this Analysis was not allowed to rise uninhibited by a load. We agreed on this from post 249 of this thread:I utilized the same analysis method for the output rise as was used for the input of the water charge: F*ds as expressed for the case of a Volume of a Fluid that is being moved by a change in Pressure that either starts or ends at zero: Paverage*V. The riser initially will want to move with a Pressure that can be calculated from the buoyant force sum of the pod and risers. That Pressure should drop linearly to zero as the ZED reaches equilibrium at the end of the rise. The physical device that would restrain the initial Pressure and allow it to drop to zero while performing the rise is not important for the analysis I think. Please let me know if you think otherwise.
You violated this first by NOT calculating the lift difference using the described method of an Energy balance. You instead resorted to a Volume balance which is flat wrong for this open ZED. Then you ignore that work output preformed upon the non-physical device agreed upon would provide the theoretical output F*ds as the Paverage*V, or simply Faverage*ds where ds is the lift distance. So there is Work that can be performed by the change from State 2 to State 3 and you ignore that in your Analysis.
Yes MarkE do pay attention.Nope, you are still not paying attention. Mondrasek stipulated the neutral condition as State 1. Now you may reasonably object to that stipulation, but then you will have to take that up with Mondrasek. But as long as he stipulates that State 1 is as he depicted it, the result in State 3 falls out.
Where are the water heights in state 1.
Where are the water heights in end of state 2.
Where are the water heights in end of state 3. Not back to a neutral height are they.
Tell that to Mondrasek. He seems to think that incompressible fluids behave some other way.
Water will flow and find its own level.
Again, State 3 arises from Mondrasek's: Wayne Travis approved stipulation of State 1. If you object to the State 1 stipulation, and you should, then you need to ask that pair why Mondrasek stipulated State 1 as he did and why Wayne Travis approved of that stipulation.
There is a buoyant lift left in the risers, all of them as you have them at the end of state 3. They all have a positive buoyant lift potential that is left,, repeat, the water still wants to move down and that will move things and make the risers go up.
Again, you need to change the stipulation of State 1. Otherwise, we get exactly what has been shown.
The only avenue there is for the increase in volume needed for all of that movement is from AR7, that will get sucked down until the suction, the negative buoyant lift equals the positive buoyant lift of the other 2 risers and the pod.
Again, that is because your experiment did not have the State 1 stipulation: Apples and oranges.
Do remember that I have played with a 5 riser system, and look at some of the pics I posted of that system.
I can tell you that the system as you have it in end of state 3 WILL move up and I can tell you that the water in AR7 WILL get sucked down.
Use your finger and follow the movement,, see that the movement can happen, see that nature will want to make that movement happen, see that that movement will happen.
You know that movement can happen because it happened for the system to go from state 1 to end of state 2.
if you make these mistakes on purpose - that is wrong
MarkE.Webby you cannot have it both ways. Either you accept Mondrasek's: Wayne Travis approved State 1 or you don't. If you accept it then State 3 falls out as shown. If you don't accept it then you change the problem. So pick your poison: State 1 as stipulated by Mondrasek and approved by Wayne Travis with State 3 as the result, or State 1 as your experience tells you which yields a different and still lossy result.
Look at your state 3 drawing. Do you not see 4 floats that are partially sunk.
State 1 is neutrally buoyant, and that is not an issue, state 2 has had a volume placed into the pod chamber, that volume not only forces the water and air to redistribute and create a buoyant force it also raises the base line for the pod chamber, this increase in base line height also then creates a physical step for the other columns to negotiate and in this negotiation there is a continued buoyant condition for the risers and pod.
Those heads will fall, and when they do they will push the air up and force the risers to move a further distance, at that time the water in AR7 will be below AR6 and the other 2 risers and pod will still have a positive buoyant value, but it is the negative buoyant value of the 3rd riser that will balance against that so that the forces sum BACK to zero as in state 1.
MarkE, the venting allowed for assembly without inducing buoyant Forces and kept internal Pressures neutral. It is the fact that there is zero water head between the OD and ID of each riser (and no water around the pod) that determines that each element is being acted on by no buoyant Forces and therefore in equilibrium. In your State 3 there exists positive buoyant Forces on the pod and all three risers that are yet unresolved. How do you wish to resolve those Forces? Or can you point out an equal and opposite Force that is neutralizing the remaining buoyant Forces?Mondrasek the stipulation that State 1 has no buoyant uplift is your Wayne Travis approved stipulation. Choose: Keep the stipulation, in which case State 3 results, or remove the stipulation and solve for a different State 3. The results all depend on your stipulation.
It's incredible watching Wayne ply his craft. It's very similar to debating with John Rohner. In both cases they post incomprehensible goop and pretend that they are actually saying something valid.
I really hope this one ends where the good guys win. It's soooo creepy to see this stuff happening in real time. There must be a lot of passive observers reading this thread that can distinguish right from wrong. It's incredible how so many of them remain mute in the presence of such wrong.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729-97)
Regarding State one:Wayne Travis, do you now speak for Mondrasek? If you don't and you aren't a mind reader then you had better let him speak for himself. As for you, you approved of his stipulations and applauded his work. Now that your minion Webby has noticed Archimedes' Principle acting on 21.5mm riser height that Mondrasek's stipulation ignored, what have you to say about that stipulation that you approved?
Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.
His stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.
...............
MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.
These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.
...............
It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.
While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.
....................
MarkE slow down, we are not attacking you, if you make these mistakes on purpose - that is wrong.
Wayne
Webby you cannot have it both ways. Either you accept Mondrasek's: Wayne Travis approved State 1 or you don't. If you accept it then State 3 falls out as shown. If you don't accept it then you change the problem. So pick your poison: State 1 as stipulated by Mondrasek and approved by Wayne Travis with State 3 as the result, or State 1 as your experience tells you which yields a different and still lossy result.
See how incredibly creepy he is? He is playing the MIB card and he is playing it to a specific type of audience.Wayne has crawled over a bear trap with his fly undone. Of course Wayne tells us that he is not seeking new investment. Of course that would mean that he has no concerns that any prospective investors could be watching as he approved Mondrasek's non-physical stipulation, or as the inevitable result with or without that stipulation is a machine that is just a lossy piece of junk. Of course he wouldn't be worried that it would dawn on a new prospective investor that all the HER / Zydro charade amounts to is a game of three card monty. We know that because the self-declared the God fearing, Jesus loving Wayne Travis told us he isn't seeking any new investors.
I really and truly hope that you make the national media Wayne for all the right reasons.
Wayne Travis, do you now speak for Mondrasek? If you don't and you aren't a mind reader then you had better let him speak for himself. As for you, you approved of his stipulations and applauded his work. Now that your minion Webby has noticed Archimedes' Principle acting on 21.5mm riser height that Mondrasek's stipulation ignored, what have you to say about that stipulation that you approved?
There is no mistaking that whether one starts with Mondrasek's stipulation or any real arrangement that the most efficient ZED that anyone can design is outperformed by a brick.
Repost:Yep, stick with that: An ideal ZED as you approved the description that relies on Mondrasek's State 1 stipulation. Remember you approved that.
Regarding State one:
Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.
No Wayne, Mondrasek never stated such a thing, but it is nice that you repeat your lies so that all can see that is intentional.
Has stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.
No, many including I have shown that the ZED is an overcomplicated weight lifting and dropping machine that is completely useless and incapable of generating the free energy that you falsely claim it does.
...............
MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.
Oh really? Many have asked for that. Please point to the specific post where you laid out the official analysis of a ZED, including the part where the free energy supposedly comes from. You can't, because you never issued such a post. Your claim that you did is just another of your shameless lies.
These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.
It doesn't matter what you call your first state. You declared your approval of Mondrasek's set-up as an "ideal ZED". A real, non-ideal machine can never outperform the idealized model. Since Mondrasek's model you approved is useless, you have admitted that your heap of junk is similarly useless as it is.
...............
It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.
There is lots to see. Your shameless carnival barker routine is one of them.
While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.
....................
I hope you can see the difference
Wayne
Is that your version of a "triumph" ???
Sad.
God fearing, Jesus loving Wayne Travis told us he isn't seeking any new investors.
I do not need it both ways, it is only one way.If there is zero net up force in State 1, then at the raised position of 1.4688mm of State 3 there is no net up force either. If there is up force in State 3 at 1.4688mm lift then there is also up force in State 1 and you must reject Mondrasek's stipulation. Choose one or the other. It doesn't matter. The machine is lossy in either case for the same reasons.
State 1 is a net zero condition of forces acting on the risers and pod, and so for a full analysis the end of state 3 MUST also be a net zero.
Allow your risers to lift far enough so that the sum of all forces acting on them is zero, then what do you get?
That's not sad.
This is sad:
Is that your version of a "triumph"
Please point to the specific post where you laid out the official analysis of a ZED, including the part where the free energy supposedly comes from.
MarkEMath unlike you may not lie. Your claims of free energy generation, violation of the conservative nature of gravity are complete bald-faced lies, knowingly or recklessly made to investors. See the Acts 1933, and 1934.
I applaud due diligence, I ignore your comments and assumptions and bogus conclusions.
If you do you math right - I know the conclusion - will you have the honor to admit it - I know you have not finished - because the Math does not lie.
If by "works in the physical" you mean a machine that delivers the free energy you claim, you have never built such a machine.
It could turn out that you are smarter than the 40 plus engineers that have traveled this road - that would be fantastic - but then we would have to solve why it works in the physical???
Tell me again in simple, easy to understand terms just what it is you claim to be warning me about. Kindly state the specific consequences and by what means they will come about.
We will see if you do.
I know it will be hard for you - you have dished out so much fodder - it is going to be hard to swallow.
I tried very very hard to warn you. I find no pleasure in your errors.
In that video Tinsel Koala just posted you look real perty. I asked Bubba about it and he agrees.
................
Monderask can speak for himself - and has.
................
I presented the "operational states" so that you could make a true conclusion - nothing to do with Monderasks State 1 or any other.
................
Take care.
Wayne
Sure, can't believe you keep missing this....Yes, all you do is wave those oh so perty hands of yours. Don't wave them too much or Bubba may get overly excited.
...Useless wall of text, free of any supporting math or diagrams...
Webby:
Wayne:
Astute people will know who the evil one is. And it is sad indeed that in this day and age, with all the access to information and the ability to inform oneself, that this can happen. You are preying on the human condition and exploiting it for your own personal gain.
MileHigh
Yes, all you do is wave those oh so perty hands of yours. Don't wave them too much or Bubba may get overly excited.
How will you repent when you realize you were on the wrong side of truth...The liar speaks with feigned indignation. Wayne Travis your technology claims are lies. Cyclically lifting and dropping weights does not yield net energy, period. Your claims that such activity yields free energy is a lie. Your pitch that giving you money to "develop" your nonexistent technology does nothing but cheat those who don't recognize your lies for what they are.
You have wronged me, injusted me, slandered me, and acted the complete fodder spreader.
And many people have taken the time to realize I am telling the truth - and you have not.
Good day
MarkE,The kettle speaks of the pot's color.
Slander is the tool of those that can not think for them self, don't give up.
Wayne
Tell me again in simple, easy to understand terms just what it is you claim to be warning me about. Kindly state the specific consequences and by what means they will come about.
How will you repent when you realize you were on the wrong side of truth...
You have wronged me, injusted me, slandered me, and acted the complete fodder spreader.
And many people have taken the time to realize I am telling the truth - and you have not.
Good day
The liar speaks with feigned indignation. Wayne Travis your technology claims are lies. Cyclically lifting and dropping weights does not yield net energy, period. Your claims that such activity yields free energy is a lie. Your pitch that giving you money to "develop" your nonexistent technology does nothing but cheat those who don't recognize your lies for what they are.
Just simple "embarrassment" as I said before.You may one day be changing your outerwear for the color orange. Whether you do or not, we already know what you are and who you are.
You can change your log in - but you will always know.
That's all.
Wayne
Once again - if thats all you see - you missed it.Once again the liar who said he was done her a month ago speaks again. You have done more than you can imagine.
I spelled it out for you - maybe you think you are making points - but you have wasted two days of my time..
Count that as your victory... you can have it.
good night.
That is a false assumption.It is Mondrasek's stipulation. It doesn't matter if it is false or not. It is his required hypothetical starting point. The results follow from that requirement. If you want to set-up a somewhat similar problem with different stipulations, you are free to do so.
You're not paying very good attention Webby. In going from State 1 to State 3 we added 2.441cc of water and paid 2.011mJ to do so. There would be a real problem if at the end of State 3 we had less energy than in State 1. But since we don't there is no problem.
Your spreadsheet shows head differences between the inside and outside water columns for the risers and the pod. This difference in height represents a positive force of buoyancy, your own work is showing that, and that is for all 3 risers and the pod.
Since that force is there by your own work then the analysis is not complete and the risers and pod must move further to bring those forces back to a net zero.
If I had presented this to you, you would be saying the same thing. You would point out that all I allowed for was the volume change and that I have not accounted for all of the forces within the system.
Your own spreadsheet shows an increase in stored energy within the water,
3.412mj state 1
3.963mj end of state 3
Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.Why? This thread is not about me, and I have made no claims within it, other than that you do not have what you said you have, years ago now.
Thanks
(emphasis mine)Welcome to OverUnity.com[/size]The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum[/c]
Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.
Thanks
Item of interest:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/)
Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed. This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college. Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs. It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource. If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming. Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims. Now it seems that the math is not on your side. Nor is general laws of physics. Now may be a good time to get into another racket.
Bill
There is no problem with the starting point being a net zero, no lift, no sink no nothing.If you accept that stipulation then State 3 as shown follows. So choose to accept the stipulation or reject it for say the fact that it still displaces a fluid with a higher density than the displacing volume. In the latter case you have changed the problem definition and a different outcome will result.
No there is no problem with the end point. It conforms to the physics from the state starting point. All of the energy in and out, and lost is properly accounted for, as is the change in position of each of the constituent materials. You are of course free to perform your own work up and show your work as I have shown mine.
It is your ending point that is a problem, there is lift left within the system and this means that it is not back to a net zero that it started from, in respect to the forces acting on the risers and pod.
Since we have the states, we can go between them all day long. Which states would you like to define as a cycle? A S2 => S3 => S2 cycle does no work but requires 1.5mJ external work each cycle. An S1 => S2 => S3 => S2 => S1 cycle suffers the same loss per cycle.
Please explain how you can do an energy analysis where you do not have a full cycle, from a starting condition back to that very same condition, that would be no forces acting on the risers and pod that are not balanced and zero if that starting point was a balanced and zero condition.
You remain very, very confused. Under the stipulation that Mondrasek set, the net up force is zero in State 3. You must reject Mondrasek's stipulation of State 1 to reach a different set of conditions for State 3. And here's the spoiler alert again: That results in lost energy too. Why? Because the inane, insipidly stupid scheme causes there to be variable dense fluid column heights. Get rid of the "air" and the whole buoyancy stupidity and the scheme gets much more efficient. But then it would not be a ZED anymore, would it? The best performing ZED is no ZED at all.
You MUST let the risers and pod move a further distance to balance those existing forces back to zero. You will find that AR7 goes below AR6 and then that negative buoyancy will counter the positive buoyancy from the other 2 risers and pod.
Kindly point to the cell where you find that.
In YOUR spreadsheet there is still a buoyant force in place that has NO counter force to stop it, hence your analysis is not complete.
By your observation you must then object to the Wayne Travis approved State 1 stipulation by Mondrasek. Again: Choose a different set of starting stipulations and get a different result.
If I have a cup sitting in water where the water level inside the cup is 19mm below the outside water level what is it, a sink or a float, which way will it move with nothing to stop it from moving. All of the risers and the pod have an outside water level above the inside level, well the pod is sealed so that is just water up the outside of a weightless item,, which way will they move if there is nothing holding them still.
Again, you are free to create your own model following the stated stipulations and see where you get.
This is the condition you have left your setup in, with nothing to stop things from moving they will move.
I have explained it many times to you. If you accept the State 1 stipulation then the system is stable with no unbalanced force in State 3 as shown. If you reject the State 1 stipulation then we can work the problem to yield a result that you may find more satisfying. But that will not be the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".
Either let the risers and pod move a further distance or show what is stopping them from doing so.
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.In fact Wayne Travis has insisted here that he is fully funded and is not seeking additional investments. That's good news for HER/Zydro, because if he were courting a new investor, one look at his behavior here would likely be very repellant.
Mags
Hey Bill
Well, 'fossil fuels' is the term used in society. Until they change that, I think we all know what it means. ;) Not sure its something to make a fuss about. ;D
Mags
Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed. This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college. Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs. It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource. If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming. Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims. Now it seems that the math is not on your side. Nor is general laws of physics. Now may be a good time to get into another racket.
Bill
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.
Mags
Mags:
Exactly correct. It is a term used (incorrectly) in society and we, can change that using facts. It is the global warming crowd that uses this term (your word "They") and ignorance can only be changed through education. I cringe every time I hear this term and, I will bet that Wayne does not know the reality behind it.
Bill
Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed. This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college. Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs. It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource. If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming. Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims. Now it seems that the math is not on your side. Nor is general laws of physics. Now may be a good time to get into another racket.
Bill
I was originally invited to share our discovery.
Several members assumed - I must be this or that...
That's all there is to any of that.
I took time from my work to return because several men who built systems and tested our claims - asked to give O/U.com one more chance.
If I must have a motive other than respecting hard work and Due diligence - it is to let other inventors know - the oppression that a few here on this web site poor out daily - has no real value.
Keep researching, keep discovering, keep asking the questions.
That is what leads to the advancement of real discovery.
Wayne
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Those are very wise words that everyone should seriously contemplate.
I was originally invited to share our discovery.That's funny because you have no discovery. You make claims to discoveries that do not exist. You have not discovered a means to extract free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights. Yet, you continue to insist that you do. You have not discovered a way to make gravity behave non-conservatively. Yet, you continue to insist that you do. You have not discovered a "mechanical energy amplifying system". Neither do have any means to produce "supply endless and abundant clean Energy". Those are just blatant lies you tell in search of a buck. Does Jesus approve of such behavior?
Several members assumed - I must be this or that...
That's all there is to any of that.
I took time from my work to return because several men who built systems and tested our claims - asked to give O/U.com one more chance.
If I must have a motive other than respecting hard work and Due diligence - it is to let other inventors know - the oppression that a few here on this web site pour out daily - has no real value.
Keep researching, keep discovering, keep asking the questions.
That is what leads to the advancement of real discovery.
Wayne
Hello Pirate,Wayne Travis math and physics are not on your side. A series of lossy processes only results in greater loss. You have yet to identify that non-existent process that makes up for all the losses in your inane contraption and yields the net over unity result. It's rather obvious why you don't identify it: No such process exists.
Don't fall for the "Math is not on our side claim" -
Mark E never presented our process - only a static evaluation and conclusions.
Larry has presented a mathematical representation of our whole process, he showed how one layer is less than 70% effecient - and that three layers in a dual recycling system - as designed to operate - provides Net energy.
He also provide the basis to understand that Buoyancy - in standard utilization is very inefficient.... but when layered - can rival a hydraulic cylinder action - and retain the Pv - which can be reused.
MarkE earned my thanks when he helped recognize and correct errors - awesome.
MarkE did not disprove our operation or system - only says he has.
I detailed the process - there is no excuse for the misleading - it has been common.
Thanks
Wayne
That's funny because you have no discovery. You make claims to discoveries that do not exist. You have not discovered a means to extract free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights. Yet, you continue to insist that you do. You have not discovered a way to make gravity behave non-conservatively. Yet, you continue to insist that you do. You have not discovered a "mechanical energy amplifying system". Neither do have any means to produce "supply endless and abundant clean Energy". Those are just blatant lies you tell in search of a buck. Does Jesus approve of such behavior?
Hey Wayne
Long time since we chatted last.
My post was a bit of sarcasm. ;) I KNOW that you have not asked for any investments from anyone here. ;) I was just fishing for some clear reasons for the comments.
Webby and Larry and who ever else is doing work on this, its too bad there is more negative posts than they care to be bothered with. I would be very frustrated. Its not like they asked for help from these guys. I guess it just the way things are today. People dont like people doing their own thing and need to occupy their time with page after page of argument. No wonder nothing gets done around here. ::) ;)
I guess Mark was exclaiming that why give away the idea if there is an investor. Wouldnt the investor disapprove? I cant answer that for him.
Anyway, hope things work out for the builders. its not a simple task.
Mags
Have you built any working perpetual motion machines lately? I didn't think so.
Thanks, Mags,
So insightful, statements like yours help me to deal with the ignorance of those with less system comprehension ability.
Larry
Thanks, Mags,
So insightful, statements like yours help me to deal with the ignorance of those with less system comprehension ability.
Larry
Exactly. Let's see a brazen person that's contributing to this thread post a clip of their own working over unity hydraulic bucket brigade unto itself.
Hey Wayne
Long time since we chatted last.
My post was a bit of sarcasm. ;) I KNOW that you have not asked for any investments from anyone here. ;) I was just fishing for some clear reasons for the comments.
Webby and Larry and who ever else is doing work on this, its too bad there is more negative posts than they care to be bothered with. I would be very frustrated. Its not like they asked for help from these guys. I guess it just the way things are today. People dont like people doing their own thing and need to occupy their time with page after page of argument. No wonder nothing gets done around here. ::) ;)
I guess Mark was exclaiming that why give away the idea if there is an investor. Wouldnt the investor disapprove? I cant answer that for him.
Anyway, hope things work out for the builders. its not a simple task.
Mags
No prob. Heck, I get tired of trying to shuffle through that crap just to read any substance of a thread. There are many threads here that are beat to a pulp continuously, ALL DAY LONG.No amount of positive attitude will alter the way that nature works. When it comes to the acceleration of masses towards one another known as gravity, that behavior is entirely conservative.
Stefan NEEDS to make private threads for those that request them. Its being done on other forums. Sometimes there just needs to be some isolation from all the negativity in order to get things done. And if at the end of the day, the project doesnt work then so beit. These are the choices WE make to work on projects, only to have to explain ourselves day in and day out. Sick of it.
Anyway, good work you guys. And I hope it pans out for you. ;)
Mags
Wayne Travis math and physics are not on your side. A series of lossy processes only results in greater loss. You have yet to identify that non-existent process that makes up for all the losses in your inane contraption and yields the net over unity result. It's rather obvious why you don't identify it: No such process exists.
Yes, there is no reason for you to continue in your attempts to mislead people. Yet you continue to do that. Why is that Wayne?
Thanks Mag,How do investors feel about you selling them a bunch of lies?
Wouldn't the investor Disapprove?
Are all your family members who originally invested still in? Do they all want to stay invested? Or are their a lot of prayers for a buyout investor in Chickasha these days?
Yes - and every one of my family members disapprove - because of the way people are treated here - by a few.
If the day comes you might be surprised how many might ask to sever any court action.
I owed it to the builders, inventors and the engineers that helped us since I first posted here.
We are a team.
'Tis the way of the cult.
We are very well protected.
Also, Our intention is to work together with like minded people - I just have to put up with - garbage out's - sometimes.
Again, Thank you.
How do investors feel about you selling them a bunch of lies?Are all your family members who originally invested still in? Do they all want to stay invested? Or are their a lot of prayers for a buyout investor in Chickasha these days?If the day comes you might be surprised how many might ask to sever any court action.'Tis the way of the cult.
I vote for Mark E's brick. So far, that is showing the most promise. No investors needed either.
Bill
MarkE -Yet you do in fact claim free energy. And your claims are in fact false.
I have tried to be respectful even as you spew garbage continually - and I shared a NET Energy System with you.
Maybe looking for overunity limited your math - I never claimed Magical free energy - I accepted that a few puppets could not tell the difference and let it go.
Oh I absolutely agree that all the energy can be accounted, and that is where your machinery fails to deliver on your false claims.
All of our systems Energy input - reuses- and Net can be accounted for properly - that does not require Over unity.
Hence your false claims.
........
Hence the term - Non conservative process.
Wayne
Cmon Bill. Ive always seen you a impartial here. Whats the beef? Did Wayne ask you for money? Does he give you grief? Did he crash your party? ??? ? What then? Delightment? ???
So go and make a brick thread if it shows so much promise. ;) These guys are not running around this forum telling one and all to come see the glorious pump. Their are just doing their thing, and you guys have a problem with that.
Well if that just the way its going to be around here, maybe its not a good place for people to come to. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) Im sure Stefan would like to have less people come here. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Lets just run everyone out of here so you all can be satisfied? ??? ?? ;) I guess thats the goal. If not, its just to make everyone miserable then. Still no better. Of all, I always considered you better than that. ;)
Mags
One other person went on a mad rampage like this last time he couldn't control the conversation, I was told that you and he were the same person.You seem convinced of many things. For instance you might actually get away with selling lies to your investors. Then again, maybe you will face consequences for your actions. Only time will tell. Who am I. I am me and no one else.
MH backed up the other guy as well - the whole time....
I am now convinced you are one and the same. - if not - no distinction.
You have earned block.
Good bye.
No amount of positive attitude will alter the way that nature works. When it comes to the acceleration of masses towards one another known as gravity, that behavior is entirely conservative.
Go ahead and put aside the fact that the conservative nature of gravity doomed HER/Zydro's claims the moment they came up with them. Investigate to your heart's content each of the things they say that they do that they claim are unusual and see how each of those things: helps, hurts, or has no net effect on efficiency. Please discuss any mechanism that you think offers a benefit compared to a brick.
Again, saying he is asking for a buck. ??? Please show me where he is asking anyone here for money!!! You cannot. So you are the liar. ;)"Our Mission at Z.E. is to build and license ..."
Mags
Cmon Bill. Ive always seen you a impartial here. Whats the beef? Did Wayne ask you for money? Does he give you grief? Did he crash your party????? What then? Delightment? ???Since when have false claims done anything but harm research? Every huckster who sells lies discourages investment in genuine research.
So go and make a brick thread if it shows so much promise. ;) These guys are not running around this forum telling one and all to come see the glorious pump. Their are just doing their thing, and you guys have a problem with that.
Well if that just the way its going to be around here, maybe its not a good place for people to come to. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) Im sure Stefan would like to have less people come here. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Lets just run everyone out of here so you all can be satisfied?????? ;) I guess thats the goal. If not, its just to make everyone miserable then. Still no better. Of all, I always considered you better than that. ;)
Mags
So what. Why cant these guys figure things out on their own??? They did not ask for your help, but you give and give and give till the pages turn one after another like you are the forum police.Do you suffer under the delusion that Wayne believes what he claims? Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims? Do you think that he has ever demonstrated to himself or anyone else what he has claimed to have for years?
So youve said it all in this post. But you will be here again and again and again and again. FOR FREAKIN WHAT!!!!!!! Again and again. Like some concentration camp.
Larry Wayne and Webby. If you want, I can get you set up with a private thread in another forum if you wish. Cuz this is nothing but a brick in the face day in and day out. Leme know. ;)
Mags
Geeze Mags, lighten up a bit over there. Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc.
Do YOU not see anything wrong with this? If you don't, I don't know what to tell you.
Bill
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.
Mags
Do you suffer under the delusion that Wayne believes what he claims? Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims? Do you think that he has ever demonstrated to himself or anyone else what he has claimed to have for years?
This thread was set up by Mondrasek to analyze his problem as he set it up. So far it appears that I am the only one who has done that.
One other person went on a mad rampage like this last time he couldn't control the conversation, I was told that you and he were the same person.
MH backed up the other guy as well - the whole time....
I am now convinced you are one and the same. - if not - no distinction.
You have earned block.
Good bye.
"Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc."When each of the constituent elements of a process is underunity, the entire process is underunity. The Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek "ideal ZED" is quite lossy.
You have built it? And you have shown it does not work??? Has Mark? Has MH? Bah, he never builds anything yet knows it all in 10 sec of looking at it, right? Well, I dont follow the 10 sec diagnosis bullony. Just the mention of OU and the 'no it isnt' comes without the 'work' to prove it. Thats so easy. I wish I had that job. Boring but probably pays ok. ;)
Please tell me that you aren't going to argue from ignorance.
You guys can talk all you want. But you never prove that it doesnt work, just state whats in the books, all in a tight little box.
I refer you to the Acts 1933 and 1934 for the required standard. As to the science, see the analysis.
So what if Wayne has an investor. As long as its not you or your Mom, what do you care? People get investments all the time. Sure some people get ripped off. But man you better be able to back up your statements of lies, thievery, ponzi, criminality.
I have put up my numbers. Where are yours?
Wayne is not making the argument, you are. He is giving only what he said he would give, and the 2 people that are interested are being persecuted for doing what they want to do, and you have a problem with that??? So put up your numbers and show your non working device, then I will listen.
Meanwhile, why cant these 3 guys hang out and discuss what they want in peace??? No?? They must pay for their deeds!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)Mondrasek invited the analysis. When I provided a sufficient one he objected and "insisted" on more, despite that the physics for the additional step was already established. Even so, I provided that as well. What have you provided?
Mags
He is "fully funded". Money from new investors has been used to buy out or service interest obligations of older original investors. Check the WIKI for what that system is called.
Bu you might well ask yourself what he IS doing here, since we are an insignificant internet forum and every second he spends here is a second that he is not spending saving the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. Personally I think he is trying to build credibility and interest, just like in the old locked thread, and when he sees that he cannot meet the challenges from people here.... he will again ask Stefan to lock the thread, or perhaps he'll just go away. Mad. After all, when you have a self-running machine, even a "5 hp net" one.... people will find out and will come and take a look. People like DIA, CIA, Mossad, NKVD, you name it. Free energy from a device that can run itself has immediate and game-changing military applications, as I have pointed out before. The mere fact that Travis is posting his nonsense here and can't wait to get back on after his dinner, is very strong evidence that nobody, really, is interested in him except some people he's charmed the pants off...er, I mean charmed the wallets out of. They are paying for his "expectations" and his projected milestone dates, with the hope that Wayne will _someday_ be able to translate his fantasy into reality. This milestone day will never come. It will be next month, next week or even tomorrow... but tomorrow something else will prevent the current prototype from continuing to "run" once the Flow Assist stops being put in from outside.
I suffer having to hop over your endless bickering posts to read real subject matter of what the thread is actually about.This is the second time that you have falsely accused me of being unable to back up my statements. What does that make you other than wrong?
"Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims?"
Show me proof of your statement.. You act like you are telling a truth here. Show me the paperwork on that Mark. Proof. You cant. What does that make you??? A guesser? ;)
Mags
That little bit of paranoia and denial of reality earns a ROFL for sure.He has no facts on his side, so what else can he do than resort to theatrics?
Don't worry, MarkE, Travis's "Block" is transparent. I'm on his "block" list too. He will always peek around the block and he will always never answer the direct question that Minnie has so politely asked.
Alright, I gota get some sleep. What did we blow away, 2, 3 pages??It's hard to say. But if you ever want to get back to the topic of the thread, I am happy to discuss the analysis.
Mags
All equations are equal. Some are more equal than others.
Hi,
my analysis says that you get out exactly what you put in if you don't
have any losses. The word "equation" should give you a clue!
John.
He is "fully funded". Money from new investors has been used to buy out or service interest obligations of older original investors. Check the WIKI for what that system is called.
Bu you might well ask yourself what he IS doing here, since we are an insignificant internet forum and every second he spends here is a second that he is not spending saving the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. Personally I think he is trying to build credibility and interest, just like in the old locked thread, and when he sees that he cannot meet the challenges from people here.... he will again ask Stefan to lock the thread, or perhaps he'll just go away. Mad. After all, when you have a self-running machine, even a "5 hp net" one.... people will find out and will come and take a look. People like DIA, CIA, Mossad, NKVD, you name it. Free energy from a device that can run itself has immediate and game-changing military applications, as I have pointed out before. The mere fact that Travis is posting his nonsense here and can't wait to get back on after his dinner, is very strong evidence that nobody, really, is interested in him except some people he's charmed the pants off...er, I mean charmed the wallets out of. They are paying for his "expectations" and his projected milestone dates, with the hope that Wayne will _someday_ be able to translate his fantasy into reality. This milestone day will never come. It will be next month, next week or even tomorrow... but tomorrow something else will prevent the current prototype from continuing to "run" once the Flow Assist stops being put in from outside.
Mark, thanks for pointing out the contradictions in Wayne's claims. It's almost sad that Wayne can get away with that verbage where he claims that he is "explaining" how his system allegedly works and almost nobody complains. He doesn't get away with it completely though, some people can recognize it for the nonsense that it is.It takes all kinds. There are people who toll endlessly some of whom come up with useful inventions and many who do not. Then there are people who realize that as long as one doesn't care about the consequences to others, there is money in selling dreams for cash. It's pretty easy to separate the people who genuinely believe in what they are trying to do from the sharpies. Those who believe in what they are doing are usually anxious to prove they are right, even if they are badly mistaken.
I am certainly not you, that's for sure, I am my own person. Nor am I being paid by anybody, that's ridiculous.
I make a thought experiment. I think of some well-meaning couple that may have sunk their life's savings into Wayne's fake proposition. Chances are they will never see that money again. It may take away the funds that they wanted to use to finance their son's or daughter's college education and now that dream is lost. It's lost because they fell hook, line, and sinker for Wayne's nonsense. Their children get hurt because of this, and the confidence artist does not care. I care.
Even though it's all purely a hypothetical, nothing more than a thought experiment, these things really do happen in real life. It makes me mad.
Standing up to Wayne and others of his ilk in this thread or elsewhere can make a difference. Let's assume that there are anonymous lurkers that read threads like this. Reading here gives them valuable information that they might otherwise not get. It's takes them out of their investment fantasy delusions and prevents them from handing their life savings over to some con artist. That's worth a "battle" every now and then, and note that both parties contribute equally to the "battle."
MileHigh
John,Nope, you have never been able to, and you never will be able to substantiate your patently false claims:
Once again - that is a bull face lie -
First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.
Non or disgruntled.
Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.
So stop being a liar.
p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.
Wayne
Nope, you have never been able to, and you never will be able to substantiate your patently false claims:
"First Mechanical Energy Amplifying System"
"the Zydro Energy Device, is... which is a breakthrough in the understandings of physics"
"Our technology produces clean energy Mechanically"
"Our technology ... by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity"
"allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy"
Each and every one of the above claims by you is completely false.
You missed it that's all.Nope: Mechanical amplifiers that use external energy sources are old hat. Passive energy amplifiers don't exist. See the First Law of Energy.
John,
Once again - that is a bull face lie -
First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.
None are disgruntled.
Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.
Third - they first rights ----
and fourh - I gave that power point and explained that the Grant committee sent me to a third Party - hence a new benefactor....
You omit and lie constantly - and have never backed up your objections.
So stop being a liar. Stop doctoring photo - to make more lies, just do the math right.
p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.
Wayne
John,Are you addressing me? Then I would appreciate it if you would say so.
Once again - that is a bull face lie -
Did I mention your family at all, ever? No, I do not think I have, so your statement there is irrelevant to what I said.
First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.
None are disgruntled.
You mean that your lawyers have advised you that it is likely illegal for you to _sell him_ those shares.
Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.
Third - they first rights ----they first rights ---- Is that an English sentence that conveys meaning?
and fourh - I gave that power point and explained that the Grant committee sent me to a third Party - hence a new benefactor....And those little red squiggles under your words mean that even your spellchecker objects to your rantings. Hence a new benefactor: a benefactor does not expect return for his benificence. INVESTORS DO.
You omit and lie constantly - and have never backed up your objections.
So stop being a liar. Stop doctoring photo - to make more lies, just do the math right.
No you cannot. You can't even answer Minnie's question. You are lying by omission, you are lying outright, and I don't know how you sleep at night, since you apparently believe in a Higher Power who will eventually be judging us all with a rather final and unappealable judgement.
p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.
Wayne
Any one who cares, which does not seem to be the author of this spreadsheet, here are a few small numbers from the spreadsheet that "prove" there is still a buoyant lift acting on all the risers and the pod.Webby are you really unaware of the fact that force is not energy: "The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance." When the risers are restrained, they do not move. That's what restrained means. The spreadsheet fully accounts for the fluid movements during states when the risers are restrained.
ST3AR1HEIGHT 30.005671 mm
ST3AR2AIRHEIGHT 49.650851 mm
ST3AR2HEIGHT 11.349149 mm
ST3AR3HEIGHT 49.365980 mm
STAR4AIRHEIGHT 41.182248 mm
ST3AR4HEIGHT 21.817752 mm
ST3AR5HEIGHT 40.637996 mm
ST3AR6AIRHEIGHT 35.652566 mm
ST3AR6HEIGHT 29.347434 mm
ST3AR7HEIGHT 33.968809 mm
The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance.
If you look at the details you will see that MarkE ONLY included the numbers to support his view,, he did NOT include a complete report nor any supporting numbers against his view.
edit to remove an un-needed inflammatory piece
Does anyone have an issue with state 1 being a condition where all forces acting on the risers and pod equal zero.As a matter of fact I do. But it was a matter of stipulation by Mondrasek. So, the analysis carries that requirement.
The spreadsheet model agrees that pumping in water while the risers are restrained builds excess head in AR7.
Does anyone have an issue with the end of state 2 having positive forces acting on the pod and risers, this caused by the addition of water into the pod chamber.
I am glad you mentioned that. Yes, and yes: The pod and risers do move in the spreadsheet, and that does cost energy taking the system to a lower energy state. Thanks for acknowledging the loss.
Does it not make sense then that the pod and risers will move up as the water columns move back to a lower energy state.
Of course it does. But how much force and how far depends on the LTI history of the machine. If you would like to start with a different set of stipulations, such as filling each of the AR pairs to 22mm and then forcing the risers down with the vents open, then you will see a few things: One of which is that you have to throw away a lot of energy to execute this pre charging step. The second is that you will have to apply and maintain the restraints at this stage because the bottom of each riser is displacing water. If you then carry that through State 2 and to State 3, then the equilibrium point occurs around 2.5906mm instead of 1.4688mm. See: Different constraints yield different answers. But the character of the answers does not change. The energy loss going from State 2 to State 3 gets worse increasing from 28.1% to 34.6% of the stored energy at the end of State 2, and losing over 90% of the energy added in State 2.
Does it not make sense that the pod and risers will move until there is no more sum positive force of buoyancy acting on them.
The Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek stipulation removed any requirement to restrain at State 1. Of course pumping in more fluid in State 2 requires restraint.
Does it not make sense that the pod and risers must be restrained while going from state 1 to end of state 2.
Energy gets added to the system and the system is restrained. That's a good recipe to have some stress or strain show up somewhere.
Does it not make sense that that is an applied force.
Actually that is a bit backwards. F=mA. When the forces come into balance the masses, even the massless ones will stop accelerating.
Does it not make sense that when the pod and risers have stroked until there is no more sum positive force left acting on them that the force to restrain them will drop to zero.
Do you still not understand the difference between linear multiplication and an integral?
Does that not make it then 0.5f*ds, which is the energy output from the pod and risers stroking upwards.
How much energy is required to restrain a motionless object? Please show your work.
MarkE has not included this restraining energy in his analysis.
Again: Under the Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek constraint the system reaches equilibrium at 1.4688mm lift. Remove that constraint and the system comes to equilibrium at 2.5906mm. Apples and oranges.
MarkE has stopped the risers and pod lifting while there is still a positive buoyant force acting on them.
It is a fluid model. The stipulated incompressible fluids freely move within the confinement.
The volume that is needed to be added to the system for the continued movement of the risers and pod comes into the system via AR7, and that is air from the atmosphere which is where the fluid volume from AR7 is moved to when the fluid is added into the pod chamber to go from state 1 to end of state 2, ergo this is an allowed event.
There you go again: You ignore the Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek stipulation. Why do you keep doing that when it has been clearly stated many times now?
MarkE has not explained what is holding the pod and risers from any further movement even tho there is a positive buoyant force acting on them.
You are ignoring things MarkE. Force and distance,, buoyant lift and all that, the resistance needed to be applied against the risers,, more things you are ignoring.Kindly answer the question Webby: When you said this:
Since you have required me to include all such things then I am entitled to require the same from you.
Show what is holding the risers and pod from moving while they still have a positive buoyant force acting on them, you can not!
The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance.
Does anyone have an issue with state 1 being a condition where all forces acting on the risers and pod equal zero.
Does anyone have an issue with the end of state 2 having positive forces acting on the pod and risers, this caused by the addition of water into the pod chamber.
Does it not make sense then that the pod and risers will move up as the water columns move back to a lower energy state.
Does it not make sense that the pod and risers will move until there is no more sum positive force of buoyancy acting on them.
Does it not make sense that the pod and risers must be restrained while going from state 1 to end of state 2.
Does it not make sense that that is an applied force.
Does it not make sense that when the pod and risers have stroked until there is no more sum positive force left acting on them that the force to restrain them will drop to zero.
Does that not make it then 0.5f*ds, which is the energy output from the pod and risers stroking upwards.
MarkE has not included this restraining energy in his analysis.
MarkE has stopped the risers and pod lifting while there is still a positive buoyant force acting on them.
The volume that is needed to be added to the system for the continued movement of the risers and pod comes into the system via AR7, and that is air from the atmosphere which is where the fluid volume from AR7 is moved to when the fluid is added into the pod chamber to go from state 1 to end of state 2, ergo this is an allowed event.
MarkE has not explained what is holding the pod and risers from any further movement even tho there is a positive buoyant force acting on them.
Apples to oranges MarkE.Are you still rejecting the Wayne Travis approved stipulation by Mondaresk?
Push the risers down and that pushes the water up.
What constraint is stopping the pod and risers from lifting further in your state 3 drawing?
That is what one set of calculations show. You are free to show work that contends a different answer.
The water and air are free to move and the pod and risers are weightless. AR7 allows for outside air to enter the system.
Are you actually saying that the actual total lift of the outside riser would be 2.5906mm if allowed to move freely.
Excuse me what is a 99.9% resistance and where was it stipulated?
The lift of the pod and risers will happen even with a 99.9% resistance placed against them, they may move slow but rate has nothing to do with energy, remember.
Please answer my question about force. Do you contend that the restraints that prevent movement impart energy or not?
Again MarkE, what is stopping the pod and risers from lifting, I have shown, and you have shown, that it is not a volume issue, so what is it.
Minnie, here is the ZED from MarkE's State 3. But with only the outer riser represented. Can it rest in this state? Or does the Riser need to move up (the air inside is incompressible) until the water level inside and outside are equal height?Is the impossibly incompressible air inside also massless? Because the answer depends on that. And note that if the air were real air, compressible and obeying the combined Boyle-Charles law... it would behave completely differently, calling into question Wayne's claim that an incompressible fluid would work in lieu of air.
Minnie, here is the ZED from MarkE's State 3. But with only the outer riser represented. Can it rest in this state? Or does the Riser need to move up (the air inside is incompressible) until the water level inside and outside are equal height?Let's start with your stipulation that in State 1 there is no uplift. Is that or is that not your stipulation?
Is the impossibly incompressible air inside also massless? Because the answer depends on that. And note that if the air were real air, compressible and obeying the combined Boyle-Charles law... it would behave completely differently, calling into question Wayne's claim that an incompressible fluid would work in lieu of air.
Also, some pages back mond, you once again said something about how the outside air pressure/volume needed to be considered. I don't think it does, as I said before, because the outside air pressure pushes on the top of the outer water layer with the same pressure no matter how high the level is up in the zed. The outer air, because of its huge volume, is like a "perfectly compressible" fluid: it stores no energy for you because you can "compress" it and its volume doesn't change, and vice versa, because the volume is so huge relative to the slight volume changes you can make with the outer layer of water in a Zed ringwall. I think.
Let's start with your stipulation that in State 1 there is no uplift. Is that or is that not your stipulation?
[size=78%]Not only does the two units of fluid on the right support the entire 13 units on the left, when you remove the two units from the right.... the liquid level only goes down a fraction of that input starting head height. Therefore you have a "net" production that does not reduce the "input" by nearly the same amount.[/size]Hi TK,
MarkE is referencing the surface area of the bottom of the risers being a place where force can be exerted, as well as the volume that the down-tube of the risers occupy.
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.
What air is being used that is 'incompressible?? ???The "air" that Mondrasek stipulated as an incompressible, massless fluid is being used in the model.
Mags
What air is being used that is 'incompressible?? ???
Mags
No movement no energy.That's a relief. So what energy were you referring to when you claimed that I did not account for energy of the restraints?
When did I say anything like that?
Do you contend that energy causes movement?
The water masses are all in the spreadsheet.
Where are your buoyant lift forces in your spreadsheet, where is the buoyant lift from the pod in your spreadsheet?
Mondrasek stipulated as such. See State 1.
Do you contend that a partially sunk float will not move up?
Water countered itself???
It is looking to me that what you did in your analysis is a uniform spread of the water volume countered by the weight of the water columns.
Then you aren't thinking very clearly. Archimedes' Principle dictates the behavior of the always less efficient than a common brick ZED.
Archimedes is dead in the water I think.
It was not, that was in response to you saying there is no energy to be had from the risers and pod lifting, but there can be if you apply the restraint at a 99.9% value required. That is just common sense MarkE,, why just waste what you have when you do not need to.A restraint prevents motion. It does not create energy.
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.That's right, and that's part of the reason that your ZED is an "ideal ZED". Using air as in a real ZED is less efficient.
In fact, using a compressible fluid such as real air causes more losses due to the relationships described in the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT. The change in V due to P does change the T, by creating heat when compressed. It is a loss mechanism only and cannot be completely recovered. So using two incompressible liquids leads to a better performance.
And the bigger the difference between those two fluid's Specific Gravity values, the better.Nope, the efficiency improves as the SG's converge. When the SG's are the same, IE the "air" is replaced with water, the losses improve a lot.
Yes, the "air" is just a fluid that moves back and forth to fill out the volume changes.
I agree that the outside air pressure/volume does not need to be considered. Except that the system is open to the outside air and so air can enter and exit the system freely as Pressure and Volume changes inside the system require to satisfy the Volume constraint of each internal fluid to remain constant.
Of course. There is no head difference between the ID and OD surface on any riser. The pod has no water in contact with it at all. So all risers and the pod are being acted on by zero buoyant Forces. Also, the sum of the buoyant Forces on all the risers and the pod is exactly zero. There are zero Forces acting on the system and therefore zero motion would occur.I withdraw my objection. Yes, State 1 is in equilibrium naturally. I will have to rework the problem on that basis. It will not however materially change the outcome: Preparing State 1 is lossy. State 1 to State 2 is ideally conservative, and State 2 to State 3 is always lossy.
BTW, this is not a "stipulation." This is a physical fact derived from the geometry and the assumption of incompressible fluids.
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.Well, exactly. So why is Travis using air instead of kerosene or peanut oil? I know why.
In fact, using a compressible fluid such as real air causes more losses due to the relationships described in the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT. The change in V due to P does change the T, by creating heat when compressed. It is a loss mechanism only and cannot be completely recovered. So using two incompressible liquids leads to a better performance. And the bigger the difference between those two fluid's Specific Gravity values, the better.
In every drawing I have seen, the outside air does NOT enter the system. The "system boundary" is along the top edge of the outer air column. This boundary moves but is never penetrated unless you blow skirts or overflow the top. The only thing the outside air does is press down on the outer layer of water and it does this with the same force regardless of the column's height (within reason of course. Make a column a mile high and then pressures will change.) The outer air pressure works against your injection of fluid, I think. If it were vacuum out there you would be able to inject the same amount of fluid but with less resistance (less working against the pressure of the outside air.) I think.
I agree that the outside air pressure/volume does not need to be considered. Except that the system is open to the outside air and so air can enter and exit the system freely as Pressure and Volume changes inside the system require to satisfy the Volume constraint of each internal fluid to remain constant.
Well, exactly. So why is Travis using air instead of kerosene or peanut oil? I know why.In every drawing I have seen, the outside air does NOT enter the system. The "system boundary" is along the top edge of the outer air column. This boundary moves but is never penetrated unless you blow skirts or overflow the top. The only thing the outside air does is press down on the outer layer of water and it does this with the same force regardless of the column's height (within reason of course. Make a column a mile high and then pressures will change.) The outer air pressure works against your injection of fluid, I think. If it were vacuum out there you would be able to inject the same amount of fluid but with less resistance (less working against the pressure of the outside air.) I think.I look at things a little bit differently. We are presented with a claim that by combining certain elements there is not only major advantage over well known and much simpler machines, there is actually a way to get free energy. Those claims are both false.
"Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc."
You have built it? And you have shown it does not work??? Has Mark? Has MH? Bah, he never builds anything yet knows it all in 10 sec of looking at it, right? Well, I dont follow the 10 sec diagnosis bullony. Just the mention of OU and the 'no it isnt' comes without the 'work' to prove it. Thats so easy. I wish I had that job. Boring but probably pays ok. ;)
You guys can talk all you want. But you never prove that it doesnt work, just state whats in the books, all in a tight little box.
So what if Wayne has an investor. As long as its not you or your Mom, what do you care? People get investments all the time. Sure some people get ripped off. But man you better be able to back up your statements of lies, thievery, ponzi, criminality. Wayne is not making the argument, you are. He is giving only what he said he would give, and the 2 people that are interested are being persecuted for doing what they want to do, and you have a problem with that??? So put up your numbers and show your non working device, then I will listen. Meanwhile, why cant these 3 guys hang out and discuss what they want in peace??? No?? They must pay for their deeds!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Mags
Hey! Remember John Rohner claiming that he would show his extraordinary plasma motor at that _real_ Power-Gen trade show? We mocked him well before the show and said that never in a million years would he show a running motor. John claimed that he would. I still smile thinking about the Team Rohner bumpkins standing around at that trade show while real power industry professionals walked by their booth. Of course there was no motor in sight, and there has _never_ been a plasma motor in sight. Yet there is still a web page out there fishing. The same thing will happen with the prancing fluids free energy pumpitude machine. You will never see it in your lifetime. The only question is how the end game will play out.I remember the giant empty plastic display case.
OK, so let me get this straight. If I see a woman, whom I do not know, getting robbed on the street, I should just let that happen? After all, I don't know her, she is not my Mom or a family member....right? Is this the attitude you are suggesting that I take? I really hope not.Wayne Travis claims over unity. Check out the mission statement on his web site.
As you mentioned, I am usually impartial on things but, I was NOT impartial during the Mylow saga. Sometimes, a man just has to take a stand. Now, Mylow was not selling anything to anyone but, many folks were spending a lot of money trying to replicate his "working" device. This was still wrong. I live in a world of right and wrong.
One last thing. I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources. Not at all. If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine. But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud. Do you understand what I am saying here?
Now Wayne has said, he does not claim overunity but, he did. I wonder what those investors were told? Do you know?
That is all I have to say.
Bill
Wayne Travis claims over unity. Check out the mission statement on his web site.
OK, so let me get this straight. If I see a woman, whom I do not know, getting robbed on the street, I should just let that happen? After all, I don't know her, she is not my Mom or a family member....right? Is this the attitude you are suggesting that I take? I really hope not.
As you mentioned, I am usually impartial on things but, I was NOT impartial during the Mylow saga. Sometimes, a man just has to take a stand. Now, Mylow was not selling anything to anyone but, many folks were spending a lot of money trying to replicate his "working" device. This was still wrong. I live in a world of right and wrong.
One last thing. I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources. Not at all. If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine. But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud. Do you understand what I am saying here?
Now Wayne has said, he does not claim overunity but, he did. I wonder what those investors were told? Do you know?
That is all I have to say.
Bill
Bill, I have had to learn that to some over unity means magical free energy - and that is not what we have.You do not have what you claim. Shall we review the list yet again?
The walls of blather showed nothing material. They did demonstrate your behavior.
If you read all my posts on the other thread - you will only need to read a few - and you will see where I shared the struggles our early engineers had with seperating that distinction.
Kindly provide an example of a lie you claim that TK has told.
TK ALWAYS OMITS THE CONTENT _ IF IT DOES NOT FIT HIS LIES>
Mechanical amplification of force or power are trivial. They do not produce energy ex nihilo as you falsely claim to do.
Bill,
We have mechanical amplification.
The efficiency of each constituent sub process in a composite process multiply. Losses cannot be made up in volume. If one ZED is underunity: And it unquestionably is, then any number N ZEDs placed in series or parallel are similarly underunity.
I am sorry you accept TKs tactics of creating scenrio's to call people liars - do you know hown many times he - not having a clue - and still does not - how our system operates insisted that a single ZED must be over unity - because - in his assumption - that two under unity systems can not be combined to produce excess energy?
Any single ZED is unquestionably under unity. Were any ZED in any form OU, you could point to the specific subprocess that is OU. You cannot do so, because there is no such OU subprocess. All of the processes are under unity as is the composite contraption.
I am sorry Smart guys like Mark E - fall for his crap.
And Many jumped in total ignorance agreeing....
The part of my answer that TK left ommited to share - was this - Yes you can have an excess with a single ZED - much more complicated and slower - you will have to configure a way to capture and reuse the exhuast - and re insert it at the next stroke.
If any PE has written a report that supports your false claims to an over unity / free energy device I would like to see a copy of the signed report. I'm sure the certifying authority and his E&O insurer would like to see it as well.
You still can altered heights for proper speed with a dual system- but is stupid.
Over unity or free energy or net energy of a "little" is pointless - our first single layer pod system was PE certified on the upstroke at 105% and that did not include reusing the exhuast. That engineer repeated, and repeated, called in others, repeated, and then prayed and then started over (white sheeted) three times again - and then accepted just 105%
Whereas you just emit a steady effluent stream of lies to investors. That video TinselKoala got his hands on is quite enlightening.
Which is a total waste of time - since my goal was Net energy - I could care less about the covet claim - I am ashamed that men treat each other like TK and MH, it is sad that they are trash talkers.
Yet, Mark Dansie never saw a working system: Never. You are free to attempt to extract a more favorable statement from him. He has never witnessed the initial proof of concept demonstration that he has insisted would be a first step towards further consideration of your false claims.
p.s. After the PE's finished - I and independent engineering firm verify - prior to any investment form any of my family Except one. Mark Dansie Came a year later when we were testing three layer system - much much better.
Those people must include Mr. Dansie himself. Feel free to avail yourself to the public comments he has placed on the record.
He asked for a self runner to show/ help people like TK - maybe not him personally - but people who refused to understand the process.
Ms. Kanshi is a university professor. What are you?
I did - not for me - not for our company - and not for fame or money.
MH, ME and Kanshi and all screamed foul - "adding to a system can not make it more efficient" --- really - they did not think that one out.
You need a different dictionary.
Posted crap and doctored photos - called water hoses - extension cords - claimed we put hidden pumps.
TK called Mark a shill - he calls anyone a shill - I have the posts saved - where he worked tirelessly to defraud him. Pure shame.
Really? Are you going to go with that story? I'd sure like to see evidence that backs such a claim.
I invited TK, I had him checked out, but before I could reply - he flipped out claiming he would steal it if he could???
Nope, each time you add layers you compound your losses. Feel free to publish any analysis you rely upon to find differently.
I have those notes as well.
Can you reduce losses by adding more layers - yes
Nope. Adding layers just exacerbates the losses of your less efficient than a brick scheme.
It does if you are increasing the output at a proportional rate faster than the increases of losses.
Layering does that.
Oh, so now you claim that there is a 'Travis effect'. That's terrific. Kindly state directly and succinctly what you claim the "Travis effect" to be. Kindly distinguish it from previously known fluid mechanics.
I am sorry if you do not get that - not my intent to confuse you.
Here is what I see you doing - you chiming in on three thugs - that do not know the Travis effect from Archimedes......
You system alters nothing to do with Archimedes' Principle. But since you now personally claim that there is a 'Travis effect' do be so kind as to describe it.
Archimedes is not wrong - when used in the context he presented it - our system alters that.
I can buy a 5 ton jack at the auto parts store that can produce the same forces in a much more compact space for under $20. Force is not energy. Force is not conserved. Energy is conserved.
The simple proof - 10,000 pounds buoyant force in the space that displaces 2000 pounds of water - I hope you do not miss that....and we only move less than one 2 cubic feet of water to go from sink to 10,000 pounds buoyancy.
I also missed the CIE index of flaming purple stratospheric flamingos. Nested pistons are not news.
P.s. look at the spread sheets - even Mark E - what is the actual space versus the total Buoyancy? He missed that one to.
That is a completely meaningless statement. Archimedes' Principle describes the behavior of buoyancy. It's only requirement is a fluid and something to displace fluid.
Just shows that Buoyancy can be used in a different arrangement than Archimedes ...
It's funny how you keep claiming you have explained something when the only thing rational folks seem to observe is a lot of hand waving.
Not that I have not tried to explain the diffirence twenty times - shown it and had four engineers post comparisons - now that was hard - every time I tried to explain - TK ME MH and other dud's demanded attention on anything from pink unicorns to psyco logical claims of superior understanding of a system they still can not explain -
If only could actually show something new. But you haven't. Every objective evaluation of the meager actual information you have produced shows no new behavior, and no conformance to your false claims.
Any person trying to understand was spammed -
Bill - it has one simple part.................
No one Can disprove it - You stand behind the guys that won't actually analyze the process and against the ones that have learned something new.
Why would anyone defend false claims unless they stood to personally benefit? I do not know of any vested interest that Bill has.
You helped them - that is your right - but don't sit there and tell us that you did your own thinking and own homework - I know the fact about that - or else you would be defending us.
We know the lies that you keep telling Wayne. They all concern your false claims to machines that generate energy for free.
All they do is bash make lies up about me = twist and shout down,
A gang of thugs and you picked up your stick and helped.
That's great! Take a stand for every red blooded, Bible thumping con artist who has the guts to reach for a brass ring paid for by cash traded for empty dreams. "America the beautiful, land that I love ..."
That is the mistake you are making.
You want to take a stand - I do not care about me here - but they do it to everyone that wont bow to them. I never will, and I will not help them.
Yet you are unable to refute him. What could anyone who objects to your false claims do were you to actually prove your false claims? Oh, there's that sticky problem again: You don't prove your claims because you can't prove your claims, because they are false.
To be clear - they are ignorant - or doing it on purpose - and a few good people get sucked into their lies - like you.
I am sorry to write this at all, the man is sick. I put him on ignore - to leave him be.
Yes, let's ask someone who 'understands'. A registered PE would be best, because they have their professional livelihood at stake.
I am more sorry that you think that our hard work and effort and good people deserves that crap.
I invite you to ask one of the men that do understand our system -
But, you of course say that with love and respect, don't you Wayne?
That bully - whose "lies about me" that you quoted as facts..... of course he likes other people to do his fight for him.
But he is just a punk, with puppets.
Wayne
Mark - you missed it again,I know the highlighted passages that grace your mission statement are bald-faced lies. Your claims are false. If you want to see where this can end up call up Dr. Dr. John Rohner Ph.D. Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of his special visit.
Net Energy - do you know the difference?
I did not know the difference two years ago.
If you do - stop spreading lies about me.
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.The first highlight: "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.
"One last thing. I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources. Not at all. If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine. But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud. Do you understand what I am saying here?"
Something that 'looked' like something promising, and you may have wanted to risk peoples kickstarter money to see if it works? ??? ??
Mags
The first highlight: "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.
The second highlight is false because the Russian Dolls of Ignorance do nor present any new physics or insights on existing physics.
The third highlight contains multiple statements, all of which are false.
Hello and Welcome, My name is Wayne Travis, I am the inventor of the Hydro Energy Technology.
My invention is an apparatus utilizing buoyant forces and a method for doing the same.
Hydro Energy Revolution was originally formed by family, and merged into a community effort, 81 persons with a wide range of skills and support.
We are currently evolving into an international team of diverse and successful experts in the development, marketing distribution, manufacturing and maintenance, of new technology. Mark Dansie has been key in vetting and inviting the new team members.
It is clearly a quest for a better and clean energy technology that is bringing these groups together for the common goal.
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.
We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.
Our Machine will be used to supply electricity, both commercially and through leases.
It has many applications, we look forward to supplying many needs.
Several generations of output will be scaled, 25, 50, and 100 kilo watts are planned to be Beta tested.
We are currently securing the team and then will secure the funding for those three models.
Five representatives from States in the USA have requested licenses early - and nine countries have requested meetings through Mark Dansie.
You may submit questions to me, Wayne Travis at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I will be glad to answer.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis
Hello and Welcome, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It has been my joy and purpose working together with so many of you.
We as a company currently have the cooperation of 160 members, and many people following our work who prefer to stay out of the light for now.
When I named the Company - HydroEnergy Revolution llc - I picked the "Hydro" to reflect the Buoyancy break through, "Energy" reflects the product, and "Revolution" reflects the change we are having on both understanding of Physics and Energy production.
Our System uses a special "Hydraulic, Pneumatic, Solid interaction - that is so complex and yet so simple - the design is summarily characterized as "Simply Brilliant".
Our system does not use fuel - instead we utilize the separate range of reactions that occur when Gravity effects the interaction within our Hydraulic, Pneumatic, and Solid system.
I was asked this week by a Brilliant Engineer - who had just reviewed our interactive system - he said “I have been reviewing your system......and I have to wonder ...... with the vast intelligence and educational resources ..... In this day and age.... All trying to solve the energy problem - did we overlook something so simple and yet so wonderfully complex?"
My answer - "Most of the "Education" that we esteem, fund and support - limits the students minds to the simple realm of conservative energy systems - how can you expect to find a non-conservative energy source when the parameters are already set to exclude them...
Our discovery is a paradigm shift in the understanding of mechanical energy production, we do not defy the Laws of Energy conversion, we do not contradict the Laws of Thermal dynamics - we leave those where they belong - very appropriately describing conservative energy systems.
To be clear - we have a non-conservative.... energy producing... evolution in technology:
One day soon, our education system will educate our engineers on "when and where to apply the limitations" understand the difference and reality of both conservative systems and non-conservative.
There is a great value to the old understanding - it is tried, true, and tested - the awakening comes when it is understood that the "Old Laws” did not encompass, test and try all future discovery.
I am thankful that our volunteers, engineers, scientists and support group have evolved beyond that self-inflicted and limited thinking of the conservation of energy.
Thank you all - you are on the leading and powerful edge of the future.
For those of you who are new to our work, I know and am sorry that our work upsets a lot of people - so did the earth being round and not the center of the universe - if it matters greatly to you - get involved.
We have a Revolution of Technology on our hands - like the Light bulb, the Airplane, the Microchip, and mapping DNA - we have "new tools" under our control - to move forward in our future.
We welcome those who would like to solve for them self and "see" what we are saying; it is the due diligence of people who "question" - that build our teams and group.
To all:
Billions have been spent on search for the a new energy source: the Super (atom) Collider, Cleaner Coal, Better fuel cells, better batteries, better Solar cells, better drilling methods, sustained Cold fusion, and much much more.
Billions in Taxes and limitations have been set on entropy energy production...of course passed onto the consumer - you and me.
The World is in desperation for energy - do you think they wanted to build the nuclear power plants around the ring of fire ... around earthquakes? Nuclear power is a band aid - to a wound - we have the technology to heal the wounds around the world.
We all know Energy "costs" have limited energy "availability" in most parts of the world, the band aid has caused countless loss of life, health and loss of freedom and cultural advancement........
We are on a mission of "change", expect resistance, expect challenges, expect ignorance.
What we have is a gift to mankind, one mankind desperately needs, We will Never give up, never surrender, until the responsibility that is our is met, our work fulfilled.
To say we have a special "Market Nitch" or that "we have an abundant fuel source" - As Steven advertised - "Gravity, Always ON!"
Gravity is a simple way to communicate with the academia with limited thinking - Gravity and its different effects on Gas - liquids, and solids - and is the reason our system works - it is key to our design - but we do not consume the gravity, saying it is a fuel source - is incorrect.
Gravity and Mechanics working together - to create the special conditions required for a non-conservative and "New" Energy source, for our future and our children’s children’s future.
We can say we have the most reliable and cleanest energy system ever invented by man - yet it is much more than that - it is a discovery that can usher in peace and prosperity.
To date, we have had the right people discover us and become involved, at the right time, at the right need -Such a blessing as to be beyond understanding.
Our Company is a "New" direction, bringing a "New" Energy source.... join us - pray for us, follow us - we will be true to our purpose.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis
405-574-2157
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.
Wow, you really missed the point here. IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.
This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF. Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.
Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy. The innocent need no defense. Remember that.
Bill
Wow, you really missed the point here. IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.
This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF. Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.
Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy. The innocent need no defense. Remember that.
Bill
Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on". Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. Someone read "Slapstick".
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
The innocent need no defense - really.Either you are fully funded or you are not, Wayne Travis. How could "I" be lying when I have put up your entire powerpoint slide show, and then pointed out that TODAY, long since you have been "fully funded", there is still no 50 kW powerplant at the church? I did say, after all, that nobody in the group you gave the presentation to "bit". So just where and how did I lie.... but more importantly..... look at all the places YOU have lied!
You have quoted lies that TK has spread at least twice now - please do your own research.
It was very clearly explained, by me to TK, and thee rest of the forum, that The grant committee sent me to a third party - and did not give me the grant - and that plan was not funded.
But he suckered you into calling me a liar.
I am sorry for that.
You are backing the wrong guy.
Wayne
November 15, 2013:
If you look carefully over the years, Travis has gone from claiming a working free energy machine that will save the world, and a patent, in the early days, all the way "forward" to claiming a business plan, objectives to be met, and patent applications, today.
Now _that's_ progress !
Are you falling behind, Mags? The full quote and the url reference are on the previous page.
Are you falling behind, Mags? The full quote and the url reference are on the previous page.
Either you are fully funded or you are not, Wayne Travis. How could "I" be lying when I have put up your entire powerpoint slide show, and then pointed out that TODAY, long since you have been "fully funded", there is still no 50 kW powerplant at the church? I did say, after all, that nobody in the group you gave the presentation to "bit". So just where and how did I lie.... but more importantly..... look at all the places YOU have lied!
The internet never forgets, Wayne Travis. Many of your old newsletters are still publicly viewable even though you have tried to suppress them. See the previous page.
5. TAZ – The second Diamond:
of this system is the Mass momentum of the system, it is captured during the end of the tilt - and that energy is returned to reverse the direction.
The output is in pressure and volume - it can be removed in the form of air or water.
The system has a minimum pressure to maintain the proper internal orientation of the system currently 8 psi the output is varied by the pressure desired - if you were to output 13 psi you will have 4000 cubic inches of fluid or air - per tilt.In this set up - this give you 4000 cubic inches of volume with 5 psi usable force - In simple terms - that is 20,000 inch pounds output - per tilt.
We produce on both direction by offsetting two sets of "layers" 65 Degrees - On the TAZ - we call the "layers" - Loops. Currently - we are not yet "closed looped" with the TAZ - but the input and output is measurable........................The current undeveloped output of the system is Air and pressure or Water and pressure.
So in its most basic form - we have an New Energy pumping system.
What you do with the pump or its output is limited to our ability to imagine purpose.
As electrical production as its "use" "it will over come the cost of wind (electrical) generation, and solve the reliability issues with other sources of natural energy.....first.
It can be used for agricultural pumping, air moving such as mining, hooked to a standard pressure increaser - it could be used to provide hydraulic power - All fuel and emission free for as long as you desire.........................
Our input Energy to our TAZ is currently hydraulic - we use 700 psi and between 2 and 4 cubic inches (depends on output desire)
and we can currently safely run 3.5 dual tilts per minute -
providing a volume of 4000 cubic inches out put per 2 to 4 cubic inches input.
3.5 spm x dual system x 4000ci = 28,000 cubic inches out put Water or 121gpm @t 5 psi = Output
3.5spm x dual system x 4ci = 28ci or 12% of one gallon or .12gpm @ 700psi = input.
A normal cycle is one set of the "loops" tilting from the 85 degree position to the 20 degree position =
while the reverse side is tilting from its the 20 degree position to its 85Degree position.
The angles are relative the "loops" not to each other. When either loop is reaching the 20 degrees - it is lowering its pressure and the fluid or air output returns, when either set of loops is increasing its angle form 20 toward 85 - it is supplying output.
Currently we do not have our output system completed - so when we cycle - we can pump the output "water" to a raised reservoir and then let it fall to a lower reservoir which is then fed back into the TAZ. We also have an air bag system to use the air output as a mechanical pump - we are working on it as a hydraulic production system to close loop the TAZ.
Without the hydraulic out put system - our current system is not set up to accumulate the energy - it can provide the pumping continuously, or be started and stopped as needed.
The most logical long term use will be Clean Energy production, remote Energy production - pumping will likely be the initial product.
I am not sure what is all possible - what our devices both do - is make it economical to produce energy for consumption without pollution, and without consuming resources - beyond the capital costs.
Our TAZ system has two distinct advantages beyond the clean and New - simple to build and operate, Cheaper to supply continuous energy than Fossil fuel.
Disadvantage - we will never be as small as a fossil fuel system - but we could be used to compress hydrogen fuel - without the 80% loss.
In short, we have two ground breaking discoveries utilizing two separate yet related methods to generate Net energy, we are a small company and gathering good guidance.
We have both filed as patent applications the first is rolled over to the full application - the TAZ is a complete application in preparation yet we have it filed as a provisional for protection - giving us time to get thru development.
We have several replications of both systems, and the physics do not require a PhD to understand - if instructed properly - I have instructed many "in person" - it makes sense when you can see and touch and have questions answered.
I hope this is helping...Since we have had to invent names to call things - in order to communicate together here at the lab and world wide - I understand that it must be difficult trying to follow - I prefer not to try to "explain" over the phone - or e-mail - but I will try if desired - a visit is best.
Thank you for your time.
Wayne Travis
Great topic TK
Who wants to discuss why it takes 161 cubic feet of air to lift 10,000 pounds with good old regular buoyancy
and only 2 cubic feet with a ZED.....
Makes it quick to turn buoyancy on or off - - oh boy faster lol
Wayne
I can lift my entire automobile with a lever, pushing down with only a few pounds of force. SO? My car doesn't run itself
... and neither do any of your many claimed test apparatuses. That's the only interesting issue here: what you have claimed, and what you DO NOT HAVE.
TK,You made the power point show in November of 2010. I presume you presented it shortly thereafter.
That was so many years ago - I do not even know when lol
No - we did not get funding from that power point - we had a TK in the room claiming I must be a fraud - p.s. he was fired later.Of course he was. You have carefully selected those who surround you, as all cult leaders do.
I have never threatened you, Wayne Travis ol boy. You are threatening yourself, though, by engaging in very risky behaviour.
TK every time you make your silly threats - who are you talking to, yourself?
I always tell it like it is , as it is, at the time it is....
Let me guess - you never wore diapers - well I did, and I said I did at one time - and things change.
I don't now - so why don't you look me up in thirty years and call me a liar when I put on a pair then.
So silly.
December 6, 2012:
Mags, where do you think buoyancy comes from? The only way to turn it on and off is if you turn gravity on and off. Submarines don't do that, they pump water into and out of ballast tanks, decreasing and increasing the effective volume of the boat. This takes a goodly amount of time and it isn't turning anything on and off.
Now read that last newsletter carefully. Note that he is talking about inputs and outputs of liquid water. You put a little in, and you get a lot out.
Do we really have to say any more?
A lever ok?
The question was "with buoyancy"
Stay on topic and save your insults.
Thanks
I love your collection - you should see mine.Not my collection at all, Wayne ol boy. Your whole old website is saved on the internet for anyone to see, by the Wayback Machine. You can try to suppress information that you have posted, but you cannot actually do it.
It takes near 5 years for many many many people to come up with a new playstation version. And each new model is only an improvement of the previous design. All just to play games and make money. ;)
Mags
Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"Steorn made their big public splash with their absurd claims to free energy from arranging permanent magnets coming up on eight years ago. They failed at all their demonstration attempts. Their jury ruled unanimously that Steorn failed to ever show any evidence that they could produce energy. And even one of their true believers eventually came out and decried their false claims of free energy as the result of measurement errors. Maybe you would like to select a jury of 22. It bought Steorn a good two and half years. Now Steorn have some water heater contraption.
What do you base that off?
Wayne
"Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. "How much would you like to bet?
Now, you REALLY need to show me that quote from Wayne. Show me and everyone here that Wayne said that. Ill be here eagerly waiting on that one. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) I really hope you can produce that piece of evidence. :o ;) But I bet Ill just get some whole page runaround instead. Bet on it. ;)
Mags
Hello and Welcome, My name is Wayne Travis, I am the inventor of the Hydro Energy Technology.
My invention is an apparatus utilizing buoyant forces and a method for doing the same.
Hydro Energy Revolution was originally formed by family, and merged into a community effort, 81 persons with a wide range of skills and support.
We are currently evolving into an international team of diverse and successful experts in the development, marketing distribution, manufacturing and maintenance, of new technology. Mark Dansie has been key in vetting and inviting the new team members.
It is clearly a quest for a better and clean energy technology that is bringing these groups together for the common goal.
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.
We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.
Our Machine will be used to supply electricity, both commercially and through leases.
It has many applications, we look forward to supplying many needs.
Several generations of output will be scaled, 25, 50, and 100 kilo watts are planned to be Beta tested.
We are currently securing the team and then will secure the funding for those three models.
Five representatives from States in the USA have requested licenses early - and nine countries have requested meetings through Mark Dansie.
You may submit questions to me, Wayne Travis at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I will be glad to answer.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis
Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled, Wayne Travis. And it is YOU who are insulting me, as usual, over and over. I am not that stupid, to fall for your dodges and lies.
Do you or do you not have the device Minnie has asked you about? A self running, 5 hp "net" device that outputs more ENERGY than the zero amount it takes to run it? Yes, or no.... or weasel some mo'.
The Zed has segregated surface area's - and we can control how much effect each is contributing to the lift during a production stroke, and how they contribute to the exhuast pressure on the down stroke.Why of course: Let's discuss that. Just post a diagram and your math. Show your energy gain. Force gain won't cut it. We need to see you "turn buoyancy on and off at will", and/or gain energy at will. Are you finally up to the task?
It is a liquid piston technology,
The ability to change the size of the effective surface area at will.
The effective surface area - is directly responsible for the pressure required for lift, the production
And directly responsible for the pressure produced during the sink.
A big piston on the way up and a small piston on the way down -
NOW Here is the kicker - same volume and time both directions..
Any one want to discuss that?
Not my collection at all, Wayne ol boy. Your whole old website is saved on the internet for anyone to see, by the Wayback Machine. You can try to suppress information that you have posted, but you cannot actually do it.
Nope. Submarines been doing 'that' for a long time. Mark specified 'gravity'. Is there no difference???I think you should avail yourself to a physics primer.
"Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on". Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. Someone read "Slapstick"."
No link necessary. ;)
Mags
Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled,
Your fantasy -
You see TK, when you are telling the truth - it does not matter who has your records.
If all your posts were deleted - well - the world would be missing something.
As far as your fantasy about me supressing? get a life, If I want to back up my systems or add stuff - who cares what you think about that.
Great topic TKUnless you are trying to float 10klbs in an air atmosphere, no air is required. In water, we need to displace about 161 cubic feet of water. But then a $20. jack from AutoZone will generate 10klbs of lift in about 1/4 of a cubic foot.
Who wants to discuss why it takes 161 cubic feet of air to lift 10,000 pounds with good old regular buoyancy
and only 2 cubic feet with a ZED.....
Makes it quick to turn buoyancy on or off - - oh boy faster lol
Wayne
Who wants to discuss how we can lift and deliver a load - without consuming the inlet pressure??Consuming pressure? Surely you jest. Pressure is not a conserved quantity. Let's see you convey energy without consuming any energy.
OK that is too easy...
Lets do it without a spring or air....
A ZED can.....
I think you should avail yourself to a physics primer.
I really hate to argue with you T. I respect your knowledge and intellect more than your cohorts. But.. Can you show me a reference to that statement, other than your own? ??? ;) Please?? You must have a copy ready for cut and paste. ;D
Mags
Why of course: Let's discuss that. Just post a diagram and your math. Show your energy gain. Force gain won't cut it. We need to see you "turn buoyancy on and off at will", and/or gain energy at will. Are you finally up to the task?
I really hate to argue with you T. I respect your knowledge and intellect more than your cohorts. But.. Can you show me a reference to that statement, other than your own? ??? ;) Please?? You must have a copy ready for cut and paste. ;Dhttp://physics.j3science.com/images/d/db/Buoyancy_Summary.pdf
Mags
Buoyancy Summary
Fb = p*V*g
•p is the density of the displaced fluid
•V is the volume of displaced fluid
•g is the acceleration of gravity
•That is, Fb is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
...
My rule not yours - not your machine... sorry.So you can't demonstrate turning buoyancy on and off after all, can you?
So where have you turned buoyancy on or off? Shifting weights around does not alter the principle of buoyancy. Let's see you describe something that can be verified where buoyancy is active one moment, and is not active the next.
Since you have a tiny bit of understanding - I will jump ahead a bit.
P.s. don't tell me if you agree or not - you don't get it - I got that.
When a ZED is sinking - the heads are lower
When the ZED is rising - the heads are higher
RIght, right.
The lower heads result in a concentration of the forces to the middle of the ZED
The higher heads result in a greater distribution of heads.
The result ----the loaded ZED more effectively utilizes the total surfaces
The Sinking ZED uses less surface area
The benefit:
Less pressure needed per pound on the lift.......
Less load to create pressure on the sink........
And the difference between the two...........wait for it - not equal rocks......or Non conservative
RED and I explained this year ago.....
p.s. to save your MATH - if you leave the same load on up and down - it is a rock - or "brick" as you see it.
Not what we do buddy.
Hi,
Wayne the most likely thing you'll ever do with gravity is to talk up a
hot air balloon .
Have you ever answered my yes/no question?
I've no idea what you're supposed to be doing because you're not making
any headway, after all this time you've shown nothing!
John.
How much would you like to bet?
You do understand that buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity acting on a fluid displacement, don't you?
So you can't demonstrate turning buoyancy on and off after all, can you?So where have you turned buoyancy on or off? Shifting weights around does not alter the principle of buoyancy. Let's see you describe something that can be verified where buoyancy is active one moment, and is not active the next.
What I said, gravity is the only force involved.
(People are gonna see that "rho" for density and think it's a "p" for pressure, just watch.)
You act as if there were no water or atmosphere, that gravity and buoyancy coexist still. Buoyancy can be an effect due to gravity, but it is not gravity itself. It is just a result of certain conditions affected by gravity.Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter. Would you like to spin again?
Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off.
So far, I won that bet. Pay uP sucka!!! lol Classic dodging. ;) And typical. ;D
Mags
Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter. Would you like to spin again?
I am sorry Mark,Oh so you are feigning ignorance. I get it. When you say you can switch buoyancy on and off what you really mean is that you can expend work to eject or take on ballast just like people have known how to do for 2000 years. I was under the mistaken impression that you were claiming that you could actually do something unique.
You must have me confused with TK,
I turn Buoyancy off and on the same way anyone does - just faster - so much faster..
Thanks
double dodgeAdd this to your reading list. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/listing/2694149522639?r=1&cm_mmca2=pla&cm_mmc=GooglePLA-_-TextBook_NotInStock_75Up-_-Q000000633-_-2694149522639
Your talking to the Guru of buoyancy TK,I was not addressing you, Travis, and Mags knows my history and knows that if I say I can demonstrate something... I really can do it. You? Not so much.
Honestly - if you can not see the allocation of differential density in our system - and the ease at which we effect them.HONESTLY? You have got to be kidding me. Thou hypocrite, I spew you from my mouth like the drink of lukewarm Zed leakage that you are.
Better stop lecturing me.Or what, you big bully? Are you going to shoot a spitwad at me? Fail to mention me in your prayers? STOP THREATENING ME.
You act as if there were no water or atmosphere, that gravity and buoyancy coexist still. Buoyancy can be an effect due to gravity, but it is not gravity itself. It is just a result of certain conditions affected by gravity.
Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off.
So far, I won that bet. Pay uP sucka!!! lol Classic dodging. ;) And typical. ;D
Mags
I was not addressing you, Travis, and Mags knows my history and knows that if I say I can demonstrate something... I really can do it. You? Not so much. HONESTLY? You have got to be kidding me. Thou hypocrite, I spew you from my mouth like the drink of lukewarm Zed leakage that you are.Or what, you big bully? Are you going to shoot a spitwad at me? Fail to mention me in your prayers? STOP THREATENING ME.
see how you twisted that commentThe only ability the ZED has is as a vehicle to raise money from people who do not perform technical due diligence. Contrary to your false claims, you cannot generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights. You can only expend net energy doing such things. When may we see a report from any professional engineer who supports your false claims?
I do not threaten you - I am trying to save you from emberassing yourself more.
You missed the ability of the ZED - and all of your attacks are misguided.
I suggest rather than getting stuck on a "decimal point" you go back and look at what Larry shared.
or just stop wasting your own time.
see how you twisted that commentYou've threatened me more than once, both veiled and overtly. I am not embarrassed about anything, but I think you are. You have been asked a simple question and you refuse to answer it with "NO" because that would expose you as a false claimant by your own admission, and you refuse to answer it with "YES" because of that silly 8th Commandment. You probably think it's the Ninth, but you know which one I mean. Deut. 5, verses 4 onward.
I do not threaten you - I am trying to save you from emberassing yourself more.
You missed the ability of the ZED - and all of your attacks are misguided.
I suggest rather than getting stuck on a "decimal point" you go back and look at what Larry shared.
or just stop wasting your own time.
Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter. Would you like to spin again?
There is an easy way to control buoyancy, and that is by controlling the volume of the thing that is displacing the water.
Umm, like a submarine?? ;) ;DA submarine has tanks that are opened from within the boat, and it takes time to fill those tanks. This does not result in a "volume change" as much as it results in a "weight change". The sealed volume of the boat remains the same, but its weight is increased so it sinks and guess what, it is GRAVITY that sinks it. The Cartesian diver is operated by Pressure Changes coming from Outside, and the Diver responds instantly to those changes because its Volume changes so that it displaces more or less water, but its weight remains the same. Again, it is Gravity that makes the diver descend AND rise.
Night T
Mags
Where is the acceleration in a boat floating on a flat lake? :o It must be really slow. Actually, Im not much interested in waiting for the boat to accelerate. ;) I dont have time for that. ::)No Mags I am afraid that it is you who is a little slow. Just as the mass of the boat is acted upon by the acceleration due to gravity so is the equivalent mass of displaced fluid. Maybe you worry that the acceleration due to gravity is going to pull you through your bed as you sleep tonight. Thankfully for you there is Newton's Third Law to keep you from vanishing from under your covers to a fiery doom at the earth's center.
Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off. :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ;D
Master of the universe cant back up his own statements. Was it just sarcasm???? ;) Astigmatism?? :o ;D Maybe you can dig that quote up for tomorrow, just to give you some time to get it together. ;) No pressure. lol
Ok, time to sleep. Night
Mags
If anyone reading this new threat had any doubts about Wayne travesties honesty, take a look at the list of quotes from the old thread, Wayne will accuse me of anything he can to divert attention from his failings and dishonesty, he will also come up with multiple excuses to try and justify his failings and deceit.
Really - don't want me to refute your theory?? But you are allowed to pot shot mine....In your hands, Travis, the "free energy" is stillborn. Where's the crying, wetting baby? No where but in your dreams.
TO all:
The ladder of a break thru technology is a hard climb - and change is hard for many people.
Navigating thru the resistance creates many set backs.
I stand behind every statement I have ever made - for the hope, the expectation, and the plan at that time.
But be real - Change happen's and people like these clowns - are forgotten.
..............
Mark Dansie is a very good man, and he has busted his tail, been honest and firm in his trusted role as a real skeptic.
Times and events may change - But my loyalty to those that gave direction, guidance, and connections - will remain solid as a rock.
That may result in different expectations and plans - as proven by powercatt.
Powercatt - you have chronicled the birthing pains of free energy.
Yes, I'm here posting too. Problem is, I don't have a world to save, so my time is my own.
In your hands, Travis, the "free energy" is stillborn. Where's the crying, wetting baby? No where but in your dreams.
And you, Travis, are finally coming closer and closer to telling the Truth. You do not have any "5hp net" device that truly runs itself, producing that 5 hp over and above the "zero input" cost of running it. You expected to have one at the time....so it was "true" then what you said, and now you no longer mention it nor will you answer the simple direct "yes or no" question about it that has been asked of you so many times.
You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.
Are you Going help Monderask - or the regular
Not your thread - not your machine - and above your pay grade -if you learn the system or help Monderask - great
So you think this is YOUR thread, then? And you are right about one thing.... you cannot buy ME.
Why don't you AT LEAST learn to spell M. Ondrasek's name properly, you ignorant buffoon.
You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.
And every single post you make that DOES NOT provide real evidence for your claims, the more people reading here will be convinced you cannot do it. So keep up the major work of making these posts here, Wayne Travis. Your employees are wondering why you spend so much time on internet forums promulgating your false claims instead of WORKING FOR A LIVING.
Really - don't want me to refute your theory?? But you are allowed to pot shot mine....That may be true, but it is completely inapplicable to your situation, because you have no break through. You have nothing of value. And you certainly do not have anything that either alters the conservative nature of gravity or allows you to supply endless and abundant clean energy as you falsely claim.
TO all:
The ladder of a break thru technology is a hard climb - and change is hard for many people.
Ah yes there it is, the Tinkerbell Theorem: "We can't deliver on our false claims because people don't believe in our false claims."
Navigating thru the resistance creates many set backs.
We may yet get to see you attempt to stand up for your lies before a judge.
I stand behind every statement I have ever made - for the hope, the expectation, and the plan at that time.
Most scams are forgotten. That's good for new scammers. It's a little bit harder to burn people who have other similar scams fresh in their minds.
But be real - Change happen's and people like these clowns - are forgotten.
Yes, he seems a good person. Yet, you abuse that by attempting to appropriate his name with false suggestions of endorsement that he has never offered and does not offer now.
..............
Mark Dansie is a very good man, and he has busted his tail, been honest and firm in his trusted role as a real skeptic.
How nice that you will forgive people as on their own schedules they eventually recognize that you do not have and have never had what you claim.
Times and events may change - But my loyalty to those that gave direction, guidance, and connections - will remain solid as a rock.
There it is again: You claiming that others are responsible for your failure to deliver. Your failure to deliver is the direct result of your claims always having been false.
That may result in different expectations and plans - as proven by powercatt.
If that is true, then there will never be any free energy. You certainly don't have any.
Powercatt - you have chronicled the birthing pains of free energy.
Just trying to get focus back on topic here. This is a drawing of the same ZED system MarkE and I have been Analyzing, but with only the inner riser. And the pod is now a simple displacement block to minimize the input water needed to charge the system from State 1 to State 2.I agree that State 1 is in equilibrium.
Please note that in State 1, there are zero buoyant Forces on the riser.
However, buoyancy Forces are induced, or "turned on", as the 37 mm water charge is introduced to the inner annulus (what remains of the old pod chamber).I object to this improper claim that buoyancy forces are "turned on". Force builds from zero linearly and incrementally as water pumped in is forced around the obstacles in its path. There is no "on" state or contrary "off" state.
Forces don't resolve. Acceleration stops when net force reaches zero.
State 3 is shown after the single riser has been allowed to lift until the buoyancy Forces present in State 2 are completely resolved again to zero. The riser in State 3 is again experiencing zero buoyancy Forces.
Not your thread - not your machine - and above your pay grade -if you learn the system or help Monderask - greatNeither is this your thread. You are a guest with no more authority here than anyone else. Yet, you talk as though you carry authority you don't have. If you really want to claim that after six years of failing to deliver even one proof of concept that you do not understand that contrary to your claims, gravity is always conservative, then you say a lot about what your pay grade should be.
I think I got these correct,, I took them out of MarkE's spreadsheet.Deriving is not the same as taking. Kindly do not misrepresent what I have published.
Are you completely unfamiliar with Archimede's Paradox? The reason that you refer to it as "virtual" water is that it is the equivalent volume of displaced water.
This is the virtual water displaced.
The first column is the inner surface area of the risers, the bottom surface area of the pod.
The second column is the head, that is the difference in water column heights.
The last number is cubic mm,, all these numbers are in mm in the spreadsheet.
End of state 2
314.16 x 37 = 11623.92 pod
530.93 x 57.873 = 30726.51189 riser 1
907.92 x 44.55 = 40447.836 riser 2
1385.44 x 36.218 = 50177.86592 riser 3
30726.51189+11623.92+40447.836+50177.86592 = 132976.13381
132.976cc <= virtual volume of water displaced
End of state 3
132.976 x 30.996 = 3990.077856 pod
530.93 x 37.97 = 20159.4121 riser 1
907.92 x 18.82 = 17087.0544 riser 2
1385.44 x 4.613 = 6391.03472 riser 3
6391.03472+17087.0544+20159.4121+3990.077856 = 47627.579076
47.627cc <= virtual volume of water still displaced
But more interestingly, this was all made by the addition of only 3.108cc of real water into the pod chamber.
When I talk about force, as in cause and effect, you tell me that force is not energy, so I found myself assuming that you were saying that energy causes motion,, so I asked.The water levels are all calculated.
I do not see in your spreadsheet where you are calculating the virtual water that is both created and displaced by the addition of water into the pod chamber.
The pod is the filler for the first riser.
The first riser is the filler for the second riser.
The second riser is the filler for the third riser.
I object to this improper claim that buoyancy forces are "turned on". Force builds from zero linearly and incrementally as water pumped in is forced around the obstacles in its path. There is no "on" state or contrary "off" state.
Forces don't resolve. Acceleration stops when net force reaches zero.
MarkE, you can object to this description of "turned on" as it is not an instantaneous change between a state of 0 or 1. But it is the vernacular used by the majority of the population. I was only trying to point this out.I challenge you to show where this idea of "turned on" is accepted in industry or academia. It is a bull shit suggestion by our own HER/Zydro. It is part of their misdirection.
No it is not. The buoyant force builds linearly from zero as water is pumped in. It has no time dependency. It has no state dependency. More displacement = more force.
Ever "turn on" a CRT device and wait for the picture to appear as the tube "warms up?" Same thing. "Turn on" does not have to mean instantaneously. There is a delay in the on and off state of every device, no matter how high the switching frequency.
Unbalanced forces mean net force. Newton's Second Law still applies: F = mA. This example like your two riser and three riser before it is fundamentally lossy. You start by supplying work to create State 1. Then you add work, ideally without loss adding potential energy to get to State 2. Then without extracting any useful work, you lose more than 2/3 of the potential energy you added to get to State 2 by going to State 3. So, this scheme is less efficient than a brick. And yet it is the "ideal ZED". That means that real ZEDs with real friction can only underperform this machine that is already less efficient than a brick. The best ZED is therefore no ZED at all. HER/Zydro's claims to extra energy by using pods and risers are by your example of the ideal device: completely refuted.
Yes, acceleration stops in this single ZED system when all the buoyancy Forces sum to zero. If they are left at any other value then those Forces are: a) unresolved (my term), or b) (please tell me how to properly express this condition here).
I tried not to misrepresent anything.I highly doubt that TK being the learned person he is ever claimed to be the discoverer of Archimedes' paradox. I am quite confident that he explained the paradox, which really isn't a paradox at all when one thinks about it carefully. We covered this before when we discussed Grimer's cement volume derivations.
Actually MarkE,, you need to take that up with TK, he says he is the one to first use that term, and he demonstrated that the virtual water provided the same change in scale reading as the real water.
Still, it only took a small volume of real fluid to make that big change.
Newton's Second Law still applies: F = mA.
MarkE,Webby, you are stuck on the same potential transfer problem that seems will vex you forever.
Why would you NOT extract the useful work that can be extracted, sure if I run my car and don't go anywhere I will get ZERO MPG.
Common sense would say that if you can extract with no other effects then maybe you should, what part of this is it that you do not understand.
Yes it does. And lets look at that relationship.Yes, in this case with your stipulations for the "ideal ZED" m of the riser and "air" is constantly zero. Therefore the kinetic energy is constantly ... wait for it: zero.
F = mA
m is mass. Mass is a property of a physical material that does not change for the accepted IDEAL conditions of a constant temperature and obvious absence of a state of matter change. Therefore m is a CONSTANT.
A is acceleration. In this case it is the acceleration due to gravity. It is also a CONSTANT.
No, F is whatever function defines it over the traversed distance S that it will be evaluated. In the other thread I thought I read you saying that you work with CFD. How could you work with CFD and misrepresent these fundamental concepts? Are you trolling?
So the Force (F) in F = mA is a mathematical fact which the calculation of cannot be disputed. It is the product of two CONSTANTS (and yes, TK, one is a vector so the result is a vector).
So, what is Energy? It is a resultant of the prior mathematical fact that is Force. It is F*ds (where ds is distance).
F is Force which is the product of two constants.
I find it hard to believe that you flunked calculus. But, if you want to represent that you did, who am I to argue?
ds is distance which another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.
You must solve for the force at each incremental point over a path in order to solve for the energy applied. Drag a heavy object with a real coefficient of friction for a distance and you apply real work. That work all converts to heat. You end up with zero kinetic or potential energy in the thing you dragged.
Ergo, you must solve for Force before you calculate the Energy. And regardless of the outcome of that Energy value, it must be correct.
No, I calculated the energy loss for the change in internal energy. You may rightly contest that I did not correctly solve the equilibrium height, because I did not. But the energy loss calculated was correct for the calculated movement, and only gets worse going to the higher true equilibrium height.
In your first attempt at this Analysis you solved first for Energy Balance. This was erroneous and resulted in a physical State 3 that could not actually exist due to "unresolved" Forces in the system that did not sum to zero.
MarkE, regarding your note inserted in the graphic that states:Your assumption that some device can magically collect the lost energy is a fallacy. Place any mechanism that you like in communication with the risers and show that you don't lose energy. You cannot. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Every um of movement by the riser results in permanently lost energy. I have shown the physical basis for this and the associated math. If you want to argue differently, do more than exclaiming "No it isn't."
3) No work extracted going from State 2 to State 3
We have already gone over this? There is an ASSUMED non-physical device that MUST restrain the ZED from rising unimpeded (and wasting all that Energy rather than collecting it) that would account for the Work/Energy you keep throwing away.
I do insist, because it is fundamental. You cannot collect what you lose lifting, because the very act of lifting changes the N in N*X/N2 to a value greater than 1.0.
This is an IDEAL Analysis and so a physical device should not need to be presented. But if you insist that one does, I will oblige. Please let me know if you need to see a physical manifestation of a "Worked on Device" or if you can agree that the Energy "lost from the system" due to the lift could have been collected. Obviously we have all the correct ingredients: A Force (from buoyancy) and a ds (distance that the riser lifts)?
In the other thread I thought I read you saying that you work with CFD.
Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"
What do you base that off?
Wayne
Your assumption that some device can magically collect the lost energy is a fallacy. Place any mechanism that you like in communication with the risers and show that you don't lose energy. You cannot. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Every um of movement by the riser results in permanently lost energy. I have shown the physical basis for this and the associated math. If you want to argue differently, do more than exclaiming "No it isn't."I do insist, because it is fundamental. You cannot collect what you lose lifting, because the very act of lifting changes the N in N*X/N2 to a value greater than 1.0.
Sometimes simple things get missed.You have offered no evidence that the First Law of Energy is wrong.
It doesn't help if the missed things are counter intuitive.
If you assume a system can only be 100%, you must conclude that any loss means no Net Energy.
It is not an assumption, it is a law developed from countless careful observations. You have offered zero counter evidence.
If the assumption holds true - no Net Energy.
What happens if Peter Pan and Godzilla get into a smack down? What happens if Benjamin Netanyahu declares he is a Sunni muslim? We can hypothecate fantasies all day long. Perhaps someday you will understand that when it comes to energy efficiency, the only value greater than 100% is undefined.
................
Yet what happens when the system is 105% then 160% or 340%
No, energy is conserved. Again, see the First Law of Energy. You may want to practice that because paragraph 0008 of your patent application will trigger a rejection for lack of utility because of the claim to a First Law violation.
Can you as a designer choose to use components that have some losses and still have NET.
Don't forget to include Captain Hook pushing from behind ...
and more over - if a standard car engine is 33% efficient - and powering a 330% efficient ZED -
No, it is completely impossible that you have a First Law violation.
Pretty unlikley to have enough losses that result in no Net gain.
The box that we can all hope opens once long enough for you to enter is 6' x 9'. Then you can have plenty of time to explain your ideas to Bubba.
...................
Just saying - you need to open the Box a bit.
Disregarding any unexpected events, I will draw up the simplest physical device I can conceive of that shows the lift is performing Work and provide it to you tomorrow.The method should be easy to understand: Determine the initial net up force. Then determine the up force as a function of lifted distance. Solve for a change in up force equal and opposite to the initial up force.
Meanwhile, I would still like to learn your method to find the final end of lift state that resolves the positive buoyant Forces in the current State 3. Like I said before, I could only imagine to do that iteratively. But I believe you could find a way to reduce the calculus to an equation that would give the final (net zero buoyant Forces) lift height. You do have mad math skills. Please understand that this is not a demand or requirement for our current analysis. I am just eager to learn if there is a simple way to do what I currently find horrendously difficult.
E = k*N*X/N2
BTW, I did say:X ds signifies the change in X per per infinitesimal change in S. ds is not S, and cannot be substituted for or by S.
ds is distance which is another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.
ds is calculus notation. integral( F*ds ) only equals F*S for the unique condition that F is a constant, and the evaluation is from zero to S. Under all conditions where F is a function of S, such as applies here, the integral(F*ds) must be solved.
And you replied with:
I find it hard to believe that you flunked calculus. But, if you want to represent that you did, who am I to argue?
Distance is an indisputable fact. Calculus does not apply. Distance is simply distance. It is a measurement that has units of length. In SI the unit of length is the meter.
Distance can be constant. That does not mean that force along a path is constant. Here is a simple compression spring problem: F = -kX, where k is the spring constant. Let's make it simple and say that k = 10N/m. How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 100cm?
Once a distance is calculated or measured it is a CONSTANT that can in no way be in dispute.
So you think this is YOUR thread, then? And you are right about one thing.... you cannot buy ME.
Why don't you AT LEAST learn to spell M. Ondrasek's name properly, you ignorant buffoon.
You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.
And every single post you make that DOES NOT provide real evidence for your claims, the more people reading here will be convinced you cannot do it. So keep up the major work of making these posts here, Wayne Travis. Your employees are wondering why you spend so much time on internet forums promulgating your false claims instead of WORKING FOR A LIVING.
MarkE, could you please define the terms you are supplying in this relationship? Ie. k = what? etc.K is a constant appropriate to the problem. X is a distance where the evaluated quantity is proportional to the square of X, and N is the number of elements that over which the distance is equally proportioned.
Why don't you go for vapourization? Water in a container behaves as a single mass since the molecules are held by bonds keeping it in liquid state. But when it is vapourized, molecules get separated, become lighter than air and move upwards to form clouds at some part of the atmosphere. When water molecules in clouds join making them heavier than air (due to lightening or any other reason) they again fall down to earth as rain developing enormous kinetic energy which we make use of indirectly in hydel power plants to generate megawatts of electricity.No it is not. And the heat of vaporization of water is huge compared to the heat required to change its temperature from say room temperature to 100C. The energy that we are able to reclaim from a hydroelectric dam is but a small percentage of the solar energy expended vaporizing the water that ultimately runs through the generator turbines.
Is it not possible to replicate the natural process of rain in laboratory?
While most portion of solar energy is used up in heating up of earth and oceans, a very small portion only is used in evaporating water from oceans and ground. But when evaporated water falls down to earth as rain, it developes enormous kinetic energy.
Is not rainfall a natural case of overunity?
Cmon T. You complain about a misspelled name, that was posted at 1am, as you stated earlier, then put a comma in your first sentence of your post here, which does'nt work there really. ;) Did'nt work for me as soon as I read it. Does that make you an ignorant buffoon? Why so much belching of insults? For the audience? Making your case?? Cheap shot really. ::) I guess thats all that is left. ;)The extraordinary claim is by Wayne Travis / HER / Zydro. Extraordinary claims are false on their face until proven by the claimant. How many years has it been and Wayne Travis has not offered a shred of evidence that: He can alter the conservative nature of gravity, generate the endless energy, or any energy that he claims. Each of those is an extraordinary claim. Each is false on its face.
"You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't."
Well I would say that statement is a claim. Can you prove your claim? ??? ;) Put it on YT and lets see your proof of 'your' claim. You made numerous vids proving Rosemary wrong, but no due diligence as such here. And you tell Wayne 'he' should work for a living. You are posting here in greater quantity than Wayne has, yet no proofs of 'your claim', just speculation. Oh the hypocrisy. ::)
Wayne said "...and above your pay grade" and you said "you cannot buy ME"
It seems to me that Wayne was implying that you are not worth the pay that he would expect to pay someone that he considered capable of doing the work he would expect to pay for. How is that him trying to buy you? Is that something the readers should understand clearly??? As that is your target audience, right? "the more people reading here will be convinced you cannot do it." ::)
See this is the way the comma should have been used...
"As that is your target audience, right?" not "So you think this is YOUR thread, then?" lol Buffoonery with a bit of hypocrisy? Any readers here?????? ;D
Mags ::)
Mark:In the past day, Wayne Travis has claimed that there is such thing as a "Travis effect". This overcomes the objection two years ago that the term was just something Tom Miller referred to and no one should hold Wayne Travis to that term. I have never seen anyone articulate a description of what the supposed "Travis effect" is, and how it behaves differently from the 2000 year old Archimedes' Principle.
I can answer your pop quiz but I am not sure any of Wayne's replicators can. I doubt that Wayne can answer it. For me that illustrates the moral bankruptcy of Wayne (endorsing them and advising us to 'learn' from them) and the folly of the whole affair.
Also Wayne's "descriptions" of how the thing allegedly works are nothing more than a word salad. It makes me absolutely cringe. I challenge anybody reading this to state that they actually understand what Wayne is saying. It's the well-practiced jumble-ese that is used to seduce little old ladies to part with their retirement money.
Wayne's world is a classic reality distortion zone.
MileHigh
X ds signifies the change in X per per infinitesimal change in S. ds is not S, and cannot be substituted for or by S.ds is calculus notation. integral( F*ds ) only equals F*S for the unique condition that F is a constant, and the evaluation is from zero to S. Under all conditions where F is a function of S, such as applies here, the integral(F*ds) must be solved.Distance can be constant. That does not mean that force along a path is constant. Here is a simple compression spring problem: F = -kX, where k is the spring constant. Let's make it simple and say that k = 10N/m. How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 100cm?
a. 0.05J
b. 0.5J
c. 1J
d. 5J
e. none of the above
How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 1m?
a. 0.05J
b. 0.5J
c. 1J
d. 5J
e. none of the above
And I suggest that we stay focused only on the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED for the purpose of clarity. Discussing mechanical springs may be equivalent to the unique construction of a ZED for the purposes of the point you are trying to make, but that implied "analogy" is not focused solely on this device. And so your introduction of the "springs" are a distraction from the Analysis at hand.
MarkE, please respond to one reply at a time. Try to not mix my replies into an amalgamation that I should have to decipher.No, I do not agree.
You have not defined yet what "X" represents. Or what "S" represents.
And I suggest that we stay focused only on the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED for the purpose of clarity. Discussing mechanical springs may be equivalent to the unique construction of a ZED for the purposes of the point you are trying to make, but that implied "analogy" is not focused solely on this device. And so your introduction of the "springs" are a distraction from the Analysis at hand.
F*ds is the correct way to calculate the Energy that enters or leaves the single ideal ZED system being Analyzed, do you agree?
The single layer device is what we are discussing.
To be 100% clear, are we now only discussing the Analysis of the single riser (semi) ZED system that I presented earlier today? Is that the one I should prepare the physical resistance to lift (work accumulator) for in the morning? Or did you want to try this on the 3-layer one?
I have responded to each of your questions one by one. X is a quantity that relates to the quantity we are evaluating as a square function. It is not specific to a particular problem. X could for example be voltage on a capacitor, deflection of a spring, or the head of water in some column, where the quantity that we are interested in is energy. In each case the energy is a linear function of X2.
BTW, I know that a negative or even condescending "tone" can be implied when reading this post. But please understand that it is not meant that way and accept my apologies for any offense I may have implied. I did not mean any offense, and I have great respect for your talent and skills. I am only trying to correspond in a "tone neutral" way, which to me at least, comes off kind of like an ass.
Sorry if I offended you in any way. It was not my intention.
M.
The extraordinary claim is by Wayne Travis / HER / Zydro. Extraordinary claims are false on their face until proven by the claimant. How many years has it been and Wayne Travis has not offered a shred of evidence that: He can alter the conservative nature of gravity, generate the endless energy, or any energy that he claims. Each of those is an extraordinary claim. Each is false on its face.
Well, if it is soo extra ordinary and 'predetermined' that the claim is false because of its extraordinary status, then why all the fuss?? There must be better reasons than just trying to get him to admit defeat for the sole purpose of getting him to concede. ???Wayne Travis is unlikely to come out and admit his lies until there is an advantage for him to do so. Mondrasek asked for help analyzing a the physics. I offered to help and have done so. Wayne came here spewing his usual lies. He injected himself with those lies here, and like others I have objected. If you are unhappy about the people selling those bogus free energy plans, then you are free to try and do something about it.
Like why not go after the guys that put out the "build a magnet motor to run your home" info for just $49.95 Guarantied Money Back If Not Satisfied. No real problems with those claims, huh? Nobody getting ripped off there, huh? Did you see the comma placements there? lol
I know why none of you go after those guys. Its being 'allowed'. ;) Allowed because being it is a ripoff that discourages people from believing in the possibility of free energy or OU by cheating the ones that like the idea of it when they read the ads. Thats why the ads persist. No big raids, nothing. Its funny how they can keep 'advertizing' without being shut down, isnt it? These ads are EVERYWHERE!!. Not challenging enough for you?? Screw the fools that purchase these false hopes??? I thought that was what your goals were, to rid the world of OU ripoffs. ??? ;)
Best to attack the little guy in a little thread on some forum, who is just trying to help a few guys understand something they never knew? ??? ? ::)
All considered, it makes me think you guys are trying to shut Wayne down for more sinister reasons. 8) 8) 8) 8) ;)
Mags
If a fake YouTube clip flooder came on here to pitch his magnetic pyramid or some fifty buck circuit to "say goodbye to the power company" I would eat the guy alive. However, those scammers would never come here because they know that's exactly what would happen. They are the equivalent of a junk emailer that buys 10 million email addresses for $1000, concocts a pitch, does his email blast, and hopes that he can rake in $5000 or more. That type of criminal has no desire to interact with anybody. They are not looking for investment dollars, they don't want to speak to anybody. It's a totally different type of con.
Wayne Travis is unlikely to come out and admit his lies until there is an advantage for him to do so. Mondrasek asked for help analyzing a the physics. I offered to help and have done so. Wayne came here spewing his usual lies. He injected himself with those lies here, and like others I have objected. If you are unhappy about the people selling those bogus free energy plans, then you are free to try and do something about it.
Oh, its about the supposed lies. Hmm. So the ads are providing truths, so its ok. ;) And these ads are not 'spewed' far beyond this little thread, in fact around the world? ::) ::) ::) ::)Mags your posts say a lot about you. It is not complimentary.
Where is that quote of Waynes where he "claims to be able to turn gravity on and off" ?? Liar. ;)
Mags
I told you to never interact with me on this forum again. The worst behaviour that I have ever seen on this forum was from you bashing me repeatedly and relentlessly.
Do not engage with me on the forum.
Mags your posts say a lot about you. It is not complimentary.
Lol. Still no quote to back up your statement? Just dodging and insults. Again. Typical. Yet you demand Wayne backs up his claims. Hypocrite.You choose to ignore facts and attack with false claims repeatedly. That's your choice. Present yourself as badly as you like.
Mags
You choose to ignore facts and attack with false claims repeatedly. That's your choice. Present yourself as badly as you like.
You stated this....
"Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on". Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. Someone read "Slapstick"."
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg390997/#msg390997
M., Webby, Mags,LarryC really? Please cite any such posts of mine.
MarkE is very good with math, but he was unable to explain the 33.55% excess output of the Zed over the Archimedes and tried to squirm out of it with a pathetic unrelated brake example. Do any of you understand why he can't understand?
Thanks, Larry
LarryC really? Please cite any such posts of mine.
I have shown you that buoyancy is gravity as applied to fluids. Therefore any claim to turning buoyancy on and off is a claim of turning gravity on and off as it applies to fluids. I provided you with a nice academic reference and quoted that reference. Still you insist that it isn't so. Maybe you don't remember. Maybe this is all just beyond your comprehension. Maybe you are just trolling. Whatever the reason, you are not presenting yourself well.
Do you need to see the reference again?
M., Webby, Mags, Wayne,
MarkE is very good with math, but he was unable to explain the 33.55% excess output of the Zed over the Archimedes, backed up by his math, and tried to squirm out of it with a pathetic unrelated brake example. Do any of you understand why he can't comprehend?
Thanks, Larry
Well then, you should have stated that Wayne claims to be able to turn buoyancy on and off, instead of the words "turn gravity on and off. Correct???? But saying that he said that he claims to be able to turn buoyancy on and off, just doesnt sound so bad, does it? ;) You said he claimed to turn 'gravity' on and off, period. And now you twist it to be that you were saying other words instead.You claimed that I lied. I did not. I have shown that I did not
Here is your words.... "Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on". Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off"
Show me the quote that Wayne said it!!!!!!! ;)
Magluvin