Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Room for Free Energy and its Physics  (Read 3792 times)

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2022, 02:24:11 PM »
Considering all three aspects of power, and wish to get the greatest "Efficiency" - then the physicist comes out - not the engineer.


It is clear that the Travis Effect uses less volume to cause the initial buoyant lift the load


Unlike standard buoyancy which must wait to reach the full volume required.... and then floats


It is clear to the Observer that the stroke distance determines the "Efficiency" difference.


Critical KEY:


The Cause of the efficiency difference is Linear to the concretes volumetric displacers  ratio to the Air.













Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2022, 02:38:02 PM »
A huge incorrect assumption is made when critics observe the work difference


In no place do I claim the "Efficiency" in the Travis effect by itself produces Free energy - That would be a violation
of the physics of a simple system.


The Travis effect demonstrates a more Ideal buoyant lift. See attached


Critical Key - if you are lifting with a 33% efficient lift - you need 67% more input to be at unity - or to make up for the
loss  and that is POOR designing.


Likely every buoyancy system that uses standard volume based buoyancy will fail for that simple reason.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 12:48:09 PM by mrwayne »

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2022, 02:43:50 PM »
So Ideal lift is a great start to designing a potential free energy device, but we are not there yet.


As Markus shared in his second video - adding a second system to recycle the air volume and a method to cause
that air volume - eliminates the horrible efficiency of most air compressors.


If you have not seen that video - here is the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX
« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 12:48:41 PM by mrwayne »

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2022, 03:00:37 PM »
What led to the discovery of the Travis Effect and its potential - while I was analyzing a failed bucket brigade system
 - I realized that I was only utilizing the lift of buoyancy and not the other potentials - they were wasted:


1. wasting the compressed air - during vent to re-sink


2. wasted the opportunity to capture value from the raised water


3. and wasted down forces created when air displaces a fluid and water is raised


That's sucky engineering...but I had no idea I was overlooking the other potentials  - I was taught that the more simple
 a system - the efficient - not I am seeing that adding way to capture lost opprtunity (potential) is a superior design.


On the course of designing with the intent of capturing more potential -  i posed the question - could the Potential
distribution ratio's be altered?


The Travis Effect was originally an attempt to alter the potential distribution caused when air displaces a fluid (and the
answer is Yes).


Side note: Squirrel


Some cool physics here - when you unlock what Archimedes stated about volume - he is literally saying - when submerged
- air causes some of the same effect as a physical mass does - air - becomes as a weight - but is not a weight.....
its a hole - a missing mass - cool stuff there...  its the reason that more than 5000 patents have been filed on buoyancy
 systems - intuitive minds try to cope with the "Somethings missing in our understanding of buoyancy.. and that
missing knowledge - CHANGES EVERYTHING


So what is different between a Brick and a Hole in Water..... LOTS!


Two aspects we use in the system i am presenting here - A hole can be filled, and filling the hole can change the
distribution of potentials - and weight can be added inside the hole. 
 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 12:47:47 PM by mrwayne »

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2022, 03:16:43 PM »
Stroke length is critical to our ideal lift and our sink, the ratio of the inner displacer is critical - that relationship has
an optimization - moving away from that relationship reduces the work differential.


An unaware member here changed that relationship to eliminate the work differential and reloaded my file and then
 claimed my system does not work - his mistake, troll, or what ever - since he left the file name the same - I deleted it.


Critical knowledge: If you want power out of the system - you can not do the same thing in both directions - and it
is not effective to use inefficient methods - as they eat away at the value of your differential work.


The Travis Effect provides both an Ieal lift - if stroked the proper distance


And the Travis Effect sinks at a lower cost directly proportional to the value of the displacer


Combining those two - the power out stroke is logically 50% of is value and the sink is logically the same 50%


That means - to keep the work out and work cost at its "greatest difference" - the stroke length must be 50% of the
pressure differential or head in "distance"


Critical knowledge: if your "head" is 24 inches inside your buoyancy -stroke is 50% or 12 inches.








 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 12:46:49 PM by mrwayne »

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2022, 04:31:42 PM »
In this picture - the stroke length of the Production riser and the stroke length of the displacer pod are the same,
and they 50% of the internal head (in height).


The Spread sheet does not block you from incorrect set ups - incorrect set ups will not function in real world builds
- so maintaining those three variable is critical.


 



 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 12:46:18 PM by mrwayne »

Offline Tarsier_79

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2022, 09:12:12 PM »
Quote
In this picture - the stroke length of the Production riser and the stroke length of the displacer pod are the same, and they 50% of the internal head (in height).

The Spread sheet does not block you from incorrect set ups - incorrect set ups will not function in real world builds - so maintaining those three variable is critical.

Wayne.

Since you are unable to show a diagram with correct distances, I have taken the liberty of assembling a scale drawing for you based on your figures. Can you confirm this is correct?

In a scale of 1:5:
1. We have a power stroke length of 15
2. A reset height of 15
3. A riser(buoyant container) of 30(.2) diameter and 30 height
4. A "POD" or displacer of 30 diameter and 35 height (I have added 4 height for ease of view, will not overly affect overall functionality. Feel free to use 31 or 30 for this calculation.)
5. I have shown the top pistons, but have left out the lower ones for simplicity

In scale:
The Buoyancy reset is 18 x 3.
At the end of the power stroke, we have the buoyant container pushing up with a force of 36. The upper piston has moved 3 units.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2022, 11:17:42 PM by Tarsier_79 »

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #22 on: August 06, 2022, 01:53:50 AM »
Be Careful, you might find what dreams are made of...


See the progression, Everything is not explained - such as the connected lower Hydraulics allows the parts weights
to cancel leaving the buoyancy differences to be paid for.


To be clear - the strokes of the input and the output are the same

Air remaining in the other side are not considered (which reduces input cost).


and air compression during sink is not considered (Which also reduces input cost).

What is not the same - the Production work force value is not the same as the Sink work force value..


If this drawing helps anyone - send a YES!


Thank You


Mr Wayne


 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 12:45:55 PM by mrwayne »

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #23 on: August 06, 2022, 04:54:02 AM »
The Science here is simple, too simple. But it is what it is - Free Energy.


Debunking this system is impossible.


Mr Wayne

Offline Tarsier_79

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2022, 05:54:34 AM »
For a start: Work is force x distance. Your claim is that you get out more "work" than you put in: Hence OU.

Here is another look at position2. Remember these images are from values from your own spreadsheet, and this is why
it reads 200%.

The input cost 18 x 3 units. Your output calculation is taken from an image like Position 1 or Position 3, and it assumes a
force of 36 x 3.

Look closely at figure 2. Air is about to flow across to the left riser to start the power stroke... or is it? The air in the left
riser is connected to the right riser. The left riser has an effective buoyancy in this position of 36 units... so far so good.

The right riser is at its limit and cannot rise further as it is tied to the "pod". It still has an effective buoyancy of 36 units.
The air will not magically flow from right to left, especially when the right "pod" is trying just as hard to rise as the left
"pod". Remember we need the right pod to lower for the left pod to rise....when the reset stroke is longer, this isn't a
problem because the air naturally flows upwards. Here they are at the same potential.

Figure 2 shows an available force of 0. Figure 2.1 shows an available force of 12, which is the difference in effective
buoyancy. If there was a figure 2.2, it would show 24. Figure 3 shows 36. The average of these is 18 units, x 3 distance
on the power stroke.

So, if we take the average of the power stroke, 18 x 3 and compare it to the input stroke, 18 x 3, we get unity. Like you
said, the work input = work output. There is no left over energy to recycle + generate power.

That seems like your system is debunked to me.



« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 12:50:53 PM by mrwayne »

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2022, 10:48:32 AM »
[quote author=Tarsier_


You need to use "my" system in your debunking claim - not yours. Thanks.

I provided accurate drawings since yours are misleading, contain function errors, mistaken order and
 omitted the key concepts used in the process.


Pay closer attention to Markus Video in the Video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX


As a reminder - I deal in field tested results.


See attached - After Pod Travel is reached, and locked, air is allowed to equalize, and Both Sides have Full
buoyant force - but only one can move - can you guess what happens... details on the drawing.. Thanks

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2022, 11:19:48 AM »


For a start: Work is force x distance. Your claim is that you get out more "work" than you put in: Hence OU.



Here you are mistaken or misleading in two ways - in the Video we share the difference between OU claims
and our system, I claim free energy, not OU, I have been clear about that till Ad Nausium.....sic


Second - your definition of work and OU is lacking context and that is the error that leads to so many failures
in building Free energy Devices -


On that note, I have built 5 Different styles of Free energy Devices using the correct measure of work and
they all generate Free Energy - but none were over unity... Once you understand the proper formula for
free energy - its easy peasy.


Work is a force moving a mass over a distance (and that mass has a value related to the value of gravity
(which is why Markus, and engineer, used the moon versus earth example in the video).


The Work is "UNITY" when the WORK corresponds with the value the mass in relation to Gravity (where it is).


So every single time you say OVER UNITY - you are making the claim that the Mass has more weight than
 its relationship to Gravity, and thus the work performed is greater than the relationship to gravity.


I have not claimed "OU" since I discovered and analyzed the Travis Effect - and realized my error - which
 you are still making.


Buoyancy is a perfect example of Unity - when the lift force is directly proportional to the volume displaced
(without interference - like the Travis Effect) - and gravity causes the corresponding pressure related to the density.


FACTS:


The Travis Effect "REDUCES" the Air Required to do UNITY...


The Travis Effect does work BELOW unity...


The Travis Effect created the ability to design a (many), Work Differential systems.


When you pay less than Unity for Work, then sell it at UNITY - you have Free Energy ... FACT.


Unless you can debunk basic math Such as 10 Unity-5 cost=5 Free energy - you can not debunk this system.


And in the future - If you are going to quote me - please provide the exact quote and date please .


Thanks


Mr Wayne


Offline Tarsier_79

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #27 on: August 06, 2022, 11:50:53 AM »
The fact is:

You have and will be able to convince people that your system works, even though it does not, and can not.

Quote
I have not claimed "OU" since I discovered and analyzed the Travis Effect - and realized my error - which you are still making.
Finally we agree on something. Your device is not OU.

Quote
Buoyancy is a perfect example of Unity..
Again, I agree with you specifically here.

Quote
The Travis Effect "REDUCES" the Air Required to do UNITY...
The Travis Effect does work BELOW unity...
Agreed, agreed.

Quote
Unless you can debunk basic math Such as 10 Unity-5 cost=5 Free energy - you can not debunk this system.
... your designs are so easy to debunk. The output - cost = 0 free energy. Perhaps you could introduce a new spreadsheet again. Longstroke V1.3?

Anyway, if anyone else would like an examination on any specific mechanism, I will be happy to oblige.
Wayne, I look forward to people seeing your mechanism for what it truly is.

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #28 on: August 06, 2022, 12:15:03 PM »
The fact is:

You have and will be able to convince people that your system works, even though it does not, and can not.
Finally we agree on something. Your device is not OU.
Again, I agree with you specifically here.
Agreed, agreed.
... your designs are so easy to debunk. The output - cost = 0 free energy. Perhaps you could introduce a new spreadsheet again. Longstroke V1.3?


Kaine,


Please, please Mr Kaine, debunk that my system does not result in free energy.


If you Can prove that this simple equation is wrong" 10-5=5 " Than I will concede and state that you are the greatest!


Prove my system is 10-0=0 That would be very valuable to everyone.


Otherwise you are a troll, distractor, jealous, maybe just lonely - whatever your intent is - its disingenuous at the best.


I have had to redirect you to my designs repeatedly, you have described my system incorrectly repeatedly,
you have made up quotes,  - I have had to correct you on multiple voids in your knowledge of buoyancy
and work, and I have provided ample evidence to prove my system does in fact have a remainder after each cycle.


I don't care if you agree or not - I don't put feelings into my proof - I put science.


You have 20 years at not building Free energy systems, I have 12 successful years - first P.E. tested "success"
at generating free energy was in 2010.



You are the guest student here. I am teaching, so as long as you stomp your foot and ignore real science and facts
 - feel free to close the door on your way out.


I made lots of errors until I understood Unity properly - you might just try learning  - it is the key to most of your
bad assumptions - and as practice - you might leave the assumptions in the rear where they belong.


To repeat - please, please debunk my system - with science and facts - Thanks!


Sincerely


MrWayne

Offline mrwayne

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Room for Free Energy and its Physics
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2022, 12:40:36 PM »
I added the equalization stages to the process visual.


Thanks For you Input!


Mr Wayne