Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[MileHigh]

Strange isnt it?  ;]   Now, if you second, displacement, glass had no weight, and was affixed to the first cup, just as it is in the vid, what would we see on the scale?

It's all about giving head.

[Magluvin]

If thats the way you want to look at it.

MaGs

[mrwayne]

I'll be happy to do this... but only on the condition that I can share whatever you send me with the other forum participants if I think it's appropriate. Would that be OK with you?

I have no desire to know about your intellectual property at all, at this point, so please don't expect me to sign an NDA yet, and please don't tell me anything you consider proprietary. And I definitely do not need, at this stage, to understand _how_ it works, or to read long convoluted explanations of how it works ... I just want to know _at this point_  if it does what it says "on the box"... the title of this thread.  I simply want to know what goes in (energy, aka work) and what comes out (energy, aka work), averaged over a reasonable time period, like one full and complete cycle or a multiple of full and complete cycles, so that a claim of overunity-- what it says on the box-- can be supported with data. That much, I think, you could show or tell anyone without revealing your secrets. And I'm pretty sure that, were I in your position, I could do this in a reasonable time period... like a few minutes.

Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model  -
IN -PUT = Each full cycle - 12-15 cubic inches of compressed fluid from the accumulator.
OUT - PUT = Same cycle - 28 -30 cubic inches of (same type) compressed fluid - pushed into accumulator.
The pressure depends on our desire no less than 500psi, no higher than 900psi.
Please remember the input comes from with in the loop of our system.
Wayne

[LarryC]

@ TK,

Thanks for the laughs, excellent experiment.

But, I'm disappointed in your statement 'And I definitely do not need, at this stage, to understand _how_ it works'. It is a shame that you don't want to understand, because once you did, you would not have to travel anywhere as you would know how it works and could easily design your own system.

Regards, Larry

[TinselKoala]

@ TK,

Thanks for the laughs, excellent experiment.

But, I'm disappointed in your statement 'And I definitely do not need, at this stage, to understand _how_ it works'. It is a shame that you don't want to understand, because once you did, you would not have to travel anywhere as you would know how it works and could easily design your own system.

Regards, Larry

Ah, you forgot the emphasis on AT THIS STAGE, and NEED.  Where, exactly, did I ever say that I did not want to understand anything? I generally say WHAT I MEAN, not what others want me to mean. Look carefully at what I said: I said that, AT THIS STAGE, I do not NEED to understand.

Why should I be made to listen to an obscure explanation of something that can't show me that it does what it says, first?

If I had never seen a bicycle, what would help me to understand it more: an explanation of how it worked, given in non-standard, non-engineering speak, or a video showing someone actually riding one? Once it's proven to me that bikes exist and can be ridden stably.... THEN tell me how, if I still need to know how.

But you will never convince me that a silly contraption like that can be ridden at 60km/h with a bunch of words.

Now... you and MrWayne aren't trying to convince me that there are bicycles... you are trying to convince me that there are _flying_ bicycles. (so to speak). So... right, I don't care how it flys and I don't need to know. First... convince me that it DOES FLY. And not by showing me tables of power-to-weight ratios, discussions of the Wright Bros, bumblbee flight, etc. SHOW ME THE SAUSAGES.

So far, no flying bikes, no sausages, and no energy input/energy output figures have been forthcoming.