Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

This topic introduction can be seen as a problem or an advantage (depends how you look at his approach), for Wayne it was a challenge how someone else can figure out his invention, the quicker you realized this the more benefit you had.

The challenge he presented was actually reverse engineering,  I loved the challenge,  my gutt-feel made me belief he had something, it didn't matter to me if it was not everything he claimed (it turned to be all true as he said, in the end).

Once you tap into the inventors objective and logic he follows, it comes quite easy to follow through, you will even spot what he is hiding. He declared what he wanted, you think he should have thrown his whole IP on the forum, than _{I don't think you understand business clearly}, he is not looking for competitors.


I believe in what is written in the physics books and its laws, even after exploring Wayne's two circumnavigation processes, that were recently expanded to 3 processes, each process notably different from each other but all exploiting gravity (not necessarily buoyancy).

Wayne expanded our understanding of the physic's processes, he did not make any redundant or untrue.

Michel

Michel .. I understand business models & practice quite well - I also understand that the patent application process affords certain rights & protections post disclosure - I also understand that a successful defense of a patent hinges on obtaining a water tight 'method patent' to control the way the technology is deployed & used mechanically -  e.g. the metaphor is the Wright Bros patenting wing warping for controlled powered flight which was made redundant by a French patent some years later with the use of ailerons.

Hypothetically, I could also easily deduce & understand a method to potentially exploit a loophole in force symmetry using fluids that is somewhat related to, but prior to, Wayne's thread content here, web site content & patent application, & that is also consistent with many known laws but brings into serious question the role, description & application of gravity force - hypothetically, I could also understand that if I were to method patent it, supported by a working model, it would bare little resemblance to Wayne's dual Zeds & transfer system etc, & by all accounts be far more simple, efficient, versatile & cheap to produce - hypothetically, I could also understand that that would constitute a very real competitive risk threat precisely because 'I was not hiding something' or failing to disclose something pivotal - I understand that it is very difficult task to method patent for every iterational improvement that might come along by whomever in the future that could see an inventor or company marginalized in history & profit - I understand it is best to not underestimate anyone nor assume that genie's can go back in bottles.

[Red_Sunset]

Michel .. I understand business models & practice quite well - I also understand that the patent application process affords certain rights & protections post disclosure

Hi Fletcher,
From my viewpoint, 
A patent is a registration document. Nothing more.
For this document to be any good, you need to have a capability to do the policing to safeguard it, otherwise it is no good except in the most obvious and blatant cases.

>>>> All this cost money  >>> only money can safeguard your patent. 

As an inventor and businessman, do you want voluntary create a situation for yourself to get exposed to a legal wrangle, only to show your clever invention to an anonymous bunch of over-unity bloggers on a forum, most of them with a hidden agenda ?
I think Wayne has guts to do what he did, I doubt I would do the same in his situation, and I told him so. Why torture yourself on this forum, rather apply your time to furthering your business.

I have a friend who was a professional treasure diver, he recovered some large silver treasures around  the Southern African coast.  The returns of his expedition did him well in later life. His tale of wisdom was, with treasure diving you can famous 'or' rich but you can not be famous and rich (except if you find all your treasure in one go).  Important wisdom!

In general I believe that, speed to market is worth more than a patent, sure each case can be different.

But what has all this to do with a serious technical discussion or dissection of a principle to over-unity ?
So why are you diverting Fletcher ?
You know how the zed works and achieves OU, but you avoid to engage ?
What is your agenda ?

Michel

[wildew]

Much of this is probably terribly obvious to most but I needed to see it.
Setting up to measure IDEAL is FAR from trivial.....
At this point I really see why Wayne said that the 10K challengers should have ports top and bottom for measuring and adjusting. I'm not so sure even a small model like mine can be setup right without that. Bottom ports may be in the works...

Another item that's almost a necessity is a very fine input system, even a good squeeze bulb might not cut it. A screw syringe would be awesome!

Even with crude testing though a couple of things have shown up as clear trends.
Max head is height x water layers - DUH 
So for this 12" tall - 3 layer model; max possible IDEAL ( in more ways that one ) should be 48" Closest I've been able to get so far is 43.5"

By filling the POD retainer with water - all top vents open - and starting with the other layers 'just' over half full I can get that close by just adding air - starting at the middle and working outward.
- Add air to the pod riser and close
- add air to riser 2 and close, top up the pod riser
- then layer 3 and adjust the others - air compression keeps this interesting....

The 2nd trend: Lift force DOUBLES with each additional layer charged..
All of this was done with the riser locked by the cheapie digital scale - no movement - just getting a measurement to base riser weight and lift load from.

It's looking like I should be working with a 12Lb riser and 12Lb load - .5 to .75 lift distance.

I need to double check the initial, pod-only force reading; it was just over 1Lb, but the trend is clear.
POD only - 12" head - 1Lb force
riser 1 - 22" head - 8Lb force
riser 2 - 32" head - 16Lb force
riser 3 - 42" head - 32 Lb force

I'm sure the spreadsheets have shown this, I just needed to see it done mechanically

Dale

[mrwayne]

Max head is height x water layers - DUH 


Dale

You just made me laugh out load - I bet we have all had those "DUH" moments.
Great work - you should see a bit more spread as you add layers - as the diameter increases further from the POD.
Wayne

[mrwayne]

But what has all this to do with a serious technical discussion or dissection of a principle to over-unity ?
So why are you diverting Fletcher ?
You know how the zed works and achieves OU, but you avoid to engage ?
What is your agenda ?

Michel

Hello Michel,
Lets avoid diversions (of agenda debates) - this forum (fringe or not) has brought us some incredible new friendships, team members -  people that have seen the wisdom, felt the purpose and respect the benefit to mankind.
Fletcher is not the first to suggest a better idea - prior design, and or competition.
We have room for competition, no worries.
We at HER would rather suggest a dialog of understanding and joining - rather than the direction of threats and theft - be they real or not; greed will naturally separate the two.
Thanks Wayne