Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[neptune]

@Seamus101. If energy was added from an external source, such as an air compressor , a water pump , generator utc, I think Wayne would have pointed this out, or if he had not, Mark Dansie, or other independent examiners would have noticed . You say that all the output has to be used to reset the machine for the next stroke, and the output is nill. Wayne says about one third .
       At the moment all you, or I have to go on is what Wayne, and Mark et al says. Not unnaturally you want more than this.There are only 3 ways to remedy this.
1.Sign the NDA and go and have a look.
2.Build your own
3. Wait for Mark Dansie`s report, and the reports of other independent inspectors.
The question is how many reports will it take.There are still people who believe in a flat earth.This is something new and radical. The answers will not be found in your textbooks.
If you would rather I did not comment on your posts, ask, and I will desist.

[mrwayne]

Hello All,
The Right question now should be asked - is where does the free energy come from?
I have shown where the exhaust from a lowering side is added to the input of a raising side and in doing so reduces the cost of the up stroke. Simple Water column equalization - on the surface a very common process.
Now let me teach you why Zed is so different than all the not Layered systems - why it produces a net excess energy.
Before you proceed - it takes understanding the full circle of the operating system - just a warning to those that look at one point in the system and make opinions.
Verify this with your own models - and calculators:
Record the stroking lift of your model. Divide that lift by the input pressure. - this will give you the lift per pound of input (Stroking lift is reduced from the ideal to allow for the stroke length desired)
Our stroking lift is 6000 pounds (the weight of the risers and the production). 6000/8.8=681
(Our Ideal is 7500)
Now take your ideal lift (not stroking lift), divide it by three. In our demo - ideal is 7500 pounds/3=2500
Now lower your input pressure in your model until it will only lift that amount (2500).
Take that input pressure and divide it by the reduced lift 2500/5.0 = 500
In recap so far at stroking pressure - or production pressure - we are lifting 6000 pounds total at a input cost of 8.8 psi, that results in a term we call (Effective Surface Area) this is not a real surface area - it is a calculated number that tells us how much lift we are getting per pound.
The 681 is the ESA and is also the value of lift per pound we cost to desired stroking lift.
The weighted risers - total 2500 pounds - this results in a pressure of 5.0 and has an ESA of 500 - this is also the value of one psi input -
At stroke pressure 1 psi = 681 Pounds lift
At sink pressure 1psi = 500 Pounds lift
Total pressure needed to stroke is 8.8
Of the at 8.8,  'At least" 5.0 is coming from the lowering Zed (more during the free flow and the third quarter of travel) .
So our operating cost - is 8.8 - 5.0 = 3.8
Our stroking Zed is lifting 6000 - 2500 weight and risers = 3500 pounds Production
Now take the production and calculate the ESA 3500/3.8=921
Our input value - is 1 psi = 921 pounds lift
(The combined value 6000/8.8 is ESA 681) - the lift per pound if we supplied the input without using the exhaust or weight.
(Note: Our pod chamber - which is the input volume - is 737surface inches)
Now the input we use - comes from that 921 per pound production - looped - its value is already increased - and when we use it
That increased value gets increased again - because we only have to use the portion of the production that equals the NON increased value.
In our small model 60% of each Production stroke - is enough to overcome all the losses in our system (all nine energy exchanges w/losses are over come - with less than 60% of the production.
40% is our Net - this is our worst case scenario.
In recap:
The up stroke cost portioned - 5.0 psi was provided at a cost of 500 pounds per psi
and the 3.8 psi was provided at a production value 921 pounds per psi ZED - in a cylinder (actual surface area) 737.
(the actual surface area is the physical input volume) The layering system makes our Zed lift more per volume and psi than a hydraulic cylinder in the upper range - and worse than a hydraulic cylinder in the lower range.
That means we can lift two weights at the same time and get the super effectiveness of the up stroke - and remove on of the weights (production) and the other weight requires a higher pressure to maintain its lift - or .... provides a higher value pressure to supplament another system.
Compare this system to a hydraulic cylinder if 5 psi lifted 2500 pounds, 8.8 psi would lift 4,400  Zeds 8.8 lifts 6000
Questions?

Wayne
p.s I would love to hear in your own words a description of this effect - I would love a simplified way to share this with others.

[LarryC]

The Hobby Travis effect model was built using the Material Take Off spreadsheet and foam board. All front walls were left off for visibility, the front wall is the same size as the back wall, so no issue. It proves that the MTO is accurate. The model does expand a lot per riser, but this is due to using .25 material thickness and .25 gap and pod 2.00 X 6.75.

If you want to change the gap and material thickness to .20, change 'Riser 4-Side Increase' value to 1.60 and the 'Thickness' value to .20.

I do not intend to build the model, as I don't need convincing and am fortunate enough not to need the money. I will assist anybody who wishes to build. The latest MTO and calculator spreadsheet files are attached at the bottom. Lowes and Home depot will cut the acrylic, if needed.

This model has a predicted lift force of 54 pounds. But, if a model with a 18.00 X 6.00 pod was built then the lift would be 350, so it increases rapidly and can easily become too much to control.

@Wayne,
Please approve the MTO, or point out any modifications that should be made, as I'm sure no one will build without your approval.

An issue with building a 4 Riser acrylic model is that it will be difficult to see the air location, since it will be surrounded by layers of water.

Regards, Larry

[mrwayne]

Very Sweet,
Thank you Larry,
One big suggestion - The .20 clearnance is for our 6 and 12 foot tall models.
The pressures adds up inside - but the wall do not have to be stroneger than needed for the head of one layer.
The Pod is a big gain to the system - so look at the ratio from my perspective?
Does downsizing it make it impossible for this relationship?
Thank you again - could I add your work to my journal?
Wayne

[neptune]

@LarryC. Congratulations on your build. Obviously a lot of time, thought, and calculation went into that. One thing that springs to mind, is that it would be possible to do a hybrid build. By that I mean the use of two different materials, one of which is translucent [see through] and one of which is not. So only the front walls of each compartment are translucent. This would perhaps keep material costs down. It is impressive how the "power output" increases dramatically with a relatively modest size increase, and for a model, as you say it would not need to be very large before things got out of hand. Would it be possible to formulate a rule to show the relationship between size, and lift? Is the lift proportional to the volume of the machine, or combined area of all the risers X pressure, or something else?
       Personally I still think that one of the problems of building a working model is assessing the water level in each compartment. In an earlier post, I suggested loops of translucent pipes running externally, and connected between the top and bottom of each body of water . Wayne says he has used this but it is problematic. It is not totally solved by a transparent machine due to multiple layers.
Wayne has said that a 4 layer machine is not much better than a 3 layer, so is it worth the extra work?