Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mrwayne]

@All
Back to work:

Most of you have seen the patent - studied the natural physics of the design, and now see how we use the nonlinear attributes to our benefit.

Let me now affirm - what some of you have supposed - all of the information we have released - is just the beginning.
We have progressed far beyond what has been shown, which is sufficient to understand the validity, this discovery has led to many more.

As I shared with Mark Dansie - he stated (from memory)

"We have spent two years trying to take a 1 watt O/U (massive magnetic motor) and two million dollars later we have 1 watt - and the simple fact that you can continually find substantial improvements to your O/U device.........with no funding - lends credence to the viability of your discovery"

I can not share those improvements at this time, due diligence requires the attorneys have their go first.

But - those that join our effort, come and visit - they become part of the team and part of the history.

As Senator Justice stated "We have become the deciders of winners and losers, the hard part is ..when we pick a loser to win...(unsustainable alternatives) we (the government) can not hardly stop funding him - with the way things are set up - and the real winners are left out"

Do not expect Goverment to help.

This go round - we (HydroEnergy Revolution llc) are letting the people choose who is going to win or loose - not the trolls, nor governments, nor the funding.
The passion for Energy Independence, the years of hope for the discover - the beauty of the simplicity and complexity - as Nature is on its own.

Do not sit idol, do not sit bye, do not rely on the past to dictate the future - All Great discoveries had a first time of success, so those of you who seek, or sought, lived or followed - the dream of our world with ample energy to spare ----
It is time for the dream to become a reality, do not sit by and let the world try to gobble it up and spit it out - like Micro and Seamus try.

Let's get it done - Tell me where you can help, be a part of this truth, let no man step on your part of this destiny and the future of your families.
It is amazingly fitting that this is our Independance day in America - it can become the World's, join us now.

Wayne Travis   

[Artist_Guy]

Sorry, but my enlightenment occurred a long time ago and it involved recognising the nature of conservative fields such as gravity cannot give rise to overunity energy. Recognising this doesn't give rise to any bitterness and it is not a personal attack on anyone.

My only qualification to that statement is that there is a small possibility that at nano scales the existence of the Casimir effect points to something that may allow gravity modification with a suitable technology. This technology does not include buoyancy.

You continue to mention gravity "modification". The thing does not modify gravity.  I read the original post you appear to have latched onto as to that incorrect notion, and it's clear from the context that he meant something else...just modifying the amount of force needed to get the load lifted.


The gist of it all seems to be, in the main, that a ZED can lift the (Example) 2500+ pound load using leverage via concentric cascaded buoyant-pneumatic means...such that you can do it for less than the usual pressures (and thus work) that one might think are needed here.


Once that the load is lifted, you have the usual gravitational potential energy ready to work during the sink cycle..and yet because it uses an efficient lever so it seems, that work is not all used up to re-lift the other side, between that and the transferrals. Repeat...

I don't know how that leveraging works just that it is said to, but please stop mentioning "modification" of gravity. Such is not being claimed.
 
rc

[Low-Q]

I posted with permission from Wayne the 2 principle videos to my youtube account at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkxrLzcp0Z8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUj42h6j7Y

Also the hard skeptic Mark Dansie says that this device works.



The main effect is that only the height of the air in the plastic cup counts !
Not the volume ! So you only need to pump a very low amount of air under the plastic cups
which needs very low amount of energy. Then you can gain the massive lift energy by buoyancy which is much more than the used pump energy to get the air inside the platic cup.!
So you have a big energy gain there !
Hope this helps...
Also have a look at their website for more informations.



http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/

Regards, Stefan.

I made a comment on the two videos, but wants to repeat it here:


The concrete block is independent of the cup, and therfor assist in pushing the cup upwards with the same amount of force as the other cup. So the experiment is some how misleading us to believe that two different amount of air can lift the same weight. The right hand cup does not "see" the concrete block, but the block is displacing the water instead of the air doing it, and therfor act as it is filled with as much air as the left hand cup. Other than showing the experiment, it is practically useless.


That means if the concrete block is suppose to be a part of a machine, it would not be possible to work as a over balanced wheel.


Vidar

[mrwayne]

I made a comment on the two videos, but wants to repeat it here:


The concrete block is independent of the cup, and therfor assist in pushing the cup upwards with the same amount of force as the other cup. So the experiment is some how misleading us to believe that two different amount of air can lift the same weight. The right hand cup does not "see" the concrete block, but the block is displacing the water instead of the air doing it, and therfor act as it is filled with as much air as the left hand cup. Other than showing the experiment, it is practically useless.


That means if the concrete block is suppose to be a part of a machine, it would not be possible to work as a over balanced wheel.


Vidar

Hello Vidar,
I read your statement several times - because you both made our point and then concluded the opposite?
"The concrete block is independent of the cup, and therfor assist in pushing the cup upwards with the same amount of force as the other cup."
And then concluded with:

"Other than showing the experiment, it is practically useless."

You imply - Just As Tommy did - that the video shows that the volume is reduced by the non attached block to get the same for out of a system with much more air ----becasue the block takes up the space of the air - which makes it equal to the other cup---which results in less air need to lift the same amount-----

and then

"That means if the concrete block is suppose to be a part of a machine, it would not be possible to work as a over balanced wheel."

Vidar, to be clear;

We don't lift the concrete block - we do not  have an overbalanced wheel?

Or anthing remotely related.

I hope this helps,

Wayne

[mondrasek]

The attached shows how the buoyancy of the different Pod and Riser sections changes at different rates as the system is allowed to raise and/or fall.  This is the 6 in OD model system that has an ideal lift of about 15 lbs. It was weighted to 1/3 of that and balanced by adjusting the water level in the outer most ring.  This is shown in the "FULL" condition where it would need to be restrained from stroking up further.

Additional weight was then added to increase the loading to 80% (12lbs).  Water was then removed iteratively from the center Pod section until neutral buoyancy was achieved.  This happend when 1.8156 in^3 of water was removed and is the second view shown.  From there water was removed in additional increments of 1 in^3.  This would cause the Pod and Risers to drop.  The exact amount of the drop to return to neutral(ish) buoyancy was again found by iterations.  In the middle view 2.8156 in^3 of water is removed and buoyancy achieved after the Pod and Risers have lowered .07373 in.

I drew some witness lines across the various water levels to help illustrate that the buoyancy ratio of the different members is changing.  The Pod is loosing the most buoyancy.  The Inner Riser is loosing a lesser amount.  The Outer Riser is actually gaining buoyancy.  All together, the buoyancy adds up to be the 12lbs of loading of course.

The reason for the changing buoyancy ratios appears to be the volume decrease of the air/water channels between the Pod, chamber walls, and Risers as the system collapses.

FWIW.

M.