Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[conradelektro]

To All,

I visited Wayne Travis last week. I found him and his machine very credible. He was very open with the principle and the design of his machine.  You can tell this is something he has put a lot of effort into and is very passionate.  He has a small staff working with him and they are well beyond whether the machine works or not. 

There are many reasons to be skeptical about the ideas and inventions out there, especially those promising overunity.  So when I had a chance to check something out personally, I took it.  I may actually be a believer.

...

My background is Computer Science, Math, Physics & Chemistry.  I get the skepticism.  It shouldn't work, but it sure looks like it does.

@ theotherguy

It is so trivial, that it is almost childish to ask it again. But it seems that the discussion always goes away from the essential.

The essential question in connection with any OU machine is how much energy is put in and how much energy comes out of the machine. And in order to answer this essential question one absolutely needs a working machine and one needs to do measurements to establish input and output. The measurements are best done by independent persons with the necessary technical knowledge.

So, did you see a working machine and did you do measurements?

You claim a highly technical background (Computer Science, Math, Physics & Chemistry). Well, this background should enable you to answer technical questions like "how much energy was put in and how much energy came out of the machine"?

It is obvious that you did not see a working machine and that you could not do any measurements (a mentally sane person would have told in case this had happened).

So, what did you witness and why do you think it is a credible OU machine (without any measurements and without closely examining a working machine)?

I am not attacking you or Mr. Wayne, but we have to stay on the technical level in order to make any sense. OU is a very bold claim which needs clear and concise proof. And the burden of proof lays on the shoulders of the person who claims to have a OU machine.

So far, all self proclaimed witnesses in this forum have stated that Mr. Wayne is a nice person, but none has seen a working machine and most important none has witnessed or done any conclusive measurements. Therefore, on the technical level, no proof has materialised.

Greetings, Conrad

[neptune]

It should really come as no surprise to anyone, that most of the witnesses have come away with no scientific proof. The first step in real proof will come from Mark Dansie, who incidentally has seen the machine working .Wayne has said that Mark will not be called back until he can guarantee the reliability of the machine 100%. Mark is well known for his sceptical views, and remember that Mark was invited to see this machine. Had the other witnesses seen the  machine working, it would have proved little. Incidentally it amuses me that people want to see measurements of input and output. How do you measure the input of a machine that uses no external input? Even exact measurement of the output is not that vital. With no input, if we can show an output, however small, then we have overunity. Like it or not, we are still in a waiting game.
        I would say that Marks results will convince most rational people. And his tests are to be followed by still more rigorous tests. But even after these tests, there will still be people writing mathematical proofs of its impossibility. Exactly like the DDWFTTW machine.

[LarryC]

@All,

Simple Non-Linear explanation attached. Enjoy the understanding. Bright green for free green energy. Keep in mind this is only one ZED, think of the possibilities with 2 and water transfer.

Thanks to Michel for a better looking presentation.

Edit: Changed descriptions for better clarity.


Regards, Larry

[conradelektro]

Incidentally it amuses me that people want to see measurements of input and output. How do you measure the input of a machine that uses no external input? Even exact measurement of the output is not that vital. With no input, if we can show an output, however small, then we have overunity. Like it or not, we are still in a waiting game.

@Neptune

May be I can add to your amusement by pointing out that "setting up the machine" is an "input".

As far as I understand, the machine has to be pressurized. This clearly is an "input of energy" (equivalent to winding up a mechanical clock).

Even, if one only has to pump water a few meters up, it would be an "input". A great amount of water sitting in a container a few meters above ground has a lot of energy which can be released by having the water run through a turbine situated below the container. The energy is put in when filling the container.

The first thing to do is a rough estimate of the energy required "to set the machine up into a working state". The output should then of course be much higher than this "initial input".

If "setting the machine up" involves creating high pressure within the machine, the first thought coming to mind is that the machine slowly "winds down this pressure". Which could take a lot of time, e.g. days, in case only a small load is driven.

You will be even more amused, because there clearly is continuous input: valves are switched, sensors are read and a controller (microprocessor)  is running, which consumes electricity. This has to be taken into consideration, because the machine will not function without this input.

But besides the "initial input" and the continuous "control input", there might still be further input which we do not know at the moment. The functioning of this machine would be better explained if this "unknown input" could be identified. Simply stating that there is no input is as bold as claiming OU and therefore equally controversial. It would need additional irrefutable proof (and can not serve as an explanation of the machine).

Greetings, Conrad

[neptune]

Hi Conrad. Firstly, I am not privileged to any more information than you are. I only know what has been disclosed, and pending information to the contrary, I am prepared , for the time being to take that on trust. I agree that setting up the machine requires an input in the form of an injection of compressed air or water. But that is a once only input, and after the machine has stopped, that input can be recovered. So that is , if you like , a "loan" rather than a debt.
        Setting up the machine does not involve a "high pressure". I do not have the maximum pressure to hand, but I am certain that it never even reaches 10 pounds/sq inch. I believe that the output of this demonstration machine is 500 Watts, not that small in my opinion. Yes I am moderately amused to learn that all the valves, sensors etc , are provided with electrical input. I am of course less amused to learn that these are powered by the alternator driven by the hydraulic motor at the output .
       You say, and I agree, that there may be a further input that we do not know about. If that is the case, then Mark Dansie will tell us all about it.No such input is shown on the patent, which we are told gives us all the info needed for replication.
        So based on what we are told, there is no external input .
   Yours, Well Amused, Ken.