Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mondrasek]

Thought I'd show what could be done using the 1/8" thick acrylic tubes available from McMaster-Carr.  Since they have every size covered in 1/8" increments from 6" OD on down to 1.5" OD I think a fairly small model could be made, though it would take some expense, expertise, and equipment.  This drawing shows a three layer ZED only, but more inner layers could be produced.  The tops and bottoms of members are 1/4" thick sheet to allow for vents and fill tubes to be more easily fitted.  But this gives the idea of the scale and possibilities with commercially available acrylic.

M.

[mondrasek]

I would argue that your system IS a  Hydro pnuematic spring, and is not any more than that.
As springs do not provide overunity energy where does the claimed excess come from? No explanation given so far holds any water.

A spring can be used to move a certain amount of a fluid at certain (decreasing) PSI if it is allowed to act on a fluid reservoir such as a cylinder filled with said fluid.

Can the volume of pressurized fluid that the spring can move create a combined buoyancy force on several nested risers (a la the Zed arrangement) such that the energy that is produced by the resultant buoyant force is more than the energy that was initially stored in the spring?

I'd apprecite more than just talk.  Please show some diagrams and equations to explain if you can.  I know this is a very demanding request, but it is hard to follow just your rhetoric.  Some graphical and calculational examples of why you state it cannot work would be most helpfull.

Thanks in advance.

M.

[TinselKoala]

Suppose you build a table top model using the nested acrylic tubes, the patent, and MrWayne's helpful explanations.... and it works, and you can show it self-powering for hours on end, turning a little generator and lighting some LEDs. What then? I know exactly what I'd do. I'd grab MrWayne, the model, and we'd all go together to see some friends of ours, and the world will begin changing immediately.

But what if the model doesn't work?  Did you get the clearance between parts A and B a thousandth of an inch too large? Did you use the wrong kind of glue? Is there a tiny leak somewhere? Need different water?
My point is, the model building is an interesting exercise. What is it for? A null result (failure to operate or no overunity operation) proves nothing at all. You could have been holding your mouth wrong, or a million other reasons why it won't work. (Of course... there is one real reason but we don't need to go there right now.)
And if there is a positive result.... won't that just be repeating work already done by MrWayne's engineers and builders? The device in the video is not "kludged" together: it is clearly the end result of a process of development. Somewhere along the way the engineers will have built a small version for testing the principle.
Where is this small version now, and how was it constructed, exactly?

[mondrasek]

TK,

I completely agree.  The model building will not be a validation of anything so far presented.  I only thought it would be neat as a visual aid for teaching, if it is a working device.  I'm not trying to push it on anyone.  But since Mr. Wayne has offered to pay for the expense of the materials if we do a group build, I thought, "Why not?"

I think the maths are simple enough (so far) that we could either witness or not the OU without resorting to debating dimensional discrepancies. 

But (again) you are correct.  If it didn't work, it would be easy to look for some minuscule difference in the replication that possibly changed the outcome.

I do not think that a  replication in table top form is necessary.  I just think it would be fun (if not costing anyone too much capital).

I ask again (earnestly), would you build?  If you didn't have to pay for materials?

I'd be happy to CAD (know you don't need it) if you want.  Just in case proportions are more important than I think and we can't receive better dimensional advice.

M.

[telecom]

TK,

I completely agree.  The model building will not be a validation of anything so far presented.  I only thought it would be neat as a visual aid for teaching, if it is a working device.  I'm not trying to push it on anyone.  But since Mr. Wayne has offered to pay for the expense of the materials if we do a group build, I thought, "Why not?"

I think the maths are simple enough (so far) that we could either witness or not the OU without resorting to debating dimensional discrepancies. 

But (again) you are correct.  If it didn't work, it would be easy to look for some minuscule difference in the replication that posibbly changed the outcome.

I do not think that a  replication in table top form is necessary.  I just think it would be fun (if not costing anyone to much capital).

I ask again (earnestly), would you build?  If you didn't have to pay for materials?

I'd be happy to CAD (know you don't need it) if you want.  Just in case proportions are more important than I think and we can't receive better dimensional advice.

M.

Hi guys,
for your information, there is a Russian website which actually explains in details operation of the O/U hydraulic engine:
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/70_Book_2_part_70.htm
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/71_Book_2_part_71.htm
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/71_Book_2_part_73.htm
http://ut27972.narod.ru/Book_2/71_Book_2_part_74.htm
Alex