Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mrwayne]

Thank You Vidar,
I think I understand your reference.
When I first introduced the system to my engineer - he tried to relate it as well to the standard process of buoyancy - big mistake - those do not work over unity.
The comparison to an over balanced wheel - or like a float and sink operation - will mix you up.
My engineer originally tried to match stroke lengths to the standard process of buoyancy - Fill, float and sink cycles -
If you read my claims - we eliminate most of that process - or to say it another way - we do not use that process in the same manner. We have a near instant up or down - at any point of our process by changing direction of the flow of water in the inner chamber.
We can go from sinking to maximum lift - the example I use - real numbers - .2 cubic feet of displacement results in a change from sinking to lifting 6000 pounds using buoyancy - not other system in the world can do that. It does not relate to the standard usage and so the standard usage can not be the gauge.
In comparison to standard buoyancy - stroke length is your power out - Our power out is input cost to output.
With our three layer system - we are at over unity at 70% utilization - we have no need to go much below that. going below that 1% is sinking. Going higher - like to 88% is more gain.
We do use weight on the system - so that the ideal is at 68% by static load - and we will sink just below neutral - then only add energy to enter the over unity range - which means we have a direct conversion to excess -
We only have an 7.5 inch stroke range on our little system - but in our process - the other side is going up when this one is going down - we basically have a continual stroke - You look at both Zeds as one process.
Also - an 8 inch stroke continually over unity is much better than a six foot stroke that goes from Zero to full power and then back again - which is not over unity.
My main point in sharing - the process is unique - study it first - you will see where all other attempts at buoyancy are different.
Comparing to other systems will not lead to understanding ours unless you define why those systems did not work and then compare to ours.
Thanks for you input, and welcome.
Wayne

[mondrasek]

On this point the mathematics are clear. It is possible to derive an absolute mathematical proof that this is the case. I won't do that here but you'll be able to find many of these on the web.

Of course.  And those mathematical proofs are taught at Universities.

Each and every one of the mathematical proofs is an analysis of a specific system or one that is meant to generalize all possible cases.  Which leaves open the possibility that a specific system can be constructed that will not produce the same results for the same mathematical analysis.  Therefore these proofs are not a "law."

Why do those who say Mr. Wayne's device is not possible keep changing the geometry of his unique construction before analyzing?  Please analyze the unique construction.  Show a mathematical "proof" for this specific case.  Trying to "dumb it down" to some simplified equivalent system shows nothing but a lack of diligence.

Thanks,

M.

[LarryC]

Herein lies the crux of the missdirection that is occurring. For this machine to be overunity you do need to be able to lift the block or some part of it as well. It is easy to see the extra 'lift' you claim is an anomaly of buoyancy actually comes from the compression of air against the block. This lift vanishes as soon as the weight rises and this compression is reduced.

Thanks, for the statement in bold above.

The videos had a concrete block. It could have been any kind of block, foam, balsa, empty container, and still worked the same, but the critics would have had a field day.

Wayne has stated that the POD's lift was a bonus, so what was it's real purpose?

It rises with the system to maintain the next inner air channel and keeps the water head aligned or a floating concrete block replacement.

Now, please show us that you are a person of your word?

Regards, Larry

[neptune]

@LarryC. The pod acts as a floating concrete block replacement. A profound statement in a nutshell. This is the missing link between demonstration video`s and the ZED.
@Mrwayne. I was intrigued that there have been a dozen replications. I am assuming that these are replications built by others rather than your own team. Independent replication is an important milestone on the road to the acceptance of a new concept. I wonder if you are in a position to talk about any of these, or if there is a link we can follow.


@All. An idea has occurred to me. Suppose we have a machine that has just one ZED. So we have to allow a specific amount of water to exit the ZED, on the downstroke. We do not release all the pressure, just enough to cause a downstoke. In a 2 ZED system, this "exaust" would be used to partly charge the other ZED. So in a single ZED machine, we could feed the Exhaust into a low pressure hydraulic accumulator. In a model, this could take a number of forms, ranging from a balloon, a piston working against a weight or spring, or a vertical water column. This would improve the efficiency of a single ZED model. I have no doubt that mrwayne has tried this.

[mrwayne]

@LarryC. The pod acts as a floating concrete block replacement. A profound statement in a nutshell. This is the missing link between demonstration video`s and the ZED.
@Mrwayne. I was intrigued that there have been a dozen replications. I am assuming that these are replications built by others rather than your own team. Independent replication is an important milestone on the road to the acceptance of a new concept. I wonder if you are in a position to talk about any of these, or if there is a link we can follow.


@All. An idea has occurred to me. Suppose we have a machine that has just one ZED. So we have to allow a specific amount of water to exit the ZED, on the downstroke. We do not release all the pressure, just enough to cause a downstoke. In a 2 ZED system, this "exaust" would be used to partly charge the other ZED. So in a single ZED machine, we could feed the Exhaust into a low pressure hydraulic accumulator. In a model, this could take a number of forms, ranging from a balloon, a piston working against a weight or spring, or a vertical water column. This would improve the efficiency of a single ZED model. I have no doubt that mrwayne has tried this.

Hello Neptune:
I have been helping (answering questions) for others who have been replicating the physics'
Some college students - some free energy buffs, and some curious engineers.
Some ask deep and important question which has taught me to answer better and better - some things I take for granted - like the floating Pod - instead of Brick.
Other force me to understand and to be able to communicate better - non of them are disrespectful.
So it has been a Joy.
Some have sent me there in progress and finished work - that is exciting.

Thanks Wayne