Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[MileHigh]

Mondrasek:

I've noticed a pattern in Mr. Wayne's responses that I thought I might address to you.  It appears to me that he does not answer some questions purposely.  At first I thought it was because he may have overlooked them in the thread posts.  And that may still be true.  But I wonder if he does not respond to questions that would involve disclosure of information that has not already been made public in the patent and videos?  I believe he might not be addressing questions that may be considered IP that is not legally secured.

i can't really comment on that.  Once assumes that you can debate this issue with Wayne and eventually you will hit a wall.  The wall is the "secret sauce," we see it all the time from people promoting free energy propositions.

Just a few more comments.

I saw some spreadsheets but they seemed to only be looking at increased force.  As has already been said, you have to look at work-in and work-out in the spreadsheets.  Without those calculations the spreadsheets are meaningless.

With respect to the "trolls" debate, don't let yourself get brainwashed and don't brainwash yourself.  If you decide that "people that disagree with me are trolls" you are no better than a fascist.  Trolls are not people that want to argue the merits or lack of merits of the proposition.  You start thinking like that and you are heading down a dangerous and ugly path.  Go look up the Wikipedia definition for "troll" and you might agree with me that there is only one troll on this website.

The only thing that Wayne has to offer you is a story that there is a magic configuration that will fit inside a black box filled with water and valves and pipes that can produce an unlimited amount of free energy.  Even though I have not been following, any of you that have been playing with buoyancy and making little setups only see unity.  As far as I am concerned you are just wasting your time.

It's very likely that this thread as it gets longer and longer gets more and more Google attention and starts coming up higher and higher in various search results.  Even a mixture of both good and bad publicity is better than no publicity.  So this could all be part of a project to "set up your fishing" to get investors.  Not such a nice thought, it would imply that Wayne is using you, and this ultimately the exercises you are all doing are BS.  Don't shoot me, it's a real possibility.  Following that train of thought, "Iflewmyown" could very well be a shill.  If he has never been in this thread at all and just showed up the other day with a visit report I would be suspicions.

Because of all of the above, that's why I am suggesting that you focus on whatever Wayne claims he is going to do in his demo of his system to prove that his technology is real.  Play hard ball with Wayne and push for getting all of the input and output measurement data like I already posted.   After all of your back and forth talk in this thread, all that you guys know when push comes to shove is that Wayne is claiming that he has a magic black box that creates power out of nothingness using buoyancy.  He can claim that he is "bending the rules" or that he has a "special trick that does not break the laws of Physics, bla bla bla" it doesn't matter.   Wayne claims that he has a black box, and what you should do on this thread is get ALL of the information about the input and output measurements on the black box.  You should demand this.  Forget about trying to "understand how it works" because that's impossible.  Wayne will always cite his "secret sauce" if needed.

Get the proof that Wayne delivers the goods when he does his demos.  Don't just stand idly by like passive wallflowers and wait to be spoon-fed the results.

MileHigh

[mrwayne]

I just ready Milehighs latest attempt to insert the idea that we have magical free energy.

Well milehigh,

We heard what you said, we will think about it, and may make a change if we decide it has any merit.

Wayne

[MileHigh]

Wayne:

latest attempt to insert the idea that we have magical free energy

That's exactly what you are trying to claim, make no mistake.  I don't care what phraseology you want to throw at me, in the final analysis that's what you are doing.  Same thing for precisely how you are supposedly doing it, that's your "secret sauce."

So what follows from that is the only way to be credible is to tell the people on this forum all of the details pertaining to the measurements and apparatus that you will be using in your upcoming tests ahead of time.  Then follow-through and deliver all the data.  Your actual system can be put aside does not really need to be discussed.  What your system actually does in terms of test setup and the provided data is the real way for you to show the people on this forum that you really have something.

Basic questions:  What form will the power output be in and how will you measure it?  What equipment will you be using for the measurements with manufacturers' names and part numbers?

MileHigh

[mrwayne]

As it happens I haven't been here to troll at all. I'd only represent the usual thinking of engineers on these matters.

I've re-read all the descriptions in this thread of how this machine works with a genunie desire to see a working principle that could explain your apparent success at achieving useful work output from it.

Now, I have a question, Is the working principle able to be deduced from the demonstration provided by the Travis effect video 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHbP3QTncBY  A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.

I wish you were sincere;
Looking for the "Working principle"  is why I believe this system has been over looked - You can not get free energy from buoyancy - alone.
We do provide free energy from a clever usage of several separate reactions that occur when dealing with Air, Water, design, and Gravity.
It is simple (one basic moving part inside) and a plethora of complex physics inside the process.
I did not need the complex understanding to see what was smack in front of me - had great potential.
One Very Good Engineer - Stephen Seymour - third party/grant committee - said Wayne - you need to measure more than force - you need to break the actions and reaction down into inf-antesable measurements of the reactions at every moment of the operation to fully understand it (why it can not possibly work).
I said - Oh, I am sorry - just the simple output was so clear - I forgot to offer those (the full spectrum of energy power and force) to you - here....... He looked and said - OMG - build it........now...... - do not tell anyone else until it is protected and build it now.
But what he said - was volumes - some people need the unendurable to believe the obvious - I believe our engineers are taught to look at the infinitesimal - for what other reason would they deny the simple - based on the complex.
Which is more powerful? If you are making your assumptionsoff of force - the details will tell you where you are wrong, but in power out - excess power out - then the details only explain how.
You can not gleam the details - the full operation from one Video - one working principle.       
To your other question:
"Now, I have a question, Is the working principle able to be deduced from the demonstration provided by the Travis effect video 5"
Mondrask asked why I do not answer some questions -
Yours is an example of one I would not answer the way it was formed.

If you asked - as I have said - "is this the effect that you observed that led to your eventual design of your claimed working Z.E.D. system" - the answer is "yes".

But in context to our discussions and the charges you have already repeated - I must assume that you will again turn "A" answer to your question into a claim that we have claimed over unity in video #5 again.

Video 1 - 5 were the inception moments - a part of histoy to us - which I have stated every time you claimed against it.

Why I think you are not genuine - is this question has been hammered by you, Kanshi, Mark E, and second opinion's by Micro 
and I have clearly answered it repeatedly - it is the same question you posed - that Larry C challenged you on - "to keep your word".

Now Answer me this question please:
How would you describe a machine the provided more energy than it required to operate - not more than the Ideal of the system - but a simple 5 hp Ideal motor that consumes 2 hp to operate and only has 3 hp to use?

In case you do not understand the question - If I claimed to get 6 HP from a 5 hp motor - or even 100% I would agree with the "magic claims" from the other. What you should ask is if it is impossible to reduce the input of a system to provide net energy.
It is not the same as taking one form of energy and claiming it grows into more.
Their is a difference - That is under under utilization - it is only 60% of the ability of the system - but it is free -   
Because the Travis Effect showed a way to run faster and cheaper - that is all video five needed to show.
The "Laws" which you protect - we do not make claims again - we make Solid claims that we developed a system to capture multiple reactions to the same input - and then use those multiple reactions to supply the input - reducing the operating cost of the same system well leaving energy to supply to the consumer.
The middle school example of "opposite and equal reactions"  and we discovered the combination of usage - of the compression nd expansion of Air and recapture - of head pressure and recapture - of buoyancy and recapture - and mixed that with the speed and cost reduction the Travis effect offered - and then layered the system to resuse the mechanical displaced mass multiple times at the same time - even speeding up the Travis effect - times each layer.
In short - each layer speeds the Travis effect at a greater rate with each layer - because the layering system decreases the compression and expansion with each layer - which is why we have a non - linear system - a polynomial.
I am just an inventor - but I clearly understand that power can be measured in time distance and mass -
Video 5 shows the Mass 2 pounds - lifted much much faster - at our controlled distance than the standard - Very good.
I can clearly understand that air volume compresses less within higher pressures.

We engineered a way to utilize that attribute - condensed it, and added the usefulness of the old column equalization - and some very cool attributes to develop the self powered system.

That should raise a flag of hope for all of us - it is just one world.

Even Larry C and other showed the upstroke potential - if you just used that and then added the equalization - you would intuitively know we blow the lid off Free energy.

In regards to your status:
Maybe you  are - maybe your not -  but coming on this link - the way you have presented yourself to this point - moves you to the other camp.
I hope it is just you are slow to realize that all possible combinations of physics - have not been completely explored - this system is an example - you can grow from it.
Wayne Travis 

[mrwayne]

Wayne:

That's exactly what you are trying to claim, make no mistake.  I don't care what phraseology you want to throw at me, in the final analysis that's what you are doing.  Same thing for precisely how you are supposedly doing it, that's your "secret sauce."

So what follows from that is the only way to be credible is to tell the people on this forum all of the details pertaining to the measurements and apparatus that you will be using in your upcoming tests ahead of time.  Then follow-through and deliver all the data.  Your actual system can be put aside does not really need to be discussed.  What your system actually does in terms of test setup and the provided data is the real way for you to show the people on this forum that you really have something.

Basic questions:  What form will the power output be in and how will you measure it?  What equipment will you be using for the measurements with manufacturers' names and part numbers?

MileHigh

You have dismissed everyone that has presented Data.

Which is the proof that you are in a philosophical debate with yourself.

I do physical testing - not philisophical.

Our physical system has been tested to confim to all physics - except the notion that it can not be done.

Multiple people have reported even here to the system - but a million people could present you with Data - and you will still struggle with your belief.

It is not my Job to make you a believer - it is my Job to share our advancement to physics - you are welcome to stay behind.

Again - Since our system conforms to basic and complex physics - which you can do yourself - make your own Data.
As I presented mine - you just say it is wrong - flawed or trickery.

You waste our time, and will until you decide which of your physics to believe.

Wayne Travis