Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[fletcher]

Strange isnt it?  ;]   Now, if you second, displacement, glass had no weight, and was affixed to the first cup, just as it is in the vid, what would we see on the scale?

Mind boggling

MaGs

Try it for real - perhaps TK will oblige if you are unable - we are talking about the "hydrostatic paradox".

Here is a variation.

Place two identical bowls half filled with liquid on separate scales [or do experiments in series with one scale] - both bowls & liquid have the same weight force on the scales.

Now lower the reverse riser into one bowl of liquid by hand or mechanically - read the scale measure of total force as the water level rises in the bowl [pressure is increasing] - note that you have to apply quite a force to depress the reverse riser - naturally, because the riser is not fixed to the bowl the forces will try to reach equilibrium & separate the riser & bowl & this is the force you feel.

Repeat with a fixed displacer/reverse riser.

P.S. I actually did this many years ago using a balance beam, pivot, & two identical buckets - I half filled the buckets so the system was balanced - then I lowered into one a object that displaced fluid & thus the water level rose in that bucket creating a greater water pressure on the bottom of the bucket than its opposite - my displacer & the bucket moved apart [bucket rotated downwards] to find equilibrium - the energy cost of forcing the displacer into the water was the same as the rotational energy gained IINM.

[TinselKoala]

Thanks, I have covered the input and output - very short on our current Data model  -
IN -PUT = Each full cycle - 12-15 cubic inches of compressed fluid from the accumulator.
OUT - PUT = Same cycle - 28 -30 cubic inches of (same type) compressed fluid - pushed into accumulator.
The pressure depends on our desire no less than 500psi, no higher than 900psi.
Please remember the input comes from with in the loop of our system.
Wayne

So from this description you are not making a cycle, back to the starting volumes and positions yet, are you? It seems that you have pumped out 30 cubic inches of fluid from the Zed but pumped in 15 cubic inches of fluid. Thus... there are 15 cubic inches LESS fluid in the Zed and 15 cu in MORE fluid in the accumulator than you started with. Right? If this is a full cycle... so this means you could now start at THIS POINT, and do it again, right?  Aren't you going to run out of fluid in the Zed after a certain number of these "cycles"? Or do you have to put in some more energy -- fluid under pressure -- somehow to reset the system back to the point where you started from?
If the first... you would seem to have a hydraulic fluid manufacturing plant, starting from nothing, making 15 cu in per squirt, filling up your accumulator. If the second... then you have not yet accounted for all the input work, have you?

(Conservation of Energy might be problematic... but surely everybody here believes in Conservation of Hydraulic Fluid... the stuff just does not come from nowhere and vanish back into nowhere, as much as we might like it to.)

"the input comes from within the loop"... sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.  INPUT is something coming in from the outside. If your device has NO INPUT, yet makes an extra 15 cu in of hydraulic fluid per cycle... well I think Mark Dansie could confirm that pretty easily; the accumulator will be overflowing pretty soon. Or if it's just moving 15 cu inch from one Zed to the other and back again, with no input, and producing useful power output, that too can be measured in terms of energy. (In what form? electrical? How about just torque on that hydraulic motor., something that can be measured unequivocally with a simple Prony brake or fancy electronic torque shaft sensors for example.)

You sure are making it hard for me to stay out of the "stink pitcher's bullpen" here, Mr Wayne. It looks like determining work in and work out in your system is not going to be a casual affair and it's pretty clear that continued questions about it are just frustrating you. I'm sorry for that.

[TinselKoala]

@fletcher: Nice.... and logical. All forces have "two ends" after all.... the displacer is pushing down, and the bucket is pushing up, with the same force. Not just the same numerical value in opposite directions... but the _same_ force, actually pushing on them both from "both ends" trying to separate them. Which one actually moves -- accelerates, F=mA -- depends on what's pushing back against it, with what force. Motionless objects are not "forceless", rather they are in force equilibrium.
(The bold letters indicate vector quantities: they have direction as well as magnitude).

[MileHigh]

TK:

You know the comedian Steven Wright.  One of his lines was, "You know that feeling when you are leaning back in a chair and all of a sudden you feel like you might fall over backwards? - Well I feel like that all the time."

You have ninety pages worth of Wayne describing the system but nobody truly knows how it works.  Wayne is here to "teach" people to replicate and learn how it works, but at the same time he has stated many times that he is going to protect his intellectual property and he won't tell you how it works.

I bet you if you were to ask Wayne for a schematic diagram that shows how this system is supposed to work he will refuse, it's his IP after all.  Even better ask him for a series of schematic diagrams, each one documenting where all the prancing fluids and swooshing gasses are for each step in the cycle.  I have to assume that he will refuse.  Yet at the same time he is more than happy to describe the cycles over and over in vague undefined terms, for ninety pages!  So what is he doing here "teaching" people how to replicate if he won't tell you how to replicate?   What is this business of endless streams of verbage demanding top-notch 3D visualization in your head, when it could just be diagrammed on paper?  How many people reading this thread can visualize what Wayne is describing in terms of all of the cycles and transfers of fluids and pressures in their heads?

What is all this talk of the fact that the system does not produce any energy juxtaposed with all of this talk that the system can output continuous power and change the world?  Those two conflicting statements have ping-ponged back and forth from Wayne about 20 times over the course of this thread.  It doesn't produce "free energy," it just uses less on the charge cycle and puts out more on the discharge cycle, and it's going to revolutionize the world and he can quote you the continuous power output from the device, harnessing buoyancy with a "workaround" - but it's not a "free energy" machine.

What is this business with discussions about cubic inches of a non-compressible fluid when nearly every single other person with an energy proposition or a free energy proposition works in joules and watts and work and power - the universally accepted scientific terms that are the bread and butter and currency of this web site - except for Wayne?

So what is really going on here?

Can you figure it out TK?   Because to me it feels like ninety pages worth of balancing on a chair about to fall over - or not about to fall over.  It's a self-balancing unbalanced chair.

It's all so simple, just read what Wayne posts in all its complexity and it will be as clear as night in the daytime.

Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
And then he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
He asks you how it feels
And he says, “Here is your throat back
Thanks for the loan”

Can you figure it out?  Can I sell you some cheese?

MileHigh

[fletcher]

MH .. we all have our own experiences - I was never able to find a 'workaround' to enable less Input energy than Output - Mr Wayne says he has found a workaround to this & that makes gravity a non conservative force - this forms the basis of a gravity-hydro engine.

Obviously my experiences & failures are not everybody's & Mr Wayne has a support team including engineers, so I have to speculate that they may know something I don't - their view & assertions don't conform to my world view & understanding of physics but it is never to late to learn if there is something to learn - that has yet to be determined & only the validators & replicators can provide that feedback I suspect.

I do believe that Mr Wayne is completely sincere in his beliefs & that is the motivation for his sharing what he can now.