Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mrwayne]

What I suspect:

- There is no working machine. (At least no proof of a working machine has been presented or reported by witnesses.)
- There seems to exist a machine (may be even several) but it is not self running and does not prove the concept in the trivial sense that "useful net energy" is put out for a longer period.

Greetings, Conrad

(Sorry, I repeat myself, but the discussion has become so convoluted, that I again wanted to present a "status check".)

To All,

I have always enjoyed Conrad's wisdom, but I must respond to his disinformation again.

As has been reported here multiple times;
We had our PE certification of "concept" back in 2010.

Mark Dansie visited May/June 2011 and reviewed our input output model - and asked us to black box it.

November Mark returned and watched the system run and made his own video - that I posted last time our "friends claimed no one has seen it".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc

After that visit - facing the same uninformed skepticism - Conrad presents -

Mark asked us for Data collection - which we took that same model and upgraded.

Mark has also publicly attested to the expectation of our success multiple times.

Mark has reported repeatedly and here on this site.

He has called us the .1 success out of the 99.9% Failures.

We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit -

@Conrad, you have always been welcomed - but your pop In's with disinformation does not represent the content of this forum
and or the truth presented. I love your opinions negative or not - You ruin your credibility with the last three posts of
disinformation.

To All,

See3d has worked our physics from another direction than my own engineers - I look forward to his analysis with great anticipation.
I believe he has the ability to communicate in the Nomenclature needed for some in this group - please pay attention.

Thank you all for your help.

Wayne Travis

[mondrasek]

Now, onto your post & I'll keep it brief.

I believe you are erroneous in your assumptions about the 3 systems having the same buoyancy force potential & this stems from a wrong belief that all 3 systems have the same pressure head - they don't, head is a function of height all else being equal.

1. the systems you cite are open to air systems on the right side.

2. air can be compressed - when it is done so it acts as a spring storing PE - is has the capability to give back energy in equal amounts of KE, less losses. EDIT: as per a toy pressurized pump water cannon.

3. clearly for air to be compressed & then give back KE to water Work must be done on the air - this work is equal to the stored PE in the compressed air.

@fletcher, what you wrote above is all true, of course.  For the "ideal" case that Larry illustrated he assumed that the air was a incompressible fluid.  His reasoning for this is that we could replace air and water in this setup with water and mercury, or any two liquids of different densities so that compression could be ignored.  In the ZED or Larry's illustrated case where any compressible gas is one of the two fluids used there would always be a decrease in the created buoyancy force potential due to compressibility.

M.

[Liberty]

To All,

I have always enjoyed Conrads wisdom, But I must respond to his disinformation again.

As has been reported here multiple times;
We had Our PE certification of "concept" back in 2010.

Mark Dansie visited May/June 2011 and reviewed our input output model - and asked us to black box it.

November Mark returned and watched the system run and made his own video - that I posted last time our "friends claimed no one has seen it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc

After that visit - facing the same uninformed skepticism - Conrad presents -

Mark asked us for Data collection - which we took that same model and upgraded.

Mark has also publically and attested to the expectation of our success multiple times.

Mark has reported repeatedly and here on this site.

He has called us the .1 success out of the 99.9% Failures.

We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the teams next visit -

@Conrad, you have always been welcomed - but your pop In's with disinformation does not represent the content of this forum
and or the truth presented. I love your opinions negative or not - You ruin your credibility with the last three posts of
disinformation.

To All,

Se3d has worked our physics from another direction than my own engineers - I look forward to his analysis with great anticipation.
I believe he has the ability to communicate in the Nomenclature needed for some in this group - please pay attention.

Thank you all for your help.

Wayne Travis

Mr. Travis,

I am curious why after having a patent on your device, that Mark Dansie felt it necessary to "Black Box" your device and only showed a very limited video.  Isn't the purpose of a patent so that you have public protection so that you can freely show your device openly and the data of input and output to the public for marketing?   Are there parts of your device that are still under development that do not have patent protection?  Would your device (when stable) be suitable to power the electric motors on a locomotive in your opinion?

Liberty

[LarryC]

 For those who understand the 3 U examples from my previous post, please see the attached.

The first picture shows the same resting state Travis system as the 3 U with 0 Water Head. The second picture is 3 U at 0 and 7 for comparison. The third picture shows the same state Travis system as the 3 U with 7 Foot Water Head, except the Water Head is much larger for the Travis system as it has a pod of 72" X 30 Dia. as the Travis demo, but works basically the same as 3 U. All the Riser forces shown are due to the Travis system intersecting the air column pressures.

The piston force is replaced by the rise in the water level between the Pod and the Pod retainer to bring up the water head at a much decreased cost.

Those who want to learn, take your time, first compare Travis columns, right side of Pod to 3 U until you realize they are basically the same. Then try to understand how the separate forces are generated in the last picture. For those that don't know, the Riser forces are calculated as Si X Psi. All the needed information is there.


Notes:
1. The Force, Psi, Dia. and Si values are from my calculator.
2. The normal .198 for wall thickness and .25 for air/water gap are greatly increase in the drawings for visual clarity, but you should look at the Dia. text to understand the actual size.
3. This is not the normal Travis system way to setup, just an example to compare to 3 U to understand how the air pressure in each U can be used to generate force with lower cost.
4. Air compression is not considered, for my previous reason and it much easier to comprehend without it. It was a struggle to get some to understand 7 Foot Water Head on each without compression. I'll show actual compression on each channel later as all my calculators that show the water air channel levels account for air compression by SI of channel. But few have downloaded the calculators.


Regards, Larry

[conradelektro]

Wayne, I am sorry that you think I spread misinformation. I just say, that you will not be believed unless many people can see a working machine which puts out some net energy over a longer time. In fact this is the most trivial requirement of any OU machine and of course it is the most difficult thing to show.

On your web site you announced a test run for Friday 17th of August. May be you can report (after the event) accurately what one could see and the result of this test run, especially the net power output and the duration of the run.

"Verification" for most people simply means that an OU machine puts out "free power" (net power) for a longer time. One should be able to measure the net output and one should be able to see (by walking around the machine) that no power is put in which is not accounted for. A self runner would be helpful, because any human intervention will be suspect.

Once this "trivial verification" is possible for many people, you will be able to generate interest in the scientific establishment and in the serious business world. And if you want scientific recognition and recognition by serious investors you have to provide free machines for testing and verification.

I think that the "flying bicycle example" posted by TinselKoala was a very good way of putting it. If some one flies around me for some time with a "flying bicycle" I start to believe him, even without understanding how it works. If no one can be observed flying around in a bicycle, it will not be believed. One can never prove that a "flying bicycle does not exist", but one can prove that it does indeed exist by flying around people in this bicycle (even when its workings stay a secret).

In analogy, if you can provide a self running OU machine with a consistent net output, one will start to believe you. It would be even better if you could provide scientific institutions with free OU machines for inspection, you would be famous over night.

Greetings, Conrad