Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[LarryC]

 Attached is the ‘Travis Water Height calculator based on Outer Retainer Water Drop 4 Riser’. It has been modified for better clarity and handles small models better. Data was added (top right of first picture) based on Wayne’s comment that the model should be 3 times taller than the width of average of diameter.

It does not have any VBA modules, so it should work well with any spreadsheet software.

If you don’t have sensors in your model, the calculator can be used to predict the water levels and Psi’s at Partial Pre-Charge and Full Pre-charge.

The Gap value is for all gaps, air/water channels and below Riser/above Retainer. Does anybody need it separate for below Riser/above Retainer as it would make the model less distorted if a large air/water channel was used?

Note that these smaller models with larger relative Gaps have several advantages. Has a much better force advantage over the Hydraulic (peach line) due to a higher Riser diameter increase ratio. The ‘% of Pod change’ values (top of second picture in blue) are improved due to lower compression. Between those two and the 4 U advantage in this case, the OU should be obvious.

I will next be working on a 5 Riser version.

Regards, Larry


PS: Wayne thanks, for the ignore suggestion, works great. The constant aggravation factor with very little or no value towards the goal, is not worth reading.

[mrwayne]

Attached is the ‘Travis Water Height calculator based on Outer Retainer Water Drop 4 Riser’. It has been modified for better clarity and handles small models better. Data was added (top right of first picture) based on Wayne’s comment that the model should be 3 times taller than the width of average of diameter.

It does not have any VBA modules, so it should work well with any spreadsheet software.

If you don’t have sensors in your model, the calculator can be used to predict the water levels and Psi’s at Partial Pre-Charge and Full Pre-charge.

The Gap value is for all gaps, air/water channels and below Riser/above Retainer. Does anybody need it separate for below Riser/above Retainer as it would make the model less distorted if a large air/water channel was used?

Note that these smaller models with larger relative Gaps have several advantages. Has a much better force advantage over the Hydraulic (peach line) due to a higher Riser diameter increase ratio. The ‘% of Pod change’ values (top of second picture in blue) are improved due to lower compression. Between those two and the 4 U advantage in this case, the OU should be obvious.

I will next be working on a 5 Riser version.

Regards, Larry


PS: Wayne thanks, for the ignore suggestion, works great. The constant aggravation factor with very little or no value towards the goal, is not worth reading.

Very Nice Larry and thanks for helping everyone.
The best part is - you only show the upstroke 
On the "ignore" I tried very patiently - at some point you have to make a decision.
Keep up the good work!
Wayne Travis

[MIdone]

@mond: I do get them .... "believe it or not"....   

@parisd: Are we sure that the air pressure is the same in both cups? I've suggested connecting them with a thin tube at the tops, to make sure that they are, and see if the Travis Effect persists. Has anyone done this little experiment?

@MIdone: So thank you for making it clear. Let me summarize so that we can be sure that I've got it straight. The machine in the video that we are talking about, outside there. The control panel and other electrical circuits were powered by  internal batteries, but there wasn't any electrical generator or other "output" from the overall system on that unit, and the energy in the batteries came from some external charger. Right so far?

Please note -- everyone -- that I am not implying... or hoping that anyone else will _infer_ that I find anything wrong or suspicious about this. I am just trying to get the phenomenology straight... what it is that I am actually seeing as opposed to interpreting from descriptions and so on. What does the device actually _do_ as opposed to what the theory says or what the inventor expects will happen when it's fixed properly.

And the longest observed run, unpowered and unresupplied with anything, has been "overnight". Right?

I say my PerPump "will run (when in working condition) until I decide to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself." (MIdone's words). Not only that, I've demonstrated that it will run, several times, at least until it breaks down, springs a leak or runs out of water. May I then claim that this is clear overunity performance? If not.... why not?

I don't even have a battery. Is that why not, since we already know that all overunity machines must have a battery?

TK, it looks like mrwayne has answered those questions in his post, and corrected me saying that it did not run over night.  So oher then what we see in the video, I don't know of any statements of observed run times.

I think if you are interested enough; and confident enough with the claims and what information there is in this discussion and patent application; you could be the first one to build a continuously self-running, working ZED demonstration model to stop the BS,  -and when you send it to mrwayne for examination, he will give you a prize of $10,000  Or you could shoot for the $5,000 prize.

His challenge is in Reply #1552 on: August 20, 2012, 11:47:07 PM, and he says you don't even have to beat his team who are switching gears to build one. 

or...

patiently wait and see if the movie comes out; produced by Mark Dansie.

Enjoy.

[TinselKoala]

@fletcher: no probs, mate, I agree with you completely.   

Let's just make sure we hold... er... everybody to the same standard, OK? 

I mean..... if my PerPump machine springs a leak or is stopped for some other reason than it ran out of water, before it ran out of water, then we still don't have a fully complete cycle, do we?  I mean, imagine this. We are doing a run and after some time ... the machine stops, so we look at the precharge water and air pressure and we see it's decreased. What do we conclude... OH, yeah.... we conclude that it sprang a leak somewhere, and that if only it didn't leak the precharge would remain and it wouldn't stop.

Makes sense to me. My car is the same way. It stops.... so I look in the gas tank and see it's empty. Darn.... must have a leak.

[wildew]

@midone - welcome to the group - I'm a newbie too.
Great posts.
Careful how you feed the bears; cute, cuddly and VERY creative - but they bite