Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

You have just been sent a personal message by see3d on Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com.
IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.
The message they sent you was:
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 10, 2012, 11:22:16 PM
The thing I want to point out, though, is that it makes no difference, really, whether the _skeptics_ take the "right way" or the "wrong way", except in the degree of ruffled feathers and wasted time involved. What really matters, and what is really Really important, is that the _claimants_ take the right way of proving their claims. And in my opinion that is not being done here. In fact, what is being done so strongly resembles other scams and fakes and mistakes that we all know about, that it is really rather uncanny...
--TK

MileHigh, MicroController, TinselKoala, See3d,.....ect

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM the PM  ADDRESS LIST >>

You are clogging up my intray with unwanted Junk Mail. The mails appear to repeat your frustration for not being able to figure out the Travis buoyancy device and associated OU capability.  Come to accept your own belief, and put it to rest that this OU device is obvious not in your league, so please let it go.
Allow me to do my own exploration, investigation and validation. I vaguely understand your position and I am fine with it.
I DO NOT NEED your ongoing malware opinions, neither am I interested any longer in your frustrations on what Wayne 'has' or 'doesn't have', neither what he 'should' or 'should not' have done or given you,  your desires, your wants, what the world did wrong to you....ect. 
So please stop advertising your shortcomings in my intray by removing my name from all your PM.

I thank you in advance, regards, Michel

[fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

I was thinking about moving water from one tank to another last night and how to reduce the required work required to do it. Just to stress again at this point that my understanding is very limited and unlike Neptune, I really am the idiot in the room

Looking at your post, I'm wondering if you were to give the green tank some "Virtual Water", does this make a good difference in reducing the work required to generate the final PE? From watching TK's video, it seems that with "Virtual Water" you could generate the same 250kg of weight in the green tank, but you wouldn't need anywhere near the starting 125kg of blue water to get there.

I realise that you could not use all the PE generated by the 250kg in the green tank using this idea over an entire distance moved because as work was done in some way the weight caused by the "Virtual Water" would reduce rapidly. But if you say only needed to raise 50kg of blue water over the distance of, from the looks of your drawing, 0.5m, (which I believe means you're doing 25kgm of work), and from this if you could generate an average from the green tank 250kg down to 25kg over the same 0.5m by lowering the green tank away from the "Virtual Water", which I guess averages to 137.5kg over .5m, does than mean you do 68.75 kgm?

Then, to return the the drawing to the initial state, I don't think you'd need as much work again, as you could move the "Virtual Water" up out of the way, then lowering the blue tank and raising the green tank (which would require 25kgm). The water would level out in to the blue tank again and once the moves complete, re-lower the "Virtual Water" back into the green tank to it's original position.

So Input = 25kgm lift blue)+ 25kgm (lift green after stroke) = 50kgm + lowering of empty blue tank + raising and lowering of "Virtual Water"
And Output = 68.75kgm

I assuming I've got this wrong and have again mis-understood something, but then again, just in case I haven't...

Amo

Hi .. the short answer is I don't believe so - but I stress it is very difficult to read someone else's thoughts on paper & interpret them correctly & accurately without a flow diagram to follow - it can easily get misconstrued or misunderstood on a technicality.

For you convenience I have included another diagram - sequences 1 thru 3.

The first is the same as before i.e. two tanks half full - you can see there CoM [CoG] & identical heights & PE's.

The next is cutting out all the incremental lift steps of the previous & just lifting the blue water high enough that ALL will transfer to the second tank & become green water.

N.B. for the exercise we assumed that there were connecting tubes from bottom of each tank - it could be just as easily a tube from bottom of blue tank feeding in the top of green tank - where it becomes important is that water will always find its own level, it will always run down hill losing PE, and Pressure does not do work but force does - as such Pressure will 'flow' from high to low - this is why we imagine the tubes from beneath the vessels so that there is always a downhill flow & Pressure [head] in blue tank to green tank [pgh] is higher than the Pressure [FORCE] required to enter the bottom of the green tank.

The last shows the CoM & sum PE after the transfer which is twice the original sum of the PE's.

N.B. you will see that it is far lower than the PE of the blue tank in sequence 2.

So, we did some WORK on the blue tank to lift it to get a water flow & Pressure gradient - the water did flow & a new PE joules was established less than the work done/energy we expended - where did it go ?

It went into the KE of the flowing water as it transferred [velocity] & to losses of drag & viscosity - the KE of the water was used in pushing against the Pressure at the bottom of the green tank, so it is fully accounted for.

We are interested in the NET energy situation of before & after.

.................


There seems little doubt that any lift will cost energy.

Mr Wayne's hypothesis is based not on increasing the lift potential so much as reducing the energy costs of input.

Gravity causes both buoyancy & Pressure in fluids, they are downstream effects to excuse the pun - density always remains the same regardless of Pressure & no one is disputing this - since the buoyancy doesn't appear to me to be greatly different, if at all, if not less, for a multi layer pod/riser then the only thing left by process of elimination is Pressure to look at closely.

IINM Mr Wayne has said that he believes that the Pressure development is NOT linear, whereas conventional science says it is, precisely because it is a derivative of density which doesn't change with depth [assuming normal fluids] & neither does gravity's acceleration from which it is dependent.

What see3d is attempting to do is build a model [sim] from the ground up approach using first principles to find just where this 'variable' might be that MR Wayne believes makes all the difference.

So far I have not come across it - but then again that's why I support see3d's approach - somebody may learn something in that process, good or bad depending on your perspective - the point is to logically trace it thru to a conclusion backed up by real world results to test against.

............

EDIT:

The reason why it is said & believed by most that gravity [the constituent of Pressure & density] is conservative is based on a simple resolution of equations - they are important equations.

PE = KE

mgh = 1/2mv^2

v^2 = 2 x m x g x h / m

v = sqrt 2gh

Note that it doesn't include mass, volume, or time - all you need to know is h & g to find velocity.

[TinselKoala]

The water DOES go into the Pod chamber (ZED central chamber that houses the Pod) itself at the bottom center. 
 
What?  At what point anywhere did you think I would or should pour water into the chamber itself at the top?

The water is poured into a fill tube that allows it to run into the Pod chamber at the bottom.  The purpose of the fill tube is to allow for the rise in water in the tube that creates the increase in pressure of the water and overcomes the pressure in the ZED so that it will enter it from the bottom.

I don't know if we are having some confusion with terminology or if my descriptions and photos have caused some misunderstanding of what I have made, measured and posted.  Does anyone else know where the disconnect is?

M.

What you are describing is how I understood your device to operate, and that is where the disconnect is.
The disconnect is in this post here , #2080, where you say this:

TK, what you describe is not necessary, IINM.  The fact that I am removing water by allowing it to vent from the bottom of the Pod chamber is only due to the construction of the test system.  In this case, yes, the vented water must be raise to be reintroduced into the fill tube.  And that water is required to be vented in order for the ZED to sink and return to the initial pre-lift starting condition.  However, the venting of the water could also have taken place directly from the top of the water in the fill tube and at that same level if the system was designed for that more difficult venting option.  And if vented from the top of the fill tube it is clear that the vented water does not need to be raised or lowered (change of PE) to do so.

I believe the total of all input energy required to cause the previously described output is defined by the water volume and change in fill tube water level head that was reported.  Please let me know if you disagree.

I think that what can be confusing in this case is that I vent "high pressure" water from the bottom of the Pod chamber.  That pressure is lost from the system (and not accounted for) when this is done.  So that energy must be reintroduced by raising the vented water before reintroduction.  When we consider venting at the same level the water is introduced as input there is no difference in the pressures and no energy is lost.

Here it appears that you are claiming that you can vent from the top of the pod chamber and reintroduce the water at that same level without pressure changes, or that you can let this water drain down and go into the pod from underneath, float it up, and then have more pressure at the top that you can use to drain water out.... etc. You seem to be saying that you can open the pod chamber at the top, vent the water out allowing the device to sink, then reintroduce this water at the bottom or wherever making the pod float up again.... over and over without adding additional energy. This is why I said that you could just put a tube between the top and bottom and a little turbine in there....

If you are saying that you "vent from the top of the fill tube" by "extracting" water at that level and then putting it back in at that level after things have sunk  .... you are lifting water, by doing that, and it is disingenuous to imply that you would not be, and I know that you wouldn't do that, so you must mean something else. You cannot have flow of water unless you have a pressure differential. For water to come out of the fill tube at the top, you have to provide pressure from within, suction from without, or a lower place for it to run into. For this removed water to be reintroduced into the same height in the fill tube, it must again come from higher pressure than where it is going: it must be pushed, or pulled, or lifted and allowed to flow downhill.

[TinselKoala]

MileHigh, MicroController, TinselKoala, See3d,.....ect

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM the PM  ADDRESS LIST >>

You are clogging up my intray with unwanted Junk Mail. The mails appear to repeat your frustration for not being able to figure out the Travis buoyancy device and associated OU capability.  Come to accept your own belief, and put it to rest that this OU device is obvious not in your league, so please let it go.
Allow me to do my own exploration, investigation and validation. I vaguely understand your position and I am fine with it.
I DO NOT NEED your ongoing malware opinions, neither am I interested any longer in your frustrations on what Wayne 'has' or 'doesn't have', neither what he 'should' or 'should not' have done or given you,  your desires, your wants, what the world did wrong to you....ect. 
So please stop advertising your shortcomings in my intray by removing my name from all your PM.

I thank you in advance, regards, Michel

I find this to be incredibly insulting.

And yet it is completely typical behaviour from a "true believer" who finds that his delusion is seriously in question by rational investigation. It reminds me of the Christian bumper sticker that reads, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it", on the back of an oversized pickup truck with a gunrack and a loud stereo.

What you have shown us so far, Red_Sunset, is actually the single largest identified math error in the thread, and also the single greatest overunity results when that error is corrected... so large in fact that it implies that MrWayne isn't going to have to heat his barn this winter, because the self-running Zed is losing so much of its overunity efficiency in heat losses.

What you haven't shown us is any evidence for overunity. With your numbers, a ten year old child with a hacksaw, some super glue and sandpaper could win MrWayne's ten large in a long afternoon on the kitchen table, and have it cleared away by suppertime.

[TinselKoala]

My system resets by the weight alone.


(snip)

but...

Just a small note that probably has been missed.

26 inches is higher than the "head" the system can handle with only 4 risers.

My 26 inch lift of the reservoir is its total movement, I have to lift it 13 inches above the riser tops to make the lift, and to overcome the stick problem with the risers and retainers I am using a "trick" to get the risers down the rest of the way by lowering my reservoir below the risers by 13 inches and SUCKING them down the last 1\4 inch or so.

I did that so that I did not need to beat the system with my pliers to shake the risers loose from the retainers, once down I could raise the reservoir back up 10 inches every time without raising the risers without the 600g mass added and have it bounce in place.

My conclusion is that if I did not have the stick problem then I would need to move the reservoir 16 inches for lift and sink.

Since I have not removed\repaired the problem I can not verify if that is the case so I left it at 26 inches of total movement.

This doesn't sound like resetting with weight alone, and I'm not convinced it's all caused by your sticking problem.
I see nothing wrong with using some kind of vibrator to keep things from sticking. Set up a little buzzer to shake things enough to keep them freed up. But playing with the numbers like this makes them useless for calculation. I don't think you described it this way when you first gave the numbers for me to calculate with.

In addition I see that the point that is being measured as "lift" is ambiguous. Wildew's little problem should have shown us that it is the Center of Mass of the lifted and sunk water slug that is what is to be measured, and the differences in the height of the center of mass of the water in the moving reservoir is what goes into the work difference calculation, not the position of some fixed reference point on the container. The simplification of closing the valve, so that the water level doesn't change during the lifting itself, may also have an effect on the work calculation.