Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[squigglelicious]

Have you seen Wayn's latest report:
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives

Lots of suspicious things, reading between the lines:
He says:
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Data collection model - Data pulled - confirmed Physics and I made a determination to keep it as is - it is excellent data.
We have also decided not to use this model and its configuration as our "Extraordinary proof" for Mark's group.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Instead, he will develop a simpler and more powerful model.  I guess this means that
his model didn't clearly show overunity.

Bummer!  looks like my prediction of him giving up the ghost by the 21st wont bear out.
I suppose when you have invested as much time and effort and reputation in
something, it takes alot for the dream to die.

[Red_Sunset]

........................................That's the only way this can work that I can see. Energy is not being 'created', it's being stored. Gravity is a -constant- acceleration, you don't use up one side then the other and it's gone, because once you lift it back, you got another 100 percent PE. But if you had a stored precharge to get started and extra left over each stroke...

If the 100 percent PE available on the one side can re-lift the other side using only 60 percent the travel or available force pressure from whatever travel is allowed....you now have 100 percent PE available on the other side because it's been reset, but still have 40 percent remaining on that side to do as you wish.

Dear Artist,
You gave a pretty good interpretation of the process flow, just explore it deeper and it will reveal itself.
Michel

[Red_Sunset]

Please excuse the interuption:
My purpose with sharing is clear and stated - I am not here to argue with the interuptions - yet from time to time - direction is needed - to avert the misdirection of some.
...
..................................................
Wayne Travis

Hi Wayne,

Your pen was definitely on a roll.
Thanks for sharing the deeper understanding, it gives something to ponder about and to sleep over to get the understanding of the broader picture.
Thanks for your infallible support, for stopping by and sharing,  it is appreciated !

Regards, Michel

[fletcher]

SUMMARY :

CREATING ENERGY CONJECTURE :

If you have Over Unity - you must be claiming to "Create Energy" â€" [this statement is] bogus.

How do you properly define creating energy ?

Is it true that if you have Net energy coming from a black box, you are creating energy, magic ?
 
I have stated, in reference to the question that our system is Over Unity, defined by the Input Cost to the Output of the system - but like the air conditioner needs to account for the temperature differential  - if you account for our unique use of energy from our unique "Mass Displacement" and the effect we capture from gravity - the system can be understood and calculated as well.

The Difference our system has over an air conditioner being - we have enough of a gain to provide our own Input Cost - and provide a NET [energy].

CONSUMING GRAVITY CONJECTURE :

How do we convert gravity - without consuming the gravity ?

First, you have to understand Gravity as a flow - or a vortex acting upon known mass.

Does an impeller dragging in a river and spinning ..... cause the clouds to stop sending rain - or consume the water ?

Perhaps the molecular structure of the mass is in direct relationship to the interruption of the flow of a gravitational vortex â€"  can't see it so I can only test the observable - be careful this is where error comes - when we make observation [about] the LAW, and then use the LAW to discredit observation.

Neither the law nor the observation have a full understanding of the universe.

In real simple terms - in what we "observe in a known density" - is another way of saying our observable reaction to a known substance and the gravitational field.

The flow rate of gravity appears steady within our range of observation and work - things fall at the same rate - within reason, unless they are affected by resistance of another density - such as air - and that rate changes with the structure [shape & mass].

So we have a MASS of measurable and observable characteristics - and those relationships we assign based on our knowledge from our observations - and turn them into a LAW.

We have a pretty good set of physics in the books well explaining the effects of gravity, buoyancy, mass extra.

THE FALSE CONJECTURE THAT WE CREATE ENERGY :

Any known Mass has a Energy value "we" associated with it, we assign to it.
 
Buoyancy is a perfect example and [a] way to measure the effect of gravity on a mass - the numbers are very clear - repeatable - measurable - predictable.

Here is where the disconnect between conjectures [occurs]!

What is the total energy available from the Mass ?

This is somewhat of a misleading question, a trick question, leads the observation - (nuclear energy is a separate topic).

Think about this instead.

Does the gravitational energy come from the mass or is the mass effected by gravity ?

Changes your outlook - or ability to see clearly knowing the difference.

Mass does not control how much gravity is available in a given space - I make this claim from simple observation.

Look at this - a cubic inch of lead has a weight and volume - a cubic inch of water has another weight same volume.
Does the gravity in that space change because of the material, or is our observation and rules change based on the material ?

Important Point.

Neither shows the full potential of gravity - just the relationship to the "train and station" as Red put it - what we can see.

Since the available gravity is greater than the "Mass of the Displacement"  then potential energy is not being captured.

Density, as we call it, is like a different size impeller in a river of gravity - the dense one (heavy object) grabs more energy than the less dense one - but the flow rate is the same.

Who knows what the maximum density is - not me.

Our ZED Technology works between those two impellers - they have different density - and thus have a different potential - and we capture our energy by a third system which uses the differential between the two.

And we do it at each layer - one of the diamonds in the ZED is the reuse of the same flow - or field of capture.

Reuse of the same Mass - as I have stated before in each additional layer.

Since physics has never had to answer the question of gravity being captured or used multiple times in the same space at the same time, in relationship to the potential of gravity within a mass, this is a new development.

(this is the question  - it should be argued - and deserves observation - do not rely on hard held convictions and conjectures.)

Claims by others that we are CREATING ENERGY - is a good measure of those persons understanding of our system, or their motive.

Creating the condition where one Mass can be reused - simultaneously - and thus capturing more of the available energy in the mass - from gravity - is one of the diamonds to our system.

If you account for the reuse of Mass in each layer of the ZED - you will see where ALL the Energy is accounted for - and you will see that our system provides NET energy - using currently understood physics - because the Input Costs are reduced by the reuse of the Mass - halving the cost of reusing it - reduced with each layer.

When you understand this well enough - you will also see / begin to understand that the Efficiency is increased by the addition of layers - by reducing the cost - even though pressure increases â€" it’s the Displacement Value / Ratio.

So, can two masses occupy the same space at the same time ? â€" NO ! -  but you can capture the effect of gravity /multiple times from the same space, and same mass, YES - with our unique DESIGN.

Every layer reuses at least the POD, and each successive layer used the total mass before it.
 
To All Replication Teams : 

To quicken your understanding.

Please account for the total displacement of the ZEDS in relationship to the lift - as you add layers - you will see the lift increase at a rate faster than the mass is increased - that alone should bring about a better understanding of our system.

In other words, track pressure and volume to lift - and also track total displacement to lift - eye popper!

Thanks to everyone who is trying to understand.

Wayne Travis

Just on line for an hour or so.


Here is a cleaned up version of what Mr Wayne said.


IMO, Mr Wayne, Red & his team are having great trouble rationalising & explaining their position [leaving out whether it is true or not] - this may be one additional motivation for continued involvement along with the ones stated - i.e. to gain a better grasp & understanding from one of us, either a theorist or a replicator building, for theory & abstract presentation for commercial purposes.



I'll start the ball rolling.

First gravity should not be confused with energy - gravity is a force & a force = mass [inertia] x acceleration] - in this case the gravity force which pushes or pulls something is a result of a mass interacting with a field - if that mass has freedom to move it can have PE of position in that field, this can be translated to KE at the expense of energy of position.


For a device such as MR Wayne's to work as claimed it must be producing asymmetric FORCES - this is not the same as asymmetric ENERGY.

IMO, the cosmos is a continuum of forces fighting to find equilibrium - below I plagiarize something I wrote on another board some time ago, rather than explain again - it will suffice.

I was of course, in the original thread, talking of a gravity ONLY engine causing establishment chaos because so much of Newton physics is predicated on gravity being a conservative FORCE, whilst at the same time NOT being energy - yet it is part of the CoE doctrine [law] because no one has successfully shown an instance in mechanics & machines where once gravity force has given a mass KE [motion] it can, under no other influence, regain its original PE [positional height] AND have excess KE [motion], to prove empirically otherwise - and we know that KE does Work which is energy transformation so conservative gravity, as we understand it, dovetails right in - yet gravity is a force derived from the interaction of a mass & a field, however it got there, & not energy, all the same.

Thank you P-M for that contribution about the scientific foundations & derivation of energy.

I was not aware that there was any sort of institutional groundswell rising, or perhaps a ripple, to seriously question the little premiss that grew up to be a Law, so it was a delight to read of it & their reasoning.

I for one view the mechanics of the world & universe as just such a balancing of natural forces towards a state of equilibrium of those forces - and when those forces are not in equilibrium [however they got to be like that] things are literally forced to move about & re-jostle for position - the next conundrum for me being the Work Energy Equivalence Principle & why it was NOT a Law, yet it is so readily accepted as being inviolate & part & parcel of Conservation Laws - I do it myself all the time.

The upshot is that if gravity is in fact just a force & not energy, as some here seem to believe, and, the Work Energy Equivalence Principle is not an enshrined Law [& it isn't AFAIK], then some latitude exists in my mind that the Conservation of Energy Law might not be the book-end show stopper I once thought it must be.

The upshot being that if science were able to unbundle the 'Work - Energy Equivalence Principle' & view gravity as a force as it is defined then asymmetric forces not finding equilibrium offer an alternative explanation to energy creation or lesser energy Input Costs as is being advanced by Mr Wayne & his team.

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


Mr Wayne has given some clear pointers which as testable - they are the tenets of his claims - each step should be proved beyond doubt before advancing to the next line of inquiry.

N.B. AFAIK pressure does not change density of fluids [not at these levels anyway] - however to create pressure you need to do Work.

N.B. Mr Wayne previously said that air was not required & two various fluids would work just as well.

[powercat]

Hi all
i have not visited here for a while so I am sorry I did not see your emails sooner.
I have respect for many of you (Milehigh and TK) and would never lock swords with you unless I have a death wish.
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this. However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
My observations some time go on a visit was it could hold pressure and keep operating for a limited time. I believe the longest run is 4 hours.
I was impressed by many of the people working with Wayne and thought it has a chance. But I will not say its real until a two day run followed by a team of very qualified engineers and scientists.
Many of you have called for me to call it a scam or busted but to be honest I am not qualified to debate the physics or mechanics. History is saying it can not happen, the engineers and scientists I have spoken to are divided.
I had advised Wayne not to debate matters in forums like this, just get on with it and get it running long enough so all inputs could be accounted for. i see no use in long debates and endless rhetoric. I am not sure Wayne is fully qualified to answer the questions but he does have some bright engineers on his team.
So I am just going to sit back and see if the day comes when I get the phone call to come down.
My other reason for as some of you put it you have gone soft on this, is it is sometimes about the journey. There is a lot of people involved at all levels and the journey is sometimes more important than the destination. Is it folly? I do not know but in depressed times in a rural community where this is coming out from it has brought a lot of happiness and good will from all walks of the community. Sometimes it is important to believe in things and I think the benefits can be measured in many ways.
However have no fear, I am still on my game in all other areas, busting an average of 10 technologies a month lol. (I hate my job as I always just once one would work)
So all those who wrote to me, thank you and your views are noted and I agree in most cases. To Wayne, just get on with the demo.
As I stated before, I have no time frame but as time goes on confidence will diminish. I have not signed of but at this stage a think a little more breathing room is warranted.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie

...
To Wayne, just get on with the demo.As I stated before, I have no time frame but as time goes on confidence will diminish. I have not signed of but at this stage a think a little more breathing room is warranted. Kind RegardsMark Dansie
...

Any news Wayne ??