Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

@ Red
Your opinion is noted, and as you are so utterly convinced Wayne's device works you must be an investor,
probably a director family member, as you have never shown your own device ?
Your determination to try and prevent anyone suggesting Wayne's device might not work as he claims
is probably based on your keenness to see new investors get their chequebook out.

Now why don't you show me where I ever said Wayne's device doesn't work as he claims.
I keep waiting to see new evidence but it never comes it's the same with the verification.

I will keep waiting and hoping that something will improve but while it doesn't
and you keep insisting that it works without any proper evidence or verification,
I will keep posting to show you are just an arrogant salesman for Wayne's device,
and of course we must believe in the product because you say so.

Hi Powercat,
We communicate direct or 'by suggestion',  and it is the latter what is used most. So lets not state 'where did I say'
An investor I am not, but I can see and understand something with good logic. A reasoning that hold true under critical test. All the logical evidence has been presented in this forum and no technical aspect of this invention has been disputed to date.

All what has been presented contra has been 'general", non technical, not one specific technical contra argument has been presented. A trend that started already on page 1, reread pages 1-4 of this forum.  I do not deny that Wayne did not offer a 'full open book' as requested. What was unique how the conversation turned to the different non-technical (business) aspects including "open sourcing'.  Why this early in the start of the forum when no technicality was addressed? The same people that claim 'it doesn't work" want 'open sourcing',  strange isn't it !!
Would I expect a working demo model at the start of the forum, yes and there was one, also verified by Mark Dansie (there is a U-tube video somewhere.  TinselKoala had even the opportunity to verify the Zed but he and his dog wanted to be paid to make the trip and have card blanche (no NDA),  the problem was who was going to pay for the dog and TK to do the validation, he wasn't.
The development of the system is ongoing and a new system is in the pipeline.  Mark will be testing this new system, not the old one. Wayne has specific business reasons for this, That is one of the reasons why you are kept waiting.

If you like to discuss or argue the technical workings of this device, you are welcome. (but do not request repeats of previous posts)

Wayne will produce the necessary to further his business. 
You Powercat must produce the necessary to further your own business.  This is the message you should carry away from this forum.  Wayne doesn't need to proof anything for or to you, you have to proof it to yourself.  This way you do not have to rely on nobody's believe other than your own

Wayne proof for Hydro Energy Revolution will be in the newspaper soon enough.

[powercat]

All the logical evidence has been presented in this forum and no technical aspect of this invention has been disputed to date.

Wayne proof for Hydro Energy Revolution will be in the newspaper soon enough.

I don't have to prove anything, I am not the one making claims of Overunity on the Internet,
Wayne has been claiming this on this site since April the 10th 2011,
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/
We're still waiting for proper evidence, verification, or a successful replication,
If this so called logical evidence has convinced you it works where is your device ?

Logical evidence, is that different to actual evidence,(sounds like invisible pink unicorns again)
show me the successful replications that prove Overunity

You say,in the newspaper soon enough Wayne has been saying soon for over a year,
a serious lack of credibility is going on, more excuses time and time again and still no real evidence.

[MT]

This gives a comparative piston value of 355 cm3/1.9 cm = 190 cm2.
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 190 cm2 x 47.0 g/cm² = 8930 g. 
Since the lift mass was only 4540 g this is underunity at 4540/8930 = 50.8%.

Anything I missed?

Hi mondrasek
I just wanted to say that to increase efficiency you might need to pump stroke water at precharge level and not at the bottom level.
I learned this fact from Michel's latest compilation of MrWayne posts #2789. Paragraph starts with Part two: ...  we raised our pump ...

I would say pumping at precharge level gets better COP but still to get over 100% per device you need to have two devices interacting together. How exactly is this achieved I'm still figuring out but dual setup seems essential from info posted sofar. 

respect,
Marcel

[wildew]

Converted your units so that I could compare and follow the previous test posts exactly and get:

Lift Mass = 10 lbs = 4540 g
Pressure Increase = (from 18.5 in or 470 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 47.0 g/cm²
Volume = 12 oz = 355 ml ( or cm³)
Stroke = .75 in or 1.9 cm

This gives a comparative piston value of 355 cm³/1.9 cm = 190 cm².
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 190 cm2 x 47.0 g/cm² = 8930 g. 
Since the lift mass was only 4540 g this is underunity at 4540/8930 = 50.8%.

Thanks for doing that M.
Good to see side-by-side data in the same format
Dale

[wildew]

I was just thinking,, have you considered how much volume you are giving up to your "measuring tool"?

I've thought about it, but haven't done a few cycles with it "on" and "off" yet. I can close the vales to the bottom ports but don't have a set for the top ports and that's where the bigger impact is likely to happen. Anything providing more compressible air volume will have an effect on the system.
The UPS guys know me well .....
Dale