Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

Can you explain how this spreadsheet anaylyses or compares the energy used to lift a mass for a Travis device compared to normal buoyancy. It doe not appear to do that.as it only considers.forces, and not the distances over which those forces can act.

If the pod and the riser aren't connected at the top (the drawing shows an air gap here) then the upward force due to pressure on the underside of the top of the riser, acting upward (psi x area of riser surface, acting upwards) .... is also acting _downward_ on the horizontal surface of the pod, in proportion to its surface area (psi x area of pod surface, acting downwards). Isn't it?

[TinselKoala]

Hi,
    just a couple of points,I used to control my borehole pump with air over water and it doesn't work out,every few days it would
need re-pressurising. By using a diaphragm made it reliable.
   If one were to build a machine on the lines of the animation on H.E.R. shown at the moment I'm sure it would need a hefty motor
to keep the thing just circulating,with all those rams sliding and all that small bore tubing the losses would be tremendous.
                                    John.

But... but.... Nine Hundred and Sixty Percent.......

I decided that 160% was not good enough - and considering our latest physical testing of our TAZ is 960% - I think the timing is just about right.

(quoting from Mister Wayne's most recent missed deadline announcement).

Surely that's enough OverUnity to drive some fluid thru tubes and push those hydraulic rams around.

What I can't figure out is..... nine hundred and sixty percent of.... what?

If there's no input...... Well, as I've said before, Mister Wayne Travis is not using standard, universally understood methods of determining the efficiency of his device. The ratio of output work to input work is the general way it's done. If Mister Wayne's device has NO INPUT but is producing useful work output, then it has efficiency OUTPUT/ZERO, which is infinite. If you reject that and put in "960 percent" as the answer and work backwards, you find that for whatever work output, there MUST be a work input of about one tenth that output.

Of course Mister Wayne has never explained how the "160 percent" value was actually obtained, so why should he be required to justify the new, NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY PERCENT claim... since it's anybody's guess just what the 960 percent is a percent OF.

[mrwayne]

Hello friends,
I have seen great wisdom and maturity in the last few pages, I encourage you to stay on that path.
The process to the truth is to eliminate that which is untrue - speculation is not the path to the truth, stick with the facts as you have laid out the plan - keep your eyes open to see search, discover, study, share.
That is what makes us team members - not in our success or failure - not in our acceptance or denials, but in our journey.
Someone wrote a while back - (paraphrased) history does not favor the idea that new discoveries, new understanding, comes from those that claim to be experts in such fields, nor do the most educated see beyuond what they understand, or have been taught.
This is not an insult to the Pedigree - or an insult to the act of self protection that comes with the title - but a simple and humble fact of history.
From that - we can know that our work is not in vein, our work is the frontier, pass it by or grasp it with two hands - the choice is yours.
So my charge to all of you who look to see - what ever that might be - what ever you might see - well done brave men and women, welcome to the frontier.
Let no man have hold of your most precious gift, your mind.

Wayne Travis

[TinselKoala]

(ETA: What, are you running for office, now, Mister Wayne? That last post sounds very much like a politician who isn't about to say anything, actually, but enjoys talking nevertheless. How about telling us one simple TRUTH: Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, and how was that clear overunity measured?)

Well.... if force is the only important parameter, and distance of travel is irrelevant , which appears to be the case for LarryC's spreadsheet .... I have a system here that produces 1150 percent.

I decided that 100 percent wasn't good enough, so I asked the local Jehova's Witness youth group to come up with a new name for my system that produces 1150 percent. That's right, I put in 100 percent of my input force, and my system uses part of that for lift and returns a NET of 1150 percent force.

As soon as they've finished painting my new donated barn, I'll demonstrate my system that gives 1150 percent of NET back for use. You can use its output force in a practical way, too, for lifting cars up to change tires, or even pulling out old tree stumps from your pasture.

The JW Youth Group came up with the perfect name. They call my device.... the "lever".   Clever, isn't it?

(I see that Mister Wayne is still ignoring my posts and is still not explaining anything in his posts. Why has there been another delay? Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself? For how long has the NEW system run continuously without outside power or internal stored power? What is the ratio of input WORK to output WORK for this new device and how was it measured?)

[Red_Sunset]

(ETA: What, are you running for office, now, Mister Wayne? That last post sounds very much like a politician who isn't about to say anything, actually, but enjoys talking nevertheless. How about telling us one simple TRUTH: Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, and how was that clear overunity measured?)
Well.... if force is the only important parameter, and distance of travel is irrelevant , which appears to be the case for LarryC's spreadsheet .... I have a system here that produces 1150 percent.
I decided that 100 percent wasn't good enough, so I asked the local Jehova's Witness youth group to come up with a new name for my system that produces 1150 percent. That's right, I put in 100 percent of my input force, and my system uses part of that for lift and returns a NET of 1150 percent force.
As soon as they've finished painting my new donated barn, I'll demonstrate my system that gives 1150 percent of NET back for use. You can use its output force in a practical way, too, for lifting cars up to change tires, or even pulling out old tree stumps from your pasture.
The JW Youth Group came up with the perfect name. They call my device.... the "lever".   Clever, isn't it?
(I see that Mister Wayne is still ignoring my posts and is still not explaining anything in his posts. Why has there been another delay? Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself? For how long has the NEW system run continuously without outside power or internal stored power? What is the ratio of input WORK to output WORK for this new device and how was it measured?)

TinselKoala,
Are you so desperate or so disappointed or so disenfranchised, to stoop to such a low level where even the street dogs do not want to tread !!
This is very disgusting & disappointing behavior !!  I held you in higher esteem before today.