Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Big try at gravity wheel

Started by nfeijo, May 03, 2013, 10:03:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

MarkE

Red_Sunset, the videos claimed to demonstrate the "Travis Effect".  They failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle known for over 2000 years.  The videos claimed that this "Travis Effect" offers a way to create energy.  They did nothing of the kind.  There has never been any demonstrable cheat on gravity as a conservative field.  Since, buoyancy is simply gravity operating on a fluid, it follows that as long as gravity is conservative, anything that involves buoyancy is also conservative.  Buoyancy messes with some people's intuition because energy is stored by exerting work in order to submerge an object, and (almost all of) the work is returned surfacing the object.  Let gravity supply the work by weighting something down, and there is that much less energy available to recover by surfacing the sunken object.  Camelherder's volley ball and bowling ball example works great illustrating that fact.

I welcome anyone to state what they think the "Travis Effect" is supposed to be.  Despite their silly misdirection videos, no one at HER has ever stated what this "Travis Effect" is.  One would think that if someone is supposedly engineering machines based on some principle that they would at least know: right, wrong, or indifferent what the principle is.  That is not so at HER.


Grimer

Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 21, 2014, 09:05:13 PM

As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.
Interesting that you don't refer to Al by name.


It wasn't only me. Desertphile also insisted very volubly that the WhipMag video was proof of OU.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising  -  Fair as the moon. Bright as the sun  -  Terrible as an army set in battle array.

MarkE

Quote from: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 09:01:37 PM
I see that Mark hasn't being doing so well with his hypocritical pretence of co-operation so Screwtape has sent his friend TK to assist him by sowing FUD.


For the benefit of those who actually want free lunches I'll go over things again.


The cycloid is the fastest path of descent - and ascent for that matter.
A cycloid pendulum has a string connection between the bob and the pivot. A string cannot take bending stress (3rd derivative energy).


A conventional pendulum has a connection between the bob and the pivot which can take bending stress.


Th bob of a conventional pendulum takes longer from apogee to nadir than the bob of a cycloid.


Why?


Pehaps T(al)K thinks it's Mary Yugo's freudian slip pink unicorns which are holding it back.


It isn't.


It's the EG energy put in by the bending action, the same moment/couple that leads to the breaking of a falling chimney which is week in bending.


So the circular path bob on a conventional shaft arrives at the nadir with more total energy than the cycloid. If this energy is transferred from conventional to cycloid then the cycloid will manifest this energy as an increase in gravitational potential.


It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.


(Anyone not familiar with mary's pink unicorn can Google
"mary yugo" pink unicorn and find how fond she is of them).
Grimer, all you need do is state an actual hypothesis and then we can approach the issue of setting up a good experimental test for that hypothesis. 

You keep asserting that there is an "ersatz gravity" or "ersatz energy" associated with the circular pendulum at its apogee.  You have associated that "ersatz gravity" to centrifugal / centripetal force.  That's a curious claim as the tension in the arm, IE the centrifugal / centripetal force at apogee is zero.  So, where is this "ersatz energy" and how does it manifest itself?  According to your sketches it appears that at the bottom of the circular pendulum travel this "ersatz energy" has all been released.  Why then is it that we do not observe any extra velocity at the bottom of the travel of a circular pendulum than predicted with zero "ersatz energy"?  Where does the "ersatz energy" go?  And if it goes somewhere other than KE, then how can it possibly be that it can be transferred to a cycloid pendulum that you state has no "ersatz energy"?


MarkE

Quote from: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 01:38:48 AM
Interesting that you don't refer to Al by name.


It wasn't only me. Desertphile also insisted very volubly that the WhipMag video was proof of OU.
Grimer, please take better care representing what is contained in references that you cite.  In the video that you linked that Desertphile character insisted that the video of the motor failed to prove over unity.

Red_Sunset

Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 01:38:41 AM
..................................................................
.....................................................
I welcome anyone to state what they think the "Travis Effect" is supposed to be.  Despite their silly misdirection videos, no one at HER has ever stated what this "Travis Effect" is.  One would think that if someone is supposedly engineering machines based on some principle that they would at least know: right, wrong, or indifferent what the principle is.  That is not so at HER.   
MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was.  I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.

For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1..  The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2..  The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.

We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate.  You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.

Red_Sunset