Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

Red,,

Taking a small amount of time and trying to explain things is all it takes to see if the person you are explaining things to is understanding what it is you are trying to explain.

MarkE,

Using the same old argument and pointing out the same old things means that you are only seeing the same old thing,, or more to the point that you do NOT see anything that is not normal.  Red myself and others see something that is not normal and that is why the communication breaks down.

In the first thread I posted a bunch of numbers from many lifts I made, some were good some were bad and some were just down right UGLY,, but there they are.

In all of those posts I kept trying to engage on the recovery,, the argument about the risers is VERY complex due to all the variables including that delay thing you mentioned, so I limited myself to looking at the lift for a close to unity value, which I had by the way, and then the recovery,, I do believe that the same pressure dropping down to 1\3 that pressure will provide at least 1\3 of the input back to the operator as per an accumulator,, that would be air over hydraulic.

This is what I put forward to you and this is what you did not speak to,, no problem, you are more than welcome to your opinion and it is not my job to convince you of anything.

In your analogy it would be closer if you used 3 terms, jack, accumulator and pressure (I was looking for the correct term to use and absent that) lever.  It has the attributes of all three of these devices and demonstrates them all at the same time using the same input.

And as a small note, I am one of a few people who have built and played with this device.

Webby did you:

Ever think that you broke even?
Identify any mechanism to realize non-conservative  behavior from gravity?
Ever get a machine to cycle until you forcibly stopped it?

The device as diagrammed in that document that Minnie led me to and according to your descriptions has:  a concentric compound hydraulic piston hampered by air pockets.  The piston ultimately pushes on a pool of water that holds a float.  So what we have are weights going up and down:  the water, the float, and the weight on top, air getting compressed, and a hydraulic force amplifier, IE the hydraulic equivalent of a lever.  There is nothing unusual about the individual components, nor has anyone shown any unusual, much less extraordinary behavior from the combination.  Red_Sunset has appealed that we use analogies of magic levers, or substitute force calculations for energy, or ignore integrals.  What no one has done has shown any mechanism that would allow for a cycle by cycle energy gain, nor have they demonstrated anything that even gives such an appearance.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset no amount of obfuscation or deflection will remove the elephant from the middle of the room.  You have been offered the opportunity many times to show any condition under which conservation can be violated.  You have not done so.  You have offered: conflation of force and power for energy, incorrect calculations, argument from ignorance, and appeals to outright magic, such as your magic lever.  Now you are resorting to the Emperor's New Zed:  Only smart people understand the unstated principles of operation.   

Sorry, but you've made no sale.

I do not dispute that I am not the best in explaining this things without having to spend more time writing something up what has been written too many times
But that is not the issue, really and I tell you why,

Your quote

If the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances.  If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny.

What was invalid ?
What makes you think that your scrutiny was any good ?  the subsequent posts tell a different story

So do you want to base your conclusions on your own inconclusive scrambled scrutiny? 

I do not understand that I have to prove something.  I have no obligation to educate you.  You can grasp it or you ask for clarification , you started on the wrong foot.
If you do not believe a high level process proposal, that is OK, refute with a proper counter argument, that is OK too.   But do not try to cover up your own inadequacies with unfounded opinions.

Red_Sunset

[Red_Sunset]

Webby did you:
..................................................................
Ever think that you broke even?
Identify any mechanism to realize non-conservative  behavior from gravity?
Ever get a machine to cycle until you forcibly stopped it?

The device as diagrammed in that document that Minnie led me to and according to your descriptions has:  a concentric compound hydraulic piston hampered by air pockets.  The piston ultimately pushes on a pool of water that holds a float. So what we have are weights going up and down:  the water, the float, and the weight on top, air getting compressed, and a hydraulic force amplifier, IE the hydraulic equivalent of a lever.  There is nothing unusual about the individual components, nor has anyone shown any unusual, much less extraordinary behavior from the combination.  Red_Sunset has appealed that we use analogies of magic levers, or substitute force calculations for energy, or ignore integrals.  What no one has done has shown any mechanism that would allow for a cycle by cycle energy gain, nor have they demonstrated anything that even gives such an appearance.

Webby,
Do yourself a favor, this guy was/is leading you and me on,  for someone who had multiple standing arguments 2 yrs ago on PESN forum about the same device with the same half cooked arguments, would know very well what the physical hardware is all about.
Now he comes across as if has never seen the ZED
He was just told in one of the earlier posts today that a dual configuration is mandatory, now he is talking about standalone cycling for your single unit.  This is not the only occurrence I have noticed of this behavior.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think MarkE,
He is hard of hearing or his intentions are not who he pretends to be, don't waste your time, he is far from having genuine intentions
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Red_Sunset

[minnie]

Hi,
   from what I can make out, by limiting the travel the whole thing must be a glorified
air spring.
          MarkE, I'm amazed at he patience that you've shown in this debate, Webby is
very lost as far as floats go and you've done your level best with him.
    This has ended up on a par with Ainslie, Steve Weir obviously knew far more about
the circuit and equipment than either of the pair that were promoting it. Steve just
soldiered on calmly until he got things done,
                       John.

[TinselKoala]

Hey Red, you are out of control there. YOU cannot present any proof of your conjectures, whereas MarkE has all of physics standing behind him.

Furthermore..... if a single Zed is, say, 99 percent efficient, how can two of them connected together be more efficient? 0.99 x 0.99 = a little more than 0.98. The only way to get OU efficiency from one unit feeding its output to another identical unit and back again, is for one or both units to be clearly OU themselves.

Even furthermore..... why isn't Travis showing all the self-running prototypes he and his engineers have constructed over the last several years? Where are all these self-runners? Nowhere, that's where. I do believe that if YOU, Red, had anything like what Travis was claiming three years ago, you wouldn't be having lawsuit or investor problems. I certainly know I wouldn't.

The conclusion from all this weight of actual evidence is that Travis, and by extension YOU, Red..... are simply FOS.