Big try at gravity wheel

[TinselKoala]

For people who are unfamiliar with logarithmic plots.... in the above figure, you locate the "20 kW" power level on the left hand axis... it is the second solid line above the "10kW" labelled line. Then you look at the colored lines that correspond to your available "pressure head" to find where it intersects the "20 kW" line. Then you read down to find the volume flow rate at that pressure which is required to make that shaft power output.

[mrwayne]

What you have never done is shown a single iota of evidence that supports your outrageous claims.Archimedes' Principle rigidly conforms to CoE, as does gravity.  Lifting and lowering objects in or out of fluids does not change the conservative properties of gravity, or thermodynamic laws..

Let me help you out Mark,

We have a mutual friend that says you are smart and a good guy - to me - you are so prejudiced against OU .. you miss the simple things. Doesn't mean you are not smart - just that you picked the wrong fight this time. Good news - I hold no grudge.

When your eyes open - our mutual friend will invite you to celebrate.

It does not matter to me one bit if Buoyancy is conservative - that is not how we use it.

I forgive you for your self framed claims against me -also - I do not answer to you.

To All trying:

Marks quote above is the key to the error in evaluating our system -to all the incorrect evaluations of the ZED System.

Let me first say - since it keeps repeating itself in many ways and gives and ego to some - I agree,  if you pick up a rock and drop it you gain a sore toe - that's about it.

I have tried to carefully to show the group - and has RED - that doing so is futile.

Even with a ZED - if you lift a weight and leave it on - you have nothing ---you have to change the parameters from one direction to the other.



I do not know how to do that with a rock----- I can change the parameters in a ZED - or on of our other four systems -  by design, and altering the interactions between gravity, the atmosphere, and liquids -------Yes -several different ways.....

Until you recognize what RED was saying - everything you were taught in school will seem correct - and you are wrong in some cases. 

Our whole system is counter intuitive - Engineers from Adapco recognized five - Of the engineers that have evaluated our system some trip up at the "counter intuitive" design process - not all.

Adapco said "you have presented at least five counter intuitive designs into your system that in reflection - are a requirement to defeat the law of conservation.

The counter intuitive: As an example from what I shared last year - short stroke is more efficient - why? because the ratio between input and free flow is improved.

Layers improve the ratio between input volume and lift = which can improve efficiency.

Adding static weight to the system improves efficiency (in the systems that have air) air does not compress and expand at the same volume at different pressures ---so a ratio between Ideal and air expansion can improve performance.

Don't fall into the trap of trying to get the most out of a system - then you are back to the rock drop.... counter intuitive

One more - the air is never used for lift......it is used as a transfer medium - which can be replaced with a non compressible - as long as the density is less than the other fluid.

These are tough and no doubt cause scoffing at the mention - that's why free energy has taken so long to be discovered....

I have work to do - I will check back later.

Moving on.

Wayne





Quit evaluating the process lke that of a rock - unless you want to stay n the caves.


If you seek "Ideal use of  system" you will miss where the redirection must occur.
Along that same line - a long stroke is less efficient.
Taking all the energy out o a system leaves you with the rock scenerio
   







We do not do that with a ZED - I even posted drawing of two cylinders lifting weights

[MarkE]

TinselKoala I suspect that there were a fair number of people who didn't know any better and wanted to believe Wayne Travis' false free energy from buoyancy machine claims.  That would likely include most if not all of the small investors he attracted from among his family and neighbors.  Most should know better now.  The trouble is that for those early investors to get out, money from some new investor has to replace the old money.  Eventually the music stops and the later investors are the ones burned.

For someone in Wayne Travis' shoes the question is whether he is better off with a bunch of angry neighbors, or a burned deep pocket.  Either can make it their mission to exact justice.  One can move from neighbors, and if none of them go psycho stalker, be done with them.  Deep pockets are less predictable.  Most just write off bad investments.  Others don't like being played for fools.  I know of one case where the deep pockets didn't stop until the principal con artist and more or less the whole clan of grifters were ruined and/or jailed.  It took the deep pockets about a decade to methodically play out their rich man's justice through a combination of private actions and law enforcement nudging.

I am still in awe of how Wayne still spins his stories of how all is fine and well when he knows full well that every investor dollar is already lost.

[MarkE]

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg387260/#msg387260

I guess that you did not read my 2 posts of calculations either.

I can not find anywhere where I made a schedule, a time line to completion,, so why are you constantly throwing that out there?

So I did not make that a condition, no time line, and you did not read my transfer pump modality and you did not read my calculations

Webby,
1) Does or does not your scheme start with one cylinder "charged" IE in the up position against the stop with all water replaced with "air"? 
You answered that in post 1035:

Offline webby1

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 965
        View Profile
        Email
        Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1035 on: February 08, 2014, 02:16:20 PM »

    Quote

...

Start with the cylinder in state2 with all of the volume under the cylinder filled with as much air as can be stuffed into it.

2) Does it not also start with the other cylinder, the one that is to raise the payload weight in the down condition with only water and no air under the cylinder?
Your post 1035 also answers that question:

...Start with the cylinder in state2

3) Does or does not your scheme require pumping "air" through your transfer pump from the "charged" cylinder to the cylinder that carries the payload weight?
And again  post 1035 addresses this.

...I use a straight transfer pump connected between the top of the 2 cylinders, a transfer pump is a sealed chamber with a piston in it so that when the piston is on one side the other side has enough volume to hold the medium of one unit, then when slid over to the other side it pushes that volume out and into the unit it is connected to and at the same time will pull in the medium from the unit connected to the other side of the pump. simple.

You can figure out the weight that the cylinder can lift at full fill, place this weight on the starting condition cylinder and transfer the potential from the state2 cylinder into the starting condition cylinder, this is the cost of cycle.

So despite your new protests you have in fact described moving "air" from one fully "charged" cylinder to the other cylinder.  A point will be reached where the pressures are equal.  That is an important point to identify for anyone concerned with how much work has to be done.  And what we find is that in getting to that point of equal pressures, the energy stored in the "charge" of the two cylinders combined is now only about half of what it was when we started with the one cylinder "charged" and the other at rest in its lowermost position.

[MarkE]

Let me help you out Mark,

We have a mutual friend that says you are smart and a good guy - to me - you are so prejudiced against OU .. you miss the simple things. Doesn't mean you are not smart - just that you picked the wrong fight this time. Good news - I hold no grudge.

Ad hominem attack.

When your eyes open - our mutual friend will invite you to celebrate.

It does not matter to me one bit if Buoyancy is conservative - that is not how we use it.

It's nice that you don't care how the universe works.  Here's a news flash for you:  Humans don't get to define how nature works.  We only get to work within nature's constraints.

I forgive you for your self framed claims against me -also - I do not answer to you.

Forgiveness is a good thing.  Maybe the people whose money you have taken under false premise will eventually forgive you if you ask them to do that.  Remorse is usually a good thing at sentencing hearings.

To All trying:

Marks quote above is the key to the error in evaluating our system -to all the incorrect evaluations of the ZED System.

Let me first say - since it keeps repeating itself in many ways and gives and ego to some - I agree,  if you pick up a rock and drop it you gain a sore toe - that's about it.

I have tried to carefully to show the group - and has RED - that doing so is futile.

That's great, because right there you have admitted that you have nothing.  That further establishes scienter.  Thank you.  Lifting and lowering weights in or outside of a fluid is still just lifting weights.  The weight of the displaced fluid volume is nothing more than a counterweight.  How much of a counterweight depends on the relative SGs of the weights and the surrounding fluid.

Even with a ZED - if you lift a weight and leave it on - you have nothing ---you have to change the parameters from one direction to the other.



I do not know how to do that with a rock----- I can change the parameters in a ZED - or on of our other four systems -  by design, and altering the interactions between gravity, the atmosphere, and liquids -------Yes -several different ways.....

Until you recognize what RED was saying - everything you were taught in school will seem correct - and you are wrong in some cases. 

Red was as full of misdirection as you are.  The energy balances don't lie.  No one who supports HER, including you and including Red_Sunset have ever shown an energy balance that yields a net surplus.  Always we see misdirection into forces and pressures, quantities that are not conserved.

Our whole system is counter intuitive - Engineers from Adapco recognized five - Of the engineers that have evaluated our system some trip up at the "counter intuitive" design process - not all.

Adapco said "you have presented at least five counter intuitive designs into your system that in reflection - are a requirement to defeat the law of conservation.

Supply the name of any engineer who thinks that you have violated any of the conservation laws and are prepared to sign an affidavit to that effect.

The counter intuitive: As an example from what I shared last year - short stroke is more efficient - why? because the ratio between input and free flow is improved.

Short strokes are indeed less inefficient than long strokes under your scheme.  They are both solidly under unity.

Layers improve the ratio between input volume and lift = which can improve efficiency.

More layers simply increase sources of loss.

Adding static weight to the system improves efficiency (in the systems that have air) air does not compress and expand at the same volume at different pressures ---so a ratio between Ideal and air expansion can improve performance.

Duh, for a constant molar quantity of gas at constant temperature, the volume and pressure are dependent.  Compressing and expanding gas just adds thermal losses to the other losses that are part of your scheme.

Don't fall into the trap of trying to get the most out of a system - then you are back to the rock drop.... counter intuitive

The most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.  The ZED capable of delivering the most net energy is no ZED at all.

One more - the air is never used for lift......it is used as a transfer medium - which can be replaced with a non compressible - as long as the density is less than the other fluid.

The air has always been a red herring.  How nice of you to acknowledge that.

These are tough and no doubt cause scoffing at the mention - that's why free energy has taken so long to be discovered....

You have not discovered free energy.  You have rediscovered what many have known for a very long time:  There are gullible people who will believe far fetched false stories that have no supporting evidence.  Some of those people can be persuaded to give money to the storytellers.

I have work to do - I will check back later.

Moving on.

Wayne





Quit evaluating the process lke that of a rock - unless you want to stay n the caves.

There is a genuine chance that before all is done you will be in a cave like abode about 6' x 8'.  That is still several years away.

If you seek "Ideal use of  system" you will miss where the redirection must occur.
Along that same line - a long stroke is less efficient.
Taking all the energy out o a system leaves you with the rock scenerio
   

No ZED at all outperforms any ZED that can ever be designed.

We do not do that with a ZED - I even posted drawing of two cylinders lifting weights

Whatever "that" is.