Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

Well, sure.

Even if B were fully off-loaded prior to changing A you could say that your states are met.

Then you could also compare the energy value of B lifted and A neutrally buoyant.

Well, sure?  Then where is your work webby?  It's just four little actions to get from State 2 to State 6.  Why is it that you are so reluctant to show your analysis of the outside energy required or gained taking each step?  Why are you fighting so hard against performing an energy balance of this process that you say is 83% efficient?

[Marsing]

hi... all

if i have a such system that have 100% efficient in full cycle,
then what can we do with that ?

[Red_Sunset]

Good morning Webby, MarkE, Marsing, Mimmie, Tinsel, Powercat and others,

I see you had some nice (waistful) posts during my absence ( I call it fumbling around in the dark).
I saw also some posts from the Wizard of Oklahoma, inputs that were received as was expected.
I also see you are still chasing the elusive OU demon and the violation of conservation in the wrong places.

You are still ignoring and do not take notice of Wayne's and my posts statements,  that said,

1..  The invention does not violate any known physics laws (neither conservation, neither Archimedes)
        **  Wayne even said that "he didn't care about "gravity conservation", become it is not relevant to the invention, it is not impacted by it.
2..  From "my" basic assessment, the zed piston is efficient but is not OU and it does not violate any laws. It does not need to be OU.
       **  Check back in my posts a few weeks ago, that is exactly what I stated
3..  It was also stated that the Archimedes laws and paradox do not provide OU and do not violate conservation laws.  That the aquarium tests shown were interpreted incorrectly by MarkE.

Having all this information beforehand,  why are you still looking for OU in Webby's test pot ?.
At the same time you would know as an engineer, that any conclusion from Webby's setup would perhaps indicate a direction that merits more investigation but the test results would be inconclusive due to the construction material used.  The upside down plastic tennis ball containers would have to much flex and distortion to provide a consistent repeatable measurement.

I have offered to take you directly to the "cherry on the cake",  by you only acknowledging some basic fundamental start positions on which to build our progressive reasoning logic.  The progress steps would be only "one" at the time and open to discussion, But you are not prepared to do that.  Why   (I think we all know the answer to that, don't we)
I am still prepared to go that way but I need multiple confirmations.

The best mail seen was from "lightend", his message was encouraging.

PS: my access to internet is limited and replies might have gaps of 24hrs or more

Red_Sunset

[powercat]

You are still ignoring and do not take notice of Wayne's and my posts statements,  that said,1..  The invention does not violate any known physics laws (neither conservation, neither Archimedes)       2..  From "my" basic assessment, the zed piston is efficient but is not OU and it does not violate any laws. It does not need to be OU.

And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU

Wayne Travis

There is clearly a claim of over-unity and there is clearly a complete lack of any credible evidence to support the claim.
webby has claimed in the past that he achieved OU (in the original thread), finally under scrutiny of his results he is now not claiming OU.

I have offered to take you directly to the "cherry on the cake",  by you only acknowledging some basic fundamental start positions on which to build our progressive reasoning logic. 

You have made this offer before in the original thread,September 07, 2012  

I could finish the cycle with putting everything on the table

http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335268/#msg335268

you keep promising, just like Wayne to deliver things you have not got,  and you make claims you can't prove, it is a fact that both your history and Wayne's proves this.

PS: my access to internet is limited and replies might have gaps of 24hrs or more  Red_Sunset

More please, stay away for more time, when you're here you are repeating yourself, and make demands on other people, yourself and Wayne are the ones making the claim it is entirely up to you to prove your claim.  Don't come back unless you can do that.

[MarkE]

Good morning Webby, MarkE, Marsing, Mimmie, Tinsel, Powercat and others,

I see you had some nice (waistful) posts during my absence ( I call it fumbling around in the dark).
I saw also some posts from the Wizard of Oklahoma, inputs that were received as was expected.
I also see you are still chasing the elusive OU demon and the violation of conservation in the wrong places.

You are still ignoring and do not take notice of Wayne's and my posts statements,  that said,

1..  The invention does not violate any known physics laws (neither conservation, neither Archimedes)
        **  Wayne even said that "he didn't care about "gravity conservation", become it is not relevant to the invention, it is not impacted by it.

In that case the machine is at odds with paragraph 0008 of the patent.  It also means that the machine does not do what Wayne Travis has been promising to the investors.  Are you advocating for dissolution of HER/Zydro?

2..  From "my" basic assessment, the zed piston is efficient but is not OU and it does not violate any laws. It does not need to be OU.
       **  Check back in my posts a few weeks ago, that is exactly what I stated

You are free to try and back the first claim with actual data.  The second claim requires context.  You can have lots of lossy things in a free energy machine.  After all the energy is free.  But you must have at least one thing that makes up for all of those losses with free energy and then some to have a net free energy machine such as HER/Zydro falsely claim to have.

3..  It was also stated that the Archimedes laws and paradox do not provide OU and do not violate conservation laws.  That the aquarium tests shown were interpreted incorrectly by MarkE.

It was the demonstrator Tom Miller who made the false claims in the videos that:  1) the videos demonstrated behavior contrary to Archimedes' Principle, and 2) that the supposed contrary behavior offered a means of obtaining free energy.

Having all this information beforehand,  why are you still looking for OU in Webby's test pot ?.

I am not looking for what I know webby does not have.  Webby asserts the claim that his arrangement is 83% efficient.   The facts betray that figure is highly optimistic.  If Webby has made fundamental errors as it appears he has in evaluating his scheme, then that reflects on his value as the ZED expert that Wayne Travis represents webby to be.

At the same time you would know as an engineer, that any conclusion from Webby's setup would perhaps indicate a direction that merits more investigation but the test results would be inconclusive due to the construction material used.  The upside down plastic tennis ball containers would have to much flex and distortion to provide a consistent repeatable measurement.

You are certainly free to criticize webby's experiments that Wayne Travis embraces.

I have offered to take you directly to the "cherry on the cake",  by you only acknowledging some basic fundamental start positions on which to build our progressive reasoning logic.  The progress steps would be only "one" at the time and open to discussion, But you are not prepared to do that.  Why   (I think we all know the answer to that, don't we)
I am still prepared to go that way but I need multiple confirmations.

You are free to try and make an argument for HER/Zydros claims at any time that you like.  To date you have appealed to such things as magic levers.  You have chattered endlessly claiming that you have some magic up your sleeve.  You have never delivered.

The best mail seen was from "lightend", his message was encouraging.

PS: my access to internet is limited and replies might have gaps of 24hrs or more

Red_Sunset

Why don't you use that quiet contemplative time to form an analysis that actually shows that HER/Zydro have a chance of delivering on their false claims?  Show that one can get the free energy that they claim without violating physical laws.  You can start with how that would not violate the First Law of Energy.  Or you can recant that claim and move onto showing how one may obtain free energy from moving masses cyclically in a gravitational field which is the essence of HER/Zydro's false energy generation claims.