Big try at gravity wheel

[Marsing]

..............
PS:  the reason for a baseline is to allow some control on the deviations during discussions and so ensure minimal disturbing side tracking.

You are funny red, discussions have been begun since two weeks ago, i think there is no deviation nor disturbing attempt . 

..........
The discussion is about technical principles that underpins the ZED and NOT about Wayne or what he has or doesn't have, neither about the construction of the ZED.

Are you asking for a help ?

[mrwayne]

To All:

In my recent posted Photo's, I show:

Our HR Office,

A couple Zydro paintings from our build teams.

Two of the systems built during our replication challenge.

.....

No, I did not post pictures of any of our upgrades to the ZED, nor did I post pictures from our other four systems.

As has always been my policy - I did invited visitors, gave my personal phone number and HR address.

I also made it very clear - we do not seek, accept, nor need any funding.

.......

I also made it clear that I do not need permission from any person or skeptic to build my company - nor do I need permission to provide clean energy - neither do any of you.

Last year in January - we reorganized as a company - My friend Mark D and some of the men he introduced me to - helped and were instrumental in that decision.

In short - we stopped spending our time and resources trying to please the people who apply no effort to help, or have no intention or ability to help - and we focused on developing our systems for the customer, building our company to protect the product and investors.
.......

We have been blessed with both - Funding and more customers than our first manufacturing facility will be able to provide.

We are a small part of meeting a need - I encourage other inventors to keep working - building - thinking - and never be discouraged.

God Bless you all.

Wayne Travis

[mrwayne]

One more note:

When our systems are finished with Alpha and Beta testing, I will lend the "Replication group" one of our systems - to enter the O/U contest - and they can split the prize.

They Earned It.

Best Wishes Red, Tom M, Webby, Chris, Larry, and Mike.

Wayne Travis

[powercat]

One more note:

When our systems are finished..........

Wayne Travis

From 2012


Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)and we will be ready for the Validation!

Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 2012 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements - we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts

[mrwayne]

OK kids:  Assuming for a moment that over unity in any system were possible, what would be the possible efficiency values?
Answer:  0-100%, and indefinite.  Net efficiency is net output over net input.  At 100% and greater efficiency, the net input is therefore zero.  X/0 = indefinite.  If one were to have a machine that supposedly put out 6X what went into it, 1X output reroutes to the input and now there is this 5X the original input coming out for zero input.  It is meaningless to talk about percentage gains of machines that do not consume net input.  The only meaningful values of such a hypothetical apparatus are the: continuous output power, volume, weight, cost, etc.

I was about to log off for another year - but this is very relevant for discussion.

I do not claim it is the best or only way - yet:

This is just what we do is to separate the internal operational cost from the total output.

We "name plate" the system by its Net out put - (continuous excess power).

Ideal is the total ability of the system.

We use the "Ideal"  Versus "Net" to compare cost.

We use Internal cost to Net to quote efficiency.
....

As an Example - we have a Net 5 hp power system - single layer and Pod (dual system of course) seven foot wide and ten feet tall - provides roughly 41,300 pounds continuous force at 3 rpm

It is big for a 3.7Kw system - and comparatively costly - for the energy out versus foot print.

Now add layers  - the same foot print - 150kw - much more structural requirement - at over 200k pounds force.

Another point:

Cost is a balance between capital cost and consumption value.

Here consumption value is .10 kwh - but it is .45 kwh in many parts of the world.

.............

..............Our Rotry TAZ (RTAZ) is a different bird - it has nearly ZERO (just friction loss as an internal cost - which is why we reported CoP of over 9 last year.... (the engineeers calculated a CoP of 13 - but that was just "ideal" not real world testing.

With the RTAZ - load or regenerative braking must be applied.

So what is the best way to compare it in a Under unity - only -  educational system?



Wayne

So far describing this system has just been - Name plate and fabrication cost comparison.