Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

No Takers to learn the system?

Just more spit.

OK - work is done here.


To RED, Webby,

Let them be - we are moving up, and onward.

Wayne

Wayne what do you use to measure time?  That was a very fast year.  Instead of almost nine thousand hours, it lasted less than two.  I think that it is awesome that you keep pretending that you have discovered a means to over unity, when you have nothing.

    Sr. Member
    ****
    Posts: 492
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Online)

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1317 on: Today at 02:11:30 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 01:01:02 PM

    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.
...

[powercat]

OK - work is done here.

Wayne

LOL, how many times have you said that, you just can't help breaking your word, your a sad individual, do you even realize that you keep making false and contradictory statements ?

[MarkE]

LOL, how many times have you said that, you just can't help breaking your word, your a sad individual, do you even realize that you keep making false and contradictory statements ?

Maybe he is related to Tommy Flanagan.

[MarkE]

Since I said I would, here is my energy analysis of a full cycle.

The first half cycle is a 2 step process of adding in energy for the lift.

The second half cycle is a 3 step process of independently removing the energy that is present in the system after lift.

2.651555251cc open down cylinder  volume for fill

2.650718802cc top of up cylinder  increased volume after lift

(1.767145868×1.5)−(1.590375518×1.5)= 0.265155525cc

0.265155525cc pre-paid volume for lift. 

1.767145868×1.5= 2.650718802cc total volume of upper after 1.5cm lift
1.590375518×1.5= 2.385563277cc total added air for lift 

2.385563277cc+2.651555251cc= 5.037118528cc total volume of air added


2.651555251cc×904pa = 2397.005946904 energy to go from 0 to lift
2.385563277cc×1583pa = 3776.346667491 energy for lift

3776.346667491+2397.005946904= 6173.352614395 total cost


2.651555251cc×754pa= 1999.272659254 reserved in air after lift
2.385563277cc×75.5pa= 180.110027413 reserved from added air

1999.272659254+180.110027413= 2179.382686667 air reserve total

2.650718802×1583= 4196.087863566 reserve in load.

2179.382686667+4196.087863566= 6375.470550233

Cost    = 6173.352614395
Reserve = 6375.470550233

6375.470550233−6173.352614395= 202.117935838 profit

Good Lord, is that what you think that's an analysis?  Why don't you try stating conditions, and putting dimensions on all your values.  Track energy:  starting, added, removed, and ending as you advance through your states. Then you might check for obvious errors.  I see one right near the top.

[TinselKoala]

Demonstration of overunity requires precision to the billionth part of a cubic centimeter? No wonder we mortal fools can't do it.


One would think that Mister Wayne Travis could, with all that fancy apparatus he's got, show some actual measurements that indicate some kind of OU performance, on an actual diagram --- once he's met his own challenge and actually _defined_ what he means by that term himself.

Like I did. I showed how a small weight, dropping a certain distance, can raise up a much larger weight _the same distance_ in the same time interval, thus producing a 200 percent efficiency level, a COP of 2.... a clearly OVERUNITY result, using only a simple no-layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, since its output work is twice the input work.

Right?