The breakthrough in Free Energy - a system that cannot be debunked

[codwell]

I wanted to try to find an even simpler model what Mr. Wayne showed to us, and I think I did. Anyone please correct my calculations if it's wrong. The model comprises of 2 containers with 2 bouyant objects (volume of 1 unit each), 2 containers (volume of 2 units each), opened on the top to let the air in. Theoretical maximum dimensions are used for calculations for the bouyant object.

1. Initial state: left container in this state is considered weightless, right containers contains 0.5 unit of water
2. Right container is lifted up 1 unit with 0.5 unit of effective weight (water):
W = F x s = 0.5 x 1 = 0.5 (input work)
3. Containers are connected, water will level out, left bouyant object rises 0.5 units
with 1 unit of force
W = F x s = 1 x 0.5 = 0.5 (output work)
4. Right container falls (considered weightless), cycle starts again with the other container creating output

Right here input and output seems to be equal, but in step 3 there's some work done by the water flow, and it can be harnessed if containers are connected while the container is lifted in step 2.
Then the weight is decreasing while the container is lifted, the function is linear, the weight goes from 0.5 → 0.0, the average is 0.25, with this W = 0.25 (input).
This is the same work when the 0.5 weight water falls down 0.5 unit. System efficiency changes to 200% excluding any losses.

This is the same figure as Mr. Wayne stated. Where is my calculation wrong? If this is not OU, then it should be a theoretical 100% excluding the losses, and not 200%.

[mrwayne]

I am already the closest to the correct answer. The answer is: in an ideal world this system is designed to be as efficient as possible, and closes in on 100%. In the real world you will experience massive frictions and losses in your moving parts + powering your actuators.

It is your understanding that is flawed. Your spreadsheet is incorrect. Your physical design is inherently inefficient. Any device you build based on this will not produce OU. Any money investors give you will be as if they had tossed it into the wind. (Just like my time here arguing with you.)

I have given enough of my time on this stupidity. I will happily help anyone understand why your design doesn't work if they ask though.

Time will show your design for what it truly is......worthless.

What I haven't figured out yet:  if you are just unable to grasp the true physics behind your flawed design, or if you are a very skilled con artist.

Dear Friend, the one thing you forget in all of your effort - I build and test every design. Thanks Wayne

[Tarsier_79]

Hi Codwell

The buoyant object is weightless? Why is the water lifting to the top of it? What is the value add of the buoyant object in this case? is the buoyant object locked in place so it doesn't float on top of the water?

Just trying to understand before I look at the math.

[codwell]

I wanted to illustrate that the bouyant object is a bit smaller than the container in practice, so it can freely move inside it, it can be surrounded by water so it can be lifted up by water flowing inside the container. The work from this lift could be harnessed the same way as it's in Mr. Wayne's animation, with a hidraulic cylinder for example. In real world the object would rise above the water level (think of a balloon on water), but you can only calculate with the work easily while it's submerged in water completely. Think of it like the hidraulic cylinder stops it right there in the upper position and doesn't allow to raise out more from water.

[broli]

I wanted to illustrate that the bouyant object is a bit smaller than the container in practice, so it can freely move inside it, it can be surrounded by water so it can be lifted up by water flowing inside the container. The work from this lift could be harnessed the same way as it's in Mr. Wayne's animation, with a hidraulic cylinder for example. In real world the object would rise above the water level (think of a balloon on water), but you can only calculate with the work easily while it's submerged in water completely. Think of it like the hidraulic cylinder stops it right there in the upper position and doesn't allow to raise out more from water.

If you compare 2 and 4 your whole system actually lost half a unit in total height (potential energy) so input is not equal to output work and there was an energy loss. This loss of potential energy is due to the kinetic energy gain of water flow between the containers in step 3. I don't believe this is what Wayne is saying.