People in Porto Alegre, Brazil, are trying to build one big gravity contraption. Check at http://www.rarenergia.com.br/. Most of it is in Portuguese, but there is something in English.
You can say what you want, but these guys are thinking BIG. :-)
SNIP:
"We will build in Porto Alegre, at Av. Patria, 195 - a power generator that started by a
mechanic system, and exclusively powered by the gravity force.
It will be the first equipment with this technology in the world.
We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Av. Pedro
Ivo,933. The mechanic system was created under a special conception, to pick up and
take the energy contained in the planet gravity, at any moment and place, without
pollution or heat. Technology was completely developed by our Company and consists
in a continuos movement with some extra energy that can be taken, in a continuous
and perpetual mechanic movement. This equipment is similar to a combustion engine,
where a set of wheights represent the fuel and pistons that activate assemblies connected
to a crankshaft. Another similar equipment will be built in the U.S.A. at the Incobrasa
Industries Ltd plant, a Company of the group, located in Gilman, IL. Both equipment
are demonstration models with capacity to generate 30 KW, and will be ready in the
middle of the next year. The technique allows the building of great power generators.
RAR Energia Ltda."
END SNIP.
http://patent.ipexl.com/topic/Reciprocating_piston_cylinder_head_cover_having_an_integrated_fluid_exchange_rotary_disc_valve_1.html
Where's the working prototype, in a YouTube video? It can't possibly be real unless there's a YouTube video of it working. And making lots of noise, from the looks of things.
My goodness. It is patented. Hard to believe.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8100103.PN.&OS=PN/8100103&RS=PN/8100103
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 03, 2013, 10:57:44 AM
Where's the working prototype, in a YouTube video? It can't possibly be real unless there's a YouTube video of it working. And making lots of noise, from the looks of things.
TK,
I bet a dollar that you are impressed with the size of that thing. :-)
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 03, 2013, 10:53:55 AM
You can say what you want, but these guys are thinking BIG. :-)
Or not thinking at all...
Vidar
Fascinating! I have to believe that anyone putting that much money into a huge construction like that has down their homework and have built smaller working prototypes. It resembles something I saw one time at EF and had briefly discussed with member Armagdgn03.
Try typing the url into Google, then click on the result and have it translate to english. Worked for me.
This is one big machine to be building if you did not know if it was going to work or not.
It is possible that investors were somehow convinced enough to put money in to building this big device........more evidence is needed to prove this is not just another scam......looking forward to the video if one ever turns up ;D
I just have to ask!!
If this invention works, what is the fuel that it uses
to continually rotate??
Quote from: camelherder49 on May 03, 2013, 06:00:40 PM
I just have to ask!!
If this invention works, what is the fuel that it uses
to continually rotate??
Weights. It's a gravity engine, so they have to feed it with weights.
What I actually meant by that question was that when
someone mentioned gravity being a fuel source the
topic went ballistic. Weight by itself will power nothing.
Whatever causes the weight to move would have to be
the fuel.
Of course you have to lift the weights first. But that's just a minor detail. You can also buy pre-lifted weights, but not in the basement.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 03, 2013, 11:00:49 AM
TK,
I bet a dollar that you are impressed with the size of that thing. :-)
GL.
I am impressed, all right, by the size and the evident cost. One of those bearing-arm assemblies is undoubtedly worth more than my automobile.
But my automobile starts right up when I turn the key, and runs for as long as it has gasoline in the tank.
If I had a working prototype of this device I'd certainly make a YouTube video of it running. Wouldn't you? "But the smaller ones only turned a few turns, and the bigger ones turned a few more turns, and by making a graph we can see that if we make a _really_ big one, it will keep on turning and turning and turning".... so forget about the YT vid of a running small prototype, let's just go ahead and build the big one, since the theory, and the data from the smaller ones, indicate that when it's over a certain size it will start running on its own.
Notice how confident the builders themselves are? There is no apparent provision for a brake or RPM limiter. Of course maybe those parts haven't been installed yet.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on May 03, 2013, 07:40:44 PM
Of course you have to lift the weights first. But that's just a minor detail. You can also buy pre-lifted weights, but not in the basement.
LOL... ;D
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2013, 03:27:43 AM
I am impressed, all right, by the size and the evident cost. One of those bearing-arm assemblies is undoubtedly worth more than my automobile.
But my automobile starts right up when I turn the key, and runs for as long as it has gasoline in the tank.
If I had a working prototype of this device I'd certainly make a YouTube video of it running. Wouldn't you? "But the smaller ones only turned a few turns, and the bigger ones turned a few more turns, and by making a graph we can see that if we make a _really_ big one, it will keep on turning and turning and turning".... so forget about the YT vid of a running small prototype, let's just go ahead and build the big one, since the theory, and the data from the smaller ones, indicate that when it's over a certain size it will start running on its own.
Notice how confident the builders themselves are? There is no apparent provision for a brake or RPM limiter. Of course maybe those parts haven't been installed yet.
TK,
I have looked carefully at the images, and so far all I see is linear rocker arms that convert a linear movement
to a rotary movement on the axle, 16 of them situated at every 22,5 degrees around the axle. I agree with you that
the machine must cost a fortune. :-)
GL.
Just an idea:
May be it is just a big soybean processing machine and they are pulling everybody's leg? Some sort of advertising stunt?
They say that two machines are built, one in the US and one in Brasil. Also makes sense in case these are soybean processing machines?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:RAR_Energia_Ltda_Gravity_Motor (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:RAR_Energia_Ltda_Gravity_Motor)
http://www.incobrasa.com/pictures_and_media/pictures.html (http://www.incobrasa.com/pictures_and_media/pictures.html)
If they are serious about an OU attempt, it will be the biggest folly I have seen so far in OU forums. Great show!
Not so fast: how big a folly is this http://www.iter.org/mach (http://www.iter.org/mach) ? 13 billion Euros ! http://www.iter.org/factsfigures (http://www.iter.org/factsfigures)
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: camelherder49 on May 03, 2013, 07:36:22 PM
What I actually meant by that question was that when
someone mentioned gravity being a fuel source the
topic went ballistic. Weight by itself will power nothing.
Whatever causes the weight to move would have to be
the fuel.
You're right about weights and gravity. This machine (If it is suppose to be a gravity engine) it will not work as a solely gravity based one.
However, if the machine is big enough, the rotation of the earth might sufficiently offset something during operation so it actually works (Harnessing the coriolis effect). I don't know. Just a thought.
Vidar
Item # 25 quoted from the patent: (Bold type added by me.)
"25. A fluid compressor comprising: a cylinder having a central axis; an axially reciprocating piston housed within the cylinder; and a cylinder head cover over the cylinder, the cylinder head cover comprising: a first plate having first and second opposite surfaces, a first and second channel in a first surface of the first plate, wherein the first and second channels extend in the first surface and do not extend in the second surface, and the channels merge together within the plate at a first opening extending at last into the second surface of the first plate; a second plate over the first plate, the second plate having a pair of bores therethrough each aligned with one of the first and second channels in the first plate; a fourth plate over the second plate forming a cavity between the second and fourth plates; a third plate rotatably disposed between the second and fourth plates, the third plate having a pair of spaced bores therethrough for sequentially aligning with one of the pair of bores through the second plate, wherein the fourth plate has a pair of spaced bores therethrough aligned with the bores through the second plate, wherein during a full rotation of the third plate each bore through the third plate aligns with each bore through the second and fourth plates; and an axle supporting the third plate, the axle having an upper bearing and a lower bearing, the upper bearing being supported in a recess in the fourth plate and the lower bearing being supported in a recess in the second plate. "
Fluid compressor? I was taught that fluids can NOT be compressed which is the entire principle behind hydraulics? Physics teaches us that there is no such thing as a fluid compressor.
What gives?
Bill
Question
Can you compress a liquid (water)?
Asked by: Guy Matthews
Answer
The answer is yes, You can compress water, or almost any material. However, it requires a great deal of pressure to accomplish a little compression. For that reason, liquids and solids are sometimes referred to as being incompressible.
To understand what happens, remember that all matter is composed of a collection of atoms. Even though matter seems to be very solid, in actuality, the atoms are relative far apart, and matter is mostly empty space. However, due to the forces between the molecules, they strongly resist being pressed closer together, but they can be. You probably have experienced compressing something as hard as steel. Have you ever bounced a steel ball bearing off a sidewalk? When you do that, the 'bounce' is due to compressing the steel ball, just a tiny little spot that comes into contact with the sidewalk. It compresses and then springs back, causing the bounce.
The water at the bottom of the ocean is compressed by the weight of the water above it all the way to the surface, and is more dense than the water at the surface.
A consequence of compressing a fluid is that the viscosity, that is the resistance of the fluid to flow, also increases as the density increases. This is because the atoms are forced closer together, and thus cannot slip by each other as easily as they can when the fluid is at atmospheric pressure.
Answered by: David L. Alexander
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae15.cfm
hmm, made me look this up:
differnce between fluid and liquid.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828065523AAC94FR
Ghost:
Wow, I learn something new every day it seems. I am still not convinced that his compressor is really able to compress the "fluid" unless he is using a gas, which, by some definitions from your link is considered a fluid. Now I am really confused.
Bill
Pirate,
I think I posted the wrong patent. I found five patents in the name of the inventor and picked up one of them. I am afraid I got the wrong one.
I am sorry. :(
My guess, the relevant patent is MX2012002607:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20120402&CC=MX&NR=2012002607A&KC=A (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20120402&CC=MX&NR=2012002607A&KC=A)
(on the left side of the page is a menu which gives access to the different parts of the patent application)
Corresponding US-Patent US2011209569 is attached as PDF-file:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110901&CC=US&NR=2011209569A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110901&CC=US&NR=2011209569A1&KC=A1)
A power multiplier lever system having a power multiplier lever system that provides an increase of mechanical power generated by the motor, thereby giving greater power to the piston, which makes air compression possible without needing to use a large quantity of mechanical power, comprised by levers, wheels, connectors and pistons. The wheels and levers are positioned at distinct angles which operate as a power multiplier when activated. The axle power/torque is multiplied from the power generating source due to the angles made by the levers position. Two wheels are connected directly to the motor axle and are also connected to the first levers. The last pair of levers is connected to the pistons.
Remark: The aim is to compress air with a piston. The piston is pushed with a lever system which generates the miracle power (in case you want to belive that). The lever system itself is driven by a conventional electric motor. The lever system is supposed to enhance the power of the conventional electric motor in a miraculous way.
The lever system driven by the electric motor will compress air with the piston. But where is the miracle or the increas of power? With a lever one can move a big weight a short distance by moving a smaller weight a long distance, but the product "weight * distance" is the same, no power increase!
Greetings, Conrad
:-)
.
Quote from: nfeijo on May 07, 2013, 05:20:00 AM
Pirate,
I think I posted the wrong patent. I found five patents in the name of the inventor and picked up one of them. I am afraid I got the wrong one.
I am sorry. :(
No problem, I didn't even notice.
Conrad:
I agree about the leverage result being the same.
Groundloop:
OK, that explains it...I understand now, ha ha.
Bill
It would be nice if someone can replicate this in Working Model 2D or some kind of physics simulation program.
Things are becoming a little bit more clearer now and it seems like this system doesn't have to be huge in size to work.
Wow! Nice build, does it work? :)
The patent for power multiplier reminds me of the stone crushers, a toggle joint with an extra arm attached.
"When the mechanism is reaching its toggle position, a small input torque can generate an extremely large output torque, where its mechanical advantage is being infinitely maximal. At such situation, the mechanism is called a toggle mechanism. The toggle mechanisms can be used in the situation when one needs to output large force subject to a short stroke, for example, the stone crushers and mechanical presses, etc."
http://www.mindat.org/glossary/toggle_joint
http://acmcf.me.ncku.edu.tw/model/page/model/ntut/D01.htm
So in order to make the short output stroke useful to drive the shaft they have to build massive.
I bet you your next welfare check it doesn't work. care to double it? think you can fool mother nature using macro physics? lets triple it. what do you say? I will own your debit card.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 07, 2013, 04:45:38 PM
:-)
.
ground loop is on the money here. I love that picture. (perfect)
Last one.(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rarenergia.com.br%2Fimagem29a.JPG&hash=d8071c508c41a020faaae1538ff471e2839df5da)
Hi,
this has got to be a joke. Really it's part of a corned beef canning pant and someone's having us on.
There wouldn't be enough gravity in that thing to charge a mobile phone.
John.
Interesting picture looking at what the crane is connected to ? It looks like more components are being added ;D
This is the beginning of the third and last phase. ::)
Quote from: nfeijo on May 14, 2013, 04:51:26 PM
This is the beginning of the third and last phase. ::)
That is great news......so you can explain to everyone how the device works ? ?
Me ? Why me ? I just translated what is written in the photo. You got the wrong man. I even do not believe a contraption like this can work.
Quote from: nfeijo on May 13, 2013, 09:38:33 PM
Last one.(http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem29a.JPG)
Why are the man inside the crane "Photoshopped" in place. The appearence of him looks very fake...
That said, potential energy from weights cannot deliver more energy than the potential allows. So this "generator" is probably something very different... Anyways, it is not going to work as a generator that is based on only gravity.
Vidar
Quote from: Ghost on May 06, 2013, 11:53:44 PM
hmm, made me look this up:
differnce between fluid and liquid.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828065523AAC94FR (http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828065523AAC94FR)
Did you know that glass is a fluid, and not a solid material?
Quote from: Low-Q on May 18, 2013, 07:32:49 PM
Did you know that glass is a fluid, and not a solid material?
no i didn't know.
interesting.
weren't they going to show this machine working this month?
news?
or is it going be postponed like everyone else whenever there is a "break through" and will disappear never to be heard from again.
NEWS?
.....uses the "legs" (same articulated mechanism ) ,as you can see at :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAVv0uM0UvI
.....but not for walking.
Al_ex
Look at this beautiful contraption http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem35a.JPG , it is progressing.
This is putting your money where your mouth is. What determination, what believe in an idea, what grand scheme!
If you throw money away, that is the way to go. It deserves a place in the history books.
This is either a clever marketing stunt, or they go all the way to loony town, singing and dancing on the way.
Greetings, Conrad
Hi !
I think that we must take into consideration the possibility to play a diversity of trajectories , when we manipulate certains articulated mechanisms.
Let's take a look at : www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8MOriH5QKc
and here especially at (6:42 - 6:56 ).
Rarenergia can use some paired "heavy points" , so to play a continuous unbalance , due to gravity fall and inertia ,only ?
Here is the main point , in my opinion...
Personally . I wish them success !
Al_ex
Quote from: Low-Q on May 18, 2013, 07:32:49 PM
Did you know that glass is a fluid, and not a solid material?
Nope! Glass is an amorphous solid.
.....seems to be , no more than an enlarged Bessler's Wheel , unfolded on a crankshaft .
The "basics" you can find at :
www.evert.de/eft784e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft784e.htm)
Al_ex
.....seems to have as the "main actors", the "heavy points" (black semicircular spare parts , you can see at www.rarenergia.com.br (http://www.rarenergia.com.br). and there "foto oficial No35"/24-05-2013 ).
The same spare parts , are intended to play at : http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gravity_Motors (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gravity_Motors) ,then search "Patents"/Gravity powered rotational machine and method , especially Fig.12.
The similarity : the aim to obtain self-motion due to a continuous gravity unbalance.
The difference : the trajectories of the "heavy points" face to fulcrum/crankshaft .
The feasibility : ...let's see their practical tests.
Al_ex
Now in the USA.
Between 24-05-2013 (Foto n° 35) and 05-06-2013 (Foto n° 37) some parts (lower left corner of the machine) have been removed (cut off). See the attached picture and at http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/).
Design changes on the fly?
Very bold to start construction of the second machine before the first one is running!
Someone has money to spend. Kind of boring to spend money on a grand house or on a trophy wife. Why not spend it on a OU machine?
Greetings, Conrad
It started off looking reasonably simple, but as time has gone by and they have added more components it's now looking quite complicated, it kind of reminds me of this one ;D not as big but complicated nevertheless
Must be something to this ! Check out a local release from Gillman Illinois.
http://wglt.org/wireready/news/2013/02/00128_GravityGeneratorWeb_105637.shtml[/size]
Quote from: vince on June 11, 2013, 12:51:02 PM
Must be something to this ! Check out a local release from Gillman Illinois.
http://wglt.org/wireready/news/2013/02/00128_GravityGeneratorWeb_105637.shtml (http://wglt.org/wireready/news/2013/02/00128_GravityGeneratorWeb_105637.shtml)[/size]
@vince: Nice find, so, they really seem to mean it?
I am impressed. The amount of money spent seems to be huge, which makes it an interesting story to follow.
What astonishes me most is that the "OU attempt" is in the field of "mechanics" which according to my unimportant opinion is one of most thoroughly understood areas in science.
If there is something behind that machine (more than a very costly delusion or deception), we will all say "why did we not think of that!".
May be Johann Bessler has reincarnated in Brazil and builds a 21st century version of his wheel ;) . Let's hope he is not as paranoid as he was in his former life ;D . (Yes, stupid joke, sorry.)
Greetings, Conrad
I used to joke that the thing was a giant slicer for slicing giant loaves of bread. Perhaps it is actually a giant soybean crusher for the first stage in processing soybeans. If that's true then perhaps it's just a prank. Somebody is taking pictures of a giant soybean crusher being built and calling it a free energy machine.
Strange that there is no smaller-scale working prototype for the alleged free energy machine.
Quote from: smwerning on May 25, 2013, 05:30:55 PM
Nope! Glass is an amorphous solid.
As always, it depends on who you ask, and what your definition of solid or liquid is.
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/glass.htm
Cheers
Just arrived.
Out of all this construction of this massive device. You would think a video of a working prototype would have been shown as proof. :o
Look at these strange "shields" (photo official n° 39, Reply #55) in the middle foreground (one pair for each "arm").
One would not want to catch or guide a steel bar with that, it would cause damage. But what one could catch and guide are plants which are cut to size, or already small plant material which kind of flows into the machine to be crushed.
I follow MileHigh's reasoning that it is indeed a real machine, but it will be driven by a conventional motor and will process something. Two identical machines are built (one in Brazil, the other in the US) and they do conventional stuff.
The whole thing is a marketing stunt. All other explanations lead to unreal ramifications: Huge amount of money spent, no word of a working prototype, two machines, no real useful information, not even boasts (just this one claim of being driven by gravity without further hints). Well, if a weight falls, it is exclusively driven by gravity, as long as one does not talk about how the weight was lifted.
An ax splitting wood is driven by gravity as long as you disregard the upwards movement before letting the ax fall.
If it is an attempt of using gravity as a continuous source of energy it is the biggest and boldest try I have ever heard of.
Greetings, Conrad
Do you guys still believe that this "corn-machine" is an attempt to build an over unity generator?
Quote from: nfeijo on June 15, 2013, 08:20:28 PM
Just arrived.
For the latest photo (No.40) go to
[size=78%]http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)[/size] and scroll to the bottom of the very long page.
Hrmmm strange funny you don't hear anything about it in the news just silence.
If this works ..... I might have to take a trip out to IL to go visit this generator...
Quote from: infringer on July 08, 2013, 12:24:41 AM
Hrmmm strange funny you don't hear anything about it in the news just silence.
Possible reasons,
1- Gravity cannot do work (For some reason it wont)
2- This is a corn or bean squeezing thing that has nothing to do with overunity or gravity.
3- It is finally powered with an electric motor or some engine. Not exactly a reason for big head lines...
4- A prime-stupid wealthy engineer overlooked something essensial when he designed an over unity machine.
5- Because of 4, this person has been digging a very deep hole in the ground - for himself.
6- One OU member has just photoshopped photos of a machine that looks like a gravity machine.
Vidar
I like number 4 as most likely.
It can always be used as a work of mechanical art.
Mark
I agree, #4.
It looks like the machine is changing in design, n37 to n39.
If it was some plant processor, it seems the design would be established, but now that the "Gravity" machine does not work, they are making changes.
It seems we may not see any more progression on this machine no matter what it is. Ever since Sterling from Peswicki contacted them regarding a visit by him, and offered his services for possible investors or involvement in their project it appears they promptly shutdown any more posting on the progress.
I was looking forward to seeing what became of this. Judging from the money and work that was being done on their machine I really doubt they needed new investors or participants in their project (no matter what it turned out to be)
Quote from: conradelektro on June 11, 2013, 01:45:51 PM
...
What astonishes me most is that the "OU attempt" is in the field of "mechanics" which according to my unimportant opinion is one of most thoroughly understood areas in science.
...
I thought the properties of water must be
"one of the most thoroughly understood areas in science" until I discovered the 4th, 8th and 12th power laws governing the vapour pressure of water; also the 6th power law governing the absolute pressure vs volume relation for water.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html)
It would be difficult to think of a more important liquid to mankind than water. After all, our bodies are mainly water.
There's a very apposite quote on people's failure to revise ideas in science by a lady philosopher. I'll have to see if I can find it.
It's an offset gyro situation.
In effect you have two angular conservations of momentum going on. One in the vertical plane and one in the horizontal plane. Gravity is acting on the one in the vertical plane just as it does with the offset gyro.
This means that the energy being generated is one derivative higher than Jerk, i.e. Snap. No wonder nobody's found it till now.
To get a feeling of what's going on imagine an offset gyro which is happily precessing around its tower. Now stop its precession. What happens? The gyro whips up doesn't it. Now supposing that whip up is prevented by a crank on a shaft. then the gyro will apply a force to that crank which will turn that crank-shaft an increment. That's RAR.
Quote from: Grimer on July 12, 2013, 01:53:22 AM
It's an offset gyro situation.
In effect you have two angular conservations of momentum going on. One in the vertical plane and one in the horizontal plane. Gravity is acting on the one in the vertical plane just as it does with the offset gyro.
This means that the energy being generated is one derivative higher than Jerk, i.e. Snap. No wonder nobody's found it till now.
To get a feeling of what's going on imagine an offset gyro which is happily precessing around its tower. Now stop its precession. What happens? The gyro whips up doesn't it. Now supposing that whip up is prevented by a crank on a shaft. then the gyro will apply a force to that crank which will turn that crank-shaft an increment. That's RAR.
What you are describing reminds me of a power ball. I have one. Funny to play with. Ofcourse (At least I assume) that a very big power ball can be powered by the earth rotation. However, it takes 24 hours on one revolution...that might cause some practical challenges.
Vidar
The following four post are from another forum. Since the subject of the offset gyro has come up I thought I would reposte them here.
Quote[cite]Posted By: Grimer[/cite]Quote[cite]Posted By: Grimer[/cite]The Eric GraviMobil can be simulated with a VentoMobil moving vertically.
A vertical alpha-atmosphere wind blows down the face of a sheer cliff.
Vertical rack rails are attached to the cliff and the VentoMobil is provided with pinion wheels running on the rack rails.
When pointed into the wind the Ventomobil will climb steadily up the cliff.
Suppose now that the pinion wheels of the Ventomobile come to breaks in the rack.
The Ventomobil will no longer be able to climb and will reach an equilibrium with the vertical wind. It will hang, apparently weightless, just as the GraviMobil on a tower hangs. We know of course that the Ventomobil equilibrium is a dynamic equilibrium, the wind driving the sails which in turn are providing torque to the pinions. The full weight of the Ventomobil is taken by the racks in the same way that the full weight of the offset gyro is taken by the tower.
Now it will be helpful to go further and have the GraviMobil actually driving up into the wind (and I will explain how to do this later) but that is not necessary for the recognition that GraviMobil is driving against the gravity wind and suspended against gravity by this drive just as the Ventomobil is with the atmospheric wind.
So Laithwaite is vindicated.
How on earth has such an important insight been missed?
The same way that the 6th power equation of state for water was missed.
By an inadequately complex model of behaviour. Galbraith's pin joints instead of moment distribution.
In the case of water no-one saw it in terms of two phase behaviour with one phase in tension, the other in compression. I saw it because I came from a background of research into the properties of clays where that mechanism is obvious.
Because people find it difficult to appreciate the dynamic equilibrium of a offset gyro or a magnet sticking to a fridge it is best to move on to an example where the harnessing of the gravitational wind is more obvious.
Somewhere, there is a video which shows a toy railway truck being driven by the reaction of an offset gyro hanging off the side.
I think Eric missed a trick there. He should have shown the gyro driving the truck up an incline, albeit a curved incline. By continuing the incline to form an ascending spiral and carefully accounting for frictional losses he could have shown that the system was gaining potential gravitational energy.
In the truck case Eric's muscles are not involved. It seems to me that Al's appeals to Eric's muscles was merely a device to balance the books since he didn't have strain gauges on Eric's muscles and can have had no idea what the muscular contribution was to the Eric demonstration.
I'll have to see if I can find a link to the truck demonstration.
So, what happened to http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Last website update was on (dd / mm / yyyy) 14 / 06 /2013.
Is there any member on this forum living near Gilman - Illinois USA?
If so, is it possible for you to take a look at the construction site of
the second gravity motor build, to see if there is any construction activity?
GL.
Are you still discussing this corn machine? It isn't a gravity wheel. It is a tool. More than one picture is faked, etc. to make you believe this is a gravity machine project. Well, it's not. Move forward ;-)
Vida
They say it is working beautifully ! (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rarenergia.com.br%2Fimagem44a.JPG&hash=8c8605ff47fe3c56ec9c207d45dfeaa6903be9e9)
Quote from: nfeijo on September 11, 2013, 06:10:24 AM
They say it is working beautifully ! (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem44a.JPG)
Maybe we should wait to see the machine actually running. I'm "surprised" that no one yet has posted a video of this machine in action.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on September 12, 2013, 10:26:37 AM
Maybe we should wait to see the machine actually running. I'm "surprised" that no one yet has posted a video of this machine in action.
Vidar
Vidar:
They have to wait until the corn harvest. Then we will see it in action processing the corn as it was designed to do. (Smile)
Do we have an address for this location? Possibly, Google Earth street view might show something interesting? They are really going wild updating those views. We have like 5 camera vehicles running all around my small town over here in Kentucky.
Bill
It must be an over unity machine, because a corn processing machines looks like this: (I cannot see similarities between those.. :-))
http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/a7e/40c/self-made-machine-for-corn-processing-nisporeni.jpg (http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/a7e/40c/self-made-machine-for-corn-processing-nisporeni.jpg)
Quote from: Grimer on July 10, 2013, 11:30:03 AM
I thought the properties of water must be "one of the most thoroughly understood areas in science" until I discovered the 4th, 8th and 12th power laws governing the vapour pressure of water; also the 6th power law governing the absolute pressure vs volume relation for water.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html)
It would be difficult to think of a more important liquid to mankind than water. After all, our bodies are mainly water.
There's a very apposite quote on people's failure to revise ideas in science by a lady philosopher. I'll have to see if I can find it.
I've found the quote in a BesslerWheel.com post of 2009
Simone Weil, had the situation bang to rights when in her essay, "La Science et nous" she wrote,
========================================
What is disastrous is not the rejection of classical science but the way it has been rejected. It is wrongly believed it could progress indefinitely and it ran into a dead end about the year 1900; but scientists failed to stop at the same time in order to contemplate and reflect upon the barrier, they did not try to describe it and define it and, having taken it into account, to draw some general conclusion from it; instead they rushed violently past it, leaving classical science behind them.
And why should we be surprised at this? For are they not paid to forge continually ahead? Nobody advances in his career, or reputation, or gets a Nobel prize, by standing still. To cease voluntarily from forging ahead, any brilliantly gifted scientist would need to be a saint or a hero, and why should he be a saint or a hero? With rare exceptions there are none to be found among the members of other professions.
So the scientists forged ahead without revising anything, because any revision would have seemed a retrogression; they merely made an addition.
========================================
Hello,
RAR energia is a big hoax.
A big hoax invented by a Brazilian student.
This student works in computer graphics and design with a software of image. Very successful software.
Example:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnsa34.casimages.com%2Fimg%2F2013%2F10%2F18%2F13101807292051550.jpg&hash=02eb45cca476232cf5ae3b105de3dc687c060b9d) (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=13101807292051550.jpg)
The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
Really, the shed is empty.
We shall not see a video. Never !
Furthermore,
The systems of lever (parallelogram of the strengths) by gravity are not overunity.
In movement, angles and strengths nullify.
The systems of variable lever (vertical and horizontal), and PABB (Parallel Arm Balance Beam) with weights and to counter weight.
These two systems are impossible for the perpetual motion.
Cycles or periodic balance are impossible.
In geometrical lever, the gravity does not work!
Sorry I do not speak English
Enstenow ( retired engineer)
Quote from: Enstenow on October 18, 2013, 01:04:22 PM
Hello,
RAR energia is a big hoax.
Hi Enstenow, do ypou have any evidence it's a hoax? The image you attached is very good, but it doesn't demonstrate the skills you would need to fake all the images on rarenergia's website. The images look quite real to me.
I've been following this for months, and trying to figure out how it works. I think I can see the principle:
- The position where the weight is carried on the down / up strokes is different.
- The linkage to the weight changes from the 'arm', to the 'big silver bearing'
- On the down stroke - the weight is held via the arm
- On the up stroke - the weight is held by the bearing
Notes:
- The guy - according to peswiki - has built proptotypes that work. So he knows the principle works. Apparently.
- The machine is the first of this size - and they've clearly made some parts adjustable - and they've modified some parts - so they can try different things.
- It is not a 'soybean crusher', or any other kind of normal machine, that's for sure.
If it's a hoax - it's a very expensive, kinda pointless one.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940818&CC=DE&NR=4304132A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940818&CC=DE&NR=4304132A1&KC=A1)
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19880128&CC=DE&NR=3621312A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19880128&CC=DE&NR=3621312A1&KC=A1)
The inventors,R.I.P. .
Sincerely
CdL
Quote from: tim123 on October 30, 2013, 03:39:14 PM
... do ypou have any evidence it's a hoax? ....
Here is the evidence (That does not apply for singularity, however):
E=MC^2
This picture is fake. The person that is suppose to run that machine is photoshopped in place. No doubt. Fake.
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/123542/image//
The guy in the picture is operating the hydraulic
crane that you see in the background.
Quote from: tim123 on October 30, 2013, 03:39:14 PM
Hi Enstenow, do ypou have any evidence it's a hoax? The image you attached is very good, but it doesn't demonstrate the skills you would need to fake all the images on rarenergia's website. The images look quite real to me.
Hi Tim 123,
All RAR energia is a hoax ( Project, machine, press article, .... )
Example photographs N ° 40 : http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG
Look ;)
http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2013/11/07/131107125729411914.jpg
The systems of lever (parallelogram of the strengths) and PABB (Parallel Arm Balance Beam) with weights and to counter weight.
The systems by gravity are not overunity.
Quote from: Enstenow on November 06, 2013, 07:09:41 PM
Hi Tim 123,
The systems of lever (parallelogram of the strengths) and PABB (Parallel Arm Balance Beam) with weights and to counter weight.
The systems by gravity are not overunity.
Hi Enstenow :)
I made a meccano test rig - to see where the forces are. It doesn't look like OU to me now...
Pic attached.
Regards
Tim
And now we have a patent
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130256066
Yes Tim 123 8)
With a parallelogram, the resultant of the strengths nullify = statics
These systems of lever are impossible for the perpetual motion.
With two axes + brace, the gravitation does not work in cycle. Nor in cycle 1/16.
Systems Underunity. Energy = 0
For the perpetual motion by gravity
Only possible solution: the pendulum !! << Physical theory possible overunity >> dixit Richard Feynman
An idea (the solution is certainly there)
=> http://youtu.be/1uKoAwFFwPY
Regards
Enstenow
Quote from: ponto on November 07, 2013, 07:44:31 PM
And now we have a patent
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130256066
Thanks Ponto :)
It's an interesting read... I've given it some thought, played around with my model, and I can't disprove what it says. It makes some sense...
From reading the patent, I now know which way the thing is supposed to rotate - and that helps a lot. :D
- The parallel bars make a 'Roberval Balance' (?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoU9_BFIWwE - This is the default support for the weights.
- As the linkage moves to the shaft connecting-rod - the center of mass does indeed seem to move out to the bar-end.
- This means work must be done to lift the mass into that position. It says so in the patent too.
- The lift seems to be done in about 25 degrees of rotation - and it then can usefully act on about 100 degrees as the crank descends. But these settings are adjustable - and he has locks too - which would definitely help.
- So, yes I can imagine that the extra 'cylinders' of the engine might keep it going round...
The weight supporting arm on my model (the yellow rectangles) is quite short. From the patent - that arm needs to be longer...
I'm still undecided... I may have to build a full replica with 8 cylinders... Maybe not a full-size one though...
Hi Tim123
I think you hit the nail on the head with your evaluation of the RAR Energia machine. It is indeed a roberval balance linkage and if they get there locking system correct I believe their machine can run itself.
If they can get the weight arm to alternately lock to the neutral vertical beam and one of the lower support beams they can produce some real torque and raise the weight back up at a fraction of the torque weight.
I was fascinated by their machine and made a little test rig ( shown in attached pictures). The effect is real and quite an eye opener.
If you look at the pictures you can see that the weight arm is free to rotate around the lower pivot pin.
The weights themselves weigh 2.5 lbs.
Notice the weight arm has 2 projections with holes in them. These are the locking plates akin to the arch rings on the energia machine.
When no pin is in place the weight arm just flops down.
When the pin is locked into the hole on the neutral vertical roberval balance linkage it exhibits a force of 6.25 lbs measured at a radius of 3" from the central pivots.
When the pin is locked into the lower support arm of the roberval balance linkage it exhibits a whopping force of 18.25 lbs measured at the same 3 " radius.
That's a net gain of 12 lbs.
if they are successful at alternating the locking points on their machine each one of the cranks is going to make huge torque and easily lift the ascending weights.
Guys, I think this machine is real and may be a game changer.
Try the experiment for yourselves or just consider my test rig. The potential for their machine to work is high.
Vince
the wm2d version of rarEnergia (a simple edition),
have fun playing around with it
Quote from: vince on November 10, 2013, 04:30:39 PM
...Guys, I think this machine is real and may be a game changer.
Try the experiment for yourselves or just consider my test rig. The potential for their machine to work is high.
Vince
Hi Vince :)
Thanks for the info - nice test setup!
It really does look like it's possible... It'll be interesting to see if the patent is granted - and if so - what he does with it...
I'll have to spend some time thinking about how to do a decent replication... But, I'd really like 10KW to run my home - and a machine 1/3 the size would still be pretty chunky...
Idea: I wonder if the efficiency could be increased by getting the masses to swing - as pendulums..? Given the apparent change in mass - it could totally get over the 'sticky spot', and provide more push down too... It could also mean you don't need such big weights...
I guess either they'd not thought of that, discounted it as too tricky, or tried it and found it didn't work... I'll see if I can build it into whatever I make...
I've added the longer arm to my test rig, and I have some results to share:
Image 1)
This shows the test setup. Blue cogs on the left are just weight for counterbalance.
Rotation is clockwise.
The crank is resting at the top. This is just before the down stroke.
The next stage lifts the mass at the end of the red rectangles, onto the crank-connecting-rod. This takes a lot of work to do - it's a massive 'sticky spot', and it goes all the way round to 90 degrees (the 3 o-clock position). (I was wrong before - it's a full 90 degrees)
Image 2)
This shows the crank resting at the 3-o-clock position. It can go either way from there, up or down, given a slight push.
Image 3)
This shows the bottom of the stroke.
Note the crank is resting at these positions - I don't have to hold it...
So, in conclusion, I'm not seeing any obvious mechanism for OU here. It takes a lot of effort to lift the arm from the 'neutral' position into a 'positive' position...
Yesterday, Sunday, there was a half a page add in the biggest newspaper in Rio de Janeiro, page 32, O Globo. It said that Rarenergia is selling an engine moved by gravity. I brought this picture from their site, www.rarenergia.com.br.
This is the ad.
Quote from: nfeijo on November 24, 2013, 07:24:32 AM
This is the ad.
@nfeijo: thank you for posting the mysterious advertisment.
The same drawing can be seen here: http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem54a.jpg , http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem53a.jpg
The machine in Brasilia seems to be built http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem52a.JPG .
A second one in the USA in Gilmam - Illinois is in the beginning stages http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2012%20eng.JPG .
Very strange, it looks like we have to wait at least till the second machine is completed. I wonder if we ever get useful information?
It is incredibly optimistic to build two machines which seem to be quite expensive. Some one is either very foolish or very convinced that it will work. Let's hope this machine is not fading away without trace. I really would like to know whether that contraption works.
There is an axle which obviously has to be turned to set the gigantic thing into motion, but the photos and drawings do not yet indicate any drive motor. If it really works, it could be started by hand with a huge crank. The thing can definitely kill someone who comes too close.
Greetings, Conrad
Yes, Conrad, this is a big mistery. The guy is very, very rich and has five patents in his name. He made his money himself, what proves he is not stupid. And he spent all this cash building two big machines. How someone who is not dumb would waste his money this way ? I called them in Porto Alegre - I live in Rio de Janeiro, about 1600 km far - asking to see the machine working. They told me I had to wait, they were busy demonstrating the machine to other people. I really do not understand what is happening. I am working in this OU field for thirteen years now, but I never tried anything using gravity, because I do not believe there is any chance there. Maybe someone can go to Illinois and see personally.
My best regards,
Ney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtb9fi7Ku14
I don't know but I wonder if they do the confusion with electrostatic, to see a big trick like that if it realy work it is not by the gravity.
Quote from: lota on November 26, 2013, 02:33:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtb9fi7Ku14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtb9fi7Ku14)
@lota: nice try, I like the idea to use "meccano".
Here I identified the patent which is most likely relevant: http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg359666/#msg359666
But you might know that already.
The most important question is whether they need a motor to run the machine. I would be more inclined to believe in the machine if it only needs a motor to be started and then takes over by itself.
If the machine needs a motor constantly it will be a difficult case of establishing good input/output measurements and people will argue forever.
Greetings, Conrad
*Incobrasa Industries, Inc.
540 E. US Highway 24, POB 98, Gilman, IL 60938
Phone: 815-265-4803
Fax: 815-265-8082
Email: Kathy_merkle@incobrasa.com
More images in the RAR website.
www.rarenergia.com.br (http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.rarenergia.com.br/&usg=AFQjCNHDUhU05tulTgdMocMOj05ddJTEbg)[/color][/font]
Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the latest.
Quote from: tim123 on October 30, 2013, 03:39:14 PM
I've been following this for months, and trying to figure out how it works. I think I can see the principle:
- The position where the weight is carried on the down / up strokes is different.
- The linkage to the weight changes from the 'arm', to the 'big silver bearing'
- On the down stroke - the weight is held via the arm
- On the up stroke - the weight is held by the bearing
- It is not a 'soybean crusher', or any other kind of normal machine, that's for sure.
If it's a hoax - it's a very expensive, kinda pointless one.
The Renato Ribeiro mechanical motion energy generation machineA viewpointThe system principle applied in this machine by Renato is very well thought out and many working details can be discerned from the detailed photo's presented. I thank the designer for sharing his brilliant mind with this innovation so we can al advance in knowledge to the benefit of mankind.
System shownWhat Ribeiro showed in his picture is that the (large) system is an evolutionary flow of refining this larger version model. I would guess that it is to a certain degree different to the initial "prove of concept" model. We need to keep in mind that the construction scope changes dramatically when you need to move heavy weights at a certain rapid speed. Moving unsymmetrical weights at some speed is no easy matter. Remember energy quantity is proportional to force(weight) & distance per time unit. The "per time unit" is speed or cycles per minute.
The American model shown to be build appears to be the same than the latest (improved) Brazilian model.
The overunity approachThe required concept for any over-unity system is to have a greater energy return than what needs to be provided to keep the system cycling. Therefore, the energy to lift a weight must be smaller than the energy returned during decent or said differently, the return energy must be bigger than the lift energy. This can not be done by a straight forward linear physics process as the symmetry of standard physics prohibits this.
Therefore the process choosen between lift and descend has to alter so that the equation is no longer symmetrical, to do this a different natural aspect must be applied between the up & down parts of the cycle ( the physics presentation must be different to get a different outcome).
You basically need for an OU system to mess around with the physical process so that the "up" formula is different to the "down" formula (to achieve asymmetry). This messing around should not cost you more that you can gain, because we aiming to achieve a positive outcome balance sheet. This is were innovation is required.
The Ribeiro overunity principle usedThe principle used by Ribeiro to achieve energy gain is as follows (and I am open for possible correction and other viewpoints).
For the system to work, the upstroke should take less energy than the down stroke. To achieve this, the weight is levered down using a ~2x lever advantage. The weight is lifted using a 1x lever advantage. The travel height for the weight in both strokes is the same and this is where the advantage / gain is (and Ribeiro ingenuity was applied)
1.. Weight down stroke uses the extended lever effect (~2x distance x weight, being the parallelogram (roberval) and triangle distance from the fixed frame hinge)
2.. Weight up stroke uses the Roberval principle (~1x distance x weight, the triangle becomes part of the vertical roberval beam)
I would guess this gives the system a ~1x weight x distance energy gain advantage, it will depend on what the RPM the machine is capable off for how much energy it can deliver. (the reason for the multiple modifications).
The ingenuity is in the mechanical method used that changes the setup between up and down stroke.
As you might remember from a previous tread where TK and others had a fall-out with Wayne Travis because they couldn't see the point, It was the same principle used by Wayne Travis in the Hydro ZED, using a differentiation process between the up & down stroke of his hydro ZED system in order to create asymmetry and thereby to work around the standard physics limitation. A changed lever between up & down strokes but UNCHANGED travel height. It is difficult for many people to see the subtle principle but necessary difference that is applied here. It requires some persistent visualization to swing your head around the concept.
As a pointer for this invention, you must have wondered by now, what is that triangle doing there mounted with these big silver shine flanges and do pay attention to that complete assembly interactions with the robervall.
SALUT to the inventors of the new world, for the shared knowledge that provides us great inspiration
Regards, Red Sunset
I am sure that most people have no problem to understand, that any real "gravity OU machine" must have an "up stroke" which needs less energy than the "down stroke" will provide.
The problem is to conclusively prove by experiment (and not so importantly also by theory) that this is really possible.
Neither the Robeval balance ( compound lever, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm ) nor any lever system can provide that, as far as we know today. This is a well founded argument. But there might be some contraption which can do it, and the inventor of such a contraption must provide conclusive proof (best by providing measurements and by letting other people do measurements).
And as I have stated over and over again, the inventor has to prove that he has such a system, nobody has to and possibly can prove that such a system does not exist.
To make it very clear: we need "proof of existence", the "non existence" can never be proven. An easy to understand example: in order to prove that a flying horse is possible, you have to show a flying horse and you must allow people to test the flying horse. Nobody can ever prove that a flying horse is not possible. There are many good arguments against a flying horse, but may be someone will figure out how to breed or clone one.
So, we can not discuss the strange machine without being given details and most importantly we need conclusive measurements.
And I see great problems with measurements. It seems to be obvious that the strange machine needs a motor. Lets say the motor puts in 10 Kilowatt. It will be very difficult first to establish the exact energy input (because we have a big amount of energy put in) and then it will be even more difficult to establish energy output, because it should be an even bigger amount of energy. Expensive measurement methods will be necessary to measure electrical energy and most importantly torque in the Kilowatt accurately.
I really can not understand where Red_Sunset sees some proof that the machine is working. Did Red_Sunset talk with the inventor? Has Red_Sunset received any measurement results? Also the patents do not provide proof. And specially the nice drawings do not provide proof. The only proof we have is that a lot of money is spent.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on December 02, 2013, 07:03:50 AM
I really can not understand where Red_Sunset sees some proof that the machine is working. Did Red_Sunset talk with the inventor? Has Red_Sunset received any measurement results? Also the patents do not provide proof. And specially the nice drawings do not provide proof. The only proof we have is that a lot of money is spent.
Greetings, Conrad
Lets not go on the path of being the 'Jury'. The inventor is building a machine and says it is going to do xyz. The inventor is not looking for your approval, nor your acknowledgement that his invention is working, neither did he come to the "overunity.com", someone found the info on the internet and posted it here, with the question., Hey look at this, what is this guy building.
What you can do in turn, if you have the interest is look at it and see if you see anything interesting from which you can learn. The inventor made Hi definition pictures available to get a real close look.
It it your choice what to do with them
PS: No motor is needed to start. Also the output drive shaft can only turn in one direction for it to work.
The system can be proven with simple math and physics to work. It can also be build with simple metal parts. Read my previous post with comprehension and it will become clear. The mechanism to alter up/down stroke is simple and the only difficult part.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 08:10:02 AM
It can also be build with simple metal parts. Read my previous post with comprehension and it will become clear. The mechanism to alter up/down stroke is simple and the only difficult part.
Red_Sunset
Hi RedSunset,
I have a meccano model I built - pictures posted previously - which, I think, replicates the mechanism of one 'piston' of the machine...
It doesn't seem to show any signs of OU. The forces are still symetrical - as I showed in my previous post. But I could be missing something - and I'd be grateful if anyone could suggest anything that might make it work differently.
After playing around with the mechanism - I can't see any obvious way that it could work... I'm quite mystified by the whole proceedings TBH...
Regards
Tim
Hey Tim
Try your model again. Look back at my post 88 you will see that indeed the force required to lift the weight back up if attached to the vertical arm is a fraction of the down force exerted if attached to any other arm. It is basic roberval linkage which has been proven in science and commercially sold.
Look closely at their machine and you will see that on the upstroke the weight rests on the vertical beam via the arched lever and a permanent stop on that arch. At the top it has a hook that attaches the weight arm to the lower links therefore nullifying the roberval balance effect and using the full length of the lever arm. The science is real and proven.
The question is,have they achieved the task of automatically and mechanically switching the point of attachment of the two link systems, and will the machine accomplish this task on its own without any external forces aiding the link attachment?
This is not rocket science! For those of you that do not understand what they are doing read up about the roberval balance and you will soon see that they are just exploiting this mechanical anomaly.
Vince
@@ Red_Sunset
nearly a year since you last posted on this forum, and your absolute blind belief that Wayne Travis is an honorable person and talks the truth is the biggest load BS I ever heard, and still after all this time no verification of his device, and note in his new look website that he has removed the monthly update section, you remember the one, he kept promising verification was going to happen very soon, and time and time again he broke his word.
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)
I advise other readers to take anything Red_Sunset says with a very large grain of salt, Wayne Travis and Red_Sunset have repeatedly failed to prove in scientific terms that they have a working over-unity devise, let alone how to make one work, their history speaks for itself.
Quote from: tim123 on December 02, 2013, 08:50:14 AM
Hi RedSunset,
I have a meccano model I built - pictures posted previously - which, I think, replicates the mechanism of one 'piston' of the machine...
It doesn't seem to show any signs of OU. The forces are still symetrical - as I showed in my previous post. But I could be missing something - and I'd be grateful if anyone could suggest anything that might make it work differently.
After playing around with the mechanism - I can't see any obvious way that it could work... I'm quite mystified by the whole proceedings TBH...
Regards
Tim
Tim,
From my viewpoint, you would have too much tolerance in your meccano model, for it to work. Also you need to understand the working process before or when building, in that way you can apply corrections to the model to bring it within working range as needed. I can not see how you can build something without understanding it first.
The model doesn't need to be built as shown by Ribeiro, it could adopt different shapes,
The only requirement is,1.. That weight on the downstroke needs to take advantage of a greater lever arm than the horizontal robervall arm length as measured from the vertical fixed pilar. (a leverage arm is an arm that is fixed for the whole length, or at least responds in that way). In this case this is the horizontal robervall arm + the horizontal part of the triangle and the triangle experiences a fixation to the horizontal part of the robervall arm.
2.. During upstroke the weight only lever is the horizontal robervall arm. The triangle weight becomes incorporated into the total weight and becomes a synonymous part with the vertical arm of the robervall arm.
So we have two different levers applying torque to the rotation shaft (~ 2-1=1 =left-over). I would imagine it will need a flywheel to store intermediate energy for smooth running, because 1/2 cycle (rotation) is 2x power and 1/2 is 1x loss( alike to a combustion engine)
The location / position of the crankshaft has also an importance in the Ribeiro design since the pushrod plays a double role in the downstroke to promote 1-rotation and horizontal lever 2-fixation. For the same reason the initial start-up rotation has to be to my assessment counter clockwise (view as per pictures)
Without making a detailed drawing, it is difficult to explain. I would suggest to be clear on the required principle and then have have a good look at the pictures and ask the investigative questions, why, how, where....ect
That is the best I can suggest
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: powercat on December 02, 2013, 09:41:41 AM
@@ Red_Sunset
I advise other readers to take anything Red_Sunset says with a very large grain of salt, Wayne Travis and Red_Sunset have repeatedly failed to prove in scientific terms that they have a working over-unity devise, let alone how to make one work, their history speaks for itself.
Powercat & Tim and others,
If you think you do not like my
mungo jumbo, I have no problem to remove my posts and leave you in peace.
Let me know, I can still use the delete option within 24hrs
I just thought you could use a bit of help on Renato Ribeira.
Let me know soonest
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 10:02:23 AM
Powercat & Tim and others,
If you think you do not like my mungo jumbo, I have no problem to remove my posts and leave you in peace.
Let me know, I can still use the delete option within 24hrs
I just thought you could use a bit of help on Renato Ribeira.
Let me know soonest
Regards, Red_Sunset
On no account remove your posts Red Sunset. They make good sense to me.
As Cloud Camper has pointed out on BesslerWheel.com, the Roberval Balance puts strain energy into the balance ties and struts. The beauty of strain energy is that is weighs nothing and one can move it around without it being affected by Newtonian Gravity.
I believe that RAR works. Presumably they will eventually get around to posting up a video of it in action.
I think Stuart Campbell has the right idea about this development.
http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/ (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/)
[color=rgb(69, 129, 185) !important]Stuart Campbell (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/#)[/color][/font][/size] Moderator[/size] [color=rgba(30, 55, 70, 0.4)] David S (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/#comment-1140985164)[/font][/color]
•[/color] [color=rgba(30, 55, 70, 0.4)]5 days ago (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/#comment-1141877497)[/font][/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) !important]−[/size][/font][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) !important][/i] (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/11/25/1928/8502387_rar-energie-posts-photos-of-gilman-illinois-gravity-motor-build-progress/#)[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
That's because my thinking is not stuck in a block of concrete. Logic says it won't work.But there are people out there smart enough to say phooey to that and prove anyone wrong.Science is taught specifically to hold people within a square in their thinking. You are taught to think nothing will work, so you move within your limitations of your self imposed square.It's always those who step outside it who make the waves and the future happen.[/font]
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 10:02:23 AM
Powercat & Tim and others,
If you think you do not like my mungo jumbo, I have no problem to remove my posts and leave you in peace.
Let me know, I can still use the delete option within 24hrs
I just thought you could use a bit of help on Renato Ribeira.
Let me know soonest
Regards, Red_Sunset
Whether you want to remove your posts or not is entirely your decision, and looking at your previous posting history you will say and do what you want anyway.
Quote from: Grimer on December 02, 2013, 11:05:28 AM
That's because my thinking is not stuck in a block of concrete. Logic says it won't work.But there are people out there smart enough to say phooey to that and prove anyone wrong.Science is taught specifically to hold people within a square in their thinking. You are taught to think nothing will work, so you move within your limitations of your self imposed square.It's always those who step outside it who make the waves and the future happen.[/font]
That's a very good approach, and one that most people here would agree with, otherwise why would you join an over-unity forum, but making claims that you can achieve over-unity or you know that it works when you can't prove it is not going to help anyone, and given the energy crisis the world is facing we could really do with a genuine solution that actually works and can be proven to work.
Quote from: vince on December 02, 2013, 09:17:24 AM
The question is,have they achieved the task of automatically and mechanically switching the point of attachment of the two link systems, and will the machine accomplish this task on its own without any external forces aiding the link attachment?
Vince
Hi Vince,
the shift between the 2 linkages is the problem: In order to transfer the weight from the 'neutral' upright bar, to the 'positive' connecting rod, the full weight (i.e. the weight at the end of the lever) has to be lifted by the crank. (as far as I can tell)
You can do it either at the top, or the bottom of the crank - depending on rotation, but it still has to be done, and it's a big sticky point...
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 09:46:17 AM
I can not see how you can build something without understanding it first.
This is the essence of all research. You build experiments to better understand things...
Quote from: Red_Sunset
1.. That weight on the downstroke needs to take advantage of a greater lever arm than the horizontal robervall arm length as measured from the vertical fixed pilar.
...
So we have two different levers applying torque to the rotation shaft (~ 2-1=1 =left-over).
Different leverage = different distance moved. It's not as simple as you assert... If you simply have different leverages on the up & down strokes - the weight will end up in a different place at the end of each stroke.
Red_Sunset, if you think you understand the machine, and you think it works - then please show us - build a replica, or post those detailed drawings you mentioned.
Regards
Tim
Quote from: Grimer on Today at 05:05:28 PM
That's because my thinking is not stuck in a block of concrete. Logic says it won't work.But there are people out there smart enough to say phooey to that and prove anyone wrong.Science is taught specifically to hold people within a square in their thinking. You are taught to think nothing will work, so you move within your limitations of your self imposed square.It's always those who step outside it who make the waves and the future happen.[/font]
Quote from: powercat on December 02, 2013, 11:22:24 AM
That's a very good approach, and one that most people here would agree with, otherwise why would you join an over-unity forum, but making claims that you can achieve over-unity or you know that it works when you can't prove it is not going to help anyone, and given the energy crisis the world is facing we could really do with a genuine solution that actually works and can be proven to work.
Powercat,
Interesting how you state these 2 quotes together and are acknowledged as such.
I am convinced that NOBODY can be impartial, we are all the product of our upbringing exposure and that will be with us for life in varying degrees.
No matter what proof you seek , A video is no proof, neither a picture or even a physical demonstration can be deceptive, the biggest example demonstration of that fact was 911 & Iraq.
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
Keep in mind that Invention is business, an inventor will release information but never innovative details that are key to the invention, not even in a patent, they are always held close to the chest. When it comes to money, or prospective income, an inventor will do all in its power to safeguard the future of his work and himself and his position in business.
So if you are on this website to receive blue prints with explanations, you are going to have to wait for a very long time.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: tim123 on December 02, 2013, 12:14:05 PM
..........................................................
.............................................
This is the essence of all research. You build experiments to better understand things...
Different leverage = different distance moved. It's not as simple as you assert... If you simply have different leverages on the up & down strokes - the weight will end up in a different place at the end of each stroke.
Red_Sunset, if you think you understand the machine, and you think it works - then please show us - build a replica, or post those detailed drawings you mentioned.
Regards Tim
Tim,
Building carries an initial high risk, that is, a good working design could be considered failed due to bad or incorrect construction. Knowledge gives you the advantage by enabling you to do troubleshooting. Building when you have the understanding reduces risk. If you come from the electronics field, this might make more sense than in the mechanical field.
.
It's not as simple as you assert... it sure isn't and I do not want to minimize the effort and tweaks required to make it work. The key is that the distance should not change (much) because otherwise you reach the point of diminishing returns. The method used here is the key innovation of this invention.
Contrary to PowerCat statement, I never claimed or made a OU device. What I do is, to look closer into analyse smart and creative devices in order to understand the innovative working principles and to stimulate my mind. I do not have any detailed drawings of this system other that quick references to features seen on the photo's.
Distributed / Personal power generation is going to be the next revolution, so my interest leans in that direction.
Unfortunately that is as far as I can help here. Never expect to understand a concept all in one day. Allow simmering time for an observation to take on shape and relevance, to evolve and mature.
Good luck, remember persistence pays !!
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 12:37:54 PM
Powercat,
Interesting how you state these 2 quotes together and are acknowledged as such.
I am convinced that NOBODY can be impartial, we are all the product of our upbringing exposure and that will be with us for life in varying degrees.
No matter what proof you seek , A video is no proof, neither a picture or even a physical demonstration can be deceptive, the biggest example demonstration of that fact was 911 & Iraq.
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
Keep in mind that Invention is business, an inventor will release information but never innovative details that are key to the invention, not even in a patent, they are always held close to the chest. When it comes to money, or prospective income, an inventor will do all in its power to safeguard the future of his work and himself and his position in business.
So if you are on this website to receive blue prints with explanations, you are going to have to wait for a very long time.
There are hundreds of thousan of patented inventions that can be replicated and have been scientifically verified, showing how an invention works does not take your rights of ownership away.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 01:13:18 PM[/font]Contrary to PowerCat statement, I never claimed or made a OU device. What I do is, to look closer into analyse smart and creative devices in order to understand the innovative working principles and to stimulate my mind. I do not have any detailed drawings of this system other that quick references to features seen on the photo's.Distributed / Personal power generation is going to be the next revolution, so my interest leans in that direction.
Anyone can read your previous posts where you claim Wayne Travis's over-unity device works as claimed, they can also read your numerous posts where you defend Wayne travesties rights to keep back so called information on how the device actually works for commercial reasons, though at that time you and Wayne did intend to have the device scientifically verified by Mark Dansie as long as he signed a NDA to keep certain details of the device private, in the beginning this all seemed quite reasonable but as time went by it became clear what a load of BS yourself and Wayne were talking and that there was never any intention of having the device properly verified by anybody.
Red .. here is a simple sim of a Roberval system, with lever arm & mass replacing one horizontal member - the lever arm can be latched [square pin joint] to either the vertical strut of the pantograph or the tilting arm to get up & down motion thru imbalance of forces - that is not & has never been in dispute AFAIK - run the sim to see the potential problem - I watch this RAR attempt with interest to see if they have a creative answer to the dilemma.
A thoughtful post by MrVibrating at BW.com re observations on the RAR concept - includes a simple sim.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118005#118005
Hi,
I've been looking at the Roverbial balance and irrespective of where you position
the weights on the trays the work done is the same so there is no means of obtaining
any gain.
The machine in question is quite tiny when considering using gravity as a power
source. Fletcher pointed this out to me when we were discussing using pressure and
fluids. Even if something worked the operating speed would have to be kept so low that
the useful output would be minimal.
John
Quote from: fletcher on December 02, 2013, 03:27:39 PM
Red .. here is a simple sim of a Roberval system, with lever arm & mass replacing one horizontal member - the lever arm can be latched [square pin joint] to either the vertical strut of the pantograph or the tilting arm to get up & down motion thru imbalance of forces - that is not & has never been in dispute AFAIK - run the sim to see the potential problem - I watch this RAR attempt with interest to see if they have a creative answer to the dilemma.
Gents,
Hi Fletcher, good to hear from you. I spent some (too much) time today creating some pictures to clarify previous postings on the workings of Renato Ribeiro gravity system. Do keep in mind that the drawings only demonstrate the principle to OU used in the invention, NOT the workings of the whole machine as shown in the pictures. When it comes to the whole machine and the modifications done to it, I have also many questions. For example, why is the weight bar hinged and other trip assemblies....ect.
The drawings used are as close as possible to scale to the actual machine build, I overlayed one of the drawings to get the size proportions correct.
In the attached pdf, Page1: Picture of the limit stops on the center flange (vertical vs crankshaft push rod)
Page2: Picture of the end stop to fixate the crankshaft push rod to the triangle that holds the weight.
The weight loading creates the lever connection between the crankshaft and the weight. In this position, the roberval has no other function other than a positioning guide for crankshaft push rod.
Page 3: Picture of the stop that initiates the working of the roberval, this engages the triangle with the roberval (the lower lever endstop would be disengaged at this point).
The alignments are made possible by the positioning of the crankshaft, crankshaft push rod and the arc stopper. The weight will always apply a counter clockwise pull on the setup.
Page 4: The model drawing pulled from the official drawing
Page 5: Five positions are shown during one cycle of the system.
The first 3 show the down ½ cycle and the next 2 show the up cycle., shown is also how the system switches from lever mode to roverval mode. There should be enough detail on the pictures and associated text to make it self explanatory.
The approx. OU advantage is the horizontal length of the triangle
Regards, Red_Sunset
Gents,
In an attempt to expand on my previous 5 step process sequence, by adding elementary force vectors to it, I am starting to doubt my initial understanding of work and rotation done here.
Can someone enter this into a simulator to calculate relative force and direction. The rotational crankshaft seems to change the picture pretty drastically.
Attached is a relative force direction drawing in pdf format
Regards, Red_Sunset
Roberval functionality in RAR
My deduction is changing rapidly on the workings of this gravity engine.
Maybe there is some information missing, but with the info currently information seen, the roberval does not have the functionality initially thought off.
The only function it serves is to allow the triangular extender truss to remain near vertical at all times.
The force generation appears to be by weight, not by lever, so this working concept needs to be re-evaluated
Back to the drawing board.
Regards, Red_Sunset
The Roberval balance.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm
Quote from: nfeijo on December 03, 2013, 03:30:13 PM
The Roberval balance.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm
Nfeijo, It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
<<Expression meaning>> It means that one should not presume to know the outcome of an event which is still in progress. More specifically, the phrase is used when a situation is (or appears to be) nearing its conclusion. It cautions against assuming that the current state of an event is irreversible and clearly determines how or when the event will end.
Hi,
if you want to know about asymmetry ask Wayne Travis-he knows! Good advice from
Sunset somewhere in the past.
I find this machine intriguing, are those photos for real?
One of the things I don't get in cases like this is the sheer size. A bench top model
would be worth just as much.
Look at Rossi's megawatt, James Kwok's Hidro, Travis's thingy and the Newman
machine, none of them seem to do anything.
I was comparing these gravity things to a water wheel but I see one big difference
the water wheel is able to exhaust the water at little cost whereas this machine
would have to halt the drop of the weight then raise it again at considerable cost
John
New view - new pointer/discovery,
I am on the way out, and do have not much time now for more details, but just a quick one to share.
The working view is changing, I didn't pay much attention to the weights used, expecting this not to be important. What I did observe and found puzzling was why the weight bars were hinged on the extreme left of the photos shown, it was also here, in this area were a lot of changes/modifications were taking place over the past months.
The reason is that the weights are on a balance bar, this balance is disturbed by the the weight lever and some supporting mechanism at a specific time (The weights are mounted telecopic on the bar, so the balance of the bar can be changed. We can assume that the objective is to have heavy weights in the downward 1/2 cycle and restoration of balance on the way up 1/2 cycle.
If interested, have a good look there, focus to look is attached. Observe in the drawing that not all bar are the same length, they are telescopic.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Having had a chance to have a closer look into the mechanism of the gravity engine, confirmed my initial deduction that the principle working of the engine had no relationship to a Roberval & lever force mechanism as a force differentiator (although the roberval still performs a one sided and characteristic function ) .
The working principle is dependent on the ability of the mechanism to create a near neutral balance weight bar during the upstroke. At top dead center, an imbalance is triggered. The weight beam extends and the counter weight effect is removed by resting on the floor (as seen on the left side in the photo's).
This combined effect applies the total weight as a load to the Roberval and onward to the crankshaft resulting in rotation.
At the bottom dead center, the beam returned to horizontal and the weight beam has shortened to it minimum size by telescopic action, regaining its near balance equilibrium.
This methodology is standard lift & drop of a weight, to create energy by using gravitational force of the weight on the downward stroke, and uses a counter balance to reduce the upward stroke energy.
The system incorporates a trigger mechanism to initiate the sequencing at predetermined points in the cycle. The photo's show several changes in the design to be able to get the sequencing and efficient working correct.
A good selection of pictures,drawings, patent are provided on the RAR website to supplement understanding.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Hi Red_Sunset :)
I'm glad I invested in the meccano... I bought a job lot on ebay a few years ago, and it has served me well.
It's often easier to build things than to simulate them. I appreciate you taking the time to do the drawings. It has clearly helped you further your understanding, and if you think you know another way it might work, let us know...
I'm beginning to seriously wonder if the guy built the machine without prototyping it. It did go thru a load of modifications, and all the 'tweaks' they've added - well... Were they to improve output, or were they hacks to try and get it to work?
The fact he's building another tells us nothing at this stage. Until #1 is running and proven... I'm still mystified. :-\
Ribeiro Patent Application text
[0046] The force of gravity exerted over the weight is trans ferred to the assembly through the central shaft. This shaft, depending on where the locks are exercising the support, if they are on the positive or neutral arms and when, transfer more or less force to the blue bar. This in turn transfers the force to the crankshaft arm that is transferred to the crankshaft where the torque is applied.
Can this statement be true?
The positive bars are the horizontal arms and the neutral bar is the vertical arm of the 1/2 Roberval. The central shaft is the hinge at the bottom of the vertical roberval bar.
The overall total weight (roberval + Triange weight bar + weight hanged) is supported by the blue bar that connects to the crankshaft. The weight would be a vertical down force.
Question: How can this weight change depending on how the weight triangle connects to the roberval? by means of the arc locks.
We do have an horizontal force imposed by the arc lock on the blue connecting rod to the crankshaft, this force when in the same direction than rotation would aid rotation. But to my observation, it would be counter for 1/4 turn and then aid for a 1/4 rotation (this is approx), so not sure if this could be the essence of the statement
Any idea's ?
Quote from: tim123 on December 05, 2013, 02:35:31 PM
The fact he's building another tells us nothing at this stage. Until #1 is running and proven... I'm still mystified. :-\
Tim,
Do keep in mind, the objective of what the guy is building is to get orders. He is in business to make money. I don't think he is still trying to prove anything, only to get a good working demonstration going.
So long you have a good sound principle, the rest is just a matter of engineering.
From what I can deduct, he has done his homework. Sure there are always newer and better idea's that come along. What I think he is doing is trying to improve the energy density. This will in the end determine the investment cost per energy unit. And make the system more attractive.
The working of the system should be clear (apart from some details), from what has been said in previous mails, or isn't?
Regards, Red_Sunset
Hi,
looking at this from the point of view as a mechanical device I would guess that a 20 kw
motor would get it to turn over fairly sedately.
There would be a massive amount of loss due to friction of bearings and sliders, also if any
speed was obtained inertia would become involved and the thing would soon shake itself
to pieces.
You would probably need to find a couple of million ft/lbs per minute from somewhere for
it to go by itself. In theory I suppose that as some weights go down they would balance the
ones that are rising. Where the excess would come from is a mystery.
Where is The Koala when he's needed? Hibernating? I really would like to see a successful
outcome here so I'll keep on watching and hoping!
From the investment point of view I would guess you could buy a 30 kw genset and run it
a good few years on what this machine would cost to build,house and maintain. I can't see
it running for that long before major problems started.
John
Hi
Red_Sunset, It is useless to think (reflect) about the system RAR energia.
I still repeat :
The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
All the images are forged. Everything is false
1 ) Supporting evidence :
Official text RAR energia Ltda : << Another similar equipment will be built in the U.S.A. at the Incobrasa Industries Ltd plant, a Company of the group, located in Gilman, IL. >>
Official picture nº 01, June 10th 2013
=> http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem01be.JPG
But...
Update Google Maps by Digital Globe USDA Farm Service Agency, October 02nd, 2013
Official satellite picture : July 09th, 2013
The address of Incobrasa Industries, Ltd : 40°45'46.85"N 88° 0'44.25"W
The green arrow should show the building : Here (https://maps.google.de/maps?t=h&ll=40.763127700000034%2C-88.012281&q=+40%C2%B045%2746.85%22N++88%C2%B0+0%2744.25%22W&spn=0.0027632325522951146%2C0.00486432414869475&output=classic)
That's odd !! :o :o
2) - Supporting evidence :
Ted Scheuring of Chicago photographed places on September 13th, 2013
There is no constructed building ( Second picture )
Regards, Enstenow ( retired engineer)
Quote from: Enstenow on December 05, 2013, 08:30:54 PM
Red_Sunset, It is useless to think (reflect) about the system RAR energia.
I still repeat :
The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
All the images are forged. Everything is false
......................
...............................................
Regards, Enstenow ( retired engineer)
Dear Mr Enstenow,
Marvelous investigative report, I am impressed and you may be right or you may be wrong.
I am not yet in a position to make final judgement (I am still open for more convincing evidence)
With the details presented by you, I have the following concerns,1.. Going direct to "google earth", the latest version map available is 14 May 2012. I do not find the validation of your assumed date of 9-July 2013, your link picture showed also the same date of may 2012, look carefully at he bottom of the map picture.
2.. The picture #2 taken from the main road is not taken in the correct position, see the google map below and the associated pictures from the RARenergia website. I have marked on the google map from where the pictures would be taken,
** Your posted pic#2 shows the low tree line before the building, marked as #1 and #2 on the google view.
** The pic #7 shows the dirt road from the main rd into the property as seen in the google picture
** The pic #8 shows the tall building to the right marked as #3 on google
** The pict #11 shows to the left a building, also seen on the google view but not marked.
3.. In addition, the technical working aspects shown in the pictures and patent application are all within the normal physical domain and are very plausible to work as theorized. It is clear that several modifications to the machine have taken place that could confuse, but the reasons can be presumed to be the result of normal procedural interactions between designer and construction team.
Your evidence makes a good case but doesn't make a convincing case because the evidence is not exact enough to support your viewpoint.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Red Sunset, I do not know about the American machine, but the Brazilian one is in Porto Alegre, exactly in the address they say and it looks like what appears in the photo. Nothing fake there. If it works I do not know.
Quote from: nfeijo on December 06, 2013, 10:16:16 AM
Red Sunset, I do not know about the American machine, but the Brazilian one is in Porto Alegre, exactly in the address they say and it looks like what appears in the photo. Nothing fake there. If it works I do not know.
Nfeijo,
This forum has quite a formidable ability to disprove any invention (most often unsubstantiated ) .
I do not see the equivalent ability to discover the newness presented in an invention.
Both abilities are required in an equal and balanced proportion to advance science.(since we build upon what came before)
It takes time and effort to be thorough and fair, but in return the rewards are plentiful.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Red Sunset,
Of course in a forum like this you can find all kind of people, believers and skeptics. But in general you find people open to new ideas, by the nature of the forum. I would say most people here tend to believe. But this is a swamp, with few flowers and many crocodiles. I am very curious about this particular invention.
Our friend the retired engineer thinks everything is a hoax. I can not say about the Gilman machine, but the Brazilian one, in Porto Alegre, sure is there, as advertised. I talked with someone, asking to see the machine working. He told me they were busy with demonstrations to prospective customers, he asked me to call in a few months.
I have been working hard trying to find something in this last 13 years, but always in the area of electromagnetics and electronics, never on gravity. I am not saying this is impossible. Who am I to say something is impossible ? As you said, it only ends when the fat lady sings.
I would be very, very happy if Renato Ribeiro had solved this problem of getting cheap energy from gravity. Maybe this would solve the problem of Africa and Third World in general. I have no interest in making money or being famous, but in helping poor people. Renato is so rich that I believe he would make this machine available to the poor.
We studied the patents and we are trying to make a simulation in Working Model, up to now without success.
Best regards,
Ney
Quote from: nfeijo on December 06, 2013, 02:56:45 PM
..................................................
We studied the patents and we are trying to make a simulation in Working Model, up to now without success.
Best regards,
Ney
Hi Ney,
I know it is a wilderness out there and I do not have really a problem with it, so long they do not move in to closely with a demanding or negative agenda.
When it comes to the Renato's invention, from information seen, he has 2 principle parts that lead to getting mechanical advantage.
One is described in the patent, and the second one "not shown in the patent" but implemented in the physical demonstration model. I still need to do clarify some process details used for part2 and do a calculation exercise to quantify the possible gains for each instance.
You said "we are trying to make a simulation in Working Model, up to now without success", with what part of the modeling don't you have success ? Perhaps I can help.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Hi, Red_Sunset
On the previous page, all your arguments are erroneous
Your explanations are inaccurate.
No matter,
The truth will come out !
In a few months, you will understand that RAR energia deceives you, that Renato Ribeiro laughs at you.
Please...
Have you a mechanical and scientific explanation to justify these technical anomalies ???
- Official picture n° 39 (brazil) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem39a.JPG ( picture attach n° 1 )
- Official picture n° 40 (brazil) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG ( picture attach n° 2 )
- Official picture n° 04 (Illinois) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2004%20br.JPG ( picture attach n° 3 )
I repeat,
All the official picture is really computer generated images !
Regards, Enstenow
Hey!
Why don't we just see if it works? Now, we have satellite spying , creepers in commando suits, wtf!!If i EVER COME UP WITH THE ULTIMATE FREE ENERGY DEVICE.. i will certainly not tell you mother f r's.
Get a grip,
greg
Quote from: Enstenow on December 06, 2013, 07:51:59 PM
Hi, Red_Sunset
On the previous page, all your arguments are erroneous
Your explanations are inaccurate.
....................................................................
.............................................................
I repeat,
All the official picture is really computer generated images !
Regards, Enstenow
Mr Enstenow,
I appreciate you have a specific view, and I would understand your argument so long you explain what you are trying to communicate. I am not clear on the points you trying to make and their context to your argument.
I do understand that the pictures show modifications to the equipment.
They can be considered normal during the installation process for new equipment, that is still developing and being improved. Or so we could assume, this being being most likely, since we have no further information details.
I can see no reason to assume, that there is a far fetched conspiracy theory with the information seen to-date, the scenario you presented.
Please substantiate you argument with information you haven't shared. So we can have a productive dialog.
Regards, Red
Produce energy with only gravity is impossible, the result of is equation is 0, it is maintly time proven and it is the same thing for only magnetism.
Quote from: PiCéd on December 07, 2013, 06:28:42 AM
Produce energy with only gravity is impossible, the result of is equation is 0, it is maintly time proven and it is the same thing for only magnetism.
I fully agree, the laws of conservation/Thermo-dynamics state this very clearly.
Time has proven this position to be indisputable. Does this mean in perpetuity?
It is a high risk area to meddle in, I agree. For a A-Z natural process flow, I agree.
A process that has been interfered with, can make a totally different case.
Maybe if we do look for a loophole, even if there is none, ignorance would be too bliss.
Regards, Red_Sunset
@gdez, @Red_Sunset, @PiCéd:
1) I guess that most people know permanent magnets and gravity can not provide energy for a motor according to conventional science.
2) I appreciate people who put time, effort and money into trying to overcome this conventional wisdom. Why not try? There are many things which we do not know, I would say we know almost nothing which is out there in the universe. If some one proclaims that he wants to try to build a machine which overcomes conventional science, so be it, very commendable. But please, do not announce success without proof. You will not find believers, only misguided people will follow you.
3) What I really hate are people who claim to have overcome conventional science without providing proof. And equally funny are people who immediately endorse such claims without having received proof. We have seen a great number of "inventors" proclaiming OU or who put forward other outrageous claims and who want to be believed without providing proof. This is very strange and we should not even talk to such idiots.
Conclusion: It will be well received if you announce attempts, tries and research concerning OU or other so called "impossible machines". But it will cause ridicule and averse reactions if you want to be believed without providing good proof. If you want to keep a secret, shut up. Talking around a secret with stupid hints is totally useless.
Coming back to the two gigantic machines discussed in this thread (one in Brasilia and the other in the USA):
To hope that it will work is o.k., to speculate that it will work is o.k., but proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.
The inventor or firm building the two gigantic machines are doing a bad job as far as convincing the world is concerned. Strange advertisements do not support credibility. Announcements without proof are not helpful. Why not do the obvious, why not let other people do independent measurements? Why not at least publish measurements and the measurement method? If there are no measurements at the moment, well, the announcement was then premature. Premature announcements are always very bad for ones reputation.
Of course, the inventor has no obligation to do anything. But if he wants to be believed, he should do the obvious.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 09:09:15 AM
@gdez, @Red_Sunset, @PiCéd:
................................................................
............................................
Coming back to the two gigantic machines discussed in this thread (one in [/b]Brasilia and the other in the USA):
To hope that it will work is o.k., to speculate that it will work is o.k., but proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.
The inventor or firm building the two gigantic machines are doing a bad job as far as convincing the world is concerned. Strange advertisements do not support credibility. Announcements without proof are not helpful. Why not do the obvious, why not let other people do independent measurements? Why not at least publish measurements and the measurement method? If there are no measurements at the moment, well, the announcement was then premature. Premature announcements are always very bad for ones reputation.
Of course, the inventor has no obligation to do anything. But if he wants to be believed, he should do the obvious.
Greetings, Conrad
Conradelecktro,
You have spoken some wise words,
Nothing to delete, only something to add if I may,
1.. To hope that it will work is o.k.,
2.. To speculate that it will work is o.k.,
but
3.. proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.
4.. proclaiming that it
DOESN'T WORK should only be done simultaneous with providing some proof or reasonable analysis to support.
Regarding your last line about a believable inventor
To be believable, as an inventor, you will have to bare ALL details about your invention to conclusively prove your claim, this is easily done in a boardroom with a selected audience. To broadcast those details on a public forum clashes with all business interests he might have with his invention.
We should never expect that we can take the easy way out by expecting an inventor to throw the blueprints with instruction data into you lap. It will never happen. Discovery will have to come from within this forum community by due diligence, not by way of a free lunch.
Regards, red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 07, 2013, 12:00:57 PM
Nothing to delete, only something to add if I may,
4. proclaiming that it DOESN'T WORK should only be done simultaneous with providing some proof or reasonable analysis to support.
We should never expect that we can take the easy way out by expecting an inventor to throw the blueprints with instruction data into you lap. It will never happen. Discovery will have to come from within this forum community by due diligence, not by way of a free lunch.
Regards, red
@Red_Sunset:
1) Nobody has to prove that OU is not possible. Just mention "conservation of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy). So, if someone proclaims an OU-device one cites "conservation of energy" and that is all the proof there is against it.
2) Nobody has to prove that a permanent magnet motor or a gravity motor is not possible. Classical science says that gravitational forces and also the forces of permanent magnets can not be used to drive a motor because these forces can not be switched on and off or can not be made weaker by shielding, the shield itself interacts with gravity or magnetism in a way to counteract the shielding. No more proof necessary. That is all there is to say.
So you see, demanding proof that OU is not possible and that a permanent magnet motor or a gravity motor are not possible is utter stupidity.
You might not like these standard proofs given by conventional science, but more proof is not possible.Therefore, if you claim OU you have to give proof. If you claim a permanent magnet motor you have to give proof. If you claim a gravity motor you have to give proof. Conventional science says very clearly, that this can not exist. Why should any one repeat 200 years of science? Every inventor should know conventional science in his field. He might not agree with conventional science, but he can not demand that anybody teaches him conventional science.
3) Nobody expects that an inventor gives away anything for free. But if he wants to be believed by the general public, he has to publish credible proof. May be the inventor does not care about the general public, but why does he publish his claim in a newspaper advertisment? I see the "desire to be believed" in these strange advertisments.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 01:45:11 PM
@Red_Sunset:
1) Nobody has to prove that OU is not possible. Just mention "conservation of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy). So, if someone proclaims an OU-device one cites "conservation of energy" and that is all the proof there is against it.
2) ...................................................
You might not like these standard proofs given by conventional science, but more proof is not possible.
.................................................
......................
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
You present an interesting angle,
I agree that you can justifiable take a position of high standing, but that position is not going to serve you well.
The results will not be "well" either because you are not addressing both aspects (science/technical & business).
When there is a bi-directional interchange, things change dramatically. (like win-win for example)
Quote from: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 01:45:11 PM
3) Nobody expects that an inventor gives away anything for free. But if he wants to be believed by the general public, he has to publish credible proof. May be the inventor does not care about the general public, but why does he publish his claim in a newspaper advertisment? I see the "desire to be believed" in these strange advertisments.
Greetings, Conrad
I do not think any inventor in this field wants to be believed by the general public. What would be the incentive ? The general public would not be the direct users in any case.
The prime objective would be to get the invention into production, now that needs help from the business world, finance and others. To be believed by the academic world would have importance because it would provide assurance for the business world (investor confidence ...ect), but is not necessary essential.
For example, did someone came to you in the 80's (or general public) to get your buy-in to the workability of the concept of a cell phone network. I don't think so. Were investors and other key businesses approached and the academic world consulted, I am pretty sure they were to get their buy-in, to get it off the ground.
I do not think that we were the intended audience of these strange adverts you are referring to.
Regards, Red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 07, 2013, 02:43:32 PM
Hi Conrad,
You present an interesting angle,
I agree that you can justifiable take a position of high standing, but that position is not going to serve you well.
...........
Regards, Red
I do not take a position of high standing and I do not defend "conventional science".
But I do not allow to turn the burden of proof around. (I am realistic enough to realise that nobody has to listen to me.)
Someone who makes an extraordinary claim (in science, in technology or in any area of human interaction) must provide proof. Nobody has to prove him wrong. Such is the nature of extraordinary claims.
If one makes an extraordinary claim and if one does not provide proof (for whatever reason), one will be ridiculed, scolded, taken for a fool and one's reputation will suffer severely. Such is the nature of extraordinary claims.
All the strange people who showed up in this forum with their extraordinary claims wanted to be believed without providing proof. Well, they were not believed and they disappeared and no working device ever surfaced.
I hope that the gigantic machines will be different, but so far everything happens like with all extraordinary claims:
- secrecy
- extraordinary claims
- strange revelations (which are absolutely not helpful)
- useless patent
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 03:31:25 PM
I do not take a position of high standing and I do not defend "conventional science".
But I do not allow to turn the burden of proof around. (I am realistic enough to realise that nobody has to listen to me.)
....................................................................................
I hope that the gigantic machines will be different, but so far everything happens like with all extraordinary claims:
- secrecy
- extraordinary claims
- strange revelations (which are absolutely not helpful)
- useless patent
Greetings, Conrad
Having said all that, lets dig in a bit deeper ( I agree that the world isn't perfect, and we do not always get our own way).
So what do YOU want out of any exchange in this forum ?
1.. A workable blueprint explained by the designer/inventor ?
2.. Some knowledge that can possibly advance your own inventory of idea's
3.. Or something else ......?
With reference to required info that needs to be supplied by the inventor,
As an example, lets focus on Renato Ribeiro, as an inventor (his profession), he made available publicly the most comprehensive documentation (drawing and explanatory text in the patent) and photo's of his invention on the website (the piece lacking as I read is the working video). It is rare to have this much information available on a new invention.
Sure Ribeiro makes some (extra-ordinary) claims in his patent application. He described the working principle of his invention.
1.. Did he explain his idea well enough ? If no, what did he garble?
2.. Is he wrong? meaning did he made assumptions that are not possible ? If yes what and why are they not possible?
3.. Is his patent application useless (do you think you should tell him not to proceed and waste his money) ?
Would all this satisfy the need for information discussed in this forum, I would assume it does. Although I still see a lot of objections and denunciations. Is there still something lacking ?.
If the answer is yes, please tell me, what is it !. So we can utilize this forum beneficially !
Please enlighten me.
Regards, Red
Well, Red_Sunset, you seem to have received enough hints to let you believe that the gigantic machine is indeed working. So be it.
I have not received enough hints. So be it.
I do not make the rules in this forum and I do not want to make them. But I do state what I like and what I do not like.
I do not like people who make extraordinary claims without providing proof. So be it.
Not having proof does not seem to bother you. So be it.
That is all there is left for me to say. You have won. I have lost (mainly time, which is my own fault).
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on December 07, 2013, 04:23:01 PM
Well, Red_Sunset, you seem to have received enough hints to let you believe that the gigantic machine is indeed working. So be it.
I have not received enough hints. So be it.
I do not make the rules in this forum and I do not want to make them. But I do state what I like and what I do not like.
I do not like people who make extraordinary claims without providing proof. So be it.
Not having proof does not seem to bother you. So be it.
That is all there is left for me to say. You have won. I have lost (mainly time, which is my own fault).
Greetings, Conrad
Hi Conrad,
I am sorry you feel this way, you seem to be limiting your world by your own choice and winning or loosing is not the point here.
I get the feeling that you need to "break a leg" over it before you consider it proof. Sometimes it is only a hint that eventually leads to the proof.
The good hint (as you call it) is a plain explanation in the patent, section [0046], I made reference to this in a previous posting.
It says the following.
[0046] The force of gravity exerted over the weight is trans
ferred to the assembly through the central shaft. This shaft,
depending on where the locks are exercising the support, if
they are on the positive or neutral arms
and when, transfer
more or less force to the blue bar. This in turn transfers the
force to the crankshaft arm that is transferred to the crankshaft
where the torque is applied.
What is being said is, that the weight force to the blue bar is not the same all the time. It is more clear further in the patent, that there are two forces, a downward weight force and a lever force. Both aiding the rotation of the crankshaft.
I would guess that the effect of this additional lever energy quantity is relatively small (
** due to the effect of initially opposing the direction of rotation and not optimum force angles).
I would guess this the reason for the additional changes seen in the pictures (with a balanced telescopic weight lever) and the reason it was not envisaged or documented in the patent.
Is this the proof you need ?,
that depends on your own verification requirement, theoretical, practical or otherwise. Your choice.But please do not say, he doesn't proof his claim. He does says he verified this force effect and used it as the fundamental principle of his invention, what more can you expect from the inventor at this point. In this case, where do you want to draw the line of "no proof to proof". We surely can put a certain amount of trust in his word, reputation...ect
In the end, the absolute proof lies with you, (at least in this type of circumstance) in the same way you verified in the class lab what was said in the theory class, peer verified. This I would call "indisputable practical proof" . A lot lies in the understanding of proof and the reasons why to want a specific level of authentication. "Absolute indisputable proof" comes for me toward the end of the proof process. There are many steps in between.
I hope this helps
Regards, Red
This post last modification was 8 Dec 13 @ 7:07AM OU-server time
Well said, Red Sunset. :)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi
Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...
in other words, the onus is ALWAYS on the person/s claiming over unity to prove their case and not the other way round.
Poit
Quote from: Poit on December 29, 2013, 10:49:11 AM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi
Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...
...
Whether or not the RAR device works you've got to admit, it's extraordinary. ;D
Quote from: Poit on December 29, 2013, 10:49:11 AM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi
Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...
in other words, the onus is ALWAYS on the person/s claiming over unity to prove their case and not the other way round.
Poit
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi
What is the difference between a proof and extraordinary proof?
Can a woman be kind of pregnant? She either is pregnant or she is not. There is no in between. So it is for Over Unity. It is OU or it is not. It is self evident with an accurate standard proof for those that are willing to admit it as a truth. It becomes as muddy waters and endless proofs (extraordinary proof) for those that refuse to acknowledge a true proof.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 02, 2013, 12:37:54 PM
...
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
...
Very true.
"
Proof" has certainly come to me from the mental stimulus of the imminent RAR demonstration.
Thanks to BesslerWheel.com forum discussions over the four years since I joined, I've been able to link up all that "
work", all that collection of concepts relating to the Keenie wheel mechanism.
I now understand why the Keenie generates an asymmetric gravity action and how the increments of that action are integrated by a succession of fall and recoil pulses of weights on the active side of the wheel.
I can illustrate this more specifically by quoting from a recent BW thread.
Quote from: GrimerQuote from: jim_mich...
The problem with gravity being the 'prime mover' force is that gravity is symmetrical.
Gravity is symmetrical but its effect on both sides of the wheel is not
necessarily symmetrical.
QuoteGravity force is the same on both sides of the wheel.
But its effect on both sides of the wheel is not necessarily the same.
For example. If the wheel has a one way clutch at its axle then there will be a force opposing gravity on one side of the wheel and not on the other. In effect gravity will be switched off, neutralized, balanced on one side of the wheel and not on the other.
In these circumstances gravity will be acting asymmetrically and provide a torque which will drive the wheel. Gravity will be partitioned into two equal angular momentum components, one which is driving the wheel one way, clockwise say, and the other which is "driving" the wheel supports connected to earth, anticlockwise.
This is how and why the Keenie wheel works.
QuoteAnd gravity force acts the same on a rising weight as on a falling weight.
Indeed it does.
But the action of the one way clutch does not have the same result on a weight on one side of the wheel as on the other.
QuoteThis symmetry of force is the reason that gravity cannot be a prime mover force for a PM wheel.
The asymmetry of the effective gravitational action introduced to the wheel by the use of a one way clutch is the reason that gravity can be a prime mover force for a PM wheel.
Quote from: Liberty on December 29, 2013, 12:04:04 PM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi
What is the difference between a proof and extraordinary proof?
Can a woman be kind of pregnant? She either is pregnant or she is not. There is no in between. So it is for Over Unity. It is OU or it is not. It is self evident with an accurate standard proof for those that are willing to admit it as a truth. It becomes as muddy waters and endless proofs (extraordinary proof) for those that refuse to acknowledge a true proof.
Do you have this "rar" over unity built in your garage? do you have the blue prints to build one? or at least get an engineer to build one? No you don't...
Lets say I was to tell you I saw a rat in my basement... I took a picture of it... even a video... that would be ordinary proof... its common place.. no real reason for you to doubt I saw a rat in my basement...
What if I said to you that I have captured an alien and have it tied up in my basement..... would a picture or a video suffice? of course not... because it is an extraordinary claim.. you would either need to come over and see it for your self or go capture your own alien!
SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!
Poit
I don't have to prove that the square on the hypotenuse is always equal to the sums of the squares on the other two sides by constructing physical right angle triangles for you to measure because you could always claim, and you would be right, that I had not constructed all possible right angle triangles.
Likewise, I don't have to prove the extraordinary claim that there are an infinite number of primes by counting them, another impossible task.
Of course, if through lack of education a person is incapable of appreciating the arguments of both claims then there is no way one can provide proofs to them.
In the case of the Keenie wheel for example, simple logic can show how and why it worked. There is no need to prove it by building one although no doubt someone who was not confident of their powers to reason correctly would take the same line as Didymus.
===================================
The art of reasoning consists in getting hold of the
subject at the right end, of seizing the few general
ideas that illuminate the whole, and of persistently
organizing all subsidiary facts around them. Nobody
can be a good reasoner unless he has realized the
importance of getting hold of the big ideas and
hanging onto them like grim death .
A.N.Whitehead
Presidential Address to the London Branch of the
Mathematical Association., 1914
====================================
Alas, Frank. I see your appeal to authority Whitehead quote, and I'll raise you one Wiki article on logical fallacies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)
The fact that nobody has made a Keenie wheel work means that your reasoning, which leads you to believe it should work, is flawed. Not the other way around.
They will dear boy. They will.
And when they do your naive belief in the dogma that there is no such thing as a free lunch will be consigned to the scrap heap. 8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 30, 2013, 04:32:10 AM
Alas, Frank. I see your appeal to authority Whitehead quote, and I'll raise you one Wiki article on logical fallacies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)
The fact that nobody has made a Keenie wheel work means that your reasoning, which leads you to believe it should work, is flawed. Not the other way around.
Well played sir :)
Quote from: Grimer on December 30, 2013, 06:09:55 AM
They will dear boy. They will.
And when they do your naive belief in the dogma that there is no such thing as a free lunch will be consigned to the scrap heap. 8)
"They will....".... so you admit there is no proof then!!
like you said, you either have proof or you dont.. and you just admited you don't.. so case closed until "they will"!
Hi,
for Grimer and those with similar thoughts I'm sure that you'll find that the Koala
will be one of the first to endorse the machine if it's proven to work. He'll make one
in his laboratory and show the video for all to see.
Just look at the effort that went into the Tinselzed which was inspired by Wayne
Travis, and to proving Ainslie's circuit.
Steve Weir and Poynt99 also tried hard with the Ainslie thing. One thing that did
transpire was that Steve Weir knew more about the Ainslie circuit that did either
Rose herself or her partner!
John
Quote from: Poit on December 30, 2013, 01:39:56 PM
"They will....".... so you admit there is no proof then!!
like you said, you either have proof or you dont.. and you just admited you don't.. so case closed until "they will"!
I have proof, the same kind of proof Euclid had - but someone who can't instantly see the answer to the water and wine problem will be incapable of appreciating it.
I can spell, too.
Quote from: minnie on December 30, 2013, 03:05:22 PM
Hi,
For Grimer and those with similar thoughts I'm sure that you'll find that the Koala
will be one of the first to endorse the machine if it's proven to work. He'll make one
in his laboratory and show the video for all to see.
It's called climbing on the bandwagon.
You guys like to bitch like a bunch of OU (xxxx)!
We all can have an opinion, but that is not equal to fact. Neither does a view necessarily paint the whole picture.
If you did figure out the workings and found the forces not capable enough for the system to do as said, a specific finding does not nail the door shut, it only gives an indication that it is not exactly easy to open by just turning the handle. Knowing something is not necessary ALL the knowledge there is to know.
I am not trying to make everybody believe that I got all the answers or would state that the RAR system shown works as stated. What matters more is the principle behind this system that could open the door to other design approaches.
My intrigue is "why does an experienced designer/inventor thinks this can work". If the principle is sound, then working or not working is just a matter of engineering ability and available technology.
It is clear for this category type of OU design, we have a process that descends/drops a potential energy and then we expect (due to a process alteration) for the energy to be more during descend than what is required for ascent (one or a combination of both).
What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is clearly follows a similar thought pattern, using a mechanical leverage alteration in the drop cycle to refocusing force vectors onto the same hardware (a hardware setup that did not expect that under normal con-rod conditions). This results in a greater force than expected for a given energy drop distance. Resulting in more energy out that was held by the weight drop distance.
What Ribeiro's design is doing, is manipulating the forces transmitted towards the crankshaft through the con-rod. For a given gravity down force, he adds a similar value lateral force. The cost of this value verses the benefit to be had is critical.
In a standard con-rod driven wheel, the transmission of force is a trig sin/cos function for the gravity down force. Now we introduce a selective applied lateral force to the crank that is 90dgr out of phase.
In regular crank/con-rod, with a 1:1 ratio, the weight drop height is equal to the crank wheel diameter. We know that the actual path of the con-rod attachment is more than that distance by ~1.5 since it follows the circumference. If we now supposedly can keep the force vector at full force for that distance, we introduce an additional total torque energy of 1.5 times the drop energy.
Renato is aiming to apply this force for somewhat more that 90 dgr but at double the force (the result vector). To supplement this, using connection locks in the system that can be engaged at specific times, in the region where the force is in-line with rotation, the down force is increased without sacrificing stored lateral potential energy, by engaging an extended lever force. Cost saving is achieved by using weight balancing during the triangular tilt storage increase process to minimize overhead.
The theoretical gain is limited, so any additional advantage by optimization would improve the energy balance and I believe that being the reason for diverse weight manipulation models seen. Although the patent application gives a fair account of the working process, it sure is not the whole story and neither would we expect this to be the whole story.
What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is in many principle aspects similar to the principle behind Wayne Travis zed described in a previous tread in this forum. The basic difference is that Wayne uses an hydraulic leverage and Renato uses mechanical leverage.
Both principles use effectively a differentiation process between the down & up strokes with the result of an altered (increased) force over the same distance. The differentiation is in how the properties of the same physical device are used, so that the use of a different property impacts and alters the energy balance
The result is a net energy gain.
Any constructive input is appreciated
Regards, Red_Sunset
An opinion is worthless... pointing out a fact is priceless..
and the FACT is no one has proven over unity!
Want to argue with that? then you are really stupid! the ONLY counter to that argument is provide actual proof of over unity!
Write your reply, I don't care... you can write and write and write.. doesn't change the fact that YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! NO PROOF!! NOTHING!! so go ahead and try and write and write until your hearts content, its all meangingless drivel!
Say we need 40 hp.
Say we have 15 weights.
Say they are 5000 lbs.
Say they drop 4 ft.
Say we can do 25 rpm.
Say by magic we get 5 percent extra from gravity.
40 x 550 x 60 x 20 =26,400,000 ft/min required.
Take one weight 1,760,000 ft/min.
5000 x 4 x 25 divide by 20 because we get 5% = 25,000
Someone who does math needs to work this out
for me because I'm not too hot at it!
John
Quote from: minnie on December 31, 2013, 09:13:24 AM
Say we need 40 hp.
Say we have 15 weights.
Say they are 5000 lbs.
Say they drop 4 ft.
Say we can do 25 rpm.
Say by magic we get 5 percent extra from gravity.
40 x 550 x 60 x 20 =26,400,000 ft/min required.
Take one weight 1,760,000 ft/min.
5000 x 4 x 25 divide by 20 because we get 5% = 25,000
Someone who does math needs to work this out
for me because I'm not too hot at it!
John
Thats a lot of 'says'... just out of curiosity, how is any one suppose to work this out if "magic" is involved?
Quote from: Poit on December 31, 2013, 08:00:45 AM
An opinion is worthless... pointing out a fact is priceless..
and the FACT is no one has proven over unity!
Want to argue with that? then you are really stupid! the ONLY counter to that argument is provide actual proof of over unity!
Write your reply, I don't care... you can write and write and write.. doesn't change the fact that YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! NO PROOF!! NOTHING!! so go ahead and try and write and write until your hearts content, its all meangingless drivel!
I thought that the first line in my previous posting was descriptive enough. I am not here to prove anything neither to make anybody believe anything. Although I do like a good structured argument/discussion that can take our knowledge to the next level.
Minnie,
It all hinges on a principle. A small "one watt" energy gain cycled and multiplied one million times per second is not to be ignored.
Sure it wouldn't look like the RAR or the ZED, but it could utilize the same principle.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Grimer on December 30, 2013, 04:55:31 PM
I have proof, the same kind of proof Euclid had - but someone who can't instantly see the answer to the water and wine problem will be incapable of appreciating it.
I can spell, too.
talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered, good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.
Quote from: powercat on December 31, 2013, 10:33:46 AM
talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered, good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.
Hi Cat, I can not figure out to what text you are referring to, can you clarify,
1.. The riddle ?
2.. The promise of a solution or delivery?
It appears to me that people are waiting out there with hands open, for handouts. Maybe I am mistaken, but you give me also the impression that a delivery is required/mandatory for top notch OU blueprints, triple proofed and guaranteed in perpetuity.
I thought this was a incubator forum to share and discuss technical idea's with possible excess energy relevance.
Enlighten me pls, Red_Sunset
@ Red_Sunset
You have never liked my responses, so if you can't figure it out by reading previous posts there is no point in me trying to explain it,
When somebody says they have done it or they can prove it works, then yes I require actual real life evidence, otherwise there is a 99% likelihood that they are talking BS, we saw it all before with your support and belief in Wayne travesty and his BS, stop believing in people's hollow words and request actual evidence.
Nothing wrong with having a good conversation about what might be possible and what has have been tried and what could be attempted but don't tell me you've done it, you know it works, you can prove it, when you have no actual real evidence.
Quote from: powercat on December 31, 2013, 10:33:46 AM
talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered, good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.
But I can. I can show why and how the Keenie wheel worked. 8)
An acceptable proof for me, for the Brazilian machine, would have to include one or more of the following:
1) A clear explanation of the principle - so i could build one myself.
- I've read the patent - it's vague, & built the mechanism - it shows no possibility of OU, as far as I can tell.
2) Independent verification by some respected experts.
- Nothing to date - many, many months after #1 was completed...
3) Coverage in the media / interchat
- Months pass by... Still no news or verification...
Number (1) being the most important...
There's no point in filling up pages with unsubstantiated opinions. They're worthless. Grimer, if you have any proof for any OU device then you would have already shown us it.
Quote from: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 01:56:58 PM
An acceptable proof for me, for the Brazilian machine, would have to include one or more of the following:
1) A clear explanation of the principle - so i could build one myself.
- I've read the patent - it's vague, & built the mechanism - it shows no possibility of OU, as far as I can tell.
2) Independent verification by some respected experts.
- Nothing to date - many, many months after #1 was completed...
3) Coverage in the media / interchat
- Months pass by... Still no news or verification...
Number (1) being the most important...
There's no point in filling up pages with unsubstantiated opinions. They're worthless. Grimer, if you have any proof for any OU device then you would have already shown us it.
I have.
Read the other Brazil thread.
Quote from: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 03:32:53 PM
I have.
Read the other Brazil thread.
Please provide a link to the exact post.
For your convenience I've pasted that post below:
==================================
The prime mover on the Keenie is the weight which is release on the right hand side, impacts the weight below and recoils to reset in its original position.
But the really important action is that of the one way clutch, the mechanical valve, which prevents the rest of the coupled weights rising up to meet that single weight. That valve allows the jerk energy, the angular momentum to be partitioned, one part remaining within the wheel and the other part going to earth.
It's massively ironic that Keenie brought the slingshot, the gravity, assist to earth long before Michael Minovitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Minovitch) in 1961.
In the Milkovic pendulum we also have a counter weight sitting on the "earth" apparently doing nothing but in fact being prevented from falling.
Raymond Head has shown that the Milkovic can deliver over-unity. In the RAR there are plenty of pictures showing weights sitting on the floor doing nothing. It is that action that is the key to the asymmetric action of gravity.
It's a pity that cognitive dissonance is too strong for people to recognise it.
Quote from: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 03:47:41 PM
Please provide a link to the exact post.
http://www.overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/#.UsMuh_RdXh4 (http://www.overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/#.UsMuh_RdXh4)
Quote from: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
The prime mover on the Keenie is the weight which is release on the right hand side, impacts the weight below and recoils to reset in its original position. ... That valve allows the jerk energy...
Can you please provide a link to a full description of the device & how it works. I've not heard of it before, and those few lines aren't enough for me.
I'm open minded to OU coming through 'jerk' - or the 'rate of change of acceleration'. In fact i think it's probably *the* route to OU...
QuoteIt's a pity that cognitive dissonance is too strong for people to recognise it.
Mate, most of us are old and cynical - with good reason... Have you noticed just how many frauds there are in this field?
Quote from: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 03:57:04 PM
Can you please provide a link to a full description of the device & how it works. I've not heard of it before, and those few lines aren't enough for me.
I'm open minded to OU coming through 'jerk' - or the 'rate of change of acceleration'. In fact i think it's probably *the* route to OU...
Mate, most of us are old and cynical - with good reason... Have you noticed just how many frauds there are in this field?
Go to BesslerWheel.com and you will find oodles of stuff on the Keenie, its history, etc.
I'm encouraged to see you are open minded about the 3rd derivative of position with respect to time. When ever I talk about Jerk on the Bessler forum I get a very frosty reception. As for Snap, Crackle and Pop - that makes them loose it completely. ;D
Quote from: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 04:06:45 PM
Go to BesslerWheel.com and you will find oodles of stuff on the Keenie, its history, etc.
For the sake of the leettle cheeldren, a link - not a trawl please.
QuoteI'm encouraged to see you are open minded about the 3rd derivative of position with respect to time. When ever I talk about Jerk on the Bessler forum I get a very frosty reception. As for Snap, Crackle and Pop - that makes them loose it completely. ;D
Lol :D
I think deferred reaction - or 'critical action time' - is probably where it's at... Do before you think... Leap before you look. That kinda thing... :)
I'm a big fan of Davis and Stine... What a breath of fresh air & common-sense to read physicists saying 'nothing can react to an input in zero time'...
So reaction may be opposite and equal, but it *cannot* be simultaneous... ;)
You obvious don't believe in the exhortation DYOR.
Still, seeing that you are possibly capable of understanding I'll take pity on you.
This paper by Hans van Lieden is a good place to start.
http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm (http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm)
Davis [1] said that the whole structure of science "is a cracked and sagging edifice held together with masking tape and resting on the shifting sands of constantly changing theory. Nothing is known with any real certainty.Some things are merely more probable than others. Well-known theories and even laws turn out to be only partially confirmed hypotheses, waiting to be replaced with somewhat better partially confirmed hypotheses.If there is one thing we know about every theory in modern physics, it is that it's wrong or at least incomplete. Sooner or later somebody will come along with a more general theory of which the old theory is seen to be a special case.This is not a criticism of science, but merely a description of the scientific method."
Ain't that a fact. ::)
So now you're being insulting and patronising... And I thought we were friends... :(
You claimed to have a proof of an OU device, all I asked for was details. In response you tell me I don't do my own research.
The device you link to has never been shown to work. Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing. As I said before: Have you not noticed the large number of frauds in the field of OU?
Perhaps you think there is some benefit in just believing in things? Perhaps you think that by believing in things, it makes it more likely they'll work?
Belief is the opposite of knowing. It's worthless.
Calm down Tim.
I'm well aware that no one has been able to make it work except Keenie.
That's because people didn't appreciate how and why it worked.
I merely gave you Hans's paper as a good intro to the Bessler Forum threads on the subject.
I can't think why you thought we were friends. We've never even been introduced. ;D
Ah well, Destry - or rather Cognitive Dissonance rides again.
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%] [/size]
So you have nothing.
I was being sarcastic with the 'friends' remark FYI.
Quote from: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 04:45:06 PM
So now you're being insulting and patronising... And I thought we were friends... :(
You claimed to have a proof of an OU device, all I asked for was details. In response you tell me I don't do my own research.
The device you link to has never been shown to work. Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing. As I said before: Have you not noticed the large number of frauds in the field of OU?
Perhaps you think there is some benefit in just believing in things? Perhaps you think that by believing in things, it makes it more likely they'll work?
Belief is the opposite of knowing. It's worthless.
out of all the responses in this thread, it really does boil down to one line you just said .. "Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing."
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing.
Quote from: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 06:18:26 PM
So you have nothing.
...
Nothing for the "old and cynical".
Quote from: Grimer on December 31, 2013, 09:19:10 PM
Nothing for the "old and cynical".
The onus is ALWAYS on the person claiming the extraordinary... we "cynical" people don't need to prove shit... all we have to do is sit back and watch you fools make a mockery of the over unity scene...
That said, I can prove you have nothing...................................................................................... drum roll................ because... YOU HAVE NOTHING!!
a claim is nothing
and all you have to offer is empty claims... you even said they are empty....in not so many words (by saying you have proof and wont share it)
I have shared it. You haven't understood it.
Quote from: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 02:02:29 AM
I have shared it. You haven't understood it.
Yea, your right... I havn't understood it, neither has the other 7+ billion people on the planet... well done *claps very sarcastically*
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 31, 2013, 06:38:49 AM
You guys like to bitch like a bunch of OU (xxxx)!
We all can have an opinion, but that is not equal to fact. Neither does a view necessarily paint the whole picture.
If you did figure out the workings and found the forces not capable enough for the system to do as said, a specific finding does not nail the door shut, it only gives an indication that it is not exactly easy to open by just turning the handle. Knowing something is not necessary ALL the knowledge there is to know.
I am not trying to make everybody believe that I got all the answers or would state that the RAR system shown works as stated. What matters more is the principle behind this system that could open the door to other design approaches.
My intrigue is "why does an experienced designer/inventor thinks this can work". If the principle is sound, then working or not working is just a matter of engineering ability and available technology.
It is clear for this category type of OU design, we have a process that descends/drops a potential energy and then we expect (due to a process alteration) for the energy to be more during descend than what is required for ascent (one or a combination of both).
What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is clearly follows a similar thought pattern, using a mechanical leverage alteration in the drop cycle to refocusing force vectors onto the same hardware (a hardware setup that did not expect that under normal con-rod conditions). This results in a greater force than expected for a given energy drop distance. Resulting in more energy out that was held by the weight drop distance.
What Ribeiro's design is doing, is manipulating the forces transmitted towards the crankshaft through the con-rod. For a given gravity down force, he adds a similar value lateral force. The cost of this value verses the benefit to be had is critical.
In a standard con-rod driven wheel, the transmission of force is a trig sin/cos function for the gravity down force. Now we introduce a selective applied lateral force to the crank that is 90dgr out of phase.
In regular crank/con-rod, with a 1:1 ratio, the weight drop height is equal to the crank wheel diameter. We know that the actual path of the con-rod attachment is more than that distance by ~1.5 since it follows the circumference. If we now supposedly can keep the force vector at full force for that distance, we introduce an additional total torque energy of 1.5 times the drop energy.
Renato is aiming to apply this force for somewhat more that 90 dgr but at double the force (the result vector). To supplement this, using connection locks in the system that can be engaged at specific times, in the region where the force is in-line with rotation, the down force is increased without sacrificing stored lateral potential energy, by engaging an extended lever force. Cost saving is achieved by using weight balancing during the triangular tilt storage increase process to minimize overhead.
The theoretical gain is limited, so any additional advantage by optimization would improve the energy balance and I believe that being the reason for diverse weight manipulation models seen. Although the patent application gives a fair account of the working process, it sure is not the whole story and neither would we expect this to be the whole story.
What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is in many principle aspects similar to the principle behind Wayne Travis zed described in a previous tread in this forum. The basic difference is that Wayne uses an hydraulic leverage and Renato uses mechanical leverage.
Both principles use effectively a differentiation process between the down & up strokes with the result of an altered (increased) force over the same distance. The differentiation is in how the properties of the same physical device are used, so that the use of a different property impacts and alters the energy balance
The result is a net energy gain.
Any constructive input is appreciated
Regards, Red_Sunset
Don't you find it strange that in 10/19/2013 - Official Photo # 49 the outboard weights comes to rest on the ground during part of their cycles - the same event that takes place with the Milkovic and the Keenie. At this point the weight disappears as far as the rest of the mechanism is concerned since its weight is lost to its lever and the rest of the RAR mechanism.
The inboard weights on the other hand never go walkabout, never get a rest.
Don't you find it strange that the amplitude of the outboard weights is much less than that of the inboard weights, as is also the case with the Milkovic where the amplitude of the counterweight is less than that of the pendulum.
The Milkovic pendulum also loses and gains weight as a result of the interaction between Ersatz and Newtonian gravity. For example, for an arc of 120 degrees, sixty degrees on either side of the nadir, a pendulum will weigh nothing at the top of its swing and weigh twice its static weight at the bottom. A similar effect will occur with the inboard weights of the RAR, the magnitude depending on the speed of oscillation.
Quote from: Poit on January 01, 2014, 02:09:25 AM
Yea, your right... I havn't understood it, neither has the other 7+ billion people on the planet... well done *claps very sarcastically*
Quote from: Poit on January 01, 2014, 02:09:25 AM
Yea, your right... I havn't understood it, neither has the other 7+ billion people on the planet... well done *claps very sarcastically*
Happy New-Year Piot, Peace,
Lets slow down the ranting a bit, I do not understand what you are aiming for (I am sure that I am not alone), What will make you satisfied ?. Your replies are very general and not specific enough formulated to reply to with useful information.
In your last post, you say "I havn't understood it" and in the previous posts to that you say ".you have nothing!!" & "means nothing" repeatedly. I do not see the relationship between these statements.
If you didn't understand a technical explanation, how can you state that "there is nothing" ? I would expected a specific question on the detail that was not understood, or was in doubt or disagreed with.
Please allow me just for fun, to make a statement here that
makes me also look as silly as previous posts,
"Can I ask you to produce the proof of the proxy's that allows you to talk on behalf of the 7+ billion people !"I can state categorically that you were definitively not talking on my behalf.
I gather that this is a technical forum, for specific technical idea's and questions. I do realize that this forum cannot be a 1 to 1 classroom to explain everything from a-z, without knowing the knowledge of the target audience. Writing for posts take a lot of time and it feels unproductive if other parties do not do due diligence in their homework before they ask questions.
Sure we all WANT, a solution answer to all our questions with blueprints to build our fabulous home OU power generator, tested & proven before we begin building. Be aware that there are many steps in between, many wrong paths and turns.
Regards, Red_Sunset
look.. its simple, post a PDF file of instructions (a lot like the tutorials on Instructables.com). Can't do that? then you have nothing useful what so ever! obviously in regards to over unity. Sure you can post details to make a super awesome paper weight, but this forum is OBVIOUSLY about over unity, hence the domain name overunity.com
You clearly seem to think there is a debate going on... there really isn't.
Let me put it another way, you either have it or you don't. let me give you an example of having it.
For this example, "HOW TO MAKE A JOULE THEIF"
http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/)
Step 1: PARTS
R1-1K
Q1-D882 or any npn transistor
D1-1n4007 or any diode above 5v
toroid-you will get one from an old cfl
C1-3300uF or any other cap to be charged
Step 2: WIND THE TOROID
wind both wires togather and connect the resistor to the begining of one wire and the ending of the other wire.
Step 3: MAKE THE CIRCUIT
Step 4: FINISHED
See how there is a begining and an end... and the end is the finish product. in this case its a joule theif in the case of an over unity device it would be over unity!
IS THERE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS ??? NO!!! SO SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU DO!
"I can state categorically that you were definitively not talking on my behalf." so you have these instructions then? enough talk, post it! let me make it clear to you that you are saying to me that you have detailed instructions on building an over unity device...... because if you do not then you "categorically" ARE included in the 7+ billion people comment idiot!
"I do realize that this forum cannot be a 1 to 1 classroom to explain everything from a-z" do you realize that you don't need to technically understand something to build it? in the joule thief example, do I need to understand how transistor functions in order to build a joule thief? NO!! so what gives? your an idiot!
"Sure we all WANT, a solution answer to all our questions with blueprints to build our fabulous home OU power generator, tested & proven before we begin building. Be aware that there are many steps in between, many wrong paths and turns." The point is that Grimer and others claim to have these blueprints, and it clearly bull shit! i'll eat my words if Grimers next post is these elusive blueprints he talks of!
If he and others do NOT have blueprints.. state it now and i'll shut up..
Quote from: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 02:32:22 AM
Don't you find it strange that in 10/19/2013 - Official Photo # 49 the outboard weights comes to rest on the ground during part of their cycles - the same event that takes place with the Milkovic and the Keenie. At this point the weight disappears as far as the rest of the mechanism is concerned since its weight is lost to its lever and the rest of the RAR mechanism.
.................................................................................................
.......................................................................
Hi Grimer, a Happy New Year,
I didn't analyze in detail the RAR weight manipulation since I do not consider it directly part of the main principle (I assume). Although the weights do play a major function in the mechanism in order to do "cost saving" and therewith increase the output.
The working forces are centered on the central shaft for gravity weight (roberval) and as a pivot for weight leverage. For the latter, the positioning of the weight 'center of gravity' becomes very important.
From my superficial view, the inboard weight is the main working weight (the reason for it to be most of the time in movement) and the outboard weights are counter balancing the inboard weights at certain times. At predetermined positions, their counter balance is terminated by allowing then to rest on a ground support (angle dependency, the reason why they are not always in motion).
I can not see the RAR weight arrangement as a pendulum oscillation since it is far from free moving being constrained and controlled by locks to synchronize its movement to support the main lever mechanism.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Poit on January 01, 2014, 03:53:35 AM
....................................................................
Let me put it another way, you either have it or you don't. let me give you an example of having it.
For this example, "HOW TO MAKE A JOULE THEIF"
http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/)
.............................................
...........................................
If he and others do NOT have blueprints.. state it now and i'll shut up..
Peace my friend, lets not step into the new-year on the wrong foot.
It looks we are talking cross-wired, your expectation and objective is very different to what other people (like Grimer & me) are aiming for.
You see it purely from a "Construction viewpoint", when other see it from a "Theoretical working" viewpoint, this might include "hypothetical assumptions" that might lead to a construction viewpoint after all in's and out's have been well brain washed.
A construction 'to do list' with a 'parts list' makes for an easy package. The theory might assume quite a different shape.
Can you refer to the exact workings of the Joule thief that describes how and why it saves energy. Do remember also that the joule thief is supported by standard accepted science.
Shall we try a scifi Joule Thief to complicate the parts list.
Lets not over-react in 2014
Red_sunset
Quote from: Poit on January 01, 2014, 03:53:35 AM
.......................................................................
.................................................
IS THERE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS ??? NO!!! SO SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU DO!
"I can state categorically that you were definitively not talking on my behalf." so you have these instructions then? enough talk, post it! let me make it clear to you that you are saying to me that you have detailed instructions on building an over unity device...... because if you do not then you "categorically" ARE included in the 7+ billion people comment idiot!
"I do realize that this forum cannot be a 1 to 1 classroom to explain everything from a-z" do you realize that you don't need to technically understand something to build it? in the joule thief example, do I need to understand how transistor functions in order to build a joule thief? NO!! so what gives? your an idiot!
"Sure we all WANT, a solution answer to all our questions with blueprints to build our fabulous home OU power generator, tested & proven before we begin building. Be aware that there are many steps in between, many wrong paths and turns." The point is that Grimer and others claim to have these blueprints, and it clearly bull shit! i'll eat my words if Grimers next post is these elusive blueprints he talks of!
If he and others do NOT have blueprints.. state it now and i'll shut up..
No further comments (only disappointed)
What you want is fine.. but thats not what Grimer has said.
Who am I to judge people wanting to figure something out? thats cool.. but to claim you have proof is an entirely different matter!
you want 2014 to be a good year? lets ALL start by telling the truth?!
Something along the lines of "Hi everyone, my name is Grimer and I have previously said I have proof of over unity, I lied."
seriously. you reckon he will say that? or anything close!
no.. you want peace, fine, you and I can be peaceful, but gloves are off to Grimer and the likes that just sprout bull shit
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 01, 2014, 04:20:17 AM
Hi Grimer, a Happy New Year,
I didn't analyze in detail the RAR weight manipulation since I do not consider it directly part of the main principle (I assume). Although the weights do play a major function in the mechanism in order to do "cost saving" and therewith increase the output.
The working forces are centered on the central shaft for gravity weight (roberval) and as a pivot for weight leverage. For the latter, the positioning of the weight 'center of gravity' becomes very important.
From my superficial view, the inboard weight is the main working weight (the reason for it to be most of the time in movement) and the outboard weights are counter balancing the inboard weights at certain times. At predetermined positions, their counter balance is terminated by allowing then to rest on a ground support (angle dependency, the reason why they are not always in motion).
I can not see the RAR weight arrangement as a pendulum oscillation since it is far from free moving being constrained and controlled by locks to synchronize its movement to support the main lever mechanism.
Red_Sunset
Hi Red Sunset - and a Happy and Peaceful New year to you, sir.
QuoteFrom my superficial view, the inboard weight is the main working weight
I agree
QuoteAt predetermined positions, their counter balance is terminated by allowing then to rest on a ground support
I agree. Moreover I consider this ground support to be essential in getting Newtonian Gravity to act asymmetrically.
It is interesting to note that the end elevation diagram does not show the outboard weights reaching the ground. I wonder if RAR even realise this is an essential feature and why it is essential. Perhaps they don't understand the nature of the grounding. Perhaps they don't perceive that it leads to the partitioning of jerk energy and allows one half to go to ground and the other half to drive the crank thus conserving angular momentum.
Alternatively, are they trying to mislead with that diagram to keep their discovery secret a little longer?
What we need is someone like Michel Henkens to write a detailed explanation similar
to that done for Hydro Energy Revolution, then we'd all understand.
John.
Quote from: Grimer on January 01, 2014, 07:52:17 AM
.................................
......................................................
I agree. Moreover I consider this ground support to be essential in getting Newtonian Gravity to act asymmetrically.
It is interesting to note that the end elevation diagram does not show the outboard weights reaching the ground. I wonder if RAR even realise ...................................................................................
Hi Grimer,
There is no good picture to give you a view, where these counter weights are parked on the ground.
But I do think there is a high probability that they reach the ground at some point in the cycle for the following reason,
1.. The weights have feet to to account for a gap existing with the floor
2.. The weights are mounted on a shaft allowing for positional rotation.
3.. The weights are mounted on a 180dgr hinge (this allows the inboard weight to increase height without impediment)
3.. The advantage to disengage the counter weight when the inboard weight is at its highest to achieve highest gravity force
See the 2 enlarged pictures attached
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 01, 2014, 08:31:26 AM
Hi Grimer,
There is no good picture to give you a view, where these counter weights are parked on the ground.
But I do think there is a high probability that they reach the ground at some point in the cycle for the following reason,
1.. The weights have feet to to account for a gap existing with the floor
2.. The weights are mounted on a shaft allowing for positional rotation.
3.. The weights are mounted on a 180dgr hinge (this allows the inboard weight to increase height without impediment)
3.. The advantage to disengage the counter weight when the inboard weight is at its highest to achieve highest gravity force
See the 2 enlarged pictures attached
Red_Sunset
Well spotted.
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/EROI_-_Ratio_of_Energy_Returned_on_Energy_Invested_-_USA_zps21a21187.jpg)
This is test for posting images.
It does't work and it's stripped off the [img] tags.
It works with the originators of the software site who said they didn't have contact with Overunity.com and site owners were free to do they like with the software.
So what do I do to post an image?
If you download the image to your pc, and upload it from there it works fine.
Quote from: tim123 on January 01, 2014, 03:23:39 PM
If you download the image to your pc, and upload it from there it works fine.
Thanks, Tim. I finally managed to sort it. I was trying to get it to show up in preview but it wouldn't. In desperation I finally hit the post key and as you can see it came up as an attachment.
I'm used to BesslerWheel.com where one can insert figures in the text rather than attachments at the end.
Images at the end are a bit of a pain if one has a long post but I 'spose I'll just have to put up with it.
Thanks again.
Had a Skype discussion with Cbucket (BW member) yesterday evening. He commented that the fat chap reminded him of Brunel in that classic photo in front of the Great Eastern. All Renato needs is a big cigar and stove-pipe hat to complete the image.
Here's something else Charlie Bucket gave me.
As you can see the rate of energy returned for energy invested is horrible for Bio-diesel - which probably explains the fat guy's interest in finding some cheap alternative energy source. Gravity will put him up there with hydro.
Charlie suggested that maybe he was having all the other bio-diesel producers in to make them an offer they couldn't refuse. Buy a machine or you'll soon be out of business and I'll buy you up.
With free energy the economics of producing bio will be transformed.
The fat guy should know - he's an economist.
You will notice from the previous graph that even with the huge capital
investment involved in hydro the return on investment is way, way
ahead of the rest.
Not only that but there's only a limited number of places you can
build dams and these are rapidly running out.
Gravity engines can be built anywhere. In the desert, underground,
on the bottom of the ocean, deep inside a mountain.
Won't the Nimbys be pleased. :)
And the tree huggers coz with gravity energy biodiesel will be carbon neutral.
Here's a photo of the Brunel emulator when he was younger.
The text is a Google translation from Portuguese.
I think I can now see my way to understanding what's going on with the RAR gravity engine.
These various mechanisms which are being discussed, the simple balance, the Roberval Balance and the RAR are all energy transduscers which convert the gravitational acceleration into different orders of energy and route that energy to different destinations.
The three lowest orders of energy we are concerned with are
1st order ..... velocity
2nd order ..... acceleration
3rd order ..... jerk
Fortunately for us we can forget about the next three higher orders,
snap(4th), crackle(5th) and pop(6th),
Starting first with a simple lever balance pivoted at its centre we can see that the equal 2nd order energy of two unit masses in free fall is transduced into equal 3rd order energy for the mass nearest (inboard) and the mass furthest (outboard) from the pivot.
Both masses have the same angular momentum in other words.
In contrast the 2nd order energy of the two masses is no longer equal.
The 2nd order energy (acceleration) is partitioned into a greater and a lesser.
The outboard mass has the greater 2nd order energy.
The inboard mass has the lesser 2nd order energy.
So we can see that the simple balance is a step up transducer.
The energy equality is stepped up from the 2nd to the third order.
In contrast the boundary case of a Roberval Balance leaves the energy order of two free falling masses unchanged.
In this boundary case the component masses of the balance tend to zero
and the vertical movement of the balance pan also tends to zero.
Now even without having a full analysis of the RAR certain things seem clear enough.
The 3rd order energy is being partitioned between the mass of the earth (as in the case of gravity assist) and the crankshaft.
The transfer of the partitioned jerk is takes place as the outboard RAR mass is grounded.
It's certainly a damned more complicated away of harnessing gravity than the Bessler or the Keenie.
I suppose one can view it as the gravitational equivalent of a Newcomen Atmospheric Engine.
No.
Until it turns under its own power, it can only be viewed as an incredibly complicated boat anchor.
Or rather, two of them, since there's one being built in the USA as well.
You have a remarkable ability to rationalize, Frank. The fact that nobody, nowhere, has ever been able to demonstrate any kind of working gravity motor doesn't deter you at all.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 04:17:15 AM
No.
Until it turns under its own power, it can only be viewed as an incredibly complicated boat anchor.
Or rather, two of them, since there's one being built in the USA as well.
You have a remarkable ability to rationalize, Frank. The fact that nobody, nowhere, has ever been able to demonstrate any kind of working gravity motor doesn't deter you at all.
I would prefer it, Al, if you said I have a remarkable ability to reason. ;-)
As for being deterred, if one doesn't have faith one is not going to move any mountains.
Faith alone never moved any mountains. It takes good works to move mountains. You haven't turned Protestant on me have you?
My 57 grandchildren are my good works. 8)
And now I must go and play with 3 of them. Edwin, George and Joanna.
Only a few days of their holiday left.
I've finally managed to sort out what is going in the Keenie and the RAR. [/size] 8)
But... but.... if there is no motion, either inside or outside, then there is no work. Nobody has seen the RAR device move at all; we've just seen stuff added to it, in almost a fractal manner. I expect to see little feathery appendages out on the very tips of the arms pretty soon.
And we know what we know about the Keenie device.... well, let's just politely say "through hearsay only" and rule it inadmissible as evidence.
As to work done "inside" and "outside" a system... I'd like you to define your terms, please. In my way of thinking, if something does work on something else, both things belong to the same "system".
I know you believe that gravitational motors are possible. But can you clear up one thing for me please: Do you believe in Conservation of Momentum?
What momentum are you talking about? First derivative, second, third, fourth....nth?
This is something I posted in Fizzx some years ago:
"The the two conservation laws, momentum and kinetic (2nd derv) energy, are simply the same law at different levels.
Using a multi-storey building as an analogy the we see the conservation of momentum when we are on the same floor, the 10th say, as the action taking place. It is a conservation between batches. When the action takes place on the 9th floor we see it as a conservation of energy because we have not changed our viewpoint. If we move to the 9th floor and thus change our viewpoint to within batches then we see that the conservation of energy is simply a conservation of momentum within batches.
The floor below that, the 8th floor, is the jerk floor. If we move to it we will see the within component variance as momentum which is conserved. However, seen from the 10th floor it is the conservation of Jerk. Jerk has to be conserved because it is only the momentum lamb in wolf's clothing. "
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 03:53:20 PM
...
And we know what we know about the Keenie device.... well, let's just politely say "through hearsay only" and rule it inadmissible as evidence.
...
That's not so.
We know it through written testimony as we know about the Bessler wheel through written testimony, an awful lot of written testimony as you will find if you read John's book.
But you will probably dismiss it as myth. You probably dismiss the whole of the new and old testament as myth too. You should have been named Didymus.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 03:53:20 PM
But... but.... if there is no motion, either inside or outside, then there is no work. Nobody has seen the RAR device move at all;
That's not true. There are reports of people seeing it. But you won't believe it moves till your feet are crushed by those outboard weights.
This is something else I posted on Fizzx which is appropriate here:
=========================================
The conservation of Jerk is simply D'Alembert's Principle of Least Action applied to the third derivative of position with respect to time as opposed to the second.
Force, Jerk, Snap, Crackle and Pop are simple convenient names applied to higher and higher derivatives of position with respect to time.
It is the derivatives that are important, not the names.
It is clear that D'Alembert's principle of Least Action applies to all these derivatives, all these actions, not simply the second. It not only applies to the action of Force (i.e. 2nd derv). It also applies to the actions of Jerk, Snap, Crackle, Pop and higher actions.
It also explains something which has been bugging me since the sixties. The ubiquity of power laws in material science.
I could see that these laws must be the ratio of large integrals but could not understand why the constants of integration disappeared at each step. In the light of D'Alembert's principle of Least Action it is clear that the quasi-Fluid (phase in tension) and quasi-Solid (phase in compression) components of a material which have vast numbers of independent particles are simple exhibiting D'Alembert's Principle of Least Action, a principle which applies to all actions, not simply force.
So more specifically we have:
D'Alembert's principle of Least momentum
D'Alembert's principle of Least acceleration
D'Alembert's principle of Least Jerk
D'Alembert's principle of Least Snap
..... and so on and so forth.
(I've not included Crackle and Pop since they are not officially recognised names for the 6th and 7th derivatives.
=========================================
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 04:17:15 AM
The fact that nobody, nowhere, has ever been able to demonstrate any kind of working gravity motor doesn't deter you at all.
i am doubt this. just wait , time will prove.
Quote from: Marsing on January 11, 2014, 09:24:04 PM
i am doubt this. just wait , time will prove.
What TK asserts is untrue. There is believable historical evidence that Bessler harnessed gravity with his wheel. Read John Collins book. No doubt TK also ignores Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and claims there is no evidence that Jesus existed.
Time will indeed prove - and jolly soon.
Quote from: Grimer on January 11, 2014, 03:59:07 PM
................................................................
Using a multi-storey building as an analogy the we see the conservation of momentum when we are on the same floor,
the 10th say, .....................the 8th floor, is the jerk floor. ........................................................
Relativity applies to all of us,"TK" is correct (on his floor) and so is "Grimer" (on his floor). The floors happen to be "not the same floor"
That something hasn't been EVER/NEVER observed on one floor doesn't mean it can not exist on an other floor.
The likely hood (chance) that it will ever be observed on the initial floor does become remote (something akin to winning the lottery). Although to say that NOBODY will EVER/NEVER win the lottery is just as unlikely.
So do not nail all the doors shut.
We need to respect someone like "for example TK" to have a difference of opinion, so long he considers it "his" opinion, not the NEW general LAW for all mankind (as it is so often perceived by wording)
Our strength lies in diversity and difference, different ways of thinking, exactly the ingredients that drive prosperity.
Do not squash it. (as is done by to those extreme religious groups as related to religion...)
My 20 cents, Red_sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 12, 2014, 01:32:23 AM
Relativity applies to all of us,
"TK" is correct (on his floor) and so is "Grimer" (on his floor). The floors happen to be "not the same floor"
That something hasn't been EVER/NEVER observed on one floor doesn't mean it can not exist on an other floor.
The likely hood (chance) that it will ever be observed on the initial floor does become remote (something akin to winning the lottery). Although to say that NOBODY will EVER/NEVER win the lottery is just as unlikely.
So do not nail all the doors shut.
We need to respect someone like "for example TK" to have a difference of opinion, so long he considers it "his" opinion, not the NEW general LAW for all mankind (as it is so often perceived by wording)
Our strength lies in diversity and difference, different ways of thinking, exactly the ingredients that drive prosperity.
Do not squash it. (as is done by to those extreme religious groups as related to religion...)
My 20 cents, Red_sunset
You're a miserable relativist, Red Sunset and relativism has been rightly condemned for denying the principle of contradiction. There's not your truth and my truth. Religious groups realise this. Only one can be correct. The rest that claim to be correct are in error.
Quote from: Grimer on January 11, 2014, 10:35:46 PM
What TK asserts is untrue. There is believable historical evidence that Bessler harnessed gravity with his wheel. Read John Collins book. No doubt TK also ignores Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and claims there is no evidence that Jesus existed.
Time will indeed prove - and jolly soon.
When might soon be? Bessler made his claims 300 years ago. Since then no experiment has reproduced his perpetual motion claims. John Collins is among those who have tried and failed. Gravity stubbornly continues to demonstrate that it is a conservative field.
September 2013 - machine complete:
19/10/2013 - Foto Oficial nº 52 - Final da terceira de três etapas
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
January 2014 - still no video of it running... Why not??? :(
Quote from: Grimer on January 12, 2014, 02:44:48 AM
................................................
.....................truth ...............Only one can be correct. The rest that claim to be correct are in error.
Grimer,
I regret to disagree, for the following reasons,
An OPINION is not a FACT, a persistent FACT become a "TRUTH" until it is proven to be no "persistent" fact any longer
It was frigging cold here a week ago. The temperature had dropped to +4dgrC.
At the same time, in contrast, CNN reported that the cold weather in Chicago had relented to a balmy -6dgrC.
There are many flavors of truth.
Sure if you decide on
"one standard" reference, and then use this as your common yard stick. Then you are correct to ONE truth >> but in context to that yardstick only !! The way TK is correct in his standard yardstick view.
For sure there will be itemsof truth that becomes indisputable and unchanged and are recognized by many other yardstick references since no one has been able to come up with any good case of evidence to indisputable refute these accepted truth's.
Religion examples: Theft, murder...ect
Science/physics examples: 1ste, 2de, 3th Law of thermodynamics.
Any of these laws can be refuted (changed, retracted...ect). An extreme example would be, if your religion is cannibalism, or human sacrifice, murder would be accepted as normal in those circumstances. You can say the same thing about war, is it condoned murder?, I guess it is in specific circumstances (due to a thin borderline between killing and self-defence).
Notwithstanding that the 1st/2de/3th laws are very correct, I am not convinced that they will remain absolute. In time, they will undergo addendum's. So their truth will become a shade of gray with the work in "overunity.com"
Look at the Catholic church, they change the divine laws from time to time. In the past, take certain South African churches, they officially condoned "apartheid" as ordered by god. You are a church member, you follow "blindly" the truth?. Think about it, can you do an act that in your conscious is wrong but your religion organization says is isn't wrong ?
Do you think that democratic rule is the best solution for all people, have a look if it does the best for American citizens?
Truth is relative at any time
Amen, Red_Sunset
Quote from: tim123 on January 12, 2014, 05:10:51 AM
September 2013 - machine complete:
19/10/2013 - Foto Oficial nº 52 - Final da terceira de três etapas
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
January 2014 - still no video of it running... Why not??? :(
Those machines look like they are missing a large and powerful engine to drive them.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 12, 2014, 05:11:52 AM
Truth is relative at any time
I couldn't disagree more...
1) Temperature:
10C may be hot to a polar bear, and cold for a gecko, BUT
water at sea-level *always* boils at 100C - absolutely.
Quoteitems of truth that becomes indisputable.... Any of these laws can be refuted...
2) Nonsense!
Gravity didn't 'become indisputable'. It *always* was. Can you refute it?
Murder didn't 'become' wrong. It *always* was. Can you refute that?
A definition of LAW: A cause-and-effect which is universal and constant.
QuoteLook at the Catholic church, they change the divine laws from time to time.
3) Law: I think you're very confused about what law is - but then people aren't taught it - deliberately...
There's a very big difference between the Laws of God (i.e. physics and morality), and the 'laws' of mankind.
The 'divine law' (canon) of the church is no such thing, it's a (vast) set of ridiculous rules imposed by creepy men in frocks who have an unhealthy interest in children, and who desire to enslave people in ignorance for their own enrichment.
The statute law of your democracy is again - not real law. It is neither constant, nor is it universal. Nor is it lawful.
4) Relativity Vs. Absolute-ity
This is a big debate - and it cuts to the heart of both PHYSICS and MORALITY...
Quote from: MarkE on January 12, 2014, 05:00:10 AM
When might soon be? Bessler made his claims 300 years ago. Since then no experiment has reproduced his perpetual motion claims. John Collins is among those who have tried and failed. Gravity stubbornly continues to demonstrate that it is a conservative field.
Soon will be when RAR release details of their gravity engine. Keenie tried and succeeded. Bruce's Uncle tried and (unwittingly succeeded. I've no doubt when people realise that harnessing the gravitational wind is possible many other examples will emerge from the woodwork.
Quote from: tim123 on January 12, 2014, 05:39:23 AM
I couldn't disagree more...
...................................................................................................
.................................................
............................................
This is a big debate - and it cuts to the heart of both PHYSICS and MORALITY...
Tim,
You are absolutely correct on any ONE of the floors designated by Gimer (9th or 10th), but do not across all floors.
I do not want to carry this any further since it is not an appropriate topic for this forum
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 12, 2014, 05:11:52 AM
...
Look at the Catholic church, they change the divine laws from time to time.
...
[size=78%]
[/font][/size]
No they don't.
The central core of beliefs and morals has never and will never be changed.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, for example, which been solemnly confirmed by the pope using his power of infallibility will never be changed.
The murder of unborn children has never been allowed and will never be allowed.
For an obviously intelligent and educated man your ignorance on these matters is astonishing. Why, even Setalokin knows better than that.
Quote from: tim123 on January 12, 2014, 05:10:51 AM
September 2013 - machine complete:
19/10/2013 - Foto Oficial nº 52 - Final da terceira de três etapas
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)
January 2014 - still no video of it running... Why not??? :(
Why don't you ask them - or do some research. I think they have given a reason somewhere.
Quote from: MarkE on January 12, 2014, 05:00:10 AM
When might soon be? Bessler made his claims 300 years ago. Since then no experiment has reproduced his perpetual motion claims. John Collins is among those who have tried and failed. Gravity stubbornly continues to demonstrate that it is a conservative field.
and then from last 300 years , someone have proved that energy/power can be extracted from gravity.
and probably now thousand have made replica/modification for their own,
there were many others that works,
BIG QUESTION , KEEP ANSWERS FOR YOUR SELF
-----------------------------------------------------
1. how can I ensure that John Collins has really failed ?
2. was I with him when device being tested ?
3. did I do experiment by Myself?
4. did John Collins know everything?
5. AM I only copy others post or wiki or other sources AND blindly accept that?
6. will my heroes give credit to me with supporting their posts?
...
... space for my next QS
...
...
?.
-----------------------------------------------------
i was also skeptic, skeptic protect us from scam fraud etc..
till i found 99% gravity device do work, ( with simple math).
best word to say, it's EASY
the conservative field theory as a reason to deny existence of these will be obsolete, next you ( all of "conservative field" MAN) will realize that "conservative field" is not the only one to judge,
sorry for my words, and peace for all
marsing
Quote from: Grimer on January 12, 2014, 10:28:20 AM
...............................
The central core of beliefs and morals has never and will never be changed.
.......................................
Hi Grimer & all
I agree, that would take a revolution in its true'st sense.
I do not want to sound like a stuck record, if I may add the following text, to be seen within the context of purpose for this forum.
The essence of my initial communication was, that I am of the opinion that in order to succeed in discovering the "free energy, as a hook into the wheelwork of the universe (as Tesla said)", we need to be able to think and reason "uninhibited". That is a taller order than you might think !.
Uninhibited does not mean to disregard known knowledge or start from square one.
It should mean to be open to new ideas and able to think and reason without being limited, the best equivalent is "discover like a child".
That doesn't mean that there a no limitation to what can be done, neither to ignore all physics theories and facts. Just do not allow yourself to be limited by them, do not allow existing laws to pre-empt or override logical reasoning. (I know, easier said than done)
For example, most people have already written off the RAR as unworkable, that it is unworkable might be true. To know this you need to know how it possibly can work. It is ok for anybody to say so, so long such a statement is supported by good logical analysis.
The best I have seen is thus far is MrVibrating with a SIM analysis. Al the others are just purely speculation and guesswork work. That is no problem, but it should be recognized as such, an opinion not a fact.
We discover by perception >> perception forms an opinion by limited repeat observation >> confirmation with repeatable verification of an opinion turn it into fact >> persistent confirmation of fact >> turns it into Law (~=truth).
Most of what I have seen here in "overunity.com" is the initial stage of perception leading towards fact confirmation, but with a great failure rate.
The result is that a lot of hard work gets trashed, which makes many member apathetic to investing further new efforts. This leads to mainly "fast opinions" being tabled. (although they are desired to be facts).
Some interesting revelations are still pending on this RAR. I do not like to post incomplete summaries
PS: Some good words from Marsing, he makes a good point,
Visualize, if YOU would have discovered the key to the holy grail, why would you post it here to be shot down. At that juncture, you would have your hands full with much more important priorities.
Never under-estimate the dynamics of human motivation, (first tends to be always ...me first)
My 3 cents, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Marsing on January 13, 2014, 03:25:30 AM
and then from last 300 years , someone have proved that energy/power can be extracted from gravity.
and probably now thousand have made replica/modification for their own,
there were many others that works,
BIG QUESTION , KEEP ANSWERS FOR YOUR SELF
-----------------------------------------------------
1. how can I ensure that John Collins has really failed ?
2. was I with him when device being tested ?
3. did I do experiment by Myself?
4. did John Collins know everything?
5. AM I only copy others post or wiki or other sources AND blindly accept that?
6. will my heroes give credit to me with supporting their posts?
...
... space for my next QS
...
...
?.
-----------------------------------------------------
i was also skeptic, skeptic protect us from scam fraud etc..
till i found 99% gravity device do work, ( with simple math).
best word to say, it's EASY
the conservative field theory as a reason to deny existence of these will be obsolete, next you ( all of "conservative field" MAN) will realize that "conservative field" is not the only one to judge,
sorry for my words, and peace for all
marsing
Marsing could you please point out a working machine that today is powered by gravity in the same sense as Johann Bessler claimed for his various wheels?
Below shows the difference in jerk energy between a normal pendulum swinging through an angle of two radians and a cycloid pendulum.
The difference is represented by the shaded area.
This is the reason that a normal the swing of a clock pendulum must be restricted to a very small angle so that it approximates to the brachisochrone. For the brachisocrone the period of swing is independent of the amplitude.
The generation of the 3rd derivative energy for curves that depart from
the cycloid can best be illustrated with a coin rolling demonstration.
If you roll a seven sided 50p coin (the large pre-1997 are best) along a
smooth horizontal plane the coin will initially jerk up and down with a
rattling noise. This is because though the diameter of the coin is constant
its centre of mass is not generally at the half diameter point. When the
coin is rolling fast enough the vertical oscillation of the mass centre is
sufficient to lift the coil free of the horizontal surface. The impact
when if falls back causes the rattling.
As the speed decreases there come a point where the rattling suddenly
ceases and the coin rolls smoothly.
This is the point where the vertical oscillation of the mass centre is
insufficient to lift the coin. It only varies the force applied by the
coin to the horizontal plane.
One can demonstrate the harnessing of gravity with a flexible pendulum which is allowed to swing freely from about 8 to 6 and wrap around a cycloid barrier from 6 to about 4.
It will be seen that the finishing point of the bob is higher than the starting point. The pendulum has gained gravitational energy.
Of course, to demonstrate this experimentally would require the facilities of a decent laboratory. I doubt that one could do it in one's garage.
One would require a very flexible thin wire between the support and bob (carbon fibre?) and a vacuum enclosure to eliminate air resistance.
Obviously it would not be a practical device but it would demonstrate the principle and show that the gravity field is not conservative.
Quote from: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 06:03:06 AM
One can demonstrate the harnessing of gravity with a flexible pendulum which is allowed to swing freely from about 8 to 6 and wrap around a cycloid barrier from 6 to about 4.
It will be seen that the finishing point of the bob is higher than the starting point. The pendulum has gained gravitational energy.
Of course, to demonstrate this experimentally would require the facilities of a decent laboratory. I doubt that one could do it in one's garage.
One would require a very flexible thin wire between the support and bob (carbon fibre?) and a vacuum enclosure to eliminate air resistance.
Obviously it would not be a practical device but it would demonstrate the principle and show that the gravity field is not conservative.
Grimer, if gravity is not conservative, then how do you account for very sensitive and well repeated torsion balance tests where large suspended masses have been shown to attract with forces indistinguishable from G*m1*m2/r^2?
Quote from: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 06:03:06 AM
One can demonstrate the harnessing of gravity with a flexible pendulum which is allowed to swing freely from about 8 to 6 and wrap around a cycloid barrier from 6 to about 4.
It will be seen that the finishing point of the bob is higher than the starting point. The pendulum has gained gravitational energy.
....................................................
Hi Grimer,
Excellent presentation, although I never heard of these pendulum properties before, I learn something new, pretty fast by your logical presentation.
You underscore the exact principle path towards over-unity. The same base logic is employed (or at better phrased at this point "intended") by Renato in its RAR, and Wayne Travis in his ZED, where the energy requirement for the upswing is less than the energy gained in the down swing (or visa versa) in order to obtain a positive output balance.
The engineering challenge is in the transformation/morphing at BDC to switch cycle type and the requirement to execute this transition with minimal energy (less than possible gain), the core inventive property is there.
Well done.
Red_Sunset
Thanks, Red Sunset. That's the nicest compliment I've ever had for a post. :)
And extraordinarily magnanimous considering I chewed you off about your
comment on the church. Sorry if I overdid it. ;)
If you look up cycloid pendulums you will find that attempts have been made
to build them for timekeeping. Unfortunately the practical difficulties were greater
than the theoretical advantages.
Quote from: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 07:21:56 AM
Thanks, Red Sunset. That's the nicest compliment I've ever had for a post. :)
And extraordinarily magnanimous considering I chewed you off about your
comment on the church. Sorry if I overdid it. ;)
.............................................
No 'thanks' is required, Grimer ,
We are all human and try to show human behavior, it doesn't always work out as intended
I know "religion" is a sensitive topic at any time, by not following my own advice, your response was rightfully expected., no offense intended nor taken.
Quote"practical difficulties were greater than the theoretical advantages",
with engineering & technology advancement, is just a matter of time to overcome difficulties, so long the principle is sound.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 06:20:22 AM
Grimer, if gravity is not conservative, then how do you account for very sensitive and well repeated torsion balance tests where large suspended masses have been shown to attract with forces indistinguishable from G*m1*m2/r^2?
I fear you've failed to follow the argument, Mark.
The situation can be understood in terms of Stafford Beer's restatement of Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)
..... as "Variety absorbs variety"
Just as a football team of 11 members can always overcome a team of 10 members (assuming equal skills, obviously) so also a higher derivative of motion can always control a lower derivative given the right mechanism.
In the cases of the Bessler, Keenie, Uncle's toy and RAR we have 3rd derivative energy (jerk) overcoming the second derivative energy (acceleration) of Newtonian Gravity.
I have never met Stafford in person but we did correspond and he read some of my stuff. He proposed that we wrote a joint paper. Unfortunately his heart attack intervened and the project had to be shelved. I believe our correspondence is in his archive.
Here is a video of one of his talks on Variety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDRudRhNgy4
Ain't Google search wonderful. I've actually found it. 8)
==============================================================
CHALLENGE TO PARADIGM, JULY 76 -END 1978 - Box 85
This project was all about a book which was to be called "Challenge to Paradigm", which was to have several contributors-
Martin Canny
Brian Eno
Frank Grimer
Humberto Maturana
Alan Mencher
Charles Scudder
Francisco Varela
Not all of these people knew each other and SB kept them in ignorance of the identity of their co-conspirators by using nick -names. The fields covered by the proposed book included - Aesthetics, Anthropology, biology, botany, government, immunology, management, materials science, mathematics, neurophysiology, physiology, psychology, scientific method. The intention was that it would not just be a collection of interesting papers but a continuous narrative that expounded the view that the systems approach really works. "When it works paradigms are over thrown - and that's what constitutes the challenge". The records on this project in the collection are in an orange wallet folder within which the correspondence between Stafford and the other authors has been divided into separate slip files (one for each person), the contents is therefore dealt with in this manner -
CHALLENGE TO PARADIGM (letters to Wiley and all participants)
* several copies of letter from SB to all "players" dated 24th
Jan 1978
* original letter setting out the project and the contents as contributed by each author
* letters between SB and James Cameron (Wiley) regarding publication of the book.
==============================================================
Quote from: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 05:09:52 AM
Marsing could you please point out a working machine that today is powered by gravity in the same sense as Johann Bessler claimed for his various wheels?
wow, your words are so deep.
"working machine that today is powered by gravity"
i got it as := gravity machine have accepted by whole world or
there are company produce gravity wheel so i can point it out to you.
sorry markE, i can not,
beside, bessler is not my start point,
i don't know what exactly his claims,
and i don't want to make false claims.
and i don't know how many variant of his wheel.
well, i feel Good atmosphere here.
Quote from: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 06:03:06 AM
One can demonstrate the harnessing of gravity with a flexible pendulum which is allowed to swing freely from about 8 to 6 and wrap around a cycloid barrier from 6 to about 4.
It will be seen that the finishing point of the bob is higher than the starting point. The pendulum has gained gravitational energy.
Of course, to demonstrate this experimentally would require the facilities of a decent laboratory. I doubt that one could do it in one's garage.
One would require a very flexible thin wire between the support and bob (carbon fibre?) and a vacuum enclosure to eliminate air resistance.
Obviously it would not be a practical device but it would demonstrate the principle and show that the gravity field is not conservative.
Once again, you are wrong, and the experiments have been done over and over for many years. Please see "stopped pendulum" and "galileo's pendulum" in your favorite reference. No matter the shape of the stop, the bob will not rise higher than the initial release.
http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh15.html#15.1.4
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 13, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
Once again, you are wrong, and the experiments have been done over and over for many years. Please see "stopped pendulum" and "galileo's pendulum" in your favorite reference. No matter the shape of the stop, the bob will not rise higher than the initial release.
http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh15.html#15.1.4 (http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh15.html#15.1.4)
I think the experiment I described is a bit beyond school science, Setalokin.
If I were you I'd stop digging.
If you were me your confessor would be scandalized. You are making claims, once again, for which there is no evidence. But contrary evidence abounds. So it behooves you to provide some kind of actual evidence in support, if you want to be taken seriously.
If I were you, Mr Hyde, I'm sure my confessor would be scandalized. ;)
As for making up claims for which there is no evidence you should tell Euclid
he can't claim the number of primes is infinite until he's counted them.
By strange coincidence, Beer's brother, Ian Stafford Beer, was headmaster of Harrow School which is only about a mile from my house.
My three granchildren go swimming in their indoor pool on Saturday mornings.
It's a small world.
One's reminded of the six degrees of separation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
Quote from: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 01:56:01 PM
By strange coincidence, Beer's brother, Ian Stafford Beer, was headmaster of Harrow School which is only about a mile from my house.
My three granchildren go swimming in their indoor pool on Saturday mornings.
It's a small world.
One's reminded of the six degrees of separation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation)
Edit: LOL - I've even found another link. Stafford left UCL just six years before I joined.
Marsing, I am sorry if I offended you.
Quote from: Marsing on January 13, 2014, 11:31:23 AM
wow, your words are so deep.
"working machine that today is powered by gravity"
i got it as := gravity machine have accepted by whole world or
there are company produce gravity wheel so i can point it out to you.
sorry markE, i can not,
beside, bessler is not my start point,
i don't know what exactly his claims,
and i don't want to make false claims.
and i don't know how many variant of his wheel.
well, i feel Good atmosphere here.
Marsing when you said:
Quotei was also skeptic, skeptic protect us from scam fraud etc..
till i found 99% gravity device do work, ( with simple math).
best word to say, it's EASY
the conservative field theory as a reason to deny existence of these will be obsolete, next you ( all of "conservative field" MAN) will realize that "conservative field" is not the only one to judge,
sorry for my words, and peace for all
marsing
Since we have been discussing gravity wheels, I thought you meant a Bessler, or Bessler like device was part of those 99% of the working gravity devices you mentioned. I especially thought this when you declared: "it's EASY". Please clarify what sorts of machines are among the 99% of gravity devices that you have found work. Are any of those devices gravity wheels?
Quote from: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 12:19:13 PM
I think the experiment I described is a bit beyond school science, Setalokin.
If I were you I'd stop digging.
Grimer are there any existing, replicated experiments that you can point to that show the gravitational field operating in a non-conservative manner?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 13, 2014, 06:27:50 AM
Hi Grimer,
Excellent presentation, although I never heard of these pendulum properties before, I learn something new, pretty fast by your logical presentation.
You underscore the exact principle path towards over-unity. The same base logic is employed (or at better phrased at this point "intended") by Renato in its RAR, and Wayne Travis in his ZED, where the energy requirement for the upswing is less than the energy gained in the down swing (or visa versa) in order to obtain a positive output balance.
The engineering challenge is in the transformation/morphing at BDC to switch cycle type and the requirement to execute this transition with minimal energy (less than possible gain), the core inventive property is there.
Well done.
Red_Sunset
Red .. Grimer has been presenting this hypothesis of gain in Pe [i.e. gravity force is not conservative] as fact for quite some time - he has been asked to provide repeatable experimental evidence of his claim both here & over at BW.com - IINM he has never 'produced the goods' - having a theory is one thing, promoting it as a fact or truth is another.
A couple of renowned commentators here have politely pointed out the contradictory evidence to the 'Grimer theory'.
Perhaps I am less quick to accept someone's musing as indisputable fact than you [my failing perhaps ?] & prefer to check facts as best I can before willingly becoming an acolyte - IIRC You-tube has some good experiments with pendulums, in such a manner as Grimer proposes, which do not show a gain in height.
Perhaps Grimer would like to provide his experimental basis for his theory so we can forever retire Gravity as a conservative force & open the Pandoras box !
Quote from: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 04:16:33 PM
Grimer are there any existing, replicated experiments that you can point to that show the gravitational field operating in a non-conservative manner?
You're new here, Mark, aren't you.
You suddenly appear over the horizon suggesting to Al that he cools things down with Rosemary.
You tell me who you are, who you work for and what your connection with Al is and I might think about answering your question.
Until then I suggest you think very carefully about the pendulum proof of principle.
After all, you can't be a little bit pregnant, can you.
Your employer might want your opinion on the proof so as he knows whether or not to short his shares.
Quote from: fletcher on January 13, 2014, 04:31:54 PM
Red .. Grimer has been presenting this hypothesis of gain in Pe [i.e. gravity force is not conservative] as fact for quite some time - he has been asked to provide repeatable experimental evidence of his claim both here & over at BW.com - IINM he has never 'produced the goods' - having a theory is one thing, promoting it as a fact or truth is another.
A couple of renowned commentators here have politely pointed out the contradictory evidence to the 'Grimer theory'.
Perhaps I am less quick to accept someone's musing as indisputable fact than you [my failing perhaps ?] & prefer to check facts as best I can before willingly becoming an acolyte - IIRC You-tube has some good experiments with pendulums, in such a manner as Grimer proposes, which do not show a gain in height.
Perhaps Grimer would like to provide his experimental basis for his theory so we can forever retire Gravity as a conservative force & open the Pandoras box !
Hi Fletch,
I wondered when you'd turn up. ::)
We had this discussion on the Brachisochrone some years ago. I seem to remember that I pointed out that any curve that departed from the cycloid form must involve higher derivative energy. At that point you went silent. ;D
As for Utube having the experiment I describe, I very much doubt it.
If you know of one together with the graphical proof I gave then I would love to see it.
Anyway, my argument doesn't need experimental proof any more than Euclids.
As far as providing experimental evidence is concerned that's not my job.
I was employed as a Scientific Officer when in government service, not an Experimental
Officer. I had people like you and Al to do experiments. Al had reluctantly agree to do the
Bruce experiment but I suddenly started having doubts about him and backed out.
He had got to the stage of sending me his address by email and I told him not to.
Replies: 24
Views: 527
(http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/templates/Classic/images/icon_minipost.gif)Forum: Community Buzz Posted: 22nd August 2012, 4:12 am Subject: Milkovic pendulum[/size] |
I can now see that the Bruce's uncle toy, the Milkovic pendulum and the Keenie all depend for their jerk energy generation on ground effect, on ground reaction twisting the gravity wind vector (cf. sailing where you have the interaction between the wind action and the water reaction).
I had a discussion sometime back with Fletcher where I pointed out that departure from the Brachistochrone curve must involve the third derivative of position with respect to time (jerk). The fall is slower because jerk energy is being generated. Now a vortex is just about as far from the Brachistochrone as you can get. Instead of the fastest time of descent you have the one of the slowest.
Fascinating - really fascinating. |
[/font]
Quote from: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
Hi Fletch,
I wondered when you'd turn up. ::)
We had this discussion on the Brachistochrone some years ago. I seem to remember that I pointed out that any curve that departed from the cycloid form must involve higher derivative energy. At that point you went silent. ;D
As for Utube having the experiment I describe I very much doubt it. If you know of one together with the graphical proof I gave then I would love to see it.
Anyway, my argument doesn't need experimental proof any more than Euclids.
Ahhh yes - the brachistochrone, jack abling's wheel & omnibus's cummulative Ke.
I went silent because we had reached an impasse - conservative gravity force describes that if gravity acceleration is the only acceleration/deceleration in play on an object rolling [or swinging, or spiraling, or rotating] down a slope [straight or curved of any shape or steepness] then at ANY same loss of vertical height for direct comparison purposes, the object will have lost the same Pe as gained as Ke - IOW's the Pe lost & Ke gained is path independent.
Sorry Frank, perhaps someone else can find the You-tube experiments [very slow internet here].
All arguments need experimental proof Frank to transition to accepted facts & truth, else they remain theory's - I'd like to see your experimental evidence to compliment your theory - perhaps you could use the ball rolling down a vortex tube & measure the horizontal exit speed [well, even just the velocity in any direction will do, for a given height loss] to prove a gain in Ke above Pe lost ?
ETA: I see you added to your post - pity you backed away from TK's offer of help - you could of actually proved something ;7)
Here's a relevant thread from BesslerWheel.com
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4592&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=brachistochrone&start=0
Quote from: Grimer on January 13, 2014, 04:55:16 PM
You're new here, Mark, aren't you.
You suddenly appear over the horizon suggesting to Al that he cools things down with Rosemary.
You tell me who you are, who you work for and what your connection with Al is and I might think about answering your question.
Until then I suggest you think very carefully about the pendulum proof of principle.
After all, you can't be a little bit pregnant, can you.
Your employer might want your opinion on the proof so as he knows whether or not to short his shares.
Grimer, if you have been reading my posts then you should know that I am not interested in personal battles.
You either have available examples that show or at least suggest that gravity is non-conservative, or you do not. The idea that gravity is non-conservative is an extraordinary one. It is made more extraordinary every day that we make careful measurements that reinforce the accepted idea that gravity is conservative. All pendulum experiments that I know of that have actually been conducted have shown results that are consistent with a conservative gravitational field. If you can point to a pendulum or other experiment that has actually been conducted and that you feel demonstrates or suggests that gravity is non-conservative, then please do.
Quote from: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 04:13:32 PM
Since we have been discussing gravity wheels, I thought you meant a Bessler, or Bessler like device was part of those 99% of the working gravity devices you mentioned. I especially thought this when you declared: "it's EASY". Please clarify what sorts of machines are among the 99% of gravity devices that you have found work. Are any of those devices gravity wheels?
gravity wheels := bessler, davinci, Mikhail Dmitriev, etc.. .
in short := unbalance wheel. ( tell me your defenition)
this all about pendulum, when i found something, how can i still deny some others in similar field.
and a hard part : "clarify" for what?
Marsing are you saying that anyone has found that any of those unbalanced wheels work?
Quote from: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 08:36:19 PM
Grimer, if you have been reading my posts then you should know that I am not interested in personal battles.
...
You're not interested in saying who you are either. Why not? I'm sure you've got nothing to be ashamed of.
I repeat. Who are you working for?
Grimer, please stay on topic. Do you have any examples that demonstrate or suggest that gravity is non-conservative?
@markE,
imagination is a great tool although never accurate.
@grimer,
what is that?
Quote from: fletcher on January 13, 2014, 05:43:06 PM
...
ETA: I see you added to your post - pity you backed away from TK's offer of help - you could of actually proved something ;7)
I backed away because I remembered the WhipMag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyw5GKmOF64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV7CO8No-CE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJy21fXhZMQ
And I remembered who Al was working for.
Quote from: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 10:55:16 PM
Grimer, please stay on topic. Do you have any examples that demonstrate or suggest that gravity is non-conservative?
Whoever you are you're a pretty cool customer. I'll give you that. And you're not this side of the pond coz you'd be fast asleep by now. :)
Grimer, if you have examples that show or suggest that gravity is non-conservative, then great, I would love to learn about them. If you don't, you don't. In that case, I would encourage you to devise a falsification test for your hypothesis that gravity is non-conservative, and then execute that experiment and report on it.
QuoteHe had got to the stage of sending me his address by email and I told him not to.
ORLY? This is the first I've heard of that.
I think you came to your senses and realized that you would have to pay up the 2000 pounds, and you still wouldn't be any better off than you are now.
Anyone with any sense can see that the non-existence of a self-looping coin funnel is sufficient disproof of your silly hypothesis (which you never bothered to state explicitly.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 12:54:57 AM
ORLY? This is the first I've heard of that.
I think you came to your senses and realized that you would have to pay up the 2000 pounds, and you still wouldn't be any better off than you are now.
Anyone with any sense can see that the non-existence of a self-looping coin funnel is sufficient disproof of your silly hypothesis (which you never bothered to state explicitly.)
O rly (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O%20rly&defid=1424794)[/size]
Internet slang, short for "Oh, really?". Used in the following ways; often sarcastic:
1. In response to someone who has said/pointed out something very obvious
2. In response to someone who has insulted you or has aggressively disagreed with you
3. In response to a boring, nerdy comment you don't understand or care about (i.e. a peice of trivia)
4. In response to a comment that seems hard to believe or a lie
Occasionally some will respond to an "O rly?" comment with "ya rly" or "rly", but this is lame (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lame)and not recommended.
1. A: Dude! Did you see this? There's an eye on the pyramid on the back of all these dollar bills!
B: O rly?
2. A: You're a fucking loser, A Cinderella Story was a shitty movie.
B: O rly.
3. A: Yes, but did you all know that the word "catapult" is of Hungarian and French origin and roughly translates to blah blah blah...... (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=...)
B: o rly?
4. A: My aunt is friends with Lindsay Lohan's agent's sister, and she's said that Lindz is totally not a cokehead, so stfu (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stfu).
B: O RLY?
========================================================
Not being a geek I had to look it up.
So I've given the meaning for the benefit of any other non-geeks who might be following this thread.
And by the way, what happened to the WhipMag TK?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 12:54:57 AM
...
I think you came to your senses and realized that you would have to pay up the 2000 pounds, and you still wouldn't be any better off than you are now.
...
I can easily disprove that theory. I'll send you a cheque for £2000. How's that for evidence. 8)
What a bunch of bouncing heads, I found this morning,
It should be clear to all by now that we have an opinion, a theory and that no known "conclusive evidence" exist that proves that the gravity field is non conservative.
That grimmer had good intentions with tabling his postulate should be accepted. But to leap frog to "fact" will need some persistent observations. I think some more work and water needs to flow under the bridge to confirm this theory/postulate.
As a hypothetical principle, it would promise great potential
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 14, 2014, 01:55:48 AM
What a bunch of bouncing heads, I found this morning,
It should be clear to all by now that we have an opinion, a theory and that no known "conclusive evidence" exist that proves that the gravity field is non conservative.
That grimmer had good intentions with tabling his postulate should be accepted. But to leap frog to "fact" will need some persistent observations. I think some more work and water needs to flow under the bridge to confirm this theory/postulate.
As a hypothetical principle, it would promise great potential
Red_Sunset
If most of us agree that is the situation, then I think that a good next step then would be to come up with a falsification experiment that most if not all would agree is valid. Ideally, such an experiment would be one that multiple people could replicate to their own satisfaction. Towards that, I ask Grimer: According to your ideas under what conditions is gravity non-conservative?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 14, 2014, 01:55:48 AM
What a bunch of bouncing heads, I found this morning,
It should be clear to all by now that we have an opinion, a theory and that no known "conclusive evidence" exist that proves that the gravity field is non conservative.
That grimmer had good intentions with tabling his postulate should be accepted. But to leap frog to "fact" will need some persistent observations. I think some more work and water needs to flow under the bridge to confirm this theory/postulate.
As a hypothetical principle, it would promise great potential
Red_Sunset
I see you're still half asleep, Red. It's Grimer, not grimmer. Accuracy is important in science and search engines are a bit dim when it comes to spelling.
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 02:22:19 AM
I see you're still half asleep, Red. It's Grimer, not grimmer. Accuracy is important in science and search engines are a bit dim when it comes to spelling.
Ooops, sorry a typo, my apologies, you are correct about the sleepy part.
Ja,ja,,,,ja...scientific accuracy, "grimer/grimmer", should I also be concerned about scientific persona profiles for future generations to discover?
Red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 14, 2014, 02:47:28 AM
Ooops, sorry a typo, my apologies, you are correct about the sleepy part.
Ja,ja,,,,ja...scientific accuracy, "grimer/grimmer", should I also be concerned about scientific persona profiles for future generations to discover?
Red
In my experience forum profiles are normally devoid of content. If you wish future generations to credit any intelligent contribution
you make to a historic scientific event you should certainly flesh yours out a bit. At present you are anonymous and can be libelled with impunity.
I'm not and can't as TK should know. I'm expecting a withdrawal of his scurrilous allegation about my motive, together with a fulsome apology.
[size=78%] [/size]
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 05:22:51 AM
In my experience forum profiles are normally devoid of content. If you wish future generations to credit any intelligent contribution
you make to a historic scientific event you should certainly flesh yours out a bit. At present you are anonymous and can be libelled with impunity.
I'm not and can't as TK should know. I'm expecting a withdrawal of his scurrilous allegation about my motive, together with a fulsome apology.
[size=78%] [/size]
Grimer, I would much prefer to see you do work towards developing a way to practically test your ideas than threatening libel lawsuits.
Returning to the subject: Would you please state a combination of conditions that you feel are sufficient for gravity to be non-conservative? That would allow anyone here to start thinking about what kind of experiment could test your hypothesis.
Quote from: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 11:23:03 PM
Grimer, if you have examples that show or suggest that gravity is non-conservative, then great, I would love to learn about them. If you don't, you don't. In that case, I would encourage you to devise a falsification test for your hypothesis that gravity is non-conservative, and then execute that experiment and report on it.
You've just watched three videos with an experiment showing that the magnetic field is non-conservative. Why not deal with that first. Why not ask TK what's happened to it. I amazed at your lack of curiosity. Perhaps that's because you have it.
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 05:43:29 AM
You've just watched three videos with an experiment showing that the magnetic field is non-conservative. Why not deal with that first. Why not ask TK what's happened to it. I amazed at your lack of curiosity. Perhaps that's because you have it.
Grimer, please stay on topic. The topic is your hypothesis that gravity is non-conservative. Please state a set of conditions under which you think that gravity is non-conservative. Then folks can start to think about how to test against that.
I am very much on topic. The topic is conservatism and the TK experiment has a bearing on whether or not fields are conservative.
We have TK's experimental evidence which shows magnetism isn't conservative (unless it was a fraud as DP alleges). Why are you refusing to discus it?
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 01:40:24 AM
I can easily disprove that theory. I'll send you a cheque for £2000. How's that for evidence. 8)
Sorry, we don't take checks. Or cheques, either. You can send it in three equal monthly parts, via Western Union. Don't forget to deduct the cost of the toy...er... experimental funnel itself.
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 07:19:45 AM
I am very much on topic. The topic is conservatism and the TK experiment has a bearing on whether or not fields are conservative.
We have TK's experimental evidence which shows magnetism isn't conservative (unless it was a fraud as DP alleges). Why are you refusing to discus it?
Grimer if you ever choose to come back on topic and state a set of conditions under which you believe gravity is non-conservative, then I will be happy to pursue that with you.
Quote from: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 06:20:22 AM
Grimer, if gravity is not conservative, then how do you account for very sensitive and well repeated torsion balance tests where large suspended masses have been shown to attract with forces indistinguishable from G*m1*m2/r^2?
If gravity is conservative how do you account for my graph - and the WhipMag in the case of the alleged conservative nature of magnetism.
After all, the WhipMag is very much your field whereas gravity obviously ain't.
We are not talking about torsion balances and the inverse square law. We are talking about pendulums.
Your red herring is totally irrelevant to the topic.
What for instance is this remark of yours meant to mean.
"Those machines look like they are missing a large and powerful engine to drive them."
Was that a sneer, albeit milder than TKs.
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 07:38:50 AM
If gravity is conservative how do you account for my graph - and the WhipMag in the case of the alleged conservative nature of magnetism.
After all, the WhipMag is very much your field whereas gravity obviously ain't.
Grimer, unless I have missed something your graph is not the result of an experiment. As far as I know is an expression of an idea you postulate. If you believe it describes or embodies conditions under which gravity is non-conservative, then let's talk about how that can be tested and see if we can come up with an accessible experiment.
Unless your ideas about gravity require magnets to make gravity non-conservative then that machine in the videos with the magnets is off topic. If you are interested in that machine, then please find a suitable thread, or start one.
Quote from: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 07:48:35 AM
Grimer, unless I have missed something your graph is not the result of an experiment. As far as I know is an expression of an idea you postulate. If you believe it describes or embodies conditions under which gravity is non-conservative, then let's talk about how that can be tested and see if we can come up with an accessible experiment.
Unless your ideas about gravity require magnets to make gravity non-conservative then that machine in the videos with the magnets is off topic. If you are interested in that machine, then please find a suitable thread, or start one.
I see that deep grooves have been cut in your mind by too much specialised education and that once in one of those grooves the blinkers come on and you are quite incapable of climbing out of it. Can't imagine you ever making that James Burke programme, "Connections". It's called lateral thinking - ever heard of it? - thought not.
As far as I'm concerned nothing is off topic. I should get back to your speciality if I were you and stop clogging up this thread with useless posts.
Grimer, I really wish you would come back to topic and state conditions under which you believe gravity can be shown to be non-conservative.
Frank, have you gone off your meds again?
Mark E. has been asking you to support your claims, nothing more. It would be very useful if you did that.
YOU are the one making "useless posts", claims without evidence, and ad-hominem abusive attacks. You are the one bringing in extraneous and irrelevant material. You are the one who cannot defend his arguments with actual facts and checkable outside references.
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 02:22:19 AM
I see you're still half asleep, Red. It's Grimer, not grimmer. Accuracy is important in science and search engines are a bit dim when it comes to spelling.
What a day!
I should have stayed in bed, since everybody got out on the wrong foot today
Looking forward to Sunset, happy hour !
Mark,
Let me explain something to you.
In the British Scientific Civil Service there are three grades of officer.
Scientific officers whose job it is to dream up new areas of research.
Experimental Officers whose job is to device experiments on those ideas
and carry them out.
Scientific Assistants who help the experimental officers with the donkey work and make the tea.
The rest of the service has a similar hierarchical division of Admin, Exec, and Clerical.
I don't do experiments, that's not my job. I don't devise them. I don't carry them out. And I would be absolutely useless if I did.
Like the centurion in the gospel I say to my E.O. go here and he goes, do this and he does it.
None of the experiments in my published papers were carried out by me. Design and implementation of equipment and procedures were undertaken by my E.O.s. They wouldn't let me touch anything in case I broke it.
So if you want to design and carry out an experiment based on my graph then be my guest. The idea is where my job begins and ends.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 08:21:30 AM
Frank, have you gone off your meds again?
Mark E. has been asking you to support your claims, nothing more. It would be very useful if you did that.
YOU are the one making "useless posts", claims without evidence, and ad-hominem abusive attacks. You are the one bringing in extraneous and irrelevant material. You are the one who cannot defend his arguments with actual facts and checkable outside references.
You can't help insulting people can you. I think you do it without realising it.
As you said in one of your posts. Taunting Rosemary is a sport.
Let's hope she never brings a libel action against you in London.
Your anonymity won't protect you as you probably realise.
It seems rather unfair that she can libel Al but Al can't libel her. But that's the price of secrecy.
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 09:11:45 AM
Mark,
Let me explain something to you.
In the British Scientific Civil Service there are three grades of officer.
Scientific officers whose job it is to dream up new areas of research.
Experimental Officers whose job is to device experiments on those ideas
and carry them out.
Scientific Assistants who help the experimental officers with the donkey work and make the tea.
The rest of the service has a similar hierarchical division of Admin, Exec, and Clerical.
I don't do experiments, that's not my job. I don't devise them. I don't carry them out. And I would be absolutely useless if I did.
Like the centurion in the gospel I say to my E.O. go here and he goes, do this and he does it.
None of the experiments in my published papers were carried out by me. Design and implementation of equipment and procedures were undertaken by my E.O.s. They wouldn't let me touch anything in case I broke it.
So if you want to design and carry out an experiment based on my graph then be my guest. The idea is where my job begins and ends.
Grimer, OK, you don't do experiment design. Let's move beyond that.
In order to design an experiment we first have to define what it is that the experiment is going to test. Gravity has been shown to behave conservatively in many tests under a broad range of conditions. Repeating tests under any of those conditions would by all probability simply repeat the apparently conservative behavior. If there is an exception to conservation with respect to gravity, that exception occurs under limiting circumstances outside what has been tested before. What I need to know from you is what limitations you believe are sufficient. Once you state those limitations, then anyone here, including me can think about how to devise a test that will impose those limitations in an accessible and repeatable experiment. If the verified results of such tests show non-conservative behavior beyond the error bars, then the presently held view that gravity is a conservative field will be falsified by such an experiment. If they fail to falsify then the required limitations may have to be expanded.
So, let's get started: Please state limiting circumstances under which according to your ideas a gravitational field is non-conservative.
Quote from: Grimer on January 14, 2014, 09:22:59 AM
You can't help insulting people can you. I think you do it without realising it.
As you said in one of your posts. Taunting Rosemary is a sport.
Let's hope she never brings a libel action against you in London.
Your anonymity won't protect you as you probably realise.
It seems rather unfair that she can libel Al but Al can't libel her. But that's the price of secrecy.
Frank, I can prove the truth of everything I've ever said about Ainslie. She is ignorant, arrogant, undereducated, a liar and a fool, paranoid and delusional, and she has threatened me several times. I have evidence for every allegation I've ever made concerning her. She, however, has accused me of crimes, she's made homophobic slurs against me, she has called and emailed other people seeking to malign me and destroy my reputation in their eyes. Needless to say, she has no evidence for any of her crazy allegations. For a long time she believed that I was someone named Bryan Little, and she emitted many many slurs and libels against him, whoever he might be. Were she here in Texas rather than being in some unreachable backwater third world hellhole, I would sue her back to abject poverty for the things she has said and done against me.
Now.. shall we examine your last few posts for the insults you have emitted towards people like Mark E and myself?
Please give us a link to where I said "Taunting Rosemary is a sport". If you think criticising her "work" and her ridiculous claims with factual demonstrations is "taunting", then you have a different OED than I do.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 09:46:26 AM
Frank, I can prove the truth of everything I've ever said about Ainslie. She is ignorant, arrogant, undereducated, a liar and a fool, paranoid and delusional, and she has threatened me several times. I have evidence for every allegation I've ever made concerning her. She, however, has accused me of crimes, she's made homophobic slurs against me, she has called and emailed other people seeking to malign me and destroy my reputation in their eyes. Needless to say, she has no evidence for any of her crazy allegations. For a long time she believed that I was someone named Bryan Little, and she emitted many many slurs and libels against him, whoever he might be. Were she here in Texas rather than being in some unreachable backwater third world hellhole, I would sue her back to abject poverty for the things she has said and done against me.
Now.. shall we examine your last few posts for the insults you have emitted towards people like Mark E and myself?
Please give us a link to where I said "Taunting Rosemary is a sport". If you think criticising her "work" and her ridiculous claims with factual demonstrations is "taunting", then you have a different OED than I do.
I would gladly leave her to her peace... but she refuses to cease and desist with her insults and libels against me (and you, and Sterling, and Stefan, and .99, and just about everyone else who has ever criticized her). And she's got a couple of sock-puppet sycophants who parrot her insults and add their own filth to the mix as well. She offended me greatly with many of her libels and her homophobic slurs and her threats, and as long as she persists I will stand up for myself and my work. I will not tolerate people lying about me or misrepresenting my work, even if they are doing it on an obscure and silly blog that contains nothing else of significance. Not only that, I am proud of my expensive education, and I have credentials that I worked hard for and earned at great expense, and my teachers and advisors were people at the top of their fields. Ainslie is an uneducated barbarian who thinks that reading Gary Zukov's popular book constitutes a physics education. I will not sit still for insults and disrespect from overweeningly arrogant and ignorant fools like Ainslie. Besides.... I've got some time on my hands, and it's kind of fun seeing what she comes up with next
, how far down her own throat she can stick her foot, like in the August fiasco "demo" of incompetence and ignorance. She learned one lesson then: never give actual data or details, because they _will_ be examined and fabrications will be uncovered. So now we just get claims from her, no data or descriptions at all, and that's all we will be getting in the future.Thanks for the note, I'm glad you are still watching. Look at it as sport, because that's really all it is. As you note, from a scientific and technical aspect she has been utterly put down, long ago, and all that is left of her "work" and her "thesis" is a twitching mess, full of holes, contradictions, falsehood and fabrications.
Jeez Grimer .. I don't think I've seen you so purposefully & wilfully derail a thread as this before - you can run but you can't hide.
Since it is established that you have a hypothesis & a theory, which you obviously wish to have taken seriously, then please ignore distractions & help those interested in your theory with some experimental design ideas & parameters to test your hypothesis.
I don't see anything in there about "taunting". I get my "sport" from building and testing, reporting and criticizing. If you want to see "taunting".... you should take a look at Ainslie's forum. Did you bother to read her words in the post images above? There are hundreds more examples like those, and not restricted, as you can see, to little old me.
The "fun" in the passage you quote is from seeing what she comes up with next.
Nice try, though. Most of my critics can't do nearly that well.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 02:32:35 PM
I don't see anything in there about "taunting". I get my "sport" from building and testing, reporting and criticizing. If you want to see "taunting".... you should take a look at Ainslie's forum. Did you bother to read her words in the post images above? There are hundreds more examples like those, and not restricted, as you can see, to little old me.
The "fun" in the passage you quote is from seeing what she comes up with next.
Nice try, though. Most of my critics can't do nearly that well.
LOL. It took me a hell of a time to find it. Still, I did remember the word Sport - which is not bad at my age. :)
Grimer, I would really like to get this thread back on topic. I am still looking for some statement from you of a limiting condition or conditions that are sufficient for a gravitational field to be non-conservative so that I can start thinking about an appropriate experiment design.
As to your plot of a cycloid pendulum path versus a circular pendulum path, are you asserting that energy is gained or lost on either or both halves of the swing in the cycloid case? If so, according to your ideas: Does such an alleged gain or loss manifest in the KE of the bob at the bottom of the travel, or the PE of the bob at the top of the travel or the combined KE and PE somewhere between the top and the bottom?
@ marke
why do you push too hard?
Quote from: Marsing on January 14, 2014, 11:49:21 PM
@ marke
why do you push to hard?
Coz he knows if he don't I won't get up off my arse. >:(
I'm ready for the inquisition now. Watch this space. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid)
I know E.O. need visual aids so here's one for the Cycloid. ;)
no motion ?
Marsing, if Grimer is correct in his ideas that gravity is non-conservative then exploiting that would change the world. In that case every day that we waste without proving it and getting it out there is a day that people suffer needlessly.
@Grimer, I am glad you are ready. Please address my question so that people can get to work on experiment designs: What limiting conditions are sufficient to get non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field? If you offer that a cycloid pendulum or some device derived from a cycloid pendulum is enough, then where is the energy gain or loss due to the non-conservative field seen: a) At the bottom of the travel as KE? b) At the top of the travel as PE? or c) Somewhere along the travel as combined KE and PE?
I've modified it with a link. The blasted website doesn't seem to like animated gifs.
Did you know that if you watch that image of Bessler long enough he moves his eyes and sticks out his tongue. That gif seems to work. I dunno why mine didn't. And I don't know how to cancel the first of those images which is now superfluous.
More follows after I've said the Angelus, had a kip and taken the kids to school.
OK ..
next
i thought that image want to say something to all of us
lol
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 12:57:29 AM
I dunno why mine didn't.
maybe ..
the file too big or file corrupt,
first try preview with explorer to ensure your file is Ok
i guest you have 1 hour to modify it,
while modifing, clear checkbox above browse button and attach new one)
Grimer, if this involves cycloid pendulums or their parts perhaps I can save some time.
Suppose that we construct a pendulum that has a cycloid restriction on both sides. The pendulum swings in Quadrant III on the left and Quadrant IV on the right. We can test that pendulum and determine:
It's oscillation frequency: Fosc, velocity at the bottom of its travel: Vmax, swing height: Hdelta, and the apogee: Hmax.
We can also observe as has been observed since the time of Huygens that absent friction, the cycloid pendulum is truly isochronous, where as circular swing pendulums even in the absence of friction are not quite isochronous.
Then suppose that we remove the cycloid restriction from the right hand side: Quadrant IV. What we will find is that:
1) Fosc decreases slightly: The time swinging in Quadrant IV is greater than the time swinging in Quadrant III.
2) The pendulum becomes slightly non-isochronous. Different starting heights yield slightly different oscillation periods.
3) The swing height change Hdelta on the right in Quadrant IV is the same as the swing height in Quadrant III. The change in PE is the same.
4) The velocity magnitude at the bottom of the swing going from Quadrant III to Quadrant IV is identical to that going from Quadrant IV to Quadrant III. The KE peak magnitudes are the same.
You can prove all of this to your own satisfaction by doing the calculus. If you object then please show an appropriate reference and/or the math. The important points we need to agree on in order to resolve the energy are points 3) and 4).
In short what all of this means is that basically the path taken between two equipotential points in a gravitational field doesn't gain or lose energy. It also means that any closed path taken in a gravitational field doesn't gain or lose energy. In other words: the gravitational field is conservative.
Spock 1
Back later.
Quote from: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 12:52:09 AM
Marsing, if Grimer is correct in his ideas that gravity is non-conservative then exploiting that would change the world. In that case every day that we waste without proving it and getting it out there is a day that people suffer needlessly.
changing the world have two directions.
people will be more suffer , people will be better.
( people := who are really, really, really suffer at this time).which one your direction?
you asked grimer hardly to prove his theory,
now can you prove your position.
Marsing, it is very difficult sometimes to parse your English. If Grimer is onto something then I think that accelerating proving that is a good idea. That can only be done if Grimer says what his idea is.
So far as I can presently tell, he is arguing that the amount of gravitational energy change between two heights depends on the path taken between those points. We can easily construct experiments with pendula or marbles rolling on smooth 'U' shaped tracks with different slopes that dispute such an idea. Those types of experiments won't help if Grimer is right. What I need from Grimer is statement of some special limitation that has not been previously tested and shown to act conservatively. Then we can design an experiment that if it does show a difference in energy will disprove that gravity is conservative.
Quote from: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 02:14:56 AM
Marsing, it is very difficult sometimes to parse your English. If Grimer is onto something then I think that accelerating proving that is a good idea. That can only be done if Grimer says what his idea is.
So far as I can presently tell, he is arguing that the amount of gravitational energy change between two heights depends on the path taken between those points.
The amount of gravitational energy in the drop is the same. It's the amount of Ersatz that's different. The dancer is doing more work pulling her arms in.
CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 02:18:58 AM
The amount of gravitational energy in the drop is the same. It's the amount of Ersatz that's different. The dancer is doing more work pulling her arms in.
CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!
Grimer do we agree on my bullet points 3) and 4):
3) The swing height change Hdelta on the right in Quadrant IV is the same as the swing height in Quadrant III. The change in PE is the same.
4) The velocity magnitude at the bottom of the swing going from Quadrant III to Quadrant IV is identical to that going from Quadrant IV to Quadrant III. The KE peak magnitudes are the same.
Work is the dot product of displacement against force. Displacement normal to force does no work.
You can stick your bullet points where the sun don't shine.
I asked a question. Answer it.
Quote from: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 02:14:56 AM
I think that accelerating proving that is a good idea.
some will think different
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 02:38:15 AM
You can stick your bullet points where the sun don't shine.
I asked a question. Answer it.
Grimer, please calm yourself.
I thought I answered your question. I'll answer in more detail:
Referring to your figure, you have two NG vectors and two EG vectors. The acceleration due to gravity is normal to the EG vectors. E = integral(F*ds). Where F is orthogonal to ds as it is here, F*ds = 0. Therefore, there is zero gravitational energy associated with the EG vectors in your sketch. You seem to acknowledge that the NG vectors have the same magnitude. If we agree about that then the PEs are the same which is bullet point 3). If you don't agree, then please explain why.
(This is my first try linking an image here. I hope it works correctly.)
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image// (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//)
Quote from: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 02:55:03 AM
some will think different
Marsing why wouldn't any reasonable person want abundant and cheap energy?
I haven't the slightest interest in what you think.
We are here to discuss my ideas not yours.
I repeat. Answer the question. Don't keep trying to change the subject. If you never studied elementary dynamics say so.
Edit: Now I've got to take the kids to school. So you've plenty of time to unscramble your brain, Mark. ;)
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 03:03:20 AM
I haven't the slightest interest in what you think.
We are here to discuss my ideas not yours.
I repeat. Answer the question. Don't keep trying to change the subject. If you never studied elementary dynamics say so.
Grimer, the only question that you have posted in the past few hours is this one, which I have already answered twice:
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 02:18:58 AM
The amount of gravitational energy in the drop is the same. It's the amount of Ersatz that's different. The dancer is doing more work pulling her arms in.
CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!
For the third time: There is no gravitational energy associated with the EG vectors because the acceleration due to gravity is normal to those vectors.
There is no "dancer" or "arms" in your diagram. There are two pendula. If you feel differently, then kindly explain why.
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image// (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//)
Quote from: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 02:58:51 AM
Marsing why wouldn't any reasonable person want abundant and cheap energy?
you will find an answers by answering my question
Quote from: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 03:10:04 AM
Grimer, the only question that you have posted in the past few hours is this one, which I have already answered twice:
For the third time: There is no gravitational energy associated with the EG vectors because the acceleration due to gravity is normal to those vectors.
There is no "dancer" or "arms" in your diagram. There are two pendula. If you feel differently, then kindly explain why.
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image// (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//)
I didn't say there was Newtonian Gravitational energy. It's Ersatz gravitational energy. If you don't know what Ersatz gravitational energy is then you've never watched Star Trek. How do you think Spock keeps his feet on the floor.
The tension in the tie between the bob and the pivot can be resolved vertically and horizontally. The horizontal component is analogous to a ballet dancer pulling a weight towards her body. She does work. She puts energy into the system.
The horizontal resolved force of the tie is doing work.
The horizontal force to the right is balanced by an equal and opposite horizontal force at the pivot.
I'll stop there to make sure you're following me.
And no more irrelevant stuff. If that stuff was any us the gravity problem would have been solved years ago. It's rubbish.
And the reason I'm being rude and not calming down is because I've got to rattle your brain until all the cognitive dissonance is shaken out of it.
If you don't know what cognitive dissonance is - Google it.
P.S. I'm going for my lunch. In the meantime read my stuff from p.15 onwards and get those little grey cells working hard on understanding it.
Grimer, mechanical energy has a well accepted definition and that is: E=integral(F*ds). You have not specified any other source of acceleration or apparent force other than that of gravity accelerating parallel to the NG vectors and normal to the EG vectors. As you have set the scenario up, the only source of work in this system is the gravitational field, and it cannot do any work in the normal, IE horizontal, plane.
A spinning ballet dancer has angular momentum and radial acceleration in the horizontal plane. The pendula do not. If you are alleging a source of acceleration along the EG vector, kindly state that source of acceleration. Tension does not equal acceleration. The Sword of Damacles doesn't go anywhere as long as the thread holds.
If you need to introduce some additional constraints to your set-up, then by all means do that. Going off topic to science fiction TV does not add insight.
It would be great if you have insights into some set of conditions where gravity is non-conservative. It would be an incredible breakthrough. I am still waiting to learn of such conditions from you.
Oh dear.
I was using the dancer as an analogy. You've pressed it too far.
I'm using science fiction to jump your ideas out of the grooves they are running in. To try and get you to use you imagination for once. To think outside the box, Dr Bono's lateral thinking.
Didn't you ever play Cowboys and Indians as a child - on your own - running around with an imaginary gun in your hand shooting imaginary Indians?
You need to exercise that kind of imagination here. Its like trying to see a joke.
Do you have mild autism, Asperges syndrome? Do you have difficulty seeing jokes? People who have a detailed knowledge of a subject like you have of electronics are often mildly autistic. If you are I'm wasting my time because you are never going to "see" it. If so tell me now.
[/font][/size]
Have you ever watched Star Trek. Do you love it or do you think it's childish and boring.[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Are you capable of becoming a child again? Because you need to if you are to enter the kingdom of gravitational energy.[/font][/size]
This is an extract from one of the files on my website. As you will see, my [/pre]boss had the same problem as you. Lack of imagination. Lack of lateral thinking.[/pre]Lack of an ability to turn a problem inside out.[/pre]==============================================================================[/pre]
[/pre]There was an interesting incident occurred whilst we were making density measurements, an incident which illustrates two aspects of research which were later to become very important, the possibility of conceptual inversion and the psychological difficulty such inversion inculcated. To find the density of a piece of material one needs to measure two quantities. The weight of the material – straightforward enough, just stick it on a balance – and the volume of a material. Finding the volume of a material is easy enough when the material is a nice simple shape like a cube or a cylinder; you just make measurements and use the appropriate mathematical formula. When the material is irregular, like a roughly hacked piece of soil cement or a king's crown then there's more of a problem as Archimedes realised. The solution which came to him in his bath and led to him shouting Eureka and running through the streets naked (allegedly) has never been improved upon and it is his method, more specifically its inverse, which we used to find the volume of our soil-cement pieces. Nowadays Archimedes' discovery is normally expressed in the form, "The loss of weight in water is equal to the volume of water displaced." Strictly speaking, the loss of weight in water is equal to the weight of water displaced but since 1 cc of water weighs one gram more or less, one of the more useful features about the metric system, we can jump directly from loss of weight to volume. Using this principle then the volume of a lump of stuff can be measured by hanging it by a thin thread from one arm of a lever balance to measure its weight and then letting out the thread until it is immersed in a beaker of water when its weight is again measured. The original weight is its weight. The loss in weight is its volume. So the original weight divided by the loss in weight is its density. The Concrete Division were using just such a system for measuring the density gradients of core slices cut from concrete roads. Because we didn't have a suitable lever balance we thought we would be clever and do it slightly differently. Using a pan balance we measure not the loss in the weight of the specimen but the gain in the weight of the water when we hung a specimen in the water. On day our Division Head was walking through the lab and he happened to see me holding one end of the piece of cotton and calling out the scale readings to my colleague. He stood and watched for a while looking puzzled. "What are you doing Grimer?" "I'm measuring the volume of these soil-cement slices, sir." "But the volume is equal to the loss in weight of the specimen. You are holding the end of the string. How can you measure the loss in weight like that." "I'm not measuring the loss in weight of the specimen, sir. I'm measuring the gain in weight of the water." "Are you sure you can do that, Grimer?" His incredulity was so palpable that I almost started having doubts myself. It was like when your wife asks you for the third time if you turned the gas off when you left. "Pretty sure. After all, the weight has to go somewhere, doesn't it! It can't just disappear." He walked slowly away looking very unconvinced. In retrospect I can't really blame him. When all your life you have been used to seeing a thing done one way, its very difficult to accept that it can also be done in completely the opposite way. Standing there holding one end of a thread with the specimen dangling in a beaker of water at the other it must have seemed as though I was engaged in some mystic rite of pendulum divination. [/pre]============================================================================[/pre]Now go to my website and read the rest of the "Stuff" file.[/pre]
[/pre]Sorry about the lack of paras. the programme has destroyed my tags. Put in your own[/pre]Alternatively go to my website and read the extract in context.[/pre] [/pre]
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 09:38:54 AM
Oh dear.
I was using the dancer as an analogy. You've pressed it too far.
I'm using science fiction to jump your ideas out of the grooves they are running in. To try and get you to use you imagination for once. To think outside the box, Dr Bono's lateral thinking.
Didn't you ever play Cowboys and Indians as a child - on your own - running around with an imaginary gun in your hand shooting imaginary Indians?
You need to exercise that kind of imagination here. Its like trying to see a joke.
Do you have mild autism, Asperges syndrome? Do you have difficulty seeing jokes? People who have a detailed knowledge of a subject like you have of electronics are often mildly autistic. If you are I'm wasting my time because you are never going to "see" it. If so tell me now.
[/font][/size]
Have you ever watched Star Trek. Do you love it or do you think it's childish and boring.[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Are you capable of becoming a child again? Because you need to if you are to enter the kingdom of gravitational energy.[/font][/size]
Grimer, we don't need to go off topic with science fiction, childhood games, or analogies that require elements that are completely unevidenced in the case under discussion. Again, I ask you to remain on topic.
Do all the lateral thinking that you like. Really, I encourage you to: ponder, imagine, play, think as non-linearly as you like. Look for inspiration wherever you can find it. Perhaps someday you will find inspiration that allows you to form insights that you have so far failed to supply. Imagination is wonderful for
conceiving ideas. Rigorous analysis and / or experiments are how researchers
test ideas.
We have your idea. It is that gravity is not always conservative. What we don't have is any expression of limiting conditions that would allow that against the myriad of conditions where gravity has been shown to behave conservatively. I am interested in whether evidence that supports your idea can be developed or not. If you cannot or simply do not identify some limiting conditions, then we are stuck with all the existing evidence that gravity is conservative and none for your idea. At that point, your idea just fails. No entertainment preferences can address that impasse.
If you ever do find insights that allow you to define a set of limitations under which you believe a gravitational field acts in a non-conservative way, then please share those insights and I will be happy to assist in developing tests for those ideas.
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 10:01:10 AM
This is an extract from one of the files on my website. As you will see, my [/pre]boss had the same problem as you. Lack of imagination. Lack of lateral thinking.[/pre]Lack of an ability to turn a problem inside out.[/pre]==============================================================================[/pre]
...
Now go to my website and read the rest of the "Stuff" file.[/pre]
...........................................................................................
Mon ami, a web address will help.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 15, 2014, 11:21:22 AM
Mon ami, a web address will help.
http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/
It's on my forum profile but since to get at it I have to click on the modify profile it's possible that only I can get at it.
Frankly, this website is the pits.
Mark seems to have given up (thank god).
I'll carry on the instruction with you if you like. From your posts so far you seem to have what it takes. I was impressed by your RAR diagrams.
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 10:01:10 AM
This is an extract from one of the files on my website. As you will see, my [/pre]boss had the same problem as you. Lack of imagination. Lack of lateral thinking.[/pre]Lack of an ability to turn a problem inside out.[/pre]==============================================================================[/pre]
[/pre]There was an interesting incident occurred whilst we were making density measurements, ...
If a measurement or evaluation method is valid then it should be both verifiable, and comprehensible to people with reasonable skill in the relevant art.
Archimedes' Principle is very basic. The method you used was well known when I learned it many years ago. Did you explain to your division manager that had you let the sample sink you would have gotten its weight, but by holding it submerged but by keeping it above the bottom of the vessel you got the weight of the displaced water and therefore the volume of the sample? If you did it suggests that the division manager was either having a bad day or was due to refresh his basic physics.
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 12:10:27 PM
.......................................................
.....................
Mark seems to have given up (thank god).
I'll carry on the instruction with you if you like. From your posts so far you seem to have what it takes. I was impressed by your RAR diagrams.
Mon Cher Grimer,
I don't think so, that Mark has given up.
Even if he did, you are hooked. and that shouldn't be an excuse for you to run to the back door.
He asked a basic
simple question and is entitled to a basic
simple answerCareful, I am pitching the ball, ......stretch your arms out to grab...
PS: No, you can not have, can be a valid answer!
Greetings, Yellow_Sunrise
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 12:41:03 AM
Mon Cher Grimer,
I don't think so, that Mark has given up.
Even if he did, you are hooked. and that shouldn't be an excuse for you to run to the back door.
He asked a basic simple question and is entitled to a basic simple answer
Careful, I am pitching the ball, ......stretch your arms out to grab...
PS: No, you can not have, can be a valid answer!
Greetings, Yellow_Sunrise
Red_Sunset, thank you.
The conversation such as it was is presently at an impasse. I don't think I have anything constructive I can add at this time. If Grimer wishes to think of that as me giving up, that does not bother me.
Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 12:10:27 PM
http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/
It's on my forum profile but since to get at it I have to click on the modify profile it's possible that only I can get at it.
Frankly, this website is the pits.
Mark seems to have given up (thank god). I'll carry on the instruction with you if you like. From your posts so far you seem to have what it takes. I was impressed by your RAR diagrams.
Hi Frank,
You are correct about the website, it is actually a web document repository, but it serves its purpose well.
You have a document there from the keely site, "the road to perpetual motion", this heading is pretty much what MarkE is asking for, but focused in on the pendulum.
If I may add my 2 cents on this road. and I do not want to pre-empt the ball that has been kicked in your direction Grimer, I only want to give the discussion an inertial push start. We all have good idea's and a refinement by taking the best of each, we might be able to construct something better that each one "standing alone".
I am of the opinion that we should start with an open mind following accepted physics paths and we are out to break the LAW. If our thought does not break the law, perpetual is out of the question before we have started.
We also know that a natural flow obeys to the known laws of physics (since they are derived from it), therefore
I am of the opinion that a perpetual flow has to be un-natural. The meaning of un-natural in this context, "is an outside interference that tampers with the process flow", and therewith introduces an asymmetry.
If the cycle process is left to the natural symmetry of nature, OU can not be achieved since observations for centuries have never observed this behavior.
In the context of the pendulum,
I am of the opinion to achieve OU, the swing of the pendulum needs to be interfered with. The interference needs to achieve a greater energy on the down swing than the upswing and be independent from the potential energy of the blob. The interference can be possibly, a one side string swing modification.
And so on & on
An alternative model for OU can be the RAR, some interesting concepts float around in that one. One aspect that can fox you around in understanding is similar to what foxed may people around with the homo-polar generator
PS: MarkE, I am sure Grimer will pitch the ball, patience is a virtue !
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 12:41:03 AM
Mon Cher Grimer,
I don't think so, that Mark has given up.
Even if he did, you are hooked. and that shouldn't be an excuse for you to run to the back door.
He asked a basic simple question and is entitled to a basic simple answer
Careful, I am pitching the ball, ......stretch your arms out to grab...
PS: No, you can not have, can be a valid answer!
Greetings, Yellow_Sunrise
I think he is quite capable of realising that.
Reading through your posts I see that you have had trouble with TK aka Al Setalokin - even resorting to capital letters on occasion. ::)
I don't think Mark is sincere. He certainly will not co-operate. And in those circumstances I consider my best course of action is to put him on my ignore list. To send him to Coventry. If everybody did the same with disruptive characters they would leave. If they came back under a new name one would soon spot them - especially if they were stupid enough to choose a name which was an anagram of the previous one.
As for being hooked. For a while I was. But now I'm the one that got away. 8)
I've replied to your PM.
Quote from: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 05:50:04 AM
.....................................................................
I don't think Mark is sincere. He certainly will not co-operate. And in those circumstances I consider my best course of action is to put him on my ignore list. To send him to Coventry. If everybody did the same with disruptive characters they would leave. If they came back under a new name one would soon spot them - especially if they were stupid enough to choose a name which was an anagram of the previous one.
Hi Frank,
The focus is on a simple question, that deserves a simple answer.
What is required, choose the lease painful one... ** Stop circling the fire.
** In good English, "hey Jo ....stop your duck and dive"
** As Tom Cruise repeatedly said in one of his movies. "Show me the MONEY"
** Failing the above, as a last resort...Lethal injection
Anything short of that will not do.
Faithfully yours, Red_Sunset
Below is a question I had from a BesslerWheel forum member who wanted me to explain my Two Flavours of Work post.
Since I also posted it here I thought I would post my BW reply here to for anyone who wants a layman's explanation.
I should point out that Mark is not the MarkE of this forum.
Quote from: MarkFor the sake of argument, let's say I'm not familiar with [even elementary] calculus. I believe you'll reach a larger audience if you are able to keep the discussion on an fundamental level. You know, layman's terms. One needn't know mathematics to understand the concept of a jerk [that's verb, not noun :-)].
You have used the term/phrase "jerk energy" several times in the past. In my previous post, I questioned the extraction of useful work that might be derived from tapping just the rate of change of an object's acceleration. The keywords there being 'useful' and 'just'.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that a moving object's kinetic energy can be tapped from any point between slightly altering it's velocity, and bringing it to a halt. But I guess my real question, Frank, is how much energy are you talking about? Are you talking about turning a generator, pumping water, lifting a box.
I've only just come across your post, Mark. I've been busy on the
Overunity.com forum.
I'll do the best I can to answer it in layman's terms.
Firstly, the amount of energy I'm talking about.
Bessler has given us evidence of a minimum value. Though not much compared to a steam engine - which is presumably why people lost interest in it - that energy is free and available everywhere on earth - even underground.
The energy you are familiar with is the second derivative, force x distance energy known as kinetic energy.
But there are other forms of energy, thermal energy, radiation energy, etc. These can be transformed (I prefer the word transduced to avoid confusion with electrical transformation) into mechanical energy for running steam engines for example or used directly without transducing them into their mechanical equivalent (you've no doubt heard of the mechanical equivalent of heat) to keep us warm for instance.
Now Jerk is as independent a source of energy from the second derivative as heat is. But because it is so close in hierarchical order to the second derivative, Force x distance, people don't seem to realise this. They accept heat (the nth derivative) and light (the mth derivative) as being different because they are zillions of derivatives away from KE. But jerk is so close that it seems just an aspect of KE.
There is one clue however which should give them pause for thought and that is the conservation aspect. The first derivative, momentum is conserved, the second derivative, kinetic energy is conserved, and jerk (angular momentum) is conserved. All three conservation laws are independent like independent nations bordering each other.
Another problem that arises is the use of the word "energy". It can be used in the global sense of ENERGY which includes heat, light, atomic, etc. or it can be used in the local sense of second derivative, Force x distance energy. It's a language problem.
We should really think of the first three derivatives as velocity energy, acceleration energy, and jerk energy. Then each would have its own name, its own nationality, like Italy. France and Germany.
But you might protest - but what about mass - where does mass come in?
Well we can think of these three as having unit mass - After all a velocity has to be the velocity of something. We can't have a grin without a Cheshire cat (except in Wonderland). So we can think of them as specific velocity, specific acceleration and specific jerk.
(If you wanted to go further, specific snap, specific crackle and specific pop)
Now I see gravitational "acceleration" energy as being mechanically transduced into jerk energy. This jerk energy is split into two.
One half goes off to earth and changes the angular momentum of the earth by an infintesimal fraction of its total angular momentum.
The other half is left behind as useful angular momentum which powers a mechanical device such as a wheel.
After all, we are already tapping the earth's angular momentum with space vehicles so we know it can be done.
It's called the slingshot effect though NASA prefers the term "gravity assist".
I hope that goes some way to answering your question.
Grimer, Newton's Second Law allows us to express energy entirely in units of: mass, distance and time: A Joule = 1 kg*m^2/(s^2). So that we may see their equivalence, please dimension the units for: "velocity energy", "acceleration energy", and "jerk energy" in terms of: kilograms, meters, and seconds. It will be helpful to show an example of energy in each form:
For example:
Accelerating an unimpeded mass of 1kg at a rate of one meter / second / second over a distance of one meter requires 1 Joule.
Quote from: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 08:17:19 AM
..............................................................................
I hope that goes some way to answering your question.
Hi Frank,
Thanks for your write-up effort.
It is a nice theory that we can identify energy in several component parts. It appears like a sensible theory.
So I have no argument with any of what is presented, although I do not see where it takes us any further than where we were before you posted it.
There is more to come ?, or should I do more digestion to satisfy my hunger
My interest lies in how this can provide a conservation workaround as you initially theorized to.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 11:14:35 AM
Hi Frank,
Thanks for your write-up effort.
It is a nice theory that we can identify energy in several component parts. It appears like a sensible theory.
So I have no argument with any of what is presented, although I do not see where it takes us any further than where we were before you posted it.
There is more to come ?, or should I do more digestion to satisfy my hunger
My interest lies in how this can provide a conservation workaround as you initially theorized to.
Regards, Red_Sunset
I'd already prepared the following offline before I read your post so I'll paste it and add any other comments at the end.
==============================================================
To sum up the diagram of a previous post showing the paths of a cicular pendulum and a cycloid pendulum:
The cycloid pendulum arrives at the lowest point of the arc having the NG 2nd derivative energy of the NG drop length.
The circular pendulum on the other hand arrives with both the NG 2nd derivative energy and a EG 3rd derivative contribution.
How can this 3rd derivative energy be visualised?
When I was a young design engineer indeterminate structures were analysed with an approximate method called Moment Distribution invented by a US engineer, Hardy Cross, a method long since superceeded by computers and Finite Element Analysis.
The forces at the end of a member were diagramatically represented not only by the tension and compression straight vector arrows but in addition by circular arrows which denoted moment or twist.
So the circular pendulum shaft has NG energy and EG 3rd derivative twist energy. It is this twist energy, this moment energy that is released to take the bob higher than its start position as it switches at nadir junction from the slow circular track to the fast Brachistochrone track.
==============================================================
To actually carry out an experiment to demonstrate this would be a herculean task since one would have to have a pendulum shaft with asymmetric properties; stiff on the circular pendulum side and flexible on the cycloid pendulum side.
However, if one thinks about it one can see how a stiff pendulum shaft will be given a moment as it falls since there is a well know phenomena which demonstrates this in spades.
And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment which is sufficient to exceed its bending strength. The shear size and weakness of the chimney shows this up whereas with the pendulum shaft everything takes place below the threshold of perception - but not below the threshold of reason. 8)
No doubt sourpuss TK aka AS would like to call that rationalizing. :-*
Hi Grimer,
well explained, even made sense to me. Thank you.
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 16, 2014, 02:38:14 PM
Hi Grimer,
well explained, even made sense to me. Thank you.
John.
Thanks very much, minnie. :)
I wish the people on BesslerWheel.com could understand me as well as you do.
Quote from: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 01:39:07 PM
And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.
It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment ....
I would like to offer an alternative explanation for the falling chimney:
See, chimneys are jerks who jerk off during the night because they do not like being watched jerking off.
Usually chimneys are blown up during the day. And when the chimney falls it wants to jerk off one last time. But the chimney cramps up in daylight and breaks because he applies a too great bending force.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 01:39:07 PM
I'd already prepared the following offline before I read your post so I'll paste it and add any other comments at the end.
==============================================================
To sum up the diagram of a previous post showing the paths of a cicular pendulum and a cycloid pendulum:
The cycloid pendulum arrives at the lowest point of the arc having the NG 2nd derivative energy of the NG drop length.
The circular pendulum on the other hand arrives with both the NG 2nd derivative energy and a EG 3rd derivative contribution.
How can this 3rd derivative energy be visualised?
When I was a young design engineer indeterminate structures were analysed with an approximate method called Moment Distribution invented by a US engineer, Hardy Cross, a method long since superceeded by computers and Finite Element Analysis.
The forces at the end of a member were diagramatically represented not only by the tension and compression straight vector arrows but in addition by circular arrows which denoted moment or twist.
So the circular pendulum shaft has NG energy and EG 3rd derivative twist energy. It is this twist energy, this moment energy that is released to take the bob higher than its start position as it switches at nadir junction from the slow circular track to the fast Brachistochrone track.
==============================================================
To actually carry out an experiment to demonstrate this would be a herculean task since one would have to have a pendulum shaft with asymmetric properties; stiff on the circular pendulum side and flexible on the cycloid pendulum side.
However, if one thinks about it one can see how a stiff pendulum shaft will be given a moment as it falls since there is a well know phenomena which demonstrates this in spades.
And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.
It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment which is sufficient to exceed its bending strength. The shear size and weakness of the chimney shows this up whereas with the pendulum shaft everything takes place below the threshold of perception - but not below the threshold of reason. 8)
No doubt sourpuss TK aka AS would like to call that rationalizing. :-*
Grimer, I see three statements that can be the basis for a testable hypothesis:
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Please correct any of these statements as necessary. Once we are absolutely clear on the hypothesis I believe that I can define experiments that do not require Herculean efforts.
Quote from: MarkE on January 16, 2014, 07:41:23 PM
Grimer, I see three statements that can be the basis for a testable hypothesis:
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Please correct any of these statements as necessary. Once we are absolutely clear on the hypothesis I believe that I can define experiments that do not require Herculean efforts.
Hi MarkE,
From my viewpoint, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The cost factor introduced by the cycloid swing path interference will be the prime consideration in the final balance tally.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, I think we have real progress here because I think that Grimer has said enough to that we can state his hypothesis clearly and unambiguously. What we need now is for Grimer to either agree with the hypothesis as stated or make needed changes so that it accurately reflects his ideas. I am optimistic that once we have the hypothesis nailed down in language everyone agrees on that I can propose experiments that will not require high cost or difficulty.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 17, 2014, 03:26:04 AM
Hi MarkE,
From my viewpoint, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The cost factor introduced by the cycloid swing path interference will be the prime consideration in the final balance tally.
Red_Sunset
Hi Sailor, ;)
Yep. I have to admit that in spite of being thorough pissed off with him and suspecting him of being an agent for Big Oil -
- a Battle of Waterloo carrier pigeon ready to fly home to his master as soon as it's clear that Gravity's not conservative -
- that he has a point.
Of course if the logic is sound then we don't need an experiment, do we.
We don't need experiments to show that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on other two sides, do we.
If experiment fails to confirm the many cheerful facts about the square on the hypotenuse then so much the worse for the experiment.
I suppose its useful to have an experiment to show to those too dim to follow a logical argument.
We'll have to call it the Didymus experiment, eh! ;D
Grimer, no argument by itself is going to make all of the observations that gravity seems to operate conservatively go away. If in the time of Euclid someone had shown that beyond some point there appeared to be no more prime numbers, and try as anyone could they could not locate additional prime numbers, then Euclid's assertion that there are an infinite number of primes would have been in great jeopardy. Therefore it is insufficient to simply declare that you have an exception to the common observation and accepted conclusion that gravity is conservative. If gravity is not always conservative that needs to be proven. That can be done by showing through repeatable and reliable experiment that gravity is not conservative under some set of conditions.
I have taken your statements and attempted to express what I believe you hypothesize as at least one set of conditions where gravity is not conservative. Please either confirm that those statements reproduced for your convenience here accurately represent your hypothesis, or change them as needed so that they do. Then we can proceed to work on an experiment design to test the hypothesis.
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Quote from: Grimer on January 17, 2014, 06:13:29 AM
..............................................................
Of course if the logic is sound then we don't need an experiment, do we.
We don't need experiments to show that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on other two sides, do we.
.....................................................................
If experiment fails to confirm the many cheerful facts .................................................
................................................
Mon cher ami, en face de la mer en angleterre,
Do not fear, there is no avoiding the inevitable meeting encounter with your maker.
Rice pudding with silver spoons await you when you pass his test.
For sure, ... high risk, high return. Although do not be intimidated, your imagination can be your greatest friend but unfortunately also your worst enemy.
If you want to cross the water, you need first to take the plunge.
MarkE does deserve a simple answer for his simple question.
Greetings, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 17, 2014, 06:35:35 AM
...
MarkE does deserve a simple answer for his simple question.
...
I thought I'd given it.
OK - I'll spell it out.
I can see no objection to his experimental proposal and I wish him the best of British luck.
But just as people on blogs point out that they are not giving financial advice to avoid
getting sued if things go Pete Tong so I should warn everybody that I have near zero
experimental experience and my view on such matters is virtually worthless.
During Elec Lab at Uni the meter on some part of the motor was winding its pointer around the stop.
So I disconnected it intending to connect it the right way round.
The motor (it was a big one) started to accelerate.
The face of the lecturer in charge of the proceeding went white and he
leapt for the controlling handle. When all the panic was over he eplained that my disconnection
had led to the motor accelerating to destruction.
After that the only thing I was allowed to handle was the small thingee one holds on the end of
the shaft to determine rpm.
Grimer, I have not proposed an experiment yet. I am waiting for you to confirm that I have stated your hypothesis correctly, or for you to make any needed changes to the stated hypothesis so that it accurately reflects your ideas:
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Hi,
we're obviously expecting our bob to end up higher than it was at the start point.
My question is: where will the bob be relevant to the pivot point, will the radius be
shorter than that of the original pendulum?
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 17, 2014, 05:41:43 PM
Hi,
we're obviously expecting our bob to end up higher than it was at the start point.
My question is: where will the bob be relevant to the pivot point, will the radius be
shorter than that of the original pendulum?
John.
Minnie for a given arm length, the cycloid pendulum extends less to the left or right at its apogee than a circular pendulum with the same arm length. The arm has to flex around the cycloid barrier so the arm does not follow a straight radial line from the pivot to the bob at either the left or right apogee. That means that if you draw a radial line from the pivot through the center of the bob at either apogee that radial line is shorter for the cycloid than it is for the circular pendulum.
Quote from: minnie on January 17, 2014, 05:41:43 PM
Hi, we're obviously expecting our bob to end up higher than it was at the start point.
My question is: where will the bob be relevant to the pivot point, will the radius be
shorter than that of the original pendulum? John.
Hi John,
"will the radius be shorter than that of the original pendulum? " I would say so, yes
I came to a similar conclusion, the cycloid curve alteration as compared to the circle curve, is a shortening of radius. (I saw after posting that MarkE confirmed the same)
I need to work on a picture to show that more descriptively.
In the mean time, some thoughts on the cycloid/circular pendulum Below are some assorted ramblings, assumptions, reasoning sequences as related to Grimer's theory & MarkE summary in very plain English. Comments, additions, alternate views are very welcome.
Swing Radius1.. The radius utilized by the bob in a circular path remains the same throughout the swing
2.. The radius utilized by a cycloid path can be approximated to a progressively shortening swing radius as the bob approaches it apogee,
The PeriodThe swing radius is the main property that determines the period of a pendulum
InertiaThe inertia possessed by the bob is influenced mainly by the swing radius of the pendulum rather than the swing angle.
1.. A circular path having a constant radius will therefore have a constant inertia.
2.. A cycloid path having an effective changing radius would therefore have a changing inertial profile.
Path The arc distance of the cycloid path is shorter than the circular path
Force/Distance/EnergyThe force-distance of an arc path (radian path) can be translated to a torque profile.
1... The circular path torque profile follows a cos pattern since its radius is constant
2.. The cycloid path torque profile follows a reduced ~cos pattern due to a changing reducing radius at its apogee. Its initial torque profile is reduced proportionately to its reduced swing radius. Its radius lever component increasing as it separates from the cycloid template former, when at the same time the force is reducing at a cosine rate.
The crux of our interest is how we can reconcile the PE (vertical height drop) of the bob to be different between a circular and cycloid path.
It has been theorized that the inertial energy (torque profile) acquired by a cycloid path bob is less as compared to a circular path bob when released from the same height.
It has been theorized that the inertial energy (torque profile) acquired by a circular descend path bob is greater than the energy required in a cycloid ascent path to the same height (the exit height attained by the bob is higher than the entry height).
Provisional conclusion This theorized observation leads us to believe that the proportional reduction of radius lever in the cycloid swing account for the difference of energy.
Possible ?? The definition of different flavors/harmonics of energy is a step in the right direction ?
Open to any comment, Red_Sunset
A cycloid pendulum with a free arm length Y1 has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with the same free arm length Y1. An ideal cycloid pendulum's period does not vary with peak swing angle, whereas the period of an ideal circular pendulum's period changes with peak swing angle.
I am waiting on Grimer to either confirm that my statement of his hypothesis is accurate, or to make any needed corrections. A test cannot be designed until the hypothesis is explicitly understood. Some other clarifications will also be needed such as a formula that describes the excess "third derivative energy" that Grimer contends is stored by the circular pendulum. The reason that we need the formula is that all experiments have finite uncertainties and we need to insure that in any test the magnitude of the this extra energy that we are looking for will be big enough that it will not get buried in the experiment uncertainty.
Quote from: minnie on January 17, 2014, 05:41:43 PM
Hi,
we're obviously expecting our bob to end up higher than it was at the start point.
My question is: where will the bob be relevant to the pivot point, will the radius be
shorter than that of the original pendulum?
John.
If you go to the figure at the bottom of page 16 of this thread you will see that the pendulum
wraps itself around the chop (link below shows what a chop is).
http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf
You will see that the pendulum is bent into a curve so obviously the bob is nearer to the original
pivot at its apogee that it was at its nadir.
You will notice I wrote the "original pivot". The pivot for the straight line section is changing. This
means we have introduced an new variable, length of pendulum shaft, into our system.
We now have three variables, NG, EG and L, the length of the shaft.
Three variable systems have the potential of transducing motion from one scale to another.
The most familiar example is the Carnot Cycle where the three variables
are volume, pressure and temperature. Motion is transmitted from the very lowest scale of temperature to the engineering scale of volume
(rotation of the pistons crankshaft) via the intermediate variable of pressure which shuttles back and forth between the two.
A less familiar example is the WhipMag Cycle where motion is transmitted from the small magnet Al spins up with his thumb to the large wheel with many magnets arranged around the radii. An example which shows the the magnetic field is not conservative.
Though why on earth nobody found this out befor Al is beyond my comprehension since we already have the magnetic refrigeration
analogue of the inverse Carnot Cycle (see diagram below).
I forgot to attach my card.
Hi Grimer,
loved the antique horology thing. I must admit I'm well out of my depth but am
enjoying this all the same.
What I wanted to know was if you could build on the increase in height by reversing
the cycle. My feeling is that if the bob ends up nearer to the pivot point you could not.
One thing that I have discovered through this topic is that is that Newton was a very
clever man.
Thank you John.
Grimer, I am still waiting for you to either confirm or correct my statement of your hypothesis. Here it is again for your convenience:
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Quote from: minnie on January 18, 2014, 04:59:47 AM[/font]Hi Grimer, loved the antique horology thing. I must admit I'm well out of my depth but amenjoying this all the same. What I wanted to know was if you could build on the increase in height by reversingthe cycle. My feeling is that if the bob ends up nearer to the pivot point you could not. One thing that I have discovered through this topic is that is that Newton was a veryclever man. Thank you John.
[/font]
Clever indeed - especially with regard to action at a distance.
Below is a post from BesslerWheel.com on this topic.
===============================================================
Quote from: GrimerQuote from: rlortieIf you will excuse me, and bear with me, I have some frustration that needs venting.
Gravity is the attraction of masses ...
No it isn't - and Newton thought the idea of attraction was daft. I don't have his quote to hand but it has been given more than once in these forums.
.......
Edit: Found it -
"The most amazing thing I (Tom Van Flandern) was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous.
This seemed unacceptable on two counts.
In the first place, it seemed to be a form of action at a distance.
Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton:
"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it." (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it'".
===============================================================
An excellent book on Newton and his contemporaries which everyone interested in gravity research should read is:
The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universeby Arthur Koestler
It's available in paperback from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sleepwalkers-History-Changing-Universe/dp/0140192468
Quote from: minnie on January 18, 2014, 04:59:47 AM
...
What I wanted to know was if you could build on the increase in height by reversing
the cycle.
...
Of course you could but it would be rather a fiddly process.
Below is a diagram I posted on BesslerWheel.com last October.
One would need a series of pendulums ready at each arrival station ready to take the bob up against the gravity gradient. It would be hopelessly impractical for generating energy though, obviously.
Grimer, are you ever going to confirm or correct the statement of your hypothesis? Do you want your hypothesis tested or not?
The flaw in Grimer's theory lies in the fact that one can not create a cycloid pendulum without putting energy in.
If I read the article http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf correctly, nobody could ever build a true cycloid pendulum.
The path of an pendulum on which only gravity acts is circular:
- this is obvious for a rigid arm pendulum (the rigid arm enforces it)
- this is obvious for a weight on a string because the string is always tight (does not bend or slacken)
What ever one does to distort the path of a pendulum to a "cycloid" path (e.g. by bending the pendulum arm or string) needs energy.
Besides this, Grimer shows the clear signs of a deluded person:
- nobody is clever enough to understand his outstanding mental achievements (he is quite aggressive in this respect, always questioning the mental powers of people asking straight forward questions; and one gets attacked fiercely if demanding clarifications of wild concepts)
- he states himself that his theory can not be proven by experiment (which ensures that nobody can disprove his delusion)
- he thinks that his mental capabilities are so great that he does not need proof by experiment, just look how clever he is, you just have to believe
- he always wiggles away from clear statements and does not answer simple questions
- he invents new science terms and unproven concepts to support his delusion
He is allowed to do all this, but one should not waste time with people like him. Yes, I am attacking Grimer because his style is very annoying.
Greetings, Conrad
conrad, I agree that it takes energy to flex the suspending thread. The really neat characteristics of a cycloid pendulum are that it is both isochronous, and has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with an equal length fully extended arm.
I have not seen evidence of the "ersatz gravity" energy or "third derivative" energy that Grimer contends exists and I highly doubt that it does. His latest diagram suggesting that a series of pendula that are circular on one side and cycloid on the other appears to contradict other representations that he has made. Those doubts aside, I am prepared to go down the road of testing for the existence of this "ersatz gravity" energy or "third derivative" energy that Grimer says exists.
Grimer says that he lacks the skills to define and conduct proof experiments of his claims. If he really believes his claims I should think that he would be anxious to see them evaluated fairly. That cannot happen until he confirms a clear and unambiguous statement of at least one of his hypotheses. If he holds out refusing to ever state any of his hypotheses in clear and unambiguous terms, then his hypotheses may as well not exist.
Quote from: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 03:36:16 PM
conrad, I agree that it takes energy to flex the suspending thread. The really neat characteristics of a cycloid pendulum are that it is both isochronous, and has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with an equal length fully extended arm.
@Mark:
I agree that a "cycloid pendulum" would be neat. But it does not exist ín nature. One can theoretically construct one, but this cycloid movement of a weight can not be done without investing more than gravity.
A pendulum swings and only gravity acts on it. So, you hang a weight on a string, you pull the weight to one side, you let go, and gravity does its thing and moves the pendulum back and forth (till friction stops it).
Now, to move a weight in a "cycloid pendulum fashion" one needs an apparatus which has to add an "other force" besides gravity to realize this cycloid path. This "other forth" could be an electro magnet pulling at certain moments with a certain strangth on little iron beads fixed in equal distances along the string holding the weight.
Whatever machine one invents to create a cycloid path for a suspended weight needs to use some "other force" besides gravity. Gravity can still be the major force, but something else has to be employed (a rocket, a diesel engine, an electromagnet) to deviate the weight the string or the flexible arm to cause the "cycloid path".
I think this is the gist of any counter argument to Grimer`s delusion.
I am convinced that Grimer does not even have a well formulated theory, just a bunch of misconceptions he dreams up when pressed hard. Some mushy believe, rooted in the will to be better, superior and different than people who did him wrong in his opinion, which might well be the world in general. Sorry, Freud just got the better of me. Some people in the OU forum awaken the hobby shrink in me. But I am serious about the need for an other force besides gravity to cause a pendulum to swing along a cycloid path.
Greetings, Conrad
The amount of energy needed to flex the string can be made vanishing small with the right design of string. Since Mark claimed to be able to design an experiment he should know this. As for the rest of the post I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:
QuoteI would like to offer an alternative explanation for the falling chimney:
See, chimneys are jerks who jerk off during the night because they do not like being watched jerking off.
Usually chimneys are blown up during the day. And when the chimney falls it wants to jerk off one last time. But the chimney cramps up in daylight and breaks because he applies a too great bending force.
Greetings, Conrad
I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations.
[size=78%]
[/size]
Conrad, I agree that it takes some amount of work to bend the suspension arm in the cycloid pendulum. There are also losses in an ordinary pendulum. Air resistance, and non-zero friction in the pivot bearing also constitute losses in any kind of pendulum. We can work to make these small, even going so far as to operate the pendulum in a low pressure bell jar. But we cannot make them zero. I do not know of any pendulum that does not run down. For the cycloid pendulum, if the suspension arm is out of very high quality spring material, then the energy bending the spring gets released as it unwinds. If we make the material very thin then the amount of energy that gets stored, and the amount of energy that gets released can be made very small, as can the energy that will be lost each cycle. The up shot is that we will have losses but that we can make them small.
Grimer postulates that horizontal extension of the bob from the pivot requires an "ersatz gravity" energy. He has posted diagrams showing this energy. He has also called this energy "third derivative" energy. If the energy that Grimer postulates were to exist, then depending on what determines its magnitude, we should be able to devise an experiment where according to Grimer's postulate it is much greater than the losses a pendulum suffers, and the uncertainties that would be present in our measurements. So we could by one means or another detect this energy including over and above any losses that winding the arm around the cycloid chop introduce. In order to design an experiment that could do that we need Grimer to state both his hypothesis, and how he calculates his extra energy.
I do not try to hide my skepticism of Grimer's extraordinary ideas. I don't see any source for this extra energy he claims. I also see disturbing self-contradiction of what I understand are his claims in his recent posts. Based on the history of well controlled experiments before, I know that I expect new experiments will again confirm that gravity acts conservatively. I am still willing to give Grimer's ideas the chance. That requires that he state his ideas clearly and unambiguously. Otherwise I don't know what it is that we are trying to test.
At this point it is pretty much up to Grimer to fill-in the remaining blanks. If he does, then great, I am happy to take things to the next level. If he doesn't, then the conservative nature of gravity marches on unchallenged. In that case he will have to find someone else to help him find evidence for his extraordinary claims.
And you couldn't say it more plain or fairer than that MarkE.
Your agenda is at least clear.
Quote from: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 07:11:01 PM
........................................................
At this point it is pretty much up to Grimer to fill-in the remaining blanks. If he does, then great, I am happy to take things to the next level. If he doesn't, then the conservative nature of gravity marches on unchallenged. In that case he will have to find someone else to help him find evidence for his extraordinary claims.
This is a simple case of a pending confirmation answer.
The answer is pending with clear indications of answer 'avoidance'.
No attacks are needed, all members are quite able to derive their own conclusions.
We all know where the ball came to rest in the court.
Nothing further needs to be said.
Red_Sunset
Hi,
it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
John.
Quote from: Grimer on January 18, 2014, 07:02:41 PM
.......................................
I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:
I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations
At this point, I think we have 3 options,
1.. PLAN-B, discuss the Grimer's motivationA discussion on why "Grimer" is avoiding to acknowledge the "MarkE" summary statement.
The summary statement appears to confirm pretty closely the theory statements that "Grimer" has postulated and published here already.
1.. What is "Grimer's" game?
2.. What is hidden ?
3.. Does he think that he has overplayed his card to gain recognition?
4.. Would he like to retract his postulation?
5.. Did he assume that nobody would hold him to his word and put it to the test?
6.. Is he just playing with time for maximum exposure and attention ?
2.. PLAN-C, proceed without GrimerProceed without "Grimer" on board.
The project definition as stated by "MarkE" is the basis for a verification test case.
Additional input is invited for evaluation to enhance the mission statement.
The next step would be the formulation of the test protocol and measurement requirements followed by
1.. Test1 steps
2.. Test2 steps
3....ect....
3.. PLAN-D, go home and do nothing.Just ignore the ramblings as a distraction and go home.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset the trouble that I have with the Plan B options is the highly subjective nature of each. I would much rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do.
Grimer has contacted me privately, but he has not offered confirmation or correction of my statement of his hypothesis. While we wait to see if Grimer will perhaps come through, I will suggest things that we can think about towards devising an experiment under a Plan C, or if Grimer comes through a Plan A:
We can minimize air resistance losses up to and including placing the pendulum in a bell jar and pumping the jar down to a low air pressure.
We can minimize the losses bending the support arm around the cycloid chop through material selection and support shape selection.
We can take advantage of statement 1) in the hypothesis that notes a cycloid pendulum has only gravitational potential energy at its apogee.
We can take advantage of statement 1) and the fact that at its lowest point the cycloid pendulum's arm, like the circular pendulum's arm aligns to the vertical, and therefore the acceleration due to gravity is normal to the direction of travel at that point.
We can construct Gendanken experiments before setting up physical experiments that will help us predict expected results.
We can look to existing experiments to see if any cover part or all of what we ultimately choose to set-up in our own experiments.
Because gravity has so often been shown to behave conservatively, if Grimer believes as he says that he does that he has an exception it is very crucial that there is zero misunderstanding of his hypothesis as to the conditions under which he believes that gravity behaves non-conservatively.
My proposed statement of Grimer's hypothesis repeated here again for Grimer's convenience to either confirm or correct:
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Quote from: minnie on January 19, 2014, 03:13:26 AM
Hi,
it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
John.
Minnie, energy associated with the greater horizontal displacement at apogee is what Grimer has labeled his eG and called "ersatz energy". I have asked him to provide a formula to calculate the "ersatz energy". I am waiting for an answer.
Quote from: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 04:42:51 AM
Red_Sunset the trouble that I have with the Plan B options is the highly subjective nature of each. I would much rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do.
.........................................................................
MarkE,
I agree that you "rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do." You can see this exercise as a scientific pre-test.
The Plan B cross-examines the relationship boundary between the "science idea/hypothesis" and the scientist (as a person in his social position/standing).
This interaction could have limited the disclosure and possibly nullify the hypothesis as it currently stands.
The lack of backing by the originator for the hypothesis puts a doubt shadow over the disclosure
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 19, 2014, 05:22:26 AM
MarkE,
I agree that you "rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do." You can see this a a scientific extension.
The Plan B cross-examines the relationship boundary between the "science idea/hypothesis" and the scientist (as a person in his social position/standing).
This interaction could limited the disclosure and possibly nullify the hypothesis as it currently stands.
The lack of backing by the originator for the hypothesis puts a grave doubt over the disclosure
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true. I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave. Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone. When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas. I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a mistake.
Quote from: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 05:46:48 AM
Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true. I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave. Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone. When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas. I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a mistake.
MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 19, 2014, 08:07:27 AM
MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset my concern is more the effect anything that might look like an attack on Grimer's personality might do to discourage other people from proposing ideas out of fear that they would be treated harshly. I think ideas should be encouraged. I also believe rigorous analysis and test are absolutely essential when considering extraordinary ideas.
I am afraid that I am quite certain that the hypothesis as stated can be shown to be false without getting to physical experiments or at most only requires trivial physical experiments. Without further input from Grimer, I believe that we are at Plan C or Plan D. This is because according to the hypothesis the cycloid pendulum translates only between kinetic energy and GPE. If the kinetic energy at the bottom of the travel for the cycloid case is the same as for the circular case, then we may conclude that the energies at the apogees are the same and since the hypothesis states that at the apogee the cycloid case has only GPE, then so must the circular case. All that remains is to look up maximum velocity derivations from actual observations for circular pendula. The hypothesis fails if any of the following are true:
1) The maximum velocity for a circular pendulum with massless free arm length Y1 and point mass bob mass M1, released from raised height Hdelta1 is the same for a cycloid pendulum with the same parameters.
OR
2) The computed kinetic energy for a circular pendulum at the bottom of its travel equals the GPE of the raised height of the bob at its release.
Quote from: Grimer on January 18, 2014, 07:02:41 PM
As for the rest of the post I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:
I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations.
Sorry, my obscene post was not nice.
But the aloof and arrogant reasoning of Grimer made me respond with something as absurd as his arguments. Not everybody saw the joke, again sorry.
Please read this document carefully http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf (posted by Grimer http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg383571/#msg383571).
The document says that the "chops" do not cause a true cycloid pendulum movement (or a isochronous clock) and that they were abandoned by the clock builders quite soon for this reason.
So, as I said, there is no way of causing a cycloid pendulum movement with gravity alone (by adding some guides or chops).
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on January 19, 2014, 12:27:59 PM
Sorry, my obscene post was not nice.
But the aloof and arrogant reasoning of Grimer made me respond with something as absurd as his arguments. Not everybody saw the joke, again sorry.
Please read this document carefully http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf (http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf) (posted by Grimer http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg383571/#msg383571 (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg383571/#msg383571)).
The document says that the "chops" do not cause a true cycloid pendulum movement (or a isochronous clock) and that they were abandoned by the clock builders quite soon for this reason.
So, as I said, there is no way of causing a cycloid pendulum movement with gravity alone (by adding some guides or chops).
Greetings, Conrad
Correct. Your obscene post was not nice. But since you've apologised we'll move on.
I looked again at the link I gave and found the there are no less that 60 references to "chops".
For your penance ;-) and to save me having to trawl through all 60 please could you tell me which reference to chops you are referring to.
Thank you.
Edit: I have now searched on the word "true" and it comes up with a much smaller number of hits.
I think quote on page 15 may be the one you are referring to.
Quote
But he deduced something else as well. When the work on the rigid body pendulum was published in Part
IV of Horologium Oscillatorium, Huygens put it unequivocally, at Proposition XXIV, "It is not possible to
determine the centre of oscillation for pendula suspended between cycloids." The very reason this is true
means that cycloidal chops do not provide an isochronous path for a rigid body pendulum.
But as you can see from the diagram on page 15 below the above quote this is not the kind of pendulum we
are discussing here.
Wouldn't you agree?
Quote from: minnie on January 19, 2014, 03:13:26 AM
Hi,
it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
John.
Of course you would have to move the pivot point. So what. No one's suggesting this as a a practical generator. It's to prove a point - a very important process in science.
You conclude "there is no, or minimal gain". But which?
Believe me there is an enormous difference being not pregnant and being minimally pregnant. ;-)
Quote from: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 01:34:34 PM
I looked again at the link I gave and found the there are no less that 60 references to "chops".
For your penance ;-) and to save me having to trawl through all 60 please could you tell me which reference to chops you are referring to.
In this document (which was cited by you) http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf they talk about chops in old pendulum clocks which were supposed to cause cycloid pendulum movement but they did not. Therefore the clock builders abandoned chops and the idea of an isochronous clock.
"It is said that Huygens deduced that, if the chops were cycloidal, the bob of a pendulum would swing
along a cycloidal path, rather than the circular arc of the simple pendulum, and the pendulum would then
be isochronous."
My argument: there is no way to cause a pendulum weight to go along a cycloid path by gravity alone. No "chops" or any other "guides" can do that. One needs to introduce other forces provided by some additional mechanisms (which will consume energy and the consumed energy will be at least the energy gained by the cycloid path, if there is indeed some energy gained).
But my heart is not in "gravity machines", therefore I will not invest more time in this topic. I belive in experiments, theory is cheap.
Good science is derived from experiments. Every valid theory must be supported by real experiments. Of course you may decline experiments, but that will also decline your credibility. But again, count me out, I am interested in other strange things.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 19, 2014, 08:07:27 AM
QuoteRed_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true. I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave. Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone. When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas. I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a mistake.[size=78%][/size][size=78%]
[/size]
MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset
Newlands was a prime example of that
Newlands noted that many pairs of similar elements existed, which differed by some multiple of eight in mass number, and was the first to assign them an atomic number. When his 'law of octaves' was printed in Chemistry News, likening this periodicity of eights to the musical scale, it was ridiculed by some of his contemporaries. His lecture to the Chemistry Society on 1 March 1866 was not published, the Society defending their decision by saying that such 'theoretical' topics might be controversial.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 19, 2014, 02:02:49 PM
In this document (which was cited by you) http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf (http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf) they talk about chops in old pendulum clocks which were supposed to cause cycloid pendulum movement but they did not. Therefore the clock builders abandoned chops and the idea of an isochronous clock.
"It is said that Huygens deduced that, if the chops were cycloidal, the bob of a pendulum would swing
along a cycloidal path, rather than the circular arc of the simple pendulum, and the pendulum would then
be isochronous."
My argument: there is no way to cause a pendulum weight to go along a cycloid path by gravity alone. No "chops" or any other "guides" can do that. One needs to introduce other forces provided by some additional mechanisms (which will consume energy and the consumed energy will be at least the energy gained by the cycloid path, if there is indeed some energy gained).
But my heart is not in "gravity machines", therefore I will not invest more time in this topic. I belive in experiments, theory is cheap.
Good science is derived from experiments. Every valid theory must be supported by real experiments. Of course you may decline experiments, but that will also decline your credibility. But again, count me out, I am interested in other strange things.
Greetings, Conrad
A very sensible decision. Good luck with your experiments.
Grimer, it is looking more and more like you will not confirm or correct my statement of your hypothesis. If that is the case then I'll do what I can to resolve the hypothesis as stated. My strong suspicion is that the hypothesis as stated is falsifiable on its face using existing experiment data. If my statement of your hypothesis is not accurate, it would therefore be to your advantage to post a correct statement of your hypothesis.
Quote from: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 02:57:00 PM
Grimer, it is looking more and more like you will not confirm or correct my statement of your hypothesis. If that is the case then I'll do what I can to resolve the hypothesis as stated. My strong suspicion is that the hypothesis as stated is falsifiable on its face using existing experiment data. If my statement of your hypothesis is not accurate, it would therefore be to your advantage to post a correct statement of your hypothesis.
The 2nd order derivatives are the same but the 3rd order derivatives are not.
If the problem were easy it would have been solved before, wouldn't it.
Quote from: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 04:48:46 PM
The 2nd order derivatives are the same but the 3rd order derivatives are not.
If the problem were easy it would have been solved before, wouldn't it.
Grimer, there aren't that many options: One is write down your hypothesis, and another is to keep avoiding it. You can confirm my statement of your hypothesis that I faithfully derived from your stated comments, or if I didn't get it right simply state your hypothesis. A third alternative is that you don't have a hypothesis. That's OK too. If that's the case, just say so.
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Mark
Why is the Brachisochrone path the shortest time of descent?
Why does any other path take longer?
Isn't it reasonable that going down some other path is going to leave its mark, its fingerprint.
If you only measure the 2nd derivative you won't be capable of saying down which path the
bob has come.
But if in addition you measure the 3rd derivative you will.
The paths are different, the third derivatives are different but not the second.
Newtonian Gravity is the same (2nd derv) but not Ersatz Gravity (3rd derivative).
You are concentrating on NG and forgetting about EG.
I PMed you about EG. I assume you got it.
Grimer, in order to take things to the next step all you have to do is confirm or otherwise state your hypothesis. If you haven't gathered your thoughts to the point of actually forming a hypothesis, that's really OK, just say so.
I've just seen something.
There's a James Burke connection between the Brachistochrone[/font][/size] and the graph below.
More tomorrow.
Brachistochrone[ bruh-kis-tuh-krohn]
noun [Mechanics]
1.
the curve between two points that in the shortest time by abody moving under an external force without friction; the curve of quickest descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautochrone_curve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve
Quote from: fletcher on January 19, 2014, 08:43:49 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautochrone_curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautochrone_curve)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve)
Good addition to the armoury.
Thanks, Fletch.
Quote from: Grimer on January 19, 2014, 11:58:56 PM
Good addition to the armoury.
Thanks, Fletch.
i was in hurry to open this page only for that,
lol
Below you see a host of optimum moisture content curves.
If we join up the maxima then we have a curve of optimum moisture contents analogous to the Brachi. If we move to the right we de-optimise. If we move to the left we de-optimise.
So we can see the Brachi as curve of optimum velocity. Move away on either side and we de-optimise.
Fastest average speed - or its inverse - shortest journey time.
Hi,
oh where is Al when you need him?
Grimer said to a question I asked "of course you can", I would have loved a comment from Al
like "no you can't"
John.
Minnie asked,
Quote
What I wanted to know was if you could build on the increase in height by reversing
the cycle.
Grimer replied:
Quote from: Grimer on January 18, 2014, 12:22:56 PM
Of course you could but it would be rather a fiddly process.
Below is a diagram I posted on BesslerWheel.com last October.
One would need a series of pendulums ready at each arrival station ready to take the bob up against the gravity gradient. It would be hopelessly impractical for generating energy though, obviously.
Of course you can't.... because there is no increase in height in the first place.
(Momentum is conserved, after all.)
Grimer has expressed several ideas that go against conservation principles. His diagram indicating that one could supposed daisy chain a series of half-circular / half-cycloid pendula to get higher and higher apogees both contradicts his earlier diagram and violates: gravitational fields as conservative, momentum as conservative, and energy as conservative. It is all fine and well that Grimer has these extraordinary ideas. I don't see how anyone can take them seriously when he refuses to state or even confirm any statement of a hypothesis, offer any evidence, or even stay on subject. His ladder diagram here, violates conservation of energy even if the "ersatz gravity" energy he claims could be shown to exist. According to this diagram, he can extract that energy and keep it, while it regenerates itself for free.
Hi,
Grimer,think about this. If you get negative horizontal shift your pivot point will end
in outer space or if you keep shortening the pendulum going the other way you'll
dissappear down your own pivot.
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 20, 2014, 09:39:00 AM
Hi,
Grimer,think about this. If you get negative horizontal shift your pivot point will end
in outer space or if you keep shortening the pendulum going the other way you'll
dissappear down your own pivot.
John.
The reverse journey would be a mirror image of the forward journey.
Hi,
Rubbish Grimer,prove it!
John.
Hi,
Grimer I'm going to feed my sheep now , I'll ask a few of them, there are 400 plus, one of
'em should know!
I'll apologise in advance if I'm wrong, it's that wet I might sink without trace or the
other possibility is that they're that hungry that they'll eat me
good luck John.
Quote from: minnie on January 20, 2014, 10:01:37 AM
Hi,
Grimer I'm going to feed my sheep now , I'll ask a few of them, there are 400 plus, one of
'em should know!
I'll apologise in advance if I'm wrong, it's that wet I might sink without trace or the
other possibility is that they're that hungry that they'll eat me
good luck John.
Apology accepted. ;)
Good luck with the sheep. Hope you find the one that's lost.
Quote from: minnie on January 20, 2014, 07:00:59 AM
Hi,
oh where is Al when you need him?
Grimer said to a question I asked "of course you can", I would have loved a comment from Al
like "no you can't"
John.
I think he's Mr Hyde today (or should that be Mr Hide ;D ).
Quote from: Grimer on January 20, 2014, 10:58:32 AM
I think he's Mr Hyde today (or should that be Mr Hide ;D ).
Please try to keep up, Frank.
Hi,
I asked my sheep and the best answer was Baaaa. This is a true story, once I took a ewe to
Rugby school. This fellow bought some of our ewes and lambs at Stratford on Avon market
and we had a phone call later saying one of the lambs hadn't got a mother. This one ewe had
dodged being loaded and hid in a barn so I had to put her in the car and take her to her lamb.
The lamb had ended up at Rugby school.
Grimer, what ever I do I can't use the added height to do another cycle without doing a
horizontal correction (which would require energy) I'd love to know how it could be done
John.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 12:08:00 PM
Please try to keep up, Frank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV7CO8No-CE
Hi, Al. Nice to hear from you.
I see that your WhipMag video, the one that "got away", is still available on
YouTube.
I would have thought you'd be able to get Google to pull it on the basis of
copyright - or something.
I was amused to see Desertphile's comment. Still, he does have the knack of
self publicity doesn't he. I wonder how his "hits" compare with yours.
Oops! TK's.
Bet they're not up to my granddaughter's though (Klaire de Lys). You should
watch her. She's got a Deviant art account too. I believe you're a bit of an
artist. You might be interested.
That WhipMag video is now 6 years old. Gosh! We are not getting any younger.
I can hear the grim reaper sharpening his scythe. ;-)
Still my mater lived to a 102 and as my pater used to say,
"There's no one so old that he doesn't think he's got another five years to live".
Cheers
Frank
I see a video of an electric motor in dim lighting. What's special?
Quote from: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 10:15:35 PM
I see a video of an electric motor in dim lighting. What's special?
he was in deep tunnel.....
btw i din't see others special yet
Marsing, I don't know why Grimer finds that dim video of a motor demonstration so fascinating. The narrator showed the motor starting up and running. I didn't hear the narrator saying anything like the motor didn't need a power source.
Grimer is fascinated by that video because he believed (and may still believe) things about the device shown that were flatly contradicted by the builder. Grimer engaged in many long discussions where he, Grimer, would not accept the builder's clear statements that the device was not OU in any way, that its performance was perfectly in line with ordinary physics, and etc. Now he seeks to use that video in some manner to criticize me.... when in reality, every time he posts a link to it, he is linking to his own naivete and hopeful ignorance. Notice that he does NOT post any of the discussions he had about the device with its builder. Not only is the device off-topic, since it has nothing to do with gravity wheels or Bessler, but also, Grimer is simply trolling. He has no point to make and no evidence to make it with.
TinselKoala if those discussions happened the way that you say they did then it is hard to understand what Grimer thinks he might achieve by bringing it up. Did the builder ever say that motor did anything remarkable?
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 01:15:44 AM
TinselKoala if those discussions happened the way that you say they did then it is hard to understand what Grimer thinks he might achieve by bringing it up. Did the builder ever say that motor did anything remarkable?
Grimer is seeking to discredit someone by posting the video. He is displaying his frustrations. He is in the same position as a child is, looking at the "disembodied head" sitting on a table in a circus booth. Everybody around him knows that the head isn't really disembodied, that it only looks that way because of the carefully positioned mirrors that make the table look like there's nothing underneath it. But he persists in exclaiming that the head is in fact disembodied, and proceeds to construct all kinds of theories and explanations for how the disembodied head came to be and why it can still talk. Even when the carny builder of the table tells the child that it is just a trick, the child persists in his fantasy belief, and tells his friends about the disembodied head that could talk. For years, the child continues to reject sensible explanations and his own common sense, and thinks he saw a talking disembodied head. Years pass and memories are plastic; eventually the child might realize his silliness.... or maybe he never does.
Quote from: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 10:15:35 PM
I see a video of an electric motor in dim lighting. What's special?
MarkE,
Nothing, just interesting sideline distractions, like Sheep flocks, moisture absorption, high capacity lite batteries, pendulum acceleration curves, a 150yr old references that prevent an answer, Koala'a mag motor... no problem!
Let me side step all this, for a quick note on the matter at hand.
An alternate theoretical view,This summary addresses a flow of energy in Grimer's proposal that bothers me, due too possible impact of the cycloid modification. The pendulum is of hypothetical construction for the purpose of analysis.
The downswing energy absorption is proportional to the cosine, the initial half absorbs the most energy per degr (radian) and lessens towards -90dgr.
The upswing energy reduction (attenuation) would follow opposite pattern, with least attenuation in the first 45dgr and greatest attenuation in the last 45dgr of travel. The attenuation experienced also follows a cosine function and the angular energy release is proportionate to the sine.
The upswing is modified to follow a cycloid path, this introduces a complete different proportioned sub-pendulum using chops that effectively shortens the radius of the swing arm and repositions the axis.
After the point the arm engages the chop, the string arm angle increases more rapidly than it would have without chops, (the reason for radian speed increase) therewith also the change of the sin/cos values that affect attenuation and energy release.
Without going into calculations, The blob travel will be attenuated faster but so will be the energy release with chops engaged.
Summary;I theorize that as the chops engage, due to alteration of swing angle , the energy gets consumed faster (cos) which is compensated for by faster energy release(sin). This creates the possibility of balancing out to the same swing height than if we maintained the circular path. (ideal view, ignoring losses)
Your opinion?,
Red_Sunset
@markE
I think I found it,
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 12:55:00 AM
Marsing, I don't know why Grimer finds that dim video of a motor demonstration so fascinating. The narrator showed the motor starting up and running. I didn't hear the narrator saying anything like the motor didn't need a power source.
you are joking, din't find something interesting.
pay attention to the motor not narrator.
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 01:15:44 AM
Did the builder ever say that motor did anything remarkable?
narrator said something that should be Noticed, " now, i gonna stop ....".
(just my opinion).
@TinselKoala, that sounds sad.
@Red_Sunset, I see. He's made it very clear that he doesn't want to state a hypothesis, and he's contradicted the best effort I could make to state one from what he's said. So maybe Plan D is best all around.
On the cycloid chop thing, the original idea from Grimer was that the circular path had more energy at its apogee than the cycloid at the same height. Whether one or the other has more energy we could determine by finding the maximum velocity at the bottom of the travel. Both types of pendula swing freely at the bottom and no one has suggested some alternate energy source, sink, or store at that point of the travel. So, we could do several things: We could construct pendula experiments using our best approximation for a point mass and a perfectly flexible and mass-less arm. Then we could see if there is any detectable difference in maximum speed at the bottom of the travel. Or we could go through the math and calculate the expected velocity and energy at each point of the swing. I don't have time to do that for the cycloid tonight, but it does not seem a particularly difficult task. Of the several issues that I found with Grimer's idea that there is some "ersatz energy" captured and released by the circular pendulum is that Grimer seemed to ignore that tension in the arm goes to zero as the bob reaches its apogee. He seemed to talk as though he thought the "ersatz energy" was associated with centripetal / centrifugal force on the arm, when at the instant the bob reaches apogee there isn't any radial force.
To answer your question: the cycloid path is steeper than a circular path so the acceleration / deceleration is more pronounced away from the center. That accounts for the cycloid having a shorter period than the circular pendulum of equal apogee. An alternate way to look at this is use low friction tracks and rolling balls. If we arrange various tracks with equal maximum heights, we turn the child's swing / pendulum into a roller coaster. If we arrange these tracks with different curves then we can observe several things:
1) There is no curve that we can design where the ball released from one side will top the release height at the other side.
2) There will be at least one curve that results in minimum transit time from one end to the other. 300 year old math says that will be a cycloid path.
3) A track made with a cycloid path will result in the same oscillation period independent of the starting point.
3) is the fascinating property of cycloid paths. It makes me think that the fairest pinewood derby track is one laid out as a cycloid as that would eliminate any advantage / disadvantage from slight misalignments at that starting gate. Some parallel cycloid tracks arranged to simultaneously release balls from different starting heights in each track could make some interesting physical art.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 01:41:40 AM
Grimer is seeking to discredit someone by posting the video. He is displaying his frustrations. He is in the same position as a child is, looking at the "disembodied head" sitting on a table in a circus booth. Everybody around him knows that the head isn't really disembodied, that it only looks that way because of the carefully positioned mirrors that make the table look like there's nothing underneath it. But he persists in exclaiming that the head is in fact disembodied, and proceeds to construct all kinds of theories and explanations for how the disembodied head came to be and why it can still talk. Even when the carny builder of the table tells the child that it is just a trick, the child persists in his fantasy belief, and tells his friends about the disembodied head that could talk. For years, the child continues to reject sensible explanations and his own common sense, and thinks he saw a talking disembodied head. Years pass and memories are plastic; eventually the child might realize his silliness.... or maybe he never does.
Are you claiming that you committed a fraud, Al. If so you are much worse than Mylow whose fraud you took such pride in uncovering.
But you won't answer my question will you. You never have in the past. You won't admit it and you are not prepared to lie. You just resort to some childish insult.
And please stop all this nonsense by referring to the builder of the WhipMag as though he is someone other than you. Readers of this forum are not that stupid. If you keep talking as though Jekyll and Hyde are two different people then members of the forum will begin to realise they are dealing with a schizo.
Grimer would you please calm yourself down? Where is this fraud you keep alleging?
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 02:50:42 AM
....................................................................
Some parallel cycloid tracks arranged to simultaneously release balls from different starting heights in each track could make some interesting physical art.
A pretty good animation that does that can be found here,
http://www.myphysicslab.com/beta/Brachistochrone.html (http://www.myphysicslab.com/beta/Brachistochrone.html)
Click on the curve to mark the ball on that curve in comparison to the others, since they all will launch at the same time.
Red_sunset
Hi,
if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 03:16:02 AM
Grimer would you please calm yourself down? Where is this fraud you keep alleging?
Yes, Frank, please explain how someone telling you that a device is NOT OU IN ANY WAY, that it is perfectly ordinary and everything it does is in accord with normal physics, someone who actually REFUSED your cynical offer of money for the device .... is a "fraud", or how it compares to Mylow, who told everyone he had a working Free Energy Magnet Motor and took money and materials from people under those false pretenses. Let's see you reproduce some of the conversations you held, where YOU were arguing that it was OU when the builder kept telling you it wasn't. Those were a real hoot to read at the time.
Frank Grimer, like one or two others, was utterly fooled by a simple child's toy, in spite of everything he was told by the builder, in spite of physics, and now he's bitter about it. He _saw something_ and chose to interpret it through his rose-tinted glasses, and would not accept other interpretations as possible or real. He also has funny ideas about internet identities.
Quote from: minnie on January 21, 2014, 04:11:43 AM
Hi,
if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!
There is NO extra height! You can put whatever "blocks" you like on one side of a pendulum's swing, and the bob will NOT rise above its initial release height -- unless it is 'released' with a push in the first place. No fiddling with flexibility of the support, fulcrum point or anything else that does not add energy, will cause the bob to rise higher than its initial release.
Imagine a pendulum with the first quadrant unconstrained and the second quadrant fitted with a cycloidal block. IF the pendulum bob reached a higher point than its initial release, you could simply swing the cycloidal block over to the other side (rotating around a vertical hingeline) at very little cost in energy, and let the bob fall, now from its higher initial height in the second quadrant, down its unconstrained arc and up over the cycloidal block which is now in the first quadrant.... where the bob would go even higher.... so you swing the block back to the first side, let the bob descend its circular arc and climb up the cycloidal block, getting even higher.....
I expect to see Frank's prototype swinging away, gaining height with each swing...... soon? No... Frank is not an experimentalist, he just has pipe dreams and berates people who DO build things and who tell him his ideas are FOS.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
There is NO extra height! You can put whatever "blocks" you like on one side of a pendulum's swing, and the bob will NOT rise above its initial release height -- unless it is 'released' with a push in the first place. No fiddling with flexibility of the support, fulcrum point or anything else that does not add energy, will cause the bob to rise higher than its initial release.
Imagine a pendulum with the first quadrant unconstrained and the second quadrant fitted with a cycloidal block. IF the pendulum bob reached a higher point than its initial release, you could simply swing the cycloidal block over to the other side (rotating around a vertical hingeline) at very little cost in energy, and let the bob fall, now from its higher initial height in the second quadrant, down its unconstrained arc and up over the cycloidal block which is now in the first quadrant.... where the bob would go even higher.... so you swing the block back to the first side, let the bob descend its circular arc and climb up the cycloidal block, getting even higher.....
I expect to see Frank's prototype swinging away, gaining height with each swing...... soon? No... Frank is not an experimentalist, he just has pipe dreams and berates people who DO build things and who tell him his ideas are FOS.
TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with, neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here. The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with, neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here. The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset
Yeah right, you know all about scientific analysis, remember you were the one totally convinced that Wayne Travis had a working OU device, when most people could see the BS.
Quote from: minnie on January 21, 2014, 04:11:43 AM
Hi,
if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!
Short of adding an external power source, I do not see how one can get extra height out of even one cycle. The input GPE translates into KE and then back into GPE. With zero losses the bob can only get back to starting height. With even very small losses it won't do that.
Quote from: powercat on January 21, 2014, 07:45:22 AM
Yeah right, you know all about scientific analysis, remember you were the one totally convinced that Wayne Travis had a working OU device, when most people could see the BS.
Hi Cat,
Some advice, get yourself better informed, so you can see the wood from the tree's
Take a trip to Oklahoma and visit the ZED production line.
With due respect, never think you know everything because there are multiple sides to a coin. There is always something out there to outfox you.
Being reasonable and humble is a virtue that can serve you well
Red_Sunset
@@Red_Sunset
Some advice for you, take your head out of Wayne Travis backside, and get a grip on reality, he is a con man that does not have a working over unity device, but with your rose tinted way of looking at science it is no surprise that you fell for it.
Look at his website, he removed the update page, so that he could stop himself repeatedly promising things that he could never deliver, the man is a liar and a fraud.
Red_Sunset, I am afraid that Hydro Energy Revolution has failed to show that they can produce any energy such as they claim. All of their demonstrations of the supposed underlying "Travis Effect" were misdirection of ordinary, well-understood physics going back to the days of Archimedes. In the various videos HER repeatedly misdirected with the false suggestion that material in a buoyant object is responsible for the buoyant force. That is completely false. The buoyant force is the gravitational force of an equivalent volume of the displaced surrounding fluid. Under water, the buoyant force is the same on a lead filled ball as it is on a helium filled ball as it is on an evacuated ball of the same volume. Dams have collapsed because of that force. The net upward force is the difference between the buoyant force and the downward force of gravity on the buoyant object.
In their first video HER displace most of the volume underneath the left hand cup using a sunken cement insert. The amount of air underneath each cup is irrelevant. It is the total volume of displaced water that generates the buoyant force for each. The only opposing force for each is the weight of the cups themselves. That is why it takes the same amount of diving weight to hold down each cup.
HER has never set-up the tests they promised to show Mark Dansie for almost three years now. Instead they chimed constantly about how much progress they were making by constantly changing their rigs. They claimed almost two years ago to have built their "instrumentation" rig. No sign of free energy has ever come from that rig.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with, neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here. The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset
I am not concerned with whether or not I impress YOU, RS. I've seen your sycophancy and your misedutainment already in the Travis thread. In fact I would be quite surprised if you ever actually came up with a cogent argument of any kind, pro or con.
You also don't seem to understand my "very graphical picture", which is taken directly from Grimer's diagram. He seems to be saying that a pendulum bob that starts out on an ordinary circular arc when first released (at height H with zero initial velocity, on the right side of the apparatus) will, when encountering the cycloidal "block" after the first half-swing, rise higher than the release point H, over on the left side of the apparatus. Am I correct so far? Are you following? It's hard to tell just what Grimer claims, since he refuses time and time again to state a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis in operational terms. So please correct me if you think I am wrong about this first part.
So what I have said is that this is wrong; that the bob will not climb higher than initial release unless some extra energy is supplied from somewhere... and it's not coming from a cycloidal block, that's for sure..
And I've tried to get you, or anyone else, to imagine a simple, vertically hinged half-cycloidal block, the hinge being disposed along the line straight down from the pendulum's suspension point. The block is initially on the left side of the apparatus. When the bob has reached its maximum height on the left after encountering the cycloid block, one simply swings the block over to the righthand side about the hingeline. This allows the bob to fall on the circular arc again, converting its _gained_ GPE into KE in the normal manner, until it encounters the cycloidal block on the right side, where it will rise _even higher_ than before. Continually swinging the cycloidal block from side to side costs almost nothing, energetically, since the block isn't loaded and the hingeline is vertical. Therefore.... you now have a perpetual pendulum, at least.
Yet we have no examples of such a perpetual beast, anywhere, even though it would take a decent woodworker a morning's labor to make it. Why not? I know why... and so do you, and so does Frank.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 09:01:57 AM
Hi Cat,
Some advice, get yourself better informed, so you can see the wood from the tree's
Take a trip to Oklahoma and visit the ZED production line.
With due respect, never think you know everything because there are multiple sides to a coin. There is always something out there to outfox you.
Being reasonable and humble is a virtue that can serve you well
Red_Sunset
I'm sure we will all be very interested in reading YOUR report of YOUR visit to see the wood from the trees, Red. What happened when YOU went to Oklahoma to see the ZED "production line" ? Please do tell.
We'd especially like some details about the lawsuit, and the "hard doors closing" and "expectations not met". A working prototype that demonstrated the truth of Travis's claims would seem to be badly needed to fend off the evil litigants and disappointed investors. Unfortunately no such thing exists.... in spite of Travis's many claims to the contrary. Am I wrong? If you think I am, please provide some evidence, not more insults.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A)
Hi,
Koala, if I'm reading the diagram correctly you pay for the height increase by the
bob ending up closer to the pivot, therefore you can't just swing the chops, it would
foul the cord. Once the bob gets higher than the horizontal things are going to go
wrong anyhow.
I can' t see any comparison with Mylow, he was a total fraud. Do you remember
that farce when he visited Howard Johnson's grave?
John.
minnie assuming a perfectly flexible arm, the only energy is GPE, ie height, and KE. At the apogee on either side the KE is zero, therefore with no losses the GPE's are equal and therefore the heights are equal.
QuotePowerCat - .................take your head out of Wayne Travis backside, and get a grip on reality, he is a con man that does not have a working over unity device, but with your rose tinted way of looking at science it is no surprise that you fell for it.
Look at his website, he removed the update page, so that he could stop himself repeatedly promising things that he could never deliver, the man is a liar and a fraud.
PowerCat, You appear to be pretty well opinionated.
QuoteMarkE ...............video'sof upside down cups
I agree with you on all your comments you made about the upside down cup video's. They were only props, intended to lead you towards understanding certain concepts of the invention.
QuoteTinselKoala..........................Yet we have no examples of such a perpetual beast, anywhere, even though it would take a decent woodworker a morning's labor to make it. Why not? I know why... and so do you, and so does Frank..
My point was that your beast was an exaggeration, far removed of what was speculated by Grimer. He never elaborated on the practical execution of his idea. You appeared to have an alternative agenda for doing so
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can assure you that,
I don't need a high priest trying to convince me what to believe in. And neither would I insist in changing your believe. My senses of reason are functioning well enough to make up my own mind based on information and evidence presented.
I can see that many members here have certain pre-conceived negative opinions on Wayne Travis and also of Renato Ribeiro, as seen in this RAR topic, What amazes me that they want everybody to believe that their opinions are fact without an ounce of case evidence. I regret their loss!
Sure, everybody is entitled to their own viewpoint, just do not become the high priest, preaching short sighted opinions without supporting evidence.
Not finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means only that you have not found it yet.
Peace, Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset the various aquarium and cup demonstrations were entirely acts of misdirection. The claims that they asserted in those videos were false. They claimed that they were showing something new and unique: a "Travis Effect". They did not show anything new or unique.
They cannot to this day describe what the "Travis Effect" does that is different from the 2000 year old Archimedes' Principle. There is a very simple reason for that: the "Travis Effect" is all misdirection that tries to lead the viewer into thinking that the upward force of buoyancy depends on something other than the equivalent weight of fluid displaced by the volume of the sunken object. The cement insert that they use displaces fluid just as well as an air bubble, and the results are the same when the cup is forced over the cement insert as if it were forced over an air bubble of identical dimensions, or anything else. When it comes to buoyant force: It's the displacement, it's the displacement, it's the displacement.
Despite that what they demonstrate is just Archimedes' Principle at work, in one of their videos they even claimed that they were showing a side by side comparison of the difference between the "Travis Effect" and Archimedes' Principle. The demonstrator keeps saying something like: "Come on Archimedes!". This leaves us pretty much with one possibility that they have such a poor understanding of science that they don't recognize Archimedes' Principle when the have right in front of them, or that their false representations are deliberate. In either case they have nothing of value that they can ever deliver.
QuoteNot finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means only that you have not found it yet.
Or that it has been proven not to exist and you will never find it. Or any of a lot of other things.
Did you know that there is a ton of pure gold bullion bars buried directly under your house, Red? It's only 30 meters down. I know this because I have invented the TK GoldFinding pendulum, and I've dowsed the map with it, and it told me where you live and that the gold is there. It has never been known to fail! (This is the first time I've used it, but my theory is infallible, so I know it's working.)
Now... tell me.... will you start digging? Not finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, remember. And I've given you exactly the same degree of proof for your gold, as Travis has given us, as Grimer, as .....
Get the point, or not? There's no point in searching for something that you know is impossible. Yet, we both can imagine perfecly plausible and physically possible scenarios where there could indeed be all that gold under your home. Pirates, Russians, the NSA, smugglers, have dug a cavern and hidden it there.
Still, I predict you will not begin digging for it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 02:31:00 PM
Or that it has been proven not to exist and you will never find it. Or any of a lot of other things.
...
Get the point, or not? There's no point in searching for something that you know is impossible. Yet, we both can imagine perfecly plausible and physically possible scenarios where there could indeed be all that gold under your home. Pirates, Russians, the NSA, smugglers, have dug a cavern and hidden it there.
................................................................
Still, I predict you will not begin digging for it.
TinselKoala,
I am in no position to disagree with you, what you are saying makes perfect sense.
I am also aware of the embedded human drive to search and drive onward to the next frontier.
If Columbus would have accepted the belief that the ocean drops into the abyss just beyond the horizon, he would never have sailed. Just a small glimmer of hope that what we belief is incomplete or not true is enough for us to pursue a solution.
"Or that it has been proven not to exist and you will never find it." >> That is always a possibility, but it is a risk taken that is offset by proportionate rewards that keeps the attraction. If that balance becomes unattractive, the process will stop.
** Discouraging people is counter productive, so is looking for "why it can not work, why it can not be OU". It just causes a lot of ill feeling emotions.
** Encouragement is productive, so is looking for "How can it possibly work", " what modification would achieve the design objective". Guaranteed to produce happy faces.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 04:36:49 AM[/size][/font]
Yes, Frank, please explain how someone telling you that a device is NOT OU IN ANY WAY, that it is perfectly ordinary and everything it does is in accord with normal physics, someone who actually REFUSED your cynical offer of money for the device .... is a "fraud", or how it compares to Mylow, who told everyone he had a working Free Energy Magnet Motor and took money and materials from people under those false pretenses. Let's see you reproduce some of the conversations you held, where YOU were arguing that it was OU when the builder kept telling you it wasn't. Those were a real hoot to read at the time.
Frank Grimer, like one or two others, was utterly fooled by a simple child's toy, in spite of everything he was told by the builder, in spite of physics, and now he's bitter about it. He _saw something_ and chose to interpret it through his rose-tinted glasses, and would not accept other interpretations as possible or real. He also has funny ideas about internet identities.
[/size][/font]
Look how Setalokin won't answer the question about whether on not he is TK. He says of me, "He also has funny ideas about internet identities."What has he got to be ashamed about. Why does he continue to deceive people.As for the WhipMag, it wasn't a simple child's toy. It was an experiment originally suggested by "overconfident" on which you were co-operating (he will be turning in his grave at your betrayal of his idea).
The result you got was quite unexpected by you. I was there, remember. Not physically but on the internet as you made the various timing measurements as it slowed down. You're lying, Setalokin and you know it. I
If it was a toy explain to us how it worked. If it is a toy why don't you go to the remaining video site and explain it was a toy made to fool your audience. Frankly the idea it was a toy is ludicrous to anyone who know anything about magnetic experiments.
That was an attempt to build a magnetic motor and to your and the viewers at the time's amazement it succeeded. You put out the video on the web then tried to get them back - probably on the instruction of your employer who took over the motor. Unfortunately, one of the videos escaped and is still out there on the web.
You did exactly the same thing to me on the Not the [Word removed at the request of Steorn] Forum(At that forum he is in his Al Setalokin persona. )
You put up a picture of a gyroscope experiment you were working on. Knowing your anal retentiveness I immediately pressed Print Screen. :-)Sure enough a couple of posts later it had disappeared.
Was he mad when I told him what I'd done! I think the expression is "He's got issues."
I fear in many ways I feel rather sorry for him. When I compare his lonely life with mine, I feel, what a difference. When on one sessionhe complained about his miserable existence I said I'd pray for him (we are both Catholics except I'm practising and he's lapsed) he got mad at that too and said he didn't want to be prayed for (I think that was his Hyde persona speaking - I'd better start fasting too :-) ).[/size]
It's because I think he has great qualities that I want him to stop lying about who he is and about the true story of the WhipMag - even if his employer doesn't like it.
I should explain that Al's employer seems to be some dilettante who pays Al to monitor the OU world. Isn't that right, Al.
Why would an employer do that?[/size]
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Quote from: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 03:15:28 PM
...
As for the WhipMag, it wasn't a simple child's toy. It was an experiment originally
suggested by "overconfident" on which you were co-operating (he will be turning
in his grave at your betrayal of his idea).
The result you got was quite unexpected by you. I was there, remember.
Not physically but on the internet as you made the various timing measurements
as it slowed down. You're lying, Setalokin and you know it. I
If it was a toy explain to us how it worked. If it is a toy why don't you go to the
remaining video site and explain it was a toy made to fool your audience.
Frankly the idea it was a toy is ludicrous to anyone who know anything about
magnetic experiments.
That was an attempt to build a magnetic motor and to your and the viewers
at the time's amazement it succeeded. You put out the video on the web
then tried to get them back - probably on the instruction of your employer
who took over the motor. Unfortunately, one of the videos escaped and is
still out there on the web.
Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor? That dark video that you linked just shows a motor. What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 02:27:46 PM
Red_Sunset the various aquarium and cup demonstrations were entirely acts of misdirection. The claims that they asserted in those videos were false. They claimed that they were showing something new and unique: a "Travis Effect". They did not show anything new or unique.
..................................................................
..........................................................
MarkE,
You might be correct that the Travis Effect" was pinned to the wrong model demonstration. I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact. Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed. To that purpose they were not misleading.
The Travis Effect referred to a distribution of pressures in the multi-layer pressure assembly. It made possible the asymmetry between the up & down stroke, and in turn the ability to harvest a positive energy balance.
Revisiting the topic pages and a bit of study would clarify this in greater detail. The current model has evolved and is unrecognizable from the system shown in those pages with dramatic improved efficiency.
Although a principle remains a principle.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Hi,
thank you MarkE and Koala for putting me right on this subject. Grimer I don't think you
need your patent attorney just yet! When you do I hear that Dunnelt and Codding are very
good, they still may take a cheque, ask nicely, of course.
John.
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 03:28:36 PM
Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor? That dark video that you linked just shows a motor. What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.
Also I believe it on Hierarchical grounds. Functionally it maps one to one on the Carnot Cycle. And no, I'm not going to explain what that means because I think you are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about and you are obviously too arrogant to try. I suggested you read some of the papers on my web site to see where I was coming from. You didn't deign to or you would have commented on them.
to arrogant Grimer?
John.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 03:42:16 PM
MarkE,
You might be correct that the Travis Effect" was pinned to the wrong model demonstration. I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact. Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed. To that purpose they were not misleading.
The Travis Effect referred to a distribution of pressures in the multi-layer pressure assembly. It made possible the asymmetry between the up & down stroke, and in turn the ability to harvest a positive energy balance.
Revisiting the topic pages and a bit of study would clarify this in greater detail. The current model has evolved and is unrecognizable from the system shown in those pages with dramatic improved efficiency.
Although a principle remains a principle.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset their claimed point is absolutely false. The upward force exerted on a submerged object is identically the weight of the displaced volume of the surrounding fluid, in this case water. That is Archimedes' Principle discovered over 2000 years ago. Submerging an object requires pushing (displacing) the surrounding fluid. It is the same as lifting the displaced volume because that is what actually happens. The
net force up or down depends on what other forces act on the submerged object. Obviously, the weight of that object, which for those examples is the weight of the plastic cups is one force. Tom's hand or the diving weights are other forces applied at different times in the videos. If the total downward force exceeds the upward buoyant force then the object sinks. If is less, the object surfaces. If it is exactly the same, the object can remain stable at any submerged depth.
There is no new principle underlying anything that HER have put together. They have built a complicated machine that is good for baffling people. It is not good for delivering a single Joule of energy in excess of what is expended charging it up and operating it.
HER can not now, and could not ever prove excess energy. When people put together complicated contraptions they often try and convince people that they can come up with free energy by showing what turn out to be under close examination flawed analysis of forces that they then integrate to get to their energy numbers. A sure fire sanity check against anyone's force integrations is whether or not they satisfy Conservation of Mass/Energy. If they don't, then it's time to go looking for the mistakes. For all the levers, valves, bellows, chambers and other mechanisms in the ZED and the TAZ, they are at the end of the day glorified buckets of water and air balloons.
Quote from: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 04:48:34 PM
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.
Also I believe it on Hierarchical grounds. Functionally it maps one to one on the Carnot Cycle. And no, I'm not going to explain what that means because I think you are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about and you are obviously to arrogant to try. I suggested you read some of the papers on my web site to see where I was coming from. You didn't deign to or you would have commented on them.
Grimer, that's great that you "were there", wherever "there" might have been.
Did the creator claim the device makes free energy?
Did you personally inspect the device to determine somehow it made free energy? If so, what tests did you, the declared non-experimentalist perform?
Did a subject matter expert inspect the device? If so, what tests did they perform, and where may we find their report?
Did a subject matter expert reproduce the device and find a replication produced free energy?
Saying that you believe something is all fine and well. I asked you what
facts you relied on, not what
beliefs.
Do or don't do what you want. If you want to convince me of an extraordinary claim then you will need to come up with compelling evidence. You haven't offered any evidence at all.
For Mark:
Do an experiment--
Hold a bowling ball under water at arms length and release it with
your nose barely touching the water
Then hold a volleyball(very near same size) at arms length and
release it with your nose barely touching the water.
See any difference??
Quote from: camelherder49 on January 21, 2014, 06:38:07 PM
For Mark:
Do an experiment--
Hold a bowling ball under water at arms length and release it with
your nose barely touching the water
Then hold a volleyball(very near same size) at arms length and
release it with your nose barely touching the water.
See any difference??
Camelherder it should come as no surprise that if we weigh each prior to the experiment that we will find that given identical volumes that the force we have to exert downward on the volleyball is identically greater than the force we have to exert on the bowling ball by the difference in their weights. The math works as such:
Wdry_bb = weight of the bowling ball on land.
Wdry_vb = weight of the volley ball on land.
VOL_b = volume of each ball.
Fbuoyant = the buoyancy force exerted on either ball
Fnet_bb = the net vertical force on the bowling ball
Fnet_vb = the net vertical force on the volley ball.
Force direction convention: -up +down
Fbuoyant = -VOL_b * 1kg/liter
Fnet_bb = Fbuoyant + Wdry_bb
Fnet_vb = Fbuoyant + Wdry_vb
Fnet_bb - Fnet_vb = (Fbuoyant + Wdry_bb) - (Fbuoyant + Wdry_vb) = Wdry_bb - Wdry_vb
Doesn't matter. You still get a face full of volley ball in potential energy.
Quote from: camelherder49 on January 21, 2014, 07:49:00 PM
Doesn't matter. You still get a face full of volley ball in potential energy.
You do only because of all that water you have to lift in order to submerge the volley ball. For equal volumes it's identically the water that you have to lift in order to submerge the bowling ball. The bowling ball's extra weight provides the extra assist. Just mind the toes.
In Saugus California in 1928, and in Malpasset France 1958 entire dams failed because of buoyant lift from water that weeped under them.
I see that Mark hasn't being doing so well with his hypocritical pretence of co-operation so Screwtape has sent his friend TK to assist him by sowing FUD.
For the benefit of those who actually want free lunches I'll go over things again.
The cycloid is the fastest path of descent - and ascent for that matter.
A cycloid pendulum has a string connection between the bob and the pivot. A string cannot take bending stress (3rd derivative energy).
A conventional pendulum has a connection between the bob and the pivot which can take bending stress.
Th bob of a conventional pendulum takes longer from apogee to nadir than the bob of a cycloid.
Why?
Pehaps T(al)K thinks it's Mary Yugo's freudian slip pink unicorns which are holding it back.
It isn't.
It's the EG energy put in by the bending action, the same moment/couple that leads to the breaking of a falling chimney which is week in bending.
So the circular path bob on a conventional shaft arrives at the nadir with more total energy than the cycloid. If this energy is transferred from conventional to cycloid then the cycloid will manifest this energy as an increase in gravitational potential.
It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.
(Anyone not familiar with mary's pink unicorn can Google
"mary yugo" pink unicorn and find how fond she is of them).
Quote from: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 04:48:34 PM
You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.
As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.
QuoteIt will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.
No, it won't. Conservation laws and practical experience and the reductio ad absurdum I presented all say it won't. The only thing you have presented as "evidence" for your assertion... it isn't even a claim... is a mistaken interpretation of the brachistochrone/tautochrone problem.
Get off your lazy ass and build something for yourself and see. Quit insulting your betters and quit making assertions that you cannot support with evidence or even a logical argument.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 21, 2014, 09:05:13 PM
As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.
Exactly.
Quote from: minnie on January 21, 2014, 04:55:37 PM
to arrogant Grimer?
John.
Thank you for pointing out the typo, John. I've now corrected it.
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 06:15:11 PM
Red_Sunset their claimed point is absolutely false. The upward force exerted on a submerged object is identically the weight of the displaced volume of the surrounding fluid, in this case water. That is Archimedes' Principle discovered over 2000 years ago. ..............................................................
...................................................................................
MarkE,
Nobody is claiming that Archimedes was wrong or that the exact working principle of the ZED is what is shown with the cups. Nobody is claiming OU with the cups. As I stated in my previous post, shown again below.....
QuotePOST #436............................................I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact. Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed. To that purpose they were not misleading.
Post #436 is conveying the message that the invention is based on the basic physics principles shown in the aquarium cup demonstrations. That was to refresh readers mind and set he stage of understanding for what follows.
The invention uses certain physics properties as shown in the demonstration to achieve the inventor's objective. Although the demonstration is not a direct representation of the invention, neither of possible OU, only optimization or minimal requirements.
Please read and think beyond the start phase of any inventive property presented or you might/will miss the essence of their communication.
Red_sunset
Red_Sunset, the videos claimed to demonstrate the "Travis Effect". They failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle known for over 2000 years. The videos claimed that this "Travis Effect" offers a way to create energy. They did nothing of the kind. There has never been any demonstrable cheat on gravity as a conservative field. Since, buoyancy is simply gravity operating on a fluid, it follows that as long as gravity is conservative, anything that involves buoyancy is also conservative. Buoyancy messes with some people's intuition because energy is stored by exerting work in order to submerge an object, and (almost all of) the work is returned surfacing the object. Let gravity supply the work by weighting something down, and there is that much less energy available to recover by surfacing the sunken object. Camelherder's volley ball and bowling ball example works great illustrating that fact.
I welcome anyone to state what they think the "Travis Effect" is supposed to be. Despite their silly misdirection videos, no one at HER has ever stated what this "Travis Effect" is. One would think that if someone is supposedly engineering machines based on some principle that they would at least know: right, wrong, or indifferent what the principle is. That is not so at HER.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 21, 2014, 09:05:13 PM
As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.
Interesting that you don't refer to Al by name.
It wasn't only me. Desertphile also insisted very volubly that the WhipMag video was proof of OU.
Quote from: Grimer on January 21, 2014, 09:01:37 PM
I see that Mark hasn't being doing so well with his hypocritical pretence of co-operation so Screwtape has sent his friend TK to assist him by sowing FUD.
For the benefit of those who actually want free lunches I'll go over things again.
The cycloid is the fastest path of descent - and ascent for that matter.
A cycloid pendulum has a string connection between the bob and the pivot. A string cannot take bending stress (3rd derivative energy).
A conventional pendulum has a connection between the bob and the pivot which can take bending stress.
Th bob of a conventional pendulum takes longer from apogee to nadir than the bob of a cycloid.
Why?
Pehaps T(al)K thinks it's Mary Yugo's freudian slip pink unicorns which are holding it back.
It isn't.
It's the EG energy put in by the bending action, the same moment/couple that leads to the breaking of a falling chimney which is week in bending.
So the circular path bob on a conventional shaft arrives at the nadir with more total energy than the cycloid. If this energy is transferred from conventional to cycloid then the cycloid will manifest this energy as an increase in gravitational potential.
It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.
(Anyone not familiar with mary's pink unicorn can Google
"mary yugo" pink unicorn and find how fond she is of them).
Grimer, all you need do is state an actual hypothesis and then we can approach the issue of setting up a good experimental test for that hypothesis.
You keep asserting that there is an "ersatz gravity" or "ersatz energy" associated with the circular pendulum at its apogee. You have associated that "ersatz gravity" to centrifugal / centripetal force. That's a curious claim as the tension in the arm, IE the centrifugal / centripetal force at apogee is zero. So, where is this "ersatz energy" and how does it manifest itself? According to your sketches it appears that at the bottom of the circular pendulum travel this "ersatz energy" has all been released. Why then is it that we do not observe any extra velocity at the bottom of the travel of a circular pendulum than predicted with zero "ersatz energy"? Where does the "ersatz energy" go? And if it goes somewhere other than KE, then how can it possibly be that it can be transferred to a cycloid pendulum that you state has no "ersatz energy"?
Quote from: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 01:38:48 AM
Interesting that you don't refer to Al by name.
It wasn't only me. Desertphile also insisted very volubly that the WhipMag video was proof of OU.
Grimer, please take better care representing what is contained in references that you cite. In the video that you linked that Desertphile character insisted that the video of the motor failed to prove over unity.
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 01:38:41 AM
..................................................................
.....................................................
I welcome anyone to state what they think the "Travis Effect" is supposed to be. Despite their silly misdirection videos, no one at HER has ever stated what this "Travis Effect" is. One would think that if someone is supposedly engineering machines based on some principle that they would at least know: right, wrong, or indifferent what the principle is. That is not so at HER.
MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was. I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.
For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1.. The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2.. The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.
We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate. You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 04:39:17 AM
MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was. I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.
For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1.. The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2.. The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.
We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate. You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.
Red_Sunset
Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'. His conclusions from the provided videos and demonstrations of the 'principle' are demonstrably false.
Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework that could explain how it might work.
Initially I think he was deluded, but now he acts fraudulently.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 22, 2014, 04:45:46 AM
Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'. His conclusions from the provided videos and demonstrations of the 'principle' are demonstrably false.
Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework that could explain how it might work.
Initially I think he was deluded, but now he acts fraudulently.
LibreEnergia,
You appear to hold similar opinions as MarkE.
Lucky for all of us, that opinions and hearsay are not upheld as evidence in the "court of law" otherwise we all would have been convicted a few times over, unjustly.
So you make 6 statements:
1.. Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'
2.. His conclusions from the provided are false
3.. Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework
4.. Neither did he ever explain how it might work.
5.. Initially I think he was deluded,
6.. Now he acts fraudulently.
Why would I just belief your opinions, especially since I received the same information as you did from the forum, and I can testify that the first 4 knowledge items were addressed and understood from the forum.
In order to advance your understanding, Did you address these specific shortcomings in your understanding with Wayne ? If yes, pls state which messages they were.
What specific behavior or statements did he made, that you attribute to "delusion" ?
What action did he made to warrant a "Fraud" charge ?
Be careful, because assumptions and opinions are not allowable at this grave level of accusation.
Also do consider that delusion or fraud must be of a non-technical nature since you already admitted to not understanding the first 4 items that encompass the technical nature of the invention. This puts you in a peculiar position since our interests are of a technical nature.
Are you also of the opinion that Renato Ribeiro also falls into this same category? After all this topic "Big try at Gravity Wheel " is his system that is under the spotlight.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 04:39:17 AM
MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was. I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.
For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1.. The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2.. The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.
We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate. You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, I agree with you that just bantering: "Yes it is." / "No it isn't" opinions is not productive. I trust that you are amenable to reviewing facts. Please allow me to address your disappointment: In 2012, I asked HER several times to state what the "Travis Effect" is. Each time I asked, they refused. HER are the ones who claim that this "Travis Effect" exists and is responsible for what Wayne Travis calls "disruptive technology" that allows for free energy from their gravity / buoyancy machine.
I also note that HER promised Mark Dansie many times over the past several years that they would have a machine available for him to observe during a 48 hour run down test. To this day they have never delivered on that promise.
Do you agree that in order for HER to have anything worthwhile that:
1. There must be a "Travis Effect" and
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to exploit non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field
If you do, then please point me to any declaration by HER of what the "Travis Effect" supposedly is. Once we have a statement of what they claim makes their free energy machine possible, then we can rationally address how to test if such an effect is possible. Do you think that is fair?
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 07:23:02 AM
Red_Sunset, do you agree that in order for HER to have anything worthwhile that:
1. There must be a "Travis Effect" and
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?
Questions.1. There must be a "Travis Effect"
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?
Answers.The Travis Effect is a general grouping of characteristics that are instrumental to create an asymmetric behavior in the Hydro Piston/Lever, that can be employed to milk the gravitational field.
If you go back to the Wayne's data, you would see that his pressure vs lifting capacity data presented are non-linear.
1.. More Kg per psi in the high end pressure range (Ascent).
2.. More pressure per Kg in the lower end range (Descend) .
Since this is a hydro system, water movement impedes the cycle rate, therefore it is important to minimize the water volume that need to be shuffled around (one of the aquarium demo's).
The inverted multi-layer piston as an asymmetric hydraulic lever, is the key to that asymmetry. The cycle is played out over the same travel distance (key important fact to differentiate it from a simple lever)
Renato Ribeiro with the RAR "in principle" does the same thing. Sure he approaches it from a different design angle and it is mechanical, but the "fine print principle", is the same concept. I have still some reservations about Renato's implementation and I "feel" that he is marginal in the differentiation between up & down strokes. But that is purely an engineering issue that needs to be overcome.
Some assumptions of comparison, the ZED vs the RAR System.
* The RAR would be able to achieve more cycles/min than the ZED,
** Zed would be able to master more energy per cycle due to the greater force ability.
*** The RAR would have a larger foot print than the Zed for the same capacity
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 01:55:45 AM
Grimer, please take better care representing what is contained in references that you cite. In the video that you linked that Desertphile character insisted that the video of the motor failed to prove over unity.
No. He insisted it was a Effing Fraud - (or words to that effect :D )- because he realised full well that if it wasn't a fraud it proved overunity.
Quote from: minnie on January 21, 2014, 04:32:35 PM
Hi,
thank you MarkE and Koala for putting me right on this subject. Grimer I don't think you
need your patent attorney just yet! When you do I hear that Dunnelt and Codding are very
good, they still may take a cheque, ask nicely, of course.
John.
I hope the sheep are doing well, John. :)
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 06:22:31 PM...
If you want to convince me of an extraordinary claim then you will need to come up with compelling evidence.
I've no wish to convince you of anything, Mark.
As I said to Dr Blackman, before he began uncontrollably blubbing, :'(
"You're free to have your opinion Dr Blackman but you must let me have mine."
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 08:21:53 AM
Questions.
1. There must be a "Travis Effect"
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?
Answers.
The Travis Effect is a general grouping of characteristics that are instrumental to create an asymmetric behavior in the Hydro Piston/Lever, that can be employed to milk the gravitational field.
If you go back to the Wayne's data, you would see that his pressure vs lifting capacity data presented are non-linear.
1.. More Kg per psi in the high end pressure range (Ascent).
2.. More pressure per Kg in the lower end range (Descend) .
...
I'm beginning to like the sound of this "Travis Effect", Red. Where's the best place to read about it.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 22, 2014, 08:21:53 AM
Questions.
1. There must be a "Travis Effect"
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?
Answers.
The Travis Effect is a general grouping of characteristics that are instrumental to create an asymmetric behavior in the Hydro Piston/Lever, that can be employed to milk the gravitational field.
I am sorry, but this opaque statement does not state anything specific. Please point me to where I may find a description of the "Travis Effect" by HER. Or alternatively, please state the
specific characteristics that define it.
Quote
If you go back to the Wayne's data, you would see that his pressure vs lifting capacity data presented are non-linear.
1.. More Kg per psi in the high end pressure range (Ascent).
2.. More pressure per Kg in the lower end range (Descend) .
Since this is a hydro system, water movement impedes the cycle rate, therefore it is important to minimize the water volume that need to be shuffled around (one of the aquarium demo's).
The inverted multi-layer piston as an asymmetric hydraulic lever, is the key to that asymmetry. The cycle is played out over the same travel distance (key important fact to differentiate it from a simple lever)
Renato Ribeiro with the RAR "in principle" does the same thing. Sure he approaches it from a different design angle and it is mechanical, but the "fine print principle", is the same concept. I have still some reservations about Renato's implementation and I "feel" that he is marginal in the differentiation between up & down strokes. But that is purely an engineering issue that needs to be overcome.
Some assumptions of comparison, the ZED vs the RAR System.
* The RAR would be able to achieve more cycles/min than the ZED,
** Zed would be able to master more energy per cycle due to the greater force ability.
*** The RAR would have a larger foot print than the Zed for the same capacity
Red_Sunset
I reiterate that the aquarium demonstrations failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle. I believe that it was the second video where Tom made the assertion that the demonstration had shown an avenue to gain energy by way of the so-called "Travis Effect". The videos imply that the "Travis Effect" has something to do with the absolutely false notion that the amount of air underneath either cup had anything to do with the buoyant force exerted by the surrounding water which is in fact entirely defined as the equivalent weight of the displaced water.
ETA: Here is some food for thought. A ways back in this thread, Grimer recounted his experience employing Archimedes' Principle to determine the volume of odd shaped samples. Grimer and his coworkers measured the volume of their SG > 1 samples by suspending them submerged, in a volume of water. They obtained the volume as the difference in weigh scale readings of the set-up with a submerged sample versus the reading with no sample and dividing that difference by the density of water. What he did was completely valid. Now, think about that with respect to any and all of the videos or any statements that HER have made. Grimer's method relied on the absolute fact that the buoyant force is the equivalent weight of displaced water. It did not matter that his samples had an SG > 1. The buoyant force up on his samples transmitted through the container to the weigh scale below, identically increasing the reading by the equivalent weight of displaced water.
A cute experiment that you can try if you have a balance arm and a bucket is to hang matching weights on either side of the balance arm so that it is level with one weight hanging in the bucket while the bucket is empty. Now gently add water to the bucket until the water is just short of the weight. Note that the balance arm remains level. Now add enough water to submerge the weight. What happens to the balance arm? Why? See how much weight you need to add to rebalance the arm.
Hi Grimer,
conditions are awful for the poor sheep. I've been working on this land for 55 years and this is the
wettest I have ever seen it.
I like you Grimer, you've got a sense of humour, a thing a lot of contributors don't seem to have.
I have been on a similar journey with Fletcher-we never got anywhere, but I enjoyed the ride.
Glad to hear you've got grandchildren, we've got a baby in the house at the moment and I just
can't imagine how my wife and me managed when we had four in under five years.
John.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 21, 2014, 09:05:13 PM
As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.
I seem to be the one whose being stalked at present. :D
Quote from: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 09:09:00 AM
I'm beginning to like the sound of this "Travis Effect", Red. Where's the best place to read about it.
Grimer,
Wayne Travis has a topic running on his invention, here at overunity.com, 200+ pages, address below
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI)
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 09:19:35 AM
I am sorry, but this opaque statement does not state anything specific. Please point me to where I may find a description of the "Travis Effect" by HER. Or alternatively, please state the specific characteristics that define it. ..................................
MarkE,
You can find all published & public information on the Travis invention here,
LINK: http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI)
The inventor "Wayne Travis" is a member of this forum and can be reached through mail if needed.
Quote....................... I reiterate that the aquarium demonstrations failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle. .........................................................................
I ALSO reiterate that the aquarium demonstrations
DO NOT demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principles. No disagreement here.
This is the 2de or 3th reiteration on the aquarium, please do not insist to remain misguided.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, would you kindly be more specific about where HER has stated what they claim the "Travis Effect" is than just somewhere in a thread with thousands of posts? Surely if HER spelled out what they claim that all important principle is you copied down their statement or know about when they stated it, or where the post is where they stated it.
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 10:48:31 AM
Red_Sunset, would you kindly be more specific about where HER has stated what they claim the "Travis Effect" is than just somewhere in a thread with thousands of posts? Surely if HER spelled out what they claim that all important principle is you copied down their statement or know about when they stated it, or where the post is where they stated it.
MarkE,
HER never coined the word "Travis Effect", this was one of Tom's terms he used to describe the effects that conspired to create a advantage.(Tom is not a HER employee, he volunteered to do these aquarium video's on a casual friendly basis)
Wayne Travis did not use this term to describe the working of his invention, or he was apathetic to the term if I recall correctly. He tried to provide a progressive detailed flow that was partly thwarted by certain member with a brash disposition.(the reason for the high post count).
I already gave you a very high level short overview on the key principle in a previous post, To understand the details on how it works you will need to filter out all of Wayne's posts to get a reasonable progressive flow on the detailed working of the device.
Let me assure, the concept is not that easily understood instantly. Set aside a few weeks to allow everything to mesh into place.
There is no quick fix for this one.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: webby1 on January 22, 2014, 12:14:45 PM
..............................
Archimedes vs Displacement Replacement.
...................................................
...................................................
Thanks Webby !!
Red_Sunset at the end of the day HER make the extraordinary claim that they can extract energy for free, and indefinitely from a gravitational field. Tom presented as their representative that the reason they can do this incredible thing is that they discovered what Tom, and Wayne, and many others call the "Travis Effect". Yet, whenever anyone tries to pin down what it is that HER claim to have discovered by any name that they wish to call it, nothing substantial or specific comes back.
Years after HER first made their extraordinary claim there is neither a statement of an operating principle that would allow for their claims, nor is there demonstration that evidences their extraordinary claim. There are a series of videos that claim to show an effect that violates Archimedes' Principle when in fact they do not. They misrepresent air as responsible for buoyant force when it is not. They represent in the videos that they are revealing a discovery, when in fact they show nothing that hasn't been known for over 2000 years.
Extraordinary claims, no affirmative evidence, and misrepresentations add to: nothing of value.
QuoteHe tried to provide a progressive detailed flow that was partly thwarted by certain member with a brash disposition.(the reason for the high post count).
The truth is quite the contrary. Travis resisted over and over providing any real data. He continually claimed to have working prototypes that were self-running and producing excess power. In a pdf presentation designed to attract new investors he promised to put a 50 kW generating plant at his church in six months if he got funding. None of the investors who saw the full presentation, in person, along with whatever Travis actually had built at the time... none of them chose to invest. Years later.... there is still no working prototype that does what Travis claims. He has recently "gone private", removing from the public view most of the overt claims that he was making those years ago.
Travis paid Webby a fair chunk of change for demonstrating what we all were calling the "travis effect" in a nested set of transparent tubes. Yet.... here Webby is now, posting on gravity motor threads, instead of getting paid big bucks working directly with Travis in Oklahoma to bring his marvellous free energy machine to market. Flat packable like Ikea furniture! 20 kW in the footprint of a garden shed! No input, no exhaust, just power out for free. But where is the working prototype that he claimed to have? Why is Travis's home and workshop still connected to the grid? I know why, and so do you, Red. He has devices that almost work. They leak, they run down, they require lots of weird acronyms to keep the investors hopeful and out of the lawyer's offices. ZED, TAZ, rotary ZED, and more. Travis _asked_ for his thread to be closed, so that he would not have to field the hard questions. The questions... and the thread... remain, however.
Anyone who might be interested in Travis really ought to take a look at that old locked thread, to see the kind of things people were saying and what they did.
Strange thought, gut feeling, after reading a bit the old Travis thread:
Red_Sunset comes over a lot like Travis? Are they the same person? May be not, but I got that impression from style and arguments put forward.
I may be wrong, it is not an accusation and I could not care less.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: webby1 on January 22, 2014, 12:14:45 PM
IMO
Archimedes vs Displacement Replacement.
Work with fluids is pressure and volume.
The Displacement Replacement item occupies 90 percent of the vessel.
Each vessel is limited to a 10 percent lift of the height of the vessel.
Both vessels have the same dimensions.
Archimedes requires the full volume of the vessel to be moved.
Displacement Replacement requires 10 percent of the volume moved.
Archimedes lifts with no further input.
Displacement Replacement requires another 10 percent volume added.
For the same lift the Displacement Replacement vessel requires 20 percent of the input work as the Archimedes vessel.
OU? maybe not, but a more efficient method, yes.
Now transfer the stored potential into a second unit at the starting depth to make another lift. By using the stored potential the input costs become the difference in pressure created by the change in height within the water column.
Again, the Archimedes requires the full volume and the Displacement Replacement requires 20 percent of the volume.
This is what the videos were trying to demonstrate.
There is a non-intuitive component to the multiple riser system that no video or demonstration was made for. This is a strange phenomenon that I myself do not understand the "how" or "why" of, but it is present in the system.
The system response to lift and the force transfers to outside weight are not the same as the descent. It is as if the weight left on the risers gets focused into the inner most riser\pod chamber and holds a higher pressure value on the ejected fluid from the pod chamber for a longer duration than it should, and it is this recovery condition that is an important part to the function of the system.
In the testbed I built, the motion of the pod\risers was not the same going up as they were going down. If I used a solid single top riser kind of setup where I had all the risers locked together the system responded differently, if I locked some and not others, again the system response was different.
In short, it took less weight to maintain pressure on the way down than the system lifted with the same pressure.
Edit to Add: IMO
What a lot of plausible sounding BS, $2000 is the only thing that you really believed in, after claiming you have achieved OU, you never had it independently verified or were capable of demonstrating a self-runner, and let's face it if you really had discovered OU why would you waste your time working on anything else ?, One over-unity device not enough for you ?
Some people join this website to learn how to make (claims) of OU sound convincing without ever having to show proper evidence, there have been so many,(in fact all the threads so far have never had a real working OU device)
Luckily some of the threads are from genuine people, doing research in the hope that one day they will achieve OU, but we really could do with less idiots and conman who claimed they have done it and know how it works, but can never have it verified or demonstrate a working device under laboratory conditions,
For anyone that miss it
Wayne Travis is a liar and conman.
The Hammerheads are here, circling !!
BEST APPROACH TO THIS FORUM, treat it like a flee market.
If you like something, check it out good and make your own assessment.
Do not rely on any by-passer to tell you what is the right McCoy!
There are some great treasure buys here, but use your head and do not loose it.
Stay cool !
Red_Sunset
PS: Conrad, they are not the same, but since you can not validate it, you can not believe it.
We are dealing with a virtual truth !
Warning in all markets they are conman trying to convince you they have great products and that they know what they're talking about, but don't worry they never stay too long, people in time can see through there broken words and inability to deliver what they preach .
Quote from: minnie on January 22, 2014, 09:23:10 AM
Hi Grimer,
conditions are awful for the poor sheep. I've been working on this land for 55 years and this is the
wettest I have ever seen it.
I like you Grimer, you've got a sense of humour, a thing a lot of contributors don't seem to have.
I have been on a similar journey with Fletcher-we never got anywhere, but I enjoyed the ride.
Glad to hear you've got grandchildren, we've got a baby in the house at the moment and I just
can't imagine how my wife and me managed when we had four in under five years.
John.
Yep, I've got grandsheep in spades - and hearts - and diamonds - and clubs.
Here's the three St Albans families in June 2000.
HER were supposed to have a system set-up for Mark Dansie to observe operating for 48 hours as an initial test over two years ago. That never happened. The "instrumented" machine was built and supposedly run two years ago this spring. Again, nothing came of it.
HER is about five years in. The lawsuit suggests that the early investors are getting restless.
MarkE .. IIRC, HER is claiming to have found 'efficiency differences' between the upstroke & downstroke cycles, leading to a COP > 1, IINM.
This descriptive is interesting in itself, as they acknowledge that there is no OU, but that the ordinary system energy losses can be mitigated by different technology use at certain stages - and the combined result is excess useable mechanical output energy greater than the input energy.
How this is not COP > 1 I am not sure.
They were also adamant IIRC that environmental heat energy [or air pressure, for example] did not enter or leave the closed system as part of the Carnot Cycle re: adiabatic warming & isothermal cooling legs, etc.
FWIW my impression at the time was that the technology wasn't claimed to be OU or PM or contravene the known Laws of Physics - yet could somehow output more energy than input energy required, but didn't use any environmental energy input to supplement conservative gravity - perhaps my recollection has faded over the lapsed time period [I know my interest has] so don't take it as gospel.
Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 03:28:36 PM
Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor? That dark video that you linked just shows a motor. What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?
Tell me Mark. Do you know what's under the cover of "that dark video"? Would you like to know? Aren't you curious?
Because I know. 8)
(of course if you're a sock puppet then you do know already ;D
Edit: He's around chaps - coz he's just posted. Let's see if he answers.
2nd Edit: Well it's beddy byes time here in England - So Mark's got all night to think about a clever answer.
Quote from: fletcher on January 22, 2014, 04:34:29 PM
MarkE .. IIRC, HER is claiming to have found 'efficiency differences' between the upstroke & downstroke cycles, leading to a COP > 1, IINM.
This descriptive is interesting in itself, as they acknowledge that there is no OU, but that the ordinary system energy losses can be mitigated by different technology use at certain stages - and the combined result is excess useable mechanical output energy greater than the input energy.
How this is not COP > 1 I am not sure.
They were also adamant IIRC that environmental heat energy [or air pressure, for example] did not enter or leave the closed system as part of the Carnot Cycle re: adiabatic warming & isothermal cooling legs, etc.
FWIW my impression at the time was that the technology wasn't claimed to be OU or PM or contravene the known Laws of Physics - yet could somehow output more energy than input energy required, but didn't use any environmental energy input to supplement conservative gravity - perhaps my recollection has faded over the lapsed time period [I know my interest has] so don't take it as gospel.
Fletcher, if presented with a black box that supplies energy there are two options:
1) The energy supply from the box is finite, limited to the potential energy stored within the box.
2) The box conveys energy beyond potential stored within it from an external source.
Storing energy in buoyancy is tantamount to storing energy in the lifted height of the working fluid. That energy density is really low. A fairly massive 5m * 5m * 5m machine can only cycle about 4kWh pushing water around. If compressed air is used, then cycling between 1 bar and bicycle tire pressure of 100psi would best that by about 8X.
Given no statement of working principle, all credibility rests on the testing by an independent party like Mark Dansie. Those tests just keep getting indefinitely postponed.
Quote from: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Tell me Mark. Do you know what's under the cover of "that dark video"? Would you like to know? Aren't you curious?
Because I know. 8)
(of course if you're a sock puppet then you do know already ;D
Edit: He's around chaps - coz he's just posted. Let's see if he answers.
2nd Edit: Well it's beddy byes time here in England - So Mark's got all night to think about a clever answer.
The video shows a motor.
If you want to argue that there is something special about the motor in that video, then by all means present your argument and supporting evidence.
As far as I know. There are no videos of the machine being tested for any smaller test units either. The only way I can see this thing working is if someone figured out the secrets of Coral Castle. Maybe that is what is in the black box.
Alan
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 06:41:32 PM
Fletcher, if presented with a black box that supplies energy there are two options:
1) The energy supply from the box is finite, limited to the potential energy stored within the box.
2) The box conveys energy beyond potential stored within it from an external source.
.. snip ..
Given no statement of working principle, all credibility rests on the testing by an independent party like Mark Dansie. Those tests just keep getting indefinitely postponed.
Yes, 'preaching to the converted' I'm afraid, & one who uses the same arguments ;7)
Failing options 1) & 2) it seems to only leave that gravity is not a conservative force [see your independent testing required comments].
My recollections were to draw attention to a very apparent red flag contradiction - how can a machine, no matter how smartly arranged or contrived to reduce energy losses to a bare minimum , that doesn't consume fuel or use an environmental effect, but does exist it a gravity environment, output surplus energy over requirements to run itself ?
Yet, this same machine doesn't break any Laws of Physics [Archimedes Law of Levers; CoE; CoM; CoAM; Laws of Thermodynamics] which also surmise that gravity is a field of acceleration resulting in a conservative force - if gravity force is not conservative then it is very likely that the Laws of Physics need a rethink & rewrite, so it seems impossible to have one without the other - but IIRC that was not their position - perhaps the task of stitching it all together coherently is very problematic & above most pay grades - see independent verification required, before unleashing the math hounds ;7)
Quote from: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Because I know. 8)
Please tell us. Is there a greek letter atmosphere hidden under the workbench? The kind only you can see?
Quote from: fletcher on January 22, 2014, 08:09:00 PM
Yes, 'preaching to the converted' I'm afraid, & one who uses the same arguments ;7)
Failing options 1) & 2) it seems to only leave that gravity is not a conservative force [see your independent testing required comments].
My recollections were to draw attention to a very apparent red flag contradiction - how can a machine, no matter how smartly arranged or contrived to reduce energy losses to a bare minimum , that doesn't consume fuel or use an environmental effect, but does exist it a gravity environment, output surplus energy over requirements to run itself ?
Yet, this same machine doesn't break any Laws of Physics [Archimedes Law of Levers; CoE; CoM; CoAM; Laws of Thermodynamics] which also surmise that gravity is a field of acceleration resulting in a conservative force - if gravity force is not conservative then it is very likely that the Laws of Physics need a rethink & rewrite, so it seems impossible to have one without the other - but IIRC that was not their position - perhaps the task of stitching it all together coherently is very problematic & above most pay grades - see independent verification required, before unleashing the math hounds ;7)
The answer is that such a machine can output energy until it exhausts its internal store. Gravitational stores on earth aren't very energy dense.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 22, 2014, 08:50:27 PM
Please tell us. Is there a greek letter atmosphere hidden under the workbench? The kind only you can see?
What pray tell is a "Greek letter atmosphere"?
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 09:32:36 PM
What pray tell is a "Greek letter atmosphere"?
I don't know. Ask Grimer. He knows.
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 09:31:22 PM
The answer is that such a machine can output energy until it exhausts its internal store. Gravitational stores on earth aren't very energy dense.
Weight driven clocks still need their potential replenished.
And so the argument circles back to whether gravity is or is not conservative, being or not being path independent.
If a machine can ever be demonstrated to be self sustaining & do external work [over & above internal losses], where gravity alone is the prime mover [including buoyancy devices], then it would indeed be miraculous - at least for a while - until new & accepted theories supplant the old Laws.
HER & RAR have worked the crowd - so far that is as far as the story for public consumption goes.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 22, 2014, 09:58:07 PM
I don't know. Ask Grimer. He knows.
That sounds like another imaginary construct of his.
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 06:46:18 PM
The video shows a motor.
Wriggle, wriggle. ;D
I guessed you wouldn't answer the question, Mark.
The video shows nothing of the kind.
The videos shows an inverted dinner plate type disc going round.
For all anyone knows it could be the white mice equivalent of a hamster wheel.
For someone interested in science you are amazingly disinterested in what
lies inside the WhipMag. But that's because you already know don't you.
You are a highfalutin fraud, Mark. But as my Indonesian comrade pointed out
your presentation is too elegant for you to be a TalK sockpuppet.
So I can rule that one out.
Maybe you're his employer. ???
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 22, 2014, 08:50:27 PM
Please tell us. Is there a greek letter atmosphere hidden under the workbench? The kind only you can see?
Have you taken your meds, Orbut. I think that red herring must be upsetting your stomach. :(
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 10:30:57 PM
That sounds like another imaginary construct of his.
I think you and Orbut should ask each other for a date.
Or take to the stage as a double act. ;D
I say, look at this chaps.
TinselKoala
Hero Member
Posts: 8038 (3.975 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 10-07-2008, 22:24:14
orbut 3000
Jr. Member
Posts: 66 (0.033 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 16-07-2008, 23:06:28
Really TalK, I'm surprised at you.
You should be more careful when you're
registering your sleeper agents to give
them a better legend than that.
Didn't your mummy ever tell you that
its OK to smoke those cigarettes but
you should never inhale.
Greek atmosphere LOL - wonderful.
You must be really desperate to steer
the thread away from the WhipMag.
Now your stupidity has lost you one
of your deep cover agents.
Quote from: fletcher on January 22, 2014, 10:04:22 PM
..............................................................
HER & RAR have worked the crowd - so far that is as far as the story for public consumption goes.
Fletcher & MarkE,
You have been busy overnight. I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Why ? The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects.
Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
A beneficial outlook could be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model. A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.
Some more insight on Wayne Travis ideaThe basic deviceHow could a OU idea look like, lets take a simple lever as an example,
The output side of the fulcrum is 5mtr and the other side is also 5mtr. Radian input travel 1mtr.
It is a balance seesaw, equal leverage on both sides with equal travel. The lever effect is bi-directional
The ideaIf we change the input lever length, so would the output force and the input travel distance (keeping the same output travel)
If we could construct a lever that had a variable input length without impacting the arc angle or input travel distance, that would provide an ability break a direct relationship with the output. Possible ?? Lets for a moment say we can.
How would we use that lever, what is the final objective?Having always the same travel distance (in & output) with this magic lever, we could choose to use a long lever as input >> Great lifting power at the output
We could use a short lever when we reverse the cycle, input becomes output >> That initial weight would return more than we inputted initially (on assumption that the short lever can deliver that over the same lift distance)
How would a magic lever look like.The lever fixed travel distance requirement for various desired lever lengths is obvious key to break the energy relationship
Wayne does this using a multi-layer lever.
What does the multi-layer provide,
1.. An input using a fixed limited volume of fluid and pressure (acting as output on down stroke)
2.. Several integral lift surfaces
3.. The ability to manipulate sub-pressures
4.. Pressure vs lift force is non-linear (asymmetry)
5.. Input distance always equals output distance regardless of leverage factor
6.. Single input for all the layers using fluid volume & pressure on one side (reversible)
7.. Aggregated output with Force over Distance (reversible
So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
Force= pressure x area
>> up stroke >> Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure
At this point you will say that is impossible ?Is it really impossible ? Check out Wayne multi-layer hydro lever, you will get far if you have the desire and persistence to learn something new. http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI)
The hydro lever is only one form on the idea in one specific medium. The basic idea can take on many different shapes in various mediums.
OU is never simple like tying a few magnets to a rotor. Never expect that nature is easily fooled and will lie down at your whim. In the final execution of the idea, there is a fair amount of inventive property involved to achieve reasonable economical outputs. I call it interference with the natural process, a requirement for any OU process. These were the details that Wayne was reluctant to reveal on a public forum, for good understandable reasons (annoying TK to the limit, together with some others HiFlyers, destroying the communication for others)
PS: I will not reply or comment on opinions
Regards, Red_Sunset
Grimer, I am very interested in science. Science is based on observation. The dark video shows a device that behaves as a motor does, ergo it looks like a motor. If you think that video shows something else, then you are free to express your hypothesis and state your observations that support that hypothesis. Then anyone could try to test that hypothesis against existing information, or by experiment.
While you are thinking about that, then maybe you would like to explain in this diagram of yours, where you indicate you "ersatz gravity" at the circular bob apogee. You have previously stated that "ersatz gravity" is centrifugal force. Centrifugal force of a rotating object acts radially. The radial force on a circular pendulum arm at apogee is zero. So, why is it that with zero radial force you are indicating a non-zero "ersatz gravity" force?
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//
Hi,
according to Sunset "if you want to know about asymmetry ask Wayne Travis".
I bet if you asked his investors' they'd know. Asymmetry in their bank balances!
I think the Webby prize was an attempt to filch ideas. When Travis realised the
thing wouldn't work he was prepared to try anything.
I wish the Travis machine had worked as intended and new scientific facts had
been established but at the present time it doesn't look too good.
John
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 01:58:59 AM
Fletcher & MarkE,
You have been busy overnight. I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Because by all available observation it is not possible, and by current physical theory it is not possible. If anyone would like to change that, they need to show a cheat on the relevant physical theory, or build a working device.
Quote
Why ? The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects. Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
The importance should be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model. A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.
I disagree. An OU device is a hypothetical construct that if it is real can be proven like anything else. The proof requires evidence. In the case of OU, physical laws that embody our best interpretation of observations to date make OU a very tough proposition. The evidence must therefore be very strong.
Quote
Some more insight on Wayne Travis idea
The basic device
How could a OU idea look like, lets take a simple lever as an example,
The output side of the fulcrum is 5mtr and the other side is also 5mtr. Radian input travel 1mtr.
Do you mean vertical travel at one end, or do you mean
angular travel of 1 radian?
Quote
It is a balance seesaw, equal leverage on both sides with equal travel. The lever effect is bi-directional
I agree.
Quote
The idea
If we change the input lever length, so would the output force and the input travel distance (keeping the same output travel)
So far so good, Ein = Eout.
Quote
If we could construct a lever that had a variable input length without impacting the arc angle or input travel distance, that would provide an ability break a direct relationship with the output. Possible ?? Lets for a moment say we can.
The motion and ratio of forces on a lever are defined: S1 * F1 = S2 * F2. Anything else is not a lever. It is fine to hypothesize such a machine but as soon as you do you can no longer rely on the the properties of a lever for further analysis.
Quote
How would we use that lever, what is the final objective?
Having always the same travel distance (in & output) with this magic lever, we could choose to use a long lever as input >> Great lifting power at the output
We could use a short lever when we reverse the cycle, input becomes output >> That initial weight would return more than we inputted initially (on assumption that the short lever can deliver that over the same lift distance)
When one invokes magic, one can declare any behavior that one desires.
Quote
How would a magic lever look like.
The lever travel distance requirement for various desired lever lengths is obvious key to break the energy relationship
Wayne does this using a multi-layer lever.
You have defined a construct with magic properties and used those magic properties to explain HER's supposed device. You could rephrase this as: "Wayne uses magic."
Quote
What does the multi-layer provide,
1.. A common input/output using a set limited volume of fluid and pressure
Each successive gas layer results in a combined gas spring that exhibits greater and greater distance compliance per unit pressure.
Quote
2.. Several integral lift surfaces
3.. The ability to manipulate sub-pressures
More properly, the pressures fall out from the ratios used in strict accordance with 2000 year old hydrostatics.
Quote
4.. Input distance always equals output distance regardless of leverage factor
So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
In a magic machine one can define arbitrary relationships. In a real machine the relationships are limited by the actual behavior of nature.
Quote
Force= pressure x area
>> up stroke >> Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure
At this point you will say that is impossible ?
You have invoked magic to describe your mythical machine. In a magic world that mythical machine might work. In the real world a machine with the properties claimed cannot exist. Just as the operating principles of a lever cannot be changed by fiat in the real world, neither can the principles of hydrostatics be waved away by declaration.
Quote
Is it really impossible ? Check out Wayne multi-layer hydro lever, you will get far if you have the desire and persistence to learn something new. http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI)
The hydro lever is only one form on the idea in one specific medium. The basic idea can take on many different shapes in various mediums.
OU is never simple like tying a few magnets to a rotor. Never expect that nature is easily fooled and will lie down at your whim. In the final execution of the idea, there is a fair amount of inventive property involved to achieve reasonable economical outputs. I call it interference with the natural process, a requirement for any OU process. These were the details that Wayne was reluctant to reveal on a public forum, for good understandable reasons (annoying TK to the limit, together with some others HiFlyers, destroying the communication for others)
PS: I will not reply or comment on opinions
Regards, Red_Sunset
The citation states that he has a combination pneumatic / hydraulic machine that has a series multiple gas and liquid sections each section with a different area. He says that he realizes different forces through the use of common hydrostatics by changing the areas of successive sections. That is all fine and well. Now, let us examine what those statements mean in the
real world:
Force can be multiplied by taking advantage of the fact that under static conditions the pressure in a volume is uniform. If we construct an incompressible fluid filled device that has a small diameter piston at one end of area A1, and a large diameter piston at the other end of area A2, then we have our analogue of a lever, and:
Relative force: F2/F1 = A2/A1
Relative displacement: dS2/dS1 = A1/A2
We can couple multiple such devices together and the net result is:
Relative force: Fn/F1 = An/A1
Relative displacement: dSn/dS1 = A1/An
So just as with a single lever we can realize force gain, but energy: the integral of force * dS is the same at the input as it is at the output. There is no clever cheat on this. It is yet another result of conservation of energy. Force and distance we can manipulate
individually at will. The integral product of F*dS is energy, and it is conserved.
The effect of putting air pockets between these various hydraulic sections is to introduce gas springs that compress under pressure storing energy, and reducing motion at the output side of the machine compared to coupling sections with incompressible elements.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 01:58:59 AM
=================================================================================
I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Why ? The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects.
Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
A beneficial outlook could be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model.
A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.
===============================================================================
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 01:56:36 AM
I say, look at this chaps.
TinselKoala
Hero Member
Posts: 8038 (3.975 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 10-07-2008, 22:24:14
orbut 3000
Jr. Member
Posts: 66 (0.033 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 16-07-2008, 23:06:28
Really TalK, I'm surprised at you.
You should be more careful when you're
registering your sleeper agents to give
them a better legend than that.
Didn't your mummy ever tell you that
its OK to smoke those cigarettes but
you should never inhale.
Greek atmosphere LOL - wonderful.
You must be really desperate to steer
the thread away from the WhipMag.
Now your stupidity has lost you one
of your deep cover agents.
That earns a ROFL.
Frank.... your classic paranoia is showing.
I suggest upping your Haldol to 10 mg p.o. BID, to suppress the delusional thinking you have been exhibiting lately.
You have no evidence for your silly claim that I have "sock puppets" or any other accounts on this forum. You have, however, been presenting solid evidence for your mental illness, over the past several weeks.
Quote from: minnie on January 23, 2014, 03:06:14 AM
Hi,
according to Sunset "if you want to know about asymmetry ask Wayne Travis".
I bet if you asked his investors' they'd know. Asymmetry in their bank balances!
I think the Webby prize was an attempt to filch ideas. When Travis realised the
thing wouldn't work he was prepared to try anything.
I wish the Travis machine had worked as intended and new scientific facts had
been established but at the present time it doesn't look too good.
John
It was also an attempt to buy loyalty. At around the same time I received PMs from Travis where he said he and his "team" were considering hiring.... ME. In order to get me to sign an NDA and STFU, of course.
Remember the further "competitions" of Travis? The "competition" to produce a table-top, self-running water pump? Which I did, of course. My TinselZed Heron's Fountain fulfils the letter of the requirements Travis listed for that "competition". But alas..... it turns out, just like with Sterling, Mylow and my reproduction of that...... that Travis wanted an OU self running water pump. So he didn't acknowledge my clear victory.
Funny, though.... nobody provided Travis with an OU self-running water pump! After all these years, after Red_Sunset's clear explanations, after all those simulations, after the "inner circle" with their secret conclaves..... nobody can demonstrate any OU using Travis's ideas or his apparatus or even in the simulations when they are properly done.
Marsing, it is true that a faulty model makes bad predictions, sooner or later. An example would be the CoE violating lever that Red_Sunset proposed as an analogy for HER's claims. Models that represent observations past faithfully and make reliable predictions of observations that result from specified conditions are useful. When it comes to proposed models that allow for working gravity wheels and HER's claims, those models fail against past observations.
Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 03:12:15 AM
........................................................................
So just as with a single lever we can realize force gain, but energy: the integral of force * dS is the same at the input as it is at the output. There is no clever cheat on this. It is yet another result of conservation of energy. Force and distance we can manipulate individually at will. The integral product of F*dS is energy, and it is conserved.
............................................................
MarkE,
Thanks for taking "the mickey" out of my post. No problem, I can appreciate the humor that came along with making your viewpoint
It is clear that you have stuck to the superficial view of the design and took the angle of "disproving OU" rather than "trying to figure out the inventors angle".
That is fine, although I would recommend you revisit the quoted paragraph above.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 03:39:40 AM
It was also an attempt to buy loyalty. At around the same time I received PMs from Travis where he said he and his "team" were considering hiring.... ME. In order to get me to sign an NDA and STFU, of course.
Remember the further "competitions" of Travis? The "competition" to produce a table-top, self-running water pump? Which I did, of course. My TinselZed Heron's Fountain fulfils the letter of the requirements Travis listed for that "competition". But alas..... it turns out, just like with Sterling, Mylow and my reproduction of that...... that Travis wanted an OU self running water pump. So he didn't acknowledge my clear victory.
Funny, though.... nobody provided Travis with an OU self-running water pump! After all these years, after Red_Sunset's clear explanations, after all those simulations, after the "inner circle" with their secret conclaves..... nobody can demonstrate any OU using Travis's ideas or his apparatus or even in the simulations when they are properly done.
If that was Wayne's intent it would have been a cute trick had it worked.
Do you know of anywhere that HER stated what principle they were supposedly leveraging to generate surplus energy?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 04:46:36 AM
MarkE,
Thanks for taking "the mickey" out of my post. No problem, I can appreciate the humor that came along with making your viewpoint
It is clear that you have stuck to the superficial view of the design and took the angle of "disproving OU" rather than "trying to figure out the inventors angle".
That is fine, although I would recommend you revisit the quoted paragraph above.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset I trust that you agree that we can manipulate force or distance with machines such as: levers, pulleys, and hydraulic pistons, since we do that millions of times each and every day. The thing that we seem to be unable to do is violate Conservation of Energy / Mass. I would love to hear your take from the "inventors point of view" where HER or anyone else may get more energy out than in with any single element or any collection of elements in their machine. Please explain the operating principle that supposedly would allow their machinery to delivery endless energy.
Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 04:53:19 AM
Red_Sunset I trust that you agree that we can manipulate force or distance with machines such as: levers, pulleys, and hydraulic pistons, since we do that millions of times each and every day. The thing that we seem to be unable to do is violate Conservation of Energy / Mass. I would love to hear your take from the "inventors point of view" where HER or anyone else may get more energy out than in with any single element or any collection of elements in their machine. Please explain the operating principle that supposedly would allow their machinery to delivery endless energy.
MarkE
Reading fast with comprehension and understand at the same time shaded context relationships is an art.
The purpose of my post #499 was, "explaining at a high level, the operating principle of that lever"
You wouldn't want me to repeat the detailed workings with pictures of all that Wayne described in his topic line, would you ?
I hate duplication, it is all there, read it and see what he did to overcome the quoted limitation.
Do not be "pre-conceived" where the energy is going to come from.
Milking is the best way to describe it. You take part but you don't kill the cow
Maybe Minnie can help you and teach you the milking part !!Red_Sunset
Sunset,
Consider the facts.
Grravity very weak.
Hydraulic lever very inefficient
No chance of any decent operating speed.
Nearly everything that goes on occurs in nature. From fusion to a brain.
Lets look for a natural gravity driven process, a glacier, huge weight and
snail's pace.
Consider a diesel driven alternator, engine is huge when compared to the
size of the alternator.
Gravity/water bad place to start from.
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 23, 2014, 05:39:01 AM
.............................................................
Gravity/water bad place to start from. John.
Hi John,
You are correct, although the difference is that you are stating a practical consideration and previous communication is addressing a theoretical process.
You might enjoy this fable, works good to put the little ones to sleep
A FABLE - NEVER LOOK A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTHOnce upon a time in a far away country, close to a big forest and in the shadow of the castle. There lived an old man with many sheep who was in possession of a 25kg gold bar that he had discovered buried in the field.
On a nice sunny morning he decided to do a good deed by sharing this treasure, by making a poor fellow wealthy. So out of the goodness of his heart he decided to give away this 25kg gold bar to the first needed poor man he would encounter that morning.
He told the first poor fellow he encountered that morning that all his wishes would come true and that he didn't have to worry ever again about where his next meal would come from. The poor fellow was surprised at the goodness shown to him by the old man and became immediately suspicious. His suspicion turned into questioning the motivation of old man for giving this big gold bar away. So he started to question the old man aggressively,
How do I know if it is really gold?
How do I know if it is solid gold?
Can you prove that it is gold?
Can you prove that it is solid gold?
The reason that you give it to me (for free) can only mean that it is not gold. I am not going to take your gold until you satisfy all my requests, if you don't you must be a liar and a cheat.
The old man was utterly surprised and taken aback with the response to his good intended gesture. The old man replied that he didn't expect anything in return for his gift, neither does he put down any conditions for giving away this gold. He suggested that the poor man himself could let the goldsmith test the gold to assure himself that is was real and put his mind at ease.
The poor man was un-moving adamant that the old man should satisfy his demands and then he walked away scolding the old man for being a cheat and liar for not proving that the gold was real. That he was trying to hand him fake gold. On his way home he told everybody he encountered how the old man was trying to cheat him.
A few weeks later did the old man hear that the poor man had died from starvation. The old man returned with great disappointment to his house and buried the gold bar in the garden where it remained until today.
Red_Sunset
Oh dear Sunset,
trouble is you're digging to find a gold bar in the most unlikely place.
Many people have scanned your chosen site with the most up-to-date equipment and
there's nothing there.
Do some prospecting of your own, find somewhere that you're in with a chance.
The laws that are known are quite robust, if they weren't you couldn't count on anything,
simply, things just wouldn't work.
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 23, 2014, 06:48:27 AM
Oh dear Sunset,
trouble is you're digging to find a gold bar in the most unlikely place.
Many people have scanned your chosen site with the most up-to-date equipment and
there's nothing there.
Do some prospecting of your own, find somewhere that you're in with a chance.
The laws that are known are quite robust, if they weren't you couldn't count on anything,
simply, things just wouldn't work.
John.
Minnie,
You are quite a philosopher, some wise words spoken !
Idealism is hard to bury.
Red
Quote from: webby1 on January 22, 2014, 03:42:20 PM
Yet here TK is after all is secret work for propulsion labs and all that R and D work, instead of getting paid big bucks to come up with the nest best thing since sliced bread.
Pot Kettle BLACK there TK.
What a load of garbage that was,, I stated before and I will state again that I did not know that I was going to win anything, nor is money any form of motivation for myself.
So all understand,, I play with things that I find interesting, that may be from someone else or a question I ask myself from observations I have made, then I try and come up with a method to test for it.
I do all of my stuff with things I have lying around or have scavenged. Seldom will I go and purchase items and when I do I keep those costs down as low as I can.
Unlike some who choose to do nothing but make comments I try and build things,, TK at least builds all sorts of things,, but his choice to belittle people and ideas when he is not able to figure something out or get exactly what he wants when he wants it is not a valid response.
Now, with all the B.S. put aside where is the refutation to what I posted,
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg384387/#msg384387 (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg384387/#msg384387)
where is the proof, show me the proof,, show me the sausages,, YOU CAN'T.
Quote from: webby1 on: November 14, 2012, 10:57:19 PM
Quoteuse the first set of numbers I posted and use the 2\3 drop for a half full reservoir,, that is clear OU in my opinion.
Your words webby, so there are two conclusions, yourself and Wayne Travis are the only people to have successfully achieved OU in history, and you both have decided not to produce a working model, or have it verified scientifically,
the other conclusion is you are talking BS and the $2000 did influence your measuring capabilities.
As for trying to make out that if you don't construct anything you shouldn't pass comments, you are mistaken certainly about me, as I have done and shown experiments on this forum, so instead of trying to divert, why don't you just admit that you never did achieve OU ?, But I guess having gotten into bed with a conman and taken his money you feel obliged to stick with the lie.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 05:14:09 AM
MarkE
Reading fast with comprehension and understand at the same time shaded context relationships is an art.
The purpose of my post #499 was, "explaining at a high level, the operating principle of that lever"
You wouldn't want me to repeat the detailed workings with pictures of all that Wayne described in his topic line, would you ?
I hate duplication, it is all there, read it and see what he did to overcome the quoted limitation.
Do not be "pre-conceived" where the energy is going to come from.
Milking is the best way to describe it. You take part but you don't kill the cow
Maybe Minnie can help you and teach you the milking part !!
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset long before I asked you, I like many others asked HER to state any operating principle that would allow for their fantastical free energy buoyancy machine claims. Their opaque response to all was a bunch of hand waving ending with: "Travis Effect". Sadly, as we see in their videos, HER / HER's representative Tom fails to demonstrate anything other than misrepresentation of Archimedes' Principle. Perhaps the real "Travis Effect" is how one can use fantastical claims to create a psychological force powerful enough to lift money right out of some investors' wallets. I have asked you to state what principle would allow for HER's claims to be true and you offered by way of analogy a magic lever with fantastical COE violating properties.
Fantastical seems to be the operating theme with HER. HER's claims of free energy from any device are on their face fantastical. HER's claims that they have discovered a buoyancy effect distinct from Archimedes' Principal are fantastical. HER's claims that buoyancy can be manipulated to yield net energy cycle to cycle lifting and dropping the same mass are fantastical. HER's repeated claims that they would subject a working machine to a run down test have proven themselves false. What HER have not done, and what no supporter of HER have ever done is state any principle nor demonstrate any machine that backs up HER's fantastical claims.
You insist that buried somewhere among thousands and thousands of posts there is a Ronald Reagan style pony that states an actual real principle that allows for HER's fantastical claims. Great: By all means go dig through those posts to your heart's content. If you should ever find that pony in the form of a principle that allows for HER's claims without resorting to magic, then I will be happy to read it and discuss it.
Sunset,
so the poor man starved to death. You can't live on gold either.
You made me realise how lucky I am!
I've got wood to burn,
Milk
Eggs
Meat
Wool
Water from a spring
Oats
And where does this all come from......the sun
That should give you a clue.
Were I to clad my roofs with pv. I'd have juice a plenty
One big snag I can't store that energy .
John
@ webby
1,Did you achieve OU ?
2,Did you think you did at the time and now have changed your mind ?
3,you don't know what you achieved but you believe in Wayne Travis so you went along with it ?
Simple yes or no answer would help clear things up, but the likelihood is that you will give a vague response that doesn't commit you.
Joined this forum in the hope of discovering OU one day, and whenever I see somebody claiming they have achieved this or know how it works myself and others who are interested in the subject will pursue them and demand evidence of what they claim.
and that is not going to change despite how many vague and misleading excuses they come up with.
Yes Powercat I fully agree.
When I've perfected my flow battery everyone can have it for free.
John.
Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 08:20:51 AM
Red_Sunset long before I asked you, I like many others asked HER to state any operating principle that would allow for their fantastical free energy buoyancy machine claims. ...
MarkE,
I thought that I did that in the most simplest overview format, with the directive for you to do some homework.
I am going to make it simple for you.
You are putting me into the position of HER, I am not a representative of HER, I have no idea what HER has or is doing in detail. I know nothing about their investment schemes, expected returns, investor relations. Or how they handle their business, I am quite at a distance. I have never been in Oklahoma state.
At the same time the business execution of a scientific principle does not change the principle. It would be just bad business sense.
I got interested in his invention learning about it from the forum. I was guided by Wayne and the OU forum posts and I understood some of the inventive property they have, within limits as presented by Wayne on the forum.
I think that their concept is clever and can do some nice tricks of which OU would be part of (the milking part). I was quite impressed by it but found it too complex (fiddly) to replicate. So I can not say that I tested it (I DID NOT PROOF IT)
You want ot know about HER, then you need to contact Wayne or an associate.OK,
If you want to know the theory , then you need to go to the topic that Wayne (HER) directed. That this requires effort I do understand, I tried to make it simpler for you to provide high level outlines, but that effort was outright rejected.
I can not control what you do not see or understand or don't believe, maybe you are right and I am wrong, I am even ready to accept that, but you will need to come up with a more precise argument that can stick. General conservation statements will not do. If they would, I wouldn't be here.
As I said, I do not like repeating.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: minnie on January 23, 2014, 09:32:47 AM
Sunset,
so the poor man starved to death. You can't live on gold either.
You made me realise how lucky I am!
................................................. John
Lucky you are John, for the mere fact that you are satisfied with what you have. That is key.
Have a look at this farm, located in the middle of nowhere, in the Australian desert with only brak salty water, and running completely on solar. A fully integrated solution from a fluid heating solar collector.
Sun drop farms http://www.sundropfarms.com/ (http://www.sundropfarms.com/)
There are also contracted to build a similar setup in Qatar I believe and some other around there
Red_Sunset
So it's just a matter of definition then? Your "OU" may not be what other people think of as "OU"? Well, at least that is consistent with Travis's story, where he repeatedly confuses force with energy and apparently believes simple and compound levers are "OU".
Webby.... pot kettle black ... at one time it was specifically part of my "job description" to read the newspapers. You have no clue as to the things I may or may not be working on in the "background", just as I don't know or care much about your hobbies. But _you_ are the one claiming OU from your experiences with Travis, yet here you are. I am here now, just as I have always been, seeking kernels of wheat amongst all the useless chaff. So far there's not enough to make a decent tortilla, much less a full loaf of nourishing bread. Why are you here, since you think you've already found the motherlode of the wheat?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 03:31:34 AM
...
Frank.... your classic paranoia is showing.
I suggest upping your Haldol to 10 mg p.o. BID, to suppress the delusional thinking you have been exhibiting lately.
You have no evidence for your silly claim that I have "sock puppets" or any other accounts on this forum. You have, however, been presenting solid evidence for your mental illness, over the past several weeks.
Going to tough it out, eh Al. ;D
Like CEO, Shawn McCarthy did with the Big Engine. Remember that one?
I was a bit suspicious when Orbut turned up out of the blue but when he referred to Greek atmospheres I knew it must be you. Which is why I asked him if he'd taken his meds - one of your favourite insults to me.
Then it occured to me that you might have been stupid enough to register the Orbut membership at the same time as your own.
Bingo! Same year, same month, same week, same time of the day.
I see you've upped my prescription, Dr Jekyll. Normally it's just, "Have you taken your meds." But now we've got "Haldol to 10 mg p.o. BID" whatever that is. I'll have to ask my son, he's a pharmacist at the John Hunter.
For those members who are unfamiliar with the early days of the Steorn forum (see attachment below for their full page advert in the Economist Magazine) the CEO, Shawn, claimed that they had a "big engine" running on their magnetic energy. When someone pressed him for details of its power he eventually gave a figure of 550 bhp.
I called him a liar and was immediately jumped on by all his fan boys. They asked me how I knew. I said that someone with a foreign accent had told me. That really worried Shawn as they had a couple of east europeans on the staff and he thought they might have given the game away. Big investigation.
Some months later when Shawn eventually admitted that there was no "big engine" people asked me who the person with the foreign accent was.
I said it was Shawn himself when he claimed a value of 550 bhp for his big engine. As all engineers know, 550 bhp is equivalent to one horse power. It was clear that under pressure Shawn had just plucked the first bhp he could remember out of thin air.
Asked how I could justify saying that my informant had a foreign accent I pointed out that since the twenties Ireland has been an independent nation and that Shawn had a strong Irish accent.
Love and kisses to all three of you :-* :-* :-*
Frankie
You are slipping, Frankie boy. You need more than some perceived coincidence of dates or the fact that sometimes two people agree that you are FOS. I can prowl through the records until I find someone as silly as you, who registered on the same date. Therefore you are he, QED, right? Idiot.
I'll wager a thousand US dollars that neither you nor anyone else can PROVE your silly contention that I am "orbutt" or that I have any other accounts on this forum than this one. Come on, let's see what you've got, paranoid troll.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 10:51:06 AM
You are slipping, Frankie boy. You need more than some perceived coincidence of dates or the fact that sometimes two people agree that you are FOS. I can prowl through the records until I find someone as silly as you, who registered on the same date. Therefore you are he, QED, right? Idiot.
I'll wager a thousand US dollars that neither you nor anyone else can PROVE your silly contention that I am "orbutt" or that I have any other accounts on this forum than this one. Come on, let's see what you've got, paranoid troll.
:-* :-* :-*
Quote from: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 10:55:53 AM
:-* :-* :-*
In real words.... YOU HAVE NOTHING but your delusions.
That gets a ROFL for sure.
Quote from: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 10:45:09 AM
...
As all engineers know, 550 bhp is equivalent to one horse power.
Grimer, I hope you meant to say: "bhp is engine output power in hp as measured under a particular set of test conditions at a dynamometer brake." Otherwise you are off by 550:1.
The CEO of Steorn you call Shawn McCarthy used to call himself Sean McCarthy, but now calls himself Shaun McCarthy. Steorn have changed their business from supposedly developing magnet motors to supposedly developing geysers.
Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 11:21:14 AM
Grimer, I hope you meant to say: "bhp is engine output power in hp as measured under a particular set of test conditions at a dynamometer brake." Otherwise you are off by 550:1.
The CEO of Steorn you call Shawn McCarthy used to call himself Sean McCarthy, but now calls himself Shaun McCarthy. Steorn have changed their business from supposedly developing magnet motors to supposedly developing geysers.
I call him Shawn McCarthy because that's his legal name.
I looked up his birth certificate years ago.
He was born in Birmingham and his birth was registered in Aylesbury.
Quote from: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 11:31:18 AM
I call him Shawn McCarthy because that's his legal name.
I looked up his birth certificate years ago.
He was born in Birmingham and his birth was registered in Aylesbury.
I've never seen his BC. He's going by Shaun at the moment. If the mood or need arises perhaps he will start calling himself by yet another name.
Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 11:21:14 AM
Steorn have changed their business from supposedly developing magnet motors to supposedly developing geysers.
Lol. But it's revolutionary technology - heating a block of iron with an induction heater - cutting-edge stuff! Sure to be OU. :)
Quote from: tim123 on January 23, 2014, 01:50:50 PM
Lol. But it's revolutionary technology - heating a block of iron with an induction heater - cutting-edge stuff! Sure to be OU. :)
Steorn do not claim that it is overunity. Sterling Allan at PESN claims that it is overunity. Steorn's pitch is that it is more compact to store heat in a chunk of iron at 500C to 900C than storing water at 40C/60C/100C. They don't seem to think that there are big drawbacks to storing heat for hot water in burning brands.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 09:58:06 AM
MarkE,
I thought that I did that in the most simplest overview format, with the directive for you to do some homework.
Red_Sunset I have done homework including asking HER directly.
Quote
I am going to make it simple for you.
You are putting me into the position of HER, I am not a representative of HER, I have no idea what HER has or is doing in detail. I know nothing about their investment schemes, expected returns, investor relations. Or how they handle their business, I am quite at a distance. I have never been in Oklahoma state.
At the same time the business execution of a scientific principle does not change the principle. It would be just bad business sense.
If I understand you, you believe that you understand a principle that HER have communicated that allows for their claims to work. All I have asked is for you to either point to the statement of principle by HER, or in the alternative to describe what you think the principle is. The furthest that we have gotten is you have made an analogy to a lever with magic properties.
Quote
I got interested in his invention learning about it from the forum. I was guided by Wayne and the OU forum posts and I understood some of the inventive property they have, within limits as presented by Wayne on the forum.
I think that their concept is clever and can do some nice tricks of which OU would be part of (the milking part). I was quite impressed by it but found it too complex (fiddly) to replicate. So I can not say that I tested it (I DID NOT PROOF IT)
Great, so please describe their clever concept as you understand it or just quote their statement of their concept, or just point to where they have said it with better specificity than buried somewhere in the middle of thousands of forum posts.
Quote
You want ot know about HER, then you need to contact Wayne or an associate.OK,
If you want to know the theory , then you need to go to the topic that Wayne (HER) directed. That this requires effort I do understand, I tried to make it simpler for you to provide high level outlines, but that effort was outright rejected.
I am sorry, but there is no external indication that there is a pony in that closet.
Quote
I can not control what you do not see or understand or don't believe, maybe you are right and I am wrong, I am even ready to accept that, but you will need to come up with a more precise argument that can stick. General conservation statements will not do. If they would, I wouldn't be here.
If you reject out of hand that which is observed and hold for that which has not been observed then we may well be at an impasse. Conservation holds for me in the here and now because it has been tested an uncountable number of times without refute. If someone comes up with compelling evidence of non-conservative behavior then I am happy to give that evidence a fair look.
Quote
As I said, I do not like repeating.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 05:09:40 PM
..................................................
............................. then I am happy to give that evidence a fair look.
Your Honour,
I rest my case !
Go well, keep looking, Red_Sunset
When one rests their case they close the door on the introduction of any new evidence. Are you sure that you don't want to point at something that will vindicate HER?
Quote from: Grimer on January 22, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Tell me Mark. Do you know what's under the cover of "that dark video"? Would you like to know? Aren't you curious?
Because I know. 8)
Why don't you tell us? Because you don't know?
(BTW, I can prove that I'm not a sockpuppet)
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 23, 2014, 08:30:19 PM
...
(BTW, I can prove that I'm not a sockpuppet)
I'm sure you can. I'd already reached that conclusion from reading your posts. :)
Al's reaction puzzled me because I never known him to tell an outright lie. That's
not his style. Whether your dig was spontaneous or prompted is irrelevant. It
came from the same lodge.
Hi Grimer,
I found this question quite fascinating : Does gravity travel at the speed of light?
Because gravity is so weak it's quite difficult to measure-so they say.
Have a nice day in Harrow.
John.
Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 06:32:51 PM
When one rests their case they close the door on the introduction of any new evidence. Are you sure that you don't want to point at something that will vindicate HER?
MarkE,
As I said, I have no business relationship with HER. I am sure HER is substantial enough to vindicate herself if she feels the urge or need to do so. Although I don't she why she would need to do that.
Do you base that conclusion on the fact that you waggled your tail ?
Please assimilate: I do not like to repeat myself or repeat any other person at length when recorded writings are available here or somewhere on the web.
Once you have informed yourself, discussing of specific design or working details is always a separate matter.
So I will not waggle my tail no longer on this HER subject
If you like, we can get back to the topic title, Big gravity wheel - RAR & Renato Ribeiro
1.. What is your take on this lever system ?
2.. What do you think Renato is aiming for in his design to warrant the title he has given it ?
3.. How do you think he could accomplish that?
4.. Or do you think it is all BS and impossible ? (so he is deluded, frxxx, ....ect as some people already stated)
What is your take?
Red_Sunset
Sunset,
please keep at it, we'll get to the bottom of this one way or another.
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 24, 2014, 02:48:43 AM
Hi Grimer,
I found this question quite fascinating : Does gravity travel at the speed of light?
Because gravity is so weak it's quite difficult to measure-so they say. Have a nice day in Harrow.
John.
Hi John,
Just curiosity, what importance do you see in the speed of gravity ?, What difference could it make if it travels at half versus full light speed for example ?
The gravity source is commonly a progressive force, does not come about instantly or gets switched off at a instant like light.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: minnie on January 24, 2014, 02:48:43 AM
Hi Grimer,
I found this question quite fascinating : Does gravity travel at the speed of light?
Because gravity is so weak it's quite difficult to measure-so they say.
Have a nice day in Harrow.
John.
I agree with Flandern.
"The most amazing thing I (Tom Van Flandern) was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous.
This seemed unacceptable on two counts.
In the first place, it seemed to be a form of
action at a distance.
Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton:
"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it." (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it'"
I view gravity at the earth's surface a equivalent to a wind blowing steadily downward. A wind which blows straight through materials and only impinges on structures much smaller than the nucleus. Celestial mechanics suggests its speed must be vastly greater than light and has yet to be measured.
Gravity only seems weak because the the amount of matter it is reacting with is infinitesimally small. The pressures on that matter must be gigantic.
I have long believed that materials are held together from without, not from within. I believe this from the experimental evidence you will find on my website.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 24, 2014, 02:50:01 AM
MarkE,
As I said, I have no business relationship with HER. I am sure HER is substantial enough to vindicate herself if she feels the urge or need to do so. Although I don't she why she would need to do that.
Do you base that conclusion on the fact that you waggled your tail ?
Please assimilate: I do not like to repeat myself or repeat any other person at length when recorded writings are available here or somewhere on the web.
Once you have informed yourself, discussing of specific design or working details is always a separate matter.
So I will not waggle my tail no longer on this HER subject
If you like, we can get back to the topic title, Big gravity wheel - RAR & Renato Ribeiro
1.. What is your take on this lever system ?
2.. What do you think Renato is aiming for in his design to warrant the title he has given it ?
3.. How do you think he could accomplish that?
4.. Or do you think it is all BS and impossible ? (so he is deluded, frxxx, ....ect as some people already stated)
What is your take?
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, you closed your case without offering any evidence that HER's claims are true. If you would like to reopen it and provide evidence, then I am happy to take a fair look. The "waggling" has all been HER making extraordinary claims without the slightest bit of evidence to support those claims.
1. The Incobrosa system looks like it will require a high power prime mover to make it cycle. I have not seen such a prime mover in any of the pictures or diagrams.
2. I don't pretend to be a mind reader. They have built these machines that they have yet to show can do what they say. I do not know why. I don't really care. I will care a lot if they show what looks like a machine doing something that is seemingly impossible or at least very unusual.
3. What is the "that" which you would like me to comment on whether he can succeed at or not?
4. If you are asking do I believe that Incobrasa has shown anything that suggests they have found a way to build a self-sustaining gravity powered machine, then my answer is: I don't see any evidence that they have.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 24, 2014, 02:57:17 AM
Hi John,
Just curiosity, what importance do you see in the speed of gravity ?, What difference could it make if it travels at half versus full light speed for example ?
The gravity source is commonly a progressive force, does not come about instantly or gets switched off at a instant like light.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset how long it takes for the mass and position of one body to impart force on another body's mass affects all motion dynamics associated with gravity. On a small scale those effects might be hard to detect, but on a celestial scale they should show up. It is an important question that continues to vex science.
Quote from: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 12:03:56 PMOn a small scale those effects might be hard to detect, but on a celestial scale they should show up. It is an important question that continues to vex science.
Hi Mark,
this is an interesting question... Is it one that still vexes science?
- "Yes we're vexed"
"Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed."
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
- "No it's sorted":
"General relativity assumes that gravity propagates at the speed of light, and when a PROPER accounting of forces, times, and positions is made, the end result are predictions that match reality based on this finite propagation speed for gravity. "
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10662.html
Hmmm...
Quote from: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 11:55:58 AM
Red_Sunset, you closed your case without offering any evidence that HER's claims are true. ...........
....................................................................
4. .................. do I believe that Incobrasa has shown anything ...........................................................
.............................................................................................. I don't see any evidence that they have.
MarkE
Yes & OK ! Thanks.
Red Sunset
PS: My gravity interest curiousity was very much on a earthly scale, light speed or more is "instantaneous enough" for me.
The thing about the gravity powered machine, is that is just might be possible... I find the stories of Bessler's wheel to be beleievable, for some reason.
But Incobrasa...? What are they waiting for? Where is the video, the proof, the independant assessment. Anything.
As much as I wish it weren't the case, as time goes by, the more likely it seems to me that it's a rich-man's folly... :(
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 24, 2014, 03:22:40 PM
MarkE
Yes & OK ! Thanks.
Red Sunset
PS: My gravity interest curiousity was very much on a earthly scale, light speed or more is "instantaneous enough" for me.
The speed of light turns out to be painfully slow when navigating channels of copper burrs at current and soon to be released communication rates. If light would only travel ten or a hundred times faster it would be a lot easier to design printed circuit boards that communicate at high data rates.
Quote from: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 04:51:17 PM
The speed of light turns out to be painfully slow when navigating channels of copper burrs at current and soon to be released communication rates. If light would only travel ten or a hundred times faster it would be a lot easier to design printed circuit boards that communicate at high data rates.
K. ... Whaaaaa?
M.
Quote from: Grimer on January 24, 2014, 02:06:08 AM
I'm sure you can. I'd already reached that conclusion from reading your posts. :)
Al's reaction puzzled me because I never known him to tell an outright lie. That's
not his style. Whether your dig was spontaneous or prompted is irrelevant. It
came from the same lodge.
Like your outright lie about the whipmag video? You still haven't answered the question.
Quote from: mondrasek on January 24, 2014, 07:06:26 PM
K. ... Whaaaaa?
M.
When you want to push digital bits through PCB conductors at very fast rates the physical size of things that screw up the signal depends on how fast the signal moves. The slower that the signal moves the smaller things have to be before they affect the signal in bad ways. If signals could move much faster than the speed of light, things like the bumpiness of the copper foil would cause much less problems than they do.
What does 'HER' stand for?
Quote from: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 07:38:21 PM
When you want to push digital bits through PCB conductors at very fast rates the physical size of things that screw up the signal depends on how fast the signal moves. The slower that the signal moves the smaller things have to be before they affect the signal in bad ways. If signals could move much faster than the speed of light, things like the bumpiness of the copper foil would cause much less problems than they do.
Sure. Of course. But I thought you implied that "soon to be released communication rates" would be going faster than the speed of light.
Probably my mistake in reading the prose. But please clarify that for me because it did make me think WTF for a moment!
BTW, thanks for joining the forum. I've enjoyed your input quite a bit.
M.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 24, 2014, 07:44:38 PM
What does 'HER' stand for?
HER stands for Hydro Energy Revolution, Wayne Travis's company in Oklahoma who claim to be able to generate unlimited free energy from buoyancy.
Quote from: mondrasek on January 24, 2014, 07:57:13 PM
Sure. Of course. But I thought you implied that "soon to be released communication rates" would be going faster than the speed of light.
Probably my mistake in reading the prose. But please clarify that for me because it did make me think WTF for a moment!
BTW, thanks for joining the forum. I've enjoyed your input quite a bit.
M.
As far as we know we are stuck at subluminous speeds and that is one of the things that is making it harder and harder to push bits through printed circuit boards using electrical signals. The 25/28Gbps generation that is coming in is creating big headaches for many people. By the time we get to 100Gbps it is going to require some really ingenious thinking to keep from hitting a brick wall.
Quote from: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 08:03:57 PM
HER stands for Hydro Energy Revolution, Wayne Travis's company in Oklahoma who claim to be able to generate unlimited free energy from buoyancy.
Interesting. Their Website looks like it's some kind of a church or cult and they don't sell any products.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 24, 2014, 08:22:21 PM
Interesting. Their Website looks like it's some kind of a church or cult and they don't sell any products.
Wayne Travis acts very much like a tent revivalist. The whole "Travis Effect" and undescribed principles that investors just have to have faith in could be likened to a cult.
Quote from: MarkE on January 24, 2014, 08:20:58 PM
As far as we know we are stuck at subluminous speeds and that is one of the things that is making it harder and harder to push bits through printed circuit boards using electrical signals. The 25/28Gbps generation that is coming in is creating big headaches for many people. By the time we get to 100Gbps it is going to require some really ingenious thinking to keep from hitting a brick wall.
This sounds very interesting. But (of course) I have some questions. If you can indulge me, you imply that sub luminous speeds are a limiting factor, which I would have to agree with.
So how are the circuit manufactures surmounting the "light speed" barrier? Have they found a way to have electric currents travel FTL or are they just shortening the circuit path, or what?
FYI, I am not trying to trip you up or anything. This is extremely interesting to me and I would like to know more about it.
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on January 24, 2014, 08:32:06 PM
This sounds very interesting. But (of course) I have some questions. If you can indulge me, you imply that sub luminous speeds are a limiting factor, which I would have to agree with.
So how are the circuit manufactures surmounting the "light speed" barrier? Have they found a way to have electric currents travel FTL or are they just shortening the circuit path, or what?
FYI, I am not trying to trip you up or anything. This is extremely interesting to me and I would like to know more about it.
M.
As much as FTL would be nice, it doesn't exist in any form that anyone knows about. The circuit manufacturers just deal with the problems and they are getting exponentially more difficult as bit rates climb. At 25Gbs, inside a circuit board, a pulse only goes about 1/4" in one bit time. It is sort of good for the capital test equipment makers. In order to play in the current space, one needs a lab with at least half a million minimum in test equipment.
Hi,
Neither RAR nor HER could be described as elegant machines. One can imagine the problems
with inertia with RAR and HER if anything of a useful operating speed were to be achieved.
Has anyone heard anything of these machines recently. Sterling said of HER that he was to
wait 'till end of Feb. for any news-but didn't say which year!
John.
I think that 48 hour rundown observations of HER's ZED by Mark Dansie were first supposed to happen in 2011. Just as in the John Worrell Keely fan dance script, the schedule for any critical observations moves out, and out, and out.
I could be wrong, but I am not aware that RAR has ever promised any demonstrations of their machines operating as they claim.
so.
what the answer you got when you asked them in 2012 MArkE,
did they promise you something?
Quote from: Marsing on January 25, 2014, 08:27:36 AM
so.
what the answer you got when you asked them in 2012 MArkE,
did they promise you something?
I got the run around.
Did anyone ever get anything else but the run around from Travis (except Webby of course)?
The "Travis Effect" is a Red Herring. But the best Red Herrings are real fish, after all.
Ol' Wayne never liked me much, even though I was the only one (in public at least) who rose to his challenge to make a table-top selfrunning water pump incorporating the ZED effect. Personally, I find this demonstration fairly dramatic, and I'm puzzled as to why it didn't cause more of a stir at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU
Koala,
trouble is the Tinselzed stops. Travis had the same problem, his thing stopped
after four hours. He originally said that that was not a problem, but I think it was.
If it would have kept going for forty eight hours he would have been able to show it
off to Mark, wouldn't he?
John.
This looks like a folding and respawning operation:
http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/
http://www.zydroenergy.com/
Surprise!
QuoteZydro Energy is a Team of over 200 Men and Women from around this World - Connected in heart and conscious by Our common goal:
I don't believe it for a second!
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 03:29:59 PM
Personally, I find this demonstration fairly dramatic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU
So did (and do) I! Why didn't you point out, investigate, and/or explain more about what you demonstrated at that time? I was hoping you would and was also disappointed that no one else asked.
Would you now?
M.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 03:29:59 PM
Ol' Wayne never liked me much, even though I was the only one (in public at least) who rose to his challenge to make a table-top selfrunning water pump incorporating the ZED effect. Personally, I find this demonstration fairly dramatic, and I'm puzzled as to why it didn't cause more of a stir at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU)
People do not like the truth because they want to believe in miracles. Debunking is not popular because it destroys illusions. Facts are boring because they prove a reality one wants to escape from.
Nice and clear measurements which demonstrate grave errors in wondrous machines are quickly forgotten. Facts which could easily be verified by everybody are constantly overlooked. Apparent false claims are believed instead of the overwhelming arguments against them.
But people just love to be bamboozled. They love sweet talk specially when god is brought into the equation. How nice it is if someone lies to support a long awaited miracle. How we all love tall tales and hints at things to come tomorrow, just not today, just a little more effort, and we get salvation from all worries.
Why are we lingering in this forum? Do we want to hear the big thing? Are we expecting the final OU proof?
I am just a little better than the deluded ones, just one step away from believing in the impossible. You may accuse me of false hope. I hope that one day the impossible will be done. I am just not far gone enough to believe in clumsy prophets with a badly designed machine and who contradict themselfs every fifth sentence.
But if the master deceiver appears I might as well fall for his spiel.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: minnie on January 25, 2014, 03:57:28 PM
Koala,
trouble is the Tinselzed stops.
Yep, that's a problem all right. But some might see it as "just an engineering issue" since the basic principle has been demonstrated. Hasn't it? ;)
QuoteTravis had the same problem, his thing stopped
after four hours. He originally said that that was not a problem, but I think it was.
If it would have kept going for forty eight hours he would have been able to show it
off to Mark, wouldn't he?
John.
Well, I think a well-balanced, heavy teeter-totter can keep rocking back and forth for a long time with very little input. The Travis ZED thing was "precharged" with a fair amount of air pressure and elevated water, as I recall, and it kept stopping because it usually "sprung a leak" somewhere... meaning all its precharge was gone. Go figure. You'd think the boys never heard of Teflon tape.
So yeah, run it for 48 hours, but be sure to measure the _precharge levels_ before and after the run.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 25, 2014, 04:32:11 PM
This looks like a folding and respawning operation:
http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/)
http://www.zydroenergy.com/ (http://www.zydroenergy.com/)
.....
You forgot this one:
http://mrwaynesbrain.com/
Quote from: mondrasek on January 25, 2014, 04:37:38 PM
So did (and do) I! Why didn't you point out, investigate, and/or explain more about what you demonstrated at that time? I was hoping you would and was also disappointed that no one else asked.
Would you now?
M.
The Heron's Fountain with active TinselZED produced a greater flow rate with higher head pressure than the same fountain with the TZED removed... but for a shorter time. As far as I could tell, the TZED operates like a "pressure lever" system that amplifies force at the expense of distance, or in this case volume.
Conrad .. FWIW - these types of forums serve a purpose - they are a place where people can congregate & share ideas & opinions - we don't always agree & that diversity makes it interesting at times - some are quick to believe claims without iron-clad proof whilst others will remain skeptics until the bitter end - that is, unless a working model is produced & independently verified by qualified & trustworthy individuals, they will not look for a possibility in the known physics & math that could provide a pathway to OU & PM in the vernacular - both positions are polarizing & neither of particular merit - an open mind to possibilities is more an advantage to exploring new potential paradigms than to become a science bigot constantly falling back on what we have learned.
That said, this forum & others teach you more about human nature than science & the scientific method - if you can keep it in perspective & recognize these undercurrents of human nature, ego's & emotionally charged arguments you will find it an altogether more enjoyable experience [as I'm sure you do].
The benefit from this experience is that exposure to sometimes volatile & emotionally charged individuals & their arguments desensitizes you & then you begin to see the same patterns of communication everywhere around you in daily life & work environments - it is the human condition & it pays to understand it - soon you realize that entire markets are driven by the same precepts & even philosophy & economics etc are not immune to its covert influence.
An old adage I often keep in mind when reading this forum "trouble can't be where trouble can't go" - for me this simply means that if I understand the drivers for different personalities then I am less likely to respond out of character.
ETA: I also hope one day to be greatly surprised by something not easily explained, & that keeps me interested.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 05:12:31 PM
The Heron's Fountain with active TinselZED produced a greater flow rate with higher head pressure than the same fountain with the TZED removed... but for a shorter time.
Now that explanation is what is predicted (expected) in accordance with the rules that science has developed from previous observations. Not that those are wrong...
You tested an extraordinary claim and dismiss it without comparing it to a control experiment. Or at least you never showed the control experiments and corresponding measurements. Instead, you explain the higher head pressure away (understandably) using currently understood science. Instead of testing.
Just how do you know the higher pressure manifested "for a shorter time?"
Please don't think I'm trying to goad you into performing more tests. It is only that I am used to you proving your points by presenting excellent experiments and data. Even when they are redundant to the point of being moribund. I am just curious how you draw your conclusion.
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on January 25, 2014, 06:06:31 PM
Now that explanation is what is predicted (expected) in accordance with the rules that science has developed from previous observations. Not that those are wrong...
You tested an extraordinary claim and dismiss it without comparing it to a control experiment. Or at least you never showed the control experiments and corresponding measurements. Instead, you explain the higher head pressure away (understandably) using currently understood science. Instead of testing.
Just how do you know the higher pressure manifested "for a shorter time?"
Please don't think I'm trying to goad you into performing more tests. It is only that I am used to you proving your points by presenting excellent experiments and data. Even when they are redundant to the point of being moribund. I am just curious how you draw your conclusion.
M.
I thought that TK's conventional Heron fountain without the inverted ZED style plunger was TK's control experiment.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 25, 2014, 04:45:21 PM
People do not like the truth because they want to believe in miracles. Debunking is not popular because it destroys illusions. Facts are boring because they prove a reality one wants to escape from.
Nice and clear measurements which demonstrate grave errors in wondrous machines are quickly forgotten. Facts which could easily be verified by everybody are constantly overlooked. Apparent false claims are believed instead of the overwhelming arguments against them.
But people just love to be bamboozled. They love sweet talk specially when god is brought into the equation. How nice it is if someone lies to support a long awaited miracle. How we all love tall tales and hints at things to come tomorrow, just not today, just a little more effort, and we get salvation from all worries.
Why are we lingering in this forum? Do we want to hear the big thing? Are we expecting the final OU proof?
I am just a little better than the deluded ones, just one step away from believing in the impossible. You may accuse me of false hope. I hope that one day the impossible will be done. I am just not far gone enough to believe in clumsy prophets with a badly designed machine and who contradict themselfs every fifth sentence.
But if the master deceiver appears I might as well fall for his spiel.
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad:
You are correct. Some people like to be fooled and, to make sure that they really believe in being fooled, send money to the folks that have scams. It is to reinforce their beliefs. I detest those that take advantage of these poor folks. I am not sure we can stop it other than by busting those bogus claims as we do here on this forum. But, sometimes, you just can't help some people.
Bill
Quote from: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 06:22:01 PM
I thought that TK's conventional Heron fountain without the inverted ZED style plunger was TK's control experiment.
That could be. But if so, it was unclear to me how the time factor is supposed to be measured.
Are both of those experimental setups identical so as to be an "apples to apples" comparison where we can compare flow vs. pressure over time? Ie. no volumes changed?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 03:29:59 PM
Did anyone ever get anything else but the run around from Travis (except Webby of course)?
The "Travis Effect" is a Red Herring. But the best Red Herrings are real fish, after all.
Ol' Wayne never liked me much, even though I was the only one (in public at least) who rose to his challenge to make a table-top selfrunning water pump incorporating the ZED effect. Personally, I find this demonstration fairly dramatic, and I'm puzzled as to why it didn't cause more of a stir at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLYD4CSJLU)
Hey, isn't that the JonnyDolittle design that he clams that you stole from him even though you posted your idea a month before he came up his idea? It is hard to tell because you actually built yours and he just has some design parameters that he has written down somewhere. He will actually build it someday...just wait and see.
It did cause a bit of a stir with ol' Jonny.
Bill
Quote from: fletcher on January 25, 2014, 05:29:38 PM
Conrad .. FWIW - these types of forums serve a purpose - they are a place where people can congregate & share ideas & opinions - we don't always agree & that diversity makes it interesting at times - some are quick to believe claims without iron-clad proof whilst others will remain skeptics until the bitter end - that is, unless a working model is produced & independently verified by qualified & trustworthy individuals, they will not look for a possibility in the known physics & math that could provide a pathway to OU & PM in the vernacular - both positions are polarizing & neither of particular merit - an open mind to possibilities is more an advantage to exploring new potential paradigms than to become a science bigot constantly falling back on what we have learned.
That said, this forum & others teach you more about human nature than science & the scientific method - if you can keep it in perspective & recognize these undercurrents of human nature, ego's & emotionally charged arguments you will find it an altogether more enjoyable experience [as I'm sure you do].
The benefit from this experience is that exposure to sometimes volatile & emotionally charged individuals & their arguments desensitizes you & then you begin to see the same patterns of communication everywhere around you in daily life & work environments - it is the human condition & it pays to understand it - soon you realize that entire markets are driven by the same precepts & even philosophy & economics etc are not immune to its covert influence.
An old adage I often keep in mind when reading this forum "trouble can't be where trouble can't go" - for me this simply means that if I understand the drivers for different personalities then I am less likely to respond out of character.
ETA: I also hope one day to be greatly surprised by something not easily explained, & that keeps me interested.
all Readers, please read fletcher post above ten times, it's universal
you will find who you are, what role you are playing,
don't be shy, they have noticed you.
attention : please don't drive to other topic with irrelevant comments.
Quote from: Marsing on January 25, 2014, 10:36:08 PM
all Readers, please read fletcher post above ten times, it's universal
you will find who you are, what role you are playing,
don't be shy, they have noticed you.
attention : please don't drive to other topic with irrelevant comments.
aberbut waswhat tutdoes dasthat bedeutenmean?
Quote from: orbut 3000 on January 25, 2014, 11:38:17 PM
aberbut waswhat tutdoes dasthat bedeutenmean?
lol
BtTrThNktwC Or Nothing
Quote from: fletcher on January 25, 2014, 05:29:38 PM
Selected excerpts from Fletchers post #575
Position 1 & 2
1.. Some are quick to believe claims without iron-clad proof
2.. Others will remain skeptics until the bitter end – They will not look for a possibility in the known physics & math that could provide a pathway to OU & PM in the vernacular.
Both positions 1 & 2 are polarizing & neither of particular merit
Position 3
3.. An open mind to possibilities is more an advantage to exploring new potential paradigms than to become a science bigot constantly falling back on what we have learned.
Hi Fletcher,
A good post, well put, I enjoyed it, If I may elaborate on your statements a little,
What does it mean, to keep an open mind? >> It would be neither position 1 neither position 2.
* An open mind is not polarized; it has no left or right position or overruling opinion.
* It can have temporary positions.
* It explores all the possibilities presented
This means that "an open mind" process is the initial step towards forming an opinion of fitness.
To form an opinion requires a process
The quality & thoroughness of this process will determine the outcome substance.
We do not like always to expose our process followed to avoid being shot to smithereens on the forum high street. Especially (position 2) skeptics with demanding agenda's without input.
At the same time, a quick believe is not necessary a head strong believe, rather an aim to focus in a possible feature with promise. When put on the spot, things tend to run quite rapidly out of hand and escalate in a process to defend a turf position (let it be only a temporary position).
I find the biggest shortcoming of the forum, the ability to present a point of view, conviction, opinion, even fact without any gain of supporting evidence. Some is better than none to document a viewpoint.
I do realize at the same time, that presenting evidence with appropriate graphical documentation takes a lot of work & time, of which we have only a limited quantity.
This becomes definitely an obstruction in a discussion when both parties are not on the same level, this would require a inordinate amount of effort on the part of the idea proposer to educate the opposer to a compatible level.
I sometimes get the impression that many members want to see an immediate clear cut OU solution , packaged A-Z including warranty. An impossible task or expectation at any time.
The symptoms of battle fatigue can also be seen, the impatience because the zest to explore has been lost, previous time spent has become wasted time.
Just a few cents of observational anecdotes
Red_Sunset
Hi Webby,
tried a few experiments and a float behaves just as expected, it experiences
gravity just like anything else.
Try this, put open top container on scales, put water in and dip a finger in, watch
the weight increase!
John .
Quote from: webby1 on January 26, 2014, 10:22:08 AM
I guess if you call being given information in an open thread "the run around",, then there were many right along with me who got it.
An interesting thing about a "float" is that it does not care how far it moves in gravity,, it is like it does not see gravity. Well that is unless I am gong to be told that a fixed dimension float has more "float" the deeper it is under water or something.
You "Got it"? Others "got it" too? Great! Let's see your self-running ZED system then, since Wayne explained it to you so well, and you "got" his explanations.
Any other members of the "inner circle", the private discussion group that started after Wayne begged for his thread to be closed.... did they "get it" too? Why then is Wayne in such trouble? Where is any demonstration of OU from anyone involved with Wayne Travis? Nowhere, that's where.
Except of course in your own redefinition of what "overunity" means.
You got the runaround too, Webby, but since he gave you all that money, your own cognitive dissonance is preventing you from realizing it.
(Apparently I'm not the only one that doesn't "get" Travis's "explanations"... since he's got at least one lawsuit to deal with, and some investors are gathering pitchforks and lighting torches....)
Quote from: webby1 on January 26, 2014, 11:55:35 AM
Indeed Tk,, but then your test setup is so far away from the run setup information that we all were provided with that some might of just thought you were trying to ridicule the whole thing.
I think that it is indeed nifty, and IIRC I commented on that, that even setup up wrong it still assisted your pump in the beginning.
How is it "different"? How is it set up "wrong"? It incorporates a floating sealed pod, inner and outer ringwalls which make chambers of different internal pressures, and so forth. It needs to be "precharged" just right to work properly. Just because it's a single-layer ZED and only "cycles" once.... so what? It still incorporates the _exact principle_ that some people have called the "Travis Effect" and it shows the lever-action "benefit". Force is increased. Unfortunately work is not. Just as in Travis's own models.
And of course I'm ridiculing the whole thing. It is called "reductio ad absurdum". If you believe that Travis's items are OU, then you must also believe that my PerPump v. 2.0 is also OU, since it demonstrates the same fundamental principles in the same manner.... except it works as I have described it, whereas Wayne's systems don't work as he describes them.... if at all.
Quote from: minnie on January 26, 2014, 11:55:34 AM
Hi Webby,
tried a few experiments and a float behaves just as expected, it experiences
gravity just like anything else.
Try this, put open top container on scales, put water in and dip a finger in, watch
the weight increase!
John .
That's right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E
Remember this PowerPoint presentation (linked below)? This was presented to a group of prospective investors several years ago. Note that in this PPT, Travis has a "three month plan" to install a 50 kW generating unit, with no input and no exhaust, at his Church. The investors were there in person to bask in Wayne's personality, they saw everything he had to show..... and yet not a single one "bit" and made an investment. There is no power plant at any church, today. Why not, if Travis is telling the truth?
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8689161_65379893_837552
Note especially Slide 26 in the ppt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3doy-eyZew
Quote from: minnie on January 26, 2014, 11:55:34 AM
Hi Webby,
tried a few experiments and a float behaves just as expected, it experiences
gravity just like anything else.
Try this, put open top container on scales, put water in and dip a finger in, watch
the weight increase!
John .
Hi John,
How much is the increase ?
Red_Sunset
Hi Sunset,
Archimedes gives us the answer!
John.
I could mark my finger and cut it off at the level and weigh it?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 26, 2014, 12:27:19 PM
........................................................ Why not, if Travis is telling the truth?
...........................................
TinselKoala,
There are several possibilities I can guess at,
1.. Optimization development to come within range of commercial viability (add-on components).
2.. Project /setup delays
3.. Business venture support
4.. We can never rule out a potential flaw (Theory can not always neatly account for losses in the system)
I need to agree that a "proof of concept" mini system would go a long way to make a statement (even it it did light only a Christmas tree last Dec).
Red_Sunset
Quote from: minnie on January 26, 2014, 01:08:09 PM
Hi Sunset,
Archimedes gives us the answer!
John.
I could mark my finger and cut it off at the level and weigh it?
Hi John,
Don't cut it, because the weight wouldn't match,
rather fill a condom with water, that one would match the scale difference.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 01:13:48 PM
I need to agree that a "proof of concept" mini system would go a long way to make a statement (even it it did light only a Christmas tree last Dec).
After tons of double talk, con talk and meaningless insinuations we finally hear a useful statement from Red_Sunset.
There is a simple way to detect a run around: the con man never does the obvious. And the con man needs thousands of words to talk around the obvious and always avoids the straight forward thing to do.
But the con man is right, only by withholding everything tangible, everything concrete, people can be played along for years, as we see in this thread happening again, and again, and again.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: webby1 on January 26, 2014, 10:22:08 AM
I guess if you call being given information in an open thread "the run around",, then there were many right along with me who got it.
An interesting thing about a "float" is that it does not care how far it moves in gravity,, it is like it does not see gravity. Well that is unless I am gong to be told that a fixed dimension float has more "float" the deeper it is under water or something.
Webby1, without outside help, and ignoring surface tension, the main forces on a "float" are gravitational: The downward gravitational acceleration equal to the weight of the "float" towards the center of the earth, and an upward force equal the weight of the water that the "float" displaces away from the center of the earth. From the bottom to the top of a 10m high tank on earth's surface the change in each force is less than 2ppm.
The work exerted or released changing the depth of a float is just the integral over the distance moved of the net force at each point in the path. For something that has an average SG < 1 it takes work to increase the submerged depth and work is released going back up. For SG > 1 net work is released going down and work has to be performed coming back up. Ignoring losses to things like surface tension and heating / cooling of any gas volumes that get compressed or expanded, the work magnitude in each direction is identical. The work balance does not change just because of the path taken or due to changes in the volume of the "float".
Quote from: conradelektro on January 26, 2014, 01:44:01 PM
......................................, people can be played along for years, as we see in this thread happening again, and again, and again.
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad,
The world is never just black & white
Always try to see it in a bigger context.
Wayne didn't come to this forum to give away his invention, I believe he was still looking for a missing piece in his puzzle.
Nobody is gonna dish-up a golden nugget here.
Maybe you could pick-up something and turn it into a golden nugget.
That is the opportunity.
That people can be played is just as much fault of the people as it is of the player
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, the missing piece is unfortunately the free power source that Wayne Travis promised and continues to promise. The ZED is an energy storage device. It is not an energy creation device. The only energy that can be extracted from a ZED is the energy put into it in the first place loading and charging it. Try as they might for years, HER have not been able break even, much less deliver a surplus.
Quote from: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 02:21:59 PM
Red_Sunset, the missing piece is unfortunately the free power source that Wayne Travis promised and continues to promise. The ZED is an energy storage device. It is not an energy creation device. The only energy that can be extracted from a ZED is the energy put into it in the first place loading and charging it. Try as they might for years, HER have not been able break even, much less deliver a surplus.
MarkE,
I am sympathetic with your OPINIONS, but without a more specific and intelligent technical description/assessment on where Wayne made the wrong conclusion or interpretation in the working process of the system, the sticker doesn't stick, sorry mate,.
I have some conclusions of my own that I am quite doubtful about but without physically verifying it on a working system...it stays what it is 50/50. I did crosscheck these items with Wayne and I was assured, but that still keeps it at 50/50.
What was important or worthwhile, so to speak was not the hydro system but the principle used towards playing with Nature with a crooked hand. The method by using known physics rules to get around it limitations towards OU. It is clever!
It provided a complete new way of looking at the problem.
Your opinion does not help me, although a more precise detail that gave rise to that opinion would
Without it, we would always talk past each other.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 05:12:31 PM
The Heron's Fountain with active TinselZED produced a greater flow rate with higher head pressure than the same fountain with the TZED removed... but for a shorter time. As far as I could tell, the TZED operates like a "pressure lever" system that amplifies force at the expense of distance, or in this case volume.
TK, please understand that I have no interest in the motivations behind whatever Wayne Travis might be doing in this post. What I have is a very strong interest in what you showed in the TinselZED experiment. If we confine my questions to that demonstration for the time being:
"The TinselZED produced a greater flow rate with higher head pressure than the same fountain with the TZED removed... but for a shorter time". How are you defining "a shorter time?" If it produced greater flow rate with higher head pressure and thus completed it's demonstration in less time that the control, isn't that good? I mean, higher pressure, greater flow rate, in less time... these are all gains, right?
If you are including the portion of the experiment where the TZED was running _after_the_ZED_section_had_achieved_its_maximum_travel_ as part of the "timed" portion, I have to ask, "Why?" The HER ZED system _only_ runs in ZED mode, so comparing any portion of the TZED where the ZED is not active appears to be mixing non-ZED performance that (no pun intended) waters down the superior ZED performance portion of the demonstration.
Your demonstration shows clearly that the ZED results in higher pressure and greater flow rate. If you can clear up my time question maybe I can understand your point. But if time is irrelevant in this demonstration (my position at the moment), then don't we need some other negative to balance out the two positives (higher pressure and greater flow rate)?
Thanks in advance for your consideration, and again for the wonderful TZED build and demo!
M.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 02:16:35 PM
Conrad,
The world is never just black & white
Always try to see it in a bigger context.
Wayne didn't come to this forum to give away his invention, I believe he was still looking for a missing piece in his puzzle.
Nobody is gonna dish-up a golden nugget here.
Maybe you could pick-up something and turn it into a golden nugget.
That is the opportunity.
That people can be played is just as much fault of the people as it is of the player
Red_Sunset
You're talking such BS, he can't give away any golden nuggets of information because he hasn't got any, that's why he just keeps on talking and talking, and never has his device verified, nor is he's capable of showing a continuous running model, he could at least show a continuous running model without so called disclosure of golden nuggets. BUT NO
The best he can do is pay someone $2000 to agree with his theories and pretend they achieve OU, interesting how that person having achieved this remarkable goal, has completely failed in all this time to produce a working model or have his original model verified by anyone credible, it is obvious to most people that there is nothing credible about Wayne Travis, he came on this site to gain support and investors, he is a conman.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 26, 2014, 02:46:23 PM
MarkE,
I am sympathetic with your OPINIONS, but without a more specific and intelligent technical description/assessment on where Wayne made the wrong conclusion or interpretation in the working process of the system, the sticker doesn't stick, sorry mate,.
I have some conclusions of my own that I am quite doubtful about but without physically verifying it on a working system...it stays what it is 50/50. I did crosscheck these items with Wayne and I was assured, but that still keeps it at 50/50.
What was important or worthwhile, so to speak was not the hydro system but the principle used towards playing with Nature with a crooked hand. The method by using known physics rules to get around it limitations towards OU. It is clever!
It provided a complete new way of looking at the problem.
Your opinion does not help me, although a more precise detail that gave rise to that opinion would
Without it, we would always talk past each other.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset contrary to mountains of evidence that gravity is conservative and therefore their claims are not possible, Wayne Travis and HER have come to the table without evidence. If you think that gives them a 50% chance of being right, then bully for you and your opinion.
Neither Wayne Travis, nor anyone at HER, nor you have ever expressed a: "principle used towards playing with Nature with a crooked hand". I have asked you over and over again what supposed principle HER have ever expressed. As you may recall, you "closed your case" without either stating or linking to any such statement of principle. That raises the question just what it is that you refer to when you say things such as: "It is clever!", when you, like Wayne Travis steadfastly refuse to state what "it" is. How can you know that something is clever if you don't know what it is or what it does?
Quotethe principle used towards playing with Nature with a crooked hand. The method by using known physics rules to get around it limitations towards OU. It is clever!
It provided a complete new way of looking at the problem.
Right on, Mark. There is often the attempt to 'slip in' unfounded statements in a longer posting. It's an attempt to create the illusion that there is something there when it's not there.
MileHigh
You have to put it in, somehow, before you can take it out. And unlike the USA economy, you can't take out more than you put in, in the first place. That's the rub. :'(
Quote from: webby1 on January 26, 2014, 06:05:43 PM
I understand that,, but the floatability of the float with a fixed shape does not care if it is 5 miles down or 5 inches down, the buoyancy is the same amount.
This then turns the float into a constant force and that force does not care about a change in height.
To move the float in the opposite direction that it prefers to move takes an input,, but to let it move where it wants does not, as a mater of fact, as you even stated, that is work that can be taken out.
Webby, the buoyant force is the weight of the displaced water which doesn't change much even 5 miles down, we agree. The equations that describe the work going up or going down are independent of the float's weight. What matters is that the net work performed in a closed cycle from one depth over any path back to that same starting depth is zero. You can do whatever you want, but by the time you finish a cycle and return to the starting point for the next cycle, ignoring losses, the work available, and the work performed are both zero. That's true independent of the "float's" SG. The float could be filled with air or lead balloons and the mechanics are the same. SG only determines whether work has to be applied to move up or to move deeper down.
One can no more gain energy with a buoyancy machine of any kind than one can gain energy with a coil spring. In a buoyancy machine, the system can release energy once: for SG > 1 going down, and for SG < 1 going up. In order to return to the starting position, the same amount of energy has to be returned as the system gave up.
Quote from: webby1 on January 26, 2014, 06:05:43 PM
I understand that,, but the floatability of the float with a fixed shape does not care if it is 5 miles down or 5 inches down, the buoyancy is the same amount.
This then turns the float into a constant force and that force does not care about a change in height.
To move the float in the opposite direction that it prefers to move takes an input,, but to let it move where it wants does not, as a mater of fact, as you even stated, that is work that can be taken out.
But it hasn't occurred to you that no NET work is produced when cycling the float through any range of depths and ending up at the starting location?
As and aside, do you think it would take more work, or the same to raise the Titanic from its current depth of 3800m compared to a depth of say 100 metres.
Quote from: webby1 on January 26, 2014, 08:20:07 PM
With no changes I agree, with most changes they have a cost, I agree.
*IF* this system can effect a change at a lesser cost by changing the environmental relationships then things are not what is normal. If this system can change those values so that a larger portion of the input work can be recovered from the system then the savings in that recovery are the gain.
No one at HER, nor any of their supporters has shown ANY evidence that: "this system can effect a change at a lesser cost". Nor have they shown that any system can. The statement itself is circular: "If I could get a free lunch, I would eat for free." The fact remains that carrying a mass up and down from a starting point back to the same starting point whether in: a vacuum, or a fluid is in the best idealized case conservative. In all real cases it is lossy.
Quote
Yes it has TK.
In the most basic view this system changes volume for pressure,, that is more input pressure but at less volume. The system has no issue with having the lift be 100 percent efficient,, unless you are willing to say that energy can be destroyed, in reality I would doubt a 100 percent efficient lift when the input by itself is considered,, but myself,, I had way in excess of 15 percent, that is what was predicted IIRC.
Lift is a force. Force is not conservative. Anyone who has ever seen a lever in action knows that force is not conservative. Energy on the other hand is conservative. One can use any of many devices to manipulate force, but none of those measures alone or in any combination will gain output energy over the input energy.
Quote
*IF* after the lift, the stored potential is used to initiate a second cycle, then is it not probable that that input will reduce the actual input value needed by what ever value of stored potential is left?
Read again: At the end of any cycle that returns all elements to the original starting point there is no additional energy anywhere at the end of the cycle than at the start.
Quote
At the end of lift the full pressure is still within the closed system, that pressure is above the pressure of a second system at the rest pressure,, which way will the fluid and pressure move if the two are connected together,, have you not considered that the pressure and therefore fluid MUST move from the higher value to the lower one?
Pressure like force is not conservative. Energy: pressure times volume is conservative.
Quote
*IF* I have my reservoir refilled 1\2 way when it has dropped 1\2 the distance,, is in not fair to say that I have a fair amount of potential coming back out from the system?
Should the actual question be: How much potential can be recovered from the system after lift?
The actual question should be: How much energy can be removed in a cycle and complete that cycle with the same energy as at the cycle start? The best case answer is zero. The answer in any real system with losses is negative. Net energy has to be supplied in order to sustain one cycle to the next or else the system runs down and stops. Which is exactly what happens to the ZED and the TAZ.
Quote
You and I know that the pressure is still at its full value at the end of lift, then the question is in the rate of decrease in the pressure as the fluid is removed, and since the weight left on the system is the required weight to hold the system at rest pressure that value is the base line, that value is the lowest pressure value the system will fall to.
As TinselKoala's demonstration shows, the stored potential energy runs down. Pressure alone does not define energy. Pressure times volume defines energy.
Quote
I had many lifts that were 75 percent or better, so how much of that stored potential is needed for recovery,, that would be 25 percent,, correct? Any more than 25 percent with a 75 percent efficient lift would be extra.
In other words you never broke even. Neither have HER broken even. Nor will HER ever break even with energy.
Quote
My values were for the removed weight after lift to water weight to make the lift and the distances they both moved,, you know that but I thought I would put that back out there.
That then starts with the straight question of the expanding air, how much volume increase happens when the air expands to 1\3 its pressure, this is not even taking the funny behavior into account of the riser response difference.
If this is enough to get the second system from rest to lift potential then your Bollard effect happens.
Quote from: webby1 on January 26, 2014, 08:20:07 PM
*IF* after the lift, the stored potential is used to initiate a second cycle, then is it not probable that that input will reduce the actual input value needed by what ever value of stored potential is left?
...if you have an endless supply of floats at the bottom of your tank, then yes you could. However most normal tanks are finite and only contain a few floats. Once they rise to the surface then the ability to tap that potential from them is gone. To reset you need to get the floats to the bottom of the tank again.
No matter WHAT way you try to do that, there is an input cost exactly equal (or more) than sinking the float to the bottom. Even if you drain the tank, drop the float and refill it that energy cost does not go away. (In this case the energy input is in pumping the water up).
The system described by Travis just does not work.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 26, 2014, 09:34:19 PM
The system described by Travis just does not work.
It has done a wonderful job of separating money from investors.
Quote
<LibreEnergia> The system described by Travis just does not work.<LibreEnergia>
and all others that keep on quoting basic physics,
To repeat the conservation laws over and over and stay nicely in the mainstream by keeping to the general semantics is not helping here at all. I have no problem with all your statements since they are describing a symmetrical and linear system, by falling back on those well known basics, you are evading the crucial point around which the whole debate is focused.
A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry.
Forget about a moment about overunity.
Have a close looks at this asymmetry, why is it asymmetric ?
What is the cost of the asymmetry and what measures has Wayne employed to reduce that cost.
I know what your reaction is going to be, explain it to me in detail (creating a lot of work for me) so we can keep on shooting it down with traditional symmetry without trying to look deeper into the concept.
With an open mind you would be unbiased and assume a 50/50 position on the same concept until it has been dismantled from the ground up. You possibly could improve on the concept strategy.
You may do something productive now or carry on ranting about basic physics and Archimedes
It depends on where you want to go in the universe
In General: Does anybody here have a framework that could lead to OU ?
OU is not possible in the framework of symmetrical physics, how could you tamper with the standard framework to achieve asymmetry, a requirement for OU.
A model like that would put the search in the right direction for possible positive results. Wouldn't it ?
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 04:38:47 AM
A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry.
Sorry, I won't mince words here... absolute bullshit. I don't care if you describe it is as 'asymmetrical' or 'non linear' or 'some-what like pink unicorns'.
You must show in clear and unambiguous terms how the integral of force with respect to distance (that's work to you and me) is different on the up down stroke and just WHERE in the cycle this so called 'asymmetry' occurs. There is no point in analysing just a small part of the cycle and claiming See!.. there is excess here.
You must analyse the whole cycle and show how and where it produces NET output.
Don't tell me to read the ZED thread and the answer will somehow magically descend on me... It won't. All I can see is poor thinking and erroneous conclusions.
Wayne Travis, in his heart of hearts knows this thing doesn't work, but is now far too deeply into it to admit it.
Forget about a moment about overunity.
Have a close looks at this asymmetry, why is it asymmetric ?
What is the cost of the asymmetry and what measures has Wayne employed to reduce that cost.
I know what your reaction is going to be, explain it to me in detail (creating a lot of work for me) so we can keep on shooting it down with traditional symmetry without trying to look deeper into the concept.
With an open mind you would be unbiased and assume a 50/50 position on the same concept until it has been dismantled from the ground up.
You may do something productive now or carry on ranting about basic physics and Archimedes
It depends on where you want to go in the universe
Red_Sunset
[/quote]
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 27, 2014, 04:55:28 AM
Sorry, I won't mince words here... absolute bullshit. ........................ 'some-what like pink unicorns'.
................................................................
Those
Pink Unicorns bring back memories of ~2 years ago, where has the time gone.
>> The times of Wayne thread in its last stages towards the abyss (in its dead-throws)
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 27, 2014, 04:55:28 AM
Sorry, I won't mince words here... absolute bullshit. I don't care if you describe it is as 'asymmetrical' or 'non linear' or 'some-what like pink unicorns'.
...
EnergyLibre
Thanks for your advice: then there is no point in wasting my breath on "bull...."
One chip down, a few more chips to go!
Red_Sunset
And there lies the problem Red - imperfect information - initially from Wayne Travis as he drip fed the thread, & now, opposing views trying to reconstruct the 'actual' principle that may prove a path to OU or be no more than ordinary physics - the independent verification of a self sustaining working model would have gone a long way towards credibility of the inventor & his claims, as I'm sure all are aware.
I do however agree that asymmetry of forces would be a requirement to find mechanical OU, if it exits to be found - and since force times displacement/distance [Work] under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP] equals energy, then I could speculate that the Equivalence Principle might not be consistent in all circumstances, if OU is ever demonstrated & verified.
And neither HER, nor RAR, nor Grimer, have been able to show in theory or practice that break in Equivalence Symmetry I think is necessary, AFAIK.
Mention has been made in this thread, by Red Sunset among others about the difficulty in communication of ideas, of getting people to understand what one is saying.
I have a particularly interesting example of that from my own career.
Normally my way-out notes and publications with Clayton were tolerated by my superiors. However, as I was approaching retirement the Buiding Research Establishment had the misfortune to end up with a director sicked up on us from Porton Down - a Dr Rex Watson.
When he read my internal note on Iterative Hierarchical Mechanics he went ape-shit and banned me from writing internal notes. I appealed against his decision and because of the nature of my work (anticipating failures) in the end the appeal went right up to Butler, the Cabinet Secretary.
Anyway, an expert panel was set up to examine the various unorthodox stuff Clayton and I had written over 3 decades.
The members were, Sir Alan Cottrell, Professor F R Farmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._R._Farmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._R._Farmer)
and Dr D Goodison.
They tried desperately to pick holes in our work but the only point they came up with where Farmer claimed I was wrong was this:
I had written,
"Chance and probability in terms of the observer
A simple point of entry to an analysis of probability is the paradigm of dice throwing. What do probability statements about the chances of a particular number resulting from a given throw mean. To take a specific example, what does it mean when I say that the probability of a 2 coming up in the next throw is 1/6? Is this an objective statement about the next throw, or about the dice; or is it perhaps a subjective statement about my way of looking at the world?
The most traditional answer, that the 1/6 refers to the outcome of a large number of trials is not very satisfying since it seems to get away from the point. I am interested in the next throw, not a large number of trials, and anyway, however many trials I make there is no guarantee that the percentage of 2's will be exactly 1/6. On the contrary, if I make 6N trials where N is a very large integer, even though the fraction of 2's could be 1/6 the probability of this is small and tends to zero as N tends to infinity."
Farmer claimed this was wrong. The other two "experts" remained silent which was rather cowardly of them.
Could we get Farmer to see we were right? No way.
So you can see the kind of thing I would be up against in trying to show a member of this forum how the Keenie worked and why. Perhaps when RAR is shown to work it will be easier.
Quote from: fletcher on January 27, 2014, 05:54:27 AM
And there lies the problem Red - imperfect information - initially from Wayne Travis as he drip fed the thread, & now, opposing views trying to reconstruct the 'actual' principle that may prove a path to OU or be no more than ordinary physics - the independent verification of a self sustaining working model would have gone a long way towards credibility of the inventor & his claims, as I'm sure all are aware.
I do however agree that asymmetry of forces would be a requirement to find mechanical OU, if it exits to be found - and since force times displacement/distance [Work] under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP] equals energy, then I could speculate that the Equivalence Principle might not be consistent in all circumstances, if OU is ever demonstrated & verified.
And neither HER, nor RAR, nor Grimer, have been able to show in theory or practice that break in Equivalence Symmetry I think is necessary, AFAIK.
Hi Fletcher,
I appreciate your moderate approach to this sensitive topic. I agree with you that the old Wayne topic has ran its course and it should not be the issue if Wayne has OU or not.
I think what is important is what of benefit can we take along out of that topic. The clever part I referred to was his approach toward asymmetry.
Did he really succeed ?, what snakes were hiding to prevent him to achieve his goal ? What hurdles was he able or not able to overcome is only known by him.
It was definitely the best logical flow towards OU I have seen in a very long time. I wrote a ~40 page pamphlet/booklet on it "The ZED for dummies", which I gave to Wayne as a base document for him to expand on as he wished and as a "thanks" gesture.
The asymmetry creation is an interference between the 2 half cycles. The key is to be able to pay for that cost in a way that you pay for it without loosing any money in the process, so to speak. To say it in a different way, it cost energy that is already within the system, it is a redirection, a re-channeling, an optimization towards the output objective.
To understand this better, is to look a 2 people (Wayne & Renato), showing a remarkable similar high level approach (the reason I re-appeared here after 2 yrs absence).
The successful outcome is a critical process but I am under the firm belief it can be done. Not necessarily in the form or shape as is attempted by these 2 inventors.
It is worthwhile to study these 2 inventions, yes ! although not for the purpose of a quick rip-off OU device(it is pre-historic) but to learn of a path that leads towards the light, absolutely !. The reality of having the 2 inventions working at this point in time as the first OU system is not exactly the most important criteria here, although it would be nice and very encouraging if they did work.
Do I have (all) the answers ?, no, not yet.
Red_Sunset
QuoteThe asymmetry creation is an interference between the 2 half cycles.
Unfortunately there is no information in that statement. Two yeas later and there is zero progress from Wayne. Don't expect Wayne's web site to ever change significantly. There is no test data and the expectation is that there will never be test data or a demonstration system. Has anybody looked up James Kwok lately?
It's the classic case where a proposition starts of with the sheen of respectability, appearing to be coming from a legitimate company. Several years later and any legitimate company would have something to show for themselves.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on January 27, 2014, 08:10:31 AM
Unfortunately there is no information in that statement. Two yeas later and there is zero progress from Wayne. Don't expect Wayne's web site to ever change significantly. ....................
MileHigh
You are too late, MileHigh, above is about an idea, you should post something like this four/seven days ago!!!
When making a claim of OU at the very least the inventive should be capable of,
1 Demonstrate a continuous working device.
2 Have his device independently verified.
3 give out information that leads others to be able to achieve 1 & 2
clearly Wayne Travis is not capable. Talking a lot and making many posts is not evidence of over-unity.
Quote from: powercat on January 27, 2014, 08:44:41 AM
When making a claim of OU at the very least the inventive should be capable of,
1 Demonstrate a continuous working device.
2 Have his device independently verified.
3 give out information that leads others to be able to achieve 1 & 2
clearly Wayne Travis is not capable. Talking a lot and making many posts is not evidence of over-unity.
No one make claim of OU here, and ok, Wayne Travis cannot prove his Claim,
Again, You SHould Post THIS One year Ago.
NOW is time to think How to make OU Possible,
Hi,
I thought, why not go to the top? So I asked a scientist at CERN.
I bet you can guess the answer.
John.
@Red: don't you see any significance in the _fact_ that, in spite of your 40 page manual explaining the ZED and all the rest..... nobody, including Travis and his carefully selected mob of sycophants, nobody has succeeded in demonstrating a self-running device meeting the claims?
I see that as being highly significant. So you have two realms of failure to contend with: the theoretical and the empirical. There is no real theory to support Travis's claims, his device behaves just exactly as ordinary physics predicts. And there is no practical example of any device that demonstrates anything unusual, much less self-running overunity behaviour. Even my PerPump 2.0 Heron's Fountain runs on the stored GPE of the elevated water in the input reservoir.
Imagine a big tub, half filled with water. You can put this on the fulcrum of a see-saw and get the water sloshing back and forth. If you do it right it will rock the seesaw for a while. The dual ZED device of Travis is a complicated way of slowing down this action, that's all. Once the original "slosh" is dissipated as heat and noise, the thing stops until it is "precharged" and sloshed again.
@Frank: Can you say "asymptote" ? Of course you are right that the probability of getting exactly 1/6 is less as the number of trials grows large. But, just in case you really need this explained, repeating the _series_ of trials many times leads to "errors" or deviations from 1/6 that cancel out. Each series _asymptotes_ to 1/6, and some go above it and some below it. In the -really long run- these deviations again _average_ to an asymptote of 1/6.
Now, I don't believe for a moment that you aren't aware of this. Therefore your post must have been designed deliberately by you to misdirect.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 27, 2014, 08:54:54 AM
@Red: don't you see any significance in the _fact_ that, in spite of your 40 page manual explaining the ZED and all the rest..... nobody, including Travis and his carefully selected mob of sycophants, nobody has succeeded in demonstrating a self-running device meeting the claims?
TK & co OR coTK
your post still lead to debate about self-running/OU/Claims and at the end just Blame each others among of us.
Are YOU HAPPY ?
Quote from: Marsing on January 27, 2014, 09:43:40 AM
TK & co OR coTK
your post still lead to debate about self-running/OU/Claims and at the end just Blame each others among of us.
Are YOU HAPPY ?
Marsing,
To see a real
trail of destruction left by these individuals, like
bulls in a China shopCheck Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in
their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 27, 2014, 08:54:54 AM
"... Of course you are right that the probability of getting exactly 1/6 is less as the number of trials grows large. But, just in case you really need this explained, repeating the _series_ of trials many times leads to "errors" or deviations from 1/6 that cancel out. Each series _asymptotes_ to 1/6, and some go above it and some below it. In the -really long run- these deviations again _average_ to an asymptote of 1/6.
Now, I don't believe for a moment that you aren't aware of this. Therefore your post must have been designed deliberately by you to misdirect.
Of course I'm aware of it, dear boy. The word "misdirect" is pejorative.
The extract was from my note, N 74/80
PROBABILISTIC DESIGN IN TERMS OF SYSTEM VARIETY
That particular bit was intended to shock the reader into carefully noting what I had written - not what he might carelessly think I had written.
The frightening thing is that even when what I had written was pointed out to Farmer he still insisted I was wrong. In view of his responsibilities it won't be surprising if, like the Comet airliners, the AGR proves to be a reactor too far.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 04:38:47 AM
To repeat the conservation laws over and over and stay nicely in the mainstream by keeping to the general semantics is not helping here at all. I have no problem with all your statements since they are describing a symmetrical and linear system, by falling back on those well known basics, you are evading the crucial point around which the whole debate is focused.
A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry.
Forget about a moment about overunity.
Have a close looks at this asymmetry, why is it asymmetric ?
What is the cost of the asymmetry and what measures has Wayne employed to reduce that cost.
I know what your reaction is going to be, explain it to me in detail (creating a lot of work for me) so we can keep on shooting it down with traditional symmetry without trying to look deeper into the concept.
With an open mind you would be unbiased and assume a 50/50 position on the same concept until it has been dismantled from the ground up. You possibly could improve on the concept strategy.
You may do something productive now or carry on ranting about basic physics and Archimedes
It depends on where you want to go in the universe
In General: Does anybody here have a framework that could lead to OU ?
OU is not possible in the framework of symmetrical physics, how could you tamper with the standard framework to achieve asymmetry, a requirement for OU.
A model like that would put the search in the right direction for possible positive results. Wouldn't it ?
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, you propose a premise: "A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry. " Then almost as quickly you declare that you are unwilling to supply any evidence that such an asymmetry as you propose exists or can exist. That is magical thinking. You are welcome to think as magically as you like. It does not make Wayne's failed claims any more credible.
Obtaining over unity is by definition not possible from a conservative field. That leaves showing that some field is not conservative, thus creating a principle on which over unity could be obtained by exploiting such a field. Wayne Travis and HER claim that they obtain free work from a buoyancy machine. The operative field in a buoyancy machine is gravitational. Neither Wayne Travis, nor HER, nor any other supporter including you have shown any evidence of an "asymmetry" in gravity, or other behavior by which gravity acts non-conservatively. Magical thinking will not cut it.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 10:07:45 AM
Marsing,
To see a real trail of destruction left by these individuals, like bulls in a China shop
Check Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset
Copied
Quote from: Grimer on January 27, 2014, 06:06:31 AM
Mention has been made in this thread, by Red Sunset among others about the difficulty in communication of ideas, of getting people to understand what one is saying.
I have a particularly interesting example of that from my own career.
Normally my way-out notes and publications with Clayton were tolerated by my superiors. However, as I was approaching retirement the Buiding Research Establishment had the misfortune to end up with a director sicked up on us from Porton Down - a Dr Rex Watson.
When he read my internal note on Iterative Hierarchical Mechanics he went ape-shit and banned me from writing internal notes. I appealed against his decision and because of the nature of my work (anticipating failures) in the end the appeal went right up to Butler, the Cabinet Secretary.
Anyway, an expert panel was set up to examine the various unorthodox stuff Clayton and I had written over 3 decades.
The members were, Sir Alan Cottrell, Professor F R Farmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._R._Farmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._R._Farmer)
and Dr D Goodison.
They tried desperately to pick holes in our work but the only point they came up with where Farmer claimed I was wrong was this:
I had written,
"Chance and probability in terms of the observer
A simple point of entry to an analysis of probability is the paradigm of dice throwing. What do probability statements about the chances of a particular number resulting from a given throw mean. To take a specific example, what does it mean when I say that the probability of a 2 coming up in the next throw is 1/6? Is this an objective statement about the next throw, or about the dice; or is it perhaps a subjective statement about my way of looking at the world?
The most traditional answer, that the 1/6 refers to the outcome of a large number of trials is not very satisfying since it seems to get away from the point. I am interested in the next throw, not a large number of trials, and anyway, however many trials I make there is no guarantee that the percentage of 2's will be exactly 1/6. On the contrary, if I make 6N trials where N is a very large integer, even though the fraction of 2's could be 1/6 the probability of this is small and tends to zero as N tends to infinity."
Farmer claimed this was wrong. The other two "experts" remained silent which was rather cowardly of them.
Could we get Farmer to see we were right? No way.
So you can see the kind of thing I would be up against in trying to show a member of this forum how the Keenie worked and why. Perhaps when RAR is shown to work it will be easier.
Grimer your expression of probability is wrong. You have conflated the definition of a random process with a means of evaluating whether a process is entirely random or biased. A result is random if it is unpredictable based on
ALL prior knowledge. That means that it is irrelevant how badly you or anyone else might wish to predict the next result. If the process is actually random, the probability of any outcome is the same as any other. Nature doesn't care how satisfied or unsatisfied you might find that truth.
There are many processes that contain both stochastic and deterministic components. At first glance some deterministic components may appear to be random, when they are really complicated and/or long sequences.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 10:07:45 AM
Marsing,
To see a real trail of destruction left by these individuals, like bulls in a China shop
Check Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset
And you're talking BS, Wayne kept promising independent verification, and he kept breaking his word, but you seem to think breaking his word again and again is acceptable, and turning the blame on other people now for Wayne traverses complete failure to produce any real evidence is BS and avoiding reality.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 06:28:09 AM
Hi Fletcher,
...I wrote a ~40 page pamphlet/booklet on it "The ZED for dummies", which I gave to Wayne as a base document for him to expand on as he wished and as a "thanks" gesture.
The asymmetry creation is an interference between the 2 half cycles. The key is to be able to pay for that cost in a way that you pay for it without loosing any money in the process, so to speak. ...
The successful outcome is a critical process but I am under the firm belief it can be done. Not necessarily in the form or shape as is attempted by these 2 inventors.
It is worthwhile to study these 2 inventions, yes ! although not for the purpose of a quick rip-off OU device(it is pre-historic) but to learn of a path that leads towards the light, absolutely !. The reality of having the 2 inventions working at this point in time as the first OU system is not exactly the most important criteria here, although it would be nice and very encouraging if they did work.
Do I have (all) the answers ?, no, not yet.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset in your 40 pages of explanation did you:
1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?
2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?
3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?
Quote from: webby1 on January 27, 2014, 10:26:29 AM
...
If this system works then it must be using something, or doing something, that is not within the scope of the well known and understood methods.
If this system only uses and behaves in the same fashion as understood interactions then it can not work.
...
This offers opportunity to progress towards a common understanding. So hopefully we can take the next step:
What evidence is there that any element, or combination of elements do not behave in the same fashion as understood interactions?
If such evidence exists, then it can be pursued to see if it is mistaken observation, or it is real and therefore OU should be obtainable by exploiting the observed behavior.
Quote from: webby1 on January 27, 2014, 11:40:59 AM
After the lift my system would eject the fluid at a higher pressure than the resting state pressure.
At the end of lift I had my reservoir at the same height that was needed for the lift and as such I believe that that means there was the same pressure still held within the system.
The input fluid was returned at a decreasing pressure value, that is to continue the descent of the risers I needed to keep lowering the reservoir until I had the reservoir back to the starting height.
This behavior is not in line with normal usage of hydraulics, in the normal use of hydraulics the instant the pressure source is removed from the fluid medium the potential is also removed.
Webby what is the starting state of your cycle?
I am not familiar with your device or the tests that you ran. Will you please provide me a link to descriptions of each?
If your device uses pneumatics and hydraulics there is a good chance that you will see phase lags due to the inertial mass in the system and compressible gas.
Quote from: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 11:08:13 AM
Red_Sunset in your 40 pages of explanation did you:
1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?
2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?
3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?
MarkE,
1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?
* No2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?
* Yes & No,
** The multi-layer piston changes the playing field because the piston makes an un-natural parameter (property) change at the midpoint cycle, so gravity reacts in response to those changes, not to the symmetry of the half cycle that preceded it.
This creates the appearance of non-conservation, but it all reactions are normal accepted physics behaviors. No magic takes place or known physic's rules are broken in the process. Although the end result makes you believe different3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?
* YesYour questions were answered already in a previous post that gave you a high level working overview of the ZED. Re-read it and you might see more clarity? Nothing will help you until you disassemble the set of inverted cooking pots. It is a mind twister, give it time to assimilate.
Red_Sunset
>> MarkE = Mark Euthanasius ?? <<
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 12:36:28 PM
MarkE,
1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device? * No
2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively? * Yes & No,
** The multi-layer piston changes the playing field because the piston makes an un-natural parameter (property) change at the midpoint cycle, so gravity reacts in response to those changes, not to the symmetry of the half cycle that preceded it.
This creates the appearance of non-conservation, but it all reactions are normal accepted physics behaviors.
No magic takes place or known physic's rules are broken in the process. Although the end result makes you believe different
3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain? * Yes
Your questions were answered already in a previous post that gave you a high level working overview of the ZED. Re-read it and you might see more clarity? Nothing will help you until you disassemble the set of inverted cooking pots. It is a mind twister, give it time to assimilate.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset do we agree then that it all comes down to 2)? Assuming that we do, then kindly walk me through your calculations of energy for the energy exchanges that take place for the half cycle before the midpoint, and the half cycle after the midpoint where you believe: "piston makes an un-natural parameter (property) change".
That would be a fair deduction Red - but your point of making it elludes me.
Isn't the ideal to set aside prejudices [or pseudonyms] & explore thought experiments & theory & experiments to find the path to OU, or conversely to find the 'show stopper' that returns our feet to earthly realms [rhetorical] - I welcome any intelligent & well crafted input that pits 'ingenuity against entropy' - so far entropy has the upper hand but that could change with one mechanical device or coherent theory which could be just a thought away, if only we could tease it out.
Quote from: webby1 on January 27, 2014, 12:45:46 PM
MarkE,
Nested risers with retainer wall separators between each riser, the separators go from the bottom up to just under the lid of the riser as such that each riser is in its own container of water and the only connection between the water is the air within each riser connecting each chamber together in a series fashion of air\water\air\water.
The concept for setup we were told is, 1\3 the weight stays on the risers and after lift the other 2\3 is removed, this was the main condition I would setup for.
My testbed started to fail shortly after building it, it was not intended to be used but was a test build to see if I could build a unit by rolling plastic around a form and gluing the ends together then using the previous layer as the bed for the next one,, it was made out of Tennis Ball tubes.
We were also given a basic start relationship of lift to height of the risers.
The information is all in the thread that has been linked to,, but that is a lot of digging and stuff,, I do not have the pictures on this computer so the next time I fire up my other one I will try and remember to post them,, but I am sure someone has them or a link to them directly.
The setup process consisted of getting the system pressures up just enough to hold the weight left on the risers, this also included maintaining a pressure on the input system that did not allow the water to be ejected out of the input at rest, so the whole system was brought into a pressure balance, then the reservoir was raised to increase the input pressure above the resting state pressure, when the risers came into lift potential they were released and the lift happened, then at the end of lift the risers were held against any further lifting motion and the 2\3 weight was removed, then the reservoir was lowered slightly and fluid began to return into the reservoir, at first the outside riser holding the weight did not move but the inside parts did start to move down, and as they moved down the fluid moved back into the reservoir and the reservoir was slowly lowered until it was back at the resting height and the risers were back into there resting positions.
funny you should mention the "lag",, even on a small scale that can be observed and can be put to use. My best recovery's were when I timed the lift to drop just right,, on the same token I had some of my worst by using the exact wrong timing. I referred to that as some kind of wave motion within the system.
Webby, thanks. A picture would be handy, but I'll work with your description. I am going to offer my description so that you can tell me if I have the correct understanding of the arrangement:
1 A movable water reservoir connects to a set of concentric open (please clarify top or bottom ) pistons (risers) are located in a (please clarify: sealed or unsealed) container. Each piston rests on water where the water pneumatically connects by vertical air channels to the next outer and next inner where each channel forms an inverted "U".
2 The system starts with a weight placed on (please clarify: only the outside piston or all of the pistons)
3 Compressed air is added to the system (please state where) until all pistons clear the bottom surface of the overall vessel and water does not eject.
3a At this point pressure (please clarify measured where) is declared as at its resting state value.
3b At this point stops limit the upward movement of the pistons.
4 The movable water reservoir is then lifted by some distance.
5 The stops are removed
6 The system lifts the weight initially loaded.
7 At this point 2/3 of the weight is removed.
8 The reservoir is lowered to an intermediate point.
9 The pistons fall
10 When the outer piston has fallen a predetermined amount the reservoir is lowered to a new intermediate point
11 Steps 8-10 are repeated until the reservoir is back at its starting position.
12 After some time all pistons return to their positions at step 3b.
Since the reservoir and pistons cycle between the same fixed points, and the work done to the outside world was raising 2/3 of the weight from the step 3b) position to the step 6) position, in order to complete the cycle we need to determine what has to be done following step 12 to get us back to the condition of step 3b) where we have 100% of the weight on the pistons and they can again lift that weight to the position in step 6).
Please let me know if I have misunderstood the description, and correct as needed.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 27, 2014, 02:39:02 PM
>> MarkE = Mark Euthanasius ?? <<
Yes. I am Mark Euthanasius, not to be confused with either Spartacus or Brian. Referring to myself as MarkE spares people having to write out Euthanasius anytime they wish to address me.
Hi MarkE,
if you Google Wayne Travis Michel Henkens you get some drawings and explanation.
If there's a net gain there's nothing to stop it!
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 27, 2014, 04:58:12 PM
Hi MarkE,
if you Google Wayne Travis Michel Henkens you get some drawings and explanation.
If there's a net gain there's nothing to stop it!
John.
Minnie, thanks. I found two pages of it. Webby, is this drawing a good representation of what you are talking about?
Webby thanks for the links and pictures. I am afraid the news from a stock analysis stand point is not good. The machine can be simplified down to: one hydraulic jack polluted by an air bubble that applies pressure to a water vessel that supports a float. Hydraulic jacks rigorously conform to CoE as do floats. Energy goes into changing the lifted height of the various constituent parts including water and the riser masses, and the weight on top. In addition, energy goes into compressing air. The act of compressing the air leads to heating losses as anyone who has ever used a bicycle tire pump can attest. At the end of the day, this device performs more or less as a lever where the arm bends significantly under load.
Quote from: webby1 on January 27, 2014, 06:42:13 PM
No problem.
Well if that is your opinion then so be it,, I do still choose to disagree.
Webby I hope you understand how I went about simplifying it.
Quote from: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 04:40:23 PM
Yes. I am Mark Euthanasius, not to be confused with either Spartacus or Brian. Referring to myself as MarkE spares people having to write out Euthanasius anytime they wish to address me.
Mark,
If I remember correctly, you were involved in discussions with Wayne in 2011-2012 ?
I don't exactly remember the name of the forum. So I would guess you are familiar with the ZED
Is that correct?
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 12:22:40 AM
Mark,
If I remember correctly, you were involved in discussions with Wayne in 2011-2012 ?
I don't exactly remember the name of the forum. So I would guess you are familiar with the ZED
Is that correct?
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset that would have been PESN in 2012. PESN linked I think four of the five Tom Miller aquarium you tube videos and a couple of articles. I think that PESN since cleared out all of the comments when they changed over to Disqus.
I don't specifically recall Wayne Travis identifying himself posting at PESN. HER was represented by several vociferous proponents including Tom Miller who posted for some time there. The double speak surrounding the alleged but nonexistent "Travis Effect" made for some interesting conversation.
Webby's description and the two pages of the 40 page guide minnie told me how to find tell the same story. There is nothing in there that offers any chance of some "asymmetry" or cheat. Water and weights get lifted and dropped, some air gets compressed and expanded. It's all very ordinary stuff. But, if you or anyone else has some evidence to offer of something extraordinary, then I am all ears.
BTW I will be traveling the rest of the week. It will take me longer than usual to respond to any messages.
Quote from: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 05:51:19 PM
.................................... The machine can be simplified down to: one hydraulic jack polluted by an air bubble that applies pressure to a water vessel that supports a float. Hydraulic jacks rigorously conform to CoE as do floats. Energy goes into changing the lifted height of the various constituent parts including water and the riser masses, and the weight on top. In addition, energy goes into compressing air. The act of compressing the air leads to heating losses as anyone who has ever used a bicycle tire pump can attest. At the end of the day, this device performs more or less as a lever where the arm bends significantly under load.
Quote from: fletcher on January 27, 2014, 04:24:21 PM
That would be a fair deduction Red - but your point of making it elludes me.
Isn't the ideal to set aside prejudices [or pseudonyms] & explore thought experiments & theory & experiments to find the path to OU, or conversely to find the 'show stopper' that returns our feet to earthly realms [rhetorical] - I welcome any intelligent & well crafted input that pits 'ingenuity against entropy' - so far entropy has the upper hand but that could change with one mechanical device or coherent theory which could be just a thought away, if only we could tease it out.
MarkE, You are correct to the simplification, but the simplicity of what was said in previous posts has not sunken yet to see the point of essence in this hydraulic jack, for accuracy sake, it is a Hydro Jack. With Wayne's base configuration, it is mandatory to have a dual balance system. One by itself will not give you any efficient or useable output due to energy recovery limitations.
Fletcher,
I hope this summary helps, this should be enough to trigger an inquiring mind.
Don't assume this is the whole story
** Can we agree that if we can asymmetry between up-stroke & Dwn-stroke, we could under the right conditions have excess leftover energy in a cycle ?
** If YES, then our focus will be on creating that symmetry imbalance.
A preferred imbalance is to get more out than we put in. So if we can lift weight (add PE) and then recover this PE at a higher rate.
In a hydro system (buoyancy) & Hydraulics, force is developed by means of pressure on a target surface.
So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
Force= pressure x area
So for asymmetry we need,>> up stroke >> Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure
Energy is determined by: Force over distance.Force is in its physical property is determined by AREA size (and then Pressure)
Distance in its physical property is determined by Volume (proportionate to the area)
OUTPUT Energy is therefore >> AREA X PRESSURE X DISTANCE
with a weight loaded >> WEIGHT X DISTANCE
INPUT Energy is therefore >> VOLUME X PRESSURE
So the energy output to input direct relationships are "Distance", "Volume", "Area"
Pressure (overall) is a common input and output during descend.
For asymmetry we need to break some direct symmetrical relationships, in Wayne's Zed "Distance" and "Volume" are common between IN & Output. The POD area volume is the only input volume and rise distance of the pod and other lift surfaces are the same since they are all interconnected.
The overall pressure is made up by the sub-level pressure of each layer. The variables are the different lift area's which we can influence by modification of the layering of the sub-level pressures, in order to change the lift characteristics of the jack/lever.
So what is left >> Area
If we can lift a weight to a predetermined height with a given volume of fluid at a certain pressure, we need to input a certain amount of energy . We do the lift with the largest lift area possible.
Energy spent: Volume x Pressure
PE acquired : weight x height = area1 x pressure x height
Now, to descend we have the ability to reduce the lift area (at a very low cost, IP)
Let say, we do the descend with an area reduced by 1/3. Now in order to hold the same weight on top of the jack, the pressure would increase proportionally to the reduction in area. So or effective energy increase in the output volume returned is increased by 33%.
Energy output: Volume x (Pressure + 33%)
PE released : weight x height = = area2 (-33%) x pressure2 (+33%) x height
** Remember that the volume of height parameters have not changed. In a traditional symmetrical example, the change of lift area would automatically change the volume and/or height. This is a key point !
Unique details of the Jack1.. Limited amount of water use (reason for the aquarium demo's), reduces cost
2.. Mufti-layered lift area's of different sizes (total lift area is an aggregate of different area's and pressures)
3.. Limited fixed lift distance
4.. Layers are liquid pre-provisoned
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 01:19:27 AM
Red_Sunset that would have been PESN in 2012. PESN linked I think four of the five Tom Miller aquarium you tube videos and a couple of articles. I think that PESN since cleared out all of the comments when they changed over to Disqus. .................................................................................
There is nothing in there that offers any chance of some "asymmetry" or cheat. Water and weights get lifted and dropped, some air gets compressed and expanded. It's all very ordinary stuff. But, if you or anyone else has some evidence to offer of something extraordinary, then I am all ears......................................
Hi MarkE.
yes, I think that is the forum.
About "nothing there" , I guess like "one's trash" is someone else his "treasure"
or like the picture in which we can all see different images.
In the past I have also been looking for things that were right in front of my eyes without seeing them.
It is a mindset to connect dots.......
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 02:15:04 AM
MarkE, You are correct to the simplification, but the simplicity of what was said in previous posts has not sunken yet to see the point of essence in this hydraulic jack, for accuracy sake, it is a Hydro Jack. With Wayne's base configuration, it is mandatory to have a dual balance system. One by itself will not give you any efficient or useable output.
Red_Sunset, one can lift and drop things all day long hoping that they will either produce more work when dropped or take less work when lifted up the nth time than the first. Experience shows that anyone doing so is doomed to grave disappointment.
Quote
Fletcher,
I hope this summary helps, this should be enough to trigger an inquiring mind.
Don't assume this is the whole story
** Can we agree that if we can asymmetry between up-stroke & Dwn-stroke, we could under the right conditions have excess leftover energy in a cycle ?
You are committing the fallacy of begging the question. The question presumes that the cost is less than the benefit.
Quote
** If YES, then our focus will on creating that symmetry imbalance.
A preferred imbalance is to get more out than we put in. So if we can lift weight (add PE) and then recover this PE at a higher rate.
What HER claims to gain is energy. Slipping in rate yields power. Power is not conservative, and easily manipulated. Altering power does not yield the desired free energy.
Quote
In a hydro system (effective buoyancy) & Hydraulics, force is developed by means of pressure on a target surface.
So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
Now you are slipping in force. Force like power is not conserved, is easily manipulated, but does not yield free energy.
Quote
Force= pressure x area
So for asymmetry we need,
>> up stroke >> Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure
For energy asymmetry that results in a gain you need: Integral( F*ds )out > Integral( F*ds ) in.
Quote
Energy is determined by: Force over distance.
Energy is the integral of F*ds.
Quote
Force is in its physical property is determined by AREA size (and then Pressure)
Distance in its physical property is determined by Volume (proportionate to the area)
OUTPUT Energy is therefore >> AREA X PRESSURE X DISTANCE
with a weight loaded >> WEIGHT X DISTANCE
INPUT Energy is therefore >> VOLUME X PRESSURE
Those simplifications are only true if pressure and volume are constant. Otherwise you have to perform the integrals. If you have variable force and/or pressure and use those formulas that only apply to constant force and pressure you will calculate an invalid result.
Quote
So the energy output to input direct relationships are "Distance", "Volume", "Area"
Pressure (overall) is a common input and output during descend.
Again, you are applying a generalization that is not true. The gas compresses under the changing pressure. You are dooming yourself to "optimism by miscalculation".
Quote
For asymmetry we need to break some direct symmetrical relationships, in Wayne's Zed "Distance" and "Volume" are common between IN & Output. The POD area volume is the only input volume and rise distance of the pod and other lift surfaces are the same since they are all interconnected.
The overall pressure is made up by the sub-level pressure of each layer. The variables are the different lift area's which we can influence by modification of the layering of the sub-level pressures, in order to change the lift characteristics of the jack/lever.
So what is left >> Area
If we can lift a weight to a predetermined height with a given volume of fluid at a certain pressure, we need to input a certain amount of energy . We do the lift with the largest lift area possible.
Energy spent: Volume x Pressure
PE acquired : weight x height = area1 x pressure x height
No, energy spent, and PE acquired are both the respective integrals of F*ds in both cases. Weight is easy to determine. GMm is for all intent and purpose constant, so you can multiply change in height by weight to find the PE change from lifting or lowering a weight. If you want to find the difference in energy for the pressure vessel you can subtract the static starting pressure and gas volume from the static ending pressure and gas volume.
Quote
Now, to descend we have the ability to reduce the lift area (at a very low cost, IP)
Let say, we do the descend with an area reduced by 1/3. Now in order to hold the same weight on top of the jack, the pressure would increase proportionally to the reduction in area. So or effective energy increase in the output volume returned is increased by 33%.
Energy output: Volume x (Pressure + 33%)
PE released : weight x height = = area2 (-33%) x pressure2 (+33%) x height
** Remember that the volume of height parameters have not changed. In a traditional symmetrical example, the change of lift area would automatically change the volume and/or height. This is a key point !
Sadly, the key point seems to be that if one performs the wrong calculations, one can get all kinds of crazy answers, some that might even appear attractive.
Quote
Unique details of the Jack
1.. Limited amount of water use (reason for the aquarium demo's), reduces cost
Are we back to the absolute fail to show any new principle or means of energy gain aquarium videos? Really: Lifting and dropping a weight inside a surrounding fluid only subtracts the weight of the displaced fluid volume from the operations. Since that added or subtracted force appears identically in the F*ds integral for work performed and the F*ds integral for work extracted, it identically cancels out.
Quote
2.. Mufti-layered lift area's of different sizes (total lift area is an aggregate of different area's and pressures)
Changing the force changes the displacement. Levers, pulleys, gears, inclined planes, and hydraulic pistons all trade force for distance. Increase force by leveraging any of these mechanisms and the distance over which one must apply the reduced force increases identically by the ratio of increased force to reduced force. Ignoring losses: Integral(F*ds) in = Integral (F*ds) out
Quote
3.. Limited fixed lift distance
Limits restrict the distance over which useful work can be performed or extracted. They do not change the F*ds integral that defines the work in the first place.
Quote
4.. Layers are liquid pre-provisoned
This only creates an accounting issue.
Quote
Regards, Red_Sunset
If you are going to try and convince anyone who understands physics that a gain is possible then you will need to: Stop substituting power and force for energy, and perform the energy calculations correctly. Your only alternative is to produce a working machine. HER has not been able to do that in over five years. 2000 years of pesky hydrostatic physics explain why.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 02:26:20 AM
Hi MarkE.
yes, I think that is the forum.
About "nothing there" , I guess like "one's trash" is someone else his "treasure"
or like the picture in which we can all see different images.
In the past I have also been looking for things that were right in front of my eyes without seeing them.
It is a mindset to connect dots.......
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset you are anyone else who thinks they've found the proverbial pony are absolutely encouraged to show that fine equine off. Staring at an empty space and expounding upon the exquisite animal that exists only in the imagination does not create a real living specimen. It is not encouraging that you compare forces as though they represent energies.
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 03:49:48 AM
Red_Sunset, one can lift and drop things all day long hoping ......................................................
...................................................... you will need to: Stop substituting power and force for energy, and perform the energy calculations correctly. ...............................................
MarkE,
You are entitled to your opinion, the moot arguments and English Essay Syntax corrections.
Sure, Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.
You know what was explained, not an accounting balance for the last penny of energy that is a surety.
I also get the impression that you pretend to know better before you even looked at the idea flow.
A hopeless approach!
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 05:00:45 AM
MarkE,
You are entitled to your opinion, the moot arguments and English Essay Syntax corrections.
Sure, Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.
You know what was explained, not an accounting balance for the last penny of energy that is a surety.
I also get the impression that you pretend to know better before you even looked at the idea flow.
A hopeless approach!
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, I welcome any evidence that you or anyone else might bring to the table of extraordinary behaviors or new discoveries. If the "idea flow" relies on erroneous concepts and/or methods, then it leads nowhere that is useful.
Conflating force or power for energy are fundamental, not trivial errors. No one can tell you truthfully how many Joules are in a Newton. Nor can they tell you how many Joules are in a Watt because there is no equivalence between either force and energy or power and energy. They are entirely different concepts. On the other side, if one wants to know whether they have lost or come out ahead they have to account properly. Using a method to calculate quantities that applies to a special case that is not operative in the situation being considered just yields junk answers. If the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances. If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny.
You can declare:
QuoteSure, Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.
all day long and it will not make your prior representations:
QuoteOUTPUT Energy is therefore >> AREA X PRESSURE X DISTANCE
with a weight loaded >> WEIGHT X DISTANCE
INPUT Energy is therefore >> VOLUME X PRESSURE
So the energy output to input direct relationships are "Distance", "Volume", "Area"
correct outside the special circumstances of: constant pressure.
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 05:27:54 AM
Red_Sunset, I welcome any evidence that you or anyone else might bring to the table of extraordinary behaviors or new discoveries. If the "idea flow" relies on erroneous concepts and/or methods, then it leads nowhere that is useful.
Conflating force or power for energy are fundamental, not trivial errors. No one can tell you truthfully how many Joules are in a Newton. Nor can they tell you how many Joules are in a Watt because there is no equivalence between either force and energy or power and energy. They are entirely different concepts. On the other side, if one wants to know whether they have lost or come out ahead they have to account properly. Using a method to calculate quantities that applies to a special case that is not operative in the situation being considered just yields junk answers. If the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances. If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny.
MarkeE,
What you are saying is,
That if we lift a weight of 100kg and put it on a elevation that is 5 meters higher, we have not increased that weight PE with 500KgMtr ? I am not after the pennies or cents
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset I am saying that the pressure is not constant therefore you cannot calculate the "energy in" as you put it based on pressure at a single point in the travel.
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 05:42:21 AM
Red_Sunset I am saying that the pressure is not constant therefore you cannot calculate the "energy in" as you put it based on pressure at a single point in the travel.
MarkE,
I thought you would have known some of the working details since you had many objections & opinions posted on PESN in 2012
So I didn't re-state that Wayne primes the jack to full pressure and then lets go for stroke, keeping the pressure constant during travel.
Didn't I mention " Don't assume this is the whole story" at the beginning.
It is only a high level conceptual story, with the purpose to bring you up within range (or up to speed, so to speak). The rest you can figure out, I can see you would have no problem there with the finer details.
I normally appreciate questions structured more like:
What is the reason? or why do you think that?, or how did you come to that conclusion?.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, the gas is compressible. The load changes. Ergo the gas volume and / or pressure change.
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 06:02:01 AM
Red_Sunset, the gas is compressible. The load changes. Ergo the gas volume and / or pressure change.
MarkE,
Sure it is, but that has nothing to do with the price of potato's
The liquid and gas are pressurized together while the piston is held, when reaching the set aggregate pressure,
On each level,
> The liquid is under its destined sub-pressure
> The gas is under its destined sub-pressurre
> The lift surfaces are under their destined sub-pressures and exerting full lift force.
At this pre-stroke point, nothing changes, it is a steady condition untill the stroke lock is released.
At that point, the input only needs to keep up with displacement. Inflow is only into the POD area at stroke pressure.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 06:12:31 AM
MarkE,
Sure it is, but that has nothing to do with the price of potato's
Sorry Red_Sunset but if you want to know the change in energy in a compressed gas volume, you need to know both the starting and ending volumes and pressures.
Quote
The liquid and gas are pressurized together while the piston is held, when reaching the set aggregate pressure,
In other words you are doing work compressing a gas volume and again, you need to know the starting and ending pressures and volumes.
Quote
On each level,
> The liquid is under its destined sub-pressure
> The gas is under its destined sub-pressurre
> The lift surfaces are under their destined sub-pressures and exerting full lift force.
At this pre-stroke point, nothing changes, it is a steady condition untill the stroke lock is released.
At that point, the input only needs to keep up with displacement. Inflow is only into the POD area at stroke pressure.
Red_Sunset
It is our good fortune that you are intimately familiar with the construction and operation of the machine. That means that you should be able to perform an energy analysis through one complete cycle of the machine. Since you insist that you believe that the machine can produce surplus energy, it is reasonable to surmise you've already undertaken such an effort. So, now assuming that your purported beliefs are correct, all you need to do is show your work and have it hold up to scrutiny and all will finally be able to see that HER's claims have merit. I look forward to your analysis.
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 05:42:21 AM
Red_Sunset I am saying that the pressure is not constant therefore you cannot calculate the "energy in" as you put it based on pressure at a single point in the travel.
MarkE,
The other reason why the ZED doesn't stroke with gradually increasing pressure is that the stroke distance is short due to the pre-provisioning of the levels.
Therefore, to stroke at max. constant pressure, maximizes the output over that given short distance
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, I am looking forward to your complete energy analysis over one cycle.
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 06:24:01 AM
............................................... all you need to do is show your work and have it hold up to scrutiny and all will finally be able to see that HER's claims have merit. I look forward to your analysis.
MarkE,
Since you have shown to be good with these details, it will be my pleasure to allow you that priviledge.
I am sadly very bad with pennies and cents.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 06:24:01 AM
Sorry Red_Sunset but if you want to know the change in energy in a compressed gas volume, you need to know both the starting and ending volumes and pressures.In other words you are doing work compressing a gas volume and again, you need to know the starting and ending pressures and volumes..................................
.........................................
MarkE,
The energy absorbed into the gas as a type of spring effect is not lost, it is recycled.
So the gas volume quantity is not directly of importance except for design sizing and pre-provisioining
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset are you pulling a brave Sir Robin of Camelot? Going, going, ...
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 06:39:49 AM
Red_Sunset are you pulling a brave Sir Robin of Camelot? Going, going, ...
MarkE,
My advantage is that I know what I am talking about after diligent research.
Most members contesting here, are doing this like you "off the cuff". That puts you at a great disadvantage.
I see my effort here as providing a contribution to the community, sharing what I think is worthwhile to share.
It doesn't matter really to me if you or others believe me or not. The knowledge I proclaiming is not even my own. (sure, a productive response is always preferable)
I would never respond to a complex mail without sleeping over it for at least one night. One can appreciate a well though through question rather than wasting time with off the cuff mungo jumbo noise which is often missing the point and is disturbing.
It is clear to me that you didn't understand the process presented and therefore revert immediately to the standard conservation responses or looking for spelling mistakes so to speak. I know that still some parts are hidden, like how the switch from big to small lift area takes place. I know you can not visualize how this can happen. It took me also quite some time to figure this out but it can be done. I believe that is specific Inventive Property, and is not exactly mine to reveal, I respect Wayne and I wouldn't think about it otherwise. If he chooses so, he can.
At this point there is no purpose to go further until there is some common ground.
I didn't feel you made any contribution in that direction, sadly to say.
Hopefully others can.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 07:25:31 AM
MarkE,
My advantage is that I know what I am talking about after diligent research.
Most members contesting here, are doing this like you "off the cuff". That puts you at a great disadvantage.
I see my effort here as providing a contribution to the community, sharing what I think is worthwhile to share.
It doesn't matter really to me if you or others believe me or not. The knowledge I proclaiming is not even my own. (sure, a productive response is always preferable)
I would never respond to a complex mail without sleeping over it for at least one night. One can appreciate a well though through question rather than wasting time with off the cuff mungo jumbo noise which is often missing the point and is disturbing.
It is clear to me that you didn't understand the process presented and therefore revert immediately to the standard conservation responses or looking for spelling mistakes so to speak. I know that still some parts are hidden, like how the switch from big to small lift area takes place. I know you can not visualize how this can happen. It took me also quite some time to figure this out but it can be done. I believe that is specific Inventive Property, and is not exactly mine to reveal, I respect Wayne and I wouldn't think about it otherwise. If he chooses so, he can.
At this point there is no purpose to go further until there is some common ground.
I didn't feel you made any contribution in that direction, sadly to say.
Hopefully others can.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset no amount of obfuscation or deflection will remove the elephant from the middle of the room. You have been offered the opportunity many times to show any condition under which conservation can be violated. You have not done so. You have offered: conflation of force and power for energy, incorrect calculations, argument from ignorance, and appeals to outright magic, such as your magic lever. Now you are resorting to the Emperor's New Zed: Only smart people understand the unstated principles of operation.
Sorry, but you've made no sale.
Quote from: webby1 on January 28, 2014, 07:58:15 AM
Red,,
Taking a small amount of time and trying to explain things is all it takes to see if the person you are explaining things to is understanding what it is you are trying to explain.
MarkE,
Using the same old argument and pointing out the same old things means that you are only seeing the same old thing,, or more to the point that you do NOT see anything that is not normal. Red myself and others see something that is not normal and that is why the communication breaks down.
In the first thread I posted a bunch of numbers from many lifts I made, some were good some were bad and some were just down right UGLY,, but there they are.
In all of those posts I kept trying to engage on the recovery,, the argument about the risers is VERY complex due to all the variables including that delay thing you mentioned, so I limited myself to looking at the lift for a close to unity value, which I had by the way, and then the recovery,, I do believe that the same pressure dropping down to 1\3 that pressure will provide at least 1\3 of the input back to the operator as per an accumulator,, that would be air over hydraulic.
This is what I put forward to you and this is what you did not speak to,, no problem, you are more than welcome to your opinion and it is not my job to convince you of anything.
In your analogy it would be closer if you used 3 terms, jack, accumulator and pressure (I was looking for the correct term to use and absent that) lever. It has the attributes of all three of these devices and demonstrates them all at the same time using the same input.
And as a small note, I am one of a few people who have built and played with this device.
Webby did you:
Ever think that you broke even?
Identify any mechanism to realize non-conservative behavior from gravity?
Ever get a machine to cycle until you forcibly stopped it?
The device as diagrammed in that document that Minnie led me to and according to your descriptions has: a concentric compound hydraulic piston hampered by air pockets. The piston ultimately pushes on a pool of water that holds a float. So what we have are weights going up and down: the water, the float, and the weight on top, air getting compressed, and a hydraulic
force amplifier, IE the hydraulic equivalent of a lever. There is nothing unusual about the individual components, nor has anyone shown any unusual, much less extraordinary behavior from the combination. Red_Sunset has appealed that we use analogies of magic levers, or substitute force calculations for energy, or ignore integrals. What no one has done has shown any mechanism that would allow for a cycle by cycle energy gain, nor have they demonstrated anything that even gives such an appearance.
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 08:23:17 AM
Red_Sunset no amount of obfuscation or deflection will remove the elephant from the middle of the room. You have been offered the opportunity many times to show any condition under which conservation can be violated. You have not done so. You have offered: conflation of force and power for energy, incorrect calculations, argument from ignorance, and appeals to outright magic, such as your magic lever. Now you are resorting to the Emperor's New Zed: Only smart people understand the unstated principles of operation.
Sorry, but you've made no sale.
I do not dispute that I am not the best in explaining this things without having to spend more time writing something up what has been written too many times
But that is not the issue, really and I tell you why,
Your quote
QuoteIf the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances. If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny.
What was invalid ?
What makes you think that your scrutiny was any good ? the subsequent posts tell a different story
So do you want to base your conclusions on your own inconclusive scrambled scrutiny?
I do not understand that I have to prove something. I have no obligation to educate you. You can grasp it or you ask for clarification , you started on the wrong foot.
If you do not believe a high level process proposal, that is OK, refute with a proper counter argument, that is OK too. But do not try to cover up your own inadequacies with unfounded opinions.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 08:33:07 AM
Webby did you:
..................................................................
Ever think that you broke even?
Identify any mechanism to realize non-conservative behavior from gravity?
Ever get a machine to cycle until you forcibly stopped it?
The device as diagrammed in that document that Minnie led me to and according to your descriptions has: a concentric compound hydraulic piston hampered by air pockets. The piston ultimately pushes on a pool of water that holds a float. So what we have are weights going up and down: the water, the float, and the weight on top, air getting compressed, and a hydraulic force amplifier, IE the hydraulic equivalent of a lever. There is nothing unusual about the individual components, nor has anyone shown any unusual, much less extraordinary behavior from the combination. Red_Sunset has appealed that we use analogies of magic levers, or substitute force calculations for energy, or ignore integrals. What no one has done has shown any mechanism that would allow for a cycle by cycle energy gain, nor have they demonstrated anything that even gives such an appearance.
Webby,
Do yourself a favor, this guy was/is leading you and me on, for someone who had multiple standing arguments 2 yrs ago on PESN forum about the same device with the same half cooked arguments, would know very well what the physical hardware is all about.
Now he comes across as if has never seen the ZED
He was just told in one of the earlier posts today that a dual configuration is mandatory, now he is talking about standalone cycling for your single unit. This is not the only occurrence I have noticed of this behavior.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think MarkE,
He is hard of hearing or his intentions are not who he pretends to be, don't waste your time, he is far from having genuine intentions
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Red_Sunset
Hi,
from what I can make out, by limiting the travel the whole thing must be a glorified
air spring.
MarkE, I'm amazed at he patience that you've shown in this debate, Webby is
very lost as far as floats go and you've done your level best with him.
This has ended up on a par with Ainslie, Steve Weir obviously knew far more about
the circuit and equipment than either of the pair that were promoting it. Steve just
soldiered on calmly until he got things done,
John.
Hey Red, you are out of control there. YOU cannot present any proof of your conjectures, whereas MarkE has all of physics standing behind him.
Furthermore..... if a single Zed is, say, 99 percent efficient, how can two of them connected together be more efficient? 0.99 x 0.99 = a little more than 0.98. The only way to get OU efficiency from one unit feeding its output to another identical unit and back again, is for one or both units to be clearly OU themselves.
Even furthermore..... why isn't Travis showing all the self-running prototypes he and his engineers have constructed over the last several years? Where are all these self-runners? Nowhere, that's where. I do believe that if YOU, Red, had anything like what Travis was claiming three years ago, you wouldn't be having lawsuit or investor problems. I certainly know I wouldn't.
The conclusion from all this weight of actual evidence is that Travis, and by extension YOU, Red..... are simply FOS.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 28, 2014, 10:05:15 AM
Hey Red, you are out of control there. YOU cannot present any proof of your conjectures, whereas MarkE has all of physics standing behind him.
Furthermore..... if a single Zed is, say, 99 percent efficient, how can two of them connected together be more efficient? 0.99 x 0.99 = a little more than 0.98. The only way to get OU efficiency from one unit feeding its output to another identical unit and back again, is for one or both units to be clearly OU themselves.
Even furthermore..... why isn't Travis showing all the self-running prototypes he and his engineers have constructed over the last several years? Where are all these self-runners? Nowhere, that's where. I do believe that if YOU, Red, had anything like what Travis was claiming three years ago, you wouldn't be having lawsuit or investor problems. I certainly know I wouldn't.
The conclusion from all this weight of actual evidence is that Travis, and by extension YOU, Red..... are simply FOS.
TK
What I find most incredible that you guys can not read, I am presenting a concept theory based on Wayne's ZED. I am not presenting or representing Wayne or HER or their achievements or proving their self runner, ...ect..
But carry on, you wise cracks, Overunity will never be accomplished with attitudes and poor open minds as seen here.
You may throw logical reasoning out of the window and stick to your the physics standing, so where has it taken you thus far with the" in the box" thinking. The world is for the adventurous!
What more can I say, I can only to shake my head in amusement.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 10:23:34 AM
TK
What I find most incredible that you guys can not read, I am presenting a concept theory based on Wayne's ZED. I am not presenting or representing Wayne or HER or their achievements or proving their self runner, ...ect..
But carry on, you wise cracks, Overunity will never be accomplished with attitudes and poor open minds as seen here.
You may throw logical reasoning out of the window and stick to your the physics standing, so where has it taken you thus far with the" in the box" thinking. The world is for the adventurous!
What more can I say, I can only to shake my head in amusement.
Red_Sunset
I can read just fine, and I can prove it. You, however, seem to be unable to read your own writings deeply enough to provide a cogent logical argument that supports your opinion. Which is all you actually have: opinion. And your opinion in these matters (ZED, Travis, etc) is not supported by the numerous facts that we actually do know for sure.
You cannot provide instructions to construct a device which demonstrates the validity of the effects you claim. You are in the same position as many other claimants who are enamoured of an idea but cannot actualize it because "stuff" just doesn't really behave the way you want it to. Would you like to present a physical situation or apparatus that refutes anything I or MarkE have said? Please do so. We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures. This isn't a joke, it's reality. Support your conjectures with actual facts, checkable outside references, proper calculations, or demonstrations of your own. You cannot, so perhaps you should stop being so critical of those who take the _many times proven_ main line of actual Physics here.
Quote from: webby1 on January 28, 2014, 10:11:27 AM
Yes.
I believe I did.
No I have not.
As I stated, the numbers may be evidence but not proof.
"Show me the sausages" I think this is, in all actuality, the only thing that would bring an actual open discussion of things.
Webby, great that is progress. Can you share the test procedure and test data that led you to believe that you broke even? And would you be kind enough to share the explanation that you came up with?
Thanks.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 08:43:04 AM
I do not dispute that I am not the best in explaining this things without having to spend more time writing something up what has been written too many times
But that is not the issue, really and I tell you why,
Your quoteWhat was invalid ?
I told you twice. Please reread. And once more: You conflated force and power for energy and you used a single point formula for energy when you need to obtain energy difference, IE you need to integrate.
Quote
What makes you think that your scrutiny was any good ? the subsequent posts tell a different story
If you dispute facts kindly put the facts in dispute directly on the table.
Quote
So do you want to base your conclusions on your own inconclusive scrambled scrutiny?
You assert without offering evidence here. Get the horse in front of your cart.
Quote
I do not understand that I have to prove something. I have no obligation to educate you. You can grasp it or you ask for clarification , you started on the wrong foot.
You have no obligations. And no one has to buy your appeals to magic, or other illogical and unsupported assertions.
Quote
If you do not believe a high level process proposal, that is OK, refute with a proper counter argument, that is OK too. But do not try to cover up your own inadequacies with unfounded opinions.
Red_Sunset
I have refuted. You have offered objections with various illogical and unevidenced appeals. Honestly, you went right over the top when you invoked "The Emperor's New Zed". If only people "smart enough" to part with money to Mr. Wayne are smart enough to understand hand waving claims without evidence, then more power to them.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 28, 2014, 08:55:51 AM
Webby,
Do yourself a favor, this guy was/is leading you and me on, for someone who had multiple standing arguments 2 yrs ago on PESN forum about the same device with the same half cooked arguments, would know very well what the physical hardware is all about.
Now he comes across as if has never seen the ZED
He was just told in one of the earlier posts today that a dual configuration is mandatory, now he is talking about standalone cycling for your single unit. This is not the only occurrence I have noticed of this behavior.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think MarkE,
He is hard of hearing or his intentions are not who he pretends to be, don't waste your time, he is far from having genuine intentions
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Red_Sunset
Ad hominem attack is a weak way to argue. Evidence is welcome. Kindly supply some that supports your assertions.
Webby that's too bad. Hopefully you will find your notebook and we can explore what you observed further. Thanks for looking.
Webby, the weight of the air is rather immaterial to the cycle by cycle energy balance. The compressibility expends work put into the system as heat. Driving out all of the air between sections reduces the composite of those sections to a hydraulic jack. If we retain the last buoyancy section then it only gets slightly more complicated.
Quote from: webby1 on January 28, 2014, 06:05:58 PM
If the compressibility of air is removed from the system but the volume the air fills is not, then the buoyant lift component is left in tact and the hydraulic component becomes a reaction to the pressure increase and lift ensues, at the end of that lift the shifted water columns still retain the potential put into them when they were brought up to lift condition and will return that potential if allowed.
If the air substitute weighs as much as water then there would be no buoyant lift and no hydraulic lift either, it would just push the fluid out the last riser and over the last retainer.
The various concentric rings just become one hydraulic jack. Put the air back and the fixture can be reconfigured to operate as one hydraulic jack with an air bubble in it. This leads to a few questions:
1) What changes that is of any significance to the cycle by cycle energy balance when simplifying the system versus the system as described by HER?
2)What physical principles are alleged to be responsible for such a difference?
3) How can each 1) and 2) be tested?
Quote from: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 08:02:06 PM
The various concentric rings just become one hydraulic jack. Put the air back and the fixture can be reconfigured to operate as one hydraulic jack with an air bubble in it. This leads to a few questions:
1) What changes that is of any significance to the cycle by cycle energy balance when simplifying the system versus the system as described by HER?
2)What physical principles are alleged to be responsible for such a difference?
3) How can each 1) and 2) be tested?
MarkE
The pro's & con's of a reconfiguration of this type were discussed in Wayne's thread 2 years ago.
Have a look there on this site
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, then you should have no difficulty explaining what differences were found with respect to energy and why.
Quote from: MarkE on January 29, 2014, 12:28:40 AM
Red_Sunset, then you should have no difficulty explaining what differences were found with respect to energy and why.
MarkE,
Yes, I would have no difficulty in explaining most theoretical aspects and considerations surrounding the ZED.
What is the point, most of that base information has been recorded already, here on this site "overunity.com", ready for you to read it if you are really interested.
So there is no point repeating.
For something new, no problem
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 12:40:36 AM
MarkE,
Yes, I would have no difficulty in explaining most theoretical aspects and considerations surrounding the ZED.
What is the point, most of that base information has been recorded already, here on this site "overunity.com", ready for you to read it if you are really interested.
So there is no point repeating.
For something new, no problem
Red_Sunset
The point of course would be that if there were a significant difference you could simply state what that difference supposedly is even if that meant simply quoting a prior expression of the same thought. If you are content to abandon your position without offering supporting evidence, far be it from me or anyone else to stop you.
Hi Sunset,
There has to be a basic principle, all the rest is a hydraulic gearbox cum air spring.
With Grimer's explanation and diagram it was easy to see what he was getting at.
As far as CERN is concerned there is no known way of harnessing the actual field.
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 29, 2014, 04:54:16 AM
Hi Sunset,
There has to be a basic principle, all the rest is a hydraulic gearbox cum air spring.
With Grimer's explanation and diagram it was easy to see what he was getting at.
As far as CERN is concerned there is no known way of harnessing the actual field.
John.
That's encouraging, John.
I see I shall have to prepare diagrams and an explanation of how the Keenie harnesses
gravity, if only for the benefit of at least one open minded reader. :)
Quote from: minnie on January 29, 2014, 04:54:16 AM
Hi Sunset,
There has to be a basic principle, all the rest is a hydraulic gearbox cum air spring.
With Grimer's explanation and diagram it was easy to see what he was getting at.
As far as CERN is concerned there is no known way of harnessing the actual field.
John.
Cern or anyone else would be correct. There isn't a way to harness it. Gravity is conservative.
Work performed in a gravitational field is the integral of force with respect to displacment
It matters not that the first, second , third or nth derivative with respect to time may be non zero, as Grimer claims.
Quote from: minnie on January 29, 2014, 04:54:16 AM
Hi Sunset,
There has to be a basic principle, all the rest is a hydraulic gearbox cum air spring.
With Grimer's explanation and diagram it was easy to see what he was getting at.
As far as CERN is concerned there is no known way of harnessing the actual field.
John.
Minnie,
How did you check out the fully integrated Sun Drop farm?
With only brak/salt water and sun, nothing else is needed not even soil.
To get aircon, electricity. fresh water, light...ect with full automation in order to grow everything needed from a garden in the middle of the desert, including fish.
I thought that concept was brilliant. With a fish pond, then not even fertilizer needed.
A good tried and tested model for Mars
Red_Sunset
PS: There is a basic principle but one needs to remove the shades to see it
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 29, 2014, 05:24:29 AM
......................................There isn't a way to harness it. Gravity is conservative.
Work performed in a gravitational field is the integral of force with respect to displacment
It matters not that the first, second , third or nth derivative with respect to time may be non zero, as Grimer claims.
EnergiaLibre,
If that is the case,
what are we doing here ? We must be the idiots who pre-empt their own actions before they have started !!
Like the dog chasing his tail !
So with this being a fact, I am inviting you all for a beer at the "Thirsty Lion"
Time: >> After Minnie has put his sheep to sleep for the night
Red_Sunset
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 28, 2014, 11:29:10 AM
I can read just fine, and I can prove it. You, however, seem to be unable to read your own writings deeply enough to provide a cogent logical argument that supports your opinion. Which is all you actually have: opinion. And your opinion in these matters (ZED, Travis, etc) is not supported by the numerous facts that we actually do know for sure.
You cannot provide instructions to construct a device which demonstrates the validity of the effects you claim. You are in the same position as many other claimants who are enamoured of an idea but cannot actualize it because "stuff" just doesn't really behave the way you want it to. Would you like to present a physical situation or apparatus that refutes anything I or MarkE have said? Please do so. We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures. This isn't a joke, it's reality. Support your conjectures with actual facts, checkable outside references, proper calculations, or demonstrations of your own. You cannot, so perhaps you should stop being so critical of those who take the _many times proven_ main line of actual Physics here.
@@ Red_Sunset
You appear to have ignored this important post from TK, hmmm I wonder why ? I will post its again in bold text
You, however, seem to be unable to read your own writings deeply enough to provide a cogent logical argument that supports your opinion. Which is all you actually have: opinion. And your opinion in these matters (ZED, Travis, etc) is not supported by the numerous facts that we actually do know for sure.You cannot provide instructions to construct a device which demonstrates the validity of the effects you claim. You are in the same position as many other claimants who are enamoured of an idea but cannot actualize it because "stuff" just doesn't really behave the way you want it to. Would you like to present a physical situation or apparatus that refutes anything I or MarkE have said? Please do so. We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures. This isn't a joke, it's reality. Support your conjectures with actual facts, checkable outside references, proper calculations, or demonstrations of your own. You cannot, so perhaps you should stop being so critical of those who take the _many times proven_ main line of actual Physics here.In case you missed one of the main points, "stuff" just doesn't really behave the way you want it to. but you just keep going on and on, if only we could harness the energy from your ego.
Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 06:47:49 AM
@@ Red_Sunset
You appear to have ignored this important post from TK, hmmm I wonder why ? .....................
......................................................
No..no my dear Cat,
If TK and "You by implication" would have read the preceding posts, he & you would have realized that what you are highlighting was not relevant.
You give me the impression that you are missing my regular posts, if you do, just say so in plain language.
In post #654, I proposed a theoretical method in a rough high level outline to achieve asymmetry.
Remember the statements
1.. " ** If YES, then our focus will be on creating that symmetry imbalance."
2.. "Don't assume this is the whole story"
But it is clear that it was not the right time for this type of disclosure. So I shelved it for the time being.
I have no interest to discuss Wayne Travis private or business life, I am sure you would understand that.
If you have any further specific question on #654, I am glad to answer them.
Your statements that require clarificationPS1: >> "stuff" just doesn't really behave the way you want it to." << , What do you mean with "stuff" (I understand with stuff, " fluffy stuff, like wool, haberdashery things")
PS2: >> "Would you like to present a physical situation or apparatus that refutes anything I or MarkE have said? Please do so."<< Please give me some idea's, to what you have in mind
PS3: >> "We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures."<<
Please do so, I am interested. This what it is all about, an open discussion, I am not claiming to be right. Post #654 was a concept proposal, NOT A LAW !
Just don't give me that "spelling, syntax and scientific notation" crap MarkE came up with. I don't do nuts and bolts.
Red_Sunset
Good for you responding to the TK's post, just wish you could come up with some actual evidence, a continuous running device, or some scientific verification, also you keep making out that Wayne Travis has had to keep back a secret bit of information that is crucial to the device running successfully, how does that stopping him demonstrating a continuous working model ? A simple web cam set up broadcasting the device running, would not disclose any so called vital information, but he has repeatedly failed to achieve this seemingly basic display of his claim
Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 08:11:27 AM
........................................, how does that stopping him demonstrating a continuous working model ? A simple web cam set up broadcasting the device running, would not disclose any so called vital information, but he has repeatedly failed to achieve this seemingly basic display of his claim
PwrCat.
I would guess that
your need to see proof is greater than his need.I would guess that he wants to be ready with a production ability before he does that running public broadcast.
This allows him in the interim to stay focused on the business and development aspects to get a commercial model ready.( he is setting up and employing people now, you can join him if you are from USA)
When ready, I would guess that he will reveal and broadcast with a splash and channel media focus and publicity attention towards sales. This allows him also to have a head start on possible competition that for sure will enter the field fast.
Red_Sunset
You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.
Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 09:14:17 AM
You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.
PowerCat.
With due respect, you are not reading what is written
<< You make so many excuses for him >> I don't think so, I said "I guess", that is based on a logical assumption because I have no idea what Wayne is exactly doing. I am on the other side of the world in relation to Oklahoma. Seeing the weather report on CNN,
I guess he must have some cold blustery snowy weather. I don't know for sure because I am not there to be a witness. But based on the information available to me, I shouldn't be too far off the mark.
<<is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind>> That depends on what strategy he decided on to follow. Notwithstanding you might be correct......I don't know.
<< your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus >> Real proof is understanding how it works, with a critical eye.
Video is no proof, have a look at YouTube, with current hardware/Software available, you can create any deception you like. So this is far from proof.
As in a crime scene, they say that the simplest most likely scenario is most likely what happened.
So with an invention investigation it is the same, there is a claim, then you look at what is presented, separate in modular functional components and then analyze and follow the expected basic physics behavior profile.
Now if your assessment makes sense and your pieces when overlay-ed on the explanation of the inventor, and the puzzle matches, your are on to something. At that point I start writing.
If there are doubts, you revisit until you can be confident that it is correct. If the doubt remains and its function is critical to the invention you most likely have a dud invention or you stumbled on Inventive Property that has not been declared by the inventor (he is trying to protect his invention). Now you can apply your creative juices to try to reverse engineer that desired functionality, if you are lucky, you got it. To reverse engineer you need to be of clear understanding of what the inventor is trying to achieve within the design. There are usually enough telltales to guide you.
NOW you arrived at a point that you understand this device inside-out, you say whooow because it was not your idea, it was someone else idea and you followed his logic thinking which perhaps took place over years for him to arrive at this final conclusion. You had the advantage to leap frog over all his trials, failures, hours of thinking...ect, then you say Whooow. Then you respect, you do not need to say "show me proof". That obligation is now your own,
That is why I am cocky !!
<< you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality >> You are correct, the cherry on the top is the physical execution of the idea. At this point it doesn't matter. You think the concept is logical and real, the execution is just a matter of engineering. If it doesn't work, you know you can go back to redesign and try again, at least you are closer to the end goal then you were before.
I am pretty sure Wayne has several working models, but he has his reasons that he keeps it close in. I know that his experience here at "overunity.com" changed his mind on the strategy for his inventions. He realized that there are more hungry wolves out there than initially thought. It is the wild west out there. you know the thread, you wee there.
Understandable that he wants to safeguard his invention so it can deliver what he expects from it. I agree with him.
The conflict situationsWhat I see is the main conflict what plays out here at overunity.com is "self-centering", me ...me..me.
The demands made are so very often
more that what the presenter can live with.
Because: You consider your needs
before and over the needs of the person who is sharing.
In other words, to want to take control away from the presenter, that usually cause a reaction
Red_Sunset
You continue to make many excuses for him just like you have done in the past, it's like you're receiving some kind of share of investors' money, Wayne made it clear when he first joined this forum that he was looking for support and investors and that he was going to have the device independently verified, in other words he was going to prove his claim, but as we all know that never happened despite him promising it many times, when do you think he will show credible evidence ? This year, next year the year after, in 10 years' time, 10 years now there's a good figure we have various threads on this site from another inventor that after 10 years still can't prove any OU whatsoever, looks like Wayne is joining Rosemary in continuously claiming OU but never being able to demonstrate it, for whatever plausible or ridiculous excuses he or she comes up with.
Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
You continue to make many excuses for him just like you have done in the past, it's like you're receiving some kind of share of investors' money, Wayne made it clear when he first joined this forum that he was looking for support and investors and that he was going to have the device independently verified, in other words he was going to prove his claim, but as we all know that never happened despite him promising it many times, when do you think he will show credible evidence ? This year, next year the year after, in 10 years' time, 10 years now there's a good figure we have various threads on this site from another inventor that after 10 years still can't prove any OU whatsoever, looks like Wayne is joining Rosemary in continuously claiming OU but never being able to demonstrate it, for whatever plausible or ridiculous excuses he or she comes up with.
PowerCat,
You definitely got a hornet's nest under your bonnet!
WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY ?
I DON"T CARE what Wayne does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!
I DON"T CARE what YOU POWERCAT does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!
What I DO CARE about is YOUR REPLY to the clarification request of post #704
Capish ! I hope that makes it clear
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 05:26:10 AM
Minnie,
How did you check out the fully integrated Sun Drop farm?
With only brak/salt water and giant outside energy source called the sun, nothing else is needed not even soil.
To get aircon, electricity. fresh water, light...ect with full automation in order to grow everything needed from a garden in the middle of the desert, including fish.
I thought that concept was brilliant. With a fish pond, then not even fertilizer needed.
A good tried and tested model for Mars
Red_Sunset
PS: There is a basic principle but one needs to remove the shades to see it
Red_Sunset you are welcome to pull that pony out of the closet anytime you like. Just repeating that there is a pony in there doesn't make it so.
Quote from: webby1 on January 29, 2014, 07:38:03 AM
You can be open minded, but you don't have to be.
If you choose to discuss something then that item needs to be discussed "as is" not modified into something that it is not.
The setup condition of changing the compressibility of the air with something that is not focuses the function into the main modalities that are present, that is plural from a singular input.
Please show me a hydraulic jack that works with NO seals and NO means of building pressure.
elsewhere I have stated my opinion on whether or not it is actually gravity that may be making these kind of things possible, and I do not think, at this time, that it is gravity actually doing the work.
The buoyant lift is created by gravity *and* the water,, but the lift force does not care about how far it moves in gravity,, that force value stays the same,, so if you have something under the influence of gravity that does not care about how far it moves in gravity,, almost a paradox. On the same token you have something that moves through gravity without changing by that motion.
Simple observations, according to the usual method I can not have something under the influence of gravity move in height without a change in potential. Buoyancy allows this to be seen by the height of the water column and it is the height of the water column that makes the pressure that squishes the float upwards,, same float same lift no matter how deep or shallow, or how much pressure it is within.
Out of curiosity,, are there many other forces that care *not* how much the external potential changes?? or the internal potential as well for that matter.
Webby I posed those questions because if there is no difference then we can focus the conversation. I contend that there is no material difference, which allows us to very quickly see that there is no way for anyone to get a self-sustaining device. I allow that I am hardly omniscient which is why I posed the questions. Answers that show reasonable evidence of a material difference would negate my assertion and we would not be able to reasonably simplify the device for purposes of analysis as I proposed. So if you would be so kind as to answer my questions then perhaps we can make further progress towards a common understanding.
Ignoring the very tiny variation of earth's gravitational force with the kinds of heights that we are talking about, the weight of a fixed volume of displaced water is for practice and purpose constant, yes. Why do you think that is paradoxical? For these kinds of heights, neither does the weight of some other fixed object noticeably change. What do you find strange about that? All that it means is that the weight of the displaced water represents a force that helps going up and must be opposed going down. It should be no more paradoxical to you than a counterweight used on an elevator.
QuoteSimple observations, according to the usual method I can not have something under the influence of gravity move in height without a change in potential.
This is a statement of the potential energy which is correct.
QuoteBuoyancy allows this to be seen by the height of the water column and it is the height of the water column that makes the pressure that squishes the float upwards,, same float same lift no matter how deep or shallow, or how much pressure it is within.
Buoyancy is not the result of the water pressure. Buoyancy is the result of the displaced water weight. If the net SG of a submersible is greater than 1, then it takes work to surface. Work = Integral( F*ds ) F > 0. That work can ideally be identically recovered by resubmerging to the original depth: Work = Integral( F*ds ), sinking F < 0. If the SG of a submersible is less than 1, then it takes work to submerge: Work = Integral( F*ds ), F > 0 submerging, and that work may identically be recovered surfacing: Work = Integral( F*ds ), F< 0.
There is no energy gain mechanism. There is an offset force due to the displaced water volume that behaves no differently than if the submersible were an elevator car with a counter weight. Use a counter weight greater than the weight of the elevator car and work has to be done to lower the elevator car. Use a counter weight less than the weight of the elevator car and work has to be done to raise the car. As with the buoyant object work is the Integral ( F*ds ), and in any cycle that ends with everything at the same height as each element respectively started, for the ideal case, the net energy in is identically balanced by the net energy out. That's what it means to operate in a conservative field. That's what we always observe with gravity.
Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 09:14:17 AM
You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.
Powercat the script goes on until there is no audience left:
P1 "We have something wonderful that redefines physics!"
P2 "That's great, please show me."
P1 "It's right here behind this curtain. It's really wonderful."
P2 "OK please show me."
P1 "Really it's wonderful and it's just right behind this curtain."
P2 "You just said that, please show me."
P1 "You have a closed mind."
P2 "Please show me your wonderful device."
P1 "I told you it is right behind this curtain, what's wrong with you? You just can't see it because your mind is closed."
P2 "I can't see anything because you refuse to show me anything. Please just show me this wonderful device you claim."
P1 "It's people like you who keep wonderful inventions like mine from reaching the market."
P2 "If you want me to believe that your invention does what you say it does, then please just show your invention working as you claim it does."
P1 "You are being obstructionist. I told you many questions ago that the invention is right behind this curtain."
P2 "Please just show me what you claim."
P1 "Really smart people can see that I wouldn't be standing here telling you all about the wonderful device behind the curtain if there wasn't really a wonderful device there. You must be stupid to keep asking me to show you this wonderful device."
...
What would be the formula to calculate the energy expended
in the evaporation of water, in the hydrology cycle, to return
water back to height needed to spill over a dam to operate
a 10MW hydro generator? How would you go about proving
that it would equal 10MW?
Quote from: camelherder49 on January 29, 2014, 12:14:15 PM
What would be the formula to calculate the energy expended
in the evaporation of water, in the hydrology cycle, to return
water back to height needed to spill over a dam to operate
a 10MW hydro generator? How would you go about proving
that it would equal 10MW?
When one sets out to perform an energy balance they do not report their result in units of power.
The heat of vaporization has been determined by experiment. It has been codified for many years.
The work done lifting or released lowering a mass in a gravitational field has been determined by experiment. It has been codified for many years.
Anyone is free to set-up falsification experiments to try and determine if the codified principles and/or coefficients are erroneous.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 11:23:45 AM
PowerCat,
WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY ?
I DON"T CARE what Wayne does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!
I DON"T CARE what YOU POWERCAT does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!
What I would like to hear is..... you don't know how to make an OU device, and that all you are doing is researching possibilities.
Your own words in the numerous posts you have made on this forum show you do care what Wayne Travis does, but as you clearly appear to have a distorted view of reality you will only believe what you want when it suits you.
All I care about is a genuine over-unity device, and people who make claims they can't prove need to be challenged, if you don't like it I'm sure you can look for another forum where everyone will agree with you. I seem to remember you joining one that Wayne set up when he left this forum, did you get fed up of everyone agreeing with you ?
Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 12:24:11 PM
What I would like to hear is..... you don't know how to make an OU device, and that all you are doing is researching possibilities.
Your own words in the numerous posts you have made on this forum show you do care what Wayne Travis does, but as you clearly appear to have a distorted view of reality you will only believe what you want when it suits you.
All I care about is a genuine over-unity device, and people who make claims they can't prove need to be challenged, if you don't like it I'm sure you can look for another forum where everyone will agree with you. I seem to remember you joining one that Wayne set up when he left this forum, did you get fed up of everyone agreeing with you ?
Powercat,
You have quite a fixation with Wayne Travis, that is clear.
Let me give you what you want so we can move on
So You want me to say.....,..... I know how to make an OU device, and that all I do is researching possibilities.
YES....that is correctSo You want me to say.....,..... I have never made an OU device, and that all i am doing is researching possibilities.
YES....that is correctSo You want me to say.....,.....I respect Wayne Travis as an inventor, and that does mean that I agree with whatever he does in his life, his contraptions,inventions...ect.
YES....that is correctSo You want me to say.....,.... I will only believe in what makes logical sense to me, I will triple verify everything and not just when it suits me. I do not just believe anything without validation
YES....that is correctSo You want me to say.....,.... I don't like it when people can not move on and are hung up on Wayne Travis like a demi God , I'm sure I can look for another forum if you agree with it ot not
YES....that is correctYou can consider both acknowledgements 80% PROOF
I have never said anything else to the contrary, have I ?
All jokes aside, lets move on to something more interesting, answer the clarifications requested from your earlier post.
Red_Sunset
You asked me the original question, and what a surprise you didn't like the answer, you must think the majority of people on this forum are stupid enough to take your word as fact, you really need to wise up most of us have been here for many years and seen your type of BS before, and believe me you won't be the last making out you know all about OU and are incapable of showing any evidence. Guess what I'm not going anywhere, I'm staying right here in your face.
Quote from: powercat on January 29, 2014, 01:15:27 PM
Y...................................... Guess what I'm not going anywhere, I'm staying right here in your face.
Oooh..no my friend, Cat
I don't want you to go anywhere, just answer those clarification questions
We do not want to be seen as fluff in the wind.
Red
Hi guys,
anyone know if Wayne's patent was ever granted? I suppose Dunlap Codding
must know how the thing works!
Sundrop farm obviously needed a huge initial investment. I think something that
individuals could do is far more likely to help mankind as a whole.
John.
Quote from: MarkE on January 29, 2014, 12:00:13 PM
................................................................
Buoyancy is not the result of the water pressure. Buoyancy is the result of the displaced water weight. If the net SG of a submersible is greater than 1, then it takes work to surface. Work = Integral( F*ds ) F > 0. That work can ideally be identically recovered by resubmerging to the original depth: Work = Integral( F*ds ), sinking F < 0. If the SG of a submersible is less than 1, then it takes work to submerge: Work = Integral( F*ds ), F > 0 submerging, and that work may identically be recovered surfacing: Work = Integral( F*ds ), F< 0.
Webby,
One of the upside down cup aquarium demonstrations was exactly done to prove that Buoyancy is a FORCE due to PRESSURE . To understand buoyancy in this context is pivotal to understanding the working of the Zed.
I think MarkE has the wrong end of the stick here.
MARKE, that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct. But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure. It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter). Integral formula's do not aid understanding
Red_Sunset
Hi,
Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 29, 2014, 04:23:27 PM
Hi,
Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
John.
Archimedes Paradox is exactly what I believe I was witnessing in my testing. However I also saw behavior that led me to believe my test model's proportions were limiting it's performance greatly. And since I had no easy (meaning cheap) way to test further I stopped and waited for a simulation or better test model to appear.
The math on this construction is beyond my patience so I could not figure out if there would be a set of proportions (and layers) that could surmount Archimedes Paradox and unity (at best).
Oh how I wish I could see a sim of this particular construction (and not a simplification).
M.
The Hydrostatic Paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_pressure_variation
Archimedes Paradox [hydrostatic paradox]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_paradox
Hi,
nice one Fletcher, thank you,
John.
You're welcome John.
Note that the Hydrostatic Paradox is a sub-set of Archimedes buoyancy - the important thing to note that there still needs to be volume displacement & replenishment if a piston moves etc, so whilst it can make for a powerful force the distance the force acts over is dictated by the volume displacement beneath the piston, IINM.
ETA: at the time of the original thread Mr Wayne [upon questioning] was adamant that air in the ZED cycle was not required i.e. that pneumatic principles [& air spring effect] had nothing to do with his principle or the OU claim - the air pockets could be replaced by a lesser density oil fluid for example - fluids are effectively non-compressible.
Compressibility would be a factor in his pre-charge psi so I guess that there was a gas bladder somewhere in the self-sustaining system - probably the accumulator IIRC.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 02:08:39 PM
Webby,
One of the upside down cup aquarium demonstrations was exactly done to prove that Buoyancy is a FORCE due to PRESSURE . To understand buoyancy in this context is pivotal to understanding the working of the Zed.
I think MarkE has the wrong end of the stick here.
MARKE, that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct. But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure. It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter). Integral formula's do not aid understanding
Red_Sunset
This is the crux of the matter, and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.
Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME, nothing else.
A volume of water in water is neutrally buoyant because it weights the same as the medium that surrounds it.
A volume of air in water experiences a buoyant force equivalent to the weight an equal volume of water minus it's own weight. It does not matter what pressure it is at.
Everything ever described as the 'Travis effect' simply falls apart once you realise that.
So a scuba diver's tanks, filled to 3000 psi or something like that, are no more buoyant than the same tanks when empty.
However, in the demonstrations of the "travis effect" there is an upward force due to the pressure component. Air is compressed slightly by the displacer; this results in an upward force that adds to the buoyancy. The pressure force acts in all directions but the system is only free to move upwards, and this pressure force only acts over a short distance. At least I think that's what I recall.
In the TinselZed, and also in Webby's construction, the fact that water levels in the various chambers aren't equal demonstrates that the air pressures aren't equal either.
ETA: The scuba tank's volume is fixed; therefore its buoyancy is also. The ZED, in Travis's device, as well as in my Heron's Fountan, and in Webby's nested tube array, has a variable effective volume in part controlled by the air pressures inthe chambers. It's like a Cartesian Diver, whose buoyancy is adjusted by changing its volume (and internal air pressure) by changing the external pressure applied to the outer container of the water it's floating in. All the lift of the Diver is from buoyancy, the air pressure changes only alter the floater's effective volume. But in the Zed the air pressure can act to lift, augmenting the buoyancy due to volume displacement.
QuoteHi, Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
John.
Quote from: webby1 on January 29, 2014, 05:04:14 PM
Please explain what it is you think I am missing.
I learn many things from many people,, if you are not learning you are not moving :)
Hi John,
" Hi, nice one Fletcher, thank you, John. ", THAT IS A POOR RESPONSE TO Webby,
You better come up with something more specific to make a statement like that
Red_Sunset
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 29, 2014, 07:47:18 PM
This is the crux of the matter, and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.
Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME, nothing else.
A volume of water in water is neutrally buoyant because it weights the same as the medium that surrounds it.
A volume of air in water experiences a buoyant force equivalent to the weight an equal volume of water minus it's own weight. It does not matter what pressure it is at.
Everything ever described as the 'Travis effect' simply falls apart once you realise that.
EnergyLibre and others,
What property do you think materializes buoyancy in FORCE equivalent to displace volume ?
"It does not matter what pressure it is at." (if you refer to depth location pressure) >> That is correct
The pressure we are talking about is NOT the depth pressure but the submerged pressure height of the obect,
Example, for a sealed air box of 1mtrx1mtrx1mtr, at a depth of 100mtr , the buoyancy pressure responsible for the box upward force is determined by the 1mtr box height, not the depth.
For a ship it would be the pressure height from the waterline to its bottom surface. And it is calculated by the weight of the water collumn, So heavier/denser liquid would produce more pressure
That is the crux of the matter, you can see that clearly when you step outside the convenience of formula's that often hide the essence of natural properties.
OK Guys, your turn now!
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 01:19:06 AM
What property do you think materializes buoyancy in FORCE equivalent to displace volume ?
The buoyancy force arises out of the difference in force between the top and bottom of the submerged object. The top experiences a force equivalent to the weight of the column of fluid above it. The same is true for the bottom surface. The difference between the two equates to the weight of a column of fluid that is the vertical height of the object between the top and bottom surfaces.
If you integrate those forces with over any enclosed volume you can show that the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid of the volume displaced. Any standard fluids text book will give you a more mathematically rigorous treatment of the above so I won't do that here.
The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.
Hello Sunset,
One thing that has emerged is that I now know the meaning of "travesty"!
John.
ETA. Fletcher knows a thing or two, he's obviously researched Travis quite thoroughly.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 30, 2014, 02:28:26 AM
The buoyancy force arises out of the difference in force between the top and bottom of the submerged object. The top experiences a force equivalent to the weight of the column of fluid above it. The same is true for the bottom surface. The difference between the two equates to the weight of a column of fluid that is the vertical height of the object between the top and bottom surfaces.
If you integrate those forces with over any enclosed volume you can show that the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid of the volume displaced. Any standard fluids text book will give you a more mathematically rigorous treatment of the above so I won't do that here.
The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.
EnergiaLibre,
You are not playing a fair game by ATTACKING Travis & his endeavors with accusations for which you appear to hold the WRONG end of the stick. Please leave your attacks until it is proven that you are right, so you don't make a fool of yourself.
All you said is correct and matches which I stated in a previous post of mine, you are not saying anything new.
What point are you trying to make ?
QuoteMARKE, that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct. But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure. It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter).
The Travis set of inverted cooking pot's terminate to the standard atmospheric environment (a hydro system), So like the ship example in my previous post, no pressure above, only pressure below to provide
the LIFT FORCE, we call buoyancy. Now the PARADOX,The water that surrounds a floating object does not have to be as large in volume as the volume displaced. A typical example provided in books is that you can float the USS Saratoga within the volume contained in a bucket full of water. Sure this has not much to do with the voulume the USS Saratoga displaces.
But the importance lies in a slightly different viewing angle,Lets assume we build a dry dock molded exactly to the hull shape of the USS Saratoga. We pour 1 bucket of water in it and some big cranes put the USS Saratoga in this dock, it will float.
What is the lesson here, We can displace a 1,000,000 Tons ++ of weight from standing to floating with just the volume of one bucket full of water,
We do not have to displace the volume 1,000,000 Tons++ of water to do it This reduces the pumping cost and time.
An other example,You might have seen a large smooth granite ball floating on a film of water. The stone ball can easily moved by hand. The water pressure of the water film area matches obviously the weight of the ball.
Water volume displacement does not come DIRECT into the picture, although it does so indirectly because it is a side effect not the primary effect. Pressure can be directly equated to water column height
Over to you, Red_Sunset
Quote from: minnie on January 30, 2014, 02:42:48 AM
Hello Sunset,
One thing that has emerged is that I now know the meaning of "travesty"!
John.
ETA. Fletcher knows a thing or two, he's obviously researched Travis quite thoroughly.
John,
I do not doubt that Fletcher is very knowledgeable, and is clever enough to save time by posting some wikipedia links to standard physics references to try to get everybody on the same level
But I do not see how does that changes your position regarding your previous post
Red_Sunset
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 30, 2014, 02:28:26 AM
..........................................................................
The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.
LibreEnergia,
This process of air compression that acts like a spring unfortunately adds a complexity to the system, but it is not there to confuse, although it could induce that experience.
Red_Sunset
EnergiaLibre,
To avoid any confusion, I have been addressing STATIC BUOYANCY in my previous post.
Red_Sunset
Hi,
can we add a gallon of water and raise our 1,000 ton ship?
John.
Energy Libre
A small add-on note on buoyancy to correct your erronious or incomplete statement "Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME, nothing else"
The Buoyancy SYMMETRY Bouyancy Lift Force = "Head pressure x horizontal float area" of the float object
= "liquid volume weight of the displaced liquid" by the submerged portion of the floating object
= "Overall weight" of the floating object
Can you now retract your previous statement ?,QuoteThis is the crux of the matter, and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 02:08:39 PM
Webby,
One of the upside down cup aquarium demonstrations was exactly done to prove that Buoyancy is a FORCE due to PRESSURE . To understand buoyancy in this context is pivotal to understanding the working of the Zed.
I think MarkE has the wrong end of the stick here.
MARKE, that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct. But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure. It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter). Integral formula's do not aid understanding
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset your statement: "bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water" is absolutely false. Please avail yourself to a physics text.
Quote from: MarkE on January 30, 2014, 04:45:32 AM
Red_Sunset your statement: "bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water" is absolutely false. Please avail yourself to a physics text.
MarkE,
That is not exactly what I said !I said,
QuoteMARKE, that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct.
This means to say that in practical & formula form the relationship is there! No dispute !
Then I said,
QuoteBut in the workings of nature, buoyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure. It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter). Integral formula's do not aid understanding
This means "aside from formula's that equal the same answers for good reasons", IN NATURE, what keeps the ship floating is a FORCE, called a buoyancy force,
without LIFT FORCE the ship would sink.This means that
1.. The primary and most important effect is the
Buoyancy LIFT FORCE that materializes
due to Pressure2.. The Secondary to that is an equivalence called "displacement" that matches the same (for good reasons), BUT this i
s not the actual manifestation in Nature that keeps the ship on the surface.
It is a derivative !!! That is what I said, spelled out for the second time today.
To play with nature it is important to understand nature, not just playing with mathematical formula's alone !!
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on January 29, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Powercat the script goes on until there is no audience left:
P1 "We have something wonderful that redefines physics!"
P2 "That's great, please show me."
P1 "It's right here behind this curtain. It's really wonderful."
P2 "OK please show me."
P1 "Really it's wonderful and it's just right behind this curtain."
P2 "You just said that, please show me."
P1 "You have a closed mind."
P2 "Please show me your wonderful device."
P1 "I told you it is right behind this curtain, what's wrong with you? You just can't see it because your mind is closed."
P2 "I can't see anything because you refuse to show me anything. Please just show me this wonderful device you claim."
P1 "It's people like you who keep wonderful inventions like mine from reaching the market."
P2 "If you want me to believe that your invention does what you say it does, then please just show your invention working as you claim it does."
P1 "You are being obstructionist. I told you many questions ago that the invention is right behind this curtain."
P2 "Please just show me what you claim."
P1 "Really smart people can see that I wouldn't be standing here telling you all about the wonderful device behind the curtain if there wasn't really a wonderful device there. You must be stupid to keep asking me to show you this wonderful device."
...
Great analogy of the show being put on by Red_Sunset and Wayne_Travis, it's like a bad magic act, all they have is words and more words, they can never shows something working continuously or have anything verified, they know themselves that the magic only works with words and faith.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 03:07:11 AM
Now the PARADOX,
The water that surrounds a floating object does not have to be as large in volume as the volume displaced. A typical example provided in books is that you can float the USS Saratoga within the volume contained in a bucket full of water. Sure this has not much to do with the voulume the USS Saratoga displaces.
Except from an energy perspective there is no paradox.
The amount of energy required to lift any buoyant object a vertical distance is equal (or more than) its mass times the vertical distance it travels. The amount of energy we can recover from the descent of the object is (at most) the same as the amount used to raise it.
Lets say we have the USS Saratoga sitting in our close fitting dry dock and we add a gallon of water. How much energy is used in pumping the water in? How far would the ship rise? How much energy can we recover by letting the ship fall?
In all cases we need to return both the ship and the gallon of water to their starting positions or we are not describing a cyclical process that can be reused over and over.
Now, no matter what the geometry of the ships hull or the dry-dock or the sequence of events of pumping, holding etc. the amount of energy required on the up stroke is equal to the weight of water the ship displaces multiplied by the vertical height the ship moves. The amount of energy that can be recovered on the down stroke is at most equal to the amount used to raise it.
Lets hear your best shot at breaking this 'symmetry'. I'd love to hear a sequence of events that can describe how this could be broken. The analysis must analyse ENERGY , not FORCE. (Energy is equal to force times DISTANCE , remember.)
Bear in mind that if you move some water anywhere you have to return that water to the same starting height or you are not describing a cyclical process.
Hi PowerCat,
I am still waiting !
Do you want to abandon your claim to present situations and references and analyses?
If you do, I have no problem!
Quote<< PowerCat>> We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures. This isn't a joke, it's reality.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 07:05:26 AM
Hi PowerCat,
I am still waiting !
Do you want to abandon your claim to present situations and references and analyses?
If you do, I have no problem!
Red_Sunset
You're such a control freak, and you keep distorting and twisting reality to suit your argument, despite being told numerous times by people that show your theory and opinion are flawed, you insist that you know better, here is a recent example of your twisted words.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 29, 2014, 11:23:45 AM[/font]I DON"T CARE what Wayne does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!Red_Sunset
[/font]
But you do care, anyone reading through your previous posts will see that, and after making that statement within a number of hours you make this statement
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 03:07:11 AM[/font]EnergiaLibre,You are not playing a fair game by ATTACKING Travis & his endeavors with accusations for which you appear to hold the WRONG end of the stick. Please leave your attacks until it is proven that you are right, so you don't make a fool of yourself.Red_Sunset
[/font]
Are you struggling to find an argument that doesn't show you to be contradicting, I know you want to talk about theories and promote your own opinions, you have already filled this thread with your arguments and opinions and virtually everyone disagrees with you, and virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence, but all you ever give back are more words.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 30, 2014, 06:30:04 AM
Except from an energy perspective there is no paradox.
The amount of energy required to lift any buoyant object a vertical distance is equal (or more than) its mass times the vertical distance it travels. The amount of energy we can recover from the descent of the object is (at most) the same as the amount used to raise it.
Lets say we have the USS Saratoga sitting in our close fitting dry dock and we add a gallon of water. How much energy is used in pumping the water in? How far would the ship rise? How much energy can we recover by letting the ship fall?
In all cases we need to return both the ship and the gallon of water to their starting positions or we are not describing a cyclical process that can be reused over and over.
Now, no matter what the geometry of the ships hull or the dry-dock or the sequence of events of pumping, holding etc. the amount of energy required on the up stroke is equal to the weight of water the ship displaces multiplied by the vertical height the ship moves. The amount of energy that can be recovered on the down stroke is at most equal to the amount used to raise it.
Lets hear your best shot at breaking this 'symmetry'. I'd love to hear a sequence of events that can describe how this could be broken. The analysis must analyse ENERGY , not FORCE. (Energy is equal to force times DISTANCE , remember.)
Bear in mind that if you move some water anywhere you have to return that water to the same starting height or you are not describing a cyclical process.
Hi LibreEnergia,
I know it is hard to admit that you were not exactly on the correct track ....!
What you are presenting now is good and correct, but I am not clear what you are trying to prove in relationship to the topic at hand..
The paradox only came up to demonstrate that you can create a large force (not dynamic displacement) with very little water. The paradox concept is regular good physics that has not been claimed to violate any known rules.
The paradox concept has been used in the risers of the Zed to minimize the water requirement and flow during strokes (to reduce overhead and associated losses) but it has no direct function in getting anything for free in the form presented by you. I am not clear why you thought it would.
As to making the Saratoga float, you only have to bring the bucket up to the designed waterline and empty it. Lets assume an XXL bucket is used, sufficient to cover the whole designed underwater surface with a water layer of 1 mm thick, the Saratoga will float up 1 mm. She will float due to the pressure exerted by the water layer height levels at the various underwater locations. So the deeper the hull depth, the more pressure per sq area. The thickness of the water layer is immaterial for this theoretical example. All energies expanded and PE accomplished will match.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: powercat on January 30, 2014, 07:26:10 AM
You're such a control freak, and you keep distorting and twisting reality to suit your argument, despite being told numerous times by people that show your theory and opinion are flawed you insist that you know better, here is a recent example of your twisted words.
But you do care, anyone reading through your previous posts will see that, and after making that statement within a number of hours you make this statement
Are you struggling to find an argument that doesn't show you to be contradicting, I know you want to talk about theories and promote your own opinions, you have already filled this thread with your arguments and opinions and virtually everyone disagrees with you, and virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence, but all you ever give back are more words.
PowerCat,
You amaze me, I know you are avoiding your claims, but I remember.
Why can we not stick to some good old fashioned technical discussion to take the topic at hand, forward ?
Yes, I know they say that my theory is flawed but they do not demonstrate why ? (just mentioning conservation is insufficient). When it comes to Wayne, I have never met him. It is not Wayne but the principle he tried to convey to you all that you all so nonchalantly rejected , that aligns me favorable towards him.
What give me control, I know the knowledge is based on sound principles, we also know that you can not assimilate a decent argument and the posts you threw this far at me, you were unable to make stick, that is why I became cocky.
<<"virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence",>>
The asymmetry proposal provide the conceptual understanding on how the invention accomplishes the gain at the end of the cycle. It doesn't provide the means on how is done in the implementation. You need to accept that.
What evidence can be provided has been provided, that should be clear by now. You must realize by now that you can not get it all, this has not been promised. If you can connect the dots..you are entitled to it. Then you deserve it.
Have you seen anywhere a question what follows similar lines to "What is the reason? or why do you think that?, or how did you come to that conclusion?."
or do you see mostly accusations in 4 letter words like, deluded, you don't have anything, fraud, liar, cheat...ect
I don't see why it is so difficult for people to ask some decent questions of inquiry that are not preceded by an accusation
How would you rate the response made by MarkE following my "asymmetry proposal ",
1.. An inquiry to figure out more working details, trying to understand the proposal (finding the good, expanding on the idea)
2.. A judgement call on how to shoot down the proposal (finding the bad in the proposal, breaking it down)
My rating was a "#2" , what do you then expect to receive ?
A bad question usually receives a bad answer. You can not expect a good favorable reaction when you call 4 letter names before you "demand" an answer. I thought this was universally understood
You can be the judge..
Give me good counter argument based on due diligence, I don't give you much chance that you will be able to do that, or just surprise me so I can change my mind.
Red_Sunset
Sunset,
the bottom line now is that nobody's got a clue what you're on about.
Everyone 'll just get bored and give up and go away.
If there's a valid principle either describe it or go and make one yourself that
works and you'll be world famous and that is for sure.
John.
Quote from: minnie on January 30, 2014, 10:07:02 AM
Sunset,
..........................................
.....................................you'll be world famous and that is for sure.
John.
Hi John,
No John, not me, my prediction,
>> WAYNE TRAVIS << >> THE MAN of the YEAR << Time Magazine 2014
I can not help that these guys can not get a grip on this and tell me exactly why this is NOT POSSIBLE
and need to resort to the scalding tactics
It looks like revenge has ran its course !!
Red_Sunset
It appears that Red has proved that anything will float in water, no matter how heavy it is.
In the PowerPoint presentation (linked earlier) of Travis's scheme I refer you to Slide 26. Here Travis is presenting what he believes to be a key operating principle of his design. But it is false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3doy-eyZew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3doy-eyZew)
Maybe this demonstration will chase away some of Red's "red herrings" in the form of floating battleships.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjqBaH_NWU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjqBaH_NWU)
More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqE9A_0WRg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqE9A_0WRg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68p0EX4IHSk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68p0EX4IHSk)
And just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8WYI7QCj0k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8WYI7QCj0k)
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 10:24:58 AM
Hi John,
No John, not me, my prediction,
>> WAYNE TRAVIS <<
>> THE MAN of the YEAR <<
Time Magazine 2014
I can not help that these guys can not get a grip on this and tell me exactly why this is NOT POSSIBLE
and need to resort to the scalding tactics
It looks like revenge has ran its course !!
Red_Sunset
You have been told over and over again exactly why this is NOT POSSIBLE. You choose to ignore sound scientific principles and demonstrations. You are like the child who asks "What color is the sky?" Why, child, it is blue. "But what COLOR is the sky?" Blue. "You haven't told me what the color of the SKY is." Yes, child, we have told you it is blue. Look, here is a Pantone color chart, compare to the sky. See? Blue. "No, your chart is irrelevant. What color IS the sky, and you must not know the answer since you keep saying the same stupid thing "blue"". But child.... the sky is BLUE. "No, it isn't. Your proofs mean nothing, they are just textbook proofs. WHAT color is the sky?" How is it possible to make any progress under these circumstances?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 08:16:41 AM
PowerCat,
You amaze me, I know you are avoiding your claims, but I remember.
Why can we not stick to some good old fashioned technical discussion to take the topic at hand, forward ?
Yes, I know they say that my theory is flawed but they do not demonstrate why ? (just mentioning conservation is insufficient). When it comes to Wayne, I have never met him. It is not Wayne but the principle he tried to convey to you all that you all so nonchalantly rejected , that aligns me favorable towards him.
What give me control, I know the knowledge is based on sound principles, we also know that you can not assimilate a decent argument and the posts you threw this far at me, you were unable to make stick, that is why I became cocky.
<<"virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence",>>
The asymmetry proposal provide the conceptual understanding on how the invention accomplishes the gain at the end of the cycle. It doesn't provide the means on how is done in the implementation. You need to accept that.
What evidence can be provided has been provided, that should be clear by now. You must realize by now that you can not get it all, this has not been promised. If you can connect the dots..you are entitled to it. Then you deserve it.
Have you seen anywhere a question what follows similar lines to "What is the reason? or why do you think that?, or how did you come to that conclusion?."
or do you see mostly accusations in 4 letter words like, deluded, you don't have anything, fraud, liar, cheat...ect
I don't see why it is so difficult for people to ask some decent questions of inquiry that are not preceded by an accusation
How would you rate the response made by MarkE following my "asymmetry proposal ",
1.. An inquiry to figure out more working details, trying to understand the proposal (finding the good, expanding on the idea)
2.. A judgement call on how to shoot down the proposal (finding the bad in the proposal, breaking it down)
My rating was a "#2" , what do you then expect to receive ?
A bad question usually receives a bad answer. You can not expect a good favorable reaction when you call 4 letter names before you "demand" an answer. I thought this was universally understood
You can be the judge..
Give me good counter argument based on due diligence, I don't give you much chance that you will be able to do that, or just surprise me so I can change my mind.
Red_Sunset
Wow look even more words from you, this time twisting things again, making out I owe you an explanation of theories and claims, you need to get it into your delusional head, that you are the one making the extravagant claim, that has never been seen in history before, it is you the control freak that needs to come up with evidence that supports your claim. There are now two threads that are full of your and Wayne Travis's propaganda for a device that doesn't work, they are numerous posts pointing out why it doesn't work, but yourself and Wayne choose to ignore them, so it is blindingly obvious that nothing will change your point of view.
Quote from: webby1 on January 30, 2014, 11:37:34 AM
I do believe on this one you have the test backwards,, that is the water on top of the float will make it sink by the added weight on the float and the loss of fluid from the outisde water, then putting the water from the top container back into the water will lighten the float and raise the water level.
Webby,
That wasn't the only thing the ZED opposition had backwards today !
And I am sure, that will not be the last one either ! being their own worst enemies
Red_Sunset
Hi Sunset,
no way am I the opposition. Just give me a few crumbs of hope.
Every bulletin Travis used to give contained the word validation, then he
dropped using that word and a while later dropped his updates altogether.
Usually with these claims, if it didn't work more or less from the start it
never did work
John.
Quote from: webby1 on January 29, 2014, 01:41:11 PM
I see things are still going down in the usual direction,, that is sad,, it gets in the way of simple sharing.
It would be very helpful if you could find your measurement data. If you can't, you can't.
Quote
The thing that I find to be a sort of paradox is long winded and not really on topic,, it is all to do with the way I choose to look at things.
The supposed paradox is ordinary well understood behavior. Do you disagree with the explanation? Do you not understand the explanation?
Quote
BAck to the question
The risers act as several things, several levers, all at the same time and they share the same parts.
Pressure can not be built up without a resistive force against the input pressure, in building this pressure the system must store that built up pressure, when more volume is stored then the container must expand to hold that stored volume at pressure. Reduce the risers down to the single equivalent riser for lift and you loose the other components.
You are kind of all over the map here with multiple declarations from scattered directions. If you really think that the scheme cannot be analyzed in a simplified form then so be it.
Quote
The risers, as a group, provide the resistance that is needed, with a little outside help.
Shifting the water provides the counter pressure to the input that allows pressure to build, the step down in pressure between risers allows for that resistive pressure to be compounded by the number of risers and the shift in water column, the shift in water column allows for the buoyant lift to materialize, the rising risers allows for more storage of input medium by expanding the storage volume of the device, the increased pressure allows for a hydraulic lift on top of the buoyant lift.
Here is the simple answer.
A jack will not provide any return of input unless some weight is left on the jack, the multiple riser system will return some input with no weight left on the risers.
You are again all over the map here. The machine has a buoyant section in series with the hydraulic section. By return of input, do you mean: Force, fluid volume, work?
Quote
If I have a 20cm taller water column on the outside of the riser, how far do I have to let that fall to bring the riser down to zero lift?
Answer, 10cm.
Again you are all over the map here: 20cm taller than what? You say "that fall": are you proposing a moveable column?
Quote
As silly as this may sound, you just raised the ocean floor and lowered the ocean surface level all at the same time,, yes, this has a cost.
It sounds very silly as you are dancing from one premise to another by mere declaration.
Quote from: minnie on January 30, 2014, 12:27:01 PM
Hi Sunset,
no way am I the opposition. Just give me a few crumbs of hope.
Every bulletin Travis used to give contained the word validation, then he
dropped using that word and a while later dropped his updates altogether.
Usually with these claims, if it didn't work more or less from the start it
never did work
John.
Hi John,
It is surprising and incredible how the "Travis" name triggers so much emotions.
In the end, I was trying to get a discussion going that tries to be completely separate from the name Wayne Travis and that slowly migrates to possibilities in over-unity scenario's, an impossibility.
One gets shot down before you leave the starting blocks by so called experts who are a arrogant and overbearing and have not mastered the Archimedes basics yet.
I better get back down to work on my new design, compact and powerful. No gravity on that one.
I am sure tending sheep is a more peaceful activity
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 05:28:34 AM
MarkE,
That is not exactly what I said !
I said,
This means to say that in practical & formula form the relationship is there! No dispute !
Then I said,
This means "aside from formula's that equal the same answers for good reasons", IN NATURE, what keeps the ship floating is a FORCE, called a buoyancy force, without LIFT FORCE the ship would sink.
This means that
1.. The primary and most important effect is the Buoyancy LIFT FORCE that materializes due to Pressure
2.. The Secondary to that is an equivalence called "displacement" that matches the same (for good reasons), BUT this is not the actual manifestation in Nature that keeps the ship on the surface. It is a derivative !!!
That is what I said, spelled out for the second time today.
To play with nature it is important to understand nature, not just playing with mathematical formula's alone !!
Red_Sunset
You are stuck in a loop. Archimedes' Paradox does not alter Archimedes' Principal. Archimedes' Paradox does not change in the slightest the work that has to be done, or the work that can be liberated raising or lowering an object in a surrounding fluid.
Quote from: webby1 on January 30, 2014, 10:01:26 AM
I will just jump to the end and share *MY* crazy view,, it must be crazy because the universe is all figured out and there is no need for what I came to for a conclusion.
*IF* at the end of the day, there is a method to extract more work out of a buoyant lift than work in.
This would mean one of 2 things, First, is that gravity is not conservative, or second, that another surce of input is present within the fluid itself.
I am not of the opinion, as of right now, that gravity is not conservative, that leaves for me the option that there is another source.
I think that this source is a quality of the fluid itself while interacting under the influance of gravity and that by adding another outside influance to the system that source can be controlled or directed and work with the outside input.
This, to me, leaves that quality within the molecular bonds of the fluid and for me this makes the univesre itself a little more "electric" than what is currently appreciated.
That idea is all fine and well. Now what you need is evidence to support it, despite 2000 years of experience by the rest of the world that does not agree with it.
Sunset,
Who's the one besotted with Travis anyway?
John.
Quote from: webby1 on January 30, 2014, 11:37:34 AM
I do believe on this one you have the test backwards, that is the water on top of the float will make it sink by the added weight on the float and the loss of fluid from the outside water, then putting the water from the top container back into the water will lighten the float and raise the water level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68p0EX4IHSk
Webby .. I'm just not getting your point [seems Red agrees with you] that TK's 'test' is
backwards.
TK was demonstrating the rams probable purpose & function - perhaps if I step it out you can tell me where the wrong assumptions or conclusions have been made ?
START: a float is partially submerged in a container of fluid - the float displaces a volume of fluid such that the weight force of the float is equal to the weight force [upthrust] of the displaced fluid [Archimedes Law of Floatation].
1. TK took a small reservoir & dipped it into the outer annular container of fluid, filling it.
N.B. whilst dipping it the outer container water level rose slightly because of displaced volume from the reservoir penetrating the fluid.
2. TK did work on this reservoir now filled with fluid & raised its Pe by lifting it a sufficient height to be placed on top of the float.
N.B. when the reservoir was being lifted clear of the outer annular fluid the water level dropped to below the starting datum height.
3. He placed the reservoir filled with fluid on top of the float - the float plus load sank further into the outer fluid until new floatation equilibrium was established i.e. upthrust force equals weight force.
N.B. this further displaced outer fluid which caused the outer annular fluid level to rise - END:
Conclusion:At all times, other than when reservoir & fluid were transitioning, the system CoM remained at the same datum height, as did the outer annular fluid levels [same Pe] - however, not considering ordinary system frictional losses, work was done on the system could be recovered/offset from the temporary raising of Pe, if an energy budget approach was considered.
N.B. If it was considered that the purpose of the ram was to move fluid from the reservoir on top of the float to the outer annular fluid then this would cause the float plus load to lighten & move upwards as it displaced less fluid, whilst increasing the volume of the outer annular fluid thus raising its level.
However, as can been seen from TK's test, & according to "Archimedes Law of Floatation" where any float plus load must have equilibrium of forces of upthrust & weight force then there is no NET change in system potential [not counting system losses].
In short, Archimedes says that for any object to 'float' [partially submerged] in a medium then the average density of the fluid medium plus float & load is the same as an equivalent measure in volume of fluid alone to the same datum level - IOW's, there is no GAIN from changing the relationship between float density to fluid density in a closed system.
These are my opinions, I would like to know how it is backwards ?
Quote from: webby1 on January 30, 2014, 11:37:34 AM
I do believe on this one you have the test backwards,, that is the water on top of the float will make it sink by the added weight on the float and the loss of fluid from the outisde water, then putting the water from the top container back into the water will lighten the float and raise the water level.
Did you not notice that the water level _does not change_, except for the slight amount due to the added weight of the empty transfer bottle?
@fletcher: That is a wonderful description of what's going on in the video. Thanks for your analysis, you put it much better than I could have done.
You're more than welcome TK - without your experiments & video's [which require effort] we'd have nothing concrete to discuss.
I'm anticipating that Webby & Red will suggest that the accumulator [with check valves] has a part to play ?! - if that is the case then we get into the realms of thermodynamics & that the energy required to compress a gas can not be less than the energy liberated to do work from that pressurization process - unless you invoke the Carnot Cycle & adiabatic warming & isothermal cooling legs drawing & taking energy from the ambient environment - and if so, then you need a constant heat sink - just thoughts ! - perhaps they have a far simpler observation ?
Discussing the cylinders on top of the riser stack that was shown as a possible performance enhancement is really not possible at this point webby1. That concept can help with a complete dual ZED set up, but has no benefit on TKs experiment, of course.
FWIW, the concept behind the dual ZED where the cylinders should assist comes down to these areas of the cycle:
When one ZED has its risers moving upwards, it is performing its "power stroke." It is beneficial to add water to the outer annulus, thereby increasing the buoyant force of the outer riser to maximize the power during this part of the cycle.
When that same ZED's risers are moving downwards it is recycling internal pressure by transferring some of that pressure to the other ZED. It is beneficial to increase the weight on the risers to increase the pressure that can be transferred during this part of the cycle.
The cylinders in the animation appeared to be accomplishing these two goals. To what affect, who knows?
M.
Quote from: webby1 on January 30, 2014, 04:54:03 PM
I understand what TK was showing and what Fletcher is saying.
The heavier float sinks and raises the water level until the system reaches balance, the lighter float raises and lowers the water level until the system reaches balance.
..........................................
Here is the thing from what I noticed while playing with TBZED, when the lift happens more "stuff" needs to be put into the system, the string can only move so far, if you remember back to that analogy for the motion of the air and water train that moves within the system, that string is being added from one end and this is a big limit. When the rams take the water from the riser while it is going up and add it to the water on the outside of the riser it is adding the string into the system from the other end. A low pressure low cost add that might be able to improve the efficiency.
..........................................
If the float in the vid were not allowed to move up when the water is transferred from the top of the float into the water, what force is there that WAS countered by the weight of the water on the float, and does the water raise up a little higher until the float is released.
So the vid should be covering the non change in water while the float is going up while the rams are pushing the water out, the water will at least stay the same height while the float is going up when the rams push the water out,, other wise that level will go down,, correct?
Thanks for your observations Webby ..
If we first stick with TK's vid experiment - I think we'd all agree that if his apparatus were plumbed in a way that allowed a flick of a switch [& a pump instead of rams, & assuming 100% electrical & pump efficiency] then water could be transferred in either direction at will - we can assume that there is no net energy loss from this transfer process - we lift it up, we let it down & recover Ke etc - we'd also probably agree that if this were not an interrupted process but continuous then since water always finds its lowest level [the position of least Pe] then we would see the datum level remain constant at all times [we have to assume the plumbing & pump contain a constant volume of fluid], as we were simply exchanging one volume packet for another.
Now lets address the situation where the float is locked down, & released to rise later [presumably to do work in the process] - first, since the float is locked at its initial position when we flick the pump switch the transfer volume has to come from somewhere - it must come from the fluid surrounding the float - the outer annular volumes & height will not rise because we are taking an equal volume in the same time from beneath the float - status quo - so no extra lift force to be had because the annular levels did not rise.
Ok, now let's introduce an accumulator i.e. we interrupt the fluid flow into packets that we control the timing of delivery to the system - first, we attempt to pull volume from beneath the float [which is locked in position] - if its sealed from the annular rings water then we have a problem - the pump will work hard [using energy]
trying to extract water to the accumulator - at the same time the accumulator shunts water to the annular rings increasing the head & by default the lift force of the float.
Now we unlock the fixed in position float & release it - it wants to rocket upwards because of the pressure differential between top & bottom of float - but to move upwards it unseals the annular rings from the water below - the height of water in the annular rings drops [is sucked] into the partially evacuated storage beneath the float & the annular ring water height drops fast.
But, unless we use the accumulator as a volume buffer, we can not maintain any force advantage because our pumped in volume will be the same volume beneath & to the sides of the float that is taken out - so we have a large artificially produced lift force that can only do work over a very short distance - that's because without the flow interruption of the accumulator water storage volume is directly traded for volume.
And if we have a pre-charge pressure then we have to input energy to pressurize the accumulator & then to be self-sustaining it would have to replenish that pressure each cycle, requiring energy input - seems zero sum game at best, unless you or Red can put your finger precisely on the mechanism that allows otherwise to happen.
Just my take on things at the minute - that may change with more information.
Quote from: minnie on January 30, 2014, 02:35:30 PM
Sunset,
Who's the one besotted with Travis anyway?
John.
John,
I love to pick up a cause for the underdog.
I never can identify with vultures
Red_Sunset
Quote from: mondrasek on January 30, 2014, 06:16:42 PM
..............................................
When one ZED has its risers moving upwards, it is performing its "power stroke." It is beneficial to add water to the outer annulus, thereby increasing the buoyant force of the outer riser to maximize the power during this part of the cycle.
.............................................
The cylinders in the animation appeared to be accomplishing these two goals. To what affect, who knows?
M.
Hi Mon,
You interpretation is very much on the mark. I regret to say that TinselKoala's demo and Fletcher's explanations are just beating around the bush (groping in the dark)
There are a few more implications for the RAM to be there what can be explored. In order to interpret a design, one need to be very clear to what the device working objective is and that leads you to intentions of the designer, how he is trying to achieve this.
Therefore, seen and unseen design components functions are there in order to achieve the designers objective. It is now just a matter to deduce how any component seen can possibly aid toward the device working objective.
Evaluating every step for plausibility. It is like fixing a string of multi-section Christmas tree lamps or if you ever have done some debugging/hacking of computer programs, you would have the correct mindset.
What surprises me as "with the Archimedes buoyancy" interpretation of yesterday, I put a strong focus on PRESSURE and here is Tinsel and others still looking at PE LEVEL. Stop being stubborn hanging onto pre-conceived idea's, open you minds.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 12:40:40 AM
Hi Mon,
You interpretation is very much on the mark. I regret to say that TinselKoala's demo and Fletcher's explanations are just beating around the bush (groping in the dark)
There are a few more implications for the RAM to be there what can be explored. In order to interpret a design, one need to be very clear to what the device working objective is and that leads you to intentions of the designer, how he is trying to achieve this.
Therefore, seen and unseen design components functions are there in order to achieve the designers objective. It is now just a matter to deduce how any component seen can possibly aid toward the device working objective.
Evaluating every step for plausibility. It is like fixing a string of multi-section Christmas tree lamps or if you ever have done some debugging/hacking of computer programs, you would have the correct mindset.
What surprises me also "with the archmedes buoyancy" interpretation of yesterday, I put a strong focus on PRESSURE and here is Tinsel and others still looking at PE LEVEL. Stop being stubborn hanging onto pre-conceived idea's, open you minds.
Red_Sunset
At the risk of sounding repetitious, unless you do analyse this device from an ENERGY perspective you will never see why it cannot produce an ENERGY output.
You can transfer or multiply forces in any way you like during a cycle.
One thing that never changes however is the product of those forces AND the displacements that those forces act over is always constant. (presuming no external energy is being added to the system.)
It is beyond belief that such a simple concept seems to be so elusive to some.
It is why the ZED device stops. The initial pre-charge potential is exhausted and no NET work is being created during the cycle.
Hi,
Fletcher had quite an interesting thing going on Bessler's wheel which looked at
Pressure. "Has an important property of fluids been overlooked?"
Fletcher had a few interesting points, I got quite keen at one stage and planned
building a test rig. Unfortunately when I started doing calculations with pencil and
paper I found errors and would have wasted my time with the build. I must admit
I thoroughly enjoyed the process, even though I ended up at square one.
What I seem to recall is that pressure and PE are much the same when looking
at submerged objects.
John.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 31, 2014, 02:26:54 AM
At the risk of sounding repetitious, unless you do analyse this device from an ENERGY perspective you will never see why it cannot produce an ENERGY output.
You can transfer or multiply forces in any way you like during a cycle.
One thing that never changes however is the product of those forces AND the displacements that those forces act over is always constant. (presuming no external energy is being added to the system.)
It is beyond belief that such a simple concept seems to be so elusive to some.
It is why the ZED device stops. The initial pre-charge potential is exhausted and no NET work is being created during the cycle.
To the contrary, EnergiaLibre
The relationship of force to energia is well understood and not elusive as you indicate.
The reason is that asymmetry is purposely sought and the hardware is purposely designed to allow this manipulation at minimal cost
Therefore: THE ONE THING THAT CHANGES HOWEVER..........is NOT always constant "
your text <One thing that never changes however> is the product of those forces AND the displacements that those forces act over is < > always constant. (presuming no external energy is being added to the system.)"
Unfortunately my intent to gradually lift that curtain towards this point in my asymmetry proposal was unfortunately abruptly terminated by mockery.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 02:57:54 AM
Unfortunately my intent to gradually lift that curtain towards this point in my asymmetry proposal was unfortunately abruptly terminated by mockery.
It's not mockery, it is how the universe works, at least at the temperatures , timescales and volumes that this machine exists within.
You've never provided any coherent analysis to prove your point. Instead you rely on some curious form of double counting that allows you to expend the potential of some part of the system without it requiring replenishment.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 31, 2014, 03:28:56 AM
It's not mockery, it is how the universe works, at least at the temperatures , timescales and volumes that this machine exists within.
You've never provided any coherent analysis to prove your point. Instead you rely on some curious form of double counting that allows you to expend the potential of some part of the system without it requiring replenishment.
LibreEnergia,
I can agree that my initial presentation lacked "any coherent analysis to prove your point". A more detailed clarification of that initial layout was needed, although this being dependent on the direction of your inquiry which regretfully never came. Since the concept was written off as impossible and got entangled with an emotional fever surrounding Wayne Travis. So I have canned my tutorial intentions and I will leave it there, so peace can prevail at OU.com
Just for curiosity, can you tell me where I gave you the following impressions of understanding.
1.. some curious form of double counting
2.. you to expend the potential without it requiring replenishment.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 04:13:33 AM
Just for curiosity, can you tell me where I gave you the following impressions of understanding.
1.. some curious form of double counting
2.. you to expend the potential without it requiring replenishment.
It comes from the following 'progression' of the explanations provided over time, first by Wayne Travis and then by yourself.
Upon meeting the objections provided by many that the machine would require an energy release on each cycle that could only come from a modification of the gravitational field to function as claimed Travis dreamed up the 'reduced input cost' theory. Such terminology conveniently avoided the term 'excess energy' or over-unity as the working principle and avoids having to confront tricky problems such as if gravity were modified by the machine you could measure the effect simply by weighing it while it was working and noticing its weight changing while the mass apparently stayed the same.
He even made a statement similar to "We don't have an over-unity device , we have a 'reduced input cost' machine." Such word play of course is just an attempt to hide the fact that they are one and the same thing. If you produce more energy in a cycle than you consume, then this is identically equal to saying the input energy cost is less than the output.
So having settled on reduced input cost as the magic principle he then attempted to show that somehow you could shift this 'reduced input cost' backwards and forward between two sides of a machine, use its potential to cause an excess of energy to manifest and then without replenishment , shift the 'reduced input cost' back to the other side of machine and reuse it again. That part represents the double counting.
It sounds promising, except of course the reduced input cost' is identically equal to saying an excess of energy is manifested during this process.
At this point we are back to starting proposition. Such excess of energy could only be manifest if the machine modified the gravitational field during the up or down stroke. Clearly doesn't do that, or if it did it would be easy to measure as previously described.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 30, 2014, 10:24:58 AM
Hi John,
No John, not me, my prediction,
>> WAYNE TRAVIS <<
>> THE MAN of the YEAR <<
Time Magazine 2014
I can not help that these guys can not get a grip on this and tell me exactly why this is NOT POSSIBLE
and need to resort to the scalding tactics
It looks like revenge has ran its course !!
Red_Sunset
Yourself and Wayne are the ones making the claim, it is up to you guys to prove you have what you claim, you both seem incapable of doing that, and as for your newspaper prediction, it's not the first time
Quote from: Red_Sunset on October 30, 2012, 10:31:34 PM (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg342262/#msg342262)QuoteWayne proof for Hydro Energy Revolution will be in the newspaper soon enough.
How long is soon ? And if nothing happens this year will you apologise or just make more excuses, yourself and Wayne fit the profile of a couple of common, promising so much but incapable of delivering anything of substance
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 31, 2014, 04:49:57 AM
It comes from the following 'progression' of the explanations provided over time, first by Wayne Travis and then by yourself.
Upon meeting the objections provided by many that the machine would require an energy release on each cycle that could only come from a modification of the gravitational field to function as claimed Travis dreamed up the 'reduced input cost' theory. Such terminology conveniently avoided the term 'excess energy' or over-unity as the working principle and avoids having to confront tricky problems such as if gravity were modified by the machine you could measure the effect simply by weighing it while it was working and noticing its weight changing while the mass apparently stayed the same.
He even made a statement similar to "We don't have an over-unity device , we have a 'reduced input cost' machine." Such word play of course is just an attempt to hide the fact that they are one and the same thing. If you produce more energy in a cycle than you consume, then this is identically equal to saying the input energy cost is less than the output.
So having settled on reduced input cost as the magic principle he then attempted to show that somehow you could shift this 'reduced input cost' backwards and forward between two sides of a machine, use its potential to cause an excess of energy to manifest and then without replenishment , shift the 'reduced input cost' back to the other side of machine and reuse it again. That part represents the double counting.
It sounds promising, except of course the reduced input cost' is identically equal to saying an excess of energy is manifested during this process.
At this point we are back to starting proposition. Such excess of energy could only be manifest if the machine modified the gravitational field during the up or down stroke. Clearly doesn't do that, or if it did it would be easy to measure as previously described.
LibraEnergia,
It appears that you might be overwhelmed by the whole concept, and the fact that it rocks your fundamental believes.
So the best solution is to simplify, reduce it into modular entities that can in some way stand on their own and become manageable.
The first thing to do is to separate concept from hardware.
1.. Conceptional understanding: First understand what is intended to be achieved (forget HOW you would achieve it, that comes later), don't restrict yourself with limitation such as "modifying the gravitational field ", which is a lot of bull in any case. Keep a complete open mind, be reasonable but don't put up walls. In the end, you would be looking for asymmetry
2.. Hardware property requirements to support the conceptional understanding, don't worry if you can not see how this could be done. But the understanding should be that if you had this defined hardware device, you could realize your conceptual understanding. (like the proposed magical lever) It would be an asymmetric functional definition
3.. Hardware design, here you have a great advantage since you have a great lot of information already available from Wayne Travis on how it can be done. Here you turn the magical lever into a real device. Don' think that his execution of the concept is the only model that could fulfill the HW requirements. Look how the ZED HW supports the asymmetric process flow. You will get some Whooow experiences on the way
If you look at it in this way, the whole idea will become more systematic, manageable and focused in your mind without overloading it, compared to trying to consider all the "in and outs" in one go
Good Luck,
Red_Sunset
Quote from: powercat on January 31, 2014, 05:12:26 AM
Yourself and Wayne are the ones making the claim, it is up to you guys to prove you have what you claim, you both seem incapable of doing that, and as for your newspaper prediction, it's not the first time
Quote from: Red_Sunset on October 30, 2012, 10:31:34 PM (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg342262/#msg342262)
How long is soon ? And if nothing happens this year will you apologise or just make more excuses, yourself and Wayne fit the profile of a couple of common, promising so much but incapable of delivering anything of substance
PowerCat,
The POT blames the KETTLE that he looks black !!
I am still waiting for your acclaimed multiple counter proofs
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 07:13:05 AM
So the best solution is to simplify, reduce it into modular entities that can in some way stand on their own and become manageable.
I couldn't agree more. My 'conceptual modular reduction' of this machine is a float in water and a hydro - pneumatic spring. There does not appear to be any other principles at play.
As far as I know you are not claiming either of these two devices are 'over unity', or can ever give rise to more energy than is put into them.
It follows (and can be rigorously proven) that combining two processes, neither of which are capable of energy production absolutely cannot give rise to a process that does produce energy.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 31, 2014, 07:28:13 AM
I couldn't agree more. My 'conceptual modular reduction' of this machine is a float in water and a hydro - pneumatic spring. There does not appear to be any other principles at play.
As far as I know you are not claiming either of these two devices are 'over unity', or can ever give rise to more energy than is put into them.
It follows (and can be rigorously proven) that combining two processes, neither of which are capable of energy production absolutely cannot give rise to a process that does produce energy.
You are looking too superficial, you need to look way deeper, the crux is always in the little details.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 07:26:15 AM
PowerCat,
The POT blames the KETTLE that he looks black !!
I am still waiting for your acclaimed multiple counter proofs
Red_Sunset
More self righteous BS, you need to be answering the questions not asking them, you are the person making the claim, so stop trying to divert your lack of proof by making others answer questions, but this is not new, you've been dishing out this kind of crap since the beginning of your time here, a classic quote from you.
Quote from:Red_Sunset on: September 07, 2012, 02:04:57 PM
Quote
Gents,
It appears to me that this discussion can not achieve anything near over-unity
Fletcher, Seamus, MT,
It looks to me looks that this discussion can never lead to anywhere good, the least over-unity, because you guys appear so preconceived, by needing everything into the latest details presented to you and then you will dispute and be unbelieving without giving any serious counter argument.
==========
I could finish the cycle with putting everything on the table, but this is not my place to do that, I leave that to the master of this invention
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335268/#msg335268
Twisting thing and blaming other is a poor attempt at hiding the reality that there is no working device and nothing can be verified because nothing works as claimed.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 07:42:32 AM
You are looking too superficial, you need to look way deeper, the crux is always in the little details.
A patronizing treasure hunt with no treasure, you're becoming very transparent Red.
Again these are your words from 2012
Quote
=======================================
Gents,
It appears to me that this discussion can not achieve anything near over-unity
Fletcher, Seamus, MT,
It looks to me looks that this discussion can never lead to anywhere good, the least over-unity, because you guys appear so preconceived, by needing everything into the latest details presented to you and then you will dispute and be unbelieving without giving any serious counter argument.
=========================================
I could finish the cycle with putting everything on the table, but this is not my place to do that, I leave that to the master of this invention
==========================================
End Quote
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335268/#msg335268 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335268/#msg335268)
Quote from: powercat on January 31, 2014, 07:52:54 AM
More self righteous BS, you need to be answering the questions not asking them,..................
.............................................................
Yes, my dear PowerCat,
In your advanced stage of aggravation, I think you are ready to be read a chapter from the bible.
............
Red.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 08:28:52 AM
Yes, my dear PowerCat,
In your advanced stage of aggravation, I think you are ready to be read a chapter from the bible.
............
Red.
I am quoting your own words back at you, and your response is to have a go at me, your tactic of diverting won't work.
Quote from: powercat on January 31, 2014, 08:34:11 AM
I am quoting your own words back at you, and your response is to have a go at me, your tactic of diverting won't work.
So what do propose,... a Status Quo ?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 08:40:45 AM
So what do propose,... a Status Quo ?
Stop posting in this thread, you are off topic, it is not meant to be about Wayne Travis and his invention, come back to the forum when you have some solid evidence to back up what you claim.
Forget man of the year, he'll be man of a couple of millennia!
John.
Quote from: powercat on January 31, 2014, 08:46:31 AM
Stop posting in this thread, you are off topic, it is not meant to be about Wayne Travis and his invention, come back to the forum when you have some solid evidence to back up what you claim.
No my dear PowerCat,
You think you can play with your unfounded accusations because you can not fathom the information at hand, and think that forceful behavior can get you the loot... No my friend,..
Think again..... use your gray matter will be able to do that.
You play....I play... I am still waiting for your serious response... !! (without accusations please)
Red_Sunset
September 07, 2012 Your own words not unfounded accusations
QuoteGents,
It appears to me that this discussion can not achieve anything near over-unity
Fletcher, Seamus, MT,
It looks to me looks that this discussion can never lead to anywhere good, the least over-unity, because you guys appear so preconceived, by needing everything into the latest details presented to you and then you will dispute and be unbelieving without giving any serious counter argument.
I can appreciate a logical counter argument, I have been trying to steer towards it but I am not getting it here.
I presented some overview and flow figures in previous postings that played out a theoretical positive over-unity scenario. You have been given the HW measurements, flow volumes, pressures, working details and processes, these have been described all over these pages but there is nowhere any counter analysis with figures that contradict or show the flaw that is presented.
The only thing that I see is " can never work, why who knows...." or there are generalized arguments referring to the conservation laws and water can not flow uphill or we wait for the validation. You starting to look naked on these pages, poor I say...
Lets advance and say that the validation reports "all is legitimate & OK & OU". What will you have then, you still wouldn't know more than you have today. Or am I missing something ?, please enlighten me
I could finish the cycle with putting everything on the table, but this is not my place to do that, I leave that to the master of this invention
Regards, Michel
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335268/#msg335268 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335268/#msg335268)
Like I said before you are becoming transparent, you have made enough posts for people to see your modus operandi, if anyone has the times spare, click on red_sunsets name, and look at all his previous post.
They will see you regurgitating the same old stuff and despite many people telling you that those theories and opinions don't work that way, you belligerently continue.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 31, 2014, 07:42:32 AM
You are looking too superficial, you need to look way deeper, the crux is always in the little details.
So, having reduced to the machine to its most basic components the principle of operation is now to be found in the 'little details'.
Perhaps this machine is powered by an over-unity cat, perpetually chasing its tail?
Well, it appears that unless someone is motivated enough & has the ability to build & video a robust demo 3 riser system [as per Webby] this bus will keep spinning its wheels - the data would need to show a complete cycle.
The reason I say that is because Mr Wayne claimed it was clear OU, so it must contain the basic principle of operation of any downstream devices, dual or otherwise, with or without extra plumbing.
Webby,
is there a drawing so that I could have a go at a build?
John.
Quote from: webby1 on January 30, 2014, 02:18:02 PM
Actually MarkE,, there is NO evidence against it,, if the view I put forward is correct it still meets all of the usage and data collected so far by the whole of the world.
Your data either supports the extraordinary claim in which case it would not be the same as all the ordinary data we have seen in the past, or your data also shows only ordinary behavior. Unfortunately, you seem unable to make your data available.
Quote from: powercat on January 31, 2014, 09:24:05 AM
...............................you have made enough posts for people to see your modus operandi, .........................
PowerCat, MarkE , EnergyLibre......
You are correct, from now onwards, I will restrict my communication to specific decently phrased questions only. I will neither respond to non-technical or business questions or statements as related to Wayne Travis and associated endeavors.
The reasons is, I am feeling myself slowly slipping into your RatHole, not a place I can identify with or would like to land up.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: fletcher on January 31, 2014, 03:42:51 PM
Well, it appears that unless someone is motivated enough & has the ability to build & video a robust demo 3 riser system [as per Webby] this bus will keep spinning its wheels - the data would need to show a complete cycle.
The reason I say that is because Mr Wayne claimed it was clear OU, so it must contain the basic principle of operation of any downstream devices, dual or otherwise, with or without extra plumbing.
Fetcher, Webby,....
Some clarification that can help, Webby's riser is the hardware device that makes the implementation of the asymmetric working concept possible. By it self , the concept is a fantasy as you said before, very true. But so is the riser. Together it is a different story.
Webby risers will have the ability to realize the objective of the concept in a specific controlled way as outlined by Wayne. The concept realization has multiple physical property aspects that related to the device and working hand in hand are the ingenious input savings it allows. The second ZED in the dual configuration plays an important savings role that can not be achieved by a stand alone ZED
The 3 stage concept approach as outlined to EnergiaLibre (and rejected by him) is the best way to approach I think. Don't expect to find just 1 thing that gives you OverUnity, it is a combination of things as Wayne outlined in his thread. The high level asymmetry concept presented by me (also rejected by others) is high level enough to condense it into one thing, this feathers out into multiple features as you go down range.
This is the reason, the ZED concept is somewhat complicated and difficult to understand without doing homework and due diligence, or to explain in a very simple way. You can bring the horse to the water but you can not make him drink would be appropriate here.
Red_Sunset
So Archimedes Paradox has had me bothered when contemplating the operation of a ZED for some time. I think I am close to a breakthrough on my mental block. If you will consider:
Two columns of water, both 30 meters tall. One column is in a pipe with an inner diameter of 1 meter. The other is in a pipe with an inner diameter of 2 meters. So the pressure of the water at the bottom of both columns is the same. But obviously there is a greater volume of water in the pipe with the larger inner diameter.
If the pipes are filled from the bottom, does it take more work/energy to fill the pipe with the smaller or larger inner diameter? I think it is clear that it would take more work/energy to pump the larger volume of water into the larger diameter pipe. But on the upside of things, the work that can be performed by the water if allowed to leave the bottom of the column under pressure (and spin an electric generator via a turbine for example) is likewise greater in the pipe with the larger diameter. Similarly, while the smaller diameter pipe takes less work/energy to fill, it can return less work/energy when draining again. In short, the water in the smaller diameter pipe will have less PE than the water in the larger diameter pipe when both are filled to 30 meters.
The difference in PE can be shown in another way by plumbing them to a simple hydraulic cylinder as they drain. Both pipes will cause that cylinder to begin moving with the same force which will drop to zero as the water level drops to zero, but the smaller pipe will move the hydraulic cylinder less far due to the smaller volume of water that it contains. The integral of the force x distance (stroke of the hydraulic cylinder) is less. This is to say the work it performs is less. Or (stretching a bit here) the higher pressure for a shorter stroke relationship.
To get more out than in (work/energy) from a ZED I think it would need to be shown that the nested riser arrangement can produce an output integral of force x distance that is greater than the input force x distance. Or not, of course. One way to do that may be to fix an input pressure and volume (to simply comparisons) and then see if different proportions and layers of ZED construction will result in exactly the same output pressure/2 x stroke. This (I think) can be calculated relatively easily.
Does this approach appear correct to anyone else? Or incorrect for that matter?
Thanks,
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 01, 2014, 09:19:20 AM
.....................................................
Does this approach appear correct to anyone else? Or incorrect for that matter?
Thanks, M.
Mr M,
Your logic is sound, you established that volume is a quantification of energy (PE) so song this volume incorporates some force, derived by height, which is pressure. This "force = height= pressure" in your example together with "volume" makes "=energy" . Both your columns have the same pressure (height) but the large one has more "energy" stored due to the volume .
Swapping volume for force (pressure) can be used to keep the energy quantity the same. This is the same than swapping "displacement volume" for pressure, a concept that was unpopular a few days ago.
The concept behind the paradox as related to the ZED, is exactly that, to minimize the water volume but still get the same result, not with displacement volumes but with pressure.
In a basic setup, you pay for that pressure in the same way you do displacement volume. But it allows you much more manipulation possibilities in the smart ways you can play with pressures. This is where the layered Zed design excels.
Go back to Wayne's examples where he provided, pressure psi, total lift area = a, How much is the lift force ?
Don't say to quickly "psi*a", it is not that simple for the ZED, because of the layering. Wayne was very explicit about the non-linear behavior of the ZED lift power. The psi*a product ratio even differs between the lower and higher psi ranges. That control is the key, because it is reversible, which is greatly advantageous.
Mondrasek, your approach is correct, you are on the right way,
When you follow that process deeper, do keep in mind that nature can not do it alone by itself, then it would be a symmetrical lift profile,
Technology needs to aid nature to achieve the asymmetrical objective at a discounted cost, this means savings.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset:
QuoteThis is where the layered Zed design excels.
It's almost comical reading you. You fake that the Zed is real like the statement above. You fake that some very smart people "aren't getting it" when there is nothing to get.
The Zed excels at nothing because it doesn't exist as claimed. At best it might only exist as a prop powered by a big cylinder of compressed air.
My gut feel is telling me that Wayne's "company" is down to about three or four disillusioned individuals. His church has long forgotten about his promise to install a ZED device. Just like Steorn, perhaps they sit at their desks and surf the net all day feigning that they are actually doing something.
Your new burst of activity may be nothing more than an attempt to flood the thread with your silly statements alleging that the thing works because some investors might be doing some Google searching about Wayne and they will land here. If what I suspect is actually true, then you are involved in a conspiracy. You never know, one day law enforcement may ask the site owner for your IP address so they can track you down and take you to court along with Wayne and the remaining hangers-on.
Nothing will ever be delivered by Wayne. It's very possible that Wayne spends his days mostly doing nothing. All that he has to do is create the pretense that he has a company and once in a while they "stage events" for outside parties to reenforce the illusion.
What a world we live in.
MileHigh
QuoteTechnology needs to aid nature to achieve the asymmetrical objective at a discounted cost
More complete and utter nonsense. Don't let yourself get brainwashed by this person. He is making a valiant attempt to appeal to wanna-believers and other susceptible people, especially the ones with money. One big score from an investor and then four or five people can sit on their lazy asses and draw off that funding, drink beer and play pool, and otherwise do absolutely nothing. The only "work" required might involve showing up at the "office" every few months to sit at a desk and aimlessly surf the web and pretend that you are working.
That could indeed be the seedy underbelly behind all of this. It could be very similar to Jon Rohner and Intelgentry. The man that claimed that he designed the spark plug firing circuit that clearly demonstrated on Facebook for all the world to see that he didn't even understand how one works.
MileHigh
QuoteTechnology needs to aid nature to achieve the asymmetrical objective at a discounted cost, this means savings.
Red, you continue to crack me up. Please tell me just how "Technology" and "Nature" are different. What principles does "technology" contain that are not fully part and parcel of "nature" ?
Physics... real physics, not pretend Travis-RedSunset physics... is universal. It applies to "technology" and "nature" equally. It is the same physics. In fact, what we think of as "technology" could not even exist at all without our proper understanding of the Physics of Nature. Our understanding of _some aspects_ of Nature is imperfect. Our understanding of other aspects is _perfect enough_ for us to engineer, with confidence. As our understanding of Nature progresses we are able to engineer more and more "esoteric" technologies.... but not a single one of them violates the basics of Thermodynamics, the basics of Engineering Statics and Dynamics (lumped together as Engineering Mechanics) or especially the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy. No amount of hand-waving that _does not include_ proper scientific experimentation and demonstration has ever, or can ever, trump the textbooks.
Okay. So I proposed a test (mathematical) that could possibly disprove the ZED premise. And Red_Sunset agreed that the proposed test is valid.
MH and TK, do you think that the proposed test is valid or not?
BTW, after some more thought on the matter I think the hypothesis that would be mathematically tested as proposed would be to see: Is a ZED (multilayer buoyancy contraption) analogous to a common hydraulic cylinder?
If the test fails, it still does not prove that a ZED is OU or could be used to make an OU system. It would only show that using a simplification of the ZED systems using a hydraulic cylinder analogue is not, in fact, analogous.
BTW, I would appreciate any assistance with this test and argument (if that is the appropriate term) if anyone can do so. DOE and proofs are not something that I consider a forte.
Thanks,
M.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 01, 2014, 01:57:13 AM
Fetcher, Webby,....
Some clarification that can help, Webby's riser is the hardware device that makes the implementation of the asymmetric working concept possible. By it self , the concept is a fantasy as you said before, very true. But so is the riser. Together it is a different story.
Webby risers will have the ability to realize the objective of the concept in a specific controlled way as outlined by Wayne. The concept realization has multiple physical property aspects that related to the device and working hand in hand are the ingenious input savings it allows. The second ZED in the dual configuration plays an important savings role that can not be achieved by a stand alone ZED
The 3 stage concept approach as outlined to EnergiaLibre (and rejected by him) is the best way to approach I think. Don't expect to find just 1 thing that gives you OverUnity, it is a combination of things as Wayne outlined in his thread. The high level asymmetry concept presented by me (also rejected by others) is high level enough to condense it into one thing, this feathers out into multiple features as you go down range.
This is the reason, the ZED concept is somewhat complicated and difficult to understand without doing homework and due diligence, or to explain in a very simple way. You can bring the horse to the water but you can not make him drink would be appropriate here.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, you have always been most welcome to identify any energy "asymmetry" or "input savings" that is either possible or measured in any of these machines. You have yet to do so.
I see that you argue against looking for over unity in just one thing. Yet, the net efficiency of a system is the product of the individual efficiencies. Kindly explain how it is possible to multiply two efficiencies each less than one and end up with a value greater than: one or either of the two starting efficiencies. If as mathematics dictates you cannot do that, then it must be necessary to identify a single process that is over unity, or else the entire process is condemned to under unity.
Quote from: webby1 on February 01, 2014, 05:54:43 AM
You are mixing things up MarkE,, I suggest you re-read.
Since you are refuting my thought, then you are refuting known science, so that means you are making an extraordinary claim, so support it.
I do not make any extraordinary claim. I assert that each of the elements proposed in any of these machines conserves energy, and that as a result the entire machine must conserve energy. That is consistent with conventional science. If you have evidence that any of the elements are OU, by all means supply it. If you have any evidence that a series of processes each less than unity efficient can together be more than unity efficient, I would love to see your math.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 01, 2014, 09:19:20 AM
So Archimedes Paradox has had me bothered when contemplating the operation of a ZED for some time. I think I am close to a breakthrough on my mental block. If you will consider:
Two columns of water, both 30 meters tall. One column is in a pipe with an inner diameter of 1 meter. The other is in a pipe with an inner diameter of 2 meters. So the pressure of the water at the bottom of both columns is the same. But obviously there is a greater volume of water in the pipe with the larger inner diameter.
If the pipes are filled from the bottom, does it take more work/energy to fill the pipe with the smaller or larger inner diameter? I think it is clear that it would take more work/energy to pump the larger volume of water into the larger diameter pipe. But on the upside of things, the work that can be performed by the water if allowed to leave the bottom of the column under pressure (and spin an electric generator via a turbine for example) is likewise greater in the pipe with the larger diameter. Similarly, while the smaller diameter pipe takes less work/energy to fill, it can return less work/energy when draining again. In short, the water in the smaller diameter pipe will have less PE than the water in the larger diameter pipe when both are filled to 30 meters.
The difference in PE can be shown in another way by plumbing them to a simple hydraulic cylinder as they drain. Both pipes will cause that cylinder to begin moving with the same force which will drop to zero as the water level drops to zero, but the smaller pipe will move the hydraulic cylinder less far due to the smaller volume of water that it contains. The integral of the force x distance (stroke of the hydraulic cylinder) is less. This is to say the work it performs is less. Or (stretching a bit here) the higher pressure for a shorter stroke relationship.
To get more out than in (work/energy) from a ZED I think it would need to be shown that the nested riser arrangement can produce an output integral of force x distance that is greater than the input force x distance. Or not, of course. One way to do that may be to fix an input pressure and volume (to simply comparisons) and then see if different proportions and layers of ZED construction will result in exactly the same output pressure/2 x stroke. This (I think) can be calculated relatively easily.
Does this approach appear correct to anyone else? Or incorrect for that matter?
Thanks,
M.
TinselKoala's videos already demonstrate that there is no gain in energy to be had by leveraging hydrostatic forces.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 01, 2014, 10:17:54 AM
...
Don't say to quickly "psi*a", it is not that simple for the ZED, because of the layering. Wayne was very explicit about the non-linear behavior of the ZED lift power.
Red_Sunset
Once again you conflate terms, here: force, and power, when talking about a machine where the principle claim is a gain in energy.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 01, 2014, 01:10:33 PM
Red, you continue to crack me up. Please tell me just how "Technology" and "Nature" are different. What principles does "technology" contain that are not fully part and parcel of "nature" ?
Physics... real physics, not pretend Travis-RedSunset physics... is universal. It applies to "technology" and "nature" equally. It is the same physics. In fact, what we think of as "technology" could not even exist at all without our proper understanding of the Physics of Nature. Our understanding of _some aspects_ of Nature is imperfect. Our understanding of other aspects is _perfect enough_ for us to engineer, with confidence. As our understanding of Nature progresses we are able to engineer more and more "esoteric" technologies.... but not a single one of them violates the basics of Thermodynamics, the basics of Engineering Statics and Dynamics (lumped together as Engineering Mechanics) or especially the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy. No amount of hand-waving that _does not include_ proper scientific experimentation and demonstration has ever, or can ever, trump the textbooks.
Hi TK,
I am happy to at least was able to crack you up and give you a laugh. When it comes to me seeing the other responses tonight, all I can do is cry by seeing such short mindedness. But then who am I to judge.... "different strokes for different folks" they say.
I agree, the choice of working was not as good as it could have been to describe the intended meanings.
The cracking difference of meaning between "Technology" and "Nature" defined.
Nature: The natural process process flow takes the system through its cycle. The natural expected flow path which is by standard ~symmetrical .
Technology: The un-natural flow path. If you would leave the natural primary process to its own devices, it would never follow the desired path. It requires a subsystem that interferes with he primary natural process in order to steer it in a predetermined path.
If you would have read the previous mails with comprehension, I would imagine that you would have gather the intended meaning, but nevertheless my apologies for the confusion caused
I will not add more comments in response to the additional comments made by yourself and other member in separate posts since I feel that additional information is not gonna solve the mental block that is shown.
Most of those issues questioned should resolve themselves in due time by themselves, if allowed to mature by sleeping over it.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: webby1 on February 01, 2014, 03:30:41 PM
Which direction are you going in know?
You stated that there is no difference between multiple risers and a single large riser, I provided proof that there is a difference, so you are incorrect.
I am afraid that you are badly mistaken about your "proof" of any difference in principles of operation.
Quote
Support my idea that stressing the molecular boundaries can store and release energy,, I think that has been done in spades. Support my idea that gravity is a force that acts upon all of the water molecules,, again done in spades.
Support my idea that a small external force can be used to control a larger force,, again done in spades.
The HER claims are with regard to
energy. Force is not the same as energy.
Quote
Back to the multiple vs. single riser.
Since I have given you proof, now it would be time for you to share your data from your tests that support your claim.
If you must have some of my data then it can be found in the original thread.
You said some number of posts back that you could not locate your data. When you do locate it, kindly publish it.
Quotesince I feel that additional information is not gonna solve the mental block that is shown.
There is no "mental block" at all, it's just an ongoing attempt to manipulate people's thinking patterns. It's just another attempt to brainwash susceptible people so you can get them to part with their money.
Don't fall for this cynical ploy, this nonsense. Red_Sunset can try all he wants to feign that Wayne's system works but we have already seen when he is pressed for details he plays the "proprietary secret card" when it comes to Wayne's "technology."
He has nothing, nada, zero. You can expect to never see a single working product from Wayne. You can expect that you will never hear Wayne or Red_Sunset explain how the system allegedly works because they have nothing to explain and as a result they can't explain anything.
MileHigh
So let me make a few summary notes & observations for those following along - please correct me if I have misinterpreted something.
1. Red points out the a ZED by itself is not OU [that there is no gain in energy is accepted by others].
2. Red contends from his own analysis & deductions [supported by Mr Wayne & a cast of 200] that a minimum of two ZEDs connected by levers [rams] can use the exhausted fluid output energy [pressure times volume] from one ZED on downstroke to partially offset the input energy of the second ZED on upstroke, 180 degrees out of phase [like a ICE connected to a crankshaft] - this requires a reservoir of fluid to ride the top of the pod/piston to fill the outer annular ring with a minimum of fluid volume to cause lift force over a greater distance, once the piston can move.
3. Red postulates that everything would be sub-OU [no NET energy gain] unless a metered/pulsed mechanical intervention happens to interrupt the cycle [fluid volume transfer to beneath the pod/piston ?!] - this process gives rise to a self-sustaining movement of the mechanisms with an excess of available energy to do external work.
A. Red is invoking Mr Wayne's contention that the pressure gradient inside the dual ZEDs is not linear [Mr Wayne previously said that compressible gas (air spring energy storage & release analogy which compromises volume) was not required & could be replaced by lighter density fluid/oil] - he further contends that there is a specific limited range of movement to maximize this gradient asymmetry.
B. It has been pointed out that non-compressible fluids have a strictly linear pressure gradient to depth at ordinary depths, except at extreme depths & pressures - MarkE has pointed out that energy & pressure are related thru the work energy equivalence principle i.e.
=> Force = Pressure x Area => Pressure = F / A = F.d / A.d = Work / Volume = Energy / Volume => Energy Density [kinetic energy density plus potential energy density (CoE) per volume].
C. It has been pointed out that Pascal's Law [undiminished transfer of pressure] supports the theory of rams & hydraulic levers as being sub-OU - IOW's, hydraulic levers are no different & conform to Archimedes Law of Levers.
D. It has been pointed out that forces & pressure & power (rate of doing work) [especially in a dynamic system] are not reliable indicators of possible energy surplus - a self-sustaining mechanical device would be able to cover internal energy losses to friction & do some external work, & keep going for an extended period of time, until parts wore out, or the load became to great.
Hi,
was mrwayne's patent ever granted? I looked at a link Webby gave and it looked like
an awful lot of waffle to me.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 01, 2014, 04:04:04 PM
I guess you are choosing to use a blind eye then..................................................
....................................................... that is another small little difference,, but will you notice it?
Webby,
What you noticed, I also observed and I believe that it stems from certain characteristics in Man's nature. We all have it in us, in various forms and dominance. It is a general characteristic, and it has all to do with what we expect to find or what we believe should be there.
For example, just looking at the clock could make you hungry if mealtime was overdue. It is similar to obsession, what we expect to be there or to find has become a reality in our mind regardless to the reality itself that confronts us. The real reality doesn't register. Like our mood or an good or bad encounter changes the perception of our surroundings.
It takes at times great effort to guard against it because it hampers greatly logical thinking.
With relationship to posts, I also noticed that on several occasion, whatever you write goes unnoticed (it didn't sink) due to a pre-conceived idea being so strong that it blocks out any input to the contrary. The pre-conception is noticeable in the answer of the return post. A reason for me to request a re-reading with comprehension
There is an other aspect the plays into the hand of this blotting process, the guilt syndrome of being mistaken.
If you do not recognize it, it doesn't exist. Have a look back in the sequence of posts that relate to the "Archimedes paradox", pay attention to the initial post versus the last post on that topic by the same individual.
You will notice that what was written in the posts by others between the initial and last, appears as of it never took place. There was never a dialog.
This is a great drawback for this forum, in order to function in a productive manner except for blueprint exchanges.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: minnie on February 01, 2014, 04:38:30 PM
Hi,
was mrwayne's patent ever granted? I looked at a link Webby gave and it looked like
an awful lot of waffle to me.
John.
Wayne Travis' application 20120117957 has not gone through any kind of examination yet. It has been docketed for examination for more than a year.
Quote from: webby1 on February 01, 2014, 04:04:04 PM
I guess you are choosing to use a blind eye then.
It is fine if we do not agree, it will not change the world nor my life at all.
There is a fair amount of my data in the other thread, like I said if you need it it is there for you to retrieve.
Did you read my last post prior to your response,, that is another small little difference,, but will you notice it?
Webby if you had been able to prove a difference in principle of operation then two things should be true:
1) You should be able to succinctly state the difference in principle of operation.
2) You should be able to demonstrate how to utilize that difference.
I am unaware that you have done either. If you have done either, then kindly point precisely where you did, or simply quote yourself for the statement of 1). The reason that I keep asking you for data, is that data can be used to reconcile which position is correct. I trust that you are interested in resolving what is real and not just engaging in an endless exchange of: "Yes it is. No it isn't."
Quote from: MarkE on February 01, 2014, 02:27:10 PM
TinselKoala's videos already demonstrate that there is no gain in energy to be had by leveraging hydrostatic forces.
MarkE,
With all due respect, what does your statement above have to do with answering the questions I asked in the referenced post?
FWIW, I have asked several questions about TK's hydrostatic force demonstrations, both recent and in past, and not received any answer at all, or only oneliners like your own.
I don't mean to badger you, but I would like to know how you understand that the mathematical test I propose is, or is not, a valid test, and why.
What do my questions about the validity of a mathematical test have to do with any video where no maths were presented?
Not that those demos were not great demos of and by themselves...
Thanks,
M.
Sunset,
how well has Fletcher summed things up in his reply at 823?
We need facts so things can move on, yes it is, no it isn't doesn't
get us anywhere,
John.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 01, 2014, 09:19:20 AM
So Archimedes Paradox has had me bothered when contemplating the operation of a ZED for some time. I think I am close to a breakthrough on my mental block. If you will consider:
Two columns of water, both 30 meters tall. One column is in a pipe with an inner diameter of 1 meter. The other is in a pipe with an inner diameter of 2 meters. So the pressure of the water at the bottom of both columns is the same. But obviously there is a greater volume of water in the pipe with the larger inner diameter.
If the pipes are filled from the bottom, does it take more work/energy to fill the pipe with the smaller or larger inner diameter? I think it is clear that it would take more work/energy to pump the larger volume of water into the larger diameter pipe. But on the upside of things, the work that can be performed by the water if allowed to leave the bottom of the column under pressure (and spin an electric generator via a turbine for example) is likewise greater in the pipe with the larger diameter. Similarly, while the smaller diameter pipe takes less work/energy to fill, it can return less work/energy when draining again. In short, the water in the smaller diameter pipe will have less PE than the water in the larger diameter pipe when both are filled to 30 meters.
The difference in PE can be shown in another way by plumbing them to a simple hydraulic cylinder as they drain. Both pipes will cause that cylinder to begin moving with the same force which will drop to zero as the water level drops to zero, but the smaller pipe will move the hydraulic cylinder less far due to the smaller volume of water that it contains. The integral of the force x distance (stroke of the hydraulic cylinder) is less. This is to say the work it performs is less. Or (stretching a bit here) the higher pressure for a shorter stroke relationship.
To get more out than in (work/energy) from a ZED I think it would need to be shown that the nested riser arrangement can produce an output integral of force x distance that is greater than the input force x distance. Or not, of course. One way to do that may be to fix an input pressure and volume (to simply comparisons) and then see if different proportions and layers of ZED construction will result in exactly the same output pressure/2 x stroke. This (I think) can be calculated relatively easily.
Does this approach appear correct to anyone else? Or incorrect for that matter?
Thanks,
M.
Mondrasek, I am sorry if I my replies have been too brief for you.
I hope that we agree that the volumes of the two pipes are respectively: pi * 7.5 m^3 for the 1m diameter diameter pipe and pi * 30 m^3 for the 2m diameter pipe, a volume ratio of 4:1, ie the ratio of the cross-section areas.
I hope that we agree that the pressure at any height within each of the two pipes is identical. Therefore if we were to connect the pipes they would naturally equalize to the same height.
From your statements above, it appears that you agree that the energy required to fill each pipe is the energy available to extract by emptying each pipe, and that the relative energy we can store as GPE of water in the larger pipe is four times that which we can store in the smaller pipe owing to the relative mass being 4:1 and the heights being the same.
I hope that it is also obvious that we will gain / lose identically four times the water height in the 1m pipe for each increment height we would lose / gain moving water from the wider pipe or to the wider pipe. IOW, moving water between the pipes offers no gain or loss in total energy stored by the pair.
TinselKoala has recently relinked two of his videos done about two years ago. In the latter video he dealt with Archimedes' Paradox, which really isn't much of a paradox at all. In fact it is just Archimedes' Principle at work. It is the very mechanism that Grimer took advantage of when measuring the volume of his concrete samples in that story he likes to tell. In the video, TinselKoala had a flask that contained: water, and another flask held down in the water by a rigid stand. The larger flask with water in it was supported by a weigh scale, while the rigid stand was independently supported on the table. TinselKoala showed that the weigh scale indicated 380g initially, and that after removing the larger flask and returning the water to its original height, the scale indicated 382g, a value within ~0.5% of the original. IOW within experimental error, the upward force exerted by the water with the smaller flask inserted was identically the weight of the equivalent displaced water, even though as shown in the middle of the video the weight of the initial water volume + flask was only 200g. Had the flasks been a tighter match even less initial water would have been needed. Now if we go back to Grimer's story, his concrete object had an SG greater than 1 so he could hang it in his flask. And as long as it did not touch the bottom, the effect of submerging it, just as TinselKoala submerged his flask was to displace an equivalent weight of water as the volume of the concrete sample. In other words: a fluid exerts a force against anything that displaces volume within the fluid equal to the weight of an equal volume of the fluid. The paradox, which IMO is no paradox at all, is that the displaced volume: the "hole", can vastly exceed the volume of the fluid that surrounds the displaced volume.
The other video that TinselKoala linked showed that using a tube filled with air to connect to vessels of water under static conditions results in the water level being the same within each end of the tube that is submerged in each vessel. That tube of air is equivalent to the air pockets that connect the various concentric cylinders in the ZED.
I hope this explains things for you. But if it does not, by all means ask any questions you like and I will be happy to add to the explanations.
@mond: here I will again bring up the Automatic Bollard, and my demonstration of the green liquid in the 4 tubes, driven by the single piston and the air pockets. In the bollard, a 'precharged' spring allows the operator to raise up and lower the bollard proper, which is a heavy steel structure weighing hundreds of pounds, by using only a few pounds of force. You put a spring in the hole and set the bollard body down onto it. The spring is not strong enough to hold up the entire weight of the bollard, so the bollard sinks. But it only takes a slight pull upwards to raise the bollard up, where it is locked in place. To release the bollard you just unlock it, and it sinks down under its own weight, perhaps slowed by a dashpot or other damper. How much work does it then take to raise this bollard weighing hundreds of pounds? Where does the work come from?
Much much less INPUT is required to achieve the result of a raised 200 pound bollard, due to the technology aiding Nature.
Right?
Or is some of the _input_ concealed from view, put in at the beginning on the initial compression of the spring and recycled over and over again as the bollard is raised and lowered with just a few pounds of external force?
Webby you need to account for the pressure and volume in the different positions. Once you do you will find that we really can reduce the analysis to an equivalent, and simpler construction. However, even if you don't believe that, when you do take the pressure and volume in the different positions and do the algebra you will find that there is no energy gain. Believe it or not the reasons for no energy gain have been very well understood for centuries.
Quote from: webby1 on February 01, 2014, 10:09:47 PM
MarkE,
That is interesting that 2.15 psi will change for some reason with the volumes that would be required for lets say a 1 inch lift, I thought that would be the same as to whether that is filling a 1 inch tall cylinder that has 25.133 square inches, compared to a 1 inch tall cylinder that has 27.64 square inches.
It seems to me that there is a difference there in volume moved at the same pressure.
Remember that the only fluid added to the ZED is into the pod chamber, not the riser, and as TK's video demonstrated, the effect of transfer is there.
138.226x.43=59.437 59.437\2.15=27.645 5x.43=2.15 5.9 inch diameter for the hydraulic and oops that is a blank space but the diameter of the retainer is 5.66 inches. The first riser diameter is 6.9 inches.
This is simple algebra and only needs 2 points, start of lift and end of lift.
Perhaps you are not aware that the ZED is a short lift and recovery system.
Webby you need to work in energy. As long as you have a compressible fluid: IE air the volume changes with pressure and both change with stored energy. And that is just standing still. Calculate your stored energy at an arbitrary starting point, then exercise the machine as you like measuring the energy that you add and the energy that you take away. Do that until the machine returns to the starting point that you chose. Then calculate the stored energy that remains in the machine at your chosen starting / ending point. If you do your accounting and math correctly you will not find that the net energy withdrawn from the machine plus the remaining energy stored in the machine at the end of the cycle exceed the stored energy that was in the machine at the start of the cycle.
Comments to Fletcher summary notes & observations,
Sorry Minnie, I am +3 to your time zone, the reason for the delay
Fetcher, You compiled a good summary.
** My responses
1. Red points out the a ZED by itself is not OU [that there is no gain in energy is accepted by others].
** To be understood as a simple hydro piston, a multi-layer device shown in pictures with water columns height in the various levels, you have a very efficient hydro lift device.
A ZED can be understood as a complete system used in a dual configuration with a second ZED, and provides the ability to achieve OU and loop capability due to cost saving ability.
2. Red contends from his own analysis & deductions [supported by Mr Wayne & a cast of 200] that a minimum of two ZEDs connected by levers [rams] can use the exhausted fluid output energy [pressure times volume] from one ZED on downstroke to partially offset the input energy of the second ZED on upstroke, 180 degrees out of phase [like a ICE connected to a crankshaft] - this requires a reservoir of fluid to ride the top of the pod/piston to fill the outer annular ring with a minimum of fluid volume to cause lift force over a greater distance, once the piston can move.
** I would agree
3. Red postulates that everything would be sub-OU [no NET energy gain] unless a metered/pulsed mechanical intervention happens to interrupt the cycle [fluid volume transfer to beneath the pod/piston ?!] - this process gives rise to a self-sustaining movement of the mechanisms with an excess of available energy to do external work.
** This should be understood as a process that changes the lift parameters between the up & down stroke which is synonymous to high & low pressure range
A. Red is invoking Mr Wayne's contention that the pressure gradient inside the dual ZEDs is not linear [Mr Wayne previously said that compressible gas (air spring energy storage & release analogy which compromises volume) was not required & could be replaced by lighter density fluid/oil] - he further contends that there is a specific limited range of movement to maximize this gradient asymmetry.
** I would agree, although limited range has more to do with pre-provisioing tolerance allowances.
B. It has been pointed out that non-compressible fluids have a strictly linear pressure gradient to depth at ordinary depths, except at extreme depths & pressures - MarkE has pointed out that energy & pressure are related thru the work energy equivalence principle i.e.
=> Force = Pressure x Area => Pressure = F / A = F.d / A.d = Work / Volume = Energy / Volume => Energy Density [kinetic energy density plus potential energy density (CoE) per volume].
** I would agree,
C. It has been pointed out that Pascal's Law [undiminished transfer of pressure] supports the theory of rams & hydraulic levers as being sub-OU - IOW's, hydraulic levers are no different & conform to Archimedes Law of Levers.
** I would agree, this would therefore suggest that the "crux of the matter" is not the lever but how the lever is used, facilitated by its unique design.
D. It has been pointed out that forces & pressure & power (rate of doing work) [especially in a dynamic system] are not reliable indicators of possible energy surplus - a self-sustaining mechanical device would be able to cover internal energy losses to friction & do some external work, & keep going for an extended period of time, until parts wore out, or the load became to great.
** I would agree, but when using a fixed volume liquid quantity, then energy is linear with pressure.
Hi,
I find the paradox quite a tricky thing to deal with. It looks as if you can lift a huge weight
with a cupful of water and the use that energy. Looking at Koala's video I realised what's
happening, when you add more water you are beginning to get deep water underneath.
When I looked at the aquarium video I realised that it was just an upside-down version
of the paradox and could easily fool an unwitting onlooker.
When someone achieves an ou device it will naturally want to accelerate and this will be the
proof they need. When we start seeing things with brakes or safety cut-outs it'll be time to
take notice.
John.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 02, 2014, 03:03:59 AM
...
** I would agree, this would therefore suggest that the "crux of the matter" is not the lever but how the lever is used, facilitated by its unique design.
You are back full circle to your appeal for a magic OU lever. No such thing exists. Neither you, nor Wayne, nor anyone at HER has shown any evidence that such a thing could exist.
It looks as if we're back to the equation 0 + 0 and then a miracle happens!
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 02, 2014, 05:32:41 AM
I understand your issue with air, and I have stated that the air can be replaced with a suitable material that is non-compressible and the system still works, hence your argument on air is actually one reason a single riser is not the same as a complete system.
If you want to wag the tail of the dog over the air, then in your calculations for a hydraulic lift also include the cost of the engine that runs the hydraulic pump as well as the pump itself and the losses in the hose, and the cost of the fuel for the engine and so on for however ridiculous it needs to become. For the ZED,, drop a weight on top of a piston like TK did.
There is question as to whether or not a buoyant lift is identical to a hydraulic lift, and to make an argument that they are because we have not observed a difference is not valid. Using that argument then the induction process can never happen,, how long were we playing with magnets and metal BEFORE the induction process was observed and used.
Here is a difference that "jumps" right out, with a buoyant lift the volume moved does not need to be the volume of the "float" when a displacement replacement is used. With a hydraulic lift the medium can be brought up to pressure immediately. With a float, work must be performed first. This is to say that the force used for a hydraulic lift has nothing to do with the transfer medium.
In a buoyant lift, what is the transfer medium and what is the work source.
Here we are dealing with a system that can use the multiple risers in what ever condition the operator chooses, that is they can all work together for a common lift or a few can be reduced in potential so that they are offering almost no assistance. This is done by manipulating the buoyancy of each riser.
So with the setup I have defined already what if the outside 3 risers were setup to lift with the whole system at full value but when in descent they are reduced to 1\3 of there buoyant potential. This change does not effect the volume of fluid exiting the system, but it does change the observed load and where that load is observed. The reduction in potential also needs to be remove from the system and can be used.
This buoyancy manipulation is where the system itself gets complex, the setup and the ability for the water levels to be set as such that the direction of movement changes the column heights. All of this setup stuff is beyond my abilities of "doing", but not conceptualization.
TK posted several videos that show the processes that are required to be present for this to work, are present.
In short, the multiple riser system provides an advantage in reduction of volume of working fluid and allows for a re-distribution of forces within the system as such that a smaller weight can be used to apply its force from gravity onto a smaller surface area equaling the pressure needed for recovery.
Webby pick any configuration that you like. Pick a starting condition that you like. Calculate the stored potential energy in the system at your chosen starting point. Cycle the system. Count up all the external work that you apply to the system, and all the work you extract from the system. Keep that up until the system returns to your chosen starting point. Then tally up:
Total internal energy at the start: Qs
Total external energy added: Qa
Total external energy removed: Qr
Total internal energy at the end: Qe
You will find that Qs + Qa = Qr + Qe
Find those notes of yours with the figures on them and we can go through them together.
You may have questions as to terminology such as: buoyant lift, or hydraulic lift. Mostly this seems to be because you are using terms in unconventional ways. The claim is for excess energy. Stick with calculating energy. If you need to calculate forces first to calculate energy, great, then do that. Just make sure that you continue on to the point that you actually calculate energy. See what values you get for: Qs, Qa, Qr and Qe. If you keep stopping short of evaluating energy and evaluate only forces you will never get to a useful answer.
Quote from: webby1 on February 02, 2014, 05:32:41 AM
.................................................
In short, the multiple riser system provides an advantage in reduction of volume of working fluid and allows for a re-distribution of forces within the system as such that a smaller weight can be used to apply its force from gravity onto a smaller surface area equaling the pressure needed for recovery.
Webby,
It might be worthwhile to ask MarkE to explain back to you the paragraph above ( from you earlier today), to solve his energia dilemma.
My guess he hasn't read it or did not comprehend what is written.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: webby1 on February 02, 2014, 07:22:12 AM
MarkE,
I would think that you would be capable of doing that for both systems, a single and a multiple, without needing to build anything "real". Where is that data?
After you get the first set together then you can start to change the riser values, this one a little weak or that one,, you know the drill,, all of this can be done by you with no need to have a real build.
This would provide some evidence in support of your claim, but be careful, I found many setups where lift was terrible and a few where the recovery was less than desired,, even with an O.K. lift.
The thing is, if you ordered a Ferrari and were delivered a Volkswagen I think you would complain, but in the end they are both just a means of transportation and therefore can do the exact same thing.
Webby, it is up to you to show that you have the unusual results you report and that they are not the result of error. You need to provide your data. Otherwise what we have is established understanding which unfortunately goes against your claims, Red's claims, Wayne's claims.
Quote from: webby1 on February 02, 2014, 07:47:06 AM
Actually Red, I do not think that MarkE has run any numbers at all on this,, there are just so many other places for him to poke at if he did, not that they would get him anywhere, but that number 3 riser is interesting.
The statement by MarkE that the two systems are the same is the same one used by the only person to have a go at making a mathematical model of the system.. and they missed the mark really bad, remember Kenshi I think it was,, I mean it was done by the students but the teacher must of made sure of the base assumptions.
We can all take the words of S. Hawking,, the universe is making energy all the time, so sit back and enjoy the free ride,, but then I guess he is not very good in his field,, or maybe just a little soggy or some such
Webby ad hominem attacks are a last resort. Please try and keep the discussion technical.
Can we please keep our facts straight?
1. There were _several_ people who attempted mathematical/spreadsheet models of Travis's kluge. Most were 2-dimensional but there were a few 3-d models. Webby says that the Japanese school class's simulation analysis "missed the mark"... because it showed NO OU!! However, I am afraid that I trust the work of a class full of Japanese engineering students,and their teacher, a lot more than I trust _unsupported claims_ from someone in Oklahoma who lives an hour from the U of Ok's School of Mechanical Engineering campus -- but hasn't had a bunch of grad students from there, swarming over his machine and publishing their PhD theses about it. Or even more _unsupported_ claims from people who haven't even seen what Travis has in person.
2. Travis and others have _claimed_ that the ZEDs would work with two incompressible fluids rather than air and water. NOBODY has ever demonstrated this. Many analyses of what is happening involve the recognition that gas volumes, and hence pressures, can change in the system. So let's try to stay away from the circular arguments, please. It may be that pressures and volume changes aren't important, but this has never been demonstrated, it's just a "Travis says"... so it's a worthless statement in that it has no probative value, so you cannot use it to "prove" that air may be replaced with an incompressible liquid.
Travis says that air can be replaced with incompressible fluids. OK, fine... DEMONSTRATE IT. Show us a perpetually-working system that has NO AIR pockets in it, but rather two different immiscible incompressible fluids, working along, producing excess energy and not stopping when it runs out of "precharge". Go ahead..... should be easy, right? Since Travis tells us so.
Right.
(insert facepalm cartoon here)
MarkE,
A rough calculation from back in time, 3 Sept 2012
////////////////
Gravity powered devices / Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system. It might help you some !
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:16:07 AM »
..........................................
Example;We have a nested lifting device, 4 layers that share the same water displacement volume space but each have their own water column. We can control the total daisy chain water column from its bottom section 'which is the pod area'.
We have it setup that for the limited stroke length only. To stroke we inject water into the pod area to lift the head, that will also rise the heads in the above layers until we have 8psi, then we follow the stroke movement with displacement water for the pod area so it has a base to rise on. The risers have sufficient balanced water in the U-bend for the stroke length without impacting the head heights.
Sample Specs
Total lifting area (risers + pod)= 26031cm2
Control lift area (pod) = 4902
Lift efficiency ratio = Total Lift Area/Pod area
= 26031/4902
= 5.31
Pod efficiency ratio = Pod area / Total Lift area
= 4902/26031
= 18.8%
Virtual displacement water for stroke 3†or 7.5cm
Virtual volume = Displacement volume - Pod volume
= 195.23 â€" 36.78
= 158.5 Ltrs
** The virtual water is non existing water that plays a role as real water as per standard Archimedes
Pod volume ratio = pod volume/displacement volume
= 36.76 / 195.23
= 18.8%
** Pod volume and efficiency ratio’s match
Note: Do not be fooled that this makes this clever layered lifting device over-unity, all what is demonstrated in the figures above is how much less 'displacement' water we need than Archimedes. There is a penalty for the weightless non-existing water. Also do keep in mind that energy is calculated by nature in the 'displacement water weight' and not in the "water of the heads", the heads are a mediator and must be considered as a overhead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL OUTPUT = (RiserWeight + Load) x 3â€
= (1000 + 2000) x .075mtr
= 75 + 150
= 225 KgMtr
NET OUPUT = Load
= 150 KgMtr
RECYCLED OUTPUT = Riserweight
= 75 KgMtr
GROSS INPUT = Recycled + Add-on costs (input referenced to zero level)
= 198 + 99
= 297 KgMtr
** Gross Input figures include adjustment for pressure down to zero level reference (8 psi = 5.62 Mtrs)
GROSS EFFICIENCY = Output/Input (absolute efficiency)
= 225 / 297
= 75.7 %
REAL EFFICIENCY = Load output/ Add-on costs (Effective operational efficiency)
= 150 / 97
= 155 %
** Real efficiency is the load output received minus the cost we need to pay
Please Note: Figures should be accurate within a 5-10% margin either way. The figures listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device. No overheads incurred by mechanical or other losses have been included.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on February 01, 2014, 06:01:57 PM
Mondrasek, I am sorry if I my replies have been too brief for you.
I hope that we agree that the volumes of the two pipes are respectively: pi * 7.5 m^3 for the 1m diameter diameter pipe and pi * 30 m^3 for the 2m diameter pipe, a volume ratio of 4:1, ie the ratio of the cross-section areas.
I hope that we agree that the pressure at any height within each of the two pipes is identical. Therefore if we were to connect the pipes they would naturally equalize to the same height.
From your statements above, it appears that you agree that the energy required to fill each pipe is the energy available to extract by emptying each pipe, and that the relative energy we can store as GPE of water in the larger pipe is four times that which we can store in the smaller pipe owing to the relative mass being 4:1 and the heights being the same.
I hope that it is also obvious that we will gain / lose identically four times the water height in the 1m pipe for each increment height we would lose / gain moving water from the wider pipe or to the wider pipe. IOW, moving water between the pipes offers no gain or loss in total energy stored by the pair.
TinselKoala has recently relinked two of his videos done about two years ago. In the latter video he dealt with Archimedes' Paradox, which really isn't much of a paradox at all. In fact it is just Archimedes' Principle at work. It is the very mechanism that Grimer took advantage of when measuring the volume of his concrete samples in that story he likes to tell. In the video, TinselKoala had a flask that contained: water, and another flask held down in the water by a rigid stand. The larger flask with water in it was supported by a weigh scale, while the rigid stand was independently supported on the table. TinselKoala showed that the weigh scale indicated 380g initially, and that after removing the larger flask and returning the water to its original height, the scale indicated 382g, a value within ~0.5% of the original. IOW within experimental error, the upward force exerted by the water with the smaller flask inserted was identically the weight of the equivalent displaced water, even though as shown in the middle of the video the weight of the initial water volume + flask was only 200g. Had the flasks been a tighter match even less initial water would have been needed. Now if we go back to Grimer's story, his concrete object had an SG greater than 1 so he could hang it in his flask. And as long as it did not touch the bottom, the effect of submerging it, just as TinselKoala submerged his flask was to displace an equivalent weight of water as the volume of the concrete sample. In other words: a fluid exerts a force against anything that displaces volume within the fluid equal to the weight of an equal volume of the fluid. The paradox, which IMO is no paradox at all, is that the displaced volume: the "hole", can vastly exceed the volume of the fluid that surrounds the displaced volume.
The other video that TinselKoala linked showed that using a tube filled with air to connect to vessels of water under static conditions results in the water level being the same within each end of the tube that is submerged in each vessel. That tube of air is equivalent to the air pockets that connect the various concentric cylinders in the ZED.
I hope this explains things for you. But if it does not, by all means ask any questions you like and I will be happy to add to the explanations.
MarkE, thanks for taking the time to write all that up, but it was not necessary. I do understand all those concepts and didn't mean to have you go through that effort.
You missed my point that was made after my train of thought that you again summarized in your post. That point was:
To get more out than in (work/energy) from a ZED I think it would need to be shown that the nested riser arrangement can produce an output integral of force x distance that is greater than the input force x distance. Or not, of course. One way to do that may be to fix an input pressure and volume (to simply comparisons) and then see if different proportions and layers of ZED construction will result in exactly the same output pressure/2 x stroke. This (I think) can be calculated relatively easily.Later I also explained that I believe this is a way to possibly test the assertion that the ZED stroke can be simplified to a simple hydraulic cylinder. If it can, your logic and analysis, and that of the Japanese Engineering class, are correct for that substitution. But if a ZED does not act exactly as a hydraulic cylinder, those analyses are in error (but the assertion that the ZED systems is OU is in no way proved). I'm interested to know if you, and anyone else, agree? I also welcome anyone who would like to do these maths as I don't look forward to doing them myself! But I would only go that far if it were agreed that such a mathematical analysis is a valid test.
M.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 02, 2014, 09:16:48 AM
Can we please keep our facts straight?
..........................................................
TinselKoala,
After 2 years, we are still circling around the same issues and posts.
The real standing fact is that it is impossible to proof that someone "Doesn't have something" from a distance
It was the same for Saddam Hussein when he was cornered by the GW Bush gang.
They knew very well that a proof couldn't be provided, since "nothing" can never be produced, it is intangible
So as I said in previous posts, approach the issue from a positive "there is something" angle instead of the negative "there is nothing " angle, that is by default doomed.
I think you are outfoxed
Red_Sunset
No, Red, you STILL don't get it.
It is the responsibility of the CLAIMANT to provide positive proof of his claims which go against all of known physics. If he refuses or for some other reason cannot or does not do so, then the rational position is that the claims are false UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE by the claimant.
Simulations do not provide the required positive PROOF because, as I'm sure you will agree, the simulations all "assume" that physics is correct, and for a Travis device to produce OU then physics must not be correct or complete. We have given illustrations from known physics that _prove_ that the various individual steps in Travis's scheme are all underunity. So at this point it becomes necessary for the proponents like yourself to provide _actual demonstrations_, not sims or calculations based on incorrect assumptions, that support the contentions. So far, none has been presented, not by Travis, not by Webby, and certainly not by you.
Outfoxed? Hardly.... since I am right -- and can demonstrate each and every bit of my contentions, and have done so repeatedly -- and you are wrong, having presented exactly ZERO experimental evidence of your own.
Please help, anyone? Is there a drawing to accompany Sunset's post 849?
What info would the Japanese students have had to do their evaluation?
If it's as good as Sunset says, surely it can't fail to work.
John
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 02, 2014, 10:23:14 AM
No, Red, you STILL don't get it.
...........................................
TinselKoala,
Don't worry, I get it allright.
I know that my previous post was cheeky, reason was that I am getting bored, I hope I didn't offend you.
The problem is that I wouldn't dare to post anything new, because I know the reception is going to be "anti" instead of inquisitive and followed by a lot of typical accusation. So I put myself on the sidelines, not a great incentive.
I have tried a new approach by separation of the real test machine from a theoretical concept in order to give myself at least the possibility to get a start, but to no avail. Even a temporary assumption of a "magic lever" was taken into mockery. The whole Wayne and Travis history immediately gets pulled into center stage at every turn.
So not much possibilities for any dialog. So we just play....and play....
Red_Sunset
If I may ask, why has Wayne Travis ZED taken over the thread that was started for the Renato Ribeira device.
Nobody has any interest in this device any longer ?
Does that indicate that the Wayne Travis ZED has more appeal, is more mysterious or provides a greater enticing complexity, or it is the device that broke the OU barrier (even most likely) ?
Red_Sunset
QuoteThe problem is that I wouldn't dare to post anything new, because I know the reception is going to be "anti" instead of inquisitive and followed by a lot of typical accusation.
Try posting some _real data_ that supports your contentions for a change, and see what the reception is.
But you have no real data to post, and what you do post is contradicted by elementary physics. No wonder you get "anti" receptions.
Renato's just waiting for the 50kw motor and 500:1 reduction gearbox to see if it
will rotate, then he's in business!
John.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 02, 2014, 11:20:13 AM
If I may ask, why has Wayne Travis ZED taken over the thread that was started for the Renato Ribeira device.
Nobody has any interest in this device any longer ?
The device was supposed to be completely finished months ago, wasn't it? So since there is no new data, no videos of it running... what is there to be interested in? I would love to see a video of it running, but I'm not holding my breath. Are you?
Quote
Does that indicate that the Wayne Travis ZED has more appeal, is more mysterious or provides a greater enticing complexity, or it is the device that broke the OU barrier (even most likely) ?
Red_Sunset
No, it indicates that the Travis material has more "meat" to it, and has defenders like yourself who try to justify Travis's claims and who are willing to discuss it. Travis is trying to make money, and he's presented several bogus demonstrations where things move, at least. We haven't seen anything but still photos of a non-moving but very complicated and expensive object from the Ribiero crew. And that's all we will ever see of it, too. After all, it has been "completed" for a couple of months now, hasn't it?
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 02, 2014, 12:22:21 PM
The device was supposed to be completely finished months ago, wasn't it? So since there is no new data, no videos of it running... what is there to be interested in? I would love to see a video of it running, but I'm not holding my breath. Are you?
No, it indicates that the Travis material has more "meat" to it, and has defenders like yourself who try to justify Travis's claims and who are willing to discuss it. Travis is trying to make money, and he's presented several bogus demonstrations where things move, at least. We haven't seen anything but still photos of a non-moving but very complicated and expensive object from the Ribiero crew. And that's all we will ever see of it, too. After all, it has been "completed" for a couple of months now, hasn't it?
TK,
So you don't separate concept theory from physical implementation ?
1.. You see a believable video demonstration of a ZED and/or Renato's device. what difference would that make, you still don't understand how they got it to work ?
2.. In opposition, you understand how it works and how it could work. That the physical device is not build yet, sure would leave some doubt but knowing that it can work, it is just a matter of engineering technology to finalize the last step.
3.. A physical implementation can take on many different approaches to achieve the design objective.
So from my viewpoint, notwithstanding that the physical implementation of an idea is the cherry proof on top of the idea, it will always be secondary to the idea concept itself.
So without the working concept idea, you are nowhere because it is primary, so why this obsession with the demo proof ?
Red_Sunset
Quote from: minnie on February 02, 2014, 12:18:20 PM
Renato's just waiting for the 50kw motor and 500:1 reduction gearbox to see if it
will rotate, then he's in business!
John.
Is this a joke or real information?
If it is real, we are in for a many year discussion. It is not trivial to measure if a machine which is driven by a 50 kw motor puts out more than 50 kw.
Even if the 50 kw motor is switched of after some time, the machine could keep moving for hours with that enormous initial boost.
Greetings, Conrad
Sorry, it was meant to be a joke and I never imagined anyone would take it seriously.
I honestly believe it'll take a fair bit of cranking up.
John.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 02, 2014, 09:22:39 AM
MarkE,
A rough calculation from back in time, 3 Sept 2012
////////////////
Gravity powered devices / Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system. It might help you some !
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:16:07 AM »
..........................................
Example;We have a nested lifting device, 4 layers that share the same water displacement volume space but each have their own water column. We can control the total daisy chain water column from its bottom section 'which is the pod area'.
We have it setup that for the limited stroke length only. To stroke we inject water into the pod area to lift the head, that will also rise the heads in the above layers until we have 8psi, then we follow the stroke movement with displacement water for the pod area so it has a base to rise on. The risers have sufficient balanced water in the U-bend for the stroke length without impacting the head heights.
Sample Specs
Total lifting area (risers + pod)= 26031cm2
Control lift area (pod) = 4902
Lift efficiency ratio = Total Lift Area/Pod area
= 26031/4902
= 5.31
Assigning area ratios as efficiency is a very strange thing to do because area is not a conserved quantity. I hope you are not just tossing out calculations just for appearance.
Quote
Pod efficiency ratio = Pod area / Total Lift area
= 4902/26031
= 18.8%
Virtual displacement water for stroke 3†or 7.5cm
Virtual volume = Displacement volume - Pod volume
= 195.23 â€" 36.78
= 158.5 Ltrs
** The virtual water is non existing water that plays a role as real water as per standard Archimedes
Pod volume ratio = pod volume/displacement volume
= 36.76 / 195.23
= 18.8%
** Pod volume and efficiency ratio’s match
Note: Do not be fooled that this makes this clever layered lifting device over-unity, all what is demonstrated in the figures above is how much less 'displacement' water we need than Archimedes.
Are we back to the silly claim that Archimedes' Principle does not apply to all cases of any body immersed in a fluid? Such was a silly claim made in the videos where it has been shown that the videos did nothing of the kind.
Quote
There is a penalty for the weightless non-existing water. Also do keep in mind that energy is calculated by nature in the 'displacement water weight' and not in the "water of the heads", the heads are a mediator and must be considered as a overhead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL OUTPUT = (RiserWeight + Load) x 3â€
= (1000 + 2000) x .075mtr
= 75 + 150
= 225 KgMtr
NET OUPUT = Load
= 150 KgMtr
RECYCLED OUTPUT = Riserweight
= 75 KgMtr
GROSS INPUT = Recycled + Add-on costs (input referenced to zero level)
= 198 + 99
= 297 KgMtr
** Gross Input figures include adjustment for pressure down to zero level reference (8 psi = 5.62 Mtrs)
GROSS EFFICIENCY = Output/Input (absolute efficiency)
= 225 / 297
= 75.7 %
REAL EFFICIENCY = Load output/ Add-on costs (Effective operational efficiency)
= 150 / 97
= 155 %
** Real efficiency is the load output received minus the cost we need to pay
Please Note: Figures should be accurate within a 5-10% margin either way. The figures listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device. No overheads incurred by mechanical or other losses have been included.
Red_Sunset
In the normal world efficiency is a measure of result versus cost. It applies very well to conserved quantities such as energy. Under the restrictive condition of continuous average power, efficiency also makes sense. Efficiency has little or no meaning comparing quantities that are not conserved: discontinuous power, force, distance, area, volume, color hue, color saturation, relative humidity, barometric pressure, etc, etc.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 02, 2014, 09:46:19 AM
MarkE, thanks for taking the time to write all that up, but it was not necessary. I do understand all those concepts and didn't mean to have you go through that effort.
You missed my point that was made after my train of thought that you again summarized in your post. That point was:
To get more out than in (work/energy) from a ZED I think it would need to be shown that the nested riser arrangement can produce an output integral of force x distance that is greater than the input force x distance. Or not, of course. One way to do that may be to fix an input pressure and volume (to simply comparisons) and then see if different proportions and layers of ZED construction will result in exactly the same output pressure/2 x stroke. This (I think) can be calculated relatively easily.
Later I also explained that I believe this is a way to possibly test the assertion that the ZED stroke can be simplified to a simple hydraulic cylinder. If it can, your logic and analysis, and that of the Japanese Engineering class, are correct for that substitution. But if a ZED does not act exactly as a hydraulic cylinder, those analyses are in error (but the assertion that the ZED systems is OU is in no way proved). I'm interested to know if you, and anyone else, agree? I also welcome anyone who would like to do these maths as I don't look forward to doing them myself! But I would only go that far if it were agreed that such a mathematical analysis is a valid test.
M.
Mondrasek, your assertion sounds like: "To get surplus energy out of a ZED it would need to be shown that the underlying mechanism can produce such a surplus." In a world of linear superposition, we can decompose machines into their elements. What TinselKoala's demonstrations have shown is that each of the elements is unable to produce a surplus. What proponents of the ZED claim but have never successfully shown is that the whole of a ZED magically takes a series of under unity processes and generates an over unity result. For series processes that is mathematically impossible. Multiply any quantity by a value between zero and one and the result is a smaller quantity. Where there some pneumatic or hydraulic process that is over unity, that process is the thing that people should want to find. People promoting Wayne Travis' and HER's claims have routinely made representations that are outright false, claiming among other things that Archimedes' Principle can somehow be cheated. Red_Sunset just returned to that same theme that was claimed by Tom Miller in the aquarium videos that visibly refuted his statements.
There are basically three phenomena at work in the ZED: Hydraulic piston, pneumatic spring, and buoyancy. Each of these phenomena have been shown countless times to obey conservation of energy in the ideal case and to be lossy in all real cases. What the Japanese engineering class did correctly was reduce the machine to those elements and group like elements which is completely valid. If we place two air pockets between three hydraulic pistons, we can reduce the whole thing to one hydraulic piston and one air pocket and get the same net results, which they did.
Quote from: MarkE on February 02, 2014, 05:08:59 PM
Mondrasek, your assertion sounds like: "To get surplus energy out of a ZED it would need to be shown that the underlying mechanism can produce such a surplus." In a world of linear superposition, we can decompose machines into their elements. What TinselKoala's demonstrations have shown is that each of the elements is unable to produce a surplus. What proponents of the ZED claim but have never successfully shown is that the whole of a ZED magically takes a series of under unity processes and generates an over unity result. For series processes that is mathematically impossible. Multiply any quantity by a value between zero and one and the result is a smaller quantity. Where there some pneumatic or hydraulic process that is over unity, that process is the thing that people should want to find. People promoting Wayne Travis' and HER's claims have routinely made representations that are outright false, claiming among other things that Archimedes' Principle can somehow be cheated. Red_Sunset just returned to that same theme that was claimed by Tom Miller in the aquarium videos that visibly refuted his statements.
There are basically three phenomena at work in the ZED: Hydraulic piston, pneumatic spring, and buoyancy. Each of these phenomena have been shown countless times to obey conservation of energy in the ideal case and to be lossy in all real cases. What the Japanese engineering class did correctly was reduce the machine to those elements and group like elements which is completely valid. If we place two air pockets between three hydraulic pistons, we can reduce the whole thing to one hydraulic piston and one air pocket and get the same net results, which they did.
And so another "proof" of the claim that the ZED is correctly modeled by a simple hydraulic cylinder adds nothing in support of your position? You appear to keep trying to dissuade me (or anyone for that matter) from doing the maths that can neither prove OU, or support you claim. That, sir, I do not understand at all!
I would think that you would say something like, "By all means! Please do the maths!" Even if you do not add the implied, "It will only again confirm everything I have said!"
Again, I do not understand your position or hesitation at all.
Is the mathematical test I proposed a valid one? If not, why?
There are two question in the previous sentence. Will you answer them simply?
Cheers,
M.
Thank you Red for your previous input on my 'notes' a few pages back - we are back to where it ended 2 years ago on the original HER thread - all positions have been consistent.
......................................................................
ATEOTD :
'Energy' is defined as the 'Capacity to do Work' - this in the mechanical sense for the HER & RAR illustrations.
'Energy' is the "currency" for mechanical analysis & budgeting purposes, including OU potential.
If Mr Wayne has a machine that doesn't consume fuel or introduce another form of environmental energy into the system, & this machine is self-sustaining whilst doing work, then we have a few possibilities.
1. that induced pressure changes & how the derivative forces are applied can lead to 'un-equilibrium of forces' [ectropy] in a closed system - all other known systems reach an equilibrium of forces [entropy] - sustained ectropy as a natural state would suggest that WEEP is a physics fallacy.
It also suggests that Mr Wayne has found & harnessed a mechanical Maxwell's Demon.
2. that gravity force is not conservative.
3. that gravity acceleration is not constant.
4. that a gravity field/gradient is an energy gradient where energy can be extracted to do work [see 2. & 3.]
- add to list as you see fit -
FWIW :
Webby wonders whether buoyancy lift is the same as hydraulic lift - a hydraulic lift that uses weight force to depress a plunger & lift a piston & load elsewhere relies on Pascal's Law of undiminished pressure transfer - as long as the Effort weight force can raise the Load weight force, & as long as the plunger lengths are sufficiently long, & as long as the volume of fluid transferred is equal in volume, then we see that there is no net gain or loss in the Pe of the system as far as the Effort to Load is concerned, with the addition of a small activation force to cause movement - work is performed however.
Since there is no change in system Pe then it is the same as Archimedes Law of Flotation where average density & Pe is constant - i.e. adding a weight force to increase pressure in a hydraulic situation is the same as adding more head to a system.
IMO, both lift capabilities are the same.
It is simple to remember that Flotation is a function of gravity & occurs where gravity force acts on both the fluid [or air] medium & the lesser density object in it with an equal acceleration & the higher density fluid sinks down below the lesser density object floating it.
Just my opinions.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 02, 2014, 05:28:24 PM
And so another "proof" of the claim that the ZED is correctly modeled by a simple hydraulic cylinder adds nothing in support of your position? You appear to keep trying to dissuade me (or anyone for that matter) from doing the maths that can neither prove OU, or support you claim. That, sir, I do not understand at all!
I would think that you would say something like, "By all means! Please do the maths!" Even if you do not add the implied, "It will only again confirm everything I have said!"
Again, I do not understand your position or hesitation at all.
Is the mathematical test I proposed a valid one? If not, why?
There are two question in the previous sentence. Will you answer them simply?
Cheers,
M.
Mondrasek I encourage anyone who think that HER's claims have a chance to do the energy balance math. That means computing energy values, not stopping at comparing things like area or force as some have done. What I have pointed out is that once the math is done by anyone who does it all the result will not show over unity because the overall process is the product of a series of under unity processes.
Quote from: fletcher on February 02, 2014, 06:10:02 PM
Thank you Red for your previous input on my 'notes' a few pages back - we are back to where it ended 2 years ago on the original HER thread - all positions have been consistent.
......................................................................
It also suggests that Mr Wayne has found & harnessed a mechanical Maxwell's Demon.
2. that gravity force is not conservative.
3. that gravity acceleration is not constant.
4. that a gravity field/gradient is an energy gradient where energy can be extracted to do work [see 2. & 3.]
Fetcher,
Your theoretical viewpoint and Maxwell's equations are based on, and describe a symmetrical and unified universal system universe (the objective of Maxwell in the first place), the natural flow of he universe has confirmed this by observation for more than 150 yrs since Maxwell made that same conclusion.
What Travis developed is not a symmetrical device, it give you the capability to modify natural ratio without having to change key parameters. With those key differences, the same rules therefore do not exactly apply here.
Your reaction will be Woooowh, stop here.
Ok, lets step back and agree first on some very basic premises, if you can not agree, then there is no point to go further.
Please provide your answers to each line item.
1.. In hydraulics, same as in buoyancy, the force applied to a piston or float object is directly related to the H area ?
Yes or no
2.. The total force developed is the "force = area * pressure"
yes or no
3.. The energy required for a certain PE is "Energy = force * distance = area * pressure * distance"
yes or no
4.. Now we have a hydraulic/hydro type device that has several lift area's of varying sizes, each with their associated pressure columns.
a.. The pressure stack is a serial stack
b.. The displacement area is a integrated volume area (volume shares are overlaid)
c.. The device is operated over a fixed distance due to pre-provisioning.
d.. With a fixed lift distance, so is the displacement volume
e.. The displacement volume area is a virtual subset of the overall displacement volume.
Yes or no
5.. Energy requirement with a constant stroke volume is dependent on input pressure.
Yes or no
So this is the magical device, what is magical about it ?
To be continued after we find some common ground
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 12:21:52 AM
Fetcher,
Your theoretical viewpoint and Maxwell's equations are based on, and describe a symmetrical and unified universal system universe (the objective of Maxwell in the first place), the natural flow of he universe has confirmed this by observation for more than 150 yrs since Maxwell made the same conclusion.
The Travis developed is not a symmetrical device, it give you the capability to modify natural ratio without having to change key parameters. With those key differences, the same rules therefore do not exactly apply here.
Your reaction will be Woooowh, stop here.
Ok, lets step back and agree first on some very basic premises, if you can not agree, then there is no point to go further.
Please provide your answers to each line item.
1.. In hydraulics, same as in buoyancy, the force applied to a piston or float object is directly related to the area ?
Yes or no
2.. The total force developed is the "force = area * pressure"
yes or no
3.. The energy required for a certain PE is "Energy = force * distance = area * pressure * distance"
yes or no
4.. Now we have a hydraulic/hydro type device that has several lift area's of varying sizes, each with their associated pressure columns.
a.. The pressure stack is a serial stack
b.. The displacement area is a integrated volume area (volume shares are overlaid)
c.. The device is operated over a fixed distance due to pre-provisioning.
d.. With a fixed lift distance, so is the displacement volume
e.. The displacement volume area is a virtual subset of the overall displacement volume.
Yes or no
5.. Energy requirement with a constant stroke volume is dependent on input pressure.
Yes or no
So this is the magical device, what is magical about it ?
To be continued after we find some common ground
Red_Sunset
Why not just measure the energy in the purported magic energy machine? Only three outcomes are possible: More is measured going in than comes out, or the same amount is measured going in as coming out, or less is measured going in than coming out.
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 01:05:56 AM
Why not just measure the energy in the purported magic energy machine? Only three outcomes are possible: More is measured going in than comes out, or the same amount is measured going in as coming out, or less is measured going in than coming out.
MarkE & All,
Quite right, that is a test you can do later on, once you have created your theoretical model or physical replica.
At that point we can also argue about the correct test procedures, how it is measured, the tolerances....ect.
But we are not that far as yet, because what is the point to build one when you can not represent your output gain expectations in theoretical format. This makes building a quite risky and therefore expensive endeavor.
The 3 point format proposed to LibreEnergia is the best logical way to proceed, including sub steps
RE: Post #868A CALL to put your money where your mouth is, I am calling your bluff !
My objective is to prove to ALL SKEPTICS who have represented themselves on this forum , to eat their words. (at least that is the intent)
So in order to proceed, I need the acknowledgement of all skeptic members listed below, for all line items shown.
A "yes" or "no" or "don't know" or "impossible" or "maybe" are all valid answers.
We have 6 days remaining because by that time I will be at the bottom of Africa with only intermittent internet access
Mandatory detailed response needed from1., MarkE
2.. TinselKoala
3.. Mile High
4.. PowerCat
5.. EnergiaLibre
6.. Fletcher
and anybody who wants to participate is welcome to do so.
Proxy assignment is allowed, but must be declared.
Any disagreement on any point in any step will be clarified before we move to the next step
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 03:52:55 AM
MarkE & All,
Quite right, that is a test you can do later on, once you have created your theoretical model or physical replica.
At that point we can also argue about the correct test procedures, how it is measured, the tolerances....ect.
But we are not that far as yet, because what is the point to build one when you can not represent your output gain expectations in theoretical format. This makes building a quite risky and therefore expensive endeavor.
The 3 point format proposed to LibreEnergia is the best logical way to proceed, including sub steps
My objective is to prove to ALL SKEPTICS who have represented themselves on this forum , to eat their words. (at least that is the intent)
So in order to proceed, I need the acknowledgement of all skeptic members listed below, for all line items shown.
A "yes" or "no" or "don't know" or "impossible" or "maybe" are all valid answers.
We have 6 days remaining because by that time I will be at the bottom of Africa with only intermittent internet access
Mandatory detailed response needed from
1., MarkE
2.. TinselKoala
3.. Mile High
4.. PowerCat
5.. EnergiaLibre
6.. Fletcher
and anybody who wants to participate is welcome to do so.
Any disagreement on any point in any step will be clarified before we move to the next step
Red_Sunset
The burden of proof falls on those making extraordinary claims. You are free to back your extraordinary claims of excess energy by offering commensurate evidence instead of the hand waving offered to date. If you want skeptics to eat their words, provide proof. You never do. Wayne never does. No one at or supporting HER ever has. The ball has been in your court for a long, long time now.
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 03:59:58 AM
The burden of proof falls on those making extraordinary claims. You are free to back your extraordinary claims of excess energy by offering commensurate evidence instead of the hand waving offered to date. If you want skeptics to eat their words, provide proof. You never do. Wayne never does. No one at or supporting HER ever has. The ball has been in your court for a long, long time now.
MarkE,
YOU CLEARLY DO NOT WANT ANY PROOF in ANY FORM or SHAPE.
I do understand you do not like to be proven wrong, because you know you would be !
Not participating will disallow you to provide input "for or against"
You can always opt out at any step if you so choose, otherwise
no problem ,.... bye ..bye
Red_Sunset
Sunset,
now you're just coming across as a complete *****.
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 03, 2014, 04:43:27 AM
Sunset,
now you're just coming across as a complete *****.
John.
Hi John,
Just trying out different approaches, lets see where it leads.
I thought peace meal bits will be best, and build on principles agreed upon.
Red_Sunset
some study on this
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 04:08:10 AM
MarkE,
YOU CLEARLY DO NOT WANT ANY PROOF in ANY FORM or SHAPE.
I do understand you do not like to be proven wrong, because you know you would be !
Not participating will disallow you to provide input "for or against"
You can always opt out at any step if you so choose, otherwise
no problem ,.... bye ..bye
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset as I have consistently said: You are welcome and encouraged to provide evidence that supports your extraordinary claims anytime that you like. So far you have chosen not to do so.
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 05:43:20 AM
Red_Sunset as I have consistently said: You are welcome and encouraged to provide evidence that supports your extraordinary claims anytime that you like. So far you have chosen not to do so.
MarkE,
Here it is, the first installment of what you have been looking for.
I considered a gradual structured release advisable because of he release of new concepts that have been misunderstood and in the past have been used to turn into mockery.
You might want something else....understood, but what I can give you is started with post #868.
or choose to carry on with "So far you have chosen not to do so."
It doesn't matter to me, I am just calling your bluff !
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 05:59:00 AM
MarkE,
Here it is, the first installment of what you have been looking for.
I considered a gradual structured release advisable because of he release of new concepts that have been misunderstood and in the past have been used to turn into mockery.
You might want something else....understood, but what I can give you is started with post #868.
or choose to carry on with "So far you have chosen not to do so."
It doesn't matter to me, I am just calling your bluff !
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, evidence for excess energy only requires that you calculate the four energy values:
Starting energy, added energy, removed energy, and ending energy upon return to the original starting condition. If the sum of removed and ending energies exceed the sum of starting and added energies then you've got a gain. If not, you've broken even or got a loss.
Anytime that you would like to start providing those
energy values you are welcome to do so.
Quote from: wings on February 03, 2014, 05:41:50 AM
some study on this
Wings,
The encyclopedia of perpetual motion machines, sure a lot can be learned from them.
There is a major difference between traditional thinking (as seen here on OU.com) and the Travis Effect concept.
Traditionally you would rely on a natural effect to get you over the sticky point, no not possible. Inputting energy to pull it over is also useless. No gain there!
MarkE & TK and others who are "hard of hearing" are still thinking the same way, energy in , energy store, produce more energy...finding energy from environment.......or 0+0=0.....ect... no..no....no !. No floating floats from great depth to the surface ....ect. It will never work, or so it has shown over hundreds of years. The principle is too crude and head-on, it cost too much !
The Travis Effect, is a different approach >> Do a natural action, nature's forces will respond within its standard framework, governed by its laws. change the key parameters and nature's forces will respond also within its standard framework, governed by its laws.
But this time round to our advantage.
Low cost because the interference is not direct head-on pushing something over the sticky point. It is an elegant and clever solution.
No laws are broken
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 06:22:26 AM
Wings,
The encyclopedia of perpetual motion machines, sure a lot can be learned from them.
There is a major difference between traditional thinking (as seen here on OU.com) and the Travis Effect concept.
Traditionally you would rely on a natural effect to get you over the sticky point, no not possible. Inputting energy to pull it over is also useless. No gain there!
MarkE & TK and others who ar3e hard of hearing are still thinking the same way, energy in , energy store, produce more energy....or 0+0=0.....ect... no..no....no !. No floating floats from great depth to the surface ....ect. It will never work, or so it has shown over hundreds of years. The principle is too crude
The Travis Effect, a different approach >> Do a natural action, nature's forces will respond within its standard framework, governed by its laws. change the key parameters and nature's forces will respond also within its standard framework, governed by its laws.
But this time round to our advantage.
No laws are broken
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset and what specifically is the "Travis Effect"? Tom Miller's aquarium videos only managed to demonstrate Archimedes' Principle at work. Yet, he kept saying that he was demonstrating a "Travis Effect". While you are preparing to perform energy calculations, please be so kind as to describe what this "Travis Effect" you keep referring to is. Please explain how it is different than the ordinary Archimedes' Principle that Tom kept demonstrating in his five aquarium videos.
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 06:31:17 AM
Red_Sunset and what specifically is the "Travis Effect"? Tom Miller's aquarium videos only managed to demonstrate Archimedes' Principle at work. Yet, he kept saying that he was demonstrating a "Travis Effect". While you are preparing to perform energy calculations, please be so kind as to describe what this "Travis Effect" you keep referring to is. Please explain how it is different than the ordinary Archimedes' Principle that Tom kept demonstrating in his five aquarium videos.
MarkE, Message modified @ 12:24 GMT
Lets not complicate matters, it is pretty much what I was preparing to explain to you and where your participation has been requested. An educational enlightening journey, if you want to subscribe to it.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, sadly the Harry Potter stories were merely tales of fiction. There are no magic wands for Wayne, and he has been unable to demonstrate any magic or for that matter any remarkable behavior.
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 07:22:39 AM
Red_Sunset, sadly the Harry Potter stories were merely tales of fiction. There are no magic wands for Wayne, and he has been unable to demonstrate any magic or for that matter any remarkable behavior.
MarkE, the storyteller got a bit carried away with the pen.
The modification has been applied.
My apologies, Red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 07:28:06 AM
MarkE, the storyteller got a bit carried away with the pen.
The modification has been applied.
My apologies, Red
Red_Sunset there is no need to go down a garden path. Either you can describe this so-called "Travis Effect", or you can't. Perhaps you can do better than Tom Miller who demonstrated Archimedes' Principle over and over claiming that those demonstrations showed a unique "Travis Effect" that somehow did something better than Archimedes' Principle. Poor Tom kept suffering the from the odd idea that air in an inverted cup is responsible for the buoyant force exerted by water around the cup. Let's hope that you can do better than that.
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 07:54:22 AM
Red_Sunset there is no need to go down a garden path. Either you can describe this so-called "Travis Effect", or you can't. Perhaps you can do better than Tom Miller who demonstrated Archimedes' Principle over and over claiming that those demonstrations showed a unique "Travis Effect" that somehow did something better than Archimedes' Principle. Poor Tom kept suffering the from the odd idea that air in an inverted cup is responsible for the buoyant force exerted by water around the cup. Let's hope that you can do better than that.
MarkE,
You are incorrigible and start to sound unnecessary repetitive. Your perceived misunderstanding were clarified in earlier posts but you seem to like that things remain unresolved. That outlook is not conducive towards advancing in understanding.
The ball is your court and waiting for you and the incorrigible others to demonstrate their action.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on
September 08, 2012, 07:42:35 AM[/size]
Quote
Gents,
Goodbye until there is a drastic change in this forum
I have nothing to gain or loose for being on this forum and I can no longer justify my time to be here
I start to be bothered by questions such as,
Why am I here ? taking time typing explanations, some philosophy ...ect, to what purpose? when I can be spending my time on a better and more productive purpose. I think I have full-filled my obligations in context with this forum (as repayment to previous gains)
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335395/#msg335395
Isn't it time you left again, your old posts are so entertaining and show you regurgitating the same old arguments, like the one where everybody has to prove to you why Wayne travesties device can't produce OU, it's the only argument you have, as you can't produce any genuine evidence of a working device.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 08:18:29 AM
MarkE,
You are incorrigible and start to sound unnecessary repetitive. Your perceived misunderstanding were clarified in earlier posts but you seem to like that things remain unresolved. That outlook is not conducive towards advancing in understanding.
The ball is your court and waiting for you and the incorrigible others to demonstrate their action.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset: The extraordinary claim of excess energy production remains yours to evidence. All you need do is perform those energy calculations: Energy at the start of a cycle, energy added during a cycle, energy removed during a cycle, and energy remaining at the end of a cycle where all elements of the machine have returned to their respective starting positions. Likewise, the extraordinary claim of the existence of a magical "Travis Effect" remains yours to evidence where Tom Miller fell down. The ball is and has been in your court. Pick it up or continue to ignore it as you please.
We've got a few facts. Obviously the Boy Scout ZED didn't work,Mark Dansie was never
able to validate it.
Then we had the Tilt a Zed, that was never validated as far as I know.
Then there was talk of a Rotary ZED and a flat pack ZED.
It's no use us trying to find anything there because even Travis hasn't been able to.
Sunset must have details of the mark V which obviously works. We could do well
to concentrate our efforts on that one!
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 03, 2014, 12:30:46 PM
The ZED "working" as in going up an down, has never been a question, it is whether or not the external accumulator maintained its charge while running the ZED's and supplying for some other output or if that charge itself diminishes as the system operates.
Yes Webby - I think we all realize that tipping water in the outer annular ring will increase the head - most of us are sure that pods etc can't rise unless additional water volume is allowed into the cavity beneath the pod so that it can raise full height - this is volume substitution to allow piston travel.
What I suspect is that there might be some fudging around how that extra water from the accumulator enters that cavity - if the head pressure is increased, & all water communicates, & pressure with depth is linear, then the greatest pressure is near the bottom of the cavity - on opening a gate valve the water must be pumped in to the cavity overcoming the force of the water pressure at the depth of entry.
We know this because of experiments of tanks of water where a hole is punched in the side - water exits horizontally at velocity proportional to depth - IOW's, a packet of water dropped vertically a given height will have the same velocity & Ke as the same packet exiting horizontally under pressure from the hole in the vertical side of the tank at that same height.
N.B. in many hydraulic PM ideas where floats enter tanks at depth etc thru water tight 'gates or seals' this back pressure & energy requirement is often forgotten - whether it is or is not in this case I can not say.
Red .. no arguments in setting your parameters & assumptions for your model.
lol, my bad - I should have included the "work around" in my list to add to, though it lacks any scientific ring to it.
All joking aside, I would like to know how your new paradigm is described in physics terms - I feel a rewrite coming on.
In the mean time, I'm going to have to gazump you - I'm making like a bald man & out of here shortly for the rest of the month on business - no internet connection where I'm going either.
Present your case !
Quote from: webby1 on February 03, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
MarkE,
I took the time to remind myself that I am usually wrong.
With that, I stepped back through what I have been doing and keep arriving at the same point, so the way I am using the formulas must be incorrect and that is leading me to where I am.
If you could walk me through a simple comparison I would appreciate it.
Choose the dimensions so that it is simple, and please use 10 times the height to diameter.
4 identical cylinders with the top sealed.
2 use a displacement replacement device an 2 do not.
All 4 are fully submerged and all 4 start from the same platform or depth.
The displacement replacement device is also set on this platform and does not move.
1 of each cylinder is raised 10 percent of the height of the cylinder, held firm in place and the volume available in each cylinder is filled with air.
From here I transfer the air from the raised cylinders into the lower cylinders and at this time I allow the displacement replacement cylinder to raise to accommodate the air volume.
Webby just draw a picture and apply your numbers. Calculate the four energies: Energy stored at the start, energy added, energy removed, and energy stored at the end when all elements of the machine have returned to the starting condition. Once you show that sketch with your calculations, then we can easily review them together.
Quote from: webby1 on February 03, 2014, 04:08:26 PM
Just to make sure we are on the same page,,
Water does not move from the accumulator INTO the ZED via the pod chamber. The fluid in the accumulator does not mix with the fluid in the ZED's.
In the video of the ZED's in operation there is a "bag" that the water from the ZED enters into and this bag via a mechanical arm is connected to the "bag" for the second ZED and there is a hydraulic piston that helps that arm move. This then takes the pressure from the raised ZED and allows it to communicate, via the bag and mechanical linkage, the pressure inside the pod chamber into the other bag which then moves that fluid into the lowered ZED.
The accumulator has fluid under pressure stored within it, this pressure is used to drive the piston which assists the pressure exchange and therefore the fluid input to the second ZED.
That accumulator is supplied fluid under pressure via a piston connected to the top of the risers, as they go up they take the fluid within that piston and force it into the accumulator thus replenishing the fluid volume and pressure within the accumulator.
IIRC, this was a point of confusion before, it was interpreted that the external system shared the same fluid and pressure, they do not.
Ta Webby .. my bad - I was mainly thinking of see3d's [dennis's] simplified sim model he was building of your riser & pod system - although not exactly the same mechanics as your physical model the same principles applied & he was trying to perfect it & calibrate it to your findings - I remember a comment on the HER site that that had been accomplished, IIRC.
Even if the water in the bags does not physically touch other water in the system there is still communication of force & pressure via the hydraulic rams etc, IINM - I have intermittent internet & speed so didn't watch closely the vid you talk about - did see the animation though & this is probably closer to what you are talking about now - I'll see if I grabbed a screen dump at the time & post it up if I did.
Webby,
you said the ZED would go up and down but it was a problem obtaining any
extra energy.
Forget excess energy, would the thng run forever if you left it going (barring
mechanical breakdown) unloaded? If it would keep going you sure have the ou
we're looking for.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 03, 2014, 04:43:22 PM
Do you have a "formula for dummies" method??
I can do the pressure value and the volumes and stuff, but it is in the rate of change and what that means where I feel I may be making an error.
Since you already have tried to perform an analysis just show the work that you have done so far and we can go through that.
Quote from: webby1 on February 03, 2014, 05:16:53 PM
see3d,, I still do not get what that means,, ...
see3d is the username for forum member Dennis Brown. He is the author of the simulation code in the two pics at the bottom of Fletcher's post.
I've been searching for the Flash animation that used to be on Travis's web pages, but it has been removed now that he's changed the name of the operation and isn't making outrageous free energy "already have a self runner" claims in public any more.
I can't believe I didn't save it while I had the chance. Does anyone have a copy or know where to get one?
Meanwhile I thought I might as well post the two "demo" videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKWpR0seK0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSy_33t86gc
@Mondrasek:
While I was searching, I found a bunch of images of your experimental rig. I had forgotten how nicely constructed and set up it was. Why don't you break it out again? It might be instructive to play with it a bit again to see how it behaves.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 03, 2014, 07:37:13 PM
@Mondrasek:
While I was searching, I found a bunch of images of your experimental rig. I had forgotten how nicely constructed and set up it was. Why don't you break it out again? It might be instructive to play with it a bit again to see how it behaves.
Hmm. Instructive to who?
Funny thing (to me) is that physical build followed many days of CAD model drawings and calculations where I could not figure out how to prove or disprove anything. I have probably a hundred hours of time wasted trying to figure out how to figure it out!
At the time I built it there was much request for a presentation of the "3-layer ZED that is clearly OU." Wayne was not providing that, so I thought I would attempt to build one so that we could all have _something_ other than words to play with. But it appeared to me that no one was interested in discussing any testing of that build or the test results in the forum. I personally could not figure out how to calculate efficiencies from the test data, so I resorted to the method that Wayne had presented. We discussed the validity of that method very briefly in PMs, but that broke down almost immediately into the same rhetoric as in the open forum, ie. no discussion of the experiment and data.
That build was intended to be a stop-gap until a sim or better build was presented. With no apparent interest in what I had constructed, I shelved it and waited. Unfortunately the sim and/or better build I have been waiting on has not materialized publicly.
With the reintroduction of the ZED topic in this thread I began thinking about it again (as have so many). Applying some things I've learned (or think I've learned) since those past days I think I finally figured out a (fairly) simple mathematical test to see if a simple analysis of the ZED system where the ZED is substituted by a hydraulic cylinder analog is, in fact, a valid substitution. But once again it does not appear anyone (except Red) is willing to agree that what I propose is a valid test of that assertion. So why do it?
Cheers,
M.
Mondrasek if you are willing to take the time and expend the effort to do it, I continue to encourage you to set-up an energy balance for a ZED or ZED-like device.
Question:
Does anybody have some idea to what a validation by Mark Dansie of a OU device would cost?
I believe he comes with a team of engineers.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 10:52:38 PM
Question:
Does anybody have some idea to what a validation by Mark Dansie of a OU device would cost?
I believe he comes with a team of engineers.
Red_Sunset
I was not aware that Mark Dansie hired out to inventors. It was my understanding that he hires out to prospective investors.
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 08:47:22 PM
Mondrasek if you are willing to take the time and expend the effort to do it, I continue to encourage you to set-up an energy balance for a ZED or ZED-like device.
And while I appreciate the encouragement, you have not answered my question: Is the test I propose a valid one? Please understand that I would not hold you to a "Yes" answer as being absolute either way. Even if the proposed test seems valid now, it might not after the method and maths are presented, or just in principle after further consideration.
All I propose to test is if a ZED and hydraulic cylinder act exactly the same. I would calculate a specific volume and pressure for input to a ZED and calculate the corresponding travel and output pressure (start pressure only since finish pressure is zero). Then I would modify the ZED construction to a larger diameter overall and repeat. Changing the overall diameter on a hydraulic cylinder does not change the energy out per energy in. So a ZED must also act exactly the same. If not, then a hydraulic cylinder cannot be used to correctly analyze the cycle of a ZED.
This simple test does not test an entire ZED system or test for OU in anyway. But is it a valid test? Does it qualify as a valid "energy balance for a ZED or ZED-like device?"
Again, answers and/or input from everyone else would be appreciated. Any thoughts at all?
Thanks,
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 03, 2014, 08:23:17 PM
Hmm. Instructive to who?
Funny thing (to me) is that physical build followed many days of CAD model drawings and calculations where I could not figure out how to prove or disprove anything. I have probably a hundred hours of time wasted trying to figure out how to figure it out!
At the time I built it there was much request for a presentation of the "3-layer ZED that is clearly OU." Wayne was not providing that, so I thought I would attempt to build one so that we could all have _something_ other than words to play with. But it appeared to me that no one was interested in discussing any testing of that build or the test results in the forum. I personally could not figure out how to calculate efficiencies from the test data, so I resorted to the method that Wayne had presented. We discussed the validity of that method very briefly in PMs, but that broke down almost immediately into the same rhetoric as in the open forum, ie. no discussion of the experiment and data.
That build was intended to be a stop-gap until a sim or better build was presented. With no apparent interest in what I had constructed, I shelved it and waited. Unfortunately the sim and/or better build I have been waiting on has not materialized publicly.
With the reintroduction of the ZED topic in this thread I began thinking about it again (as have so many). Applying some things I've learned (or think I've learned) since those past days I think I finally figured out a (fairly) simple mathematical test to see if a simple analysis of the ZED system where the ZED is substituted by a hydraulic cylinder analog is, in fact, a valid substitution. But once again it does not appear anyone (except Red) is willing to agree that what I propose is a valid test of that assertion. So why do it?
Cheers,
M.
Hello Monderask,
"So why do it?" ................... That is the end game 'here' it is sad.............. You are right.
You and the others are and have been right from the beginning - A hydraulic calculation is simple and makes the obvious point: If you make more stored PV out than consumed PV - you have more PV....it is a no brain-er. The simplest calcs will show that.
Time and speed are irelevant - PV is stored energy - not force. This has been demonstrated at least a dozen times by many of you.
.........................
On the positive note:
Mike- If you would like to come visit our new Temp Facility - while our others are being built - I will buy you a ticket (hotel) to come see our advancements.
Why do it? - You have earned it - and the desire for clean and Net energy is Growing.
You still have my e-mail.
p.s. We are very well funded. Ignore the Slander - it comes from ignorance, and demonstrates the lack of due dillignese.
.........................
To All - this is someone else' thread - My apology for the interruption.
I have a product to develop - company to run - I won't be back.
Thanks for all the hard research you and a few other good men labored - I have two of those awesome models here with my collection!
God Bless
Mr Wayne
Quote from: mondrasek on February 03, 2014, 08:23:17 PM
With the reintroduction of the ZED topic in this thread I began thinking about it again (as have so many). Applying some things I've learned (or think I've learned) since those past days I think I finally figured out a (fairly) simple mathematical test to see if a simple analysis of the ZED system where the ZED is substituted by a hydraulic cylinder analog is, in fact, a valid substitution. But once again it does not appear anyone (except Red) is willing to agree that what I propose is a valid test of that assertion. So why do it?
Cheers,
M.
The big problem with any test that doesn't produce a self-runner has been shown in the past to be very debatable, a classic example was the Rosemary Ainslie circuit, the ultimate test will always be, "can you make a self-runner" ? this shouldn't be a problem if you have (excess energy) the biggest problem Wayne had was that after repeatedly promising verification on his device self-running, he repeatedly broke his word and gave out excuses over two years, to the point that he has now removed the update section from his own website.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 04, 2014, 09:14:52 AM
Hello Monderask,
"So why do it?" ................... That is the end game 'here' it is sad.............. You are right.
You and the others are and have been right from the beginning - A hydraulic calculation is simple and makes the obvious point: If you make more stored PV out than consumed PV - you have more PV....it is a no brain-er. The simplest calcs will show that.
Time and speed are irelevant - PV is stored energy - not force. This has been demonstrated at least a dozen times by many of you.
.........................
On the positive note:
Mike- If you would like to come visit our new Temp Facility - while our others are being built - I will buy you a ticket (hotel) to come see our advancements.
Why do it? - You have earned it - and the desire for clean and Net energy is Growing.
You still have my e-mail.
p.s. We are very well funded. Ignore the Slander - it comes from ignorance, and demonstrates the lack of due dillignese.
.........................
To All - this is someone else' thread - My apology for the interruption.
I have a product to develop - company to run - I won't be back.
Thanks for all the hard research you and a few other good men labored - I have two of those awesome models here with my collection!
God Bless
Mr Wayne
Mister Wayne Travis: What happened to all the "self running, no input no exhaust, producing excess energy" prototypes you claimed to have YEARS AGO but were never able to demonstrate? Why is Mark Dansie not endorsing you, since he made two site visits already?
Where is the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity itself" that you talked about BUT NEVER DEMONSTRATED or explained why you think it's OU?
Nowhere, that's where. Your cynical offer to pay for site visits is now just what it was all those years ago: A cynical hoax. People will come, stay in your provided hotel room, and see just what you want them to see. But just like Dansie, years ago, they will NOT see a self-running device that has no input, no exhaust and makes 20 kW in the footprint of a garden shed, or any other "free energy" system from you.
Why haven't you produced the 50 kW unit that you promised would be ready and installed at your Church in six months.... in that powerpoint slideshow from many years ago? I know why, and so do you.... and so do many of your former investors.
Tell us about your lawsuit. Tell us about your attempt to get some big investor to buy out your early, smaller investors. Tell us why you've changed your website to remove all of the false claims from public view. Tell us why you can't seem to tell the difference between Libel (written statements) and Slander (oral statements). Tell us why NOBODY, except Red_Sunset, is defending you and your claims-without-evidence, why NOBODY has come forth showing a self-running system based on your "explanations".
Or run away from the tough questions just like you did years ago.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 03, 2014, 10:52:38 PM
Question:
Does anybody have some idea to what a validation by Mark Dansie of a OU device would cost?
I believe he comes with a team of engineers.
Red_Sunset
Why don't you ask him yourself? He's a member of this forum, you can send him a PM. Or you can go to his excellent alternative-energy website, Revolution-Green, and contact him through that.
http://revolution-green.com/
He's made two site visits to Travis already.... and was not convinced. He can be heard speaking of Travis and his visits there on an issue of the Smart Scarecrow show a couple months back.
Quote from: powercat on February 04, 2014, 10:26:39 AM
The big problem with any test that doesn't produce a self-runner has been shown in the past to be very debatable, a classic example was the Rosemary Ainslie circuit, the ultimate test will always be, "can you make a self-runner" ? this shouldn't be a problem if you have (excess energy) the biggest problem Wayne had was that after repeatedly promising verification on his device self-running, he repeatedly broke his word and gave out excuses over two years, to the point that he has now removed the update section from his own website.
Somewhat more than two years.
Don't you remember the PowerPoint slide show? When was that first shown to prospective investors (none of whom "bit", by the way)?
Quote from: powercat on February 04, 2014, 10:26:39 AM
The big problem with any test that doesn't produce a self-runner has been shown in the past to be very debatable, a classic example was the Rosemary Ainslie circuit, the ultimate test will always be, "can you make a self-runner" ? this shouldn't be a problem if you have (excess energy) the biggest problem Wayne had was that after repeatedly promising verification on his device self-running, he repeatedly broke his word and gave out excuses over two years, to the point that he has now removed the update section from his own website.
Actually, if one has a device that is a "stub" of a selfrunning OU device, but still needs some power to run, that is great!
As I've shown with the HappyFunBall SNOT testbed, it is possible to know, with great precision, just how much energy needs to be supplied to such a system, per cycle, to keep it running. This is the "baseline" condition. For the HFB, it's some tiny fraction of a Joule per cycle; my measurements of the ball's KE are actually at the _microJoule_ level of precision.
Now, any changes you make to your device or its operating parameters can be compared to this known baseline condition, to see if your mods need _more energy_ replaced to keep running, or less energy. If the latter, then you can KNOW with some confidence that your changes did take you "closer" to being able to "self run".
Just as I can now put any configuration of magnetic gates or ramps into my HFB system and measure the resulting amount of energy that needs to be replaced to keep it running as before. Any improvement over the non-gated, non-ramped version would indicate that the Gate or Ramp arrangement was indeed helping, by putting some energy into the system or reducing critical losses.
You will never see this kind of experimentation from a Wayne Travis, though, because it will reveal things he does not want you to know.
Koala,
I'd like to build a ZED can you point me in the right direction?
Many thanks,
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 04, 2014, 01:09:24 PM
Koala,
I'd like to build a ZED can you point me in the right direction?
Many thanks,
John.
I suggest you look at Mondrasek's system. Webby did a good job too, as certified by Travis himself with a nice lump of quid. The PowerPoint slide show I attached above is _supposed_ to give the basic operating principles and is intended to be convincing enough to make investors drool with greed and open up their wallets, and Travis's patent application makes good reading, over a cup of hot toddy, while sitting next to a warm fire. If you like that sort of thing, that is.
But Mond has the basic testbed design and the basics of the instrumental measurements needed as well. Plus he has the cool blue LED lighting, a real touch of class. If I were still interested at all, I'd go with Mondrasek's basic apparatus and work from there. Of course, without having the exact design of the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" that Travis claimed to have, you might not be able to get any OU measurements from it.
Here's a link to the old thread, at a page that shows some drawings and pressures and liquid levels. Of course this was back before Travis asked Stefan to close that thread, and well before the lawsuit and the changes-of-names, well before the TAZ and the flat-packable rotary ZED, or other "modern improvements" that we've never actually seen...
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg332742/#msg332742
But the whole thing breaks down when the claimed power output is considered along with the strength of gravity, as you have pointed out many times. Consider that the output side of the systems we have seen consists of an ordinary hydraulic motor turning an ordinary windfarm-style alternator --- where is the pressure and flow necessary to provide 20 or 30 kW at the shaft of the alternator to come from? Gravity? Buoyancy? In a device the size of a garden shed?
Just thinking of it makes me cough up a ROFL.
Webby, the photo of your drawing is very difficult to read. Would you do me a favor and please:
1) Make your lines clearer.
2) Mark your dimensions.
Thanks.
Hi Webby,
appreciate the effort, thank you. Unfortunately the drawing isn't showing very clearly.
The lines of the paper are parallel with tubes and this makes it difficult to see, if you've got
some plain paper it would help a lot.
John.
Webby that is much easier to see. Thanks for doing that. So just to be clear: The red is a solid casing, and the green portion is an insert that is:
a) a solid piston?, or
b) water being pumped into the cavity from below?
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 04, 2014, 01:03:37 PM
Actually, if one has a device that is a "stub" of a selfrunning OU device, but still needs some power to run, that is great!
As I've shown with the HappyFunBall SNOT testbed, it is possible to know, with great precision, just how much energy needs to be supplied to such a system, per cycle, to keep it running. This is the "baseline" condition. For the HFB, it's some tiny fraction of a Joule per cycle; my measurements of the ball's KE are actually at the _microJoule_ level of precision.
Now, any changes you make to your device or its operating parameters can be compared to this known baseline condition, to see if your mods need _more energy_ replaced to keep running, or less energy. If the latter, then you can KNOW with some confidence that your changes did take you "closer" to being able to "self run".
Just as I can now put any configuration of magnetic gates or ramps into my HFB system and measure the resulting amount of energy that needs to be replaced to keep it running as before. Any improvement over the non-gated, non-ramped version would indicate that the Gate or Ramp arrangement was indeed helping, by putting some energy into the system or reducing critical losses.
You will never see this kind of experimentation from a Wayne Travis, though, because it will reveal things he does not want you to know.
Still feel a self-runner is the only test that counts, because normally other tests end up being about measurement errors which tend to be drawn out lasting many months or even years , the self-runner either runs or does not run, like in Wayne's case (NOT)
Powercat,
I agree entirely about measurements, they're so difficult to get right.
Someone once told me about checking tyre pressure with an ordinary gauge.
Can you be certain you you don't let a bit of air escape during the process?
I realise that was a silly thing and it wouldn't make any difference in reality
but it was just to make a point.
John.
A self-running machine is surely the ultimate sanity check for an over unity device. I don't think that should discourage people from making measurements and performing calculations in the normal course of investigations. We should just always be very cautious when any measurements and/or calculations yield unexpected and/or extraordinary results like over unity. When they do, then we should be prepared to perform very careful double checks to make certain that the measurements, calculations and interpretations of the test set-ups are all correct. If they are then we might just have found something extraordinary that the double checks will serve to verify.
The more common problem that I see is that some people want to make extraordinary claims but for all their talk are unwilling to perform the measurements, and/or calculations, and/or checks of their test set-ups needed to reliably establish things as simple and as important as energy in and out each cycle.
Quote from: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 06:37:41 AM
A self-running machine is surely the ultimate sanity check for an over unity device. I don't think that should discourage people from making measurements and performing calculations in the normal course of investigations. We should just always be very cautious when any measurements and/or calculations yield unexpected and/or extraordinary results like over unity. When they do, then we should be prepared to perform very careful double checks to make certain that the measurements, calculations and interpretations of the test set-ups are all correct. If they are then we might just have found something extraordinary that the double checks will serve to verify.
The more common problem that I see is that some people want to make extraordinary claims but for all their talk are unwilling to perform the measurements, and/or calculations, and/or checks of their test set-ups needed to reliably establish things as simple and as important as energy in and out each cycle.
When you do and interpret the measurements you are doing it on a basic multi-layer piston, not a ZED. You are not able to following all required process sequences to achieve OU with a simple setup.
Please REMEMBER the statements made and confirmed in previous posts in this thread, do take that into account to do JUSTICE to your measurements and the device.
What you should be able to observe is constant volume for a given stroke distance, regardless of the lift force, in both directions.
« on: February 02, 2014, 09:03:59 AM »1. Red points out the a ZED by itself is not OU [that there is no gain in energy is accepted by others].
** To be understood as a simple hydro piston, a multi-layer device shown in pictures with water columns height in the various levels, you have a very efficient hydro lift device.
A ZED can be understood as a complete system used in a dual configuration with a second ZED, and provides the ability to achieve OU and loop capability due to cost saving ability.
3. Red postulates that everything would be sub-OU [no NET energy gain] unless a metered/pulsed mechanical intervention happens to interrupt the cycle [fluid volume transfer to beneath the pod/piston ?!] - this process gives rise to a self-sustaining movement of the mechanisms with an excess of available energy to do external work.
** This should be understood as a process that changes the lift parameters between the up & down stroke which is synonymous to high & low pressure range
« on: February 01, 2014, 09:51:11 PM »Nature: The natural process process flow takes the system through its cycle. The natural expected flow path which is by standard ~symmetrical .
Technology: The un-natural flow path. If you would leave the natural primary process to its own devices, it would never follow the desired path. It requires a subsystem that interferes with he primary natural process in order to steer it in a predetermined path.
Gravity powered devices / Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« on: February 01, 2014, 07:57:13 AM » Fetcher, Webby,....
Some clarification that can help, Webby's riser is the hardware device that makes the implementation of the asymmetric working concept possible. By it self , the concept is a fantasy as you said before, very true. But so is the riser. Together it is a different story.
Webby risers will have the ability to realize the objective of the concept in a specific controlled way as outlined by Wayne. The concept realization has multiple physical property aspects that related to the device and working hand in hand are the ingenious input savings it allows. The second ZED in the dual configuration plays an important savings role that can not be achieved by a stand alone ZED
And some more statements further back..
Good luck
Red_Sunset
There are about a dozen or so statements in Red_Sunset's posting where he tries to create the illusion that the ZED is real. It's the same old modus operandi that the readers of this thread have seen over and over. If you are not at all technical and you are susceptible to outside influences and you want to believe then you might inadvertently get lulled or dumbed-down and actually start to believe him.
Don't fall for it. Just like a sparrow will feign that it has a broken wing in the presence of a predator to draw attention away from its young, Red_Sunset is trying to draw your attention away from the common sense truth and protect Wayne and Wayne's interests.
The broken wing is a FAKE, don't forget that.
Let's not forget something else.
Wayne Travis claimed, in these exact words, to HAVE a "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself". Yet he never demonstrated this simple three layer system that is clearly OU by itself, nor did he indicate just what kinds of measurements he made that demonstrate the clear overunity. By itself.
So, if Travis is telling the truth, it should be able to be demonstrated in a SIMPLE, THREE LAYER SYSTEM. BY ITSELF.
And if Travis is NOT telling the truth.... then Travis is lying.
Quote from: MileHigh on February 05, 2014, 08:17:49 AM
................................................................ If you are not at all technical and you are susceptible to outside influences and you want to believe then you might inadvertently get lulled or dumbed-down and actually start to believe him.
Don't fall for it. Just like a sparrow will feign that it has a broken wing in the presence of a predator to draw attention away from its young, Red_Sunset is trying to draw your attention away from the common sense truth and protect Wayne and Wayne's interests.
The broken wing is a FAKE, don't forget that.
Mile High,
I loved your sparrow wing story,
This classic by Homer, would have worked out very nicely too,
Therefore pass this Red_Sunsets by, and stop your men's ears with wax that none of them may hear; but if you like you can listen yourself, for you may get the men to bind you as you stand upright on a cross-piece half way up the mast, and they must lash the rope's ends to the mast itself, that you may have the pleasure of listening. If you beg and pray the men to unloose you, then they must bind you faster.
"'When your crew have taken you past this Red_Sunset, I cannot give you coherent directions as to which of two courses you are to take; I will lay the two alternatives before you, and you must consider them for yourself.
Red_Sunset
Webby you are missing some critical information:
How far below the water surface is the bottom of the apparatus? In order to get air into the annular gap you have to lift an equivalent volume of water as air you inject by the distance from the annular opening to your source of air at the surface.
Taking the false optimistic assumption that the air does not compress: Let's say that the water height is 300mm. Then in order to pump in enough air to fill the 15mm dia x 15mm high cylinder of air and the annular gap of 135mm x 15mm-14.23mm dia, you have to displace 2.65E3 + 2.39E3 cu mm = 5.04 cu cm = 5.04 gms water by 300mm which requires 14.8mJ work.
Taking into account that the air does compress you will actually have to perform more work.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 05, 2014, 07:52:24 AM
When you do and interpret the measurements you are doing it on a basic multi-layer piston, not a ZED. You are not able to following all required process sequences to achieve OU with a simple setup.
Please REMEMBER the statements made and confirmed in previous posts in this thread, do take that into account to do JUSTICE to your measurements and the device.
What you should be able to observe is constant volume for a given stroke distance, regardless of the lift force, in both directions.
« on: February 02, 2014, 09:03:59 AM »
1. Red points out the a ZED by itself is not OU [that there is no gain in energy is accepted by others].
** To be understood as a simple hydro piston, a multi-layer device shown in pictures with water columns height in the various levels, you have a very efficient hydro lift device.
A ZED can be understood as a complete system used in a dual configuration with a second ZED, and provides the ability to achieve OU and loop capability due to cost saving ability.
3. Red postulates that everything would be sub-OU [no NET energy gain] unless a metered/pulsed mechanical intervention happens to interrupt the cycle [fluid volume transfer to beneath the pod/piston ?!] - this process gives rise to a self-sustaining movement of the mechanisms with an excess of available energy to do external work.
** This should be understood as a process that changes the lift parameters between the up & down stroke which is synonymous to high & low pressure range
« on: February 01, 2014, 09:51:11 PM »
Nature: The natural process process flow takes the system through its cycle. The natural expected flow path which is by standard ~symmetrical .
Technology: The un-natural flow path. If you would leave the natural primary process to its own devices, it would never follow the desired path. It requires a subsystem that interferes with he primary natural process in order to steer it in a predetermined path.
Gravity powered devices / Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« on: February 01, 2014, 07:57:13 AM »
Fetcher, Webby,....
Some clarification that can help, Webby's riser is the hardware device that makes the implementation of the asymmetric working concept possible. By it self , the concept is a fantasy as you said before, very true. But so is the riser. Together it is a different story.
Webby risers will have the ability to realize the objective of the concept in a specific controlled way as outlined by Wayne. The concept realization has multiple physical property aspects that related to the device and working hand in hand are the ingenious input savings it allows. The second ZED in the dual configuration plays an important savings role that can not be achieved by a stand alone ZED
And some more statements further back..
Good luck
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset, anytime you like you can get back to performing an actual
energy balance on a ZED or any ZED-like device you choose to try and show a gain in
energy over a closed cycle.
Quote from: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 01:15:58 PM
Red_Sunset, anytime you like you can get back to performing an actual energy balance on a ZED or any ZED-like device you choose to try and show a gain in energy over a closed cycle.
MarkE,
"anytime you like you can get back to performing an actual energy balance"
Nooop, my desires to do so have shrunken drastically since I do not see anybody with the faintest interest. Only attitude seen, kill it before it gets out of the starting blocks.
1.. I made invitations
2.. Tried a fresh approach, trying to decouple this multi-layer piston from the Wayne Travis legacy
3.. I laid down the ground work with simple yes/no questions, to establish a level playing field. An idea provided by Fletcher's post before.
4.. The premise to continue building slowly step by step.
An open forum with concept, discussion, calculations ...ect,
What do we get, only more drivel, accusations, pink pony's, sparrows with broken wings, Wayne this,..., Wayne that ..... The heritage of all the bad things our forefathers did became the main topic communication.
If you can not come to the table, no agreement is possible, no matter how thorough or diligent it is presented.
The issue is not a technical issue, it is an emotional one, clash of ego's, clash for control.
No point to continue, I just regret that I brought up the concept (let it be that it was only to stress the similarity between Renato & Wayne's concepts, we never got that far, a super storm overtook us).
There is so much to learn, although I don't think mankind is ready yet !
If we can not lay down the past in this forum to look towards the future in a new way, what hope is there to expect something different on a national or world level.
I have already moved on, just keeping a passive glance on further developments here.
Good Luck
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 05, 2014, 01:48:59 PM
MarkE,
"anytime you like you can get back to performing an actual energy balance"
Nooop, my desires to do so have shrunken drastically since I do not see anybody with the faintest interest. Only attitude seen, kill it before it gets out of the starting blocks.
1.. I made invitations
2.. Tried a fresh approach, trying to decouple this multi-layer piston from the Wayne Travis legacy
3.. I laid down the ground work with simple yes/no questions, to establish a level playing field. An idea provided by Fletcher's post before.
4.. The premise to continue building slowly step by step.
An open forum with concept, discussion, calculations ...ect,
What do we get, only more drivel, accusations, pink pony's, sparrows with broken wings, Wayne this,..., Wayne that ..... The heritage of all the bad things our forefathers did became the main topic communication.
If you can not come to the table, no agreement is possible, no matter how thorough or diligent it is presented.
The issue is not a technical issue, it is an emotional one, clash of ego's, clash for control.
No point to continue, I just regret that I brought up the concept (let it be that it was only to stress the similarity between Renato & Wayne's concepts, we never got that far, a super storm overtook us).
There is so much to learn, although I don't think mankind is ready yet !
If we can not lay down the past in this forum to look towards the future in a new way, what hope is there to expect something different on a national or world level.
I have already moved on, just keeping a passive glance on further developments here.
Good Luck
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset it's too bad that you now declare that you have no interest in performing energy balances. That could be that you don't think anyone would pay attention to actual evidence of the supposed physics shattering discovery that you have been promoting for over two years. Or it could be that the dreaded Men In Black have gotten to you and are forcing you to discredit your ideas. Or it could be that you know as well as anyone else that any competently performed energy balance will not show the energy surplus you keep claiming. I'll take door number three.
Quote from: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
Webby you are missing some critical information:
How far below the water surface is the bottom of the apparatus? In order to get air into the annular gap you have to lift an equivalent volume of water as air you inject by the distance from the annular opening to your source of air at the surface.
Taking the false optimistic assumption that the air does not compress: Let's say that the water height is 300mm. Then in order to pump in enough air to fill the 15mm dia x 15mm high cylinder of air and the annular gap of 135mm x 15mm-14.23mm dia, you have to displace 2.65E3 + 2.39E3 cu mm = 5.04 cu cm = 5.04 gms water by 300mm which requires 14.8mJ work.
Taking into account that the air does compress you will actually have to perform more work.
I think we should understand the 14.8mJ of energy you describe to be the "pre-charge" energy. Which is supposedly not lost during the cycle. If so, it is a manufacturing cost, and not part of the energy balance analysis of an operational cycle.
Of course, if this "pre-charge" energy is lost during the cycle, then it could be driving the device.
Cheers,
M.
Quote from: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 02:04:03 PM
Red_Sunset it's too bad that you now declare that you have no interest in performing energy balances. That could be that you don't think anyone would pay attention to actual evidence of the supposed physics shattering discovery that you have been promoting for over two years. Or it could be that the dreaded Men In Black have gotten to you and are forcing you to discredit your ideas. Or it could be that you know as well as anyone else that any competently performed energy balance will not show the energy surplus you keep claiming. I'll take door number three.
No MarkE,
You choose the wrong door. Compiling posts take time, but there is not point in spending time when there is no comparable return. In the end we live from a bi-directional exchange.
When you don't receive any real benefit in any type or form, then there is no point to continue, that is the bottom line.
Just for curiosity, here is an invention that satisfies all apparent requirements our demanding members want.
A physical PROOF video.
A demonstration of a loaded Mag motor (resistive load, lamps and heater), he even takes it outside and turns it over. What proof is this if you have no clue who it possibly works ?
How can this assumed "PROOF" demonstration means something without understanding the working guts.
Although the skeptics here are not interested in the guts but want a physical video only ?
Do you agree that he has THE OU SOLUTION ?
Please can you explain and clarify that viewpoint to me.
Wasif Kahloon
Video 1: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1asgtf_challange-to-the-engineers_tech (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1asgtf_challange-to-the-engineers_tech)
Video 2: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18eddh_magnet-machine-which-produces-endless-mechanical-and-electrical-energy_auto (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18eddh_magnet-machine-which-produces-endless-mechanical-and-electrical-energy_auto)
What information am I short of, for not believing what I am seeing?
Red_Sunset
Red, IMO every time the entire device is NOT in the frame of the camera, someone can be manipulating it.
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 05, 2014, 02:50:46 PM
Red, IMO every time the entire device is NOT in the frame of the camera, someone can be manipulating it.
M.
M,
Many soft manipulations can take place with a video that is not real time,
in addition there can be physical manipulations that are physically hidden.
If you can spot one or more of the tricks, fine, but even if you do not spot anything suspicious, that still doesn't mean anything because you can never be sure.
A disclosure of the working principle, something that can be analyzed and then classified in categories of proof or probability can immediately work around many manipulation and give greater surety than a physical video proofing can ever do.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 05, 2014, 03:18:36 PM
A disclosure of the working principle, something that can be analyzed and then classified in categories of proof or probability can immediately work around many manipulation and give greater surety than a physical video proofing can ever do.
Marcel,
I completely agree. But in this case I only saw a video of phenomenon that can be reproduced by interactions with the device that appear to be "conveniently" out of frame of the camera.
I would like to hear a disclosure of the working principle! Maybe I missed it? I only checked out the vid in a quick pass by my computer since I've been busy elsewhere with the results of a s**ty snow storm most of today.
Actually, I'd rather drop the topic entirely as I think there are other more interesting ZED discussions going on. But, of course, we are conversing in the RAR thread, so we are all guilty of thread hijacking!
...
Well that was an interesting realization.
I think we should start a new thread that is appropriately titled. Does anyone else agree?
I mean a new thread for the ZED discussion that has been going on recently, of course.
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 05, 2014, 02:15:53 PM
I think we should understand the 14.8mJ of energy you describe to be the "pre-charge" energy. Which is supposedly not lost during the cycle. If so, it is a manufacturing cost, and not part of the energy balance analysis of an operational cycle.
Of course, if this "pre-charge" energy is lost during the cycle, then it could be driving the device.
Cheers,
M.
Mondrasek, sure, that is why defining the starting point for a cycle is important, as is accounting for all energy put in and removed cycling from the starting point and back during a complete cycle.
Quote from: webby1 on February 05, 2014, 02:21:27 PM
Top of raised cylinders 150mm depth, bottom of lower cylinders 315mm
Since there are 2 items under the same conditions AND with the compressibility of air being MORE prevalent for the open cylinder I did not feel it would be a detriment to not consider that, the change in energy would be greater for one than the other, not in favor of the displacement replacement.
Webby we can perform the analysis setting aside the compressibility of air for the moment. For purposes of the thought problem I am fine just treating it as an incompressible fluid with a negligible density. The important point is that we have to exert work to force that fluid from the water surface down to the bottom of the inverted outer cylinder. As we progress through the problem we will find that work that we do is the work that becomes available to us lifting that inverted outer cylinder and any load that we connect to it.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 05, 2014, 02:39:44 PM
No MarkE,
You choose the wrong door. Compiling posts take time, but there is not point in spending time when there is no comparable return. In the end we live from a bi-directional exchange.
When you don't receive any real benefit in any type or form, then there is no point to continue, that is the bottom line.
Just for curiosity, here is an invention that satisfies all apparent requirements our demanding members want.
A physical PROOF video.
A demonstration of a loaded Mag motor (resistive load, lamps and heater), he even takes it outside and turns it over. What proof is this if you have no clue who it possibly works ?
How can this assumed "PROOF" demonstration means something without understanding the working guts.
Although the skeptics here are not interested in the guts but want a physical video only ?
Do you agree that he has THE OU SOLUTION ?
Please can you explain and clarify that viewpoint to me.
Wasif Kahloon
Video 1: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1asgtf_challange-to-the-engineers_tech (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1asgtf_challange-to-the-engineers_tech)
Video 2: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18eddh_magnet-machine-which-produces-endless-mechanical-and-electrical-energy_auto (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18eddh_magnet-machine-which-produces-endless-mechanical-and-electrical-energy_auto)
What information am I short of, for not believing what I am seeing?
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset there is a separate thread for Wasif's fraudulent demonstrations. You can find a full explanation of his fraud on that thread.
QuoteWhat information am I short of, for not believing what I am seeing?
Red_Sunset
Just looking at my closeup screengrabs of the spring coupling, a consideration of the direction of the rotation wrt the spring's coils, and the shaft torque required to produce a couple of kW of power at 80 rpm...... This will tell you which unit is driving, and which unit is being driven.
Quote from: webby1 on February 05, 2014, 04:54:46 PM
Exactly, that is what I am doing, identifying the setup cost, then identify the cycle cost and then identify the output return.
So the way I do it I get an 86 percent return for the displacement replacement and a 33 percent return for the open cylinder, this is for the cycle cost to output.
EDIT
Dang it! I have 86 stuck in my head,, that should be 83
Webby I get 14.8mJ in that gets turned into 14.8mJ of GPE in the water. I haven't seen any energy come out yet.
Quote from: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 05:17:43 PM
Webby I get 14.8mJ in that gets turned into 14.8mJ of GPE in the water. I haven't seen any energy come out yet.
Could you please show your working? I'm sure it would be instructive to see just how you worked the problem.
(Never mind, I found it, on the previous page. Thanks!)
Quote from: webby1 on February 05, 2014, 06:41:32 PM
You have the setup input cost, right?
Then you have the cost to move that potential DOWN into the lower cylinders, that would be the cycle cost, then those could rise UP into the position of the uppers and that would be the return, then you would have to move the potential back DOWN again.
Webby, the picture that I have is the one that you posted. It has one inverted open cylinder on top of a piston, both submerged. "Air" is pumped in underneath the inverted cylinder displacing water first in the annular gap then forming a bubble between the inverted cylinder and the piston until the gap is 15mm. Unless I missed it, you did not state the mass of the of the open cylinder, nor did you place a load on top of it. Since it has not floated, it must be heavier than the displaced water volume of 5.04gms. So, we have displaced some water by pumping our incompressible mass that has the density of air. The work we did identically converted into additional GPE of water in the overall container. We have not completed a cycle yet, because we have not returned to a starting condition. Please add any additional detail and states that you want.
Webby, I have revised the drawing:
315mm depth instead of 300mm.
Added a stop 165mm above the bottom.
Massless and volumeless inverted cylinder with a density of water. The reason for volumeless is so that we do not introduce displaced water volume from the cylinder body. The reason for the density of water is that makes it neutrally buoyant. These mythical properties keep the cylinder itself from contributing to the problem.
The cycle has to be acted upon one set of objects start to end. We need to start in some state, do something and return to the original starting state.
If you want we can compare two machines one with and one without the piston and pump in air until each one rises against the stop. If that is the proposal then I suggest further simplification of stipulating an infinitesimal clearance between the piston OD and the cylinder ID so that we only calculate "air" volume in the bubble above the piston. An alternative is just to increase the diameter of the cylinder by a large multiplier while retaining the 0.38mm annular clearance so that the bubble volume above the piston is large compared to the portion of the bubble that is in the annular gap.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 05, 2014, 05:13:20 PM
Just looking at my closeup screengrabs of the spring coupling, a consideration of the direction of the rotation wrt the spring's coils, and the shaft torque required to produce a couple of kW of power at 80 rpm...... This will tell you which unit is driving, and which unit is being driven.
Tinsel, MarkE,
My point was, regardless of what is shown on a video (in todays world), it means Jack-Sh.. as any possible proof.
Everything hovers around a principle concept turned into a device. That knowledge is the key towards proof.
Not something you would be keen to admit, having the opposite denunciations plastered all over the thread.
That admission proof can also be seen in your fumbling your way back into the Wayne device, with pictures and all.
Something must have clicked, * Is it because you don't believe your own denunciations and you came to the realization that there is still a gem hidden in there you hadn't seen before ?
Good luck, I wish you find it.
Maybe Wayne 4xx ++ and my 4xx ++ posts weren't in vain.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 12:53:56 AM
Tinsel, MarkE,
My point was, regardless of what is shown on a video (in todays world), it means Jack-Sh.. as any possible proof.
Everything hovers around a principle concept turned into a device. That knowledge is the key towards proof.
Not something you would be keen to admit, having the opposite denunciations plastered all over the thread.
That admission proof can also be seen in your fumbling your way back into the Wayne device, with pictures and all.
Something must have clicked, * Is it because you don't believe your own denunciations and you came to the realization that there is still a gem hidden in there you hadn't seen before ?
Good luck, I wish you find it.
Maybe Wayne 4xx ++ and my 4xx ++ posts weren't in vain.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset you posted the video link as support for your claims. It didn't provide any support. You can carry on as you have with back handed and/or direct insults. If that's all you can come up with then so be it. It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.
Quote from: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 01:02:36 AM
Red_Sunset you posted the video link as support for your claims. It didn't provide any support. You can carry on as you have with back handed and/or direct insults. If that's all you can come up with then so be it. It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.
MarkE,
It is to our mutual benefit that we do no longer engage in communication, we always appear to miss each others points.
I did not make any CLAIM, neither did I mention anything about support information.
The point was:The Wayne skeptics have been demanding a video, giving ZED working knowledge has been refused since it violates the conservation laws.
The reason for Wasif video was:Here is a video with no other information, no working knowledge.
The conclusionThe Wasif video means less than nothing, because it provides nothing. It has no value without working knowledge.
The contradiction: Although Wayne's skeptics think it is everything in the ZED case.
It is immaterial if what was shown in the video is real or not, at this point it is an enigma
I hope you see the point
I do not want to discourage you with your current exploration of Wayne's piston but I hope you also see the point, that Yours & TKs current posts contradict your previous statements.
Red_Sunset
@ markE
i don't get your calculation.
- displaced water volume B, why do you calculate upper side ( 135 mm not 15 mm )
- why displaced water volume is A + B not A - B.
according to your pict, total of displaced water must less than displaced volume A.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
MarkE,
It is to our mutual benefit that we do no longer engage in communication, we always appear to miss each others points.
I did not make any CLAIM, neither did I mention anything about support information.
The point was:
The Wayne skeptics have been demanding a video, giving ZED working knowledge has been refused since it violates the conservation laws.
The reason for Wasif video was:
Here is a video with no other information, no working knowledge.
The conclusion
The Wasif video means less than nothing, because it provides nothing. It has no value without working knowledge.
The contradiction: Although Wayne's skeptics think it is everything in the ZED case.
It is immaterial if what was shown in the video is real or not, at this point it is an enigma
I hope you see the point
I do not want to discourage you with your current exploration of Wayne's piston but I hope you also see the point, that Yours & TKs current posts contradict your previous statements.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset as to the Wasif video there is no enigma. It is a terribly bad fake. There is a whole thread on it where it has been discussed extensively. If that is your idea of evidence comparable to Wayne's double talk then you have shot yourself in the foot or worse.
Wayne hasn't offered any evidence of surplus energy for any version of ZED, TAZ or any other device proposed by HER. Neither have you offered any evidence of surplus energy from any buoyancy machine. The curtain blew away a long time ago revealing that there was never anything there. You can put on as brave as a face as you want. A brave face is no substitute for evidence.
webby, did i miss the point ?.
Quote from: Marsing on February 06, 2014, 02:03:31 AM
@ markE
i don't get your calculation.
- displaced water volume B, why do you calculate upper side ( 135 mm not 15 mm )
- why displaced water volume is A + B not A - B.
according to your pict, total of displaced water must less than displaced volume A.
Marsing, There are two places where "air" can displace water: Volume A which is the cavity formed between the inverted cylinder and the top of the piston, and Volume B in the annular gap between the piston OD and the inverted cylinder ID.
I let the pump run until both cavities fill with "air". Therefore the displaced water is the sum of the cavity volumes: A+B.
Initially, the volume of the annular cavity is: (15mm^2 - 14.23mm^2) * pi/4 * 150mm ( full height of the piston ).
As we fill the cylinder rises 15mm, we can either calculate the cavity volume projected directly above the piston: 14.23mm^2 * pi/4 * 15mm as the added displacement, or we can get the same total result by taking the entire 15mm diameter "bubble" volume above the piston top surface and then calculate the annular cavity around the piston proper as now 135mm long.
So, using one method we get:
Annular ring: (15mm^2 - 14.23mm^2) * pi/4 * 150mm
Bubble projected above piston: 14.23mm^2 * pi/4 * 15mm
Or, by the other method:
Annular ring: (15mm^2 - 14.23mm^2) * pi/4 * 135mm +
Entire bubble above piston: 15mm^2 * pi/4 * 15mm
Simple algebra shows that the two quantities are identical.
It is not necessary for both cavities to fill with "air" in order for the cylinder to rise to the stop. The proposed cylinder composition is massless, volumeless, with an SG of 1.0. Consequently, it is neutrally buoyant and can move anywhere up or down without an energy cost. If we assume zero surface tension and friction between the cylinder and the water, then we only have to pump in an infinitesimal amount of "air" in order for the surrounding water to push that "air" up the annular ring until it encounters the underside of the cylinder top and then transmits the infinitesimal force of the displaced water to the cylinder causing it to accelerate ever so slowly towards the stop.
Mark,
In reply 962 is atmospheric pressure involved?
Thank you,
John.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
MarkE,
It is to our mutual benefit that we do no longer engage in communication, we always appear to miss each others points.
I did not make any CLAIM, neither did I mention anything about support information.
You're the one missing the point, and yes you are making a CLAIM, you claim that Wayne's device works and produces excess energy, you also claim you know how to make over-unity, there are only two people that agree with you, Wayne and the $2000 member, the rest of us challenge you to produce some proper evidence.
As for the rest of your post.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
MarkE,
It is to our mutual benefit that we do no longer engage in communication, we always appear to miss each others points.
I did not make any CLAIM, neither did I mention anything about support information.
You have indeed made many CLAIMS wrt Travis and his alleged devices. Just like Travis did, when the going gets tough for you, you want to stop communicating instead of supporting your CLAIMS with solid data, logical arguments, checkable outside references to valid sources, and repeatable demonstrations of your own.
Quote
The point was:
The Wayne skeptics have been demanding a video, giving ZED working knowledge has been refused since it violates the conservation laws.
In the first place that is not a grammatical English sentence so I can only attempt to decode it.
In the second place you are, as usual, misrepresenting what is being said to you. What "the Wayne skeptics" have been demanding is NOT a video "giving Zed working knowledge". We have videos of a couple of Travis's devices "working" already, and we had the Flash animation that he has removed, after the name change and the lawsuit. What we are demanding is _data that supports the claims_ and that can be verified and repeated independently. That is, the usual stuff that anyone demands from anyone else with a radical claim. We would especially like to see, up close and personal, the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (Travis's own words). Yes, a video of that system, along with some data that supports the OU claim made for it, would be helpful. But why didn't Travis show this system to Mark Dansie on either of his site visits? Why haven't we ever seen anyone's report of this system? I know why, and so do you: it doesn't exist.
Quote
The reason for Wasif video was:
Here is a video with no other information, no working knowledge.
The conclusion
The Wasif video means less than nothing, because it provides nothing. It has no value without working knowledge.
On the contrary, the video provided sufficient information to determine that the device is faked, not doing what the claimant said it is doing. As usual the video revealed more than the (amateur) hoaxer wanted to reveal. The type and extent of the deformation of the SPRING SHAFT COUPLING clearly shows that the "generator" is driving the "magnet motor", not the other way around. Had the claimants not inadvertently provided close-ups of the spring in the two conditions, running and not running, we would not be certain, but the spring is, to my mind, a definite "tell" that blows Kahloon out of the water entirely. Like Mylow's fishing line drive, only even easier to see once you know what to look for.
Quote
The contradiction: Although Wayne's skeptics think it is everything in the ZED case.
Your strawman raises its head again. No contradiction. Any video is bound to reveal as well as to conceal. The videos we have of the Travis items in action reveal much that Travis didn't intend, and do indeed contain "tells", but they are not necessary and aren't what "Wayne's skeptics" really want, as discussed above.
Quote
It is immaterial if what was shown in the video is real or not, at this point it is an enigma
I hope you see the point
If you are talking about Kahloon's video.... whether his device is real or not is certainly NOT immaterial, and his videos are indeed very informative and are not "enigmas" at all. They clearly show, as I have explained, the "smoking gun" that proves his fakery, if not exactly how power is delivered to the system. But even without that there is still much information in those videos that raises doubt, and not much that makes one confident in the claims.
Quote
I do not want to discourage you with your current exploration of Wayne's piston but I hope you also see the point, that Yours & TKs current posts contradict your previous statements.
Red_Sunset
Or rather, your fake interpretations and misrepresentations of our posts do.
Your tactics are so transparent, Red.
Quote from: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 04:53:06 AM
....... and Volume B in the annular gap between the piston OD and the inverted cylinder ID.
ok, i see,
i did not think there was a gap nor cylinder is volumeless.
so i thought there is only Volume A filled with air.
with that condition, i agree displaced water : A + B
next, same as minnie, i see no atmospheric pressure involved.
Quote from: minnie on February 06, 2014, 05:32:39 AM
Mark,
In reply 962 is atmospheric pressure involved?
Thank you,
John.
Minnie, because everything is submerged in the local atmosphere, and we have stipulated no compressible materials, the local atmospheric pressure cancels out of any work. For example air taken from just above the water to pump down is at 1 ATM, and the total pressure at the bottom of the tank is the weight per sq cm of the water plus 1 ATM. So the work done pumping air down is still just the weight of the displaced water multiplied by the height of the water.
Quote from: webby1 on February 06, 2014, 07:56:09 AM
Lets keep going this way, this is how I keep going about it.
I got a little lost in the responses since my last,, oh well.
Here is a graph from a ZED run.
Webby what are those supposedly representing: Measurements? If so of what, taken where?
Is the horizontal axis time, or displacement or?
I think that we now have a starting condition and state 2 drawing that we can refer to that meets your intent. If not I am happy to continue to refine the drawing until it does. If the drawing does not require more updates, then are we going to go from the starting condition to state 2 and back to the starting condition, or will se start and end at state 2?
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 06, 2014, 06:01:18 AM
You have indeed made many CLAIMS wrt Travis and his alleged devices. Just like Travis did, when the going gets tough for you, you want to stop communicating instead of supporting your CLAIMS with solid data, logical arguments, checkable outside references to valid sources, and repeatable demonstrations of your own.In the first place that is not a grammatical English sentence so I can only attempt to decode it.
In the second place you are, as usual, misrepresenting what is being said to you. What "the Wayne skeptics" have been demanding is NOT a video "giving Zed working knowledge". We have videos of a couple of Travis's devices "working" already, and we had the Flash animation that he has removed, after the name change and the lawsuit. What we are demanding is _data that supports the claims_ and that can be verified and repeated independently. That is, the usual stuff that anyone demands from anyone else with a radical claim. We would especially like to see, up close and personal, the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (Travis's own words). Yes, a video of that system, along with some data that supports the OU claim made for it, would be helpful. But why didn't Travis show this system to Mark Dansie on either of his site visits? Why haven't we ever seen anyone's report of this system? I know why, and so do you: it doesn't exist.
On the contrary, the video provided sufficient information to determine that the device is faked, not doing what the claimant said it is doing. As usual the video revealed more than the (amateur) hoaxer wanted to reveal. The type and extent of the deformation of the SPRING SHAFT COUPLING clearly shows that the "generator" is driving the "magnet motor", not the other way around. Had the claimants not inadvertently provided close-ups of the spring in the two conditions, running and not running, we would not be certain, but the spring is, to my mind, a definite "tell" that blows Kahloon out of the water entirely. Like Mylow's fishing line drive, only even easier to see once you know what to look for.
Your strawman raises its head again. No contradiction. Any video is bound to reveal as well as to conceal. The videos we have of the Travis items in action reveal much that Travis didn't intend, and do indeed contain "tells", but they are not necessary and aren't what "Wayne's skeptics" really want, as discussed above.
If you are talking about Kahloon's video.... whether his device is real or not is certainly NOT immaterial, and his videos are indeed very informative and are not "enigmas" at all. They clearly show, as I have explained, the "smoking gun" that proves his fakery, if not exactly how power is delivered to the system. But even without that there is still much information in those videos that raises doubt, and not much that makes one confident in the claims.
Or rather, your fake interpretations and misrepresentations of our posts do.
Your tactics are so transparent, Red.
Tinsel > That was a lot of writing, the truth must have gotten too close to home.
MarkE > Webster definition of ENIGMA : "something that is difficult to understand or explain". The question was not if you can see it as Fake or Not. It would be irrelevant to the argument
PowerCat said ><the rest of us challenge you to produce some proper evidence>. If that was so, why did you ignore the invitation?
The claim reference was addressing the previous mail by MarkE that referred to the "Wasif Kahloon" video's, not to the Wayne Travis, but that didn't stop you both to pull Travis into the picture ( transperent....or murky... maybe somewhat)
Although the video link was not in support of a claim, it was only an example in the demonstration of a point. Still puzzled to what insults and evidence have to do here.
QuoteRed_Sunset you posted the video link as support for your claims. It didn't provide any support. You can carry on as you have with back handed and/or direct insults. If that's all you can come up with then so be it. It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.
Yes, I need to agree that our communication is becoming too predictably transparent.
So let bury the axe......?
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 08:12:17 AM
Tinsel > That was a lot of writing, the truth must have gotten too close to home.
MarkE > Webster definition of ENIGMA : "something that is difficult to understand or explain". The question was not if you can see it as Fake or Not. It would be irrelevant to the argument
There is nothing difficult to explain. The device is an obvious hoax. The claimed motor is not driving a generator that then supplies the loads shown.
Quote
PowerCat said ><the rest of us challenge you to produce some proper evidence>. If that was so, why did you ignore the invitation?
Over and over people including myself have asked you to present evidence of the surplus energy generation that you claim. Each time you have declined. The offer / request remains open. Keep dodging and/or refusing or present actual evidence as you see fit. By obstinately refusing to provide evidence you make your claims very weak.
Quote
The claim reference was addressing the previous mail by MarkE that referred to the "Wasif Kahloon" video's, not to the Wayne Travis, but that didn't stop you both to pull Travis into the picture ( transperent....or murky... maybe somewhat)
Yes, I need to agree that our communication is becoming too predictably transparent.
Let bury the axe......
Red_Sunset
It was your choice to bring in the terribly bad fake demonstrations by Wasif Kahloon. You associated those videos with Wayne Travis. Why you keep chasing yourself in circles remains a mystery.
Quote from: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 08:19:33 AM
.......................................................Why you keep chasing yourself in circles remains a mystery.
because none of your comments are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.
Quote from: webby1 on February 06, 2014, 08:24:13 AM
That came out of the file I posted.
We will start from state2 and move the medium to the start condition, allow for the start condition to move up and become state2.
I will have to go looking for that file.
Are you OK with filling both the top bubble and the annular cavity with our "air" by the end of State 2?
What mechanism would you like to use to go from State 2 to the starting condition? We could for example add a vent valve to the top of the cylinder.
What external work would you like to do, and in which state would you like to do it?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 08:12:17 AM
PowerCat said ><the rest of us challenge you to produce some proper evidence>. If that was so, why did you ignore the invitation?
By invitation I take it you mean travelling to Wayne's premises to see his device, Wayne already has somebody capable of this task (Mark Dansie) but as we all know Wayne is scared of verification and has lied and broken his promises on numerous occasions over the last two years.
If Mark Dansie can't get access to verify Wayne's device why would you think of suggesting I should go ?
Quote from: powercat on February 06, 2014, 08:51:56 AM
By invitation I take it you mean travelling to Wayne's premises to see his device, Wayne already has somebody capable of this task (Mark Dansie) but as we all know Wayne is scared of verification and has lied and broken his promises on numerous occasions over the last two years.
If Mark Dansie can't get access to verify Wayne's device why would you think of suggesting I should go ?
I have been telling myself already for quite a while to give up on this forum, and I should.
I think what is keeping me is the entertainment value.
PowerCat,
In which post did you get an invitation to travel to Wayne's premises. >> in none! so why imagine that ?.
You guys are like loose cannons, your comments are seldom relevant to the discussion at hand.
There was a post that said the following as your invitation to participate,
Quote
Gravity powered devices / Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« on: February 03, 2014, 09:52:55 AM »
.................................
So in order to proceed, I need the acknowledgement of all skeptic members listed below, for all line items shown.
A "yes" or "no" or "don't know" or "impossible" or "maybe" are all valid answers.
We have 6 days remaining because by that time I will be at the bottom of Africa with only intermittent internet access
Mandatory detailed response needed from
1., MarkE
2.. TinselKoala
3.. Mile High
4.. PowerCat
5.. EnergiaLibre
6.. Fletcher
and anybody who wants to participate is welcome to do so.
...........................................
Red_Sunset
hi all
it's coffe time.. any news about RAR?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 09:27:36 AM
PowerCat,
In which post did you get an invitation to travel to Wayne's premises. >> in none! so why imagine that ?.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 09:01:57 AM[/font]Hi Cat,Some advice, get yourself better informed, so you can see the wood from the tree'sTake a trip to Oklahoma and visit the ZED production line.
No doubt you will twist the meaning of what you said, that is a predictable thing that you do, I repeatedly have shown you to be contradictory, aggressive, and repetitive.
As for your second invitation I refer you to the yellow sign in my previous post
You really need to get it into your deluded mind that it is you that has to produce evidence, the members of this forum are not accountable to your delusions of grandeur.
Hi,
I'm really impressed with Webby, he really is giving this his best shot.
As for Sunset I think about the best adjective to use is pathetic.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 06, 2014, 10:12:38 AM
It is right after the post from Wayne.
The cavity and bubble have to be filled by then,, there is not enough space in the starting condition to hold it all.
When I go through this I use a connecting tube of some sort to dump the "air" from state 2 back into the starting condition.
External work would just be extracting something from the change in height from the starting condition up to state 2, whether that is by weight or external resistance does not matter so much, it ends up being the same energy.
Are you OK with a vent in the top of the inverted cylinder? We could have that feed back to a reservoir on the surface that the pump uses as its source of "air".
The external work statement needs refinement. Lifting and dropping a weight would not do any net work. Would you like to propose something whereby a weight on top of the cylinder is removed at the end of state 2, and a new one is placed on top of the cylinder at the end of the starting condition? That would be fine by me. Pick an SG and value for the weight. One such weight would have an SG of 1.0: It would be the water that we raise going from the starting condition to State 2. One could place a series of valves along the side of the container so that water above a certain height will drain off. We can count the work performed as the water weight times the fall height from the particular valve.
Mark,
thank you for answering my question. I can now see the point of simplifying
things and this makes it much easier to calculate what is actually going on.
I'm a semi retired old farmer and have been intrigued with this since Mark Dansie
started taking it seriously.
I do appreciate the efforts you scientists put in to explaining things. Who would
have thought such a simple device as could have been so difficult to analyse?
John.
Minnie it is my pleasure. Buoyancy for some reason plays with people's intuition. It doesn't help when some people go very far out of their way to misrepresent things as happened in those five aquarium videos and much discussion that followed. The reality is actually dirt simple as explained by Archimedes' Priniciple:
Immersing anything in a fluid subjects that object to an offsetting buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid volume.
When something has a lower density than the fluid, we have to do work to submerge that thing. We are lifting fluid while sinking the thing. When something has a higher density, we have to do work to lift it. The fluid that falls as we lift the thing has less mass than we lift. If the density of the thing is the same as the surrounding fluid, then the thing can move around in the fluid without expenditure or gain of potential energy to the system because if we go up a like mass of surrounding fluid falls, or if we go down a like mass of surrounding fluid goes up.
What all of this adds up to is that buoyancy doesn't change the behavior of gravity: The net weight lifted or dropped is just the original object weight offset by the weight of the displaced fluid mass that would occupy the object's volume. We do relatively less work going up and relatively more work going down. At the end of the day we are still lifting and dropping the net masses in a gravitational field. Our combined experience is that gravity is conservative: If we take a test weight from some starting point through an arbitrary path in a gravitational field, as long as we and come back to where we started we neither gain nor lose gravitational potential energy. For all of the demonstrations, protests, and various hand waving by: Red_Sunset, Tom Miller, Wayne Travis, etc. none have shown that HER or anyone else can coax gravity into non-conservative behavior.
Quote from: webby1 on February 06, 2014, 05:36:55 PM
I started by just having the vents at the top connected together with a simple transfer pump between them. I actually built other testbeds many years ago using this setup so it was easy for me to think about and understand how it worked.
A weight that is removed is how I went about it, I did not bring in the PE change of the water in the outside big container, since that volume after the setup stays the same and since the cylinders are not interacting with the surface that subtle change in pressure should have no impact.
I learn faster by doing, hands on, so most of the things I get up to I try and use things I have done as parts of the build or concept.
Webby, so what would you like to do for work here? If you want to count weight that can be raised going from the starting condition to state 2, I am good with that. We can stipulate that the water container is so large that the water level change is incidental. Does that work for you?
Hi,
trouble is, if you simplify everything down, unless you add some form of
energy, you end up with a pail of water!
John.
ETA in this country we've got that much water that a rail line that's lasted
150 years has been washed into the sea.
Quote from: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 05:55:50 PM
.....................................................
..................................For all of the demonstrations, protests, and various hand waving by: Red_Sunset, Tom Miller, Wayne Travis, etc. none have shown that HER or anyone else can coax gravity into non-conservative behavior.
MarkE,
A perfect faultless explanation of buoyancy ! the previous demonstrations, protests, and various hand waving were not DISPUTING anything you said as incorrect, it was incomplete for not being the whole possible story.
But it nevertheless is an other angle of approach to analyze the process and it should lead to the same conclusions, except the view might not be as intuitive as provided using area and pressure with height displacement.
That Red_Sunset, Tom Miller, Wayne Travis, coax gravity into a non-conservative behavior is a misnomer ! That reveals a lack of understanding. If seen indirectly, yes this could be understood that way, but if looking closely into the process flow, this is definitely not what happens. The device responds to the natural gravitation as expected according to the condition the device is in without abnormality.
Lets stay within the boundaries of reality.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset you can repeat your false assertions that anyone has managed to coax non-conservative behavior from gravity all you want. Each time anyone has asked you for evidence you have come back with empty hands. Ditto any and all other HER supporters and Wayne Travis himself. You or anyone else who would like to rehabilitate this situation for HER are welcome to offer actual evidence anytime that you like.
You offer a unique point of view when you suggest that you will be performing reality checks when it is you who continue to make fantastical claims without evidence. I suggest that you cure your own fantastical claims first.
Webby here is a picture to go along with what I believe are the conditions we have set.
When the cylinder is initially at rest over the piston, we place a 2.22gm SG = 10.0 payload weight on top of the cylinder. That mass has an underwater weight of 2gms.
Then we pump 2cc of "air" into the cylinder from the bottom. This makes the whole assembly neutrally buoyant, because we specified the cylinder as massless and volumeless with an SG of 1.0.
In order to get the assembly to rise we pump in another 0.1cc of air. The assembly rises to the stop.
We collect the work done by removing the raised weight.
Then by unspecified means, we reclaim the energy that is in the "air" bubble now trapped under the top of the cylinder. That energy is the weight of water displaced by the bubble: 2.1gms multiplied by the average distance that the bubble travels back to the surface: 171mm, multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.
When we add up the energy that we put in: displacing 2.1gms of water at a depth of 315mm versus the energy we get out and reclaim: 2gms payload lifted 15mm, and 2.1gms of water lifted 171mm we get less than 60% out versus what we put into the cycle. The problem is that we pay that 315mm depth but only get to reclaim an average of 171mm plus the payload movement of 15mm.
You might want a word of explanation of why I picked a 2.22gm payload. The payload had to be small enough so that the assembly would become neutrally buoyant before the annular ring fills. If the payload were heavier, then the cylinder would never rise and a bubble would never form between the top of the piston and the inside of the top of the cylinder. If these results surprise you, especially in light of Video #5, remember that we are starting without any displaced water and complete a full cycle whereas Video #5 begins by displacing water and does not execute a complete cycle. Video #5 like the other four is misdirection.
Quote from: MarkE on February 07, 2014, 02:33:42 AM
Red_Sunset you can repeat your false assertions that anyone has managed to coax non-conservative behavior from gravity all you want. Each time anyone has asked you for evidence you have come back with empty hands. Ditto any and all other HER supporters and Wayne Travis himself. You or anyone else who would like to rehabilitate this situation for HER are welcome to offer actual evidence anytime that you like.
You offer a unique point of view when you suggest that you will be performing reality checks when it is you who continue to make fantastical claims without evidence. I suggest that you cure your own fantastical claims first.
MarkE,
I made a modification to my mail, in order to make it more precise,
You are doing good with your test process, this is the best way to prove it for yourself, so you can believe what Wayne demonstrated and in this way it will be indisputable.
I never claimed to have physical data, only a theoretical understanding that matches the process and flow of Wayne physical data
Wayne neither me, claimed to coax gravity into a non-conservation. You have forgotten the "MAGICAL LEVER" that can change its lift parameters at low cost and therefore would respond differently to gravity. Gravity stays unchanged and is not interfered with.
It is advisable to wait until you have finished your due diligence before you make unfounded statements
Red_Sunset
QuoteMarkE,
A perfect faultless explanation of buoyancy ! the previous demonstrations, protests, and various hand waving were not DISPUTING anything you said as incorrect, it was incomplete for not being the whole possible story.
But it nevertheless is an other angle of approach to analyze the process and it should lead to the same conclusions, except the view might not be as intuitive as provided using area and pressure with height displacement.
That Red_Sunset, Tom Miller, Wayne Travis, coax gravity into a non-conservative behavior is a misnomer ! That reveals a lack of understanding. If seen indirectly, yes this could be understood that way, but if looking closely into the process flow, this is definitely not what happens. The device responds to the natural gravitation as expected according to the condition the device is in without abnormality.
Lets stay within the boundaries of reality.
Red_Sunset
Sunset,
have you witnessed a buoyancy/gravity device working?
If no, do you know someone who has?
If no to both above, have you got conclusive documentary evidence to
prove your case?
Yes/no answers perfectly acceptable.........but honesty a must.
John.
Sunset,
have you witnessed a gravity/buoyancy machine working?
If no, do you know someone who has?
If no to both above, have you got documentary evidence to prove your case?
Yes/no answers perfectly acceptable.......honesty a must!
John
yes,
8 posts are mine ,
2 from mark,
1 from red,
the rest i don't know >> ??? <<
i made 8 empty posts to jump to this page, as it did not work so i gave up.
Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 09:43:06 AM
There is an advantage to being the one who adds the energy, that is you can pick and choose how it is done.
Some times you can take 2 systems that have a given value of efficiency and add them together and raise the efficiency of the system as a whole.
Can you give an example of such a case? Other than Travis's system, I mean.
Generally speaking.... efficiencies "multiply" rather than add. So if you have one system that is, say, 90 percent efficient --say, an electric motor -- and you put the output of that into a system -- say a generator -- with 80 percent efficiency, you get 0.90 x 0.80 = 0.72, or 72 percent efficiency overall.
Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 09:45:45 AM
Strange server behavior.
anyone else not getting some of the posts?
My response gave a new page and MarkE had his response on its own page and it looks like some posts might not be showing up.
I think that the server may have choked on my diagram. I've reduced the resolution this time.
The basic arrangement is that we have the same set up as in the previous drawing, but now we will do work lifting a payload weight. I choose a payload with a dry weight of 2.22 gms and an SG of 10.0 so that it has a submerged weight of 2.00gms.
We start with the cylinder on top of the piston.
We place the payload on top of the cylinder.
We pump in 2cc of "air" under the cylinder. The cylinder with the payload on it is now neutrally buoyant.
We pump in an additional 0.1cc of "air". The cylinder now rises 15mm to the stop.
We remove the payload. The work extracted is: 2.0gms * 15mm * 9.8m/s/s = 0.294mJ.
We vent the bubble under the piston and by unspecified means recover all of the energy in the bubble.
We push the now neutrally buoyant cylinder back down to the starting position.
Work input: 2.1cc water displaced from 315mm at 9.8m/s/s = 6.48mJ
Work extracted: 0.294mJ + 2.1gms * (165mm + Hbubble/2) * 9.8m/s/s. Hbubble = 11.9mm. Work extracted = 0.294mJ + 3.518mJ = 3.81mJ
Cycle energy efficiency = 3.81mJ / 6.48mJ = 58.8%
I chose the 2.22 grams mass so that the "air" injected under the cylinder would cause the cylinder plus payload to become neutrally buoyant before the annular ring filled with "air". If the payload weight is too heavy the annular ring would fill without the cylinder rising and any additional air would just leak out. I chose the 2.22 number because the arithmetic is easy with an SG of 10.0: 2.00gms submerged weight.
Sunset,
ruling out stored potential,
have you ever witnessed a working gravity/buoyancy device?
If no, has someone you know seen such a device?
If no to both above, have you documentary evidence to support your claim?
Yes/no answer acceptable .......honesty a must!
John
OK it was the diagram that made the server choke. I've moved a lower resolution image into my response. All should be good now.
Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 09:43:06 AM
There is an advantage to being the one who adds the energy, that is you can pick and choose how it is done.
Some times you can take 2 systems that have a given value of efficiency and add them together and raise the efficiency of the system as a whole.
For any values: 0<N<1 and 0<M<1, N*M < M, N*M < N. The only way to improve efficiency with two lossy processes is if the addition of the second process allows one to change the operating point of the first process to one where it operates more efficiently by a factor greater than the inverse of the second process's efficiency.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 09:27:36 AM[/font]PowerCat, In which post did you get an invitation to travel to Wayne's premises. >> in none! so why imagine that ?.Red_Sunset
It was in this one the one below, so nothing wrong with my imagination.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 09:01:57 AM
Hi Cat,
Some advice, get yourself better informed, so you can see the wood from the tree's
Take a trip to Oklahoma and visit the ZED production line.
Powercat,
visit the ZED production line. Sounds as if they're churning them out!
It'll be a flat pack so you'll be able to take one home in the van.
John.
Hi John
Mark Dansie can't get in there to verify the device, so even if I was to go the likelihood is I would be shown the outside of a building that houses the production line, but for security reasons and keeping golden nuggets of technical information secret and business reasons, I can't actually see anything worth seeing, they might show me a stack of empty boxes and claim they contain the finished products that are in the process of being shipped out..... (to never never land)
Webby,
it's the petrol that makes this happen, you're putting energy in to the system
and modifying how it's used.
What we're looking for is more back than we put in. Koala pointed out the
illusion of something for hardly anything with his spring assisted bollard.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 01:04:17 PM
Small problem, you are not putting in enough energy, aka air.
The air needs to be maintained down at the bottom of the cylinder during lift, this means that more air is pumped in while the cylinder is moving up. Then after that part of the cycle, that cylinder becomes the "source" of air for another one that is in the start condition. Just recovering the energy is fine but it will be used again :)
Webby, no that is not correct. Let's review:
The cylinder has no mass, no volume and an SG of 1.0. So it does not contribute or require energy to move from one position to another. It is a platform for the payload. Our "air" is massless and incompressible. Whatever volume we insert at whatever depth, it displaces a like volume of water at that same depth, and if not restrained would return to the surface. The payload mass has an SG of 10.0 and a dry mass of 2.22gms. In water it has an effective weight of 2.00gms.
Now, we pump 2.00cc of "air" into the bottom of the tank underneath the cylinder. That "air" displaces 2.00cc = 2.00gms of water. The water around that "air" pushes it up the annular ring until it is stopped by the underside of the top of the cylinder. The displaced water continues to transmit 2.00gms * 9.8m/s/s = 19.6mN force through the "air" against the underside of the cylinder. The payload with an SG of 10 occupies 0.22cc. The total displaced water volume is now 2.22cc, meaning that we have a total uplift of 2.22gms exactly balancing the payload dry weight. The cylinder plus payload weight is at this point neutrally buoyant. In order to get the cylinder to rise, we pump in another 0.1cc of "air". Now the upward force of displaced water exceeds the gravitational force on the payload weight by 0.98N. The cylinder rises until it is restrained by the stop.
Now, we could pump even more "air" in. As long as we don't overrun the cylinder movement we can eventually pump in as much as: 5.04cc. We won't be doing any extra work on our chosen payload. We will be putting more work in pumping in "air". In the best case we can recover all of that extra energy and it will improve our net efficiency somewhat.
We can also increase the maximum payload. We are limited to a maximum submerged payload weight equivalent to the weight of the water in the annular ring of 2.39gms. For a payload with an SG of 10.0 that means a maximum dry weight of 2.65gms. Anything heavier than that at that SG and the cylinder will not rise. The annular ring will just fill and then any additional "air" will just spill out into the surrounding water and surface by itself.
Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 01:12:49 PM
Yes, well sure,, formulas,, :)
The drag is both a push and a suck,, so the front car only sees the push it needs to supply to move the air out of the way and the rear car only sees the suck from the air pulling it backwards,, it is not a complete removal but it does reduce costs for both, or many, depending on the length of the line, so that they can travel at a higher velocity and or reduce fuel consumption.
Theoretically, if there are 2 independent systems where the losses for one is a gain for the other and vice-verse, then the two working together get a better bang for the buck. It is like multitasking, so the toilet is on the other side of the kitchen from where you are sitting watching TV and you need to go use the bathroom,, and you have some dirty dishes next to you because you had a snack while watching TV,, if you pick up the dishes and deposit them in the kitchen on the way to the bathroom you have saved yourself the extra journey than if you were to do each item by itself.
Well, this is not a case of concatenating two lossy processes. It is a case of reconfiguring two instances of lossy process into a different single lossy process. N*M <> P.
Webby,
I really would like to see a good result here, however I have been studying what
MarkE is saying as he's working through this with you.
In the end I'm seeing a bucketful of cold water and I've got to imagine a way of
bringing it to life. It just isn't that easy!
Look at this planet and compare it with say the moon. Nothing much happens on the
moon but on this planet with liquid water and sunlight the magic happens.
John.
MarkE,
reply 1022. Very well explained. I could well have fallen into a trap there with the
submerged weight. One has to correct by taking off the buoyancy of the submerged weight,
with obvious consequences if one didn't.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
What is the total volume of displaced water under the cylinder, it is not how much air that has been pumped into it, it is the total volume of the cylinder.
The filler, the displacement replacement, takes care of the rest of the water does it not?
Webby if we had started with an "air" bubble under the cylinder and over the piston that extended down over the annular section for any amount then the buoyant force transmitted to the cylinder would be of the total weight of equivalent volume displaced above the bottom of the "air" pocket. IE it would include the 14.23mm diameter of the piston that would have extended above the bottom of the air pocket. That is pretty much the condition that they start with in the misleading Video #5. If you would like to change the problem so that we start with an "air" bubble I am happy to do that. That will necessitate a preload weight to hold the cylinder down in the Starting State.
Here is a picture that is more like Video #5 where we start with an air bubble:
Left most, the air bubble just fills the 15mm space allowable by the stop.
Middle, the air bubble extends down 15mm over the piston.
Right, the air bubble extends down 135mm over the piston.
The calculations of work in take into account the movement of the cylinder, unladen. The applied work we have to input from left to right scales as: 1.00, 1.10, and 1.88, even though the force increases by a factor of 10:1. This may seem interesting and the HER people try to make it seem interesting. But force has no direct connection to work. Energy or work is the integral of force applied through a distance.
Now, what you can do is specify how you want to do work: For example you could propose that we start with the left most case, plus an added weight that is enough to compress the cylinder by some amount up to the full 15mm clearance. Then we could add a payload weight at that height and pump in "air" until until the whole thing rises as in Video #5. We can then remove the payload, and vent as in the earlier analysis to return to the starting condition of the compressed bubble and see what the energy balance looks like.
Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
What is the total volume of displaced water under the cylinder, it is not how much air that has been pumped into it, it is the total volume of the cylinder.
from webby
"total volume of displaced water" bigger than "total volume of air we pumped to cylinder",
i think, there is now way unless pressure involved,
and "total weight of displaced water same as total weight of air in cylinder"
markE assumed first condition " Our air is massless and incompressible ".
maybe iam wrong!!!
Quote from: Marsing on February 07, 2014, 10:34:41 PM
from webby
"total volume of displaced water" bigger than "total volume of air we pumped to cylinder",
i think, there is now way unless pressure involved,
and "total weight of displaced water same as total weight of air in cylinder"
markE assumed first condition " Our air is massless and incompressible ".
maybe iam wrong!!!
Marsing the misrepresentation suggested repeatedly by HER has been something for nothing, when in fact the accounts always balance. Hence HER focus on forces and suggest that they translate directly to energy when they do not. A simple lever can greatly multiply force without exertion of any energy.
Quote from: MarkE on February 08, 2014, 12:01:59 AM
Marsing the misrepresentation suggested repeatedly by HER has been something for nothing, when in fact the accounts always balance. Hence HER focus on forces and suggest that they translate directly to energy when they do not. A simple lever can greatly multiply force without exertion of any energy.
i can not make final conclusion mark, i didnt see a complete scheme of HER yet, let's wait for response from webby or others
To get back on the RAR track there are four new photos. The fat man seems to have brought his wife with him to Illinois
Not only will the machine run from gravity alone, only partially assembled it's already a fully functioning time machine. November 20, 2013 and February 6, 2014 are indistinguishable.
The big gravity machine works like this:
Each of the two machines works half way, then two of them will work full way. And it helps that they are on two different continents because their operation will be independent.
And one does not need experimental proof because everybody knows that 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 specially if the two 0.5 values were established independently.
Independence of the two 0.5 values is essential because I would of course take a 0.5 value if I knew that you have already established your 0.5 value and I want the result to be 1. But such cheating does not work if the two 0.5 values are found independently.
I hope that intelligent people can see the reason behind this proof. But as always, big oil will buy some debunkers and they will deny the truth.
Naturally, there are only few people as intelligent as me, therefore I could as well have said nothing.
There is a slim chance that Grimer comes close to my outstanding intelligence. He is currently developing a theory that one machine works quarter ways and the other three quarter ways, which leads to the question whether two unequal parts can constitute "full way" in a gravity machine. I flatly deny such nonsense. Gravity machines have to do their business in equal parts, because gravity always needs two heavenly bodies to attract each other, and if you do not want your gravity machine pairs to fly off into space they need both to be "half way".
So, "half way" is the thing to achieve in a gravity machine. And you need two of them. I wonder why the Wayne crowed has not stumbled upon this obvious fact. Well, they will know now.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: webby1 on February 08, 2014, 05:54:48 AM
MarkE,
You seem to be deliberately not following the setup I am trying to walk through.
At the start, the the idea was to fill the GAP with air, then add air as the cylinder lifts.
I pointed out that you were not adding in enough energy, you disagreed.
Is it not a strange stance for YOU to take since we are walking through what I MYSELF am explaining, and YOU are showing the math for?
So use the correct scenario, air filled to the bottom of the cylinder and air added while the lift is made.
Webby I am amenable to anything that you want to try. You just have to describe it. I started with your sketches.
By gap do you mean the 15mm between the stop and the top of the piston, or the annular ring between the cylinder and the piston?
I added only the energy needed to lift the payload weight. I offered to add more "air" which requires more energy. Just specify the condition and I will set it up.
webby i get only little fraction of this all, so what to do with displaced water after lifting, i am thinking to make close loop now,
Quote from: webby1 on February 08, 2014, 05:59:01 AM
MarkE,
Show the misrepresentation, would you?
I do not see any such thing in any of the videos.
The videos point out *and demonstrate* that it takes a smaller volume of air to do the same thing. They do not show an OU thing nor do they say that it is, not what is shown in the videos.
It is a step, just like putting petrol in your tank,,
Webby the video demonstrates the 2000 year old Archimedes' Principal that it takes an identical
displaced water volume to produce the same amount of buoyant force in each case. Air does not supply the force in either case. Displaced water supplies the force. The set-up on the left displaces with a combination of a cement insert and surrounding air. The set-up on the right relies entirely on air to displace water. In both cases, the air transmits the force of the displaced water to the underside of the cups. The focus that Tom Miller places on the air is entirely misdirection.
Sunset,
dunno about the production line, sounds as if he's moving in to a Portacabin
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 08, 2014, 07:11:49 AM
Sunset,
dunno about the production line, sounds as if he's moving in to a Portacabin
John.
Porta is good, but Cabin is not the way to go. The money is in Potti.
http://www.portapotti.com.au/press_release
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: MarkE on February 08, 2014, 06:32:40 AM
Webby the video demonstrates the 2000 year old Archimedes' Principal that it takes an identical displaced volume of water to produce the same amount of buoyant force. The set-up on the left displaces with a combination of a cement insert and surrounding air. The set-up on the right relies entirely on air to displace water. In both cases, the air transmits the force of the displaced water to the underside of the cups. The focus that Tom Miller places on the air is entirely misdirection.
MarkE,
If you go back to post of 1+ week ago, it was said that the video only demonstrates the 2000+ year old Archimedes principle paradox , straight up and inverted. Nothing new here, the only bonus is the most optimum fluid volume quantity that needs to be managed. You are correct about the stroke displacement volume requirement will equal equivalent energy input.
It is beneficial to see the water column and displacement as 2 separate entities. Water column is force and its volume is of a setup nature and a loss factor and the displacement volume is of a dynamic nature and equals energy. In essence, the paradox keeps the loss factor to a minimum, but you still need to pay the piper.
What Wayne did is to integrate the displacement quantities for the outer surfaces in the water column pre-provisioining and with this setup shares the displacement cost although that doesn't come for free, he pays for it in pressure increase which evens the score. The displacement sharing and pre-provisioning principle therefore do not gain you anything beyond an efficiency improvement.
What is does do is to give you the possibility to control you lift, by pressure control you can determine at what ratio the lift takes place, bi-directionally. in a non-linear fashion. Because of the bi-directional property, the need for a dual setup is without doubt the best solution to handle this energy exchange and the rest is history
Red_Sunset
Yes,the rest is history..........and then nothing happens!
John
Hi,
would anyone agree with this statement? If you have identical cyliners you have to more
than 1 on your initial stroke.
John.
If you make too many idealizations you lose contact with reality and can wind up "proving" all kinds of non-physical things. For example, many of my constructions would run "forever".... if I could only neglect bearing friction, air resistance, eddy current drag, and the influence of gay pixies on my herd of pink unicorns, etc.
Webby,
what I meant was, if you've got identical cylinders you've got to have
OU from the first stroke, otherwise your pre-charge will just slowly run down.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 08, 2014, 08:16:20 AM
To start with, this is NOT OU. This is a step and there are 2 more after this.
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.
How much energy it takes to do this does not matter at all, it is like filling your tires with air, you do not need to add any more air into your tire just because you rolled a few feet down the road,, it is an environmental component.
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.
I come up with an 83 percent efficient transfer this way and a 33 percent efficient transfer for an open cylinder, that is no filler.
Webby, I am happy to set up whatever you want but it would be helpful for you to describe what it is in more detail so that we do not have to keep going back and forth.
I have attached a new drawing that represents what I think you are describing.
Where do you intend to place a payload and when? I hope that you understand that in order to get all of the "air" from the "B" cylinder on the right to the the "A" cylinder on the left we will have to add even more energy than we put in filling the "B" cylinder. If we just open a valve through the transfer pump after filling the "B" cylinder, then "air" will transfer until the pressures equalize between "A" and "B".
As to Video #5 the video shows
additional work was applied in order to get from one state to another for each of the cups. It did not account the initial work, nor did it complete a cycle. It was as silly as releasing a cocked spring and saying: "See free energy!". Tom Miller's representation that the cup with the cement insert represented anything other than Archimedes' Principle in action was a bald faced lie.
In order to perform an energy balance we need all four values for a
complete cycle: Energy at start, energy added, energy removed, and energy at the end.
Quote from: webby1 on February 08, 2014, 07:03:52 PM
MarkE,
At this point the payload will be placed on A, the system allowed to communicate the potential from B into A and then the additional energy required to complete the transfer and subsequent change in height of A.
This sets the cost of cycle and sets the output value.
This is where I come up with an 83 percent efficiency.
I also come up with a 33 percent efficiency for an open cylinder doing the same thing.
Webby, please specify the payload you would like to lift: Mass and SG.
Quote from: minnie on February 08, 2014, 12:02:46 PM
Webby,
what I meant was, if you've got identical cylinders you've got to have
OU from the first stroke, otherwise your pre-charge will just slowly run down.
John.
how can you come to that conclusion minnie ? seem you know a whole process
Quote from: Grimer on February 08, 2014, 02:07:30 AM
...................... there are four new photos.....................................
any LINK for the Photos?
The pictures can be found here: http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
Marsing,
I don't know how it works. Just using logic, if you've got two identical cylinders
it's a bit like a see-saw, you have to give it a bit of help every time or it'll just stop.
Unless anyone has a plan of a working device all any of us can do is surmise, I really
would like to see someone get to the bottom of this!
John.
Webby,
I was going to point out my take on the race video, but I see from your following
post that you've reached the same conclusion as me.
I don't know if those videos were made because of ignorance or were deliberately
intended to deceive.
I feel I'm learning a bit each day, we'll get there in the end!
John.
minnie,
webby stated there are 3 steps for complete process, while with your statement can be said only 2 step, that's all..
and we can not in hurry.. i don't know WHY,
Marsing,
yeah, it's the bit of magic in the third step that we need to know.
I don't know if Sunset knows anything, I expect he'll sink beyond the
horizon for a fair while from now on.
John.
Minnie, Marsing as to the videos: It is at best very foolish to declare new phenomena without first being careful to check that there really is something new going on. Tom Miller took the time to film four videos before #5 where he kept repeating: "Come on Archimedes!".
In order to get one or the other of the cups to ascend it is necessary to become positively buoyant. Buoyancy is about force not energy. The #5 video like the others demonstrates like the other videos that when it comes to buoyant force, it is as Archimedes' 2000 year old principle states: all about the equivalent weight of the displaced fluid volume. Cement, sand, air, marbles, delicious and fun Jello(r) brand gelatine, etc: If it displaces a given volume of water, then the surrounding water pushes back with a force equal to the weight of the displaced water mass, whether or not that displaced volume is much bigger than the actual amount of water in the vessel.
If it makes people feel better to think of Tom Miller as just badly misinformed about 2000 year old physics when he published those five videos, that's OK as long as no one ends up deceived by the blatant misrepresentations in those videos that they showed anything other than demonstrations of Archimedes' Principle.
Is there any kind of energy gain to be had introducing a piston into lifting objects using buoyancy? That may all depend on what one thinks of as a gain. If one is looking for a gain of more energy out of a cycle than goes in, sadly that has never happened. We are still in the process of determining the details of Webby's example. When we have those details we can see if it seems that Webby has discovered an exception.
MarkE,
do you agree that to get a benefit we have to see it on the first stroke, that is
if our cylinders are identical,
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 09, 2014, 04:52:08 AM
MarkE,
do you agree that to get a benefit we have to see it on the first stroke, that is
if our cylinders are identical,
John.
Minnie, no I do not agree. An energy gain if there is one to be had could come in one part of a full cycle just as well as the next. Only evaluation of a complete cycle determines how the accounts balance. When Webby has offered a description complete enough to model a full cycle then we will see how the accounts settle.
mark
i have no problem with video mark, video have done what it purpose,
i will tell your story that you told,
long ago, it was thought that metal aircraft would never be able to fly because metal is so much heavier than air. Today, aircraft weighing hundreds of tons fly on a daily basis.
what do you say markE ?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 08, 2014, 07:30:52 AM
What is does do is to give you the possibility to control you lift, by pressure control you can determine at what ratio the lift takes place, bi-directionally. in a non-linear fashion. Because of the bi-directional property, the need for a dual setup is without doubt the best solution to handle this energy exchange and the rest is history
What you or anyone else who claims this device can work needs to do is prove this 'non linear' behaviour is true with respect to ENERGY not just forces.
Forces during the stroke displacement could be any kind of function you like depending on the geometry or inner workings of the device. However until you account for the sum of all energies potential and kinetic you don't come close to proving your case.
None of the mathematical analysis presented so far is adequate. Analysing the device as a series of static steps shows no energy excess. Such simplified analysis however is inadequate to prove or disprove the 'non-linearity' of the system.
It would be possible to completely model this device with some accuracy using computational fluid dynamics. Personally, I think it is pointless to do that. All it will show is the device does not work. CFD code has as a stating point that energy is conserved and seeks to solve a system equations with that goal in mind.
As such, promoters of the device would need to be able to the exact point in the cycle and say 'see... this is where the excess energy is produced' and be able to explain just where this extra energy is manifested from.
Quote from: Marsing on February 09, 2014, 05:18:33 AM
mark
i have no problem with video mark, video have done what it purpose,
i will tell your story that you told,
long ago, it was thought that metal aircraft would never be able to fly because metal is so much heavier than air. Today, aircraft weighing hundreds of tons fly on a daily basis.
Why would anyone think that it is
impossible for something to fly just because it is heavier than air? Were these people who had such ideas unfamiliar with birds?
The only purpose I have seen from the videos was to promote a massive misconception that buoyant force exerted by immersing something in water has to do with how much air is part of what is immersed. It absolutely, positively is not so. Each of the five videos demonstrated as such, in fact demonstrating Archimede's Principle in each case despite what Tom Miller said on the audio tracks.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on February 09, 2014, 05:19:58 AM
What you or anyone else who claims this device can work needs to do is prove this 'non linear' behaviour is true with respect to ENERGY not just forces.
Forces during the stroke displacement could be any kind of function you like depending on the geometry or inner workings of the device. However until you account for the sum of all energies potential and kinetic you don't come close to proving your case.
None of the mathematical analysis presented so far is adequate. Analysing the device as a series of static steps shows no energy excess. Such simplified analysis however is inadequate to prove or disprove the 'non-linearity' of the system.
It would be possible to completely model this device with some accuracy using computational fluid dynamics. Personally, I think it is pointless to do that. All it will show is the device does not work. CFD code has as a stating point that energy is conserved and seeks to solve a system equations with that goal in mind.
As such, promoters of the device would need to be able to the exact point in the cycle and say 'see... this is where the excess energy is produced' and be able to explain just where this extra energy is manifested from.
It seems fairly common that people who promote various devices as offering free energy are unwilling to perform energy balances. These HER like machine analysis problems are of a nature that static analysis should be adequate. If OU results appear from static analysis, then more sophisticated analysis such as computation fluid dynamics may be required. I haven't seen anything so far that suggests that will be necessary to get a sufficiently accurate and reliable result that represents the truth of the matter.
Quote from: MarkE on February 09, 2014, 05:28:19 AM
Why would anyone think that it is impossible for something to fly just because it is heavier than air?
Were these people who had such ideas unfamiliar with birds?
i am questioning ,Who Were These People ?
talking about video is uselfull for the first Steps. we are waiting for webby explanation of The Second AND third step.
Quote from: Marsing on February 09, 2014, 05:48:23 AM
i am questioning ,Who Were These People ?
talking about video is uselfull for the first Steps. we are waiting for webby explanation of The Second AND third step.
Marsing what is the first step that you think you saw in the videos? Where did you see anything that was counter to Archimedes' Principle in any of the videos, despite Tom Miller's protests?
i can not say something counter to archimedes,
i wanna say that iam waiting for webby explanation.
and i guess you can remove two air pump from your diagram.
Quote from: Marsing on February 09, 2014, 06:19:43 AM
i can not say something counter to archimedes,
i wanna say that iam waiting for webby explanation.
and i guess you can remove two air pump from your diagram.
Marsing until Webby says what he wants to do to complete the cycle it is premature to remove the two pumps at the top. Webby needs to say whether he is going to try and reset the system by pumping back from "A" to "B" after "A" has lifted the payload, or he wants to vent and refill using one or both of the surface pumps.
Depending on the scenario, starting with the precharge in "B" one can arrange to lift a payload on "A" for close to the work that has to be done pumping "air" from "B" to "A". However, considerable additional work is then required to return that "air" to "B" in order to complete the cycle to the original precharged state. By the time that is done the efficiency suffers greatly.
ok, over to webby
but you can change the filename to "WEBBY IDEA" without waiting for him to say so.
Quote from: Marsing on February 09, 2014, 07:10:51 AM
ok, over to webby
but you can change the filename to "WEBBY IDEA" without waiting for him to say so.
Yes, now we all wait for Webby to provide more information. The files are all labeled "webby_problem" already. I am not picky about the names.
Quote from: MarkE on February 09, 2014, 07:29:49 AM
Yes, now we all wait for Webby to provide more information. The files are all labeled "webby_problem" already. I am not picky about the names.
you said "I am not picky about the names", so you can change to "MARK E problem".
Quote from: Marsing on February 09, 2014, 07:39:29 AM
you said "I am not picky about the names", so you can change to "MARK E problem".
Yes, I can but I do not see any reason to name drawings that represent what Webby is describing after myself. I think that would be confusing.
Quote from: MarkE on February 09, 2014, 07:44:42 AM
Yes, I can but I do not see any reason to name drawings that represent what Webby is describing after myself. I think that would be confusing.
yes , it will be confusing,
or "Webby is describing to markE" . no bargain
Quote from: webby1 on February 09, 2014, 08:05:48 AM
I am not picky either :) ,, but it is not my idea.
i am too, and yes that not yours, but that filename was not fair , it's seem you are asking for a help with that name. :)
Quote from: webby1 on February 09, 2014, 08:05:48 AM
I am not picky either :) ,, but it is not my idea.
MarkE, the videos did not show a "new" effect and IIRC Tom called the displacement replacement effect the "Travis" effect,, like other kind of things are not treated in a similar fashion. <= sarcasm
Scientists stated, that heavier than air craft can not fly, scientist stated that bumble bees should not fly,, this is all part in expanding our understanding of things, what we thought was this way ends up being that way instead.
This is about how I got myself to my understanding of Wayne Travis's device, that is what I am trying to walk MarkE through, however, his comprehension of my writing and my ability to write in a comprehensible way are at odds.
The payload is the max that A can lift and, as I stated, I find that this makes for an 83 percent efficient lift from the potential that is stored in B. After A has lifted then A becomes the store for B,, back and forth it goes BUT the transfer pump needs to be changed to make this happen much better.
Since MarkE has a very hard time interpreting what I write this may get even more out there,, but I will try.
If the transfer pump were a pressure balancing system, that is if it could take in a high pressure at a low volume and convert that into a lower pressure higher volume then the process of making that exchange becomes much more efficient.
A simple approach is to think of 3 discs that have a good thickness to them and they are stacked on top of each other making like a pyramid shape, and they move in a housing as such that at first the smallest disc sees the incoming pressure and moves the whole assembly and after a distance of motion that first disc moves away from its seal and exposes the next larger disc, it moves and opens the chamber up to the last disc, this allows for a pressure drop and volume increase and then a volume increase with the pressure drop to match closer to the potential coming from the stored potential in the cylinder.
Webby it would be best to stay on topic and finish defining the arrangement. At the moment I am waiting for you to define a payload weight and SG. Surely if you have already been through this you have values that you like. For the apparatus as it is currently described I can recommend a 2.934g dry weight payload with an SG of 10.0. That payload will have an underwater weight of 2.641g, 0.01g less than the weight of water that can occupy the annular ring between the piston and the cylinder with the cylinder all the way down as shown for the "A" side at the starting condition you have stated while the "B" side completely filled with "air" resting up against the stop. The difference of 0.01g is so that with the "air" displacing all the water in the "A" annular ring we will have a small net buoyant force to lift the payload initially above the piston. Once the cylinder clears the piston so that there is "air" between the piston and the cylinder underside, then the force will of course initially jump and then decay somewhat as the cylinder moves up and more "air" fills the expanding piston to cylinder underside cavity. As long as we remain net buoyant, and under these conditions we do, then the cylinder successfully lifts the payload by 15mm, where we can remove the payload and count the work done.
Our remaining task then is to return the apparatus to the State 2 condition you have stipulated as the cycle starting point where the "A" cylinder is down on the piston once more, there is no "air" on the "A" side and the "B" side is back to holding all the "air" that it can. Please clarify how you would like to return to that condition: For instance by pumping "air" from the "A" side back to the "B" side. Running the transfer pump in reverse works for me. If you want to vent and use the surface pumps that's fine too. I just need to know what you have in mind.
Unless there is something particularly important to you about the internal design of the transfer pump, why don't we simply assume that the transfer pump is 100% efficient?
If you share Marsing's objection to the filenames, let me know and I will change the names of new postings to something you like.
Quote from: Marsing on February 09, 2014, 08:19:02 AM
i am too, and yes that not yours, but that filename was not fair , it's seem you are asking for a help with that name. :)
Marsing I do not understand your concern. The thought problem that we are working is the one that Webby is defining bit by bit. If Webby objects to the filenames he can suggest something else.
forget about it markE. you are right, and thank you :)
Webby,
the transfer pump looks like a difficult problem. I can't quite get my head round
it at the moment, I'm looking forward to seeing the solution. The bit of magic?
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 09, 2014, 11:17:45 AM
MarkE,
If you are OK with calling the transfer pump 100% that is fine, it is just that in the real world I have not been able to achieve that and as a general rule I round up my input and round down my output,,
Is not the volume of the cylinder 26.5072 cubic cm? and so the payload should be very close to that value.
There is of course the filler that is displacing most of that volume, but it is the volume of displaced water in total and not just what has been added, volume wise, by the air. So once the air is put into the cylinder so that there is a very thin layer of air on top the filler and down the annular gap, the equivalent volume of displaced water is the entire volume of the cylinder, as if it were an open chamber filed with air.
After the air has been transferred from B into A then B can be moved into the down position that A was at, hence, A becomes B and B becomes A.
I am not overly concerned about the buoyant value to the weight, the weight could be located out of the water as long as it was in communication with the cylinder. Using weight is a more convenient method that using resistance, but in the end it is the resistance of the weight that allows for work to be done.
I really do not care about file names, whatever is easiest for you is fine,, I am trying to keep things easy and simple,, as you are aware, my communication skills are not the best :)
Webby, unless you start with a bubble between the top of the "A" piston and the underside of the cylinder, you do not get hydraulic force gain. Under those circumstances, the upward force that transmits to the underside of the cylinder is only that of the water displaced from the annular ring. That restricts you to a submerged payload weight less than 2.651g, or else the cylinder never separates from the piston. Once it does separate, then the force jumps because then you get the hydraulic force gain of the ratio of the entire area on the underside of the cylinder, versus the area of the annular ring. For this reason I recommended a submerged weight of 2.641g as 2.934g dry weight with an SG of 10.0. The submerged weight difference of 0.01g is incidental to the energy in the problem: < 0.5%, and meets the condition that the cylinder rises above the piston. (We are ignoring things like surface tension.)
You need to define a whole cycle with a starting condition and an ending condition that are the same. I am fine with making the cycle more complicated, but we will not be done until we execute a full cycle. So, if after lifting the payload on the "A" side you want to pump the remaining "air" out of the "B" side so that we have the mirror image of State 2, that is fine by me. We can then load a payload on the "B" side, pump air back from the "A" side, let that weight rise, remove the weight, pump the remaining "air" from the "A" side and we will have a full cycle starting and ending with the State 2 condition. By symmetry, we should expect that the total work applied and total work done is exactly twice what it takes to get from State 2 to the mirror condition.
MarkE and webby1,
Can I suggest that you try modifing the geometry of the system you are modeling and testing this way: Please place an infinitely small spacer between the top surface of the "piston" and the underside of the top of the cylinder. So that water and/or air can accumulate in a gap between the top surface of the piston and the underside of the top of the cylinder uninhibited. And then continue.
Thanks,
M.
Mondrasek, if the goal is to get a bubble in there, then what would do that is to either lengthen the cylinder slightly, or shorten the piston slightly. I propose to shorten the pistons to 14.99mm. That will leave a 0.01mm high volume that is initially water. Once we equalize the two sides the water will be pushed out, and we will get the 10:1 hydraulic piston force effect. That will let us lift the heavier payload. It will also change what happens as the piston rises. Whereas with a smaller payload and no initial bubble the upward force jumps 10X and then falls off with the rise, under these circumstances, the force will just be enough to become positively buoyant. As the cylinder rises, the bubble above the piston gets larger shortening the length of the bubble in the annular ring, bringing the system back to neutral buoyancy. In order to remain positively buoyant we will have to keep pumping "air" from the "B" side all the way to the stop. The amount of work that we will have to perform doing so will be the difference in P*V of the cylinder right before it starts rising and the cylinder up against the stop. The good news is that when we are done there won't be any air left on the "B" side. We can then give the "B" side a little nudge and the "B" cylinder will fall back to the bottom of the vessel.
Quote from: webby1 on February 10, 2014, 08:01:50 AM
MarkE,
I have said many times now that the air is to be kept at the bottom of the cylinder while lifting, why do you keep trying to "improve" what I am describing?
At this point you seem to be hallucinating. I have reviewed each and every post of yours on this thread since you posted your sketch that showed zero air gap between the top of the piston and the underside of the cylinder. Nowhere do I find you describing that you require a gap, nor a means to create one when the cylinder is in the lowermost position. Your sketch shows the cylinder in contact with the piston.
Quote
How will you deal with sectioning the long cylinder into 5 pieces, will you notice that when you do that that the section of cylinder that is inside becomes the filler,, will you notice that when you do that that your volume of input drops to 1\5? will you notice that the pressure is still the same?
Then there is the pod.
Webby I have drawn the geometry as you have dribbled it out beginning with your very sparse hand sketch. We have reviewed the drawings. I have made appropriate changes each time you offered comments and/or new information. Telling me that I have not penned the drawings according to your descriptions defies the written record. I have no idea what sectioning you refer to because this is the first that I have heard of it.
This is your thought problem. Since you are not satisfied with the drawings that I have prepared, there is a simple solution: Draft the necessary drawings to describe the problem as you envision it yourself.
Please don't forget about the Cartesian Diver. The nested Zed risers have some "CD" effect happening _due to the compressiblity of air_. The allegation that a Zed system would "work" with 2 incompressible fluids has never been shown, in practice, to do the same thing as the same system with air and water.
The change in pressure on the open-bottom risers causes change in air pocket volume, hence displaced water volume, and this affects buoyancy, enough to make a "CD" float, hover, or sink.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljvp-iR18Ko
Hi Webby,
thank you for explaining the transfer pump. I see that you've been
working on this long before mr Travis came on the scene.
Here in UK. we're experiencing the wettest winter that anyone can
remember. One farmer has had to move over 500 cattle because his
farm is now under water.
It's probably not as bad as the October blizzard in S.Dakota, is all this
a sign of things to come?
John
Hi,
I get the feeling this particular gravity wheel is shuddering to a halt.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 10, 2014, 10:29:02 AM
MarkE,
I am obviously in error in assuming that since we are discussing a buoyant lift of an open chamber vessel over an irregular surface that the required conditions for that would be understood.
To me these conditions are obvious and self evident, I assumed the same held true for you, I was wrong.
We are also discussing a buoyant lift at this time and not a hydraulic lift.
Webby I have constructed drawings against what you have described period. "Irregular surface" is like the "air gap" something that you have just introduced after five days of discussion. Prior to today neither phrase appeared in any of your posts back up to and including your opening post that included your sparse sketch annotated above. It is bad enough that you have been dribbling out details one at a time of the problem construction. It is understandable that you might miss stating a detail or two correctly along the way. However, if you are going to insist on fantasies that you have stated anything other than what you have then there is little productive that we can do here.
I leave it to you to draft drawings of the problem you wish to construct. Ordinary statics will show that the lifting scheme is less than 100% efficient as you found with your own experiments. That means that to get to the net over unity claimed by HER the lifting scheme by itself harms the result. A pulley and a string would do better.
"... A simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself."
--Wayne Travis
So, according to Travis himself, you do not need "2 lift systems" to demonstrate his overunity scheme. Why are we not shown this simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself? Why aren't Webby and MarkE analyzing this simple, clearly overunity system that has only three layers _by itself_?
I know why.
:-* :-*
I would be happy to analyze a system of someone's choice if they:
1) Think that it is OU
2) Are prepared to describe it sufficiently so that a reasonably accurate analysis can be performed
Five days is more than long enough for such a person to describe what it is that they propose.
And yes, these schemes have never been shown to offer a chance at OU. In fact just the pressure equalization step where a "charged" side is connected to an "uncharged" side depletes a sizable percentage of the stored energy. Webby states that he thinks his riser scheme is about 83% efficient. Maybe it is more and maybe it is less efficient. Anything short of OU is by itself relatively uninteresting.
Perhaps someday: someone, anyone who thinks that there is something to HER's OU claims will diagram a mechanism that they think can actually have a chance at being OU. Shuffling incompressible fluid between cylinders over pistons is lossy as Webby found with his 83% figure. Shuffling compressible fluid increases the losses.
For a thought problem, consider what happens when equalizing pressure between one submerged column containing a tall bubble and another column resulting in two shorter bubbles. The total displaced volume of water remains the same. Yet the stored energy falls by almost half for the example. Increasing the percentage displacement fluid volume that is in the annular ring worsens the energy loss, asymptotically reaching 50% when only the annular ring holds displacing fluid. How can it be that the defenders of HER keep telling us how they hope to gain energy by leveraging a piston when the more piston there is, the greater the loss?
Hi,
what MarkE has shown me is that by discounting unwanted factors it makes
calculations much easier and basically unless you add energy you've just got a
pail of water.
Webby, I don't see it matters how many lift systems we have, to me I see the
device as a see-saw. Unless we get more than 100% from our first power stroke
the thing will wind down.
All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 11, 2014, 03:25:23 AM
Hi,
what MarkE has shown me is that by discounting unwanted factors it makes
calculations much easier and basically unless you add energy you've just got a
pail of water.
Webby, I don't see it matters how many lift systems we have, to me I see the
device as a see-saw. Unless we get more than 100% from our first power stroke
the thing will wind down.
All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
John.
Minnie that is more or less true. However, because of this precharge business the various schemes run into a common problem seen in other areas, where transferring energy ends up being quite lossy. If for example we roll a 1kg ball going 1m/s into a 1kg cart with superglue on it where the ball hits, and frictionless bearings on the ground, then by conservation of momentum we know that the speed after the collision will be: 1kg * 1m/s / 2kg = 0.5m/s. But we also know that the kinetic energy before the collision was: 0.5 * 1kg * (1m/s^2) = 0.5J. After the collision it is: 0.5 * 2kg * (0.5m/s)^2 = 0.25J. The same problem happens if we charge one capacitor up and connect it to another capacitor of the same value that is discharged. The charge is conserved but half the energy is lost to radiation and heat. And so it also happens when we connect one uncharged cylinder to one that is charged. In my book, inserting very lossy processes is not a good start towards trying to get over unity.
Quote from: minnie on February 11, 2014, 03:25:23 AM
All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
John.
don't forget the "magic lever" in your drawing.
Quote from: webby1 on February 11, 2014, 08:54:15 AM
I do find it funny that information that gave out already is being shown as something "new".
MarkE,
You have not supported your claim at all, so please supply the actual support that allows you to say that the ZED can be reduced down to a single piston.
To do this would mean that you would have to run the numbers, so you could just show as all what those numbers were, not to mention that you would have to check a few conditions,, you can show us all that.
Since YOU seem to be the king of OU,, why don't YOU tell US how to do it.
You have not even covered which riser you would use,, they all have different potentials, I take it you are aware of that.
Webby yesterday you were inventing things that you had said. Now you are inventing things that you claim I have said. My comments have always been rather specific. If you wish to debate any of them, then kindly clip the quote and I will be happy to address any concerns or dispute you might offer.
The fact remains that you proposed to show something that would support HER's claims.
This is where you began Feb. 03:
QuoteRe: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #901 on: February 03, 2014, 11:21:05 PM »
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 11:05:21 PM
Since you already have tried to perform an analysis just show the work that you have done so far and we can go through that.
I will go over it again and draw a picture,, it will take me a bit I have some stuff that I need to do,,
The Hawks sure did trounce the Broncos :)
Eight days later you seem to have abandoned your efforts. You offered the one sparse sketch. You have objected to my drawings. That leaves it back to you to deliver on producing the work that you have done that leads you to your favorable outlook on HER. You can supply drawings and calculations that show something interesting: an energy gain somewhere, some refutation of Archimedes' Principle, etc, or you can leave your abandoned claims to sink into the same mud hole that has swallowed HER's extraordinary claims.
Webby,
one thing I find confusing is that obviously you supplied information to
Travis, therefore are you under any sort of agreement to withhold that information?
If not, have you still got said plans, and if the thing worked why not show us?
I feel that MarkE is giving 100% to this and that he should be allowed to have the
best info/drawings to save wasting his time.
I have to say that I've learned quite a bit about the scientific method for
analysing these sort of systems,
thank you John.
Webby.
thank you for reply, you didn't say if you could share that information or that
you must withhold it,
John.
When I walk through a cycle of using a pair of these inverted cylinders to lift a mass by a small fraction of the inverted cylinder height, I get losses, losses, and more losses. When I look at the problem, I divide it into phases:
1) An initial charged state: One cylinder up with the entire bubble under it, the other cylinder down.
1.1) A payload weight gets slipped over the down cylinder.
2) The pressure between the two cylinders gets equalized by connecting the two with a volumeless, massless tube with zero resistance to flow.
This phase doesn't involve adding energy, but it loses a lot of potential energy by redistributing one bubble into two smaller bubbles each under roughly half the differential pressure of the first.
3) "Air" is pumped from the first cylinder to the second until water reaches the top of the piston in the first cylinder.
This phase requires a lot of added energy, and still manages to end up with less stored potential energy than at the end of step 2.
4) "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second until the second is completely filled with "air" and just becomes neutrally buoyant.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I have posted, this phase requires about half the added energy of Step 3. It increases the stored potential energy slightly.
5) The remaining "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second, lifting the payload weight. At the end of this phase the second cylinder is at the same elevated height as the first cylinder. The payload weight can be removed, thus delivering the useful work of lifting it. The stored potential energy has been restored.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I posted, this phase requires about 90% of the work extracted lifting the payload weight.
6) The neutrally buoyant first cylinder is pushed back down to the bottom position.
6.6) A payload weight gets slipped over this cylinder.
7) - 11) Repeat of phases 2) - 6) with the cylinders reversed.
The machine is now at the same state as at the end of phase 1).
The total input energy that I calculate is more than three times the work extracted lifting weights. A simple pulley and a string would have done much better.
Quote from: webby1 on February 12, 2014, 04:49:04 PM
That is interesting MarkE,, I posted my number at 83 percent.
I also explained the change in the transfer pump.
How did you go from 90 percent to 33 percent? Seems to me that if that 10 percent were added the next cycle would still be 90 percent and still require 10 percent.
Webby, The 90% figure you latched onto is not a net cycle efficiency number. It is the amount of work that has to be added during the lift phase versus the amount of external work that is extracted during that phase. If we lived in such a wonderful world that the other phases did not require input work, then we would have a net excess energy out versus in. But, that is not the case. Each of the two preceding transfer phases require quite a bit of work. The work that must be added in Step 3 requires around twice as much work as that added in Step 5, and the work that must be added in Step 4 requires a similar amount of work as in Step 5.
I listed what happens qualitatively to the energy step by step. I have highlighted those statements below, just in case you missed them or I did not make myself sufficiently clear the first time. The losses occur despite stipulating a number of unrealizable conditions: a 100% efficient transfer pump, lossless and massless feed lines, massless cylinders, and massless, incompressible "air". Should you ever decide to post your hypothetical set-up as you promised you would back on Feb. 3, then we can go through the steps and put numbers to each step on your set-up. Assuming that your problem is similar to what was diagrammed before you withdrew, I get less than 1/3 net efficiency for that arrangement as well.
If your favorable impression of HER depends on getting free energy from a special transfer pump, then that transfer pump is the thing that IMO you should be analyzing and testing first. If not, then stipulating a 100% efficiency for the pump as we had previously agreed is generous towards HER's claims and investigation into a particular pump design expends effort without revealing anything about HER's claims.
Quote
Online MarkE
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 472
View Profile
Personal Message (Online)
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1100 on: February 12, 2014, 10:19:39 PM »
When I walk through a cycle of using a pair of these inverted cylinders to lift a mass by a small fraction of the inverted cylinder height, I get losses, losses, and more losses. When I look at the problem, I divide it into phases:
1) An initial charged state: One cylinder up with the entire bubble under it, the other cylinder down.
1.1) A payload weight gets slipped over the down cylinder.
2) The pressure between the two cylinders gets equalized by connecting the two with a volumeless, massless tube with zero resistance to flow.
This phase doesn't involve adding energy, but it loses a lot of potential energy by redistributing one bubble into two smaller bubbles each under roughly half the differential pressure of the first.
3) "Air" is pumped from the first cylinder to the second until water reaches the top of the piston in the first cylinder.
This phase requires a lot of added energy, and still manages to end up with less stored potential energy than at the end of step 2.
4) "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second until the second is completely filled with "air" and just becomes neutrally buoyant.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I have posted, this phase requires about half the added energy of Step 3. It increases the stored potential energy slightly.
5) The remaining "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second, lifting the payload weight. At the end of this phase the second cylinder is at the same elevated height as the first cylinder. The payload weight can be removed, thus delivering the useful work of lifting it. The stored potential energy has been restored.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I posted, this phase requires about 90% of the work extracted lifting the payload weight.
6) The neutrally buoyant first cylinder is pushed back down to the bottom position.
6.6) A payload weight gets slipped over this cylinder.
7) - 11) Repeat of phases 2) - 6) with the cylinders reversed.
The machine is now at the same state as at the end of phase 1).
The total input energy that I calculate is more than three times the work extracted lifting weights. A simple pulley and a string would have done much better.
webby, on Feb. 3 you said that you would post your work so that we could go through it. You never did so. Now you are back to basically saying: "There is some magic behind the curtain." The available evidence doesn't treat that statement very kindly. None of the people from or supporting HER have ever shown actual evidence of an energy gain. There has been lots of hand waving around pumping gases into cylinders with pistons and such as supposedly being the basis for energy gains. However, as far as I have seen, such mechanisms are actually very energy inefficient. The only person who stopped walking was you when you objected to my proposal to trim the 150mm piston height by 0.01mm, which is less than 0.01%.
Declarations of cost are just claims until one does the book keeping through an entire cycle. If you are confident that you've got some combination of things that when you run them through a complete cycle, you end up with a net gain in energy, then just present that set-up and we can go through it together. You object to my drawings so it is up to you to diagram the arrangement that you propose.
QuoteIf you had a hydraulic ram, you ran the pump and moved the ram 5 inches, when you stop how much of anything is left?? what if you could conserve 10 percent of the internal forces that YOU put into the system, what if you took that and added it to your next stroke, that would reduce your stroke input by 10%,,what if to set this up it cost you 5%,, so now your ram is only supplying 95% of the output but you are only supplying 90% of the input.
If you can view it this way you will notice that nothing new is being created, you have supplied all of the force to start with and that force is only being conserved and recycled.
Force is not a conserved quantity. Energy is conserved. If force were a conserved quantity then almost nothing in mechanics would work: levers, gears, pulleys, pumps, would all be impossible.
Quote from: webby1 on February 13, 2014, 09:13:03 AM
John,
There is not "A" design or configuration that makes the magic.
I got what Wayne said in the first go round on this topic, but most missed it, I have brought it up again in this thread and still most ignore it, and right now MarkE is so close that when he does see it,, well that is how I felt when I finally got at least a small part of it.
The first hurdle to get over is the recovery, anybody remember me saying that?? and yet no one has tried to get into that at all.
MarkE, do you know why you can NOT compare a ZED to a single piston? because you *can* get recovery from a ZED and NOT from a single piston.
The build I was walking through will get you there, I found it easier to use 2 devices within each unit and then "sacrifice" some performance from one to have the other as free,, it was just easier to see and to accept.
There is no difference between the system I am walking through if the weight is on the cylinder or not, the weight is an added extra.
Buoyancy has its force trapped within the water column, that is the water supplies the motive force at the cost of setting it up,, but once you have that buoyant lift you have no more cost, then when you are done with using it you can recover your input.
If you had a hydraulic ram, you ran the pump and moved the ram 5 inches, when you stop how much of anything is left?? what if you could conserve 10 percent of the internal forces that YOU put into the system, what if you took that and added it to your next stroke, that would reduce your stroke input by 10%,,what if to set this up it cost you 5%,, so now your ram is only supplying 95% of the output but you are only supplying 90% of the input.
If you can view it this way you will notice that nothing new is being created, you have supplied all of the force to start with and that force is only being conserved and recycled.
Congratulations Webby,
It is hard to see, I know that the ZED system is counter intuitive -
I am Impressed that Mark tried to follow - and I do believe he will get it eventually.
I am also Impressed that you stuck it out and explained.
No doubt your explanation will be followed by pages of confusion by others - which is the case for 240 pages.
................
To all - the point Webby just made - is the mystery behind our system.
It is also why our Zydro Energy group has been quietly building our company.
For all those following - Contrary to the "false facts"
We are not seeking any investments - We are fully Funded.
We have been granted Patents in some countries - all others are under examination.
The Tom Miller Video's did an excellent job of showing the inception to our future technology - they were meant to help you see what Webby just described - not over unity.
And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU - if you simple store the recycled energy and return it on the next stroke, as I said two yeas ago - which you omitted every time you miss applied the context. As I said before - why add the extra effort and time - simply transfer between systems. Get over it - you missed it.
On another note - my contact information has never changed - to those that have tried to discredit me and our company all this time - those people never made one call or asked me one single question about their claims against us. Shame on all of you who slander by assumption.
If you realize you were wrong - I already forgave you - if not time heals - good luck to you.
p.s. I never tell people what to say or think - not Tom, Webby, Mark, Mike, or even those that are childish.
To the rest of the world:
Our Physics are simple and pure - obviously hard for some to see, but no matter;
THE BEST NEWS - The world will receive access to pure clean and reliable energy - as always - as we have been for four years - we are open to visitors.
We are blessed to be able to do this right.
Peace to all of you.
Wayne Travis
Mr. Wayne, if by "got it" you mean I understand the falsity of your claims, I "got it" two years ago when Tom Miller posted his five misdirection videos. There is no mystery. Contrary to Tom Miller's claims in those videos, the quantity of air is irrelevant to the buoyant lift of anything submerged in water. If you do not understand that then you do not understand either the St. Francis or Malpasset dam failures. In both cases the buoyant force of displaced water lifted and destroyed great dams. If you do understand Archimedes' Principle, then you have been telling deliberate lies all this time.
There is no and never has been any demonstrable "Travis effect". There is no energy gain to be had by building machines that lift and drop masses, be they fluids, solids, and/or gasses or some combination. You and HER can continue to make the extraordinary and false claims to energy gains that you have all that you like. The burden of evidence is on those who make the extraordinary claims. You, HER, and HER's supporters have completely failed to ever support your extraordinary claims. The reason is that you cannot, because your claims have always been false.
If you are going to introduce the issue of funding: Have any and all investors who have sought return of their funds received them?
It would be nice if the small investors who have been burned by your failure to deliver on your grandiose promises don't suffer badly for having placed faith in your knowingly false words.
In my book: "Doing it right." does not mean soliciting investment in knowingly false claims and promises that can never be delivered.
There you have it: another clear statement by Wayne Travis that a SINGLE ZED is or "can be" OVERUNITY -- with no evidence provided AT ALL for this outrageous and insulting claim.
Come on, Travis. You have been crowing the same noise for years... and you have NEVER YET produced any evidence of your claims. You have demonstrated huge complicated kludgy devices to bamboozle the audiences, but you have never shown anything that "runs itself" and which produces excess energy.
Fully funded? So you found someone to buy out your early, dissatisfied investors, you prevailed in your lawsuit, and you'll be putting a 50 kW generating plant at your church "soon" ...... you make me laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A)
Now, I want to hear some explanation for why WEBBY, who you claim understands the system so well... .why hasn't WEBBY built anything that runs itself, or that clearly provides more WORK out than in, and recycles back to the same starting state... without extra input of work? Answer me that, Wayne Travis, whose "physics" is simple and pure. I know why... and so do you.
TinselKoala that video is flagged as private.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 04, 2014, 09:14:52 AM
I have a product to develop - company to run - I won't be back.
Mr Wayne
Look who's back, and contradicting himself like most liars.Quote from: mrwayne on February 13, 2014, 10:03:23 AM[/font]Congratulations Webby,To all - the point Webby just made - is the mystery behind our system.Wayne Travis
Your system to pay Webby $2000 has only convinced Webby.
And your stooge is so convinced that he had his device verified and produced a self running model,.... oh no,,, [size=78%]strange how he hasn't done any of that, considering he made one of the most remarkable discoveries in history[/size]
Quote from: mrwayne on February 13, 2014, 10:03:23 AM[/font]Our Physics are simple and pure - obviously hard for some to see, but no matter;Wayne Travis
You're not kidding "hard for some to see" what happened to Mark Dansie visit ? ? He's finding it impossible to see, and if you're physics are so simple why can't anyone else produce over-unity.
Wayne Travis you are a conman, a diluted one at best,
If anyone thinks I'm being over the top, this is the man that promised verification on numerous occasions and broke his word, this is the man that can't produce a continuous live streamed video showing his device continuously running, this is the man that paid a member of this forum $2000, strange how that person is the only one believing in the traverse affect.
No doubt Wayne and Red will have numerous excuses why no verification has been done and no proof of actual continuous working device has ever been shown, I put it to anyone with the slightest intelligence that the reason none of these things have happened is that there is no working device and never has been, and from my experience over many years on this forum Wayne Travis fits the profile of a conman = [size=78%]Somebody who is incapable of delivering what they claim.
This post was originally made by WEBBY... but is he talking to himself? Sure seems like it to me, with a tiny bit of editing.
Quote from: webby1 on February 11, 2014, 08:54:15 AM
I do find it funny that information that gave out already is being shown as something "new".
WEBBY:
You have not supported your claim at all, so please supply the actual support that allows you to say that the ZED can return more work than is put into it in the first place.
To do this would mean that you would have to run the numbers, so you could just show as all what those numbers were, not to mention that you would have to check a few conditions,, you can show us all that.
Since YOU seem to be the king of OU,, why don't YOU tell US how to do it.
You have not even covered which riser you would use,, they all have different potentials, I take it you are aware of that.
And now of course we have the word from the Messiah Himself, that a single zed can be overunity. So let's see the proof of that, please. "Our physics" is simple and pure... so even us bookbound idiots who actually studied things like engineering physics at university should be able to understand it. Yet none of the Travis sycophants have ever demonstrated this "pure and simple" special physics of Travis and company, to show that it "works" as they claim. Nowhere will you find Travis's design for the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" that he claimed actually to HAVE, several years ago. Where is it? Nowhere, that's where. Travis has nothing but leaky, groaning kludges that all require external power to operate. He has no evidence to present, just more words and more claims without evidence.
Hey, if I "imagine" frictionless or negative friction bearings, my magnet motors would run forever, too. But we aren't talking about imaginary, cost-less processes here, are we?
Every time you compress something and then return it to the starting pressure, you LOSE energy due to radiated heat. This energy must be replaced just to break even. Every time you transfer something through a pipe, you LOSE energy due to viscous friction, eventually radiated away as heat. This energy must be replaced just to break even. Every time you "precharge" something, and this precharge is then distributed through the system, you must supply energy to RESTORE the system back to its starting state, with all the precharge back where it started from. This energy needs to come from somewhere, and Travis Himself says you don't need another Zed to do it, or all those layers. "A simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself"... remember? His exact words, talking about something real, tangible, he actually claimed to have years ago. SO why aren't we analyzing THAT very system? I know why... and so do you.
So not only do you have to show some stage in the process where energy _increases_ somehow, you also have to show that the increase in energy is sufficient to overcome the _real world losses_ that are inevitable... no matter whose "physics, simple and clear" you use. Unless you are using the Wizard of Oz's physics, that is. Follow the yellow brick road, all the way to Travis's bank, for the "real" secret of the Zed.
Hi,
mrwayne is naive in the extreme when it comes to the real world.Last week I was
using a 15kw water pump to flush my sewage treatment plant and the volume of
water it was shifting was quite amazing. There's no way you could get a flow like
that through a see- sawing ZED unless it was gigantic and even then there would
be massive problems with inertia if you tried for many cycles per minute.
To get a bit of an idea about flow and pressure I was talking to my brother
yesterday, he does pipelines, and he said that some of the 120cm mains run at
a staggering 85 bar.
I believe that if you could get a ZED to work, by some means, you'd end up with
a 30 ton phone charger.
John
Quote from: webby1 on February 13, 2014, 11:57:35 AM
If you look at the drawings for the walk through and draw 2 lines, one comes from the top of the filler for the start condition side and goes across the sate 2 side and the other comes from the bottom of the state 2 cylinder where the air column should stop, and comes back across the stat condition cylinder.
I am sure that either MarkE or TK know off the top of there heads what formula or law or whatever states this,, but you can move the stored potential from the state 2 side over to the start condition side free of charge.
If need be imagine sealing and cutting the cylinders and filler on those lines,, you can move them anywhere laterally with no cost.
For a buoyant lift the cost is in building the "float" so when you look at this free shift, you can see that 90 percent of the cost in building the "float" is paid for by the previous "float",, that potential is recovered and recycled.
Webby for about the twentieth time: hand waving is no substitute for performing an energy balance. You can go about things like Mondrasek is by defining geometry and then the steps in a a complete cycle. Carefully evaluate the energy that it takes to get from one step to another and then tally it all up and see where you get.
I will point out to you as I have before that when one takes those two columns with one "fully charged", IE in the up position with all water displaced out from under the cylinder, and then equalizes the pressure with the second column initially filled with water and held in the down position that for your geometries: nearly half of the stored energy is lost to heat during the pressure equalization. That energy will have to be restored to complete a cycle. For geometries similar to yours that lost energy is about twice the energy you can extract lifting the weight. IOW you are already down to a best case efficiency of only about 50% just by equalizing the pressures.
Quote from: webby1 on February 11, 2014, 08:54:15 AM
............
MarkE,
You have not supported your claim at all, so please supply the actual support that allows you to say that the ZED can be reduced down to a single piston.
..........
Quote from: mrwayne on February 13, 2014, 10:03:23 AM
................
And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU - if you simple store the recycled energy and return it on the next stroke, as I said two yeas ago - which you omitted every time you miss applied the context. As I said before - why add the extra effort and time - simply transfer between systems. Get over it - you missed it.
.............
confusing, webby should ask mrwayne for single piston ?!!!
Quote from: minnie on February 13, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
Hi,
mrwayne is naive in the extreme when it comes to the real world.Last week I was
using a 15kw water pump to flush my sewage treatment plant and the volume of
water it was shifting was quite amazing. There's no way you could get a flow like
that through a see- sawing ZED unless it was gigantic and even then there would
be massive problems with inertia if you tried for many cycles per minute.
To get a bit of an idea about flow and pressure I was talking to my brother
yesterday, he does pipelines, and he said that some of the 120cm mains run at
a staggering 85 bar.
I believe that if you could get a ZED to work, by some means, you'd end up with
a 30 ton phone charger.
John
Moving weights around is one of the least energy dense way that one can store energy. An ordinary AA alkaline battery holds about 3.4Wh energy, or roughly 12kJ. In order to get the same energy lifting weights, one has to lift ~1200kg * m or ~8900lb * ft. An iPhone battery requires about 14,000 lb*ft raised weight equivalent per full charge.
No, minnie. Travis is far from naive. He is condescending, arrogant, Messianic, but he is not naive. He's actually a very sophisticated judge of character and motivation, as all good conmen must be.
He presumes to trade upon the naivete of his audience, though. Years have gone by and Travis has never yet presented any real data that support his contentions. He has failed over and over to "meet expectations" and he failed to convince Mark Dansie, who made two site visits and was promised another that apparently never came off.
The reason that Travis cannot demonstrate even a small model system that produces solid data in support of his claims... is simply that his claims with respect to "self running" and providing more energy out than in, no input no exhaust, are false. Unfortunately for him "his physics, simple and clear" is no different from the real physics found in the usual textbooks.
How much flow, and at what pressure, must hydraulic fluid be supplied to an ordinary hydraulic motor, turning an ordinary wind-farm alternator, to have an electrical output of 20 kW? (For those are the components Travis illustrates in his photographs of the huge groaning device Dansie saw.) I know, and you know... but Travis has never explained where this pressure and flow is to come from in his "zed" power plant, nor how sloshing some water back and forth is supposed to provide the necessary flow and pressure in the hydraulic fluid.
Wasn't the demonstration to be for 48 hours?
20kW = 2,040kg*m/s.
20kW * 3600s/h * 48h = 3.46GJ.
Total net mass*distance that would have to be lifted in that time: 353E6 kg*m.
At 20kW if the machine teetered and tottered by one meter each way every 10s, then: the net mass that would have to be dropped each cycle would be 10,000kg.
Koala,
you're coming out with some lovely words. Kludge takes some beating!
John.
About two years ago I repeatedly asked Mr. Wayne what the power output from his system demoed in his clips was. I also repeatedly asked him what form the power output took. He repeatedly ignored me. It's ridiculous, here you have a dude claiming that he has a free energy machine and he is unable or refuses to state what the power output is! I don't think a single participant in the thread at that time backed me up.
Mr. Wayne often talked in terms of "excess fluid ounces" per cycle, which was meaningless.
Then you have the case of Webby struggling to understand what is going on in a discussion with MarkE. It's a continuous struggle to get him to understand that you have to talk about energy per cycle and not pressure, etc. Roll back the clock two years and Webby makes a Tupperware nested Russian Doll experiment that proves nothing. What does Mr. Wayne do? He congratulates Webby on his "success" and throws two thousand dollars at him.
Why did Mr. Wayne do it when Webby accomplished nothing? What was in Mr. Wayne's interest? My best guess is so that he could use the event as part of his pitch: "Yes Mr. Investor, I was working with a researcher on an Internet forum and he proved my concept and he won an award of $2000 for replicating the effect." So the whole thing was possibly just a farce, a free money give-away so that Mr. Brain could claim that Tupperware Russian Dolls are the real thing to gullible investors with real money. It was a small investment that he could leverage by telling the same story over and over until he hit the right person that took out his check book and signed away some money.
Then Mr. Brain comes back today and tries to pretend that some very smart people "don't get it" which is just a cheap attempt at sending out a subliminal signal that the thing really works. In other words, the same MO as Red_Sunset. Brainwashing for Dummies in soft cover for mushy brains.
Then we have the "sermon from the mount" deliverd by Brother Wayne. You can't possibly doubt that it's real if you get that quasi religious buzz all in the name of the Almighty Dollar, can you?
Hopefully, if any susceptible investors are reading this thread, they will "come back to the light of reason" and see things how they really are. Things are not pretty and Mr. Wayne's Brain will never ever deliver a working system, you can be sure of that.
MileHigh
Hook up a generator to the shaft of a pulley through a clutch.
Release the clutch.
Lift a bucket of rocks using a rope thrown over the pulley. Measure the work required.
Engage the clutch.
Let the bucket of rocks of rocks come down as the generator drives a load. Measure the work recovered.
Release the clutch.
Next attach a second bucket to the opposite end of the rope as the first bucket.
Pour some water in the bucket.
Lift the bucket of rocks. Measure the work required. Note that it is lower than the first experiment. Hallelujah! Lower input cost.
Engage the clutch.
Let the bucket of rocks of rocks come down as the generator drives a load. Measure the work recovered. Damn! Lower output work.
Get 42 gallon garden waste can.
Fill it with water.
Put it under the path of the bucket filled with rocks.
Dump out the bucket of water.
Repeat the lifting and falling experiments.
Record the results.
Compare the results of the experiments. Discuss.
Quote from: webby1 on February 13, 2014, 01:54:30 PM
TBZED, simple, crude and interesting. It showed that the lift from lift ready to end of lift took less in than what I took out, it showed that after that lift there was potential stored within the system, enough that on an easy setup I could get 1\2 the input water back after dropping the reservoir 1\2 the distance it was raised.
Is there an analysis that shows energy balance over a full cycle? This is a yes or no question. If there is, then show the analysis and see if it holds up.
Quote
Excuse me for a minute here, but with that I am calling BS. The big objections to heat losses and frictional losses blah blah blah,, where were they in TBZED?
Then look at MarkE and his free flow only argument,, like I did not actually cover that one all ready,,
You have never presented a complete cycle to evaluate. I have shown that at least one part of the cycle: the pressure equalization phase, is very lossy. Do you dispute that? I've posted the picture and the calculations. If you believe that I have made a mistake, please feel free to show how you get different results.
Quote
TK and imagine,, except the picture it creates does tell the story, and that story does not sit well with TK's argument.
Should be simple to test for.
Can you take a buoyant item after some distance of lift and transfer the air into another item at a lower depth for less cost than filling the item from the surface.
Is it cost effective to have 90 percent of the cost of making that buoyant item prepaid by the buoyant item before it.
Can you recycled potential that has not been destroyed or given away.
Anyone care to come up with more or better tests?
Yes, conduct a complete cycle. You can do it with your two cylinder arrangement. Perform a complete cycle energy balance. See where you end up.
Webby, can't you see that if your claims were true, it would be trivial for YOU to build a self runner, or at least something that would clearly produce more WORK output than input, over a complete cycle? But you cannot. No one can. You are making false claims based on your poor understanding of the physics involved, and your measurements are full of errors caused by things like compressibility, leaks, wall friction, and your general technique. You have not yet set up or described any proper experiment or even a simple demonstration that would actually test your ill-formed hypothesis of energy gain.
Furthermore, unless someone actually SHOWS this "simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" that Travis has claimed to have.... not on paper or in theory, he actually said he HAS it..... we must conclude that it does not exist and that Travis was simply lying about it. Otherwise, why are you lot not analyzing that simple, three layer, single ZED system that is clearly overunity by itself? You must not believe it exists, either, or you wouldn't be doing this present exercise with some _other, different_ system that you and Mark E are making up. Why not just use the "simple, three layer system that is clearly OU by itself" that Travis claims? Or.... why not just admit that it doesn't really exist after all. Then I'll be able to stop reminding you that Travis claimed it did exist.
Why do you keep avoiding the issue?
If your claims and "measurements" are correct you should be able _easily_ to put together a "self runner" or at least some demonstration that you get more _work_ out than you put in. Why don't you do that simple thing? Here's a hint: Travis has a "simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself." Why don't you show that system producing its "clear overunity by itself"?
I know why, and so do you. In spite of your large monetary award from Travis... you are all out of tennis ball packaging tubes.
What a laugh! YOU are making the claims, Webby, and YOU are the one ... the _only one_ at this point ... who claims to know how it's done! It is up to YOU to prove the truth of your claims! You are just being silly.
We've calculated the hydraulic pressure and flow rate necessary to drive the ordinary hydraulic motor to drive the ordinary windmill alternator to produce 20 kW output. There is no mechanism in any diagram of any Travis system, anywhere, including the animated one that used to grace his website.... there is no spreadsheet model, no demonstration _anywhere_ that explains where all that hydraulic pressure and flow is going to come from, in a device with the "footprint of a garden shed". Or any other footprint, unless there is included a power _source_ at least as powerful as an old VW engine.
And all of your devices and measurements are powered by your hands and arms! You cannot just set it up, pull a pin and walk away while it makes a complete cycle, or even "runs" for a few seconds! You have to raise and lower, slide weights around, all of which require more energy input from your hands and arms. You can't even show an improvement over some baseline measurement, as I did for my TinselZed-containing Heron's Fountain.
Just as Wayne made a cynical attempt to get his secret layer of sycophants in their secret forum to do what he could not do... .you want ME to do YOUR homework for you! Yet..... who has made the solid video demonstrations of the various phenomena involved in Travis's claims? Who actually DID incorporate a functioning Zed in a self-running table top waterpump? Eh? I've already done lots of your homework for you, and I've pointed out many things that are wrong with your descriptions and your testings. Now that Mark E is attempting to guide you into making some proper measurements and reporting them properly... you start flailing around again. Why don't you pay more attention to what Mondrasek is doing, and how he's doing it, instead of taking cheap pot-shots at me, trying to get me to do your work for you.
You claim to know how to get extra work out of a hydraulic system. Fine... demonstrate it! But you cannot.
Quote from: webby1 on February 13, 2014, 05:24:23 PM
Since according to MH I am struggling with this could you please explain to me WHY I would use a setup where a very large percentage of the stored potential is wasted?
Why would I not use a system in line with what I posted, the one that deals with the dump loss problem.
Since the straight dump process is NOT used, why do you keep making out like it is?
Probably because you don't understand that's what you did when you defined your test case. I am not talking about what happens when one vents to the surface. When we first talked about that, I agreed that we would simply state that we had some unspecified means to completely recover the energy released due to the venting process. But that is not what I have told you about multiple times now.
The loss to heat comes from where you set up the situation where you "charge" a cylinder by expelling all the water underneath it in the up position, and then you subsequently connect that first cylinder to the second cylinder that is in the down position. Energy from the first cylinder expels about half the water from beneath the second cylinder. In that process the system loses about half the total stored energy. The first and the second cylinder each end up with about 1/4 the energy that was originally stored in the first cylinder.
And with that almost half the stored energy is gone
forever. That's about twice as much energy as you will ever get raising the largest submerged mass that you can. At that point, it would take lots of free energy from subsequent steps just to break even. But none of those subsequent steps don't help either. Even with all of the ideal constraints we placed upon the problem there are more losses in subsequent steps. None of the subsequent steps impart an energy gain incrementally or to the entire cycle.
Webby: Here is a picture that will hopefully make it very obvious to you what you have been missing about the stored energy loss that occurs during the pressure equalization phase. I removed the piston, and made the vertical positions of the two cylinders the same for simplicity. As I explained above, once you lose the stored energy to the pressure equalization process, it leaves the system as heat, and you have to replace it before the start of the next cycle. In the case of your sketch the energy loss is about twice as big as the useful work that eventually gets done lifting the payload mass. It is the majority of the reason that the net efficiency is less than 1/3.
The second drawing shows the situation as you had been describing it up until the point you withdrew, with my very slight modification of the piston height.
Webby,
do a little practical experiment. Go hire a 20kw diesel pump, get a couple oF
2000 litre tanks and some hose, put it in your garden shed and have a play. Remember
to give it full revs.
Say you can get plus 10% from your ZED that will mean that you've got to multiply
the flow by more than ten times. It's quite a daunting proposition !
John
Quote from: minnie on February 14, 2014, 02:47:17 AM
Webby,
do a little practical experiment. Go hire a 20kw diesel pump, get a couple oF
2000 litre tanks and some hose, put it in your garden shed and have a play. Remember
to give it full revs.
Say you can get plus 10% from your ZED that will mean that you've got to multiply
the flow by more than ten times. It's quite a daunting proposition !
John
I wouldn't take that into any enclosed space smaller than an empty and large aircraft hangar. I would also be sure to bolt the plumbing down securely. If one were to point the hose skyward, it would make quite an impressive fountain.
The Keenie.
How it works and why it works.
It is important from the outset to think in terms of the correct variable if one is to understand the way gravity is harnessed by the Keenie device.
That varible is the third derivative of position with respect to time, or jerk to give it its official shorthand name.
When a weight at the end of a radius arm is allowed to fall under gravity it is not in free fall but constrained free fall; it is not simply accelerating, it is "jerking". A weight moving at a constant angular speed around an axle is already in a state of acceleration, i.e. acceleration toward the centre, towards the axle. It is already in a 2nd derv state. Increasing the angular speed takes it into a 3rd derv state.
The mechanism of pivot and radius arm is transducing the gravitational 2nd derv free fall acceleration into 3rd derv, jerk.
This process in analogous the the way that an electrical transformer transduces low voltage current to a high voltage current. I've used the more general term transduce rather than the EM term to avoid the confusion that might arise if I wrote, "the pivot and radius arm is transforming the 2nd derv, acceleration, into the 3rd derv, jerk. I don't want people trying to visualise electrical currents flowing to ground. :-)
Consider now a Keenie with twelve weights distributed at 15° intervals around its circumference. This is the same distribution as the hours on a clock face and so it will be convenient to refer to the weights by their clock names. The weight initially at 3 o'clock will be the #3 weight, that at 4 o'clock the #4 weight, etc.
Initially all the radius arms are locked together and the weights are all gravitationally balanced by their opposite numbers. The #2 weight is balanced by the #8 weight, the #5 weight by the #11 weight, and so on.
Next the #3 weight is unlocked and allowed to swing down under the transduced action of gravity, to jerk down towards the #4 weight. Define clockwise(CW) jerk as positive (+ve).
The instant the #3 weight is released its opposite number, the #9 weight is no longer balanced. It also begins to jerk (-ve) down. However, because the #9 weight is locked to 5 pairs of balanced weights which it has to drag along in its fall the rate of -ve jerk will be much less for the #9 weight and its companions than the rate of +ve jerk for the #3 weight.
Another way of looking at it is to see the eleven weights as forming a compound pendulum of very slow period with the #9 weight swinging towards an eventual keeling position at 6 o'clock.
As the #9 weight slowly falls counter-clockwise(CCW) , the #4 weight will slowly jerk upwards to impact the #3 weight at some point between 3 and 4 o'clock. Assuming perfect elastic interaction both #3 and #4 will recoil and decelerate to their original start positions
Because the weights are in a closed system and no jerk energy can escape, jerk (angular momentum) is conserved. The sum of the units of CW jerk will be equal to the units of CCW jerk. Consequently there is no rotation of the wheel resulting from the elastic interaction of the weights. The impulse given to the wheel by the #3 weight is completely counteracted by the opposite impulse given to the wheel by the remaining weights.
It is very tempting to think that all one needs to harness gravity is an asymmetric gravity action. Indeed, I use to think this and pursued many false leads in this asymmetry quest. The above case is a good example of a quite extreme asymmetry and as can be seen it gets one nowhere.
Now the law of energy conservation applies to closed systems. It doesn't necessarily apply to open systems. So one needs to open up the Keenie system to allow one half of the jerk energy (the angular momentum) to escape. We need a valve which will let one half (the CCW jerk, say) out of the system and retain the other half (the CW jerk) within the system.
A one way clutch at the axle (or on a leyshaft driven by sprocket and chain in the case of the Keenie) provides just such a valve.
The clutch prevents the wheel turning CCW. Thus the effect of gravity on the unbalanced #9 is to transmit torque to the tower and hence to the ground. In other words to send CCW jerk outside the system to be lost in miniscule change in angular momentum of the earth - the same action that takes place on a much large scale with the slingshot/gravity assist technique for speeding up space vehicles.
To sum up then, #9 does not fall, #4 does not rise. All the impulse from #3 is taken up by the wheel apart from some small amount needed to assist recoil to reset the #3 somewhere between 3 and 4 o'clock and to overcome frictional losses.
Once #3 has been reset the wheel is again perfectly balanced and will continue to rotate at constant speed with the impetus given it by the #3 fall.
Quickly the #2 weight will reach 3' o'clock and the cycle will recommence with the #2 jerking towards the now fixed #3. This gives the wheel another increment of angular momentum. The wheel will continue in this staccato fashion until it reaches equilibrium with its load plus frictional forces.
Quote from: Grimer on February 14, 2014, 03:17:10 AM
The Keenie.
How it works and why it works.
Mr. Grimer: Would you please be so kind as to start a new thread for your new topic?
Quote from: Grimer on February 14, 2014, 03:17:10 AM
The Keenie.
How it works and why it works.
...In other words to send CCW jerk outside the system to be lost in miniscule change in angular momentum of the earth - the same action that takes place on a much large scale with the slingshot/gravity assist technique for speeding up space vehicles...
Except... In a system where the device is receiving a gravitational slingshot from earth AND that device is launched from earth, the amount of energy that an be gained from the slingshot it exactly equal to (or less than) the amount of energy required to position that object such to a position where it can take advantage of such an energy assist.
No free lunch to be had here.
I owe the idea of recoil to Hans von Lieven.
In my view his paper (link below) is the best single source for info on the Keenie.
http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm (http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm)
I'll have to find the relevant quote.
Frank, you might as well be describing a pink invisible unicorn carousel in detail... because it has just as much reality as your "Keenie" fantasy. No amount of your detailed description can alter the fact that IT DOES NOT WORK. So really, you should quit acting like, and claiming, it does, until you are able to demonstrate it. Until then it's just your fantasy, nothing more, and we are trying to discuss reality here, not yours and webby's fantasies.
Quote from: Grimer on February 14, 2014, 04:17:40 AM
I owe the idea of recoil to Hans von Lieven.
...
Mr. Grimer is there some reason that rather than start a new thread with your new topic, you insist on trying to change the subject of this thread which long ago got redirected at the Wayne Travis claims?
MarkE,
I was just trying to get across how much water can be moved on the level
with 20kw. Hook one of those pumps up to a ZED and heaven knows what it'd
do.
John.
Minnie, I saw that, and I fully agree. 20kW in a stream of water would make one heck of a fountain. Even if the basic physics of lifting and dropping weights allowed for some energy gain, when the fact is that it does not, the big machine shown by HER would have to move heavy weights furiously in order to output 20kW. The lazy back and forth tottering of the machine shown by HER would never come close.
surprise ....
stored energy curve is not linear
Marsing, hopefully webby will see it now.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 13, 2014, 06:15:00 PM
Why do you keep avoiding the issue?
If your claims and "measurements" are correct you should be able _easily_ to put together a "self runner" or at least some demonstration that you get more _work_ out than you put in. Why don't you do that simple thing? Here's a hint: Travis has a "simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself." Why don't you show that system producing its "clear overunity by itself"?
I know why, and so do you. In spite of your large monetary award from Travis... you are all out of tennis ball packaging tubes.
Yes, if it was true why after all this time has he done nothing, especially since he gives the impression that he discovered something unique, never discovered before, in fact he was so excited by his discovery he later started investigating other methods of OU, as anyone can see by his old post, it looks like he had forgotten about his remarkable discovery until Red_sunset and Wayne Travesty made a reappearance in this thread.
Wayne Travis has now been selling a false dream that anyone with the least bit of elementary physics knowledge, or ability to find someone with even elementary physics knowledge to analyze if for him would have known very early on has always been meritless for about six years. The sheer swagger Wayne still exhibits pitching outrageous claims that he has no factual basis for believing is awesome. Just look at how he does not even blink declaring his confidence despite the uninterrupted string of prototype failures. Look at the seemingly effortless way he changed his previous story as to what those aquarium videos meant. That kind of ability to set reality completely aside, stay on message and tug at emotions with invocations of God and country could make him a super effective: salesman, politician, diplomat, or remorseless fraud. Mr. Wayne's talents are wasted selling hopeless buoyancy based free energy schemes. He should be working for the CIA selling centrifuge components to Iran, or BATF selling traceable arms to Mexican drug lords.
It's little wonder that Wayne has sold complete BS to a number of people. Then there are those who within a few minutes of seeing what he had to show and say have asked: "What are we doing here?".
Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 08:36:55 AM
MarkE, if I were talking about a dump condition as you are describing I would agree with you, but since I am not and did not talk abut using a dump,, remember I said I started with that but had a fix for it,,,
So why are you describing a condition that is not the one under consideration?
Webby, I repeat again that we are
NOT TALKING ABOUT A DUMP CONDITION. We are talking about the steps as you have stated them. The figure pressure_equalization_potential_energy_loss.png shows on the left an initially charged cylinder: "A". The figure shows on the right that cylinder connected to a second cylinder "B". For purposes of illustration the "B" cylinder is held down by a stop instead of a payload weight. The two cylinders communicate "Air" through a volumeless line connected from the top of one to the top of the other. The pressures equalize with the result that the "air" water meniscus is at the same absolute depth in each cylinder. The pressures, and energies are shown on the figure.
The process of equalizing the pressures dissipated almost one half of the total stored energy. Now each cylinder holds only about 1/4th the energy that the first cylinder "A" held when charged. We have not even filled the "B" cylinder that will do the lifting all the way and we have already expended about twice as much work as we can possibly extract lifting the payload weight by your specified 15mm distance. The total volume of "air" is still the same as it was after we finished charging the "A" cylinder. We have not dumped any "air". The remaining steps of pumping air from the "A" side to the "B" side until the "B" side becomes neutrally buoyant and then lifting the payload weight end up
costing input work that exceed both the energy just lost plus the energy extracted from raising the payload weight.
11 days ago you said that you would post your set-up and your calculations. You have not done so. I welcome you to post your arrangement and show what you think happens when you first equalize the pressure between the two cylinders,
before you add
more energy by pumping "air" from the charged cylinder to the cylinder carrying the payload weight.
To those interested,
A couple of fun notes - apparently lost in translation last year:
First I mostly ignore all slander and misdirection - if a valid point is made in the middle - I would never know. Why would I listen to people who spit in my face first and last in every breath. (why do they think they add value to anything)?
I shared last year - some want to learn - others just want to be "read" - ask questions relevant to the understanding and do not try to take over the conversation.
My reading here is short - I have those that have proven they can not control themselves on "block".
...............
A few things missed by some -
In the ZED system - the stored energy is in the individual water columns in each layer.
(When you displace a fluid - as in Archimedes'- you also create an equal value in water column - hard to see in your drawings - but is there - and very usable - if so designed - the ZED is so designed.)
Our columns connect in series - transfer of the stored energy only requires access to one point in each ZED
(If you get stuck on one ZED - you ignore half the cycle - look at the whole cycle and OU stares you in the face.)
Moving one - moves all - this means the ratio of volume to movement is reduced with the number of series - or the number of water columns created does not add to the input volume. Making Operating speed optimal.
The same as Archimedes' in some aspects - there is a difference:
Even our single layer ZED with Pod - creates more buoyancy than the space it occupies - very simple to verify.
and It can lift many more times than the whole system weighs.
(P.s. john/Tk - that's where you should focus to understand the reduction in foot print to capture large amounts of gravity)
Few notes regarding slander:
Zydro Energy has 210 investors - they all have always known and had the right to a full refund with interest - one has exercised that due to handle a personal home issue - and another wanted to support another inventor - another inventor who did not have as many supporters - I returned his money and let him keep his shares.
They supported me and my efforts to bring good from our work - most of our investors read the slander and accusations on this web site, and most did their due research and saw the value to humanity.
Another truth:
Good people choose to take a stand - the fact less based slander spewed on this web site - added credibility to our efforts - those with character to see - saw thru it all - they gave us time to develop our other systems.
Our success adds credibility to all those that desired and tried - against the onslaught of opposition.
In regard to the "law suit" - my divorce 6 years ago. omgosh.. TK you will twist anything.. trying to twist it into to a claim against character, company, or systems - just pitiful. I am sorry you still do not understand the system - don't take it personally. I wish I had logged in that day so that you were ignored......
Where we are today:
I have on average five meetings a week with Utility companies, Inventors, Engineers, legal teams, political figures, and our new partners regarding our future alignments and focus - working together to bring reliable and clean energy to the world (None of those meetings are for investment - we are fully funded).
We also have five legal teams - Patents, International patents, Legal team for the contracting, CPA, and infringement and abatement.
Of course - In every meeting - I am introduced to extremely intelligent Engineers, ladies and gentlemen - who do not see the difference or value of our system - (without the distraction of slander and ego's) it takes on average two hours to teach them what Webby and Red, and a dozen other have discovered.....
TK you are "right" ....hands on models do make a big impact and open minds - several people on this web site built nice ones and were spammed out of desire to share. I think they are onto you.
Of all our visitors:
I have only turned away one visitor in six years. He thought I was seeking investment - I was not.
To All:
It is valuable to learn the logic that made the ZED possible to produce Net energy - we have applied that logic to four other systems which also now work to produce Net Energy. This is a new frontier - ready for open minds. The world might be able to stop a few people - but it can not stop a thought.... And thoughts are powerful.
I do not teach that logic here - it is more valuable than our machines.
A little hint - working with "ideal energy" will not produce Net Excess energy - and focusing on Energy Values in the system will not lead to Net Energy. Red has explained it right at least twice.
I highly highly recommend listening to those who have built models.
And to those that slander and spam them - your on your way out......
Pollution free energy is on the way.
The big picture,
Two of my son's spent last month in China and toured power plants - the air barely breathable even to the locals - fixing that around the world is what is important.
Nuclear waste is still spilling in Japan, most of our power plant are over 40 years old -
GRAVITY IS ALWAYS ON!
Maybe some of you have forgotten the reason for the search - the reason for this web site - I am sorry for those of you who missed the boat. I certainly tried to help.
Our system will help.
Best wishes to you all,
Wayne Travis
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 14, 2014, 04:36:50 AM
Frank, you might as well be describing a pink invisible unicorn carousel in detail... because it has just as much reality as your "Keenie" fantasy. No amount of your detailed description can alter the fact that IT DOES NOT WORK. So really, you should quit acting like, and claiming, it does, until you are able to demonstrate it. Until then it's just your fantasy, nothing more, and we are trying to discuss reality here, not yours and webby's fantasies.
I disagree. I think the Keenie did work and does work for the reasons I gave. Why not save the puerile insults and and address the arguments. Red ink is not going to make them go away. :)
QuoteIn regard to the "law suit" - my divorce 6 years ago. omgosh.. TK you will twist anything.. trying to twist it into to a claim against character, company, or systems - just pitiful. I am sorry you still do not understand the system - don't take it personally. I wish I had logged in that day so that you were ignored......
Somehow I don't think you are talking about your divorce six years ago, when you are talking about your lawsuit in your plea for new investment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A)
Travis, you emit words endlessly, without saying anything of significance, but the Truth remains: You have withdrawn your overt claims of creating free energy from your public websites. You have changed the name of your operation. People do this kind of thing when they have received advice from lawyers as to the nature of their claims and the nature of their solicitations. You solicit investments, you mention your lawsuit.... People rarely if ever refer to their "divorce" as a "lawsuit" so I am afraid I believe the version of you in the video, not what you are posting here. You have NEVER YET produced any data that support your claims. Yet it would be trivial for you to do so, if you had what you claim to have. But you do not... so you cannot.
Why did you not complete your schedule with Mark Dansie? Why has Dansie not "endorsed" your claims? Why are you not in the news, every day? Why are graduate engineering students from over in Norman not pouring over your design, writing scientific papers and helping you bring it to fruition? I know why... and so do you.
Where is the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself", your words exactly, Wayne Travis? I challenge you: either show this system and explain why and how it is overunity in terms a REAL ENGINEER will understand ... OR admit that you do not have any such thing and WITHDRAW the lying claim to have such a thing.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 14, 2014, 09:59:17 AM
To those interested,
A couple of fun notes - apparently lost in translation last year:
First I mostly ignore all slander and misdirection - if a valid point is made in the middle - I would never know. Why would I listen to people who spit in my face first and last in every breath. (why do they think they add value to anything)?
I shared last year - some want to learn - others just want to be "read" - ask questions relevant to the understanding and do not try to take over the conversation.
What you have never done is shown a single iota of evidence that supports your outrageous claims.
Quote
My reading here is short - I have those that have proven they can not control themselves on "block".
...............
A few things missed by some -
In the ZED system - the stored energy is in the individual water columns in each layer.
(When you displace a fluid - as in Archimedes'- you also create an equal value in water column - hard to see in your drawings - but is there - and very usable - if so designed - the ZED is so designed.)
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.
Quote
Our columns connect in series - transfer of the stored energy only requires access to one point in each ZED
(If you get stuck on one ZED - you ignore half the cycle - look at the whole cycle and OU stares you in the face.)
If you believe that then you should be able to show that. After all you say that your physics is "simple". Yet, you have yet to show any evidence of energy gain across a complete cycle.
Quote
Moving one - moves all - this means the ratio of volume to movement is reduced with the number of series - or the number of water columns created does not add to the input volume. Making Operating speed optimal.
That's meaningless word salad.
Quote
The same as Archimedes' in some aspects - there is a difference:
Even our single layer ZED with Pod - creates more buoyancy than the space it occupies - very simple to verify.
This is meaningless with respect to any energy claims. Force is not energy. Force is not conservative. Force is easily multiplied. Levers, gears, pulleys, hydraulic pumps all rely on that fact.
Quote
and It can lift many more times than the whole system weighs.
Again, so can a block and tackle, or a lever, etc. It's the energy: the integral of F*ds that matters.
Quote
(P.s. john/Tk - that's where you should focus to understand the reduction in foot print to capture large amounts of gravity)
Gravity is not something that one "captures".
Quote
Few notes regarding slander:
Zydro Energy has 210 investors - they all have always known and had the right to a full refund with interest - one has exercised that due to handle a personal home issue - and another wanted to support another inventor - another inventor who did not have as many supporters - I returned his money and let him keep his shares.
They supported me and my efforts to bring good from our work - most of our investors read the slander and accusations on this web site, and most did their due research and saw the value to humanity.
So are you saying that you have cashed out all investors one hundred cents on the dollar or more who have asked to cash out? A simple yes or no will do.
Quote
Another truth:
Good people choose to take a stand - the fact less based slander spewed on this web site - added credibility to our efforts - those with character to see - saw thru it all - they gave us time to develop our other systems.
The failure to back claims, the failure to deliver, and the choice to continue promoting claims that you know to be false or promote in reckless disregard for the truth are all your actions.
Quote
Our success adds credibility to all those that desired and tried - against the onslaught of opposition.
If one measures success by how much investment one is able to obtain then you might well be successful. If one measures success by how well one delivers on their promises, you have not done well at all.
Quote
In regard to the "law suit" - my divorce 6 years ago. omgosh.. TK you will twist anything.. trying to twist it into to a claim against character, company, or systems - just pitiful. I am sorry you still do not understand the system - don't take it personally. I wish I had logged in that day so that you were ignored......
Where we are today:
I have on average five meetings a week with Utility companies, Inventors, Engineers, legal teams, political figures, and our new partners regarding our future alignments and focus - working together to bring reliable and clean energy to the world (None of those meetings are for investment - we are fully funded).
Unfortunately when it comes to any source of clean energy from your buoyancy devices, your hands are empty. You have nothing to contribute. Your buoyancy machines are incapable of delivering a single Joule of excess energy over that put into them.
Quote
We also have five legal teams - Patents, International patents, Legal team for the contracting, CPA, and infringement and abatement.
The infringement and abatement teams can phone their work in. No one can infringe something that has no utility.
Quote
Of course - In every meeting - I am introduced to extremely intelligent Engineers, ladies and gentlemen - who do not see the difference or value of our system - (without the distraction of slander and ego's) it takes on average two hours to teach them what Webby and Red, and a dozen other have discovered.....
Webby and Red have both demonstrated that they confuse force for energy. I would not recommend using either of them as references for the caliber of your technical team.
Quote
TK you are "right" ....hands on models do make a big impact and open minds - several people on this web site built nice ones and were spammed out of desire to share. I think they are onto you.
And just what about TinselKoala would they have discovered, or "be onto" with respect to the gentleman?
Quote
Of all our visitors:
I have only turned away one visitor in six years. He thought I was seeking investment - I was not.
Mark Dansie was to witness a promised 48 hour continuous demonstration over two years ago. Why has this not happened?
Quote
To All:
It is valuable to learn the logic that made the ZED possible to produce Net energy - we have applied that logic to four other systems which also now work to produce Net Energy. This is a new frontier - ready for open minds. The world might be able to stop a few people - but it can not stop a thought.... And thoughts are powerful.
The problem is that none of your machines have ever been shown to produce net energy. Nor have you ever shown that you have even a theoretical means to produce net energy. Lifting and lowering weights does not produce net energy, in or out of water.
Quote
I do not teach that logic here - it is more valuable than our machines.
A little hint - working with "ideal energy" will not produce Net Excess energy - and focusing on Energy Values in the system will not lead to Net Energy. Red has explained it right at least twice.
Unfortunately Red_Sunset has offered a good deal of double talk and no actual evidence that supports your outrageous claims.
Quote
I highly highly recommend listening to those who have built models.
That would be wonderful if any of those people actually offered energy balances for their models. None have.
Quote
And to those that slander and spam them - your on your way out......
Pollution free energy is on the way.
That may be, but no free energy is to be had from your machines.
Quote
The big picture,
Two of my son's spent last month in China and toured power plants - the air barely breathable even to the locals - fixing that around the world is what is important.
Nuclear waste is still spilling in Japan, most of our power plant are over 40 years old -
GRAVITY IS ALWAYS ON!
Gravity is indeed always on. One can extract the difference in gravitational potential by lowering a mass from a higher to a lower potential exactly once. After that they have to pay back the energy and more to repeat the act.
Quote
Maybe some of you have forgotten the reason for the search - the reason for this web site - I am sorry for those of you who missed the boat. I certainly tried to help.
Our system will help.
Nothing you have will do anything to produce clean energy. Your machines and concepts are as useless for producing energy as James Kwok's.
Quote
Best wishes to you all,
Wayne Travis
Quote from: Grimer on February 14, 2014, 10:04:58 AM
I disagree. I think the Keenie did work and does work for the reasons I gave. Why not save the puerile insults and and address the arguments. Red ink is not going to make them go away. :)
Claims without evidence, Frank.
Not worth the digital bits they are typed with. Your "thinking" something works....well, let's just say that you have been wrong, foolishly wrong, about that in the past.
Your record in these matters is rather miserable, actually. Why don't you just rest on your water-power-law laurels and quit squawking about stuff you can't support with facts, checkable outside references and/or demonstrations of your OWN.
Quote from: Grimer on February 14, 2014, 10:04:58 AM
I disagree. I think the Keenie did work and does work for the reasons I gave. Why not save the puerile insults and and address the arguments. Red ink is not going to make them go away. :)
Mr. Grimer, please take your discussion to the Keenie Device thread that I set up for you. It is unfair to anyone who might be interested in what you might have to say about Keenie to have to dig around to find it here. It is also very rude of you to keep disrupting this thread.
Travis cracks me up. We haven't seen such blatant bloviation in quite some time. He had a great thread going here a year or more ago, then when the questions get tough he demands that the thread be closed. He puts people on "ignore", he says he isn't going to be posting here.... then he posts here and tries to dialog with people he pretends to ignore. Yet he cannot provide any real data, he just continues to emit the same kinds of verbiage that earned him such skepticism and so many challenges before.
He talks about paying attention to models.... when nobody (except ME !!) has actually demonstrated any kind of model of any of Travis's ideas or claims that actually "work" or perform "better" than some rational baseline measurement. This particularly cracks me up. I can precharge my PerPump, start it up and then stand back and watch it pump, for as long as its input reservoir contains water and there is room in the output reservoir to receive it. No further assists from my hands are required for it to keep on running. No other model of any Travis system can be shown to "run" without further input in this manner. Travis has, due to his egotism and his personal animosity towards me, entirely missed the fact that my PerPump Heron's Fountain withTinselZed is the _only_ model of any part of his system that actually "works". Not only that.... but it also fulfils the specifications for the "self running water pump" that he presented as a challenge to his sycophants and "model builders". And as far as I am aware... nobody else has ever even tried to present something that would fit the spec. But... just as with Sterling Allan and my Mylow replication... since my device isn't "overunity" in any way ... the person who emitted the challenge reneged on making the deserved award. As I knew he would.... and which makes me ROFL every time I think about it.
QuoteI highly highly recommend listening to those who have built models.
Yes, pay attention to the models, and to those who have built them ... and the hard results that those models provide. Let Travis -- or anyone else -- produce and demonstrate a model that shows the validity of his claims.
Well?
(sound of crickets chirping....)
Let's break it down. Travis has claimed various output power levels, like the 50 kW unit he claimed he could install at his church three months after getting investments (the PowerPoint presentation). But let's just use the 20 kW claim that he's made "in the footprint of a garden shed".
First let's operationalize some constructs. What is the "footprint of a garden shed" in square meters of area? 2 meters by 3 meters? That's a pretty large garden shed for a city backyard, but we have to start somewhere. How _tall_ must such a shed be, even if it contains Zeds with six layers, to "capture" enough gravity to have an output of 20 kW? (This sentence cracks me up... capturing gravity! What a hoot!)
Next let's examine what we know. The large groaning unit that Dansie saw on his second visit shows an ordinary hydraulic pump/motor turning an ordinary wind-farm type alternator. There is nothing magic about either of these components, so for the output to reach 20 kW the hydraulic motor itself must be supplied with (20 kw / motor efficiency). Let's just call it 25 kW that must be supplied by hydraulic fluid flow and pressure to the hydraulic motor of 80 percent efficiency. Now.... where is this fluid flow and pressure supposed to come from -- continuously -- for as long as the system operates? And don't forget we have to do it within a footprint of six square meters.
Now let's do a little math, using some online calculators and formulae:
http://www.indianafluidpower.com/Formulas.asp#HydraulicMotorCalculations (http://www.indianafluidpower.com/Formulas.asp#HydraulicMotorCalculations)
http://www.cchydraulics.co.nz/need_to_know (http://www.cchydraulics.co.nz/need_to_know)
http://www.hydraproducts.co.uk/hydraulic-calculators/output-power.aspx (http://www.hydraproducts.co.uk/hydraulic-calculators/output-power.aspx)
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-power-d_505.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-power-d_505.html)
What kind of numbers do you get? Is the light beginning to dawn yet? WHERE IS THIS REQUIRED PRESSURE AND FLOW RATE COMING FROM?
From Wayne Travis's fantasy, nowhere else.
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.
Quote from: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 10:34:20 AM
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
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.
Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 11:46:54 AM
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:
Quote
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:
Quote...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.
Quote...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.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 14, 2014, 11:46:56 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
Layers improve the ratio between input volume and lift = which can improve efficiency.
More layers simply increase sources of loss.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
We do not do that with a ZED - I even posted drawing of two cylinders lifting weights
Whatever "that" is.
Quote from: Grimer on February 14, 2014, 04:17:40 AM
I owe the idea of recoil to Hans von Lieven.
In my view his paper (link below) is the best single source for info on the Keenie.
http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm (http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm)
I'll have to find the relevant quote.
For me, one of the most significant passaged in Hans von Lieden's paper is the following:
QuoteIt is my contention that Bessler discovered his "motus perpetualis" by observation!
We know that at some stage in his life Bessler was a soldier. I believe he discovered his principle by watching the recoil of a gun.
We also know that Bessler was the recipient of an extraordinary education, which at the time was considered second to none.
He was tutored by Christian Weise (1642-1708). Weise was an outstanding intellect in his time. His work on science, education and literature is considered of such importance that his collected works (25 volumes !) were re-published as recently as 1971!
He is almost unknown outside Germany.
I believe the only thing Hans lacked was a valve in the shape of a one way clutch. Had he grasped the significance of that in throwing away half of the jerk energy he would have had the complete solution.
Mr. Grimer you are being very rude and disruptive. Kindly take your discussion of the Keenie Device to the Keenie Device thread.
Bessler's experience as a master _clockmaker_ is far more relevant to his fakery than his experience as a soldier. What he discovered is that maids work cheaply but aren't always completely faithful after leaving one's employ. The gullibility of (some of) the rich has been known since long before Bessler.
Wayne Travis said,
Quote...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. ...
Which Adapco would that be, then?
http://www.myadapco.com/ (http://www.myadapco.com/)
Mosquito control? Appropriate perhaps but really, that must not be the one Travis means.
http://www.cd-adapco.com/ (http://www.cd-adapco.com/)
QuoteCD-adapco is the world's largest independent CFD-focused provider of engineering simulation software, support and services. We have over 30 years of experience in delivering industrial strength engineering simulation.
That sounds more like it.... and in the first couple of Google search pages there aren't any other likely candidates. Please feel free, Mister Wayne Travis, to provide correct contact details so that we can get the verification "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak.
Meanwhile....
I see that CD-adapco has offices in Tulsa OK and Austin TX, as well as many other places.
Here's the contact info for the Tulsa office:
Triad II Building 7645 East 63rd Street Suite 105 Tulsa OK 74133 United States Telephone: (+1) 918 505 4220 Fax: (+1) 918 872 9443 Email: info@cd-adapco.com Support Email: support-us@cd-adapco.com
Mister Wayne Travis's claim sure sounds like he is trying to say that "adapco" engineers have somehow confirmed his claims. I wonder what the company has to say about that. Since he mentioned them here in a public forum in that context... what does that do to any NDAs that may have been signed, I wonder?
ETA: But really.... read the quote from Travis again, isolated from the rest of his ... er.... rhetoric. Perhaps the adapco engineers are telling him he has made five unsupportable ("counterintuitive") assumptions in his kludgewerk that would represent violations of "the law of conservation", hence preventing it from working as he claims. Indeed... if this engineering simulation software company has a simulation that indicates any OU.... I wouldn't trust them to build any bridges or airplanes.
Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 01:49:16 PM
My, are you not funny,, run the transfer pump,,
Why waste energy\potential from the system if you do not need to,, just because you can? that is still silly,,
Webby, because
you have no choice in the matter. The configuration that
you set-up is condemned to losing almost half it's energy operating as
you have described that
you intend it to operate.
The transfer pump does not help you here. You have a first state with the two cylinders as you have specified and there is a second transient state with the cylinders at equal pressure. The process of going from the first state to the second state loses nearly half the stored energy of the first state to heat.
Quote from: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 12:20:45 PM
We only get to work within nature's constraints.
Nature has much more to discover, or not.
Good day.
Hi,
let's not mess about any more. Mrwayne, Sunset or Webby please one or all of you submit
the drawing of a "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself".
I'll send it to prof. Peter Higgs at Edinburgh and he'll know if it'll work or not.
John.
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
New pictures for St Valentine's day. :-* :-* :-*
Quote from: mrwayne on February 14, 2014, 03:00:42 PM
Nature has much more to discover, or not.
Good day.
Mr. Wayne, no we mere mortals have much to discover about nature. However, when it comes to lifting and dropping weights as your contraptions do, we have a very good understanding and it is that gravity is conservative.
Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 03:21:31 PM
Sorry MarkE,, you missed again.
Your process CAN happen, but it most definitely does not NEED to happen.
I feel that if I need to explain this process to you then, well I should not need to should I.
Webby, oh by all means explain away. Shall we begin with your sketch?
Come on Webby,
all any of us needs is that sketch of a simple three layer system that is
clearly overunity by itself. Forget all the crap about transfer pumps etc. they can only
introduce losses.
John.
Just for reference:
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg332026/#msg332026 (http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg332026/#msg332026)
The word "simple" got put into the quote somewhere downstream. If it's an assumption of mine... sorry. Maybe the three layer system isn't so "simple" after all... since nobody has been able to show one that is "clearly overunity by itself".
Then there's the "960 percent" quote:
QuoteCreative Entropy Disruption
November 6, 2012 Hello Friends and Family, We are having a blast! Let me ask you a couple of questions...... Do you feel a sense of urgency in our development? Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles, are you ready for the internal validation, and the external validation? Me too! Some of you are new to our team - I will be the first to admit - I was eager to "jump the gun" four years ago. I had to grow up to the reality that due diligence is more important than feelings, the need for due diligence trumps desire, it trumps time-lines. That maturity does not mean that I do not still wish for all of this work to be finished and over - I assure you. Mark Dansie has taught me one thing "It will be when it will be" on the surface it seems too simple of an explanation - but a little deeper - it means "do not rush or be pressured by desires - yours or others .. focus on your diligence". Mark is right, and thank God that Mark is the skeptic that gives advice - I receive continual bad advice from others - that if I followed - we would have presented to the world our unfinished work - to meet their ego - not the needs of our business and future relationships. Mark advised me - that in order to get the right help - we needed to attract the right people - with the right connections - and that "WE" needed to supply the right answer to the energy question. I decided that 160% was not good enough - and considering our latest physical testing of our TAZ is 960% - I think the timing is just about right. Now we are buttoning up the details - part of every improvement we have made - we are getting pretty good at it with all the great people who volunteer. So the feeling to finish - will be meeting the "due diligence" as soon as possible. After last weeks update - one of the validation members asked me not to publish their schedules - and I will respect that wish. It is only the small things that we wrap up now - I read a quote that said: "Whomever can not be bothered with the small things, should not be considered worthy to handle the large things". (ask an astronaut if the small things matter) Yes they do - that is the purpose of due diligence. Remember - if you are a member of our team, please feel free to come by for a personal update - get your picture for posterity, or write me - I still answer e-mails each morning. Thank you for the many letters and prayers - I mentioned in our last private update about helping setup our hands on ZED discovery cove / Omni plex - for the ZED technology and development. We have the building donated - and we could use some hands on model builders to help put together some of the experiments we did over the last few years that helped us to understand the ZED Technology - I think this will go a long way to help those that will come. I had a gentleman share with me today that his granddaughter was entering the "Travis Effect" in her science fair - the word is getting out! Thanks again for the prayers. Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
Sorry, I don't have a direct link for that, but I'm sure Travis can find it. The internet never forgets, really.
Quote from: minnie on February 14, 2014, 04:57:37 PM
Come on Webby,
all any of us needs is that sketch of a simple three layer system that is
clearly overunity by itself. Forget all the crap about transfer pumps etc. they can only
introduce losses.
John.
He doesn't know how to do it. Nobody does. Travis "misspoke" when he made that claim, I fear. And with that "960 percent" claim ... well, it's no wonder he blew his skirts... so to speak.
wow, you would never guess we are all meant to be searching and designing and inventing things together, you know, on the same side.
you gotta wonder that if we, a group who are dedicated to the same thing, cant stop bickering between each other, then how the hell does any invention brought here stand a chance of being spread?
as for those waiting for this guy, who hasnt even asked for us to look at his machine ,to put YT vids up. why not get off you back side and try some inventing your self and publish here.
we have all (well, at least some of us) spent money making things only to find out we missed something somewhere along the line.
even if this big thing doesnt work, we could take something out of it, the principals high lighted by this machine can inspire us all.
1) counter weight, work out a system of having weight A spinning around somehow, and haveing weight B counter balance A as A goes up. then detaches as A comes down only to reattach as A goes up again.
2) perhaps use counter balancing in another way. (see attached)
so, perhaps rather than waiting for someone else to do the work for you, you could stand up and try it your self.. if you really want to know if this machine will work or not, give it a go.
Well, the funny thing about when you first come across a proposition like this is that you actually don't feel motivated to even try to look at it because it is so obviously impossible. But that is the 'bad attitude' so you go for it instead. Hence MarkE and TK take out their slide rules. The mechanical analog computer shall rise again!
Webby, are you capable of presenting your ideas in a step-by-step fashion showing a full cycle? I get the feeling that you are not capable of doing it. It's like when people talk about circuits in a strange pseudo-electronics abstract way and you ask them to draw out a timing diagram. Chances are you won't get a response because they can't. So I think you are stuck. Your mind deals with this in a more abstract way and you imagine parts of the system doing what you say they are doing but you can't translate that into physical reality along with the equations and sample calculations. For example, I would not be surprised if you were not aware that you lose half of the energy when the pressures equalize.
I actually don't think Wayne himself can do some real energy calculations to even show parts of the alleged system in action. There is nothing there, just a bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything. The whole prophet/preacher/attempted brainwash angle is distasteful to me. But then again, he is not pitching for me, his pitch is tailored for a different audience.
The most laughable statement was where he alleged that he is meeting with utility companies as the head of his company. To only be a fly on the wall. It would be like a scene from a Charlie Chaplin movie.
Meanwhile, with all these volunteers and the community spirit and the team effort and all that stuff.... Were is the Internet footprint for all of these good vibes? Were are the Facebook pages where people proudly state that they are on Team Zed? Where are Wayne's proud pics of the different prototypes? Where are the pics of the the happy hydraulic development team after a milestone? This has been one big happy party for years now.
Now everybody think about this! lol
MileHigh
Heh... I wish I could find my old slide rule. I'm afraid I use a calculator like just about everybody else these days. On the computer I usually use
SpeedCrunch
http://www.speedcrunch.org/
and at the workbench I use my trusty old Sharp EL-520W.
But calculations are only as good as the data that goes into them... if that. Some people evidently think that all you have to do is multiply everything together and write down all the digits that come out of the display. With SpeedCrunch... that could get to be a problem.
Quote from: lightend on February 14, 2014, 07:02:58 PM
wow, you would never guess we are all meant to be searching and designing and inventing things together, you know, on the same side.
you gotta wonder that if we, a group who are dedicated to the same thing, cant stop bickering between each other, then how the hell does any invention brought here stand a chance of being spread?
as for those waiting for this guy, who hasnt even asked for us to look at his machine ,to put YT vids up. why not get off you back side and try some inventing your self and publish here.
we have all (well, at least some of us) spent money making things only to find out we missed something somewhere along the line.
even if this big thing doesnt work, we could take something out of it, the principals high lighted by this machine can inspire us all.
1) counter weight, work out a system of having weight A spinning around somehow, and haveing weight B counter balance A as A goes up. then detaches as A comes down only to reattach as A goes up again.
2) perhaps use counter balancing in another way. (see attached)
so, perhaps rather than waiting for someone else to do the work for you, you could stand up and try it your self.. if you really want to know if this machine will work or not, give it a go.
What Wayne Travis and HER propose cannot produce surplus energy. Their machine is a buoyancy device. IE they lift and drop weights where at least some of the weight is submerged in a fluid other than our good old atmosphere. Gravity is a conservative field. Take a test mass and place it at some point in the field. Then move the mass around: up, down, sideways, do with it what you will. Keep track of the energy that you expend or gain moving that mass. Keep this up until you eventually return the mass to where you started. The net energy that you will have measured from moving the mass in the gravitational field is zero.
Mr. Travis and his compatriots have relied on misdirection to give the impression that they have encountered a discovery that offers them a cheat on the conservative nature of gravity. It may or may not be that Mr. Travis and his compatriots were so ignorant of basic science that they were unable to recognize Archimedes' Principle at work when they first started six years ago. However, they have had plenty of time to investigate the miracle of dropping rocks in water, versus dropping them on dry land. They have also been exposed to many people who have explained that miracle to them. That Mr. Travis still insists that he has a cheat on nature means that either Mr. Travis is knowingly lying, or that he makes those statements in reckless disregard for the truth.
Webby did in fact offer to show his work. He did that on February 3, 2014. He has failed to live up to his promise.
What you propose is a machine that generates energy by moving weights around. See the paragraph above about gravity being a conservative field as to why your concept is dead on arrival.
Quote from: lightend on February 14, 2014, 07:02:58 PM
wow, you would never guess we are all meant to be searching and designing and inventing things together, you know, on the same side.
you gotta wonder that if we, a group who are dedicated to the same thing, cant stop bickering between each other, then how the hell does any invention brought here stand a chance of being spread?
as for those waiting for this guy, who hasnt even asked for us to look at his machine ,to put YT vids up. why not get off you back side and try some inventing your self and publish here.
we have all (well, at least some of us) spent money making things only to find out we missed something somewhere along the line.
even if this big thing doesnt work, we could take something out of it, the principals high lighted by this machine can inspire us all.
1) counter weight, work out a system of having weight A spinning around somehow, and haveing weight B counter balance A as A goes up. then detaches as A comes down only to reattach as A goes up again.
2) perhaps use counter balancing in another way. (see attached)
so, perhaps rather than waiting for someone else to do the work for you, you could stand up and try it your self.. if you really want to know if this machine will work or not, give it a go.
you missed the point. you should read from the beginning
Quote from: Marsing on February 14, 2014, 09:38:36 PM
you missed the point. you should read from the beginning
Better yet.... start here, the real beginning of Mister Wayne Travis's encounter with this forum. It's a real hoot.
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/
That's the first page of the 228 page long thread that Mister Wayne finally asked to be closed.
Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 11:04:20 PM
I have been fixing cars for over 40 years, in that time I have run across variations of the method I put forward from many manufacturers. I put the parts together that I discussed to solve for an identical problem.
This method is not new, it is within existing art.
The method that you are requiring only allows for a 1:1 volume transfer, my method allows for a 1:1 energy transfer.
With all due respect, there is no such thing known. Any and all energy transfers have losses. Some more than others but, there are losses just the same.
My 2.3765 cents worth.
Bill
Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 11:04:20 PM
I have been fixing cars for over 40 years, in that time I have run across variations of the method I put forward from many manufacturers. I put the parts together that I discussed to solve for an identical problem.
This method is not new, it is within existing art.
The method that you are requiring only allows for a 1:1 volume transfer, my method allows for a 1:1 energy transfer.
what method do you use webby ? would you explain that.
Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 11:04:20 PM
I have been fixing cars for over 40 years, in that time I have run across variations of the method I put forward from many manufacturers. I put the parts together that I discussed to solve for an identical problem.
This method is not new, it is within existing art.
The method that you are requiring only allows for a 1:1 volume transfer, my method allows for a 1:1 energy transfer.
Then you should have absolutely no trouble articulating your "method". Don't forget to conserve the volume of "air" in your explanation.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on February 14, 2014, 11:35:09 PM
With all due respect, there is no such thing known. Any and all energy transfers have losses. Some more than others but, there are losses just the same.
My 2.3765 cents worth.
Bill
Webby says that he's been doing this for 40 years.
QuoteI have been fixing cars for over 40 years, in that time I have run across variations of the method I put forward from many manufacturers. I put the parts together that I discussed to solve for an identical problem.
This method is not new, it is within existing art.
The method that you are requiring only allows for a 1:1 volume transfer, my method allows for a 1:1 energy transfer.
I'd love to see webby describe his wonderful method. We know that at the end of the process that the originating cylinder is down to 1/4th of its energy. We know that at the end of the process that the receiving container holds exactly 1/2 of the "air". So, what Webby has to do is without expending a bunch of extra energy is just get that 1/2 quantity of air into the second cylinder in such a way that the "air" contains 3/4ths of the original energy as in the first cylinder. Let's see what that might look like, shall we?
Estart = P1start*V1start
E1end = P1end*V1end = 0.5*P1start* 0.5*V1start = 0.25*Estart
In order to maintain 1.0X energy as webby maintains he has done for many years, he needs to manage:
Eend = Estart = E1 + E2
E2 = Estart - 0.25*Estart
E2 = P2end*V2end = P1end*V2end
V2end = 0.75Estart/P1end = 1.5*V1start = 3.0*V1end
So all webby has to do with his wrench turning skills is transform the volume of "air" into 3X the volume of "air" in the first cylinder while keeping that air the same volume as in the first cylinder. Even Jesus with five loaves and two fish couldn't manage that stunt.
Webby,
quote "my method allows a 1:1 energy transfer". I believe you need more than
1 if you're to make this thing work. If you imagine shuffling 1 watt from side to side
you're not doing any work.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 14, 2014, 11:04:20 PM
.......................... my method allows for a 1:1 energy transfer...................................
In simple word
" webby need an amount of "external energy" to transfer "his energy" from one place to other place"
"external energy" is an energy which webby must pay along transferring,
if this "external energy" was taken from "his energy", you can quess the final result,
this is the simple logic running on my head
but if using "magic method " ........ ......... i would like to know ........... ...........
Quote from: Marsing on February 15, 2014, 05:29:35 AM
In simple word
" webby need an amount of "external energy" to transfer "his energy" from one place to other place"
"external energy" is an energy which webby must pay along transferring,
if this "external energy" was taken from "his energy", you can quess the final result,
this is the simple logic running on my head
but if using "magic method " ........ ......... i would like to know ........... ...........
Webby has cornered himself with a fantastic claim that he will not be able to support. He has never had a means to perform the transfer retaining the original energy. It is only in the past day or two that he even realized the energy transfer problem after it was pointed out to him.
As to whether shuffling about half of the "air" from the charged cylinder to the uncharged cylinder means that absolutely about one half of the the energy must be lost to heat, that is a bit more complicated. What is absolute is that the stored energy post transfer in the combined cylinders is only about half what the pre transfer stored energy was in the first cylinder. That dictates that the balance of the stored energy went into the transfer system. If the transfer system met four requirements then it would be possible to reduce the losses.
The first requirement is that the transfer system would itself have to include a third energy store capable of taking up at least 50% of the energy of a fully charged first cylinder.
The second requirement is that the transfer system would have to be able to divert the energy that would otherwise be lost by a simple direct connection between the first and second cylinder into store with low losses, while still transferring the "air" from the first cylinder to the second up to the point of pressure equalization between the first and second cylinder.
The third requirement is that the transfer system would have to be able to divert that energy out of its store with low losses, while transferring the "air" from the first cylinder to the second after the point of pressure equalization.
The fourth requirement is that a control means would be required that manages when to put energy into and when to take energy out of the store, and how much.
Hi,
not one of our three proponents has managed to come up with one fact in
support of the ou. that they are allegedly claiming.
It looks as if we've reached the bottom of the barrel. I'm sad because I
was I was hoping one of them would have come up with something original.
I wonder if Mondrasek will manage to turn anything up with his efforts, he
seems to be taking care and asking for help when he's unsure.
John .
Quote from: minnie on February 15, 2014, 09:37:03 AM
Hi,
not one of our three proponents has managed to come up with one fact in
support of the ou. that they are allegedly claiming.
It looks as if we've reached the bottom of the barrel. I'm sad because I
was I was hoping one of them would have come up with something original.
I wonder if Mondrasek will manage to turn anything up with his efforts, he
seems to be taking care and asking for help when he's unsure.
John .
After six years, HER / Zydro continue to have nothing but hand waving.
I am interested to see how Webby is going to respond.
Quote from: minnie on February 15, 2014, 09:37:03 AM
I wonder if Mondrasek will manage to turn anything up with his efforts, he
seems to be taking care and asking for help when he's unsure.
Thank you, "minnie." Is there any chance that you can assist by checking my work as I have requested? Because unless I've made some mistake in the math, or the analysis process, I think I have uncovered something very interesting. At least it is interesting to me.
M.
Quote from: webby1 on February 15, 2014, 10:06:39 AM
Well MarkE you are putting miss-information out once again.
These are a few posts.
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386204/#msg386204
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386349/#msg386349
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386367/#msg386367
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386475/#msg386475
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386568/#msg386568
First pic from MarkE that has the air where it belongs,,, why did he change it later?
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386740/#msg386740
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386819/#msg386819
Now the setup is changed,,why?
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386893/#msg386893
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386922/#msg386922
I correct MarkE's error.
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386998/#msg386998
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg387041/#msg387041
Me identifying the transfer pump.
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg387138/#msg387138
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg387140/#msg387140
MarkE blowing off the description of the transfer pump.
I have described the method, it is not my problem if MarkE can not understand a simple pump system,, but since he is now saying that I can NOT move a pocket of air without loosing 1\2 its potential,, that sounds fairly foolish doesn't it.
If you care to pay attention you will see that the system is 3 independent systems, pump, source and discharge and it is only the pump that sees all 3 parts.
Webby anyone who followed the thread could see that I took your descriptions and changes as you dribbled them out one at a time and posted drawings accordingly. Anyone can see the sparse sketch that you threw out at the start. Anyone can read the thread and see that you threw a fit when I proposed changing the piston height by less than 0.01% so that at least a miniscule bubble that you said you wanted would actually always be present between the top of the piston and the underside of the cylinder top. And anyone can see that over the course of some eight days you still never produced a full description of your test set-up despite your promise to do so Feb. 3.
This is the description you offered of the transfer pump:
QuoteI 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.
One can easily work out that from an energy stand point the pump as you describe it, in the best case approximates a simple tube during the time that the source pressure exceeds the destination pressure, IE during the entire pressure equalization phase. During that time the transfer pump acts like a hydraulic lock.
Now that the energy loss during equalization problem is inescapable you offer nothing to support your claim that you have a means to overcome that problem. It's all on you webby: You can support your claims or come away looking very foolish. Decide what you want to do.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 15, 2014, 10:28:11 AM
Thank you, "minnie." Is there any chance that you can assist by checking my work as I have requested? Because unless I've made some mistake in the math, or the analysis process, I think I have uncovered something very interesting. At least it is interesting to me.
M.
Mondrasek, I am looking at it now.
Quote from: webby1 on February 15, 2014, 12:32:57 PM
What a load of rubbish MarkE.
The issue I have is with you "enhancing" what I put forward.
The transfer problem is yours,YOU created it when YOU took 2 discrete volumes of air and made them into 1 shared volume.
Webby I have faithfully followed what you have described. I am afraid that you simply do not understand the physics. There are but the two cylinders where you can store energy in the problem as you set it up. The pressure lock in the pump does not change the fact that once you have transferred enough "air" to drive the meniscus in the "A" cylinder down by 67.5mm, the meniscus in the "B" cylinder has risen by 67.5mm and the two meniscus are even. At that point there is no pressure differential across the pressure lock in your pump. At that moment, the total stored potential energy in "A" cylinder is 790uJ, and in the "B" only 3.110mJ of the original 7.408mJ remains. You have lost nearly half the energy originally stored in the "B" cylinder. Go ahead and try to diagram a different result. Find a way to make your transfer pump preserve the pressure in the "B" side as you withdraw the "air" and the meniscus rises.The pressure lock in the pump is of zero consequence until you start pumping beyond the equilibrium pressure point.
The pressure lock only serves a useful function past the equilibrium point and we perform even more work to increase the pressure on the "A" above the falling pressure in the "B" side. Up to this point a wide open pipe between the two cylinders is equally effective as the pump.
Quote from: webby1 on February 15, 2014, 01:35:13 PM
This is the 3rd choice you have made that changes the design I am putting forward, each of those choices change the operation of the system into a non-functional arrangement.
You are choosing to ignore that with 2 discrete volumes of air that the ratio of volume change is set by the transfer pump,, unless you are going to tell me that the volumes can only be a 1:1, in which case I will need to see the law that states that, but that does not exist.
Since this appears to be your trend, I conclude that the choices are deliberate.
No webby you are ignoring the physics. The "air" is incompressible. At all times the volume of "air" in the system is constant at 5.0363cc. The transfer pump cannot create or destroy the amount of "air" in the system. It simply displaces it from one port to the other. Draw 0.01cc out of "B" into the transfer pump and the pump then drives that same 0.01cc into "A". Since both "A" and "B" are held in place up to this point, the things that move are the "air" and the water in the annular rings. For every um we drive the meniscus down the "A" annular ring, the meniscus in the "B" annular ring rises identically by 1um. This remains true until we get to the point that the meniscus reaches the top of the piston in "B". After 67.5mm movement in each, the meniscus is at the same height in each. The volumes and pressures are as shown in the diagrams, as are the stored energies.
It is on you to show the configuration you claim will perform as you claim. By all means be my guest and show that you can get to the point where the meniscus' are even without losing nearly half the stored potential energy.
Webby,
all we need from you is a diagram of a single ZED that gives back more than
the pre-charge. If you can't get more out than is put in that's the end of the story.
period.
John.
Quote from: MarkE on February 15, 2014, 11:23:21 AM
Mondrasek, I am looking at it now.
That you are looking at it is much appreciated. Please let me know if I have been attempting an incorrect analysis method or if we have uncovered an apparent anomaly. When you can.
Again, thank you so much for your participation and efforts.
M.
Quote from: minnie on February 15, 2014, 01:47:47 PM
Webby,
all we need from you is a diagram of a single ZED that gives back more than
the pre-charge. If you can't get more out than is put in that's the end of the story.
period.
John.
Minnie, webby has long stated that the precharge energy is just an initial condition. That is actually OK. As long as cycle to cycle the precharge energy returns to the same initial value, then what that value is does not change whether the machine is over or under unity.
As the problem has been constructed with one cylinder being precharged, (see the State 2 drawing) at the start of a half cycle, and then the other cylinder being identically precharged at the end of a half cycle, the precharge is maintained. What webby completely misses is the amount of work that has to be performed to get through a half cycle. It is almost four times as much work as is extracted by raising the payload weight, leaving the resulting efficiency for a single cycle substantially less than 1/3. Webby insists that he gets 83%. He has declined so far to show his work getting to that vastly inflated, yet still under unity number. Yet, this is what Wayne Travis trumpets as an example of someone who supposedly appreciates the style, quality, and craftsmanship of the emperor's new ZED.
Webby, the total volume of the "air" is constant because the "air" is incompressible as we stated.
The volume of air in each cylinder changes as "air" is transferred from the "B" cylinder to the "A" cylinder as required to operate the machine as you have specified.
After transfer of the product of the annular ring area: pi/4*(15mm^2 - 14.23mm^2), times 67.5mm height, the meniscus in the "A" cylinder has moved down 67.5mm and the meniscus in the "B" cylinder has come up 67.5mm at which point the two meniscus are at that same point. At this point the volume of "air" is not equal in the two cylinders. The meniscus of each cylinder is at the same depth. The volumes do not become equal until some time later in the transfer process when the meniscus on the "B" side has risen to 0.75mm above the top of the piston.
Prior to this point, the pressure at the meniscus in the "B" cylinder is greater than the pressure at the meniscus of the "A" cylinder, and no external work is required for the transfer pump to operate. Beyond this point, work which will incrementally become greater each and every stroke until the "A" cylinder begins to rise, will have to be applied to the transfer pump in order for it to operate. Additional work is applied throughout the lift phase of the "A" cylinder, but on an incremental basis decreases slightly from the bottom to the top of the "A" lift phase. It is all of this additional externally applied work that ultimately restores the potential energy stored, and lifts the payload.
As both cylinders are fixed in their positions up to this point, the only two potential energy stores that can change up to this point are the volumes of "air" underneath the cylinders. Before we started pumping "air" from "B" to "A" the total stored energy was: 7.408mJ. At this point it is: 3.899mJ. If you still don't see what has happened, consider that the 67.5mm high column of "air" in the annular ring of the "A" cylinder is in the upper half of that cylinder, while the 'lost' matching column section of the "B" cylinder was in the bottom half. If you remain blind to the rest of the physics, it should still be intuitively obvious to you that the energy stored in that newly formed higher bubble under the "A" cylinder has less energy than the like 'lost bubble' of the same volume removed from the bottom of the "B" cylinder. It should also be obvious that now that the meniscus has come up in the "B" cylinder that the pressure acting on the remaining "air" in the "B" cylinder has dropped from 1471Pa to 809.5Pa.
You are again: welcome to try and get to and through this transient state in a way that does not lose the ~3.5mJ of stored potential energy. You are welcome to diagram your version of states in the scheme that you propose and account for the energy. Surely, you performed some set of calculations to reach your claimed 83% efficiency. Surely, you based those calculations on some set of conditions in the system at a set of states that you evaluated. Surely, you can show your work as you promised to do Feb. 3. But, if you don't, you don't. You'll just be stuck arguing with empty hands like Red and Wayne Travis.
MarkE,
is there any way we could do an analogy with an ordinary see-saw?
ie, what would correspond to pre-charge? After all we're just dealing mainly
with weights-(displaced water) aren't we?
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 16, 2014, 05:19:25 AM
MarkE,
is there any way we could do an analogy with an ordinary see-saw?
ie, what would correspond to pre-charge? After
Minnie, we can by constucting a see-saw of appropriate dimensions and placing appropriately sized container columns on either side of the see-saw. However, I am afraid that it may not be very intuitive. Then again it may more clearly illustrate the absolute futility of HER/Zydro's buoyancy claims which all revolve around lifting and dropping weights.
In order to approximate the buoyancy machine: the payload weight and a tall column that we would precharge with mass (assume water) by filling it would be on the same side of the see-saw. The column height would be 10X the fulcrum height. The free vertical travel of the see-saw needs to be 1/10th the column height. The see-saw arms are ideally many times longer than the column height. The payload weight that we will lift will be just a smidge less than the weight of the water that goes into a filled column, and have a high SG such as 10.
We would start by placing our payload weight on one side of the see-saw and then "charging" the system by filling up the column of water on the same side. If that sounds dumb, it is. But that is really what goes on when in webby's example we "charge" the system by pumping "air" into one cylinder to make it buoyant when we are going to lift a weight that is on another cylinder. Then we connect a pump between the first cylinder and the second to move our "charge" water from the first cylinder to the second one. After we have pumped half the water over, we can tally our stored energy and found out that just as in webby's example, we have lost just about half of what we had. Now we keep pumping water over until the other side has all the water, and exerts a small net force in excess of the first side raising the payload weight. We can remove the payload weight, load one on the other side of the see-saw that is now in the down position and repeat the half cycle.
This inane and inefficient machine is no more silly or inane than the HER/Zydro devices and webby's proposal.
MarkE,
thankyou for that explanation. Down on the farm we use lots of hydraulic
machines. An actual hydraulic system isn't that efficient but is very convenient.
John.
I would like to say that in my opinion the ball still is in Webby's court to go through a complete cycle step by step and show a gain in energy. I think we are approaching the two week point since the request was made.
I honestly don't think Webby is capable of doing it, nor is he capable of admitting that he can't do it. This is not an uncommon thing on the free energy forums. For example, if you went to the most ardent UFOpolitics enthusiast and asked them to draw up performance curves for their modified motor you would probably get blank stares and no acknowledgement of the request.
So that's it. You might get some sermons/brainwashing attempts from Wayne or Red_Sunset with absolutely zero informational content or some more protests from Webby, but that's it.
As far as I am concerned the Doomsday Clock may as well start now. We might hear about Wayne getting into legal problems or one day the plugs will be pulled from the web sites and the whole thing will vanish into thin air never to be heard from again.
So, to use an apropos metaphor, Wayne and his company are circling around the drain.
MileHigh
But before we have been told that the OU comes from the two Zeds acting together.
But never mind that. If they must be treated as "separate systems" then there must be a way... as Travis himself said ... that a single system could be overunity by itself. Otherwise, there is no way to chain two identical "underunity" systems together to produce "overunity" output... since efficiencies multiply, they do not add.
So that "simplifies" things for you, Webby. Just show how a single system can be clearly overunity, by itself.
Webby,
how often has it been asked of the three of you to show a three layer system that
is clearly o.u. by itself?
Unless you feed the thing with energy nothing happens
I'll be over the moon if you can do it and you'll be world famous to boot!
John.
Webby,
are you thinking of using something like a compound steam engine, only in
reverse, as a transfer pump?
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 16, 2014, 10:58:46 AM
MarkE,
Lots of words but you did not answer the question.
Why did you not answer the question? let me try a different twist on the question, Why do you keep the 2 cylinders locked together as a single system. Why can you not treat them as 2 independent systems,, that is what they are.
This I think is the crux of the issue,, until you can see that these are separate systems able to operate by themselves you will not be able to move forward.
Webby, the configuration is as you drew in your first sketch. They include the transfer pump that you later specified. There is the total "air" volume of 5.0364cc that results from the geometry that you specified.
The crux of the problem is that you are in complete denial as to the physical reality of the scheme that you proposed. This is why despite your protests we do not see any new drawings from you that show something different that could supposedly work as "two independent systems". The moment that you drew your first sketch you established the dependency of the one, the only air charge that each half would depend upon during different states of the cycle. You seem to be perhaps one of the few people in the world who does not comprehend your own proposal.
Again: Be my guest. Show this independence that you claim. Here is your Feb. 3 sketch again. Go have at it. Show how you can pump "air" from the right hand cylinder with the insert to the left hand cylinder with the insert without losing the approximately 50% stored energy that I have proven. In particular kindly show how much and where energy is stored in the system at the point in the cycle when the meniscus under each cylinder are at the same height.
Quote from: webby1 on February 16, 2014, 01:10:06 PM
MarkE has identified the consequence of allowing the 2 systems to interact in the typical fashion. I have identified the problem the 2 systems have if allowed to interact in the typical fashion.
If you can identify or observe the problem, solutions can be found.
In this case the problem is that at the point of highest stored potential on one side the other side is offering the least resistance, as the transfer happens the stored potential is used and the resistance is growing, at the point of highest resistance there is the least stored potential.
A solution would be to not allow that condition. The method I have brought forward would multiply the resistance by a change in volume to match the potential that is stored, then as the transfer happens that value is reversed so that the smaller stored potential can act by using a larger volume to move a smaller volume with more resistance.
As long as the typical usage is employed the system will end up with exactly what MarkE has demonstrated and no new method has been used.
Webby you already claimed that you had a way to transfer the "air" from the charged cylinder to the uncharged cylinder without losing the energy that I have proven gets lost. Where is any evidence for your claim? Now you retreat claiming that: "solutions can be found". Show us the solution you already claimed to have webby. If you continue to refuse it will simply remain obvious that you did not understand the problem and do not have any solution.
You have not "brought forward" any method. Show your work. Show how you get from "air" all under the right cylinder through the point where the meniscus on the left and the meniscus on the right are at the same level without losing approximately half the stored energy. Go ahead. Show us cycle by cycle what happens with the transfer pump you specified. We all wait with baited breath for you to work your way out of the corner in which you've put yourself.
Quote from: webby1 on February 16, 2014, 03:47:42 PM
The stepped design I have already talked about comes from a servo-accumulator from an automatic transmission.
In contrast to your statements of certainty, there is nothing in the design nor nature that locks the 2 systems into a 1:1 volume transfer, only the final volumes that are moved are the same, nothing requires that those volumes are moved the same while in transit.
As stated, the transfer pump holds the volume for the other cylinder, not the first cylinder, these two volumes are separate.
Geeze, this guy sounds like my ex-wife's attorney.
If you really do understand this, and really have this system that works, why not please explain it? This back and forth and dodging of the basic fundamental question is getting a bit tedious.
If you don't understand this, nor have something that works, just say so. No shame in that. If you have something that you think might work, then just say that.
Otherwise, I have only one conclusion to make, which would be the same one I made about Wayne.
Thank you,
Bill
Quote from: webby1 on February 16, 2014, 06:00:40 PM
Thanks ?? :)
I have said that I do not have a self running ZED.
This long walk around the garden path however, yes. Decades ago I built this device and yes it does work and no I never got it to 100 percent, as I have stated. It came fairly close but I always needed to add in a little more than I was taking out, so I concluded that the best I would be able to do with it would be a see-saw thing and moved on.
OK, well, thank you for that.
I meant no offense about the attorney thing, she had a very good attorney and the problem was, he was not MY attorney, ha ha.
Thank you,
Bill
Webby,
thankyou for your answer, it's been quite good hike round that garden of yours!
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 16, 2014, 03:47:42 PM
The stepped design I have already talked about comes from a servo-accumulator from an automatic transmission.
In contrast to your statements of certainty, there is nothing in the design nor nature that locks the 2 systems into a 1:1 volume transfer, only the final volumes that are moved are the same, nothing requires that those volumes are moved the same while in transit.
As stated, the transfer pump holds the volume for the other cylinder, not the first cylinder, these two volumes are separate.
Webby that is complete BS. Incompressibility of the "air" and the identical dimensions of cylinder and piston locks each um of meniscus movement down in "A" to meniscus movement up in "B" until the meniscus in "B" reaches the top of the piston in "B". No matter what machinery you use to move "air" between the cylinders in order for the "A" cylinder to go from the empty to the full condition it must pass through the condition where the meniscus is at 67.5mm, ditto for the "B" cylinder to go from full to empty. Since the "air" is incompressible, and given the dimensions that you specified in your sketch they pass through that state at the same moment.
ETA: Now of course you can always include storage in your transfer mechanism. You will only end-up doing even more work, not to mention be changing your design yet again. The fundamental problem with the inane scheme is that it shifts potential energy from one store to another while extracting a much smaller amount of work out. In this particular machine ~7.4mJ maximum potential ends up on each side at one time or another so that ~3.9mJ of useful work can be extracted. These machines do not capitalize on some quirk of nature to yield free energy. Quite the opposite: They are wasteful, inefficient contraptions. The Minnie Teeter-Totter is instructive as are Farmhand's comments on the capacitor thread: "Don't push stuff up hill then carry it back down again. "
Quote from: webby1 on February 16, 2014, 06:00:40 PM
Thanks ?? :)
I have said that I do not have a self running ZED.
This long walk around the garden path however, yes. Decades ago I built this device and yes it does work and no I never got it to 100 percent, as I have stated. It came fairly close but I always needed to add in a little more than I was taking out, so I concluded that the best I would be able to do with it would be a see-saw thing and moved on.
Now it makes sense why you did not go on to develop a self runner or do any verification, Wayne Travis has exactly the same problem, NO OU, he is also incapable of showing a continuous running device or have his device scientifically verified.
Powercat, then it's a good thing for Wayne Travis and HER/Zydro that as he said in post 1148 that HER/Zydro is fully funded. If new investment were needed, due diligence would be a serious problem as HER/Zydro cannot show either a viable concept or prototypes.
Quote...
Where we are today:
I have on average five meetings a week with Utility companies, Inventors, Engineers, legal teams, political figures, and our new partners regarding our future alignments and focus - working together to bring reliable and clean energy to the world (None of those meetings are for investment - we are fully funded).
.......
Marsing, sure one could put energy into another store associated with the transfer device. One could try different ideas along those lines. For instance one might set-up a large variable store that is nearly isobaric so as to minimize the effects of Z^2. Then one could make that store always have a higher pressure than either the A or B stores anywhere in the cycle. The pump would have to do positive work moving fluid out of B into the store. Then the store would release work filling and then lifting A. For a first trivial analysis we assume that the pump requires no more energy than the energy difference between two states. IE it will have to add only the work added to the C reservoir less the potential energy that was in the B store filling. And in the release to A it will only lose the work associated with the reduced P*V.
Unless I did the math wrong, this idea makes things better as analyzed but is still under 50% efficient using all the idealized constraints. I did not directly calculate the integral work performed pumping up the reservoir from B. The untested assumption is that C being isobaric we can just work with the starting and ending volumes and pressures.
Quote from: webby1 on February 17, 2014, 08:32:53 AM
I was going to leave this alone.
MarkE, the bottom line is you missed what I was trying to say, then you chose to jump all over it and me at the same time. I assume by your edit that you are finally understanding the method I put forward and you are now trying to remove yourself from the corner.
Do Not worry about it, I am not the best communicator, and we all are human.
Webby, you are the one completely caught in a corner. Go ahead draw up your scheme and show an actual analysis that helps your cause. If you think that adding a third energy store, even a large one fixes your problems, then you are wrong as shown in the above reply to Marsing.
yes it's still below unity, i think there is no much difference from your drawing,
i read about plc/controller somewhere in the zed thread, and in my opinion they used valve.
so i draw them.
the unresolved problem is still "third energy"( compressor, controller),
lol
Marsing a solution for the lost energy might turn up with Orson Welle's "The Third Man".
Quote from: webby1 on February 17, 2014, 01:40:39 PM
Marsing,
Lets go ahead and cycle the transfer pump.
The pump is moved from one side over to the other and fills the cylinder with air, in my testbed I was using an open chamber cylinder so it was a full air charge needed, this brings the cylinder into a buoyant lift condition and will lift the weight on top of it, things move up and at the predetermined height the cylinder is held firm, the weight is removed and its potential is applied to a mechanical linkage that drives the transfer pump.
At this point you can see that the transfer pump has 2 input sources and 1 output. Those are, the weight and mechanical linkage and the other is the pressure inside the cylinder.
Since both of these inputs can be viewed as inputs, we can choose how they are applied.
Webby do you not understand that energy efficiency is the ratio of delivered energy to applied energy? You claim ~83% energy efficiency. That is not something that you can even remotely approach with what you have documented. With the dimensions you have stipulated, your output work is: 26.5g * 15mm = 3.98mJ. Show that you input no more than ~4.8mJ to get there. Please show that your 83% energy efficiency claim has any merit at all.
Quote from: webby1 on February 17, 2014, 01:40:39 PM
Marsing,
Lets go ahead and cycle the transfer pump.
The pump is moved from one side over to the other and fills the cylinder with air, in my testbed I was using an open chamber cylinder so it was a full air charge needed, this brings the cylinder into a buoyant lift condition and will lift the weight on top of it, things move up and at the predetermined height the cylinder is held firm, the weight is removed and its potential is applied to a mechanical linkage that drives the transfer pump.
At this point you can see that the transfer pump has 2 input sources and 1 output. Those are, the weight and mechanical linkage and the other is the pressure inside the cylinder.
Since both of these inputs can be viewed as inputs, we can choose how they are applied.
webby,
ok, transfer pump has 2 input,
can you supply a drawing/sketch how to move weight and its potential is applied to a mechanical linkage that drives the transfer pump ?.
Quote from: webby1 on February 18, 2014, 01:50:39 PM
Marsing,
A simple method could be to have the weight as a large steel ball resting on a small track on top of the cylinder, when it reaches the top of the lift that ball is released and rolls over and onto a waiting platform that is held up by a string, that string goes over a pulley and down and runs a cam drive gear that runs the pump. These are designed so that at the end of motion the ball and the cylinder are back down at the same height where the ball can roll back onto the cylinder.
With proper design, and if symmetry and CoE are valid considerations, then you can see that this system, baring frictional losses, can readily hit 100 percent efficiency.
First, you would have to show that you do not have energy losses. You can assume a frictionless, leak free pump and you don't get there. You can add a big energy intermediate, nearly isobaric energy store and you don't get there. Yet, you keep saying that you have already gotten 83%.
What did you actually do to try and determine the efficiency of your device when you came up with that 83% value?
Quote from: webby1 on February 18, 2014, 04:55:26 PM
The air is nothing more than a stored potential, energy in equals energy out.
When you try and use that stored potential directly against another system that has a reversed force curve both systems loose.
Take the potential out of the air all by itself, not against another air pocket you are trying to use or create, hence against the piston.
Think this one over.
Try and build the air pocket under the cylinder with NO resistance applied against the cylinder, I know your answer, now think it all over for a while.
We can ponder all day long. What we do not have is you stating what methods you claim to have used to obtain your stated results. There are many systems that store energy and are very lossy, IE energy out is much less than energy in. It is up to you to state what method you used and show that it does not suffer the losses that I have shown exist:
Venting B to A and then using a transfer pump.
Using a transfer pump for the entire transfer from B to A.
Unless I messed up my numbers, even using a very large, nearly isobaric intermediate transfer store does not help.
Remember, you have posted numbers that are supposed results. If the numbers are valid there is no reason why you should not be able to describe the method by which you obtained them.
Quote from: webby1 on February 18, 2014, 01:50:39 PM
Marsing,
A simple method could be to have the weight as a large steel ball resting on a small track on top of the cylinder, when it reaches the top of the lift that ball is released and rolls over and onto a waiting platform that is held up by a string, that string goes over a pulley and down and runs a cam drive gear that runs the pump. These are designed so that at the end of motion the ball and the cylinder are back down at the same height where the ball can roll back onto the cylinder.
With proper design, and if symmetry and CoE are valid considerations, then you can see that this system, baring frictional losses, can readily hit 100 percent efficiency.
webby,
this is exactly i want to know, how can you make ball roll back onto cylinder?.
maybe you can get second cylinder reach the top position, but you need "third energy" to put ball on top of the second cylinder,
when second cylinder reach the top position, and you think it have 100 % efficiency, i disagree..
i thing, the discussion about yours ZED is over, at least for me.
Marsing I believe that Webby's proposal is to use a ball as the payload weight. When the A cylinder rises the ball is now at the same height as the B cylinder 165mm up. The idea is that the ball is supposed to roll from there to some lever that will then operate the pump to restore the "air" to the B side after of course the B side has been pushed back down and a ball has been loaded on top of it. Ostensibly that ball would be the one that had rolled off the top of the B side at the end of the previous half cycle. For any of this to work the system has to be at least 100% efficient. There webby's claimed 83% is a major problem. The less than 30% efficiency I claim as the actual best case makes the problem monumental. I has been over two weeks and webby still isn't offering any explanation of how he got to his 83%. I doubt that he ever will.
Hi,
MarkE, have you looked at the HER patent application? If yes, do you consider that
it to be of any value? A yes/no answer is fine by me.
Another thing I think some here don't quite get is relevance of the acceleration due
to gravity. Fletcher pointed this out to me and I found that even Sunset was confused
by it. Anything driven by gravity is going to be necessarily absolutely huge.
John.
Minnie I have now read 13/292,954. I find that it is junk They will get killed on paragraph 0008 which is their perpetual motion from buoyancy claim. That will earn rejection for lack of utility. Most of the language construction is OK up to page 28. Then on pages 28-31 they stab themselves in the chest multiple times by offering vague language that refers to things like cost without specifying what is being spent.
How they fare depends on who the examiner is that they get. If they get someone who is on the ball, they will note that at the end of the day the machine just raises and lowers masses, making it a backyard artwork and not something that is capable of "capturing buoyancy forces to produce power consistently".
Yes, storing energy as raised mass has a very low energy density. Lifting 1 m^3 of water by 1m takes about the same energy as contained in a pair of AA alkaline batteries. A buoyancy machine has even lower energy density than a straight reservoir.
Quote from: webby1 on February 19, 2014, 08:23:04 AM
Well MarkE,
By your "take " on things I should be able to boil water in a heart beat,, I can't,, why is that IF you are correct,, I know,, it is because you are wrong.
By your numbers 70 percent straight into
Webby I see you are building straw men instead of buoyancy machines. It's your claim that you made an 83% efficient device. You offer no evidence that you did. It was your promise to describe your device and your analysis. In more than two weeks, all you have done is dribble out a crude and incomplete description bit by bit with no analysis. When faced with the horrific inefficiency of what you have described you have countered with nothing more than hand waving that with some unspecified engineering the efficiency problems could be solved. Yet, you claim you already built to 83% efficiency. It's pretty obvious why you aren't describing what you built and how you measured or analyzed it.
You can protest and claim that I am wrong all that you like. I have shown the factual basis for the efficiency problem that your described apparatus faces. The longer you go without describing what you built and how you either measured or analyzed the efficiency, the more certain you make it that your claims are so much smoke. You'll just be joining Red_Sunset and Wayne Travis with their equally empty claims.
Quote from: webby1 on February 19, 2014, 10:17:26 AM
For MarkE's solution to be the *ONLY* solution it *MUST* hold true for all conditions.
2 weights a string and a pulley, nope it does not hold true, a see-saw, not there either.
What does that mean, it means that MarkE's solution is *A* solution but not the *ONLY* solution. I choose a solution that does not require the destruction of all that potential.
Haste makes waste, and MarkE jumped on the first solution he saw, I took a little bit of time and came up with a different solution.
Webby you are still welcome to post the method that
you claim that you used to reach 83%. In order to get there
you need to show that
your claimed method does not suffer the problems of the methods that I have described that include the method that
you dribbled out using the transfer pump. Like Red_Sunset and Wayne Travis you keep claiming that you have some marvelous thing behind a curtain. When pressed for evidence of the marvelous thing, you wave your hands and show nothing.
Just in case you've forgotten here again is
your original sketch, and your sketch with the transfer pump you described several days after posting your sketch.
Quote from: webby1 on February 19, 2014, 11:34:50 AM
MarkE,
The method I employed is simple, I used the stored potentials as a store of potentials, there are 2 of them at the end of the cycle.
Webby, there is: The stored energy at the start, the work added, the work removed and the stored energy at the end. We know that the A cylinder ends up at the end of the half cycle with the same amount of energy as was in the B cylinder at the start of the same half cycle. We know that we extract the work of lifting the 26.5g weight by 15 mm. What you steadfastly refuse to show is the work added via the pump. I have shown that the means that
you specified to move the "air" from B to A, a transfer pump loses ~50% of the energy stored in B at the start, which is in turn about twice the energy that is extracted lifting the weight. You have failed to show that you in fact used some other method that does not suffer that loss to heat that then has to be subsequently made up by the pump. You have failed to show by any analysis or measurement the energy that you claim to have put in over the course of the cycle. You have failed to support your claims.
Quote
One store is within the air contained inside the cylinder under pressure, and the other is the force manifested by the cylinder moving up in the water column.
All the dogs that pull the sled assist in the sled moving, it is not like the smaller dogs pull against the larger ones.
I have agreed with your numbers and have no issue with them *IF* I were going to use the stored potentials in the method or fashion that you are choosing to use them.
I found another solution for use of those potentials that does not require the destruction of a large portion of those potentials, I would not be surprised if someone else could find a better solution than I did, I stopped looking when I found a system that met my needs.
Here we go back to your appeal that you have some magic method hidden behind a curtain. I call BS. You were surprised when I showed the loss and its root cause. Since then you have flailed about claiming that you used some method that behaves magically better than what you described up to the point that I showed you the losses. Despite the fact that if you had some means and were to show it, it would clear you from playing the fool, you refuse to identify this method that you claim that you used. By far the most likely reason for your refusal is obvious: You are blowing smoke just like Red and Wayne.
Quote from: webby1 on February 19, 2014, 01:00:47 PM
Wrong MarkE.
I not only pointed out the loss I pointed out why it is a loss when done using your method of transfer.
After the empty cylinder is first brought up to neutral buoyancy and then lifts the 26.5g, all of that potential can be freely off-loaded external to the system without your catastrophic loss, as well as the cylinder can be taken from empty all the way up to end of lift without all of the catastrophic losses you keep insisting must be there.
You are still requiring that the 2 independent systems can only work as one interactive system, this is not what my solution requires.
Webby this is just getting sad. You specified the two cylinders. You specified the transfer pump. This is the configuration that you identified. Referring to your post 1035:
QuoteI 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.
I come up with an 83 percent efficient transfer this way and a 33 percent efficient transfer for an open cylinder, that is no filler.
Only after I pointed out the loss in post 1091 over a week ago did you go off on this mystery behind the curtain method suggestion.
You have completely failed to show any configuration that will deliver your claimed 83% or anything close to that in net cycle by cycle efficiency. You just keep claiming that you can shuffle energy around with little or no loss. That's a big no sale webby. Either you can show the work or you can't. So far you have worked very hard for days now doing all you can to avoid showing any configuration that performs as you claim. For all intent and purpose you are talking through your hat.
Quote from: webby1 on February 19, 2014, 01:25:01 PM
An interesting note.
When the cylinder makes its lift there is a volume of water that is moved, that volume is the 15mm diameter by the 15mm height, but the volume of added air is only 90 percent of that volume.
Where did the other 10 percent go? It was pr-paid for during the process of bringing the cylinder up to a neutral buoyancy, that 10 percent fill of air moves up with the cylinder.
Want to spend less on the lift? reduce the filler to 80 percent and only pay 80 percent of the volume of added air at its highest cost. You will be adding in more air to bring the cylinder up to neutral buoyancy, but is there a balance :)
Using the transfer pump there are five interesting states:
State2, B is fully charged, A contains only water
State3, The meniscus under B is at the same absolute depth as the meniscus under A
State4, The meniscus under B reaches the top of the piston under B
State5, The meniscus under A reaches the point that the A cylinder plus payload become neutrally buoyant
State6, The B cylinder is empty, the A cylinder is fully charged and the payload weight is removed.
For each of the four transitions you can work out how much work has to be applied to the pump to get from the starting state to the ending state. Do you think that reducing the diameter of the piston helps in the end? Try the problem out changing from a 14.23mm diameter piston to a 13.42mm piston and do the math. Have you ever played "Whack-A-Mole"?
Go ahead webby: Show your work.
Quote from: webby1 on February 19, 2014, 02:37:53 PM
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?
hi... all
if i have a such system that have 100% efficient in full cycle,
then what can we do with that ?
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
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 20, 2014, 05:25:26 AM
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.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 13, 2014, 10:03:23 AMAnd 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.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 20, 2014, 05:25:26 AM
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
QuoteI could finish the cycle with putting everything on the table
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335268/#msg335268 (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.
QuotePS: 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.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 20, 2014, 05:25:26 AM
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Hi,
has this whole thing become a waist of time?
John.
OU - what is OU, it seems to be such a hang up for some - and just the word seems to draw so much emotion for few.
Is it more energy out than was put in?
Is it continual Energy from a black box with no inputs?
Does all science support the idea that OU must defy science?
Is OU really an extraordinary claim?
...........................................
Our engineers - and the ones that have visited - use common engineering to evaluate our system and they concluded - the system is Overunity.
Maybe even Surprisingly to them - they did not have to write magical formulas to come to that conclusion.
...........................................
Let me say it as clearly as I can to help powercat in his and TK's assumed charge against me:
In full cycle - A single ZED can be configured to utilize gravity as non conservative process - by altering the pressure and effected surface area during specific points in the whole cycle.
The Difference between the alterations can be pulled from the system and consumed externally from the operating system.
Looking at any one part of the system will not reveal the whole process.
Understanding the whole process will make the "seeming impossible" - Very Logical.
...........................................
If anyone is actually interested in understanding - I encourage you to ask Red Sunset.
Common respect begets common respect.
Wayne Travis
Quote from: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 07:48:46 AMIt 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.I am not looking for what I know webby does not have.
You can't See what Tom was showing - and so you attack him....
That is pitiful...
More work,,,,,, done faster..............A new way to use Buoyancy................Hmmmmmmmmm
and p.s I never claimed that Tom's video's were OU, just that he showed the inception that led to the layered ZED system -
What did the layered ZED's do - even more work ,,,,,,,,,,, even faster...........
What does that do to the Conservation of energy? Got a guess.
I am sorry you missed it Mark ................ But not everyone did ;-)
Wayne
Quote from: minnie on February 20, 2014, 07:51:00 AM
Hi,
has this whole thing become a waist of time?
John.
In terms of HER/Zydro ever delivering on their false claims of a free energy generator: They never could, and they never will. In terms of observing what lengths some people will go to in order to promote false claims and promises, the whole exercise may or may not be enlightening.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 08:10:07 AM
OU - what is OU, it seems to be such a hang up for some - and just the word seems to draw so much emotion for few.
Is it more energy out than was put in?
Is it continual Energy from a black box with no inputs?
Does all science support the idea that OU must defy science?
Is OU really an extraordinary claim?
...........................................
Our engineers - and the ones that have visited - use common engineering to evaluate our system and they concluded - the system is Overunity.
Maybe even Surprisingly to them - they did not have to write magical formulas to come to that conclusion.
...........................................
Let me say it as clearly as I can to help powercat in his and TK's assumed charge against me:
In full cycle - A single ZED can be configure to utilize gravity as non conservative process - by altering the pressure and effected surface area during specific points in the whole cycle.
The Difference between the alterations can be pulled from the system and consumed externally from the operating system.
Looking at any one part of the system will not reveal the whole process.
Understanding the whole process will make the "seeming impossible" - Very Logical.
...........................................
If anyone is actually interested in understanding - I encourage you to ask Red Sunset.
Common respect begets common respect.
Wayne Travis
You make the false claim that you have developed a technology and an implementation of that claimed technology that generates net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping masses. Your claims are false. You have sold investments based on those claims that you have long known to be false or have been reckless in ignoring that they are false.
You can have any of these engineers step forward and sign affidavits that they believe you have found a way to build a working free energy machine such ash you claim. We know for a fact that you have been unable to even get through a first qualifying demonstration with Mark Dansie.
Gravity has always been shown to behave conservatively. You are free to attempt to show evidence that it is not.
As shown by the quotes posted by PowerCat, Red_Sunset has been offering his double talk for years. Red_Sunset has never offered any description of any method capable of over unity operation. When your patent application ultimately gets examined you are going to need proof, or else your OU claims will be rejected for lack of utility.
It's funny how a person such as yourself who has been disrespecting prospective and actual investors by selling investment in claims that you know to be false asks for respect.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 08:24:45 AM
You can't See what Tom was showing - and so you attack him....
That is pitiful...
More work,,,,,, done faster..............A new way to use Buoyancy................Hmmmmmmmmm
and p.s I never claimed that Tom's video's were OU, just that he showed the inception that led to the layered ZED system -
What did the layered ZED's do - even more work ,,,,,,,,,,, even faster...........
What does that do to the Conservation of energy? Got a guess.
I am sorry you missed it Mark ................ But not everyone did ;-)
Wayne
Mr. Miller made a series of false claims in those videos. I have pointed out the falsity of those claims. What the ZEDs do not do: Is produce any surplus work over the input energy applied to them.
You are back to your appeal for "The Emperor's New Clothes": IE that only smart people see the free energy you falsely claim. Not one supporter of HER/Zydro, including you can show an energy balance that nets surplus energy from any of your concepts or constructed prototypes on a cycle by cycle basis.
Quote from: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 08:57:52 AM
Mr. Miller made a series of false claims in those videos. I have pointed out the falsity of those claims. What the ZEDs do not do: Is produce any surplus work over the input energy applied to them.
Mark, You make my point exactly... thank you for that.
You have defined what you saw - analyzed it and agreed with yourself.
You think you must create a surplus work over the input --- No - your education has limited you.
That may be what you were taught in school - and your belief certainly completes your hard and rude opposition. It blinds you against what we have been trying to sharing for over two years.
Do you want to understand or not - if so - learn to listen - Red can teach you.
I know you two have been rude to each other - drop it and move on.
I do understand, If you already know everything that can be known - or you are already in control of every process in the universe - then of course... stay the course.
If you want to learn what you do not know - ask Red - and learn what you are missing.
The "Ah ha!" moment is worth it.
.....................
Also - the apology will be much simpler if you quit attacking good people.
Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 09:36:22 AM
Mark, You make my point exactly... thank you for that.
You think you must create a surplus work over the input --- No - your education has limited you.
That may be what you were taught in school - and your belief certainly completes your hard and rude opposition. It blinds you to what we have been trying to sharing for over two years.
Do you want to understand or not - if so - learn to listen - Red can teach you.
I do understand, If you already know everything that can be known - or you are already in control of every process in the universe - then of course... stay the course.
If you want to learn what you do not know - ask Red - and learn what you are missing.
The "Ah ha!" moment is worth it.
.....................
Also - the apology will be much simpler if you quit attacking good people.
Wayne
Mr. Travis you have been selling the false claim that you have devised a method to generate useful energy for free to investors for years. You have never delivered on those claims and you never will. This is why you have never conducted the demonstration tests witnessed by Mark Dansie that you have promised for more than two years. If you think folks who sell false claims and outright lies to their family and neighbors are "good people", you are free to hold that opinion. You being one of those folks selling the false claims, you have a vested interest in the assessment.
There is no "ah ha" to be had. Gravity behaves conservatively. Each time Red_Sunset has put forth his claim that he knows a cheat on the conservative nature of gravity, he has come up as empty as you have when pressed for any evidence that your machines can deliver surplus energy cycle by cycle. If you don't want to be called out for making false claims, there is a simple answer: Stop making false claims.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 08:10:07 AM
OU - what is OU, it seems to be such a hang up for some - and just the word seems to draw so much emotion for few.
Is it more energy out than was put in?
Is it continual Energy from a black box with no inputs?
Does all science support the idea that OU must defy science?
Is OU really an extraordinary claim?
...........................................
If you want to discuss the meaning of OU I suggest you make your post in the right section of the forum.
http://www.overunity.com/understanding-overunity/#.UwYUk_l_sSY
QuoteOur engineers - and the ones that have visited - use common engineering to evaluate our system and they concluded - the system is Overunity.
You are a complete liar, if this was true Mark Dansie would have completed his verification, but as we all know you have continuously broken your word on this matter over the years, you will not allow anyone capable of scientific analysis to view your device, because you know it does not work as you claim.
As for the rest of your post it is full of diversion tactics,
you have been told numerous times by members of this forum that it is up to you to prove your claim, you have repeatedly failed to do this, it is now obvious to most people that you are making a false claim.
============================================================================================
You need to get it into your deceitful delusional mind that you are the one that needs to provide evidence or shut up and go away
============================================================================================
Powercat, these things never end well for the investors. HER/Zydro is in the position of a Ponzi scheme. The only way to repay early investors is by finding new suckers. Wayne Travis insists that all is well and that HER/Zydro do not need new funds to continue on their road to nowhere.
Mark, Let me be clear...
Visiting engineers from around the world have came and verified our process to be what we have claimed.
p.s. they used common physics
And you sit on your tail making false allegation's against good men.
We are not seeking investment - a pitiful distraction attempt.
We are fully funded - because we have a great discovery.
Red has offered to teach you what you missed.
Enough said.
Wayne
Quote from: powercat on February 20, 2014, 10:05:32 AM
If you want to discuss the meaning of OU I suggest you make your post in the right section of the forum.
http://www.overunity.com/understanding-overunity/#.UwYUk_l_sSY
You are a complete liar, if this was true Mark Dansie would have completed his verification, but as we all know you have continuously broken your word on this matter over the years, you will not allow anyone capable of scientific analysis to view your device, because you know it does not work as you claim.
As for the rest of your post it is full of diversion tactics, you have been told numerous times by members of this forum that it is up to you to prove your claim, you have repeatedly failed to do this, it is now obvious to most people that you are making a false claim.
============================================================================================
You need to get it into your deceitful delusional mind that you are the one that needs to provide evidence or shut up and go away
============================================================================================
Yeah Like heavier than air flight, I should just ignore our discovery to make you feel secure.
When you are in charge - let me know.
Quote from: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 10:12:10 AM
Powercat, these things never end well for the investors. HER/Zydro is in the position of a Ponzi scheme. The only way to repay early investors is by finding new suckers. Wayne Travis insists that all is well and that HER/Zydro do not need new funds to continue on their road to nowhere.
Yes, we've seen his type before, he's on a fishing expedition for more gullible people that want to believe blindly, he's even repeating himself with the ridiculous statement about "visiting ingenious from around the world" he seems to forget that he said all that before, and it all BS, but he must be getting desperate as he doesn't seem to care now when we show his contradictions.
Quote from: powercat on February 20, 2014, 10:29:50 AM
Yes, we've seen his type before, he's on a fishing expedition for more gullible people that want to believe blindly, he's even repeating himself with the ridiculous statement about "visiting ingenious from around the world" he seems to forget that he said all that before, and it all BS, but he must be getting desperate as he doesn't seem to care now when we show his contradictions.
Why not ask Stefan -
He has spoken with at least one of them - in German lol.
Work to do.
Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 10:13:55 AM
Mark, Let me be clear...
Visiting engineers from around the world have came and verified our process to be what we have claimed.
p.s. they used common physics
And you sit on your tail making false allegation's against good men.
We are not seeking investment - a pitiful distraction attempt.
We are fully funded - because we have a great discovery.
Red has offered to teach you what you missed.
Enough said.
Wayne
Mr. Travis, let me be clear: There is not a single engineer who if deposed could competently defend your over unity claims. It is trivially simple: Gravitational fields are conservative. Buoyancy is simply gravity acting on bodies partially or fully submerged in a fluid. Ergo, there is no surplus energy that can be obtained by cyclically moving either buoyant objects and/or free masses in a gravitational field. QED.
Neither you nor Red_Sunset, have nor can offer any evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 10:22:44 AM
Yeah Like heavier than air flight, I should just ignore our discovery to make you feel secure.
When you are in charge - let me know.
What discovery ? nobody seen any discovery? sorry, which post do you provide scientific evidence of a discovery ? you make plenty of claims,,, a claim in itself is just a claim. But you are making a false claim and they are no "visiting engineers from around the world" Mark Dansie proved that.
PS
I was only making a suggestion, if I was in charge you would be on moderation until you came up with some genuine evidence or verification of what you have been claiming all these years.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 10:37:26 AM
Why not ask Stefan -
He has spoken with at least one of them - in German lol.
Wayne
I don't need to ask him anything, if he had anything worth reporting he would have reported it, you're now clutching at straws with this argument, everyone knows you will not let anyone verify your device, despite you promising it on numerous occasions (Mark Dansie) Wayne you are a liar and a con man.
We can see five blatantly false claims on the Zydro Energy web site under the Company Vision tab:
"First Mechanical Energy Amplifying System".
The First Law of Energy / Matter states: Energy/matter is conserved. Energy cannot therefore be: created IE amplified. The Zydro claim is false.
"Zydro Energy Devices, is a Hydro Pneumatic Solid interacting system which is a breakthrough in the understandings of physics."
Hydraulics and pneumatics have been studied and well understood for centuries. The Zydro claim is false.
"Our Technology produces clean energy Mechanically."
The Zydro scheme does not produce any net energy in excess of input. The Zydro claim is false.
"by altering the once belied conservative field of gravity."
Gravity is conservative. Zydro have no evidence to the contrary. The Zydro claim is false.
"- allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy."
The predicates are all false, and so must be the resulting conclusion that relies upon them. In fact Zydro never has and never will deliver a single Joule of net energy, much less abundant or endless energy. The Zydro claim is false.
Quote from: webby1 on February 20, 2014, 11:29:01 AM
If it is so open and shut then why are you not helping with this?
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg388758/#msg388758
Who says that I am not? When I am confident that I have done the analysis properly and double checked my work, I will publish my results.
We are now weeks in from when you promised to show work that you claimed you had already done, and you still have not shown any work.
Quote from: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 11:14:07 AM
We can see five blatantly false claims on the Zydro Energy web site under the Company Vision tab:
"First Mechanical Energy Amplifying System".
The First Law of Energy / Matter states: Energy/matter is conserved. Energy cannot therefore be: created IE amplified. The Zydro claim is false.
"Zydro Energy Devices, is a Hydro Pneumatic Solid interacting system which is a breakthrough in the understandings of physics."
Hydraulics and pneumatics have been studied and well understood for centuries. The Zydro claim is false.
"Our Technology produces clean energy Mechanically."
The Zydro scheme does not produce any net energy in excess of input. The Zydro claim is false.
"by altering the once belied conservative field of gravity."
Gravity is conservative. Zydro have no evidence to the contrary. The Zydro claim is false.
"- allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy."
The predicates are all false, and so must be the resulting conclusion that relies upon them. In fact Zydro never has and never will deliver a single Joule of net energy, much less abundant or endless energy. The Zydro claim is false.
Thanks Mark,
They are counterintuitive...
But Not false.
smile.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 11:56:48 AM
Thanks Mark,
They are counterintuitive...
But Not false.
smile.
Wayne I think it is awesome how you are able to tell such brazen lies as freely as you breathe. Does it take a lot of practice? Or have you always had that skill?
Quote from: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 12:08:44 PM
Wayne I think it is awesome how you are able to tell such brazen lies as freely as you breathe. Does it take a lot of practice? Or have you always had that skill?
Mark,
I presume you have intentionally set yourself up....
So I am letting it go.
Good Day
Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 01:52:44 PM
Mark,
I presume you have intentionally set yourself up....
So I am letting it go.
Good Day
Wayne
Wayne you lie so: frequently, blatantly, and freely. That is an extraordinary quality. Were you born with it, or did you develop it through training?
Quote from: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 01:55:01 PM
Wayne you lie so: frequently, blatantly, and freely. That is an extraordinary quality. Were you born with it, or did you develop it through training?
Sorry Mark,
Not interested in playing with you.
I suggest listening to Red, Webby, or helping Mike. You have real skill - use them for good.
Good Day
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 02:01:34 PM
Sorry Mark,
Not interested in playing with you.
I suggest listening to Red, Webby, or helping Mike. You have real skill - use them for good.
Good Day
Wayne of course you would like people to listen to Red's double speak. Red offers the same false: "There is something wonderful behind the curtain." suggestions that you do. When it comes to evidence: Red_Sunset and Webby have both shown their hands to be as empty as yours.
You so effortlessly put forward your completely false stories of free energy, non-conservative gravitational fields, and such, that you make telling those lies almost appear natural. I am genuinely curious as to how you came about such skills.
Quote from: webby1 on February 20, 2014, 12:41:32 PM
Fair enough MarkE, but it has been 4 days now.
Really, webby, you are giving me a hard time when it has been over two and a half weeks since you promised to show your work here:
Quote
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #901 on: February 03, 2014, 11:21:05 PM »
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 11:05:21 PM
Since you already have tried to perform an analysis just show the work that you have done so far and we can go through that.
I will go over it again and draw a picture,, it will take me a bit I have some stuff that I need to do,,
The Hawks sure did trounce the Broncos :)
Quote from: webby1 on February 20, 2014, 03:43:31 PM
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386349/#msg386349
No cycle, no energy balance
Quote
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386367/#msg386367
No cycle, no energy balance
Quote
http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg386475/#msg386475
No cycle, no energy balance
Quote
You mean I did not post these?
So anytime you want to work out a complete cycle by showing: Starting energy, energy added, energy removed, and energy remaining, feel free to have a whack at it.
Hi Webby,
if you look at reply 24 on Mondarsek's mathematical analysis of an ideal ZED you will
see how Koala has presented a logical sequence of his idea.I'm sure if you could present
something along these lines everyone will be able to follow what your cycle entails and
they'll be able to verify what you're saying.
The only fact I have in the whole process so far is that Mark Dansie told me in Jan last
year that he had not seen any proof of the thing running for two days and that if he didn't
see anything in the next couple of weeks that he was going to call it a non starter.
John.
I think that this is enough. This zydro stuff can't go on forever. If I have time at work tomorrow or early next week I am going to do some web surfing and find the local newspapers and TV stations in and around Chickasha and speak to somebody. I just checked and he is is about a 1/2 hour drive from Oklahoma City. All that you have to do is get somebody curious enough to read some of this thread and look at his web site and then go to visit him cameras in tow.
That's what Wayne needs, to be seen on TV attempting to hide his face as he walks to his car and the whole nine yards. If we get really lucky Wayne could become the next "Bikers vs. SUV" guy and become the center of a media storm.
"1930s-Style Science Quackery Alive and Well in the 21st Century."
I encourage others to do the same. Look up some local media or Oklahoma City media and get Wayne's face on the evening news and then have it picked up the next day by the mass media.
Enough is enough and the assumption is that people are being hurt by this man.
I don't see his business address on his web site any more but if somebody has it please post it.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on February 20, 2014, 08:25:14 PM
I think that this is enough. This zydro stuff can't go on forever. If I have time at work tomorrow or early next week I am going to do some web surfing and find the local newspapers and TV stations in and around Chickasha and speak to somebody. I just checked and he is is about a 1/2 hour drive from Oklahoma City. All that you have to do is get somebody curious enough to read some of this thread and look at his web site and then go to visit him cameras in tow.
That's what Wayne needs, to be seen on TV attempting to hide his face as he walks to his car and the whole nine yards. If we get really lucky Wayne could become the next "Bikers vs. SUV" guy and become the center of a media storm.
"1930s-Style Science Quackery Alive and Well in the 21st Century."
I encourage others to do the same. Look up some local media or Oklahoma City media and get Wayne's face on the evening news and then have it picked up the next day by the mass media.
Enough is enough and the assumption is that people are being hurt by this man.
I don't see his business address on his web site any more but if somebody has it please post it.
MileHigh
What part of "open invitation" did you not understand.
And what a great idea!
I would love the publicity - we are fully funded, have the solution to the green energy concerns, and are in the process of expanding our Company and Creating jobs, Very Good News!
Our Recruitment office is:
428 West Kansas
Chickasha OK 73018
Usually in office between 9am to 3pm. Monday thru Thursday
and my Phone number is 405-574-2157
Thanks Mark!
Wayne
QuoteOur Recruitment office
You are quite the comedian Wayne.
P.S.: I think all of those "positions" have been open for the past two years.
Close but missed it.
I will send a couple of pictures.
19 out of 28 positions have been filled - your right - not all.
Thanks for asking.
Wayne
Here are some people worth contacting (preferably by phone) that might take an interest in Wayne:
Jim Roth
http://journalrecord.com/category/opinion/green-roth/
Joan Gilmore
http://journalrecord.com/category/opinion/around-town/
Andrew C. Spiropoulos
http://journalrecord.com/category/opinion/right-thinking-opinion/
Ted Streuli
http://journalrecord.com/category/opinion/periscope/
Theodore King
http://www.oklahomaconstitution.com/ns.php?commentary2=1&commentary=1
Kaye Beach
http://www.oklahomaconstitution.com/ns.php?nid=534&commentary=1
State Representative David Perryman (405-557-7401)
http://www.chickashanews.com/opinion/x1186892522/Shedding-Light-on-the-Common-Good
-----------------
Well I got a hammer,
And I got a bell,
And I got a song to sing, all over this land.
It's the hammer of Justice,
It's the bell of Freedom,
It's the song about Love between my brothers and my sisters,
All over this land.
MileHigh
Wow those offices rival John Rohner's offices before the Feds busted him.
Thanks for showing us the props, they are utterly convincing. One of them has a Wright Brothers/aeronautical feel with your little pressure transducer tubes and the analog displacement gauge. You can go to a computer parts store and pimp your props with case fans featuring flashing blue LEDs.
The best is the office space. Talk about a w i d e o p e n office. It looks like it was built with leisure in mind. Like crack open a few beers and turn the air conditioning up high and watch the game on the LCD projector. So much time on your hands after all!
Quote from: MileHigh on February 20, 2014, 08:25:14 PM
I think that this is enough. This zydro stuff can't go on forever. If I have time at work tomorrow or early next week I am going to do some web surfing and find the local newspapers and TV stations in and around Chickasha and speak to somebody. I just checked and he is is about a 1/2 hour drive from Oklahoma City. All that you have to do is get somebody curious enough to read some of this thread and look at his web site and then go to visit him cameras in tow.
That's what Wayne needs, to be seen on TV attempting to hide his face as he walks to his car and the whole nine yards. If we get really lucky Wayne could become the next "Bikers vs. SUV" guy and become the center of a media storm.
"1930s-Style Science Quackery Alive and Well in the 21st Century."
I encourage others to do the same. Look up some local media or Oklahoma City media and get Wayne's face on the evening news and then have it picked up the next day by the mass media.
Enough is enough and the assumption is that people are being hurt by this man.
I don't see his business address on his web site any more but if somebody has it please post it.
MileHigh
None of these schemes ever do go on forever. You might be surprised what a convincing liar can put over on people. There was a guy named John R. Brinkley who used to sew goat gonads into people's bellies for sexual prowess. There was a sick guy. Wayne's more in the cheating widows and orphans category.
You two really aught to ask Red "Nicely" to explain to you watch you missed.....
Good Night.
Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 10:02:52 PM
You two really aught to ask Red "Nicely" to explain to you watch you missed.....
Good Night.
Wayne
Wayne, Red has had
years to try and explain the supposed magic that is supposed to be hidden behind that tattered curtain. He never has for the simple reason that there is nothing there.
You remind me of teenagers who would gaze into empty zoo exhibits just to see how many others would stop and try and find what it is they might be looking at.
Be careful about holding those empty hands out too far there Wayne. You might get a free pair of matching bracelets all quick like.
Wayne:
I drew you out tonight, you dropped your guard. Thank you.
The Hammer of Justice is watching you.
Quote from: MileHigh on February 20, 2014, 10:11:48 PM
Wayne:
I drew you out tonight, you dropped your guard. Thank you.
The Hammer of Justice is watching you.
Yep - I got out of bed to respond - tonight.
Let me be very clear -
"Justice will come when you apologize for trashing good people."
Learn how the system works - so you can actually speak about it.
Back to ignore
Wayne
Quote from: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 10:10:13 PM
Wayne, Red has had years to try and explain the supposed magic that is supposed to be hidden behind that tattered curtain. He never has for the simple reason that there is nothing there.
You remind me of teenagers who would gaze into empty zoo exhibits just to see how many others would stop and try and find what it is they might be looking at.
Be careful about holding those empty hands out too far there Wayne. You might get a free pair of matching bracelets all quick like.
Are you trying to silence me???
You are so mixed up - they do not arrest the honest people.
You can silence me - learn how the system works and apologize.
My goal is to bring clean energy to the world - yours is also clear.
Good night again.
Back to block.
QuoteLearn how the system works
I will ignore the brainwashing attempt. I really hope the system works on you, the legal system.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 20, 2014, 10:54:56 PM
Are you trying to silence me???
You are so mixed up - they do not arrest the honest people.
You can silence me - learn how the system works and apologize.
My goal is to bring clean energy to the world - yours is also clear.
Good night again.
Back to block.
Wayne, why would I want to silence you? You haven't cheated me out of any money with your lies. You sound a lot like that paragon of plasma engines John Rohner. You might want to check out how things can work out for people who shamelessly sell lies to investors. John Rohner insists he's an honest guy just like you insist that you are. Yep, you're just an honest guy with no evidence to back your blatantly false claims. How about that?
Gentlemen,
Unbelievable, 4++ pages of dribble,
NO "yes/no" acknowledgements of agreement as yet to a the start baseline set forth in a post a few weeks ago.
It looks like, nobody is prepared to put themselves behind their words.
If you have disagreement about the baseline, I am prepared to accept possible modifications to the start baseline.
If any of you have some honor, start spitting something more worthwhile.
Red_Sunset
PS: the reason for a baseline is to allow some control on the deviations during discussions and so ensure minimal disturbing side tracking.
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.
Hi,
reply 1295, not much to show for all those years and engineers mrwayne?
Empty building, plexiglas tubes, two syringes and coloured water. No wonder
you had trouble sleeping!
How about claiming the Overunity.com prize? One watt shouldn't be too
hard?
John.
Mr Red_herring, here are some words for you from Wayne travesty in the first thread.
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
Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review
Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.
Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world
Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.
Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit
Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released
Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it over and over
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
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 15 2012 on his web site
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.
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 November 6 2012 on his web site
Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation?
Me too.
Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.
Quote from: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
Yes,And thank you.Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.In Mark and mine's last conversation -
just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we
both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again. Will we be ready?
===================================================================================
And you dare to talk of honor Red_herring you're nothing but a con man's puppet.
Quote from: minnie on February 21, 2014, 05:54:46 AM
Hi,
reply 1295, not much to show for all those years and engineers mrwayne?
Empty building, plexiglas tubes, two syringes and coloured water. No wonder
you had trouble sleeping!
How about claiming the Overunity.com prize? One watt shouldn't be too
hard?
John.
John, Do you feel better now ? why not give one more kick, for good measure and more satisfaction !
Is that your natural behavior ?
Red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 21, 2014, 05:50:40 AM
Gentlemen,
Unbelievable, 4++ pages of dribble,
NO "yes/no" acknowledgements of agreement as yet to a the start baseline set forth in a post a few weeks ago.
It looks like, nobody is prepared to put themselves behind their words.
If you have disagreement about the baseline, I am prepared to accept possible modifications to the start baseline.
If any of you have some honor, start spitting something more worthwhile.
Red_Sunset
PS: the reason for a baseline is to allow some control on the deviations during discussions and so ensure minimal disturbing side tracking.
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.
Red_Sunset you can at anytime attempt to prove your claims. All you have done so far is like Wayne: wave your arms around. Critics do not keep you from proving your false claims. Reality does.
Quote from: powercat on February 21, 2014, 06:09:41 AM
Mr Red herring, here are some words for you from Wayne travesty in the first thread.
...
Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics(SIC) can show it over and over
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.
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.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 21, 2014, 05:50:40 AM
..............
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 .
Quote
..........
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 ?
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
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
Quote from: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 07:37:34 AM
One more note:
When our systems are finished..........
Wayne Travis
From 2012
Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web siteWe 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 siteI 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 PMI always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
Quote from: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 07:01:02 AM
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.
Quote from: powercat on February 21, 2014, 08:11:14 AM
From 2012
Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web siteWe 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 May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PMI always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
Power - what is your point - business directions, and who we deal with changes.
210 solidly educated members of our company, three legal teams (1 Business, two engineers) - checked out our work and honesty - and you keep digging for scraps - to spin against my character....
I am sorry if I ever hurt you.
Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 07:28:06 AM
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.
Really? Are you very certain you do not want to amend that story? Have you told everyone? Some people could be under the distinct impression you would like them to write checks.
Quote
.......
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.
No, but you would need a physical means to provide that energy. There you come up lacking.
Quote
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.
Yet, I do not see your "friend Mark D" endorsing either you or your company. Mark D is a big on promoting working alternative energy methods. Why isn't he promoting your claims?
Quote
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.
Kindly explain how promoting false technology claims protects your investors.
Quote
.......
We have been blessed with both - Funding and more customers than our first manufacturing facility will be able to provide.
Since you can never manufacture a working product that does as you claim, no facility will be able to meet your customers' demands.
Quote
We are a small part of meeting a need - I encourage other inventors to keep working - building - thinking - and never be discouraged.
Perhaps there is a Darwinistic need to separate investors from their cash by making false claims. In that you may be doing well.
Quote
God Bless you all.
Wayne Travis
Quote from: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 08:19:13 AM
Power - what is your point - business directions, and who we deal with changes.
210 solidly educated members of our company, three legal teams (1 Business, two engineers) - checked out our work and honesty - and you keep digging for scraps - to spin against my character....
I am sorry if I ever hurt you.
Wayne
They are not "scraps" they are your actual words, you repeatedly lied to people and promise them things you cannot deliver.
QuoteI always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
You must be in so much pain,,,,but of course not as you don't tell the truth.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 08:11:30 AM
I was about to log off for another year - but this is very relevant for discussion.
Is this a Merlin-esque kind of thing? Merlin only had to sleep for nine moons.
Quote
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.
The only costs you have separated are your operating costs from your pockets which you have transferred to your investors, who unfortunately for them, will never see those costs recovered.
Quote
We "name plate" the system by its Net out put - (continuous excess power).
That makes it easy for the engraver: "Continuous Output Power: 0.00 Watts. Do Not Exceed Rated Limits" fits all shapes and sizes of your product.
Quote
Ideal is the total ability of the system.
We use the "Ideal" Versus "Net" to compare cost.
Something for nothing means that there is no cost to compare. If you have input energy "cost", then you do not have over unity.
Quote
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.
Force is neither energy nor power. The continuous output power of your 3.7kW system is: 0.00W.
Quote
Now add layers - the same foot print - 150kw - much more structural requirement - at over 200k pounds force.
Again: Force is neither energy nor power. The foundation to my home weighs many tons. Yet it does no work.
Quote
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.
Unfortunately, no amount of static force yields a single Joule much less a kWh.
Quote
.............
..............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.
COP figures are applicable to things like heat pumps, not generators.
Quote
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.
Your missives include gross misrepresentations of reality.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 07:37:34 AM
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
On the 51st of never all manner of strange and wonderful things might happen. Or they might not happen.
Hi,
I'm real confused now mrwayne. If you've got a 5hp. up and running what the f.
're you doing grovelling round on this forum?
Let's not mess round, if you've got something churning out 5hp. 24/7 for no
fuel cost - you've well and truly cracked it! Congratulations,
John.
Minnie, unfortunately for his investors, Wayne Travis does not have any machine that generates any net energy for free. You might have noticed that he tried to bring Mark Dansie's name into this. Mark Dansie has never endorsed Wayne Travis' claims. Mark Dansie was at one time favorably impressed by some of the people who were optimistic about HER/Zydro's claims. That optimism has never translated into any machine that performs and Wayne Travis and his companies have claimed. Gravity remains a stubbornly conservative field.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
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
Hi Wayne,
have you got it or not? Yes/no?
John.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 09:41:00 AM
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.
Quote
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.
...
Quote from: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 09:41:00 AM
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 ?
Quote from: powercat on February 21, 2014, 11:09:27 AM
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.
Quote from: webby1 on February 21, 2014, 01:45:22 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 21, 2014, 03:27:06 PM
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?
Who knew that simple "U" tubes were over unity devices?
Quote from: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 09:41:00 AM
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
I've been thinking about a hydraulic system in terms of the Keenie.
The essential functions of the Keenie are a spring and a valve. In the case of a hydraulic system a confined quantity of air could provide the spring and a valve would be no problem.
So I see no reason why the kind of thing you are proposing could not work because the Keenie certainly can.
No, it certainly cannot, and you cannot provide any evidence for your claim.
Hi,
looking at Wayne's 5hp. unity there's no way it's gravity powered. If the whole thing is
in the 7ft by 10ft size as he says will allow cylinders about 3ft diam x 6ft height .
This will give about 2500lbs (water ?) and say a stroke of 2ft and he kindly admits
to 3 rpm. This gives six power strokes per min. and if we can use all the weight we
get 2x6x2500=30,000 ft lbs. min.
What we're looking for is 5x550x60 = 165,000 ft lbs min. so we're about 135,00
ft lbs short. This means that the thing is working at a huge pressure and the question
is what generates this huge pressure?
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 22, 2014, 07:56:06 AM
Hi,
looking at Wayne's 5hp. unity there's no way it's gravity powered. If the whole thing is
in the 7ft by 10ft size as he says will allow cylinders about 3ft diam x 6ft height .
This will give about 2500lbs (water ?) and say a stroke of 2ft and he kindly admits
to 3 rpm. This gives six power strokes per min. and if we can use all the weight we
get 2x6x2500=30,000 ft lbs. min.
What we're looking for is 5x550x60 = 165,000 ft lbs min. so we're about 135,00
ft lbs short. This means that the thing is working at a huge pressure and the question
is what generates this huge pressure?
John.
Wayne Travis likes to talk about nameless engineers who supposedly back his false claims. We never see any statements from any professional engineers, or any engineers for that matter. Investors who rely upon statements by professional engineers can sue if the statements are negligent.
Minnie,
I'd be happy to show you over on the Mathematical Analysis thread. We could walk through the math step by step if needed (Please don't think I'm talking down to you there. I just don't know what assistance you may find helpful).
M.
What do we know about Wayne Travis ?
He has promised verification
He has promised newspaper coverage on his discovery
He has promised scientific journals coverage
He has promised a production line
He has promised open sourcing
He has promised run data
He has promised simple physics can show how this device works
He has promised that he has already given out the information required.(But you must look properly)
He has promised that his optimized system is over 600% efficient.
He has promised that he always keeps his word and tells the truth
He has promised it will all be happening soon (over two years ago)
He has promised that he's leaving the forum and won't be back
If anyone thinks of any other broken promises please post them.
I like the one he made in the PowerPoint presentation, where Travis and someone named Kevan Riley, PE (405-694-7441), promised prospective investors that he would put a 50 kW "field unit" generating plant at Trinity Baptist Church within three months of getting funded. I believe this PowerPoint demo was first presented even before Travis opened his first thread here. According to data in the file it was made in November of 2010.
(those who are attempting to analyse the workings of Travis's devices should take a close look at the description in this ppt presentation)
So what's the hangup, Mister Wayne Travis? Where's the 50 kW field unit, groaning away, providing all the electrical power the church needs and then some, for no input cost? I know where, and so do you. It exists only in your fantasy "business plan" and your presentations to prospective investors. There is no such thing in reality. Why hasn't it been built? I know why, and so do you. You need to spend your money on Red Herrings so that your investors won't notice that your Zeds can't power themselves and in fact need lots of external power to produce any effects at all.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 12:19:51 AM
No, it certainly cannot, and you cannot provide any evidence for your claim.
I'm not saying his system works. I would be surprised if it did especially as money is involved - always a bad sign.
I'm saying that there is no intrinsic reason why a hydraulic system should not work
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 10:38:25 AM
I like the one he made in the PowerPoint presentation, where Travis and someone named Kevan Riley, PE (405-694-7441), promised prospective investors that he would put a 50 kW "field unit" generating plant at Trinity Baptist Church within three months of getting funded. I believe this PowerPoint demo was first presented even before Travis opened his first thread here. According to data in the file it was made in November of 2010.
(those who are attempting to analyse the workings of Travis's devices should take a close look at the description in this ppt presentation)
So what's the hangup, Mister Wayne Travis? Where's the 50 kW field unit, groaning away, providing all the electrical power the church needs and then some, for no input cost? I know where, and so do you. It exists only in your fantasy "business plan" and your presentations to prospective investors. There is no such thing in reality. Why hasn't it been built? I know why, and so do you. You need to spend your money on Red Herrings so that your investors won't notice that your Zeds can't power themselves and in fact need lots of external power to produce any effects at all.
I hope Mr. Riley's Errors and Omissions insurance is paid up.
Yes, I've pointed out that laughable misrepresentation of reality in Slide 26 before. I even made a video demonstration refuting it, as if that were really necessary. I'd love to hear the narration that must have accompanied that slide when the presentation was made to the prospective investors. Maybe that's why none of them "bit" or chose to invest in Travis at the time.
Quote from: Grimer on February 22, 2014, 11:05:52 AM
I'm not saying his system works. I would be surprised if it did especially as money is involved - always a bad sign.
Yes, you have said that Keenie's system works. But it does not.
Quote
I'm saying that there is no intrinsic reason why a hydraulic system should not work
Yes, there is an intrinsic reason why a hydraulic free energy system should not work, and you cannot describe one that does.
That PowerPoint presentation could probably be used as evidence against Wayne in a criminal trial. It's the "Russian Doll" pitch used to bamboozle gullible investors. An expert witness for the state could trash it with their eyes closed.
I would _love_ to see this guy get taken down. What goes without saying is that the whole "good Christian man of high moral values" shtick is all part of the game.
There is this creepy little-known Peter Fonda movie called "Split Image" that reminds me of Wayne.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084714/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_67 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084714/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_67)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_Image_%28film%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_Image_%28film%29)
http://www.allmovie.com/movie/split-image-v46155/review
QuoteTed Kotcheff's film about a teenaged Olympic prospect who joins a cult takes an interestingly contrarian stand toward the period's conventional wisdom on the subject. The late '70s and '80s saw the rise of a wave of mostly fraudulent pseudo-religious organizations, which preyed on the naïveté and confusion of young people and existed primarily to separate those they solicited from their money. Kotcheff's film adds complexity to the stereotyped situation: The cult inductee (Michael O'Keefe) is something of a trophy son to his overly ambitious parents (Brian Dennehy and Elizabeth Ashley) and the group he joins is in most ways indistinguishable from a genuine religious organization. As many others did during this era, they call in a deprogrammer (James Woods) whose job is to return their son to them. This character turns out to be an unsettling hybrid of used car salesman and Marine drill sergeant and he takes the film in an unexpected direction. The film asks intriguing questions about the relative values of a dedicated, selfless life, and one of more normal pursuits, while ironically noting the brainwashing aspects of even the most benign religious groups. Woods gives a blistering performance as the fascist mercenary, a cure more dangerous than the ostensible disease. The stellar cast also includes Peter Fonda and Peter Horton.
MileHigh
Webby:
It's time to stop this ridiculous nonsense right now and be a man. You are telling us that you can't even make a presentation that is as organized and coherent as a kid's presentation on on how a flower grows in Grade 3 Show and Tell?
It's just totally ridiculous. I am assuming that you are a gown man and yet you seemingly can't comprehend how ridiculous you look. You have been asked repeatedly to show some kind of step-by-step process with diagrams and energy balances per step with calculations and descriptions of what is supposed to be taking place in each step. Your brain can't process that?
This is surreal and ridiculous and just the fact that the "Brain" endorsed your Tupperware party shows how freaky and crazy this whole story is. Personally, I would not bother trying to engage with you when you act like this. And if you feel that you are being "genuine" it just plays into how surreal and ridiculous this whole sham really is.
Rant off.
MileHigh
Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 12:26:55 PM
All conditions are known, but this time I raised the whole system up so it is between 0 and 165mm and I used the actual pa value for those pressures.
(1.767145868×15)−(1.590375518×15)= 2.65155525cc full down volume
1.590375518×1.5= 2.385563277cc added volume for lift
2.385563277+2.65155525= 5.037118527cc total added volume
1.767145868×1.5 = 2.650718802cc full upper volume after lift.
101325 pa at 0 depth 0
101476 pa at 15mm 151
102079 pa at 75mm 754
102154 pa at 82.5mm 829
102230 pa at 90mm 905
102833 pa at 150mm 1508
102984 pa at 165mm 1659
102908.5 pa at midpoint 1583.5 150-165
102230 pa at midpoint 905 15-165
101400.5 pa at midpoint 75.5 0-15
102079 pa at midpoint 754 0-150
2.385563277cc×102908.5pa = 245494.738491154 added for lift step
2.65155525cc×102230pa = 271068.4932075 added for buoyant step
271068.4932075+245494.738491154 = 516563.231698654 total cost for lift
2.385563277cc×101400.5pa = 241897.309069438 air recovery
245494.738491154−241897.309069438 = 3597.429421716 loss
2.65155525cc×102079pa = 270668.10836475 air recovery
271068.4932075−270668.10836475 = 400.38484275 loss
2.650718802cc×102833pa = 272581.366566066 load recovery
272581.366566066+241897.309069438+270668.10836475 = 785146.784000254
785146.784000254−516563.231698654 = 268583.5523016 profit
Webby since this is several times through for you, it would seem that you do not know how to perform an energy balance analysis. You need to show specific states. You need to state and/or show what process you believe takes you from one state to another. For example: You could say that you are going to only recognize three states: A starting state where one cylinder is "charged" in the up position and the other is in the down position with the payload weight on it, a second state where all the "air" has been transferred from one cylinder to the other, resulting in both cylinders being raised and you remove the payload. And a third state where you have returned the now "uncharged" cylinder to its lowered position and placed a new payload weight over that cylinder. Under such a representation, you would then need to show how you get between the first and second state, IE what process do you execute, and how you account for energy that you need to add, and/or get to remove. Then you need to do the same for the transition from the second state to the third state.
Quote from: MileHigh on February 22, 2014, 11:59:18 AM
That PowerPoint presentation could probably be used as evidence against Wayne in a criminal trial. It's the "Russian Doll" pitch used to bamboozle gullible investors. An expert witness for the state could trash it with their eyes closed.
...
MileHigh
A professional engineer is responsible for any serious omissions or errors that cause harm. Investors who relied upon the representations or similar ones later made by Kevan Riley can sue him for their losses.
Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
Day 6 MarkE.
1.767145868×1.5 = 2.650718802cc
1.767145868 surface area cylinder
0.883572934 surface area fill @ 50%
(1.767145868×15)−(0.883572934×15) = 13.25359401cc buoyant fill volume
13.25359401cc×102230pa = 1354914.9156423
0.883572934×1.5 = 1.325359401cc volume add for lift
1.325359401cc×102908.5pa = 136390.747917808
1354914.9156423+136390.747917808 = 1491305.663560108 total cost
13.25359401cc×102079pa = 1352913.62294679
1354914.9156423−1352913.62294679 = 2001.29269551 loss
1.325359401cc×101400.5pa = 134392.1059411
136390.747917808−134392.1059411 = 1998.641976708 loss
2.650718802cc×102833pa = 272581.366566066 load recovery
272581.366566066+134392.1059411+1352913.62294679 = 1759887.095453956
1759887.095453956−1491305.663560108 = 268581.431893848 profit
268583.5523016 profit 268581.431893848 profit "whack-a-mole" comparison
I have never claimed to be an engineer,, so take it and place it in what ever format you feel is required, since we all understand what the steps are,,
Just in case how about this.
Step one empty cylinder
Step two filled to neutral buoyancy with air
Step three added air for lift
Step four remove air after lift and recover energy
Step five recover payload energy
What out of this sequence is NOT understood.
Webby you are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper. I have explained to you the steps needed to perform an energy balance. The simpler that you declare the task while still failing miserably to perform it, the more question you draw to your skills.
Thanks TK I have added it to the list
Wayne Travis
He has promised verification
He has promised newspaper coverage on his discovery
He has promised scientific journals coverage
He has promised a production line
He has promised open sourcing
He has promised run data
He has promised simple physics can show how this device works
He has promised that he has already given out the information required.(But you must look properly)
He has promised that his optimized system is over 600% efficient.
He has promised that he always keeps his word and tells the truth
He has promised it will all be happening soon (over two years ago)
He has promised that he's leaving the forum and won't be back
He has promised a 50 kW "field unit" at Trinity Baptist Church, within 3 months of funded.(over 3 years ago)
@ Any more, please post
Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 03:45:03 PM
Right MarkE,
Lets see,, you can not speak against the numbers so you are going to speak against the method that they have been delivered.
Why don't you take the 2 scenarios I have solved for and make your own presentation of them, show me how it is done, and then show me how somehow in the middle of doing that the numbers do not stay the same. Show me that the cost to lift is more and the energy left is less.
Webby the numbers do not mean anything at all until you assign them based on some premises. Anyone can throw numbers at a page all day long. It is up to you to show the physical basis for the numbers that you assign. It is not for anyone else to second guess what you may or may not be thinking: right, wrong, or indifferent.
Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
Day 6 MarkE.
1.767145868×1.5 = 2.650718802cc
What exactly do these numbers represent?
Quote
1.767145868 surface area cylinder
Is this the total surface area of a cylinder? Or what?
Quote
0.883572934 surface area fill @ 50%
0.8835.... is indeed 50 percent of 1.7671.... but how does this relate to "surface area fill @ 50%"? If you fill a cylinder 50 percent full, its ends will still have the same surface area as before... but if you are considering the entire surface area of a cylinder, filling it half full does _not_ reduce the surface area by 50 percent.
Let's stop here so you can clear up my questions above before I proceed further. And please PLEASE look up "significant digits" in WIKI or your other favorite reference.
Quote
(1.767145868×15)−(0.883572934×15) = 13.25359401cc buoyant fill volume
13.25359401cc×102230pa = 1354914.9156423
Flag this for the next question: why are you now multiplying by 15, when your earlier volume (?) computation used 1.5? What does the "15" value represent, what are its units, where is it on a sketch?
Quote
0.883572934×1.5 = 1.325359401cc volume add for lift
1.325359401cc×102908.5pa = 136390.747917808
1354914.9156423+136390.747917808 = 1491305.663560108 total cost
13.25359401cc×102079pa = 1352913.62294679
1354914.9156423−1352913.62294679 = 2001.29269551 loss
1.325359401cc×101400.5pa = 134392.1059411
136390.747917808−134392.1059411 = 1998.641976708 loss
2.650718802cc×102833pa = 272581.366566066 load recovery
272581.366566066+134392.1059411+1352913.62294679 = 1759887.095453956
1759887.095453956−1491305.663560108 = 268581.431893848 profit
268583.5523016 profit 268581.431893848 profit "whack-a-mole" comparison
I have never claimed to be an engineer,, so take it and place it in what ever format you feel is required, since we all understand what the steps are,,
Just in case how about this.
Step one empty cylinder
Step two filled to neutral buoyancy with air
Step three added air for lift
Step four remove air after lift and recover energy
Step five recover payload energy
What out of this sequence is NOT understood.
Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 07:00:57 PM
I will take my time and try to set the relevance of the numbers as I see them and what they represent.
I was also informed that I need to include the standard hydraulic lift that I am comparing against.
I got a laugh about the sig-dig,, but it is understandable and should not make any significant impact either way.
You have already taken almost three weeks and still have not presented anything meaningful. You need to show your premise, your states, and your calculations.
Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 07:42:20 PM
I will try and do so.
I think we already know that my premise is that there is energy left over with the method I am discussing, where as with a standard hydraulic lift there is not.
By premise, I mean the conditions at each state and the methods use to traverse from each state to the next.
Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 07:42:20 PM
I will try and do so.
I think we already know that my premise is that there is energy left over with the method I am discussing, where as with a standard hydraulic lift there is not.
And use 2d drawing for each state you are going to explain,
your energy transfer method that use rolling ball does not make sense to get energy gain.
Hi,
would the magic dissappear from the ZED if the air was replaced by something like
liquid paraffin? The springiness of air is so difficult to deal with if you're trying to do
a mathematical analysis,
John
or water is replaced by mercury ( sg = 13.56 )
air is replaced by water ( sg = 1 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity
Quote from: minnie on February 24, 2014, 12:35:25 PM
Hi,
would the magic dissappear from the ZED if the air was replaced by something like
liquid paraffin? The springiness of air is so difficult to deal with if you're trying to do
a mathematical analysis,
John
The magic isn't in the ZED, it is in Wayne Travis. He plays the forthright Christian so well that the kind people of southern Oklahoma can't imagine that he could be lying to them.
Why not ask a really relevant question: What were Travis's electric bills for the last six months in that nice downtown Chickasha building?
Note that during the recent discussions with Wayne and Red_Sunset, I don't think that there was a single comment from either of them about progress in any way. Nothing about releasing a system or doing an installation or doing a demo. There is just nothing there. Wayne alleges that he has a "real company" and yet you look at the picture of his main office and see the wide open expanses of nothing. Where is the "big team?" Were is there any kind of Internet footprint? There is simply nothing, just hollow talk.
Meanwhile I think Webby realizes that he can't just throw up a bunch of meaningless numbers, he has run out of personal political capital. The only way for him to get any back would be to do what people have been asking of him, but it appears that he can't.
This whole thing is just another Steorn or Inteligentry. Get money from other people and set up the pretense of a company, build some props, and make some YouTube clips.
Because of the variation in human behaviour, people like Wayne and Sean and John know that there is a lot of "low hanging fruit" deluded investor money out there. Just look on this very forum and see people chasing after endless variations of simple electronic circuits and being convinced that the MIB/PTB are actively watching the people people demonstrating these circuits. At the same time it's clear that some of the people demonstrating these circuits are clearly beginners in electronics and in fact some of them barely even understand electronics. That doesn't stop the observers that are believers.
People fall on a Normal curve and there is a tiny slice of that Normal curve for people that are easily swayed by electronics quackery and a confidence artist pitch. Even the singer Neil Young has clips on YouTube where he states that he believes that there is a free energy car just around the corner. If I recall correctly he fell for the "rotorverter" pitch.
Hopefully, this thread will help some people not part with their money.
It makes me think of a famous quote:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729-97)
MileHigh
Hi,
come on you scientists, this riddle must be solved. Someone mentioned mercury, could
it be that something could be exaggerated to show any possible effect?
How about very tall cylinders or say a hundred risers or exotic materials?
My own feeling is that this thing will just stick to the rules nature dictates. When
almost anything happens nature does the equations instantly and so precisely.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on February 22, 2014, 07:42:20 PM
I think we already know that my premise is that there is energy left over with the method I am discussing, where as with a standard hydraulic lift there is not.
Hello Webby,
I am impressed with your ability to keep your head during the 'conversations'.
The point you are making here is not missed by all, the people that understand the relevance are looking forward to your message.
I encourage you to know that there are hundreds behind your efforts - and just a few disruptors.
Your are way ahead of that team.
Wayne
On February 25, 2016, Wayne will have delivered nothing, nada, zero. He may still be around selling nothing, or he and his company will have vanished into thin air. On the other hand, one can hope that law enforcement catches up with him.
Quote from: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 08:26:57 AM
Hello Webby,
I am impressed with your ability to keep your head during the 'conversations'.
The point you are making here is not missed by all, the people that understand the relevance are looking forward to your message.
I encourage you to know that there are hundreds behind your efforts - and just a few disruptors.
Your are way ahead of that team.
Wayne
Wayne Travis, there is no free energy to be had cyclically lifting and dropping: rocks, water volumes, air volumes, lollipops or pistachio nuts, or any combination of the above.
Hi,
part of our business deals with gas distribution. Just a couple of facts about pressure
and flow. The 120 cm main pipes run at about 85 bar. A gas turbine is used to propel
the gas at speeds up to 25mph.
John.
Here's a condensed version of Travis's business plan:
Fail, flail and bail.
We are now witnessing the "flail" portion of the plan. Sooner or later, Travis will have to Bail --- or be bailed out of Jail.
TinselKoala and MarkE, you're both sounding rather hostile towards poor
Mr. Travis
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 25, 2014, 11:00:01 AM
TinselKoala and MarkE, you're both sounding rather hostile towards poor
Mr. Travis
John.
There is not much that makes me angrier than a "Christian" who looks me in the eye, shakes my hand, and then proceeds to lie to me.
TinselKoala,
Mr. Travis told us in a previous post that he's got a 5hp. machine, why are
you questioning this?
Why don't you ask him. Wayne have you got a 5hp self runner, yes/no?
I guarantee he'll give you an honest answer,
John
Quote from: minnie on February 25, 2014, 11:00:01 AM
TinselKoala and MarkE, you're both sounding rather hostile towards poor
Mr. Travis
John.
Minnie, Wayne Travis can make himself into an international hero by proving his claims. Unfortunately for Wayne and the world, his claims are false.
Quote from: minnie on February 25, 2014, 01:16:02 PM
TinselKoala,
Mr. Travis told us in a previous post that he's got a 5hp. machine, why are
you questioning this?
Why don't you ask him. Wayne have you got a 5hp self runner, yes/no?
I guarantee he'll give you an honest answer,
John
I'm questioning, or rather challenging that, because he has NEVER provided any evidence that such a machine exists and operates as he claims. As to the "honest answer"... I guarantee he won't. He will emit his usual nonsense. And of course he doesn't have a "self runner" that will continue to run indefinitely. 5HP? he could build two of them and run a small home on the output. Or he could build four and keep his hot tub hot 24-7, plus running the home. So why is he still paying for electricity? I know why, and so do you.
He might have a 5 HP machine... it takes 5 HP to run it, and all it does is slosh back and forth, producing numbers in boxes, and not much else except a large groaning noise.
Doesn't anybody wonder at all, just why Travis spends so much time here, reading and posting, if he really has what he claims to have? A simple demonstration of his claims, made to the engineering grad students and faculty at U of OK in Norman, an hour's drive away from Chickasha, and Travis would be in the short list for a Nobel Prize. If he really had what he claims, that is. But he knows he can't get his leaky, groaning kludge past a real examination from real professionals and academics. Heck, I'd be packing a truck right now if I had even ONE SINGLE PERCENTAGE POINT of OU in any device I ever made. Wouldn't you?
Koala,
at my house a 5hp machine takes about six and a half hp to run it,
John.
Quote from: minnie on February 25, 2014, 03:09:29 PM
Koala,
at my house a 5hp machine takes about six and a half hp to run it,
John.
Well, heck, all you need to do then is to run the system backwards. How hard is that? Then you'll have your 1.5 hp net. After all, numbers don't lie. Would you like to see my spreadsheet proof?
Quote from: minnie on February 25, 2014, 03:09:29 PM
Koala,
at my house a 5hp machine takes about six and a half hp to run it,
John.
Can we make up the difference in volume?
Quote from: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 08:46:00 AM
Wayne Travis, there is no free energy to be had cyclically lifting and dropping: rocks, water volumes, air volumes, lollipops or pistachio nuts, or any combination of the above.
I disagree. Wayne may well be deluded or worse but in principle it is possible to harness gravitational energy by dropping things in an intelligent fashion. I have already shown how this can be done with the Keenie. How about some detailed critique of my explanation rather than handwaving and insults.
At least you can't accuse me of a Ponzi scheme. :)
Mr. Grimer there is a thread set-up so that you can discuss your Keenie device ideas to your heart's content:
http://www.overunity.com/14302/keenie-device/
QuoteI have already shown how this can be done with the Keenie. How about some detailed critique of my explanation rather than handwaving and insults.
No you haven't. How about testing your ideas experimentally for validity before you claim that they are valid? Other people have done so and have found them invalid. No working example of any gravity powered wheel exists, Keenie or any other, and the reason is that it cannot work, and the reasons it cannot work are given in great detail in many engineering textbooks, for example Beer and Johnston, and the same people that are telling you it cannot work are the same people who do do amazing things involving gravity, like landing a robot probe on Titan, for instance. I think that they are much more likely to be correct than you are, Frank.
Sorry, next discussion should take place in the new thread MarkE started for you.
Quote from: minnie on February 25, 2014, 01:16:02 PM
TinselKoala,
Mr. Travis told us in a previous post that he's got a 5hp. machine, why are
you questioning this?
Why don't you ask him. Wayne have you got a 5hp self runner, yes/no?
I guarantee he'll give you an honest answer,
John
I've been going over the two threads that are discussing Travis's claims, and I see that you've asked this question several times. But Travis hasn't deigned to answer you. This was his tactic in the old thread too. After all, if one simply doesn't answer the tough questions, that lets you off the hook from both God and Man.... doesn't it?
Too bad that courts don't usually feel the same way. Oh.. wait.... here in the USA we have something called "taking the Fifth".... our Constitution contains a set of ten amendments referred to as the "Bill of Rights", and the Fifth one says that a person has the right not to incriminate himself. So you don't have to answer questions that would provide evidence that can convict you of an offense.
I also have noted, not for the first time, that Travis never refers to energy values, he always talks about power. Now I'm quite sure that any of us could design a system that uses, say, one horsepower input and produces 5 horsepower output. Since the _duration_ of the inputs and outputs are never specified.... the issue is trivial. I could use a 1/10 HP water pump to fill up a big reservoir with water, taking days to do it, then drain that reservoir through a turbine and draw off 10 HP easily enough. Or I could use a small motor to spin up a big heavy flywheel, taking my time to do it, then when the flywheel is at speed, it would again be easy to draw off large power levels from it... for a short time. I could even use the flywheel to run a generator that runs the input motor. For a little while.
Darn, all the precharge must have leaked out and the machine stopped, back to the drawing board, where's that Teflon tape.
Refusing to answer will not get one off in an SEC action. Reckless disregard for the truth is treated the same way as knowingly making false statements. If someone says something like: "We have an $8 billion dollar buy-out offer from Warren Buffet." Then unless they can substantiate that claim they have a problem. Saying that they were in line at the All You Can Eat $6.95 Buffet talking to a guy named Warren doesn't cut it.
It is somewhat unfortunate that the SEC is resource constrained. Most enforcement actions end up with a settlement where the perps pay some fines and sign a pledge not to break the law again. Mostly the SEC warns investors to stay away from opaque microcap stocks. Occasionally, the SEC does go after particularly egregious offenders such as they have been pursuing John Rohner and his phony free energy engine claims for just about a year now. Will the FBI come bursting into Zydro's offices with guns drawn as they did at Inteligentry? Only time will tell.
Quote from: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 02:24:17 PM
Refusing to answer will not get one off in an SEC action. Reckless disregard for the truth is treated the same way as knowingly making false statements. If someone says something like: "We have an $8 billion dollar buy-out offer from Warren Buffet." Then unless they can substantiate that claim they have a problem. Saying that they were in line at the All You Can Eat $6.95 Buffet talking to a guy named Warren doesn't cut it.
It is somewhat unfortunate that the SEC is resource constrained. Most enforcement actions end up with a settlement where the perps pay some fines and sign a pledge not to break the law again. Mostly the SEC warns investors to stay away from opaque microcap stocks. Occasionally, the SEC does go after particularly egregious offenders such as they have been pursuing John Rohner and his phony free energy engine claims for just about a year now. Will the FBI come bursting into Zydro's offices with guns drawn as they did at Inteligentry? Only time will tell.
MarkE
While we wait. Instead of a Big try at gravity wheel. How about a bunch of tries with little wheels. Go to half baked ideas and look up (The Million Hamster Free Energy Solution). You should enjoy it.
Quote from: AB Hammer on February 27, 2014, 04:26:44 PM
MarkE
While we wait. Instead of a Big try at gravity wheel. How about a bunch of tries with little wheels. Go to half baked ideas and look up (The Million Hamster Free Energy Solution). You should enjoy it.
That's a lot of hamster pellets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UoaFXyKN54
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 05:19:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UoaFXyKN54
That looks and sounds like the useless scheme promoted by James Kwok around the same time period. Buoyancy schemes to a one only aggravate inefficiency.
Quote from: webby1 on February 27, 2014, 06:06:38 PM
I asked Wayne for this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc
and the attached drawing.
What this is, is a simple solution to the pressure equalization loss issue.
By having the elevated ZED discharge its pressure into the arm that connects the two bags together via the bag, it also moves the weights and the tube filled with fluid that move with that arm as well. This in effect allows for the pressure that is not needed by the other ZED to be used to raise the GPE of the pole, weights and tube, and after mid-stroke that GPE is returned and used to assist the the descending ZED in providing further input to raise the other ZED.
This is an older design, and this exact method is no longer needed due to design changes.
I am still working on my homework :)
Webby, unfortunately that doesn't work either. First, lets get our terms right: pressure doesn't charge and discharge. Energy does. We can communicate forces and pressures. Next let's talk about the pressure that the "other ZED needs". Unless you have a third source of air, which you would then need to account for, each cc of air that goes into the second ZED comes from the first one. If you don't get the air from the second one to the first, then you are stuck. IE if you direct any amount of that air volume someplace else to do work, you still have to get that air back so that you can put it in the second cylinder. So the scheme Wayne has outlined to you does not work as claimed.
Quote from: webby1 on February 27, 2014, 08:19:09 PM
Yes MarkE.
I can then only lift one weight on the output side of a lever even if there is enough on the input side to raise 2 or 3.
Likewise the volume of fluid exiting the ZED expanding the bag can not do the same thing,, that is fluid moving under pressure over a distance,, interacting with 2 external resistances,,
Sure thing MarkE.
The other bag that is filling the other ZED is connected via an arm, there is no transfer of medium between the two ZEDs,,,
Webby work on it any way that you want and you will end up losing quite a bit of energy. This is a common problem that occurs in multiple disciplines. In electronics it occurs when charging an empty capacitor from a charged capacitor, or charging a discharged inductor from one with an established current. It happens if energy is stored in a compressed or extended spring and energy is transferred to a relaxed spring. And in hydraulics it occurs when transferring fluid from a column filled to some height into an empty column. But by all means if you think that you have a way to conserve the volume and also even approximately conserve the energy, then detail out your proposed mechanism and show your work.
Quote from: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 08:27:38 PM
Webby work on it any way that you want and you will end up losing quite a bit of energy. This is a common problem that occurs in multiple disciplines. ... And in hydraulics it occurs when transferring fluid from a column filled to some height into an empty column.
MarkE, again I thank you. You have provided some very useful information (at least form me!).
M.
Quote from: webby1 on February 27, 2014, 06:06:38 PM
I asked Wayne for this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)
and the attached drawing.
What this is, is a simple solution to the pressure equalization loss issue.
By having the elevated ZED discharge its pressure into the arm that connects the two bags together via the bag, it also moves the weights and the tube filled with fluid that move with that arm as well. This in effect allows for the pressure that is not needed by the other ZED to be used to raise the GPE of the pole, weights and tube, and after mid-stroke that GPE is returned and used to assist the the descending ZED in providing further input to raise the other ZED.
This is an older design, and this exact method is no longer needed due to design changes.
I am still working on my homework :)
Didn't you notice that that machine is only "half" working? One side is considerably weaker than the other... yet it still "works". If you look closely at the stills and screenframes you will see some cables or hoses snaking off into the building behind, and you will also note that there IS a battery and that the control system display is powered by the battery -- and there doesn't seem to be any hydraulic motor or generator, like there may have been in the larger indoor system we first saw. Wayne gave me a ration of the usual ...er... rhetoric when I asked him about the things that look llike cables and hoses. I do not believe that that thing actually runs, or ran, itself.... and neither did Mark Dansie, I don't think. Surely it would have to have both sides working equally in order to "run itself". Don't you remember teeter-totters? If you have a scrawny little kid on one side and a... Wayne Travis-type on the other side and the moment arms are the same, pretty soon the system is gonna wind up with Travis at the bottom and the little kid at the top _unless_ somebody starts pushing the thing, supplying energy from outside or the precharge represented by Travis's breakfast.
Examine the diagram. How can it move at all, there is a triangular bracket shown connecting the crosspiece across the bags, to the vertical member.
Also the geometry is wrong, there needs to be a crosshead or the kind of shape that's on the head of an oilfield pumpjack, so that the arcs travelled by the rocking members are translated into straightline, axial lifts and sinks on the bags. The larger model also suffered from this gross inefficiency and I think that's why it groaned like a sick whale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoCEcjJxPZs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoCEcjJxPZs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kt9vOFzAjQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kt9vOFzAjQ)
I told all this to Travis back in the old thread and he wasn't aware of crossheads. If he now uses anything like a crosshead or a jack head... he owes me bigtime because it was my suggestion that brought them to his attention.
Quote from: webby1 on February 27, 2014, 10:08:33 PM
That is part of my homework.
I understand exactly what you are talking about, I have no problems that the usual outcome is as you describe.
Even with that understood, the energy converted into "heat" or whatever waste product that happens, is a process that can be utilized. I am not arguing that the normal conditions are false, I am arguing that there are methods to minimize that loss.
The bag that the ZED is connected to will expand, or extend, when the pressure inside the ZED is allowed to do so. When that bag is converting that volume and pressure into a change in distance with force, aka pressure,, aka whatever is the "correct" term, that bag is now what is providing the input to the lever connected to the pole, weigh, tube and other bag, and it is that change in distance with prejudice, it is that input that pushes the lever arm and that arm moves the pole, weight and tube as well as compress the other bag squeezing the fluid out of that bag and into the other ZED.
It takes a certain amount of input to move the pole, weight and tube, any more input can then be used to compress the other bag, that is left over input from the pole, weight and tube NOT providing enough resistance against the input. If designed correctly these two resistances can exactly match the input that the bag can provide and the force curve that it can provide it with.
In other words, the lifted ZED is applying its stored potential against an external resistance and NOT directly against another column of fluid\air. It is more like the cap lighting a diode than charging another cap, or spinning up an electric motor,, losses sure, but they are very small when compared to the direct inverse interaction.
Webby, the basic problems are such: Even in the best case which the junk pile from Chickasha does not even begin to approximate energy/matter is conserved and gravitational fields are conserved. Beyond that, each thing that HER / Zydro do is lossy. Loss multiplied by loss yields more loss. The air transfer problem is a a classic one and there is no way of getting around the conserved volume. In switched capacitor power conversion systems efficiency is maintained by not letting any of the capacitors discharge by much. You do not have such an option here alternately emptying and filling the cylinders. Work out any scheme that you like, and then walk through the states performing the calculations for each. The ZED is not only not over unity, it is very inefficient.
QuoteI would suggest that you email Mark D. and ask him about those things that your are deluding to
The word is "allude" but I like your version much better. ;)
I've been in communication with Mark Dansie for quite some time, and I consider him a good personal friend and I hope he feels the same about me, although I haven't heard from him in the past few weeks. If you want to know his feelings about what Travis told him and what he saw and concluded, you can find Gary Hendershot's Smart Scarecrow shows where Mark is interviewed and tells what he can tell, and how he felt about it.
Quote from: webby1 on February 28, 2014, 08:30:24 AM
MarkE,
A lever is a lever, even if that lever is run by a hydraulic jack. this is simple and VERY self evident. If what you are saying is correct then all jacks require twice the input energy than what we get from the output.
'In switched capacitor power conversion systems efficiency is maintained by not letting any of the capacitors discharge by much.'
Kind of like a ZED,, a smaller change in pressure by leaving some of the weight on the risers,, less volume to bring them up to charge pressure due to the nested risers,, lots of things that for some reason you choose to ignore.
I am currently slowly changing the filler, a static part, into a pod, an interactive part. In this step the percent of volume needed to bring the system up to pressure is 1\3 the total volume that will be moved.
This may not seem like anything big, but it impacts the equalization in a noticeable way,, you loose less without having any secondary interaction to get rid of the exchange losses. Use both methods,, think about it,,,
Webby either you do the math or you don't. Hand waving does not cut it. And yes a lever is a lever is a lever and that is self evident. It is as self evident as a conserved volume by definition doesn't change. I have been very specific that the loss is a result of starting with one volume filled and equalizing to another volume. I will not play straw man with you.
So feel free to detail any method that you like for getting the air volume from the charged cylinder to the empty cylinder, keeping track of the input work you have to add along the way. Eventually, you will see that the problem is starting with one full and one empty. If the problem continues to elude you, then you may consider a simple "U" tube filled half way with water. It takes real work to force the water all into one side. Let go and the water redistributes to equal volume in each side. If the energy were the same in both states then we should be able to get the water to spontaneously move from the equalized condition to one side full or the other. But, we can't. Dream up any machinery you want to try and go from full on one side to full on the other.
You have yet to show your work for any claims you make for a ZED. Of course I ignore extraordinary claims that consist of handwaving. When you make a claim that can be checked then I will evaluate it.
Quote from: webby1 on February 28, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
TK,
I do not want to mess up the other thread,, so I will say this here,, if you do not mind :)
The stored energy in the "pressure" of the incompressible fluid is not in the fluid "pressure" but in the change of position resulting in the applied input.
When the input is applied the water stands up in a tall column and that raises the GPE of that water column and that is where energy is stored, so you are correct that the "fluid" does not store it internally per-say but the fluid standing up stores it by virtue of it standing up.
There is
no stored energy in the fluid due to the pressure. There is stored energy in the GPE. It is easy to get mislead focusing on the pressure. If I have a 1x1x1 m box of water on the ground, then the pressure is 9789Pa, and the work that it took to fill that box works out to the same value as half the pressure times the volume. If I lift that whole box by 1m the pressure does not change, but yet I just had to perform twice as much work as when I filled the box. Integrating F*ds gives the correct answer every time. Pressure values only give the right results under special circumstances.
Quote from: webby1 on February 28, 2014, 01:24:55 PM
That is what I said MarkE.
The stored anything is in the elevated GPE,,
That elevated GPE came from the input of a volume of something under pressure from some source.
The pressure that is under a 1m x 1m x 1m box of water is 9789Pa. But the energy expended can be anywhere from 4894J used to fill that box at ground level to millions of J used to lift the box to some height. Yet the pressure does not change. Pressure and volume only indicate energy under special circumstances. Work is the integral of F*ds. Always use integral of F*ds and always get the right answer. Use a proxy under the wrong circumstances and get the wrong answer.
Quote
In my way of thinking you are describing 2 different things, one is filling the box and the other is lifting a full box because if the box was empty it would take less work :)
So when I say V*P I mean the volume moved,, not what the whole volume is,, I could have a 1000 L container and it takes the same "force" to raise it up to 1000pa as a 1 L container, but if I have a movement of some total volume at 1000pa then that volume and pressure are energy aka work.
Use integral of F*ds: Always.
Quote
Pressure is nothing without a change happening,, it is only a potential and therefore useless by itself, but when that pressure acts by moving some volume of something, then work has been done.
That is utter nonsense. Work is the integral of F*ds. It is not pressure. It is not pressure times the volume of an incompressible fluid. It has the same value as 0.5*pressure*volume for the special case where a fluid is pumped into an empty vessel.
Webby said,
QuoteThe difference between us is that I see a possible functioning device and you do not, I take an approach of "how could I do that" you take an approach of "how can I fake that".
Not quite true. You left out something very very important. When I see someone present a device that appears to, or rather is claimed to, function in contradiction to all physical science and all experimentation from the past two thousand years I begin my examination from the approach that it is likely NOT to actually do what is claimed. Then I try to figure out, if I care to, how the presented effects could be produced.
Furthermore, when the presenter of such a device is engaging in rather classic "three card monty" behaviour and will not show the sausages that his wonderful sausage maker is supposed to produce.... well, we know upon which side of the teetertotter I'll put that little bit of non-evidence, don't we.
One would think you've never seen a stage magician perform. And you haven't yet said how a dual Zed system could operate if one side has a tummy ache, like the one in the video.
QuoteDescribe force.
F = m
A. The letters F and A are bolded because they are vector quantities, with both magnitude and direction.
Therefore, FORCE is that which causes ACCELERATION of a MASS.
This is not a "description", it is a Definition, in the same way that Ohm's Law defines the relationship between its three quantities Resistance, Voltage and Current.
Quote from: webby1 on February 28, 2014, 02:36:45 PM
MarkE,
Here is a little homework for you.
Choose weights and distances to ease the calculations.
What is the amount of work that can be harvested.
From the final resting state after the harvest, how much work needs to be done to reset the system back to the starting postion.
How much difference is there between the harvested work and that required to reset.
This system is the same as a pressure vessel interaction.
In all cases we determine energy as the integral of F*ds. (I will keep repeating this until it takes.) In the case of the two weights you can't anymore get from left arm horizontal right arm vertical to left arm vertical right arm horizontal without adding energy than you can transfer the "air" between cylinders without adding energy. Go ahead and do the experiment: Set-up as in your drawing with the left arm pointing at 180 degrees, and the right arm pointing at 270 degrees and then let go: The system will come to rest with the left arm pointing at 225 degrees, and the right arm pointing at 315 degrees. You will then have to do work to get the system back to where it was, or similarly to continue on to the horizontal mirrored condition. That means that you lost energy in the transaction.
And since this has been explained to you multiple times, and since you can easily confirm it from any of many available references it really makes me wonder why you are having such difficulty understanding this issue.
Quote
You do not need to do the math, it is more for a POV check.
And I see that you do not understand what I said,,
Pressure and volumes are calculated using surface area and distance of motion,, that is how I do it, so I use F*ds. The added volumes are applied against a given surface area and that moves an appropriate distance by the volume added at a given pressure value.
Once again: Pressure and volume are related to work
only under the special circumstances that the work performed was used only to build head in the specific volume and only the specific volume. Work is
always the integral of F*ds.
Quote
Describe force.
I'll let the University of Georgia explain force to you:
QuoteForce
One of the foundation concepts of physics, a force may be thought of as any influence which tends to change the motion of an object. Our present understanding is that there are four fundamental forces in the universe, the gravity force, the nuclear weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the nuclear strong force in ascending order of strength. In mechanics, forces are seen as the causes of linear motion, whereas the causes of rotational motion are called torques. The action of forces in causing motion is described by Newton's Laws under ordinary conditions, although there are notable exceptions.
Forces are inherently vector quantities, requiring vector addition to combine them.
The SI unit for force is the Newton, which is defined by Newton = kg m/s2 as may be seen from Newton's second law.
You can study your pendulum problem and try and reconcile how it works statically and dynamically.
Quote from: webby1 on February 28, 2014, 04:14:58 PM
Actually TK your response is my point.
I have a tendency to describe things, describe what I am thinking or playing with, you and MarkE and all the other well educated and talented people "define" things.
In order to communicate it is necessary to use the same definitions. I don't define scientific terms. I adhere to the published, accepted definitions.
Quote
I say force, and to me that is a description more often than it is a definition.
I apply a force and to me that means I am causing something to move or change, then I describe how or which way, close to what you would prefer but not the same as a defined interaction with strict boundaries.
You are free to define a Webby specific physics. You are then burdened with proving that your personal physics work. Those who use proven physics get to rest on all those very smart people who came up with the existing ideas and then rigorously tested them. It saves a lot of work.
Quote
I see stored potential within the ZED, I do not care about "what" it is, only what I can do with it, and then what I must do to use it the way I want to.
Well if you want "stored potential" to do "work" in the sense that the entire world of industry and academia understand "work", IE the stuff that the power company bills you for when you consume it, then you will have to show that the "stored potential" is actually released energy. Unfortunately for you, the ZED does not produce any net energy cycle to cycle. It consumes energy cycle to cycle.
Quote from: webby1 on February 28, 2014, 05:25:14 PM
Thanks for the drawing with numbers and stuff.
To communicate it is necessary to come to an understanding, you have your definitions, I get that, you have your methods, I get that, I have mine, I am trying to use yours but you are unwilling to try and use mine,,
I use definitions as they are commonly accepted in science and academia. I do not invent "Mark definitions". If you want to make up "Webby definitions" then the burden is on you to justify that your definitions are physically valid. That's a LOT of work. You are free to do that work. You are also free to skip all that effort and simply use the commonly accepted definitions. It's up to you.
Quote
Have you finished a complete analysis of a dual ZED? You started making those statements with no due diligence, only what you understand to be allowed and how you thought the ZED functioned.
You seem to suffer the misconception that it is up to me to prove that a combination of ordinary things behaves ordinarily.
Quote
Back on that note,, when I convert the filler into a pod, still using magic air, I have a change in required volume to go from start to buoyant lift, it is now down to 1\3 the total volume, and then 2\3 for lift, but the return is not the same, right now it looks like it will be a constant gradient down for the whole volume. Is there something I should be careful of? I am fine when things are all the same,, but this might not be.
You appear to be hung up on what I call the: "Miller Misconception" that air is responsible for buoyant force of any kind. It is not. For objects immersed in water, displaced water is responsible for buoyant force.
Quote from: webby1 on February 28, 2014, 05:39:36 PM
Just a little clarification please.
Are you saying that if I do this test that the system will stop as soon as it hits 45 degrees?
Or will it continue on and eventually settle at 45 degrees,, after friction.
Because I have never had this setup stop after just 45 degrees of rotation, well maybe with really bad bearings.
EDIT:
I have had it stop after only 45 degrees of rotation but that was using another lever setup that was lifted by the initial rotation.
No I did not say that. I said that 45 degrees is the rest position. It is a pendulum. If you had perfect frictionless bearings you could theoretically get it to swing from one side to the other. Why? Because it converts GPE into KE and back into GPE. Now you can use that knowledge to try and devise an "air" transfer system for your cylinders that does likewise. Or you can take the shortcut and realize that in the very best case, you could just place the payload weight on top of one cylinder, and do the work to lift the pair and then remove the weight and sink the cylinder as your cycle, or start at the top and do the cycle in reverse. Either way, the best you could ever do is reduce the losses to a small value, and you would be stuck with something that never performs better than an electric hoist.
QuoteActually TK your response is my point.
I have a tendency to describe things, describe what I am thinking or playing with, you and MarkE and all the other well educated and talented people "define" things.
Ahhh... but it's not "my" definition, webby. If I have seen further (than you), it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. ;)
(And by the way, it is a result of many many observations of how the real world behaves, codified by consistent analysis of those observations and never disproven; no counterexamples exist.)
May I suggest that you spend a little time working through the problems sets in this book here:
http://excelhonour.com/free-vector-mechanics-for-engineers-statics-and-dynamics-free-pdf-download-8th-edition/ (http://excelhonour.com/free-vector-mechanics-for-engineers-statics-and-dynamics-free-pdf-download-8th-edition/)
One or two of us have already done so. :-\
(Just kidding but you might want to take a quick glance at that textbook, which has been used and is still in use in various editions for many years in engineering classrooms all over the world, to train the folks that design the bridges you drive over, the cars you drive over them in, the airplanes you fly in when you get to the airport, and even the computer keyboard you are typing upon. )
Quote from: webby1 on March 01, 2014, 08:47:35 AM
I tried to get the book but am having issues with the download links,, I will try later, more information is usually a good thing.
To take advantage of the view from standing up high, one must be willing to look.
Are you now accepting that the system can transfer most of the stored potential into the second system? that is what it sounds like to me so I thought I would ask instead of assume :)
It cannot by any of the means that you have proposed. Since you have supposedly been describing actual hardware that you have measured and not hypothetical hardware I do not allow for anything that you have not described.
The easiest way to get from right to left or left to right is to spin the assembly around. Of course then you are stuck with the problem of getting the payload weight up and down. None of this shuffling fluids back and forth does anything but impair the efficiency. They do not ope any opportunity for gaining efficiency over directly lifting the payload. Nor do they offer any opportunity to violate the conservative nature of gravity.
Webby, the book in the link is
Statics and Dynamics, Vector Mechanics for Engineers, by Beer and Johnston.
There are many links where it may be examined in its various editions, and it even has several of its "own" websites where you can look at individual chapters and work through problem sets. Just google "beer and johnston" and you will find whatever tiny bits or complete copies of old editions you need.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073398136/information_center_view0/ (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073398136/information_center_view0/)
QuoteThe Beer/Johnston textbooks introduced significant pedagogical innovations into engineering mechanics teaching. The consistent, accurate problem-solving methodology gives your students the best opportunity to learn statics and dynamics. At the same time, the careful presentation of content, unmatched levels of accuracy, and attention to detail have made these texts the standard for excellence.
It is a classical fundamental textbook for engineers, usually given as a two semester course for advanced freshmen or sophomore engineering students. In various editions it has been in use for many years and is still used today, in engineering schools and universities all over the planet. It is a formidable textbook and contains many problems sets and solutions. Calculus is an absolute prerequisite for success with the courses using that textbook. It contains analyses of just about any and every mechanical system you can think of, broken down into the component parts.
I give it as an illustration of the kinds of problems and the problem solving methods that even "baby" engineers have to be able to deal with. Take a look, and then re-evaluate the credibility of some of the claims and problem solving methods we have seen that Travis's employees are apparently using.
(The full text of the combined Statics and Dynamics version is over 1300 pages long.)
(Sorry about the many edits.... :P )
I'm glad you can see the similarities. Now if I could only get you to think seriously about the automatic bollard...
So, anyhow.... the point of the Beer and Johnston reference was really to get you to see just what MarkE's analysis of LarryC's spreadsheet is based upon and what Mark's contribution, freely given, might be worth in actual dollars. I figure that he has already donated, freely, thousands of dollars worth of consulting time to examine and correct the errors in Paid Employee Engineer LarryC's spreadsheets. Why Mark is donating his time, knowledge and engineering expertise to Travis's operation is puzzling me a bit, I must say, but I'm glad he's doing it.
Like I've said before, Travis seems to be following the Steorn script almost exactly to the letter, even including the "secret" forum, the solicitation of free outside help to solve the "problems", and the changing goalposts with multiple new variations before the old "working" variations have been analyzed properly. The old ones are put aside in favor of the new, better ones that will be arriving soon. I'd really like to see some diagrams and data from a "rotary, flat packable Zed" that we should be buying at Ikea right about now.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 02:23:37 PM
Why Mark is donating his time, knowledge and engineering expertise to Travis's operation is puzzling me a bit, I must say, but I'm glad he's doing it.
I like to call it HBO. Help a Brother Out. People do it all the time. What, you wouldn't hold a door open for someone who has their hands full? Of course you would. And you do. And it is greatly appreciated when you do. When you don't, and you can, then you are just being kind of an asshat, right?
Quote from: mondrasek on March 01, 2014, 03:12:57 PM
I like to call it HBO. Help a Brother Out. People do it all the time. What, you wouldn't hold a door open for someone who has their hands full? Of course you would. And you do. And it is greatly appreciated when you do. When you don't, and you can, then you are just being kind of an asshat, right?
That would be the case when he helps _you_ out, and perhaps to a lesser degree Webby. But when he "helps" LarryC out, he is working for Travis for free, and that ain't right, IMHO, but if he wants to do it that is of course up to him. I just think he should be justly compensated for it. After all.... look at what Travis gave Webby, and for what.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 06:23:08 PM
That would be the case when he helps _you_ out, and perhaps to a lesser degree Webby. But when he "helps" LarryC out, he is working for Travis for free, and that ain't right, IMHO, but if he wants to do it that is of course up to him. I just think he should be justly compensated for it. After all.... look at what Travis gave Webby, and for what.
There is help and there is help. If one wants to unwind a story, sometimes there is no substitute for legwork. If anything, all I have done is to give these guys a taste of what an expert witness could do to them if they get sued or prosecuted. There was talk of a lawsuit at one time. I don't know if they have resolved that with a settlement or not. If there is value to them in what I have done it is not towards realizing a working machine, since that is impossible. It may be in recognizing how readily an expert can show their claims as so ridiculously false that there is no credible ignorance defense. Nor is there any viable obfuscation defense. A good expert will simply cut through all the hand waving and reduce the problem for the trier of facts to Wayne Travis'/HER/Zydro's false claims of getting free energy from lifting and dropping "rocks".
The astute observer will note a few things:
LarryC's spreadsheet shows under unity for the ZED.
LarryC's spreadsheet does not integrate F*ds. Nor does it even attempt to do that.
LarryC's spreadsheet calculates the input energy as essentially two linear quantities:
Half water density times ( Pod water height change from start to ready to start times the sum of pod and riser annular ring volumes at the start and ready to start values ) And
Half water density times ( Pod water height change from ready to start and end time the sum of pod and riser heights at the ready to start and end values multiplied by the pod chamber area)
In other words the spreadsheet asserts that input energy is: an average pressure value calculated across multiple column volumes multiplied by a change in height. This does not reflect proper integration and yields dubious values, much as LarryC obtained when he was initially so thrilled with his erroneous evaluation of the 0+3+3 versus 1+2+4 example. LarryC thought that he was somehow getting something for free in that example, when nothing of the kind was true, as shown when the correct math was applied as corresponded to the actual physical circumstances.
A couple of interesting things to me about all of this are: Wayne Travis insists that LarryC knows all about the supposed magic free energy technology, and LarryC insists that he is abundantly qualified to analyze these sorts of machines as he says others are whom he works with at HER / Zydro. So, why is it that the work is fundamentally flawed? Why does it remain fundamentally flawed after the major problems have been pointed out multiple times? Everyone makes mistakes. Competent people recognize and correct mistakes especially when they have been pointed-out. So, is this a problem where no one at HER/Zydro knows how to calculate energy? Or is it a problem where no one at HER/Zydro wants to calculate energy in their alleged free energy generating system?
One thing that is important to realize is that the people working for Travis are carefully selected, both "selfselected" and by Travis himself. In the first case, unbelievers just aren't going to pay him any attention. That eliminates about 99.99 percent of engineers worldwide. In the second case Travis undoubtedly indoctrinates those who self-select into his flock and those who prove impervious to the ...er.... soaking won't be sticking around. So one winds up with positions still unfilled after all these years, and folks like RedSunset and LarryC who seem bright enough but are inexplicably wrapped around the Zed idea. Some people believe that Muhammad flew on a magic horse from Mecca to Jerusalem and back one night, too, and they'll kill you to defend that belief. Self selection is a powerful way to build a cadre of sycophant supporters.
Quote from: webby1 on March 01, 2014, 08:18:52 PM
MarkE,
Yep,, now the vertical weight does not offer enough resistance to the horizontal weight so gravity can and does accelerate the system,, so the momentum is the storage of the non-resisted force from gravity interacting with the weight. As I said, I can get it to stop after 45 degrees of rotation,, but I use another lever and weight to balance those forces and end up with a VERY slow rotation.
No that doesn't work. If you think it does, build a scale model.
Quote
I called these play toys my "balancing levers",, I used gears in them as well, many different variations.
Now, on the end of the I\O port for the system, attach a pneumatic ram. Now take that ram and use something as simple as a cam gear, ala TK's pic in the other thread.
At this point, everyone else can see that the volume ratio can be changed readily, it can be changed to the point where the resistance from the low pressure cylinder can match the available force from the high pressure cylinder.
It seems that you still do not comprehend the physics. A pendulum can swing end to end (ideal case), just as a resonant circuit can swing voltage end to end and current end to end (also ideal case) because in each the energy is completely transformed from one form to another and then back. That is the necessary trick. Arms, levers and gears won't do that for you. They don't
transform energy into another form, they
translate potential energy.
Quote
This change, the one by using an external device, breaks the special condition that your argument is based on.
This is in no way a "gain", it is a reduction in loss. This only allows for the usage of the stored potential within the cylinder in an effective fashion.
You have yet to describe any viable means for reducing the loss.
Quote
This in no way violates CoE.
Of course it doesn't. It's lossy, just like the ZED is lossy. The best dual cylinder scheme is no dual cylinder scheme just as the best ZED is no ZED at all.
Quote
This abides by the laws of levers,, or whatever you actually call it.
"The laws of levers?" Are you serious?
Quote
There are many ways of setting this external device up, depends on what is actually wanted and or needed, so a cam gear, a series of stepped pistons,, many variations. A lot of these variations are used in the real world, the lifters in a car engine, hydraulic suspensions,, some ant-lock brake systems,, even the jaws of life,, a piston on a lever,, who would of figured.
You are simply demonstrating that you do not get the physics. As long as the energy is stored as potential, which is all that: levers, pistons, gears, pulleys, springs etc can do for you then you are stuck with the losses I have shown. So instead of these combinations of cylinders creating some window to cheat gravity, they just lose energy to heat. You can make the machinery more and more complicated and never do better than never having the second cylinder in the first place. And if you don't do something to convert the energy from potential energy into another form and back, you are stuck with the huge losses I have shown.
Is the zed perhaps a hydropneumatic version of this?
http://www.lkgoodwin.com/more_info/palletpal_automatic_level_loader/palletpal_automatic_level_loader.shtml
No, it's a overcomplicated and very inefficient version of this:
Quote from: orbut 3000 on March 01, 2014, 10:30:06 PM
No, it's a overcomplicated and very inefficient version of this:
The handle is extra.
Thank you, that cheered me up considerably.
;D ;D
It's the most advanced ideal ZED and the mathematical analysis is surprisingly simple.
It is not a ZED. It is an advanced design that outperforms all ZEDs, TAZs, etc.
Quote from: webby1 on March 02, 2014, 08:19:10 AM
Been there done that MarkE, so I know some of this stuff that you are carrying on about NOT working DOES work,, go build one yourself.
How many times must I point out your error?
The flow rate of the mediums in the 2 vessels is not the same, that breaks your special case requirements.
Flow rate never enters into it.
The form of energy is everything in the problem. As long as the form of energy remains in potential form, the losses are inevitable.
Quote
You can keep insisting on all sorts of things that are not present,, keep it up all you want, but it was you who said a professional is supposed to do what when there error is pointed out? and you are refusing to do what? by your definition that means you are what?
You have not found an error on my part. You keep waving your hands furiously trying to conceal your error. It is up to you to show a mechanism that you have devised (and according to you that you have already used) that transfers the "air" without suffering the energy loss shown. So far you've proposed a number of approaches that don't work.
Quote
Again with the cheat gravity? really MarkE. Huge losses,, my oh my,, are you hoping that if you keep saying that that it will make it real? it won't make it real MarkE.
The gravity cheat is HER/Zydro's claim as the supposed basis for their claim of free energy. Both claims are false.
Quote
Don't forget that by your description then a hydraulic jack takes twice the input energy than the work from the output,, after all that is 2 cylinders under pressure interacting,, directly even.
No webby that is your misunderstanding. A hydraulic jack does not operate as your two cylinders in your set-up.
Webby, I've been trying to find the photos you posted at one time, of your scale model sitting on your garden table. I am not sure whether MarkE has seen that photo.
Since it's the one Travis paid you for, perhaps MarkE would like to see it. I know I sure would like to see it again. Can you please re-post those pix?
And if you have another, more sophisticated scale model, please post pix of that one, too.
Thanks in advance,
--TK
Thanks, Webby, those are the ones I was thinking of. I'm sure it will help MarkE to evaluate and understand what you've been telling him.
Quote from: webby1 on March 02, 2014, 11:36:34 AM
Alrighty MarkE.
Show the numbers for a simple condition.
This is using the simple 90 degree lever.
What is the work needed to be added into the system to stop the acceleration of the weights by gravity as the horizontal weight transitions from horizontal to the rest position.
Again it appears that you do not understand. Move your "air". Account for the energy. If the energy remains stored as potential you are bound to the losses.
Quote
Can this work be performed by another lever correctly designed to lift another weight.
Is there stored energy in the increase in GPE of that second lever and weight.
Lifting weights, cocking springs etc keeps the energy in potential form. They all suffer the losses.
Quote
As a note on this exact setup I used a gear and lever for the second lever because I also allowed that lever to over-rotate and apply that GPE back into the main lever to continue the motion of lifting the vertical weight to horizontal. No pendulum effect because the acceleration was not allowed, but the motion still happened, it did not make it all the way but it was within a few degrees of rotation of getting there, frictional losses and non-perfect pivots consumed some of the energy.
You are still describing schemes that store their energy in potential form. If that's your end game, you have lost. A pendulum works only because all of the potential energy converts to kinetic and then back. Any attempt to build a pendulum that stores energy only in either form will suffer ~50% energy loss each cycle. A Q of 2 system dies out very fast.
Quote
The stored potential in the cylinder.
The method I have brought forward is to allow that potential to be expressed as a force over distance into an external system that then converts the work into another packet of force over distance.
webby, it is
your claim that you have already realized and measured a system that does not have the losses I have pointed out. If you wish to reclaim any credibility at all you need to show the supposed mechanism that you used to transfer the "air" without the huge losses that I have pointed out. After all you say that you have been using such mechanisms for decades. Each of the methods you have proposed to date fails to address the underlying problem. They are all non-starters.
The pictures are helpful. They do not show any means to get the "air" from one side to the other without the huge losses.
Quote from: powercat on February 22, 2014, 04:23:40 PM
Thanks TK I have added it to the list
Wayne Travis
He has promised verification
He has promised newspaper coverage on his discovery
He has promised scientific journals coverage
He has promised a production line
He has promised open sourcing
He has promised run data
He has promised simple physics can show how this device works
He has promised that he has already given out the information required.(But you must look properly)
He has promised that his optimized system is over 600% efficient.
He has promised that he always keeps his word and tells the truth
He has promised it will all be happening soon (over two years ago)
He has promised that he's leaving the forum and won't be back
He has promised a 50 kW "field unit" at Trinity Baptist Church, within 3 months of funded.(over 3 years ago)
@ Any more, please post
Bump. This took a lot of work on Powercat's part, because Travis has removed the old newsletters from his re-designed websites. I imagine his lawyers read him the riot act over making so many clear claims that he could not support with evidence.
Maybe Travis doesn't realize that the internet never forgets.
Quote from: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 04:01:28 PM
The pictures are helpful. They do not show any means to get the "air" from one side to the other without the huge losses.
MarkE, no air is moved in or out of the model webby1 is showing. The model he is showing is a multilayer ZED (I forget how many layers, but more than 3) that is only moving water in and out again. Very similar in function to the model we are working on in the Mathematical Analysis thread.
Webby1 began with his air transfer analysis attempt to try to explain how he began to understand the interactions that occur in this model.
Quote from: mondrasek on March 02, 2014, 04:11:14 PM
MarkE, no air is moved in or out of the model webby1 is showing. The model he is showing is a multilayer ZED (I forget how many layers, but more than 3) that is only moving water in and out again. Very similar in function to the model we are working on in the Mathematical Analysis thread.
Webby1 began with his air transfer analysis attempt to try to explain how he began to understand the interactions that occur in this model.
Mondrasek, webby's stated scheme shuffles "air", actually displaces water between two submerged volumes. The process is lossy for the reasons I have already repeated numerous times. They are the same reasons that the transition from State 2 to State 3 in your example loses stored energy.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 02, 2014, 04:07:13 PM
Bump. This took a lot of work on Powercat's part, because Travis has removed the old newsletters from his re-designed websites. I imagine his lawyers read him the riot act over making so many clear claims that he could not support with evidence.
Maybe Travis doesn't realize that the internet never forgets.
No Geppetto,
You removed the title "Current Objectives" and replace them with "Promise" - and ignored the context - that was a lot of effort.
Again, Sorry for the wasted effort........
Should have just called and asked, I gave you my phone number.
The truth - doesn't fit your creative narrative.
Wayne
Quote from: webby1 on March 02, 2014, 04:49:59 PM
MarkE,
Where are the numbers.
Exactly webby: Where are
YOUR NUMBERS? Remember this is your claimed scheme. You are the one who promised to show it four weeks ago. And to this day all that we have from you is hand waving. So please: live up to
YOUR PROMISE and show your work.
Quote
If all things remain as potentials then what work was done for any loss to happen.
That is a completely ignorant question, especially since the losses have been shown for weeks.
Quote
Work is force over distance,
No, work is the
integral of force applied through a distance IE it is the integral of F*ds.
Quotejust in case you forgot, the available work from the stored energy in the lifted vessel is returned with a specific force curve and that happens over a distance, that means by DEFINITION that I can interact with that work and convert it into the same amount of work but with a different force curve.
No that is bull shit as has been shown. Just because one stores energy in a potential does not mean that a large portion of that energy is not lost when changing how the energy is distributed. That there are large losses when moving energy from one potential store to another potential store through a force gradient has been proven many times in many disciplines. Springs, capacitors, weights, hydro dams they all are subject to the same issue that the integral of s*ds is proportional to the square of s. Divide s into n equal parts, and the result is: 0.5*n*(s/n)
2 = 0.5*s
2/n.
Quote
It takes work to move the air into the next vessel, there is work available from the lifted vessel.
I have stated this many times in different ways MarkE, so why is it that you say I have not.
You have waved your hands around making the same false assertion over and over again. I have shown you the specific physics and supporting math that falsifies your assertion. You have failed to show a single case where your assertion is correct.
Quote from: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 04:30:00 PM
Mondrasek, webby's stated scheme shuffles "air", actually displaces water between two submerged volumes. The process is lossy for the reasons I have already repeated numerous times. They are the same reasons that the transition from State 2 to State 3 in your example loses stored energy.
Sorry MarkE, I was referring to the photos of the physical test system that webby1 has posted the pictures of. Those pictures are of a physical model of a representative multi layer ZED.
I apologize if I misunderstood your post to be referring to the previous air transfer system that webby1 has tried to use to explain how he began to understand the interactions of the model he recently posted pictures of.
Quote from: mrwayne on March 02, 2014, 04:45:20 PM
No Geppetto,
You removed the title "Current Objectives" and replace them with "Promise" - and ignored the context - that was a lot of effort.
Again, Sorry for the wasted effort........
Should have just called and asked, I gave you my phone number.
The truth - doesn't fit your creative narrative.
Wayne
To the contrary, Pinocchio . You said you could do something that you cannot do. And now you admit that your "objectives not met" apparently include being able to build what you said you already had built, years ago.
Watch out, someone might sharpen that growing pencil nose of yours.
I think the whole problem can be solved by making it an impact system using a pressure relief valve. You have to set the relief valve in such a way that it opens when the cylinder reaches bottom of the container where pressure is maximum. When pressure relief valve opens, the air inside the cylinder comes out with tremendous force pushing the cylinder up in opposite direction due to sudden impact.
Sudden impacts (impulse) can sometimes cause miracles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_valve
Quote from: webby1 on March 02, 2014, 08:41:00 PM
MarkE,
So now you are saying that levers do not work as well??
So pressurized fluids interacting with something gives up 1\2 the potential, that is interesting and this is what you keep claiming.
Anything that is stored can loose all of its potential, but that does not mean that it has to,, so keep on inferring that it does because it can.
You have presented a lot of interesting information and techniques. I am actually finding the journey entertaining in that it is pushing me back to using formulas and considering all of the components within and around a system of interaction.
An apple falls, work is done, when it hits your head,, well that is no fun.
Are you trying to slay men of straw again webby? How sad for you. Anytime you like draw up a mechanism and show an analysis of it that gets that "air" from the RH cylinder to the LH cylinder without a lot of loss.
Quote from: Newton II on March 02, 2014, 08:40:31 PM
I think the whole problem can be solved by making it an impact system using a pressure relief valve. You have to set the relief valve in such a way that it opens when the cylinder reaches bottom of the container where pressure is maximum. When pressure relief valve opens, the air inside the cylinder comes out with tremendous force pushing the cylinder up in opposite direction due to sudden impact.
Sudden impacts (impulse) can sometimes cause miracles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_valve
That doesn't work either, but you are getting closer.
Quote from: webby1 on March 03, 2014, 08:19:14 AM
Right now I am wondering why there is more energy stored within the ZED at the end of sate 3 than there was at the start of state 2.
that is 3.412mj
to 3.963mj
Don't mind me I am just checking your work :)
To be honest looking at stuff like that is impressive, people who can do that stuff are interesting,, to bad all that vitriol goes along with it with you.
I wonder if TK remembers that massive error he made in the first thread,, the fluid is not shared,, I wonder if he can remember that and then go over things with the corrected view,, I doubt it.
webby why you don't question state0 and state3,
stored energy at state0 = 0.000 mJ
stored energy at state3 = 3.963 mJ
lol
"Massive"... is that supposed to be some kind of a pun?
You are forgetting something, Webby, and that is that no amount of long distance analysis pro or con, right or wrong, can change the FACT that Travis has no self-running system, he has nothing that DOES IN FACT emit more energy in any form than it takes to operate it, and there is NO self runner in Travis's show or anywhere else. Associated with that is the FACT that it is not up to me to disprove your claims or Travis's. Guess whose responsibility it actually is.
You see, the claimant can _always_ claim that the negative result of the analysts is due to "massive" errors, because the claimant _never_ fully specifies the initial conditions properly.
This thread has deteriorated into a mrwayne revival and I want to bring it back to topic.
There are a few new texts and images on the web site http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (at the end of this extremely long page)
We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Av. Pedro
Ivo,933. The mechanic system was created under a special conception, to pick up and
take the energy contained in the planet gravity, at any moment and place, without
pollution or heat. Technology was completely developed by our Company and consists
in a continuous movement with some extra energy that can be taken, in a continuous
and perpetual mechanic movement. This equipment is similar to a combustion engine,
where a set of weights represent the fuel and pistons that activate assemblies connected
to a crankshaft. Another similar equipment will be built in the U.S.A. at the Incobrasa
Industries Ltd plant, a Company of the group, located in Gilman, IL. Both equipment
are demonstration models with capacity to generate 30 KW, and will be ready in the
middle of the next year. The technique allows the building of great power generators.
Finally, we would like to affirm that there is no doubt about the existence of energy in the Earth's gravity and we can capture and make use of this energy for any activities we choose, and that does not oppose laws of thermodynamic or any other scientific principle that we know.
This last sentence is followed by five images (apparently from an old book in Portuguese) which are presented as proof that energy can be extracted from gravity.
May be there are people in this forum who can read (understand) these five pages. I would like to know what sort of proof that is?
The last photo was from February 2014 (Gilman, Illinois).
Greetings,
Conrad
A machine on the scale of Incobrasa's is way too small to be able to capitalize on the tiny changes in gravity experienced at any one point on earth over the course of a day. When we deal with gravity on earth the net force with only very small variation is towards the center of the earth. Over very large earthly distances there is a small variation primarily due to the position of the moon relative to the earth. This affects the tides and there are lots of schemes to try and harvest tidal energy. This machinery of Incobrasa's is a complete boon doggle.
Conrad,
I am Brazilian. There is nothing interesting in the text in Portuguese. Just references to thermodynamics laws. Hard to understand what is happening.
Ney
Quote from: nfeijo on April 02, 2014, 08:04:19 AM
Conrad,
I am Brazilian. There is nothing interesting in the text in Portuguese. Just references to thermodynamics laws. Hard to understand what is happening.
Ney
@Ney
Thank you for having a look at the strange text.
Well, it soon is the "middle of the year" and we should then see whether the two big machines work. The newspapers in Brazil should carry such news if there are indeed news.
Whenever I look at the photos of these big machines I wonder about the costs and the strange way of handling this affair. Why not show the "little machine" which they say works?
It still could be a complete hoax, some advertising stunt or a "happening" performed by a performance artist? A nice riddle and interestingly strange.
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad,
This guy is very, very rich. He has five patents in the USA. He lives in Toscana, what is a proof of good taste. He is a self made man, what proves he is not dumb. I do not believe this has anything to do with scam, propaganda or some way of making money. That is why it is so hard to understand what is going on. I studied carefully the photos and you can see they changed a lot the position of the parts, maybe trying to find a way of making the machine work. All the advertising in the newspapers in Brazil and in the USA will make a failure very ridiculous. Are you far from Gilman ? I tried to visit their place in Porto Alegre but they said they were not accepting visitors, they were too busy.
Greetings,
Ney
hi nfeijo
Other possibilities he try to raise his popularity or other business with this giant, failure could be the small risk, but i still believe gravity can perfom usefull work. ;)
Quote from: Marsing on April 02, 2014, 12:19:45 PM
hi nfeijo
Other possibilities he try to raise his popularity or other business with this giant, failure could be the small risk, but i still believe gravity can perfom usefull work. ;)
The useful work that can be extracted from gravity here on earth is in tidal power harvesting. The relative movement of the moon cyclically pulls on the enormous volume and mass of the seas. Harvesting the tides would only very slightly slow down the rotation of the moon around the earth.
What exactly causes water to fall over a dam onto a turbine?
Quote from: camelherder49 on April 02, 2014, 06:52:14 PM
What exactly causes water to fall over a dam onto a turbine?
How exactly did the water get up there in order to be able to fall over a dam onto a turbine?
You aren't starting your problem in the right place. The cycle goes like this: 1. Water is in the ocean. 2. Sun evaporates water. 3. Convection causes clouds and wind. 4. Water vapor is carried up to the mountains by clouds and wind. 5. Rainfall from high clouds in mountains fills up reservoirs. 6. When reservoir is full enough, water falls over the dam onto the turbine. 7. Water runs down the river to the ocean.
Lather rinse repeat.
Now, you are in a position to ask and answer your question: What causes water to fall over the dam onto the turbine? And the answer should be very clear: the energy from the Sun causes the water to fall over the dam onto the turbine, and the energy extracted by the turbine comes from the only energy supply into the hydrologic cycle: THE SUN.
Quote from: camelherder49 on April 02, 2014, 06:52:14 PM
What exactly causes water to fall over a dam onto a turbine?
Sunlight.
Our Sun creates E = 3.9E+26 joules of energy every second. To balance the books, every second the Sun destroys m = E/c^2 = 4.3E+9 kilograms of mass. This mass loss, equivalent to more than 4 million tons per second, is accomplished by fusing 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 tons of helium.
They call me Encyclopedia Brown!
But that silly Floating Point got you, too. One of yours seems to have floated away.
Quote...fusing 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 tons of helium.
That's even better than Rossi is doing!
Quote from: MarkE on April 02, 2014, 06:05:49 PM
The useful work that can be extracted from gravity here on earth is in tidal power harvesting. The relative movement of the moon cyclically pulls on the enormous volume and mass of the seas. Harvesting the tides would only very slightly slow down the rotation of the moon around the earth.
I'm not sure about this, but if the moon rotates prograde and slower than the earths rotation, then wouldn't any additional connection of energy from the earth to the moon tend to accelerate the moon while slowing the earths rotation?
It slows them relative to each other. In terms of an external reference like the sun or some distant point in the cosmos, the earth will be seen to slow but only by a small fraction of the percentage that the moon slows.
Quote from: MarkE on April 02, 2014, 06:05:49 PM
The useful work that can be extracted from gravity here on earth is in tidal power harvesting. The relative movement of the moon cyclically pulls on the enormous volume and mass of the seas. Harvesting the tides would only very slightly slow down the rotation of the moon around the earth.
sounds good, you have admitted that there is usefull energy from gravity. ;D
Quote from: MarkE on April 03, 2014, 12:12:38 AM
It slows them relative to each other. In terms of an external reference like the sun or some distant point in the cosmos, the earth will be seen to slow but only by a small fraction of the percentage that the moon slows.
They would slow relative to each other seems correct.
From an external point, the earth's rotation would slow and the moon would accelerate as is already the case. I believe the moon's orbit radius in constantly increasing already from the tidal drag pulling the moon faster. (slower from earth's view point)
Quote from: Marsing on April 03, 2014, 09:29:23 AM
sounds good, you have admitted that there is usefull energy from gravity. ;D
Sure... just like there is useful money in a bank.
But how did the money get into the bank in the first place, and what happens when you withdraw it? Or try to withdraw more than you have on deposit?
Quote from: Marsing on April 03, 2014, 09:29:23 AM
sounds good, you have admitted that there is usefull energy from gravity. ;D
Not quite. The energy actually comes from a change in angular momentum. MarkE did not go down to that level. Think leap seconds.
There is a certain amount of angular kinetic energy in the solar system. The planets and the sun are rotating on their axes. Then the planets in their respective orbits also have momentum also. Think gravitational sling-shot.
There is even another form of potential energy where you can "fall out" of the solar system and head out into deep space.
Fascinating.
Quote from: Marsing on April 03, 2014, 09:29:23 AM
sounds good, you have admitted that there is usefull energy from gravity. ;D
When did I ever say that one could not extract the energy in a change of GPE: once?
My question did not involve how the water got into
a reservoir. The hydrology cycle takes care of that
very efficiently. Water recycling on earth is a given.
Water that falls into the great lakes region that passes
thru Niagra Falls moves from higher to lower elevations
by gravity other wise is would be static.
Water that falls into the City of New Orleans is static and moves from
lower elevation to higher elevation by a series of large pumps.
Obviously the water in New Orleans had no where to fall
but yet is was created by the same sun.
If a ball is dropped from a plane gravity crashes it to
the ground. If you pour a glass of water out of a plane
then the sun causes it to crash to the ground.
Quote from: camelherder49 on April 03, 2014, 06:45:56 PM
My question did not involve how the water got into
a reservoir. The hydrology cycle takes care of that
very efficiently. Water recycling on earth is a given.
Water that falls into the great lakes region that passes
thru Niagra Falls moves from higher to lower elevations
by gravity other wise is would be static.
Water that falls into the City of New Orleans is static and moves from
lower elevation to higher elevation by a series of large pumps.
Obviously the water in New Orleans had no where to fall
but yet is was created by the same sun.
If a ball is dropped from a plane gravity crashes it to
the ground. If you pour a glass of water out of a plane
then the sun causes it to crash to the ground.
And once any of those things have fallen, the GPE is expended. It is gone it is kaput. If you want the opportunity to extract GPE again, you have to supply the energy to rebuild the GPE. In doing so you will expend more restoring the GPE than you harvested.
True. But the original question can gravity cause
energy generation is not being answered.
Why is it so hard to admit that gravity causes
water to fall when presented the opportunity.
With the hydrology cycle supplying the energy
it still does not prevent gravity causing the
water to fall.
Quote from: camelherder49 on April 03, 2014, 07:54:51 PM
True. But the original question can gravity cause
energy generation is not being answered.
Why is it so hard to admit that gravity causes
water to fall when presented the opportunity.
With the hydrology cycle supplying the energy
it still does not prevent gravity causing the
water to fall.
It's just amazing to watch these sorts of pretzel logic struggles. The Incobrasa machine like the fraudulent claims of Wayne Travis purports to obtain energy from cyclically lifting and lowering weights. Because gravity is a conservative field, the harvestable energy lowering those weights in one part of a cycle must be paid back restoring them to their original potential in another part of the cycle yielding no net energy.
There are two choices: harvest once, IE non-cyclically, such as dragging the moon and thus ultimately lowering its orbit, or obtain energy from something else that then provides the GPE to harvest, such as sunlight evaporating sea water.
@camelherder:
Gravity does not "cause" energy generation. Does a bank "cause" money generation? No, it does not. Gravity, or rather difference in gravitational potential, is an energy storage mechanism, just like a bank is a money storage mechanism.
Unlike banks, though, gravity doesn't pay interest on deposits. You get out what you put in, minus losses, nothing more. Gravity does not cause energy generation!
Gravity only "causes" water to fall, if there is a lower place for the water to fall to. It's not the gravity that causes the fall, it's the difference in gravitational potential between where the water is, and where it's going to fall to.
Quote from: MarkE on April 04, 2014, 03:52:34 AM
The Incobrasa machine like the fraudulent claims of Wayne Travis purports to obtain energy from cyclically lifting and lowering weights.
LOL........Mark you have a personal problem. That is Amazing...
Where did I claim to be lifting and lowering weights. Where have you proven I am a fraud.
Your false statements are the proof of your fraud.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 04, 2014, 06:18:53 AM
@camelherder:
Gravity does not "cause" energy generation. Does a bank "cause" money generation? No, it does not. Gravity, or rather difference in gravitational potential, is an energy storage mechanism, just like a bank is a money storage mechanism.
Unlike banks, though, gravity doesn't pay interest on deposits. You get out what you put in, minus losses, nothing more. Gravity does not cause energy generation!
Gravity only "causes" water to fall, if there is a lower place for the water to fall to. It's not the gravity that causes the fall, it's the difference in gravitational potential between where the water is, and where it's going to fall to.
I was just thinking how gravity is utilized to change course and accelerate travel in our solar system.
We use it to reduce costs - not a bad idea, probably a science around that idea.
I understand the official representation of what you are saying concerning gtavitational
potential. If you take what I am about to say with the same respect, then take all the
prior statements that I had made concerning water falling from higher to lower and
completely remove gravity from the conversation, describe what action the water
would take.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 03, 2014, 04:46:54 PM
Sure... just like there is useful money in a bank.
But how did the money get into the bank in the first place, and what happens when you withdraw it? Or try to withdraw more than you have on deposit?
Very bad analogy,
You choose to forget that you own that bank, there are some who will always and always put their money on your bank,
Quote from: MileHigh on April 03, 2014, 06:07:27 PM
Not quite. The energy actually comes from a change in angular momentum. MarkE did not go down to that level. Think leap seconds.
There is a certain amount of angular kinetic energy in the solar system. The planets and the sun are rotating on their axes. Then the planets in their respective orbits also have momentum also. Think gravitational sling-shot.
There is even another form of potential energy where you can "fall out" of the solar system and head out into deep space.
Fascinating.
That is always the problem of yours on how you replay, although what you said are true,
the current issue is gravitational effect around you, whether you want to use it or not, it will always there, circling,
You talk about planetary orbital, you only mention a half, you said i can "fall out" into deep space, so, do you know where the end of my journey?, will i find other solar system?, can i make my own solar system?,
Do you know there is also even where you can "fall in" into the single point with other object could hit you and make new form of object,
what else....
this could be endless discussion.
Quote from: MarkE on April 03, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: Marsing on April 03, 2014, 09:29:23 AM
sounds good, you have admitted that there is usefull energy from gravity. ;D
When did I ever say that one could not extract the energy in a change of GPE: once?
Sorry if i made a mistake, now you admitted that one could extract energy in a change of GPE,
Sounds better. ;D ;D
Quote from: MarkE on April 04, 2014, 03:52:34 AM
Quote from: camelherder49 on April 03, 2014, 07:54:51 PM
True. But the original question can gravity cause
energy generation is not being answered.
Why is it so hard to admit that gravity causes
water to fall when presented the opportunity.
With the hydrology cycle supplying the energy
it still does not prevent gravity causing the
water to fall.
It's just amazing to watch these sorts of pretzel logic struggles. The Incobrasa machine like the fraudulent claims of Wayne Travis purports to obtain energy from cyclically lifting and lowering weights. Because gravity is a conservative field, the harvestable energy lowering those weights in one part of a cycle must be paid back restoring them to their original potential in another part of the cycle yielding no net energy.
There are two choices: harvest once, IE non-cyclically, such as dragging the moon and thus ultimately lowering its orbit, or obtain energy from something else that then provides the GPE to harvest, such as sunlight evaporating sea water.
Agree, grafity cause water to fall, ,
in a case of water fall, say niagara , we can use its energy without worrying about how to restore to original potential, nature completes the cycle,
in case of Wayne Travis, nature does not, he must care to complete the cycle.
Quote from: Marsing on April 04, 2014, 09:05:50 AM
It's just amazing to watch these sorts of pretzel logic struggles. The Incobrasa machine like the fraudulent claims of Wayne Travis purports to obtain energy from cyclically lifting and lowering weights. Because gravity is a conservative field, the harvestable energy lowering those weights in one part of a cycle must be paid back restoring them to their original potential in another part of the cycle yielding no net energy.
There are two choices: harvest once, IE non-cyclically, such as dragging the moon and thus ultimately lowering its orbit, or obtain energy from something else that then provides the GPE to harvest, such as sunlight evaporating sea water.
Agree, grafity cause water to fall, ,
in a case of water fall, say niagara , we can use its energy without worrying about how to restore to original potential, nature completes the cycle,
in case of Wayne Travis, nature does not, he must care to complete the cycle.
Correct, My system does not require a secondary potential source - such as a Water fall.
Thanks
Quote from: mrwayne on April 04, 2014, 09:19:19 AM
Correct, My system does not require a secondary potential source - such as a Water fall.
Thanks
Mrwayne,
Those words are not mine, what do you intend to put all in single quote as if those are mine?
btw, i am also correct, you require additional energy to complete the cycle.
now there is a special thread to promote your system mrwayne, it's not wise to do it here also.
Quote from: Marsing on April 04, 2014, 10:22:52 AM
Mrwayne,
Those words are not mine, what do you intend to put all in single quote as if those are mine?
btw, i am also correct, you require additional energy to complete the cycle.
now there is a special thread to promote your system mrwayne, it's not wise to do it here also.
The Quotes are automated....when responding.
I suggest if you do not wish to discuss my machine on this thread - do not bring it up.
Especially do not make assertions that are not true - such as external input required.
Thanks.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 04, 2014, 07:17:30 AM
LOL........Mark you have a personal problem. That is Amazing...
Where did I claim to be lifting and lowering weights. Where have you proven I am a fraud.
Your false statements are the proof of your fraud.
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. You are such a shameless huckster you deny your own statements. Gravity is conservative. Ergo your claims are false. Ergo you are a fraud. QED.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 04, 2014, 09:19:19 AM
Correct, My system does not require a secondary potential source - such as a Water fall.
Thanks
Your "system" requires an external energy source for all of its energy. Stealing electricity from the neighbor is not a viable power generation strategy.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 04, 2014, 10:41:30 AM
The Quotes are automated....when responding.
I suggest if you do not wish to discuss my machine on this thread - do not bring it up.
Especially do not make assertions that are not true - such as external input required.
Thanks.
Mrwayne,
I made comparison between nature machine and man made machine which is actually your machine according to prev posts, if it not yours, i won't.
So if you not require additional energy to complete the cycle, how can it be ?, half cycle..?
Why don't you say " to complete the cycle, my machine uses energy results of the previous half-cycle", satisfied.... I don't use this because I have not seen it from your machine.
I have no objections whether you want to discuss here or not, just think about others who tried to bring it back to the track or want to discuss something else.
Quote from: Marsing on April 04, 2014, 12:53:59 PM
Mrwayne,
I made comparison between nature machine and man made machine which is actually your machine according to prev posts, if it not yours, i won't.
So if you not require additional energy to complete the cycle, how can it be ?, half cycle..?
Why don't you say " to complete the cycle, my machine uses energy results of the previous half-cycle", satisfied.... I don't use this because I have not seen it from your machine.
I have no objections whether you want to discuss here or not, just think about others who tried to bring it back to the track or want to discuss something else.
Marsing - I went back and looked : My sincere apology for my mistake and I will be more careful - I understand it was not your insults.
Like many of us - I am finding out - it is normal to skip reading as soon as the first ignorant comment.
Again, my apology.
And I hope this thread returns to its original intent as well.
Marsing, before I go - when you asked
"So if you not require additional energy to complete the cycle, how can it be ?, half cycle..?
Why don't you say " to complete the cycle, my machine uses energy results of the previous half-cycle", satisfied...."
I am glad you understood that part :) :) :)
Wayne
I READ AS MUCH AS I CAN /ANYBODY WHO IS ANY BODY KNOW WHAT GOES DOWN COMES BACK WITH LESS
I HAVE A SUPERBALL THAT IS 95% EFF. JUST SAYING
Quote from: timaleric on April 05, 2014, 02:28:39 AM
I READ AS MUCH AS I CAN /ANYBODY WHO IS ANY BODY KNOW WHAT GOES DOWN COMES BACK WITH LESS
I HAVE A SUPERBALL THAT IS 95% EFF. JUST SAYING
If you are referring to the ZED system - please consider commenting on that thread.
Before I go, if you are responding to the ZED.....
Just call me Nobody lol....
Because Nobody has a Net energy system....lol.
Just having fun back with you.
If you read the right threads - and the whole thing - you would know that the puppets keep trying to say we lift and drop weights..... maybe someone else has that actual thread.
We have a amplification system, that in function reduces the input thru a unique process which reduces the input volume and increases the speed of operation - and redistributes potential energy without consuming it.
Not quite a bouncy ball... ours carries a load and bounces back.
I admit - the diversions here trying to turn our system into a brick - have been awesome.
Thanks again,
Nobody
QuoteWe have a amplification system, that in function reduces the input thru a unique process which reduces the input volume and increases the speed of operation - and redistributes potential energy without consuming it.
When are you going to demonstrate it running stand-alone driving a load continuously?
Will you drive a generator hooked up to a big resistive load?
How much continuous 24/7 power will it output?
Quote from: MileHigh on April 05, 2014, 07:16:21 AM
When are you going to demonstrate it running stand-alone driving a load continuously?
Will you drive a generator hooked up to a big resistive load?
How much continuous 24/7 power will it output?
Smile.....
"Smile...."
So you are never going to demonstrate a working system. You are trying to feign that it is "politically incorrect" to actually ask when you are going to demonstrate your alleged system.
The answer is never. You are a barnacle. Talking about your fake sham proposition and building some props and making some video clips is just you stuck to the side of a rock trying to filter-feed the free money floating by from gullible people.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 05, 2014, 07:11:11 AM
If you are referring to the ZED system - please consider commenting on that thread.
Before I go, if you are responding to the ZED.....
Just call me Nobody lol....
Because Nobody has a Net energy system....lol.
Just having fun back with you.
If you read the right threads - and the whole thing - you would know that the puppets keep trying to say we lift and drop weights..... maybe someone else has that actual thread.
We have a amplification system, that in function reduces the input thru a unique process which reduces the input volume and increases the speed of operation - and redistributes potential energy without consuming it.
Not quite a bouncy ball... ours carries a load and bounces back.
I admit - the diversions here trying to turn our system into a brick - have been awesome.
Thanks again,
Nobody
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again, Wayne Travis the self-professed hydraulics '"expert" denies that his buoyancy scheme just lifts and lowers weights. Such are the blatant falsehoods told by the shameless liar Wayne Travis. The only thing that Wayne Travis amplifies is the evidence of his remorseless scienter.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 05, 2014, 07:52:20 AM
"Smile...."
So you are never going to demonstrate a working system. You are trying to feign that it is "politically incorrect" to actually ask when you are going to demonstrate your alleged system.
The answer is never. You are a barnacle. Talking about your fake sham proposition and building some props and making some video clips is just you stuck to the side of a rock trying to filter-feed the free money floating by from gullible people.
Gee Mile high -
I must be the most Gullible of them all............
What do you understand that I must be missing?
Thanks for your help.
Wayne
Wayne,
What you are missing is physical proof that you have something.
What you are missing is intellectual proof that you have something.
What you are missing is any personal shame that would prevent you from uttering nonsensical and unintelligible "explanations" for your system like some slick con man.
It's really not good for you Wayne.
MileHigh
Quote from: MarkE on April 05, 2014, 06:06:51 PM
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again, Wayne Travis the self-professed hydraulics '"expert" denies that his buoyancy scheme just lifts and lowers weights. Such are the blatant falsehoods told by the shameless liar Wayne Travis. The only thing that Wayne Travis amplifies is the evidence of his remorseless scienter.
Ohhhh. the Buoyancy force and the stored potential super conservative process are "
weights"???
You and Mile high should have explained that two years ago ---
Due tell, Please explain.... Where are these weights?
Now, I am no Hydraulics Expert - I am the inventor .... obviously....
Rather than be an expert - we hired those experts.
(p.s. you will be happy to know .....they like you ....you make them Smile...)
...................
One more thing - I do love God.... I know that makes me less of a person than you...I am ok with it...Remember - that displays your superior intellect - not mine...
Have a Good day.
Did you notice that James Kwok actually has at least two people with PhDs who show their faces and give their names and affiliations, endorsing his system?
Where is the equivalent level of support for Travis's scheme? Red_Sunset? LarryC? Pardon me while I laugh into my coffee.
QuoteOne more thing - I do love God....
And I'm sure God loves you too, honest Wayne Travis. That isn't going to prevent him from giving you the eternal reward you are so richly earning.
Matthew 7:5, Revelation 3:16.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 06, 2014, 10:11:35 AM
And I'm sure God loves you too, honest Wayne Travis. That isn't going to prevent him from giving you the eternal reward you are so richly earning.
Matthew 7:5, Revelation 3:16.
Thank you sir,
You honor me.
Wayne
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 06, 2014, 10:08:15 AM
Did you notice that James Kwok actually has at least two people with PhDs who show their faces and give their names and affiliations, endorsing his system?
Where is the equivalent level of support for Travis's scheme? Red_Sunset? LarryC? Pardon me while I laugh into my coffee.
I not on James' team, so I do not endorse him.
Our guys are on under NDA..... Our advanced systems are under the Radar.
And we are not raising funds...... Smile.
.................
People who figure out the ZED, are invited to join our team if they like.
Conversely -Those that try to 8) 8) 8) - prove their ability or allegiance.
Wayne
Wayne:
QuotePeople who figure out the ZED, are invited to join our team if they like.
What a joke. There you go again trying to create the illusion that the ZED is real.
It's also kind of creepy. As if anybody that is honest and of good character would want to join your team of pool players, Internet surfers, beer drinkers, and movie watchers. I know that the entertainment is all "on the house" and your friends and neighbours are financing your immoral cash burn.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 06, 2014, 11:07:41 AM
Wayne:
What a joke. There you go again trying to create the illusion that the ZED is real.
It's also kind of creepy. As if anybody that is honest and of good character would want to join your team of pool players, Internet surfers, beer drinkers, and movie watchers. I know that the entertainment is all "on the house" and your friends and neighbours are financing your immoral cash burn.
MileHigh
I admit it MH,
You are by far more creative than me.
Your assumptions and false accusations are filling a large portion of our Book.
..................
I have shared the same information on the ZED from day one - with one exception...
Our group has matured to realize that Energy Amplification and O/U are different things.
Energy amplification in the ZED can be shown in simple math - that deserves the term Super conservative.
O/U - which is defined by the puppet defense team is created energy - or energy from nothing.
Math is awesome - it separates the two, and a math error and correction - is learning.....
And as Our senior Engineers said clearly - 'If the simple math does not work - making it complex will not solve the problem........your ZED works simply - and that is what the experienced engineers seek'.
MH - you have been fed a line of bull by those you admire - to be clear;
We do not create energy - our systems provide fuel free Net energy - those you support - have never seen a "super conservative process" until now - and I believe they are wearing a veil on purpose - to smart to admit when they are wrong.
Of course - the back out plan has been laid by the puppets - I hurt some ones feelings......go figure......A sensitive mud slinger.....?
Time for someone to grow up.
Maybe its me..for hoping so long...
Smile
Who knows what lurks in the hearts of the Zydro men and women. That is a lot of empty office space there Wayne. Not much to do to create the illusion of a company. When the team is not in illusion mode, they have lots of time to do whatever they want.
Ka-Ching!
Quote from: MileHigh on April 06, 2014, 11:23:18 AM
Who knows what lurks in the hearts of the Zydro men and women. That is a lot of empty office space there Wayne. Not much to do to create the illusion of a company. When the team is not in illusion mode, they have lots of time to do whatever they want.
Ka-Ching!
Mile high -
I have stated clearly that we are not raising funds.
Show where have I or any of my team "solicited funds".
p.s. Is it wrong for research to be funded?
Or just research you do not agree with?
Thank you.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 06, 2014, 11:43:29 AM
Mile high -
I have stated clearly that we are not raising funds.
Show where have I or any of my team "solicited funds".
p.s. Is it wrong for research to be funded?
Or just research you do not agree with?
Thank you.
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. Having trouble keeping your story straight there Wayne? Is your research: "The Effect of Carney Blabber on People with Man in the Moon Marigold Dreams"?
Quote from: MarkE on April 06, 2014, 12:19:51 PM
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. Having trouble keeping your story straight there Wayne? Is your research: "The Effect of Carney Blabber on People with Man in the Moon Marigold Dreams"?
ME, you are good with Personal insults.
I discovered long ago that criticisms from people without character have no value - and only offer a false security to the one hiding behind them.
Wayne:
You have raised funds in the past. That's why you threw $2000 at Webby for proving nothing, it wasn't your money.
That money is being poured down the drain as we speak. Chances are your Internet connection has been paid for with other people's money.
Your "Zydro team" is non-existent. The Google search, "Zydro Energy Linkedin" yields nothing, nada, zero. The Google search "Zydro Energy volunteer" yields nothing, nada, zero.
My personal belief is that "Team Zydro" is you and two or three other people that kick back, drink beer, watch movies, watch football and baseball games, and surf the net at your "empty open office space" office. When outsiders visit, you pay a few unemployed locals that you know that hang around bars all day to show up and create the pretense that you have a company.
We are just sitting around waiting for the demise of Zydro Energy. HydroEnergy Revolution is already dead, isn't it? The real question is whether or not you get busted and go to jail. Certainly you will never produce even a nano Joule of free energy from your glorified hydraulic jack that's contaminated with air bubbles. I am sure that many astute 12-year-olds could see how preposterous your claim is.
Your little "Smile..." when asked about producing a working system says it all. It never will happen. Your job is to burn cash and look for more cash to burn. That's why you are here, it's all part of your scheme to raise more cash to extend the burn.
MileHigh
Quote from: mrwayne on April 06, 2014, 01:55:34 PM
ME, you are good with Personal insults.
I discovered long ago that criticisms from people without character have no value - and only offer a false security to the one hiding behind them.
Gee Wayne does that mean that you're not going to extend an invitation to join your cadre: the disciples of duplicity? Please say it isn't so!
Quote from: MileHigh on April 06, 2014, 04:36:52 PM
Wayne:
You have raised funds in the past. That's why you threw $2000 at Webby for proving nothing, it wasn't your money.
That money is being poured down the drain as we speak. Chances are your Internet connection has been paid for with other people's money.
Your "Zydro team" is non-existent. The Google search, "Zydro Energy Linkedin" yields nothing, nada, zero. The Google search "Zydro Energy volunteer" yields nothing, nada, zero.
My personal belief is that "Team Zydro" is you and two or three other people that kick back, drink beer, watch movies, watch football and baseball games, and surf the net at your "empty open office space" office. When outsiders visit, you pay a few unemployed locals that you know that hang around bars all day to show up and create the pretense that you have a company.
We are just sitting around waiting for the demise of Zydro Energy. HydroEnergy Revolution is already dead, isn't it? The real question is whether or not you get busted and go to jail. Certainly you will never produce even a nano Joule of free energy from your glorified hydraulic jack that's contaminated with air bubbles. I am sure that many astute 12-year-olds could see how preposterous your claim is.
Your little "Smile..." when asked about producing a working system says it all. It never will happen. Your job is to burn cash and look for more cash to burn. That's why you are here, it's all part of your scheme to raise more cash to extend the burn.
MileHigh
Wow - you took the time to write all that....You would make a farmer out to be a earth hater, a dairy farmer out to be a milk thief, and a doctor out to be a drug dealer......
..........................
Ask any twelve year old this - If you pay $100 dollars for a bike, ride it to town and then sell the bike for $100 hundred.. ....how much did the ride cost?
Take as much time on answering this one simple question - and if you get it right - you will understand the ZED.
Right now - you are calling the boy a thief, liar, and fraud.... how embarrassing.
...............
Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on April 06, 2014, 09:02:12 PM
Ask any twelve year old this - If you pay $100 dollars for a bike, ride it to town and then sell the bike for $100 hundred.. ....how much did the ride cost?
Take as much time on answering this one simple question - and if you get it right - you will understand the ZED.
Right now - you are calling the boy a thief, liar, and fraud.... how embarrassing.
...............
Wayne
How long did it take you to construct this hilariously stupid, malformed straw-man?
Quote from: orbut 3000 on April 06, 2014, 10:00:54 PM
How long did it take you to construct this hilariously stupid, malformed straw-man?
Too hard???
Quote from: mrwayne on April 06, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
Too hard???
In strictly monetary terms, obviously the ride cost nothing. Then again neither did it produce any excess output.
This whole 'energy reuse of the previous cycle' ruse is quite simply bullshit as an explanation as to how this device "works".
All that is really happening is attempt at confusion by you so that you might convince the simple minded.
It should be obvious that if some potential energy is alternately cycled between two objects then it is not important when determining if there is NET output for the two objects combined. This energy simply falls out of the overall energy balance when you correctly consider the WHOLE cycle.
Trouble is you're getting less than 50 dollars, so if it wasn't that far it would be quite
a expensive ride.
John.
Do a little see saw experiment . Put an equal weight on each side and you'll see it
just sits there. You have to put a bit more on one side, it soon becomes apparent
what's going to happen when you take half the weight off of the lighter side.
John.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on April 06, 2014, 11:22:26 PM
In strictly monetary terms, obviously the ride cost nothing. Then again neither did it produce any excess output.
This whole 'energy reuse of the previous cycle' ruse is quite simply bullshit as an explanation as to how this device "works".
All that is really happening is attempt at confusion by you so that you might convince the simple minded.
It should be obvious that if some potential energy is alternately cycled between two objects then it is not important when determining if there is NET output for the two objects combined. This energy simply falls out of the overall energy balance when you correctly consider the WHOLE cycle.
If it seems like confusion... good point to stop and think..
Lets cut the system in half..... just to simplify.
Energy in to stroke
50% of the energy put in to each stroke comes from the previous production (the load lifted by the buoyancy),
Then an additional another 50% energy is put in from the other ZED.
Of course the lift efficiency is very important.... who want to pay $100 dollars for a Bike with one wheel.
p.s. our anomaly; The Zed Efficiency is improved over all other buoyancy devices - we can attain a lift value equal to the total input - easily (but lets just leave the lift value at 100%).
The lift value is "energy in versus energy out" - not force - just to be clear (poor assumptions have been made).
One side of the ZED lifts the load (production) and is equal to the energy put into it "equal" from both sources..Source one is part of the production, source two is the other ZED.
So the best we can have in a perfect world is 100% of the energy we put in-- right??? Of course.
Yes - the potential still in the Buoyancy is still worth 100% of the work we did...
Now - what we have is both the Load (production) and still have all the buoyancy in the system - what should we do with all that stored potential?
If we popped it up as MarkE suggested - that would be an awful loss.. that would be old school buoyancy - let the head pressure out to sink.....
Why not use it to offset the input cost of the other ZED.....gee that could reduce its cost by say 50% and then how much would it cost to stroke that side???
That's right 50%. That would suck if your buoyancy efficiency was 50%
Archimede's accounts for the displaced fluid, did you know that the air under pressure (stored energy) is equal to the cost of water that was "lifted" (stored energy) during the displacement, and the head and both of those are equal to the value of the buoyancy
Properly understood - buoyancy has three equal values... the buoyancy, the air pressure, and the head pressure (raised water).
It does not matter how you shape the air in buoyancy - it is the same energy, it does not matter how you shape the buoyancy - it is the same energy - but as Red Sunset caught on so quickly...
The Water is a different story...... its value as head pressure is not locked into volume........
Energy can be observed by the "time distance and mass" Our system reduced the mass required - to do the same work of even a hydraulic cylinder - while improving the speed of operation.
Less load in - original work out - and much faster - 11 times faster in our first model....
The bicycle - is the energy flow between the two ZEDs ..... the money is paid and refunded at both ends.
Take care.
TomM showed that in the Travis effect video's many people missed it.
.......................
So how much of the input to either ZED is a external to the system cost.....
How much of the production is reused.... that's right 50%... which leaves 50% for the consumer.
Now - it does take two ZEDs to provide the value of one ZED for free........ That's an ok price to pay...
The reason this works......... and all other buoyancy systems did not work....... because by adding the systems together (layers) in a serpentine input system, improved the efficiency of the buoyancy beyond what any one else has ever seen.
Yes adding layers improved the stand alone efficient function of buoyancy.
It was necessary to accomplish that first - other wise - we would have had the same "force" issues that all other buoyancy systems in the past faced.
Solving the right problem is key.
Thanks
Mr. Travis, you wrote in a previous post "Our group has matured to realize that Energy Amplification and O/U are different things.
Energy amplification in the ZED can be shown in simple math - that deserves the term Super conservative.
O/U - which is defined by the puppet defense team is created energy - or energy from nothing.
Math is awesome - it separates the two, and a math error and correction - is learning.....".
Indeed, math is awesome. So, where is your math to show that OU is different from Energy Amplification? After all, amplification is making 'it' larger, which implies more than the original. So the end result would be a form of OU.
When can we see an actual device demonstrating without doubt that energy is multiplied? It has been 1.5 years since PESN posted their article.
Respectfully, memoryman (now posting as ngepro)
Quote from: memoryman on April 07, 2014, 10:43:37 AM
Mr. Travis, you wrote in a previous post "Our group has matured to realize that Energy Amplification and O/U are different things.
Indeed, math is awesome. So, where is your math to show that OU is different from Energy Amplification? After all, amplification is making 'it' larger, which implies more than the original. So the end result would be a form of OU.
When can we see an actual device demonstrating without doubt that energy is multiplied? It has been 1.5 years since PESN posted their article.
Respectfully, memoryman (now posting as ngepro)
Hello Sir,
First thank you.
Super conservative is the better term than amplification. Amplification does improperly describe or imply an increase.... which we do not do with our ZED system.
Our first system was a "10, 7, to 3 system" - which means Ideal of the system was 10, we re-used 7 to operate the system, and ended with 3 left over (from the 10).
Never any un accounted for energy in the system or coming from the system. a super conservative process which results in the input reduction.
Our out put comes from the difference between the production and the cost of the process.
We have reduced the cost below 20% of the output - so the output is 5 times the size of the cost. But not one bit of output is unaccounted for.
Of course we have optimized those designs and improved that ratio greatly.
............
The maturity came with the hard look at why we were feverishly treated, as if we had stolen from some great indisputable author.
We began to understand that it was an assumption by many that a free energy device "must not conform to physics". An assumption that is not correct.
That assumption also lent to the belief that a black box would be proof - and a closed loop would be proof.
Even Data - is ignored if it can not be explained.
.........
We matured to understand that a black box - did not end the questions - only increased them.
We matured to understand that a closed looped system - did not end the questions - only increased them.
We learned those lessons the hard way - at great personal expense.
Our Data collection system opened our minds.... because we were able to verifiy the MATH - without violating any simple physics.
.................
We are in the business to provide actual devices - we are well funded, by investors that sought us out.
As to this moment - we are two weeks from having our Alpha model of our Rotary TAZ completed.
.................
I posted on this web site - for two reasons - support thinkers - and to deny the bullies...
Thank you.
We have a new date from the Mr. Wayne:
"As to this moment - we are two weeks from having our Alpha model of our Rotary TAZ completed."
Two weeks would be the 21st of April, but let's say "end of April".
Will we be able to see and to measure the Rotary TAZ at the end of April?
Or is it a non verifiable promise? That would be the stile of the Mr. Wayne.
I wish that the Mr. Wayne would stop bull shitting everybody. It is a bit old after this many years.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on April 07, 2014, 03:41:07 PM
We have a new date from the Mr. Wayne:
"As to this moment - we are two weeks from having our Alpha model of our Rotary TAZ completed."
Two weeks would be the 21st of April, but let's say "end of April".
Will we be able to see and to measure the Rotary TAZ at the end of April?
Or is it a non verifiable promise? That would be the stile of the Mr. Wayne.
I wish that the Mr. Wayne would stop bull shitting everybody. It is a bit old after this many years.
Greetings, Conrad
Lol, have you "actually read" all the bull and mud slinging over these years.....it does get old.
You made an incorrect assumption - our "Dates" are not for public display.
Sorry - We shared the ZED - which is "no bull."
Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 04:00:12 PM
You made an incorrect assumption - our "Dates" are not for public display.
Wayne
I have nothing more to say. How can we discuss what we can not see?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on April 07, 2014, 04:17:24 PM
I have nothing more to say. How can we discuss what we can not see?
Greetings, Conrad
Understood - I showed the ZED - it only helped those that wanted to understand and riled those that would not.
Take care
Thanks for confirming that you have nothing, mrwayne.
Quote from: celsus on April 07, 2014, 04:54:53 PM
Thanks for confirming that you have nothing, mrwayne.
LOL......
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 08:25:11 AM
If it seems like confusion... good point to stop and think..
Lets cut the system in half..... just to simplify.
Energy in to stroke
50% of the energy put in to each stroke comes from the previous production (the load lifted by the buoyancy),
Then an additional another 50% energy is put in from the other ZED.
Of course the lift efficiency is very important.... who want to pay $100 dollars for a Bike with one wheel.
p.s. our anomaly; The Zed Efficiency is improved over all other buoyancy devices - we can attain a lift value equal to the total input - easily (but lets just leave the lift value at 100%).
The lift value is "energy in versus energy out" - not force - just to be clear (poor assumptions have been made).
One side of the ZED lifts the load (production) and is equal to the energy put into it "equal" from both sources..Source one is part of the production, source two is the other ZED.
So the best we can have in a perfect world is 100% of the energy we put in-- right??? Of course.
Yes - the potential still in the Buoyancy is still worth 100% of the work we did...
Now - what we have is both the Load (production) and still have all the buoyancy in the system - what should we do with all that stored potential?
If we popped it up as MarkE suggested - that would be an awful loss.. that would be old school buoyancy - let the head pressure out to sink.....
Why not use it to offset the input cost of the other ZED.....gee that could reduce its cost by say 50% and then how much would it cost to stroke that side???
That's right 50%. That would suck if your buoyancy efficiency was 50%
Archimede's accounts for the displaced fluid, did you know that the air under pressure (stored energy) is equal to the cost of water that was "lifted" (stored energy) during the displacement, and the head and both of those are equal to the value of the buoyancy
Properly understood - buoyancy has three equal values... the buoyancy, the air pressure, and the head pressure (raised water).
It does not matter how you shape the air in buoyancy - it is the same energy, it does not matter how you shape the buoyancy - it is the same energy - but as Red Sunset caught on so quickly...
The Water is a different story...... its value as head pressure is not locked into volume........
Energy can be observed by the "time distance and mass" Our system reduced the mass required - to do the same work of even a hydraulic cylinder - while improving the speed of operation.
Less load in - original work out - and much faster - 11 times faster in our first model....
The bicycle - is the energy flow between the two ZEDs ..... the money is paid and refunded at both ends.
Take care.
TomM showed that in the Travis effect video's many people missed it.
.......................
So how much of the input to either ZED is a external to the system cost.....
How much of the production is reused.... that's right 50%... which leaves 50% for the consumer.
Now - it does take two ZEDs to provide the value of one ZED for free........ That's an ok price to pay...
The reason this works......... and all other buoyancy systems did not work....... because by adding the systems together (layers) in a serpentine input system, improved the efficiency of the buoyancy beyond what any one else has ever seen.
Yes adding layers improved the stand alone efficient function of buoyancy.
It was necessary to accomplish that first - other wise - we would have had the same "force" issues that all other buoyancy systems in the past faced.
Solving the right problem is key.
Thanks
Here we have another silly wall of text from the fraud Wayne Travis. There is no net energy output in excess of the input from any of his contraptions. Each serpentine is fundamentally lossy. Using two just increases the loss.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 12:29:29 PM
Hello Sir,
First thank you.
Super conservative is the better term than amplification. Amplification does improperly describe or imply an increase.... which we do not do with our ZED system.
Our first system was a "10, 7, to 3 system" - which means Ideal of the system was 10, we re-used 7 to operate the system, and ended with 3 left over (from the 10).
Never any un accounted for energy in the system or coming from the system. a super conservative process which results in the input reduction.
Our out put comes from the difference between the production and the cost of the process.
We have reduced the cost below 20% of the output - so the output is 5 times the size of the cost. But not one bit of output is unaccounted for.
Of course we have optimized those designs and improved that ratio greatly.
............
The maturity came with the hard look at why we were feverishly treated, as if we had stolen from some great indisputable author.
We began to understand that it was an assumption by many that a free energy device "must not conform to physics". An assumption that is not correct.
That assumption also lent to the belief that a black box would be proof - and a closed loop would be proof.
Even Data - is ignored if it can not be explained.
.........
We matured to understand that a black box - did not end the questions - only increased them.
We matured to understand that a closed looped system - did not end the questions - only increased them.
We learned those lessons the hard way - at great personal expense.
Our Data collection system opened our minds.... because we were able to verifiy the MATH - without violating any simple physics.
.................
We are in the business to provide actual devices - we are well funded, by investors that sought us out.
As to this moment - we are two weeks from having our Alpha model of our Rotary TAZ completed.
.................
I posted on this web site - for two reasons - support thinkers - and to deny the bullies...
Thank you.
Another post and another pack of bald faced lies from the fraud Wayne Travis. No contraption that he has ever proposed or built can deliver excess output energy versus input. It is hilarious that even now Wayne builds his record of shameless scienter. Some people just don't know any better.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 04:00:12 PM
You made an incorrect assumption - our "Dates" are not for public display.
Sorry - We shared the ZED - which is "no bull."
Wayne
That's a classic, nearly as good as "I never tell a lie" or "I'm leaving the forum and never coming back" you talk so much shit.
Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012
, 04:14:10 PMI promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012
, 05:11:26 PMIt will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
Too hard to follow...... really...
Gee, Here is an idea - Ask some of the people who do "get it"
Just a observation.......you should stop calling them stupid......
Quote from: powercat on April 07, 2014, 06:32:03 PM
That's a classic, nearly as good as "I never tell a lie" or I'm "leaving the forum and never coming back" you talk so much shit.
Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
OOPs... Powercat - you left out.
"Our internal validation was a success!"
You did not care to join our team....Take care
The people who 'get it'. Who would that be?
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 06:39:51 PM
OOPs... Powercat - you left out.
"Our internal validation was a success!"
You did not care to join our team....Take care
All that you have ever validated is that you could defraud your: family, friends, and neighbors with your BS stories. You had best hope that none of them are prone to violence.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 06:37:49 PM
Gee, Here is an idea - Ask some of the people who do "get it"
People like Webby? No offense intended but you, at least several times now, have said that he is one of the one's who "get it". Now we see that poor Webby is a little confused about basic physics (which is fine as he sometimes appears to want to learn) which does not bode well if you claim he is one of the ones who "get it". Do you have others in this group that misuse and confuse basic physics terms? Do the others even understand basic college level physics? If not, maybe you should not be calling attention to them?
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on April 07, 2014, 10:31:05 PM
People like Webby? No offense intended but you, at least several times now, have said that he is one of the one's who "get it". Now we see that poor Webby is a little confused about basic physics (which is fine as he sometimes appears to want to learn) which does not bode well if you claim he is one of the ones who "get it". Do you have others in this group that misuse and confuse basic physics terms? Do the others even understand basic college level physics? If not, maybe you should not be calling attention to them?
Bill
Let me help you understand me a bit..
I will stand behind a builder - who has hands on experience long before someone arrogant and insulting to other people... just saying....that is what we do in Oklahoma...
What kind of people do you stand up for?
Have a great day.
Quote from: MarkE on April 07, 2014, 09:22:07 PM
All that you have ever validated is that you could defraud your: family, friends, and neighbors with your BS stories. You had best hope that none of them are prone to violence.
By the way......
How many of my friends and family and neighbors did you talk to?
Come on share your proof of your accusation --..--
Now we know you can not - what does that make you?
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 11:02:08 PM
Let me help you understand me a bit..
I will stand behind a builder - who has hands on experience long before someone arrogant and insulting to other people... just saying....that is what we do in Oklahoma...
What kind of people do you stand up for?
Have a great day.
You demonstrate that what
you do while you happen to live in Oklahoma is defraud investors. Who should stand up for you?
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 11:08:47 PM
By the way......
How many of my friends and family and neighbors did you talk to?
Come on share your proof of your accusation --..--
Now we know you can not - what does that make you?
I am sure you would really like to know.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 07, 2014, 06:39:51 PM
OOPs... Powercat - you left out.
"Our internal validation was a success!"
You did not care to join our team....Take care
You're so full of BS every one can see the posts from the previous thread, and see the two day demo by Mark Dansie was promised as a public verification, you must have forgotten about it, go back and look at the thread again, your own words prove conclusively that you are a liar.
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012
, 05:05:15 AMI still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Honest Wayne Travis said:
Quote...just saying....that is what we do in Oklahoma...
On this side of the Red River, we "just say" that people in Oklahoma do all kinds of things..... some of them not fit for public display at all.
However, there is a world-class engineering school, the University of Oklahoma, in Norman OK, just a short distance away from Chickasha, less than an hour's drive if I am reading the map correctly. I don't wonder why honest Wayne Travis has never mentioned anyone from there, like a professor and a couple of his grad students, driving over and spending a morning looking at his kludge.
Quote from: MarkE on April 08, 2014, 12:27:03 AM
You demonstrate that what you do while you happen to live in Oklahoma is defraud investors. Who should stand up for you?
MarkE - keep pretending to help some poor dumb shmuck who can not think for themselves. I watch politicians do that on a pretty regular basis.
I find it insulting to them - that you think everyone is stupid but you.\
No one is buying the skirt you are hiding behind anymore.
When you left the facts and started your personal attacks... you revealed yourself.
What about those facts - don't care to address the anomalies you claim do not exist.
..............
I know you are not so dumb you can not see them... I would not dare think that about you.
But you do not have the character to admit when you are wrong - and you definitely do not have the honor to apologize.
Show proof of your made up claims - where are these supposed victims..
We know you do not have any - the claim I am harming someone might buy pity on you from some - but certainly not those that see you hiding behind your lies.
Quote from: powercat on April 08, 2014, 02:39:41 AM
You're so full of BS every one can see the posts from the previous thread, and see the two day demo by Mark Dansie was promised as a public verification, you must have forgotten about it, go back and look at the thread again, your own words prove conclusively that you are a liar.
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Gee,
You left out that Mark turned the validation over to another expert........
Powercat,
Here is the Sad part - you could do the validation - our physics have always been good to provide clean and free energy-- not magic-- sure - but the ZED process works.
I am not sure if you took the effort to twist the truth to make a point - or if the puppet master handed it too you - he has used several people in the past.
But if it is your own effort - put that effort into some hands on testing.
You are continually bashing a good project, a good team, and the solution the world has been looking for.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2014, 06:06:43 AM
Honest Wayne Travis said:
On this side of the Red River, we "just say" that people in Oklahoma do all kinds of things..... some of them not fit for public display at all.
However, there is a world-class engineering school, the University of Oklahoma, in Norman OK, just a short distance away from Chickasha, less than an hour's drive if I am reading the map correctly. I don't wonder why honest Wayne Travis has never mentioned anyone from there, like a professor and a couple of his grad students, driving over and spending a morning looking at his kludge.
I don't tell you all my business - just what you need to know to evaluate for yourself..
Last year - I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were just not qualified to evaluate the ZED and afraid to admit it - since all you offered was diversion and insults to anyone who attempted to learn.
But you have left enough foot prints to see that you have only one person in mind to help - and it is not me.
And then when I discovered that you were the Al that made the phony video, and let people spend time and money on the replication........for your personal kicks.....
My eyes opened further - how dare you insult others claiming they are frauds.
...................
Your "information" is incorrect, honest Wayne Travis. You really should check your sources. Show me one single place where this "AL" ever claimed any "overunity", "Free energy", "energy creation", "Harnessing conservative fields", or any of the other bogus claims you have made. You cannot.... because he never made any such claims, and always told the complete and absolute truth about Overconfident's OCMPMM. You don't know what you are talking about.
But we clearly notice the usual tactic of frauds and fakers: when the criticism gets too heavy Travis tries to deflect the discussion to some irrelevant topic. This discussion is NOT ABOUT ME or anyone else. It is about the claims of Honest Wayne Travis, and even an axe-murdering Christian bigamist can be correct when she tells you that Travis's claims are BS.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 07:08:20 AM
I don't tell you all my business - just what you need to know to evaluate for yourself..
Last year - I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were just not qualified to evaluate the ZED and afraid to admit it - since all you offered was diversion and insults to anyone who attempted to learn.
But you have left enough foot prints to see that you have only one person in mind to help - and it is not me.
And then when I discovered that you were the Al that made the phony video, and let people spend time and money on the replication........for your personal kicks.....
My eyes opened further - how dare you insult others claiming they are frauds.
...................
It seems that it is you and your disciples of duplicity who have been routinely corrected on the science of your useless contraptions. Tinsel Koala unlike you is not a fraud. Unlike you he is a trained scientist. But that's OK Wayne. You have your imaginary curtains that you claim to hide wonderful secrets behind. It's the real curtains that offer interesting possibilities.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2014, 07:23:38 AM
Your "information" is incorrect, honest Wayne Travis. You really should check your sources. Show me one single place where this "AL" ever claimed any "overunity", "Free energy", "energy creation", "Harnessing conservative fields", or any of the other bogus claims you have made. You cannot.... because he never made any such claims, and always told the complete and absolute truth about Overconfident's OCMPMM. You don't know what you are talking about.
But we clearly notice the usual tactic of frauds and fakers: when the criticism gets too heavy Travis tries to deflect the discussion to some irrelevant topic. This discussion is NOT ABOUT ME or anyone else. It is about the claims of Honest Wayne Travis, and even an axe-murdering Christian bigamist can be correct when she tells you that Travis's claims are BS.
You are so clever...... just like the poor lighting in the video...
When I was shown your video scam - no one told me who it was - in two seconds I said hey that is TK, and they said - no he called himself Al then...... He sure pissed off a bunch of builders that spent time and money trying to replicate the system.....
Now you defend yourself saying I never claimed free energy.........blaa blaa blaa..
...................
Here is the difference between you and me - The replication of my system began when the patent was released - an anonymous builder sent me $10,000 for being the first inventor to have not wasted his time and money - regarding free energy.
I gave that money to other builders....to build.....Did you pay the people who you mislead?
Wayne
Quote from: MarkE on April 08, 2014, 07:29:24 AM
It seems that it is you and your disciples of duplicity who have been routinely corrected on the science of your useless contraptions. Tinsel Koala unlike you is not a fraud. Unlike you he is a trained scientist. But that's OK Wayne. You have your imaginary curtains that you claim to hide wonderful secrets behind. It's the real curtains that offer interesting possibilities.
Really - Doctored photo's, invisible unicorns, diversion, slander, coordinating attacks - yeah that is a scientist........ 'not really'
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 07:46:21 AM
You are so clever...... just like the poor lighting in the video...
When I was shown your video scam - no one told me who it was - in two seconds I said hey that is TK, and they said - no he called himself Al then...... He sure pissed off a bunch of builders that spent time and money trying to replicate the system.....
Now you defend yourself saying I never claimed free energy.........blaa blaa blaa..
...................
Here is the difference between you and me - The replication of my system began when the patent was released - an anonymous builder sent me $10,000 for being the first inventor to have not wasted his time and money - regarding free energy.
I gave that money to other builders....to build.....Did you pay the people who you mislead?
Wayne
Ah the fraud Wayne Travis now claims to have a patent. You don't have any patents Wayne. You have filed a hapless patent application.
Anyone who builds what your patent
application describes will end up with a contraption that is every bit as useless for generating energy as all the stage props you've put together to buffalo your investors.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 07:49:22 AM
Really - Doctored photo's, invisible unicorns, diversion, slander, coordinating attacks - yeah that is a scientist........ 'not really'
Hmm, doctored photos? Did someone send one of Carlos Danger's tweets in your name? Invisible unicorns? Are you sure the water you are drinking isn't how shall we say: enhanced?
Let's see would diversion be something like you and your disciples of duplicity trying to confuse your audience with the suggestion that what displaces a fluid has anything to do with the buoyant force exerted by displaced fluid? Oh, but wait: TK isn't one of your disciples of duplicity, is he?
Slander??? If you think you have a case, file one.
Coordinating attacks??? You mean you object to anyone rebutting fraud? Oh, of course you do, when that fraud is yours!
Lying about me over and over won't make the lies true, honest Wayne Travis.
I'd like to see a link to this "doctored photo" claim, for example. The most I've ever done is to add captions, and sometimes I apply certain digital signal processing routines to sharpen, improve contrast or similar in order to make the subject clearer. But it sounds like you are accusing me of faking something.... so I want to see the evidence for your claim.
Just as you cannot support your contentions and claims about your own device, you cannot support your claims about "Al's" device either. If people choose to build something that the builder REPEATEDLY AND FIRMLY told everyone that it was NOT OU IN ANY WAY, DID NOT VIOLATE ANY CONSERVATION LAWS AND IN FACT CONTAINED A POWER STORAGE .... please explain to me how that is fraudulent.
No... never mind, because all of that is irrelevant to the present discussion of YOUR CLAIMS. Rather, explain how you are able to carry on such a fraudulent program of your own, making claims that you cannot support by any real data.
Quote from: MarkE on April 08, 2014, 07:53:20 AM
Ah the fraud Wayne Travis now claims to have a patent. You don't have any patents Wayne. You have filed a hapless patent application.
Anyone who builds what your patent application describes will end up with a contraption that is every bit as useless for generating energy as all the stage props you've put together to buffalo your investors.
Ohhhh that lesson TK taught me last year - do not claim to have a patent unless you do... or he might sue me for misleading.... I remember his threats.
Yeah, I have patents.... smile....
Quote from: MarkE on April 08, 2014, 07:58:43 AM
Hmm, doctored photos? Did someone send one of Carlos Danger's tweets in your name? Invisible unicorns? Are you sure the water you are drinking isn't how shall we say: enhanced?
Let's see would diversion be something like you and your disciples of duplicity trying to confuse your audience with the suggestion that what displaces a fluid has anything to do with the buoyant force exerted by displaced fluid? Oh, but wait: TK isn't one of your disciples of duplicity, is he?
Slander??? If you think you have a case, file one.
Coordinating attacks??? You mean you object to anyone rebutting fraud? Oh, of course you do, when that fraud is yours!
Yeah--- not a scientist worth his salt - by his own behavior.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2014, 07:59:03 AM
Lying about me over and over won't make the lies true, honest Wayne Travis.
I'd like to see a link to this "doctored photo" claim, for example. The most I've ever done is to add captions, and sometimes I apply certain digital signal processing routines to sharpen, improve contrast or similar in order to make the subject clearer. But it sounds like you are accusing me of faking something.... so I want to see the evidence for your claim.
Just as you cannot support your contentions and claims about your own device, you cannot support your claims about "Al's" device either. If people choose to build something that the builder REPEATEDLY AND FIRMLY told everyone that it was NOT OU IN ANY WAY, DID NOT VIOLATE ANY CONSERVATION LAWS AND IN FACT CONTAINED A POWER STORAGE .... please explain to me how that is fraudulent.
No... never mind, because all of that is irrelevant to the present discussion of YOUR CLAIMS. Rather, explain how you are able to carry on such a fraudulent program of your own, making claims that you cannot support by any real data.
In your own words - I am not lying about you.
Nor am I lying about the scam you pulled on the builders.
Nor an I lying about the extreme attempts you have made to divert and confuse those trying to learn about our working system.
Nor am I lying about your attacks on anyone who did put hands on our system.
Not a scientist, not worth the title.
Yes, smart.. never questioned it.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 08:07:23 AM
Yeah, I have patents....
Yeah, sure. But you won't tell, right?
Quote
Wayne S Travis
Inventor
Stats
0 total patents issued
1 total patents filed
Nov 9, 2011 most recent filing
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Inventor/Travis-Wayne-S/16132625
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 08:07:23 AM
Ohhhh that lesson TK taught me last year - do not claim to have a patent unless you do... or he might sue me for misleading.... I remember his threats.
Yeah, I have patents.... smile....
No Wayne Travis you do not have any patents. There once was a shameless fraud by the name of John Rohner. He liked to insist that he had patents when he did not. Eventually, his false claims of holding patents became one of the listed elements of his fraud by the SEC. When the SEC is through with John, the DoJ will have their turn. Prosecution isn't the only way to do in a fraud. It can be downright ugly what some burned investors do just to see their idea of justice fulfilled. I recall a story of an entire family of previously successful grifters driven to complete financial and legal ruin after they crossed folks who were perfectly happy to spend the money and time necessary to exact their vision of justice. But let us not be negative.
Viva! Las Vegas!
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 08:12:05 AM
In your own words - I am not lying about you.
Oh so you will be kind enough to publish these photographs that you claim TinselKoala doctored?
Quote
Nor am I lying about the scam you pulled on the builders.
Scam, you mean like how you pitch lies to investors claiming free energy that you can't deliver? I am unaware that TinselKoala has ever solicited funds for anything.
Quote
Nor an I lying about the extreme attempts you have made to divert and confuse those trying to learn about our working system.
You do not have a working free energy machine. You have useless stage props. If you have a "working system", it is one that involves defrauding investors. You may need a little lubricant there "Honest Wayne". Things seem mighty squeaky.
Quote
Nor am I lying about your attacks on anyone who did put hands on our system.
"Gather round brothers and lay your hands upon the ZED! The useless see-saw of silliness and nested Russian dolls of ignorance shall lead you to a paradise free of your investment funds! Come one, come all, leave your cash and cares behind!"
Quote
Not a scientist, not worth the title.
Yes, smart.. never questioned it.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 06:57:25 AM
Words of SHIT
You are a liar, you promised public verification, anyone can go back and look at the thread, as you can't be bothered to admit your deception I will repos your own words, remember these are your words not mine
Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PMI always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PMI promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AMWe will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AMMark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review
Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PMWe will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AMMark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PMWe began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.
Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PMAfter this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world
Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PMMark has set his return for the week of the 20th.
Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PMWe are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit
Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PMNo, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released
Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PMMarks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AMI still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PMp.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PMIt will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web siteWe 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 15 2012 on his web siteOf course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.
Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 2012 on his web siteI 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 November 6 2012 on his web siteDo you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation? Me too.
Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PMMark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.
Quote from: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AMYes,And thank you.Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.In Mark and mine's last conversation -
just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we
both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again. Will we be ready?
Quote from: mrwayne on March 10, 2014, 11:24:14 AMThis is my Final Farewell to O/U.comI am not legally able to show TK my "Suasages" again.It is clear MarkE has only one intention... I did have hope.Wayne
Lol - you three will do anything to avoid discussing the machine..
p.s. you might find out if patent buddy covers international... just trying to help...
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 09:26:06 AM
Lol - you three will do anything to avoid discussing the machine..
p.s. you might find out if patent buddy covers international... just trying to help...
You are a conman and you're not welcome, go and spread your lies somewhere else.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 09:26:06 AM
Lol - you three will do anything to avoid discussing the machine..
p.s. you might find out if patent buddy covers international... just trying to help...
That's a funny thing for YOU to say, honest Wayne Travis, since you will do anything at all to avoid a REAL discussion of "the machine", including lying about me and trying to focus the discussion somewhere, anywhere, else but on you and your claims. You emit page after page of nonsense, when you should be at work, and you don't keep your promises, nor do you ever provide any evidence that backs up your claims.
Are you proud of having a granted patent in some country that doesn't do proper vetting, where anyone can patent anything if they just pay the lawyers a sufficient "fee"? When you have a granted US patent, I'm sure you will let us know. Yawn.
Mr.Travis.
Thank you for replying.
Ultimately, explanations of HOW something works can be done after the something is clearly shown to work.
So, the first question is: when will a public demonstration take place, clearly showing a measurable energy gain of energy over a sufficiently large time? With the investigators having full access for the purpose of ruling out hidden sources of energy.
As to "That assumption also lent to the belief that a black box would be proof - and a closed loop would be proof." What basis do you have for not accepting the assumption? What alternative 'proof' do you have?
You have left undefined terms in you response: when 'cost' is mentioned, what type of cost are you referring to? Monetary, energy, something else?
Using undefined words/terms causes incomplete communication.
BTW, I am quite willing to do a validation of the ZED; whether you consider me qualified is up to you.
I would be willing to sign a NDA, not disclosing or using your process, but have the complete freedom to publicize the test and it's result.
Thank you.
Bill Peiman
Old Travis is on a par with Lou Brits and his "Lutec 2000"
I can remember an interview with Brits or his partner and
it was complete and utter rubbish.
Anyways Travis should get a good nights sleep if he's
got a patent in Outer Mongolia or somewhere similar.
They could use a crab mill and feed that energy into
some ZEDs and be able quadruple (or more) that
energy and be able to illuminate their tents
John.
Mr. Peiman
Allow me to suggest that you include a heavy Penalty Clause in your contract with honest Wayne Travis. That is, should you, for any reason other than your own failure to appear, NOT be shown what is promised, you should be compensated for wasting your time. Clearly your travel expenses and per diem expenses should be covered, along with a "fine" of sorts for Travis's failure to perform as stated.
It doesn't work today because of a leak, but will be fixed by next week (after you've left)? OK, fine the penalty clause kicks in. It sort of works, like the first Dansie visit, but can't be proven to run itself for two days straight? Fine.... penalty time.
You will find, as I have, that such a clause does wonders for separating the "wheat" from the "chaff" as it were.
Cheers---
The poster known here exclusively as TinselKoala
;)
Quote from: memoryman on April 08, 2014, 09:58:25 AM
Mr.Travis.
Thank you for replying.
Ultimately, explanations of HOW something works can be done after the something is clearly shown to work.
So, the first question is: when will a public demonstration take place, clearly showing a measurable energy gain of energy over a sufficiently large time? With the investigators having full access for the purpose of ruling out hidden sources of energy.
As to "That assumption also lent to the belief that a black box would be proof - and a closed loop would be proof." What basis do you have for not accepting the assumption? What alternative 'proof' do you have?
You have left undefined terms in you response: when 'cost' is mentioned, what type of cost are you referring to? Monetary, energy, something else?
Using undefined words/terms causes incomplete communication.
BTW, I am quite willing to do a validation of the ZED; whether you consider me qualified is up to you.
I would be willing to sign a NDA, not disclosing or using your process, but have the complete freedom to publicize the test and it's result.
Thank you.
Bill Peiman
Thank You again.
I completely understand; and Yes also language and definition has always been a hindrance.
We will not be publicizing our test results until the Public release of our Manufactured models - which are currently scheduled to roll out in October 2015.
On the other hand, I have had an open door policy - it does require a NDA primarily not to discuss our partners, our process, or improvements, or our business plans.
We are not applying for a OU prize, and we are not soliciting investment. We are building our company and making international partnerships.
To be clear - the public release is the absolute right of our founder, and part of our roll out - not of speculated ability - but consumer ready systems.
It is not a question of does our system work - here at Zydro.
Regarding what you can share.
Personal opinions are fine. As that has been explained to all visitors.
with that understanding; If your purpose is to understand the discover - You are invited as a guest.
I will take the time to explain and show, answer questions, and introduce you to one or more of our engineers for more questions.
I will also allow you the hands on opportunity - with our replication models - eye opening....
The Rotary Taz is off limits, but the method of finding interruptions to a conservative process will be shared - it is the most important of our discoveries.
Now: all that being said - Visitors usually pay their own flights - or drive - but for you - I will make this promise:
If you chose to come and learn, and have the freedom to report your opinion: If our system does not prove mathematically - your own math is fine - or ours - I will refund your flight or gas - when you arrive - and at the end you can decide if I kept my word.
P.s. I will pay your hotel regardless for the effort.
One suggestion - it takes on average two days to catch a person up from the basic info shared here.
I know it is not exactly what you desire - it is what is available.
Thanks you again,
You will need to contact Sandy at: mr.wayne@zydroenergy.com to begin the paperwork.
Wayne Travis
Make him put it in writing, Mr. Peiman: Just exactly what will be shown, how it proves or demonstrates more energy out than in, when and for how long, and don't forget the penalty clause.
TK, I respect the technical abilities of you, Mark D, MH, Mark E. even with >50 years of electronic experience of my own.
I am also a moderator on revolution-green and am an advocate of 'show me the data'.
Whether Mr. Travis is a scammer or just a misguided believer, I do not know. I still treat him with respect, AND call him on any false/misleading statements.
Mr.Travis, I will reply to you later.
Bill Peiman (ngepro)
Let's hope he treats you with respect in return.
Real respect, not the conman's feigned kind. Will he answer your direct questions directly, instead of dodging around them like he continues to dodge Minnie's question about the "5 hp unit"? I hope so, but I won't bet on it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2014, 03:11:32 PM
Let's hope he treats you with respect in return.
Real respect, not the conman's feigned kind. Will he answer your direct questions directly, instead of dodging around them like he continues to dodge Minnie's question about the "5 hp unit"? I hope so, but I won't bet on it.
In the last five years - over 300 people have visited our shop and lab - most everyone came with the idea that - I must have poor theory and poor measurement, not many jumped the fraud claims.
Tk, You were invited - and the next day you threatened to steal the invention and sell it.....I have that letter too.
Tk, I only have one question for you - "if" Memoryman finds that I have been telling the truth - will you call him a shill and fraud, and go on multiple web sites attacking him - Like you did Mark D - when all he said was he was impressed?
@@@ mrwayne
BS, BS, you just can't stop arguing with everyone, you can never produced any real evidence, go away and come back in October 2015 when you say you will finally released some information, but as we've got to know you, you will either be in prison or you will release a number of excuses why that date is being delayed, are you so F ing ignorance that you don't think people here know your history and your excuses and broken promises.
All you have proved on this website is a 99 per cent certainty that you are a conman.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 06:14:35 PM
In the last five years - over 300 people have visited our shop and lab - most everyone came with the idea that - I must have poor theory and poor measurement, not many jumped the fraud claims.
Tk, You were invited - and the next day you threatened to steal the invention and sell it.....I have that letter too.
Tk, I only have one question for you - "if" Memoryman finds that I have been telling the truth - will you call him a shill and fraud, and go on multiple web sites attacking him - Like you did Mark D - when all he said was he was impressed?
Honest Wayne, you are just being silly. If I wanted to "steal" your "invention".... I would have accepted your invitation, joined your "team" and photographed everything with my Junior Spy Camera set, after bugging your phone and office with my Junior Spy FM longrange bugs. What a clown you are! I'll bet you believed in the Tooth Fairy until your momma told you that no more of your teeth would fall out.... at the age of 30. ROFL! You missed your calling, you should be a Pentecostal preacher or a standup comic. In fact you remind me a lot of George Costanza.
I don't know "memoryman" from Adam. If you have enough at stake, you could bribe him or even threaten him and he might say anything you wanted. Heck, you could even BE him, for all I know. Why don't you ask Mark Dansie to come and visit you again. Ask him how he and I are getting along, while you are at it, and whether I "attacked" him for saying he was impressed.... or whether it was because at that time he didn't reveal that you were paying his expenses. If you can convince Mark and his team of real experts.... then maybe I'll reconsider my opinion of you. Maybe.
Quote from: powercat on April 08, 2014, 06:31:37 PM
@@@ mrwayne
BS, BS, you just can't stop arguing with everyone, you can never produced any real evidence, go away and come back in October 2015 when you say you will finally released some information, but as we've got to know you, you will either be in prison or you will release a number of excuses why that date is being delayed, are you so F ing ignorance that you don't think people here know your history and your excuses and broken promises.
All you have proved on this website is a 99 per cent certainty that you are a conman.
Oh please post them again, without the context as usual....
I can't find where you ever showed any evidence against our machine - screaming "can't work" is not proof.....
You attack good people....
If you visit Wayne... 8) 8) 8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2014, 06:45:47 PM
Honest Wayne, you are just being silly. If I wanted to "steal" your "invention".... I would have accepted your invitation, joined your "team" and photographed everything with my Junior Spy Camera set, after bugging your phone and office with my Junior Spy FM longrange bugs. What a clown you are! I'll bet you believed in the Tooth Fairy until your momma told you that no more of your teeth would fall out.... at the age of 30. ROFL! You missed your calling, you should be a Pentecostal preacher or a standup comic. In fact you remind me a lot of George Costanza.
I don't know "memoryman" from Adam. If you have enough at stake, you could bribe him or even threaten him and he might say anything you wanted. Heck, you could even BE him, for all I know. Why don't you ask Mark Dansie to come and visit you again. Ask him how he and I are getting along, while you are at it, and whether I "attacked" him for saying he was impressed.... or whether it was because at that time he didn't reveal that you were paying his expenses. If you can convince Mark and his team of real experts.... then maybe I'll reconsider my opinion of you. Maybe.
Wow you have real trust issues...
Good day.
Look for this baby.... (You might be able to hear the hiss assist.)
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 10:32:45 AM
Thank You again.
I completely understand; and Yes also language and definition has always been a hindrance.
We will not be publicizing our test results until the Public release of our Manufactured models - which are currently scheduled to roll out in October 2015.
.. Wall of BS...
Wayne Travis
There it is: "We won't have any evidence until ... well a long time from now, but hopefully not so long that our investors all figure out how FoS we are. Right now we tell them 18 months. In 18 months it will still be 18 months."
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 06:14:35 PM
In the last five years - over 300 people have visited our shop and lab - most everyone came with the idea that - I must have poor theory and poor measurement, not many jumped the fraud claims.
Tk, You were invited - and the next day you threatened to steal the invention and sell it.....I have that letter too.
Tk, I only have one question for you - "if" Memoryman finds that I have been telling the truth - will you call him a shill and fraud, and go on multiple web sites attacking him - Like you did Mark D - when all he said was he was impressed?
Does this mean that you claim that you have persuaded Mark Dansie that there is value to your claims? You keep invoking his name.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 07:00:37 PM
Oh please post them again, without the context as usual....
I can't find where you ever showed any evidence against our machine - screaming "can't work" is not proof.....
You attack good people....
I don't know about Powercat, but I do not consider conmen who conduct frauds without any remorse or shame "good people". Maybe people have different attitudes in Chickasha. Or maybe they don't.
Viva! Las Vegas!
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 07:08:25 PM
Wow you have real trust issues...
Good day.
You really are a comedian! You are asking me to believe the impossible, you refuse to provide evidence for your claims, and you accuse me of having trust issues! MH is right about you, you are more than just a liar, you are truly creepy.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
You really are a comedian! You are asking me to believe the impossible, you refuse to provide evidence for your claims, and you accuse me of having trust issues! MH is right about you, you are more than just a liar, you are truly creepy.
Don't feel bad about funeral director for investment funds Wayne Travis' behavior. Just think happy thoughts like: Viva! Las Vegas!
Quote from: MarkE on April 08, 2014, 07:44:56 PM
There it is: "We won't have any evidence until ... well a long time from now, but hopefully not so long that our investors all figure out how FoS we are. Right now we tell them 18 months. In 18 months it will still be 18 months."
Still no apology.......
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
You really are a comedian! You are asking me to believe the impossible, you refuse to provide evidence for your claims, and you accuse me of having trust issues! MH is right about you, you are more than just a liar, you are truly creepy.
Oh Dear TK, you can say it as many times as you like - we provided open door, self running models, and what did you do - doctored photo's, threatened to steal the IP and write scientific papers, called every replicator frauds and shills and made up diversions....
Lucky for us - we did not need your permission.
Sadly - I wonder how many good people you harmed.
I know you did not pay the builders back from your scam video...
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 10:16:36 PM
Still no apology.......
Wayne you can begin apologizing to your investors for stealing their money anytime that you like. Sooner would be better than later.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 10:19:08 PM
Oh Dear TK, you can say it as many times as you like - we provided open door, self running models, and what did you do - doctored photo's, threatened to steal the IP and write scientific papers, called every replicator frauds and shills and made up diversions....
Lucky for us - we did not need your permission.
Sadly - I wonder how many good people you harmed.
I know you did not pay the builders back from your scam video...
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. You have never had a device that could self sustain. All of your devices deplete the energy that you use to "precharge" them. Thieves don't ask for permission: They just take. All stories pass through phases. How long will the salad phase persist?
Viva! Las Vegas!
1598, "self running models", so you do have them!
Time to give Mark D. a call.
You've got it all now, a patent and a self running model - Well done Wayne!
John.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 10:19:08 PM
Oh Dear TK, you can say it as many times as you like - we provided open door, self running models, and what did you do - doctored photo's, threatened to steal the IP and write scientific papers, called every replicator frauds and shills and made up diversions....
Lucky for us - we did not need your permission.
Sadly - I wonder how many good people you harmed.
I know you did not pay the builders back from your scam video...
Again you make your false accusation that I somehow "doctored" photographs... and again you make this accusation without providing any evidence. Your accusation and your failure to back it up with evidence is noted, Honest Wayne Travis.
Meanwhile there is your continuing abject failure to provide any evidence for the rest of your bogus claims. And you really should look up the definitions of the words you use, you lying fraudster. Scam, for instance. You keep referring to a certain video, but you have no clue, no idea of what you are actually talking about, and every time you bring it up, you have a lot of people laughing at you.
Why do you care what happens on this forum, honest Wayne Travis? You really crack me up. The Saviour of All Mankind spends hours and days arguing with sock puppets on insignificant internet forums for hobbyists and crackpot dabblers. As if anyone needed any other proof that you are utterly FOS.... what a comedian you are!
To All,
One last time, I am going to pretend that TK, MH, ME, Liberia, Powercatt, Minnie, are not just Trolls getting their kicks off insulting people.
I will do this on Mondrasek's thread - the Mathematical analysis of an Ideal ZED - thread.
I am going to explain in super simple terms:
I will Explain what - I showed the first skeptic, why our engineers joined our team, what the Trolls completely missed or tried to 8) 8) 8)
Proof so obvious -
If it embarrasses those trolls - I tried over and over to warn them to try to understand - instead of attacking good people all this time.
WayneTravis
Quote from: mrwayne on April 09, 2014, 07:35:41 AM
To All,
One last time, I am going to pretend that TK, MH, ME, Liberia, Powercatt, Minnie, are not just Trolls getting their kicks off insulting people.
I will do this on Mondrasek's thread - the Mathematical analysis of an Ideal ZED - thread.
I am going to explain in super simple terms:
I will Explain what - I showed the first skeptic, why our engineers joined our team, what the Trolls completely missed or tried to 8) 8) 8)
Proof so obvious -
If it embarrasses those trolls - I tried over and over to warn them to try to understand - instead of attacking good people all this time.
WayneTravis
You posted your proof on Mondrasek's ideal ZED thread. All you managed to show is that your machine uselessly lifts and lowers internal weights while consuming precharge energy.
You see Wayne, in order to do something useful, a machine must have an
external output of some kind. Your useless contraption just moans and groans as it dissipates the precharge energy rocking back and forth. It doesn't for example drive an external pump that can do something useful like pull water up from a well, or pump water into irrigation ditches, or drive a generator to light up your church. After your useless machine moans and groans for awhile it grinds to a stop until you "precharge" it again.
Gentlemen.
Who am I?
My name (Bill Peiman) was clearly listed on a previous post; that is on FB and other places.
My username is either 'memoryman' or 'ngepro'; PESN banned me once from their site and I used the ngepro identity to comment again.
My integrity is not for hire, rent, lease or sale.
I cannot be insulted, so I do not need any defending. Treating people with respect gives better results in having relationships.
As stated, I have the highest respect for Mark D and E, TK and MH. Their analysis of Ms. Ainsley's claims was superb; I had nothing to add to their comments.
Specifically, I never had to correct Mark E on his factual statements; we do disagree at times.
As to the ZED, my position from the June 2012 article has not changed; it is nonsense.
The theory of how it works is only important to me IF a working device is validated; that has not been done here.
The issue of proper testing is not easy: unrestricted access to the device is needed for several days to establish that there is no hidden energy supply/source. The continuous monitoring of the device (to avoid tampering/changing) for 48 hours is also problematic: I need to sleep!
Bob Rohner told me that the 'several days of Papp's engine running' was not monitored at night, so Papp could have stopped the engine at night, refueled and restarted early in the morning, before Bob came in. Bob also told me during my visit that I asked questions that nobody had asked before.
Mr.Travis, thank you for the offer to reimburse me for certain expenses; for now I am not willing to spend the 4+ days on investigating your device; I am already involved in 2 claims which have better prospects.
After 5 >years of announcements without publicly demonstrating the claims, and now announcing another 1.5 years of the same, it does not look good for you.
I will only post here once a day; there are more useful ways to spend my time.
Thank you all for your posts.
Thank you.
As I said before, I respect honesty.
Take Care.
Wayne
Quote from: MileHigh on April 08, 2014, 07:15:45 PM
Look for this baby.... (You might be able to hear the hiss assist.)
I thought Nitrous Oxide came in blue-shouldered cylinders....
;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: MarkE on April 08, 2014, 07:44:56 PM
There it is: "We won't have any evidence until ... well a long time from now, but hopefully not so long that our investors all figure out how FoS we are. Right now we tell them 18 months. In 18 months it will still be 18 months."
It seems that honest Wayne Travis is now switching from the Steorn script to the Mark Goldes script.... Goldes has perpetuated his fakery for twenty years, by advancing "soon" by 6 or 12 or 18 month increments, while changing "inventions" and shell companies, and has continued living quite well off the investments and "donations" from his supporters, without ever producing a single actual product. It is such an awesome performance that it appears that honest Wayne Travis is emulating him now, with the same end in mind: never actually having to reach the moving goalposts.
Quote from: memoryman on April 09, 2014, 09:52:23 AM
Gentlemen.
Who am I?
My name (Bill Peiman) was clearly listed on a previous post; that is on FB and other places.
My username is either 'memoryman' or 'ngepro'; PESN banned me once from their site and I used the ngepro identity to comment again.
My integrity is not for hire, rent, lease or sale.
I cannot be insulted, so I do not need any defending. Treating people with respect gives better results in having relationships.
As stated, I have the highest respect for Mark D and E, TK and MH. Their analysis of Ms. Ainsley's claims was superb; I had nothing to add to their comments.
Specifically, I never had to correct Mark E on his factual statements; we do disagree at times.
As to the ZED, my position from the June 2012 article has not changed; it is nonsense.
The theory of how it works is only important to me IF a working device is validated; that has not been done here.
The issue of proper testing is not easy: unrestricted access to the device is needed for several days to establish that there is no hidden energy supply/source. The continuous monitoring of the device (to avoid tampering/changing) for 48 hours is also problematic: I need to sleep!
Bob Rohner told me that the 'several days of Papp's engine running' was not monitored at night, so Papp could have stopped the engine at night, refueled and restarted early in the morning, before Bob came in. Bob also told me during my visit that I asked questions that nobody had asked before.
Mr.Travis, thank you for the offer to reimburse me for certain expenses; for now I am not willing to spend the 4+ days on investigating your device; I am already involved in 2 claims which have better prospects.
After 5 >years of announcements without publicly demonstrating the claims, and now announcing another 1.5 years of the same, it does not look good for you.
I will only post here once a day; there are more useful ways to spend my time.
Thank you all for your posts.
I hope you realize that my comments earlier about you being bribable or threatenable or even possibly "being" Travis yourself.... were made for rhetorical purposes!
No offense (to you) was intended. I was simply trying to make the point to honest Wayne Travis that I don't know you and I have only your forum posts to go by, as far as evaluating your competence to vet honest Wayne Travis's claims.
I do know a bit more about Mark Dansie, and it would seem to me that Dansie is in a better position.... should he care to.... to return to honest Wayne Travis's encampment for a third, extended visit, with his team of engineers, and do a comprehensive evaluation of the claims. However.... I'm also quite sure that honest Wayne Travis will never permit such a comprehensive visit and evaluation.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 09, 2014, 07:35:41 AM
To All,
One last time, I am going to pretend that TK, MH, ME, Liberia, Powercatt, Minnie, are not just Trolls getting their kicks off insulting people.
I will do this on Mondrasek's thread - the Mathematical analysis of an Ideal ZED - thread.
I am going to explain in super simple terms:
I will Explain what - I showed the first skeptic, why our engineers joined our team, what the Trolls completely missed or tried to 8) 8) 8)
Proof so obvious -
If it embarrasses those trolls - I tried over and over to warn them to try to understand - instead of attacking good people all this time.
WayneTravis
Why don't you just set up a webcam in front of your 5 hp selfrunner, powering a load, and let it run 24-7, streaming on the internet? Put a calendar-clock in the frame so we can see it's not a loop. After the third or fourth week of unattended running..... maybe even I would be convinced.
But of course I know you won't do that, and I know why. And so does every body else: YOU CANNOT... because no such thing exists, anywhere but inside your mendacious mind.
TK, no offense take.
I completely agree with you assessment of Mark Dansie; I would not hesitate recommend having him do testing rather than me. I am competent: Mark is a pro.
As to trusting me for anything; it is up to you when/if you want to trust anyone. For me, trust is freely given, and can be withdrawn at any time by me.
Quote from: camelherder49 on April 03, 2014, 06:45:56 PM
My question did not involve how the water got into
a reservoir. The hydrology cycle takes care of that
very efficiently. Water recycling on earth is a given.
Water that falls into the great lakes region that passes
thru Niagra Falls moves from higher to lower elevations
by gravity other wise is would be static.
Water that falls into the City of New Orleans is static and moves from
lower elevation to higher elevation by a series of large pumps.
Obviously the water in New Orleans had no where to fall
but yet is was caused by the same sun.
If a ball is dropped from a plane gravity crashes it to
the ground. If you pour a glass of water out of a plane
then the sun causes it to crash to the ground.
Is this modern art?
You underestimate the advantage of mechanical devices.
To be a far initiate in electronics and gravity I say both schools of thought are evenly matched
I believe that gravity devices will win out vs quantum.
"You underestimate the advantage of mechanical devices." advantage of what?
Quote from: memoryman on June 23, 2014, 10:13:13 AM
"You underestimate the advantage of mechanical devices." advantage of what?
To utterly confuse and baffle folks who may not have had the advantage of a year's study of Beer and Johnston.
I was talking about the advantage of mechanical dildos for these faggots.
Where is your logic TK.
well, a month on and i hear nothing,., what do you say it will disappear in forgotten threads of O.U.
It should come as no surprise that nothing in Chickasha is running on its own. How long Honest Wayne Travis can keep dancing before his investors get completely fed-up with his false claims is anyone's guess.
This seems to be along the concept of many can lift one, then another, than another, as it cycles. The problem is that for this to work the separate weights cannot be tied into the same shaft, they must be independent. Without a video of some kind I'm going to have a hard time with this design, it looks like an exposed 19th century marine steam engine. :/ Russ
Quote from: Groundloop on May 03, 2013, 10:53:55 AM
You can say what you want, but these guys are thinking BIG. :-)
SNIP:
"We will build in Porto Alegre, at Av. Patria, 195 - a power generator that started by a
mechanic system, and exclusively powered by the gravity force.
It will be the first equipment with this technology in the world.
We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Av. Pedro
Ivo,933. The mechanic system was created under a special conception, to pick up and
take the energy contained in the planet gravity, at any moment and place, without
pollution or heat. Technology was completely developed by our Company and consists
in a continuos movement with some extra energy that can be taken, in a continuous
and perpetual mechanic movement. This equipment is similar to a combustion engine,
where a set of wheights represent the fuel and pistons that activate assemblies connected
to a crankshaft. Another similar equipment will be built in the U.S.A. at the Incobrasa
Industries Ltd plant, a Company of the group, located in Gilman, IL. Both equipment
are demonstration models with capacity to generate 30 KW, and will be ready in the
middle of the next year. The technique allows the building of great power generators.
RAR Energia Ltda."
END SNIP.