This Thread will support the discussion on the energy generation technology shown in this video by content creator Markus Nenning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqbJWBtoFMQ
This spread sheet was prepared independently, and based off the video.
Corrections were made regarding stroke lengths form actual versus the computer animation - So the spread sheet represents the actual system.
This is a Under Unity "Input" System which results in a Remainder Gain each stroke.
The Excess energy is accounted for, predictable, and repeatable - and can be verified with simple and clear understanding of Buoyant physics.
Update to this note: I have removed the spread sheet on August 12 - it was corrupted also, as the one Kaine loaded IF you have downloaded version 1.1- delete it.
Notes:
1. This research has been my full time career for over 12 years
2. Every fact I share has been physically tested
3. Both the FBI and State have brought false claims against me and both dropped the claims
4. This system scales in a non linear scale
5. New physics have been unlocked in this research
6. All components of this system have completed Alpha testing, Beta design is progress
Enjoy
Most people figure this out quickly.
Air transfer serves several cost savings functions, the combining a standard buoyancy operation with the discovery of the "Travis Effect" is the primary reason a cost reduction Input Process is possible.
Mr Wayne
Having a "variable cost" method for Work being performed is provides a new opportunity.[size=78%] [/size]
Prior to the observation of the Travis Effect, it was believed that a specific amount of work should have the same energy value regardless of the method - this equal work and energy belief is what drives the idea of Gravity being conservative.
One single example of unequal work 100% proves that Gravity is not always conservative;
Watch Toms Video's:
Travis Effect https://youtu.be/VlhsXJfJuQA
Included on that channel are 4 other videos of great importance to this topic.
Enjoy
Mr Wayne
The above diagram shows unity. The power stroke is half the reset stroke length.
QuoteThis spread sheet was prepared independently, and based off the video.
Corrections were made regarding stroke lengths form actual versus the computer animation - So the spread sheet represents the actual system.
Not sure why you double the stroke length in the spreadsheet, but with a corrected buoyancy stroke length, it comes out at 98%.... Unity.
Please provide an updated cad drawing, or an updated scale drawing with measurements showing correct dimensions.
It will come out as unity too.
Mr. Wayne,
Please use your power as moderator of this thread to remove the distracting posts so the rest of us can follow your subject with out all the clutter.
I have not made a determination yet as to the validity of your claim but I am very willing to keep an open mind and learn. So please continue to share.
Thanks for sharing,
Carroll
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on August 03, 2022, 12:51:08 PM
The above diagram shows unity. The power stroke is half the reset stroke length.
Not sure why you double the stroke length in the spreadsheet, but with a corrected buoyancy stroke length, it comes out at 98%.... Unity.
Please provide an updated cad drawing, or an updated scale drawing with measurements showing correct dimensions.
It will come out as unity too.
Please refrain from modifying the spread sheet to incorrect values.
The Production stroke length and the Reset stroke length are the same - and the ideal stroke length is 1/2 of the height of the inner displacer (Pod).
To All, my attached spread sheet has correct values, I have deleted the one attached to Tarsier.
Mr Wayne
Quote from: citfta on August 03, 2022, 01:36:41 PM
Mr. Wayne,
Please use your power as moderator of this thread to remove the distracting posts so the rest of us can follow your subject with out all the clutter.
I have not made a determination yet as to the validity of your claim but I am very willing to keep an open mind and learn. So please continue to share.
Thanks for sharing,
Carroll
Will Do,
Hope your enjoy your discovery.
Mr Wayne
Paid for and not paid for:
Prior to the Pod (inner displacer) and the Riser (outer layer) being pulled down, an air valve is shut - not allowing the air to transfer.
When the Pod is pulled down it pulls the Riser as well (with the air trapped inside).
When the full pod travel is reached - the Riser is still its full production length past the Pod.
When the Air valve is opened - the air quickly begins to transfers to the higher elevation (and lower pressure side) - and the riser loosing air lowers - by gravity and the pressure inside being lower than the water pressure above.
On the now production side (opposite) When sufficient pressure differential is reached to overcome the production cylinder - movement of riser B commences and the air flow speed increases and so both the vacating riser and stroking riser now move in concert.
No energy is required to lower the Riser during air transfer - it is a natural reaction powered by gravity.
So the riser during powered and gravity sink - moves twice the distance of the Pod, Half under power, and half by gravity.
The Powered movement is the same distance as the production stroke.
Thank you
Wayne
New Thinking Required: LAW 1. Designed inequality of work or cost
The Travis Effect demonstrates the ability to reduce the cost of work, A cost Reduced system has not value if the work in both directions is the same.
This is the first Law of energy causation;
To have a remainder or "work available after system cost" one Direction must have a different Value than the opposite direction.
A work differential is function of design, an unequal, or asymmetric design does not happen in observable process in nature: it must be intelligently designed.
Markus demonstrated this with the moon versus Earth value of work on a 60 pound weight that weighs 10 pounds on the moon - its common sense to an observer that when equal work "cost" values are not equal - then a differential is required - just as in the moon example.
The minute I tested the Travis Effect - I said - if i can lift a load greater than the normally required air volume - should I not also be able to use that work to sink the volume normally required?
And the Answer is yes, and took on many intelligent designs to achieve a bigger goal - Clean reliable energy generation.
Mr Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on August 03, 2022, 03:12:30 PM
New Thinking Required: LAW 1. Designed inequality of work or cost
Mr Wayne
Law 1. Designed inequality of work or cost
Part (a)
Reliability of expectation and Measurement
Since the work difference is a design feature, it is always measurable, predictable, and reliable.
A "remainder" is simply a value equal to the work differential minus system losses.
When the designed work differential exceed the systems losses, then a resultant "available source" will result.
Conversely, when the same system is run in reverse, and then the measured loss will be the same difference and plus the system losses..
While energy remaining has the appearance of creation, the reverse results in an non thermal, non potential storage energy destruction.
Mr Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on August 03, 2022, 03:22:19 PM
Law 1. Designed inequality of work or cost
Part (a)
While energy remaining has the appearance of creation, the reverse results in an non thermal, non potential storage energy destruction.
Mr Wayne
Law 1. Designed inequality of work or cost
Part (b)
Energy Creation/ destruction Scope application
When in the proper scope of designed differential energy can be generated and wasted outside the scope of a thermal loss.
Thermal dynamics is the scope of conversion and consumption, and opposite and equal reactions, where the highest efficiency is attained by simplicity, reduction of loss, and friction.
Conversely Energy Causation can not be performed in a simple opposite and equal process - but it can be preformed with a series of simple systems; designed to be unequal.
Mr Wayne
What The Travis Effect revealed about the discussion of Over Unity
Unity is 1:1,
over/unity is OVER/ONE
anything >1/1 ....
Out put exceeding Unity.
Unity does not mean Input, that appears to be an assumption seemingly built up over time, and with good reason - without the discovery of an unequal work value, relationships, or unequal energy cost - unity might as well be changed to "InPut" as in output/input.
Yet as it turns out, reducing the cost of doing work,means being able to do unity work at a reduced cost.
(which the "Travis Effect" example is only one method I am sharing here).
This means that the Internal cost to generate unity is less than unity value of production.
Knowing the difference and knowing which claim is being made is critical to an evaluator.
Ignoring this fundamental fact levies the evaluator unqualified to judge the merits of a technology.
If the goal of building a system that provides continuous, clean, and abundant energy is i fact the goal - then you had better learn the difference between a system that lowers cost below ideal, and provides real free energy, and one that magically claims to exceed unity.
Thanks
Mr Wayne
p,s,
I am continually seeing some say - its not over unity - to which I say - if you really new what your were saying - you are correct- but the system I have shared produced energy to be externally consumed without input, without consumption of a resource, and without conversion of a power source. Boom
Now - Observation is an interesting thing - Side "B" is raised to demonstrate the Volume of Air as compared to side A
In this picture, the same volume as the previous picture is floating a distance above the concrete block
Side "A" is almost ready to start preforming work, while side "B"
Now Side A could perform the work over a longer distance - and longer distance is more power.
But Power is not defined by distance alone, "Tines Distance and Mass" must be considered.
Considering all three aspects of power, and wish to get the greatest "Efficiency" - then the physicist comes out - not the engineer.
It is clear that the Travis Effect uses less volume to cause the initial buoyant lift the load
Unlike standard buoyancy which must wait to reach the full volume required.... and then floats
It is clear to the Observer that the stroke distance determines the "Efficiency" difference.
Critical KEY:
The Cause of the efficiency difference is Linear to the concretes volumetric displacers ratio to the Air.
A huge incorrect assumption is made when critics observe the work difference
In no place do I claim the "Efficiency" in the Travis effect by itself produces Free energy - That would be a violation
of the physics of a simple system.
The Travis effect demonstrates a more Ideal buoyant lift. See attached
Critical Key - if you are lifting with a 33% efficient lift - you need 67% more input to be at unity - or to make up for the
loss and that is POOR designing.
Likely every buoyancy system that uses standard volume based buoyancy will fail for that simple reason.
So Ideal lift is a great start to designing a potential free energy device, but we are not there yet.
As Markus shared in his second video - adding a second system to recycle the air volume and a method to cause
that air volume - eliminates the horrible efficiency of most air compressors.
If you have not seen that video - here is the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX)
What led to the discovery of the Travis Effect and its potential - while I was analyzing a failed bucket brigade system
- I realized that I was only utilizing the lift of buoyancy and not the other potentials - they were wasted:
1. wasting the compressed air - during vent to re-sink
2. wasted the opportunity to capture value from the raised water
3. and wasted down forces created when air displaces a fluid and water is raised
That's sucky engineering...but I had no idea I was overlooking the other potentials - I was taught that the more simple
a system - the efficient - not I am seeing that adding way to capture lost opprtunity (potential) is a superior design.
On the course of designing with the intent of capturing more potential - i posed the question - could the Potential
distribution ratio's be altered?
The Travis Effect was originally an attempt to alter the potential distribution caused when air displaces a fluid (and the
answer is Yes).
Side note: Squirrel
Some cool physics here - when you unlock what Archimedes stated about volume - he is literally saying - when submerged
- air causes some of the same effect as a physical mass does - air - becomes as a weight - but is not a weight.....
its a hole - a missing mass - cool stuff there... its the reason that more than 5000 patents have been filed on buoyancy
systems - intuitive minds try to cope with the "Somethings missing in our understanding of buoyancy.. and that
missing knowledge - CHANGES EVERYTHING
So what is different between a Brick and a Hole in Water..... LOTS!
Two aspects we use in the system i am presenting here - A hole can be filled, and filling the hole can change the
distribution of potentials - and weight can be added inside the hole.
Stroke length is critical to our ideal lift and our sink, the ratio of the inner displacer is critical - that relationship has
an optimization - moving away from that relationship reduces the work differential.
An unaware member here changed that relationship to eliminate the work differential and reloaded my file and then
claimed my system does not work - his mistake, troll, or what ever - since he left the file name the same - I deleted it.
Critical knowledge: If you want power out of the system - you can not do the same thing in both directions - and it
is not effective to use inefficient methods - as they eat away at the value of your differential work.
The Travis Effect provides both an Ieal lift - if stroked the proper distance
And the Travis Effect sinks at a lower cost directly proportional to the value of the displacer
Combining those two - the power out stroke is logically 50% of is value and the sink is logically the same 50%
That means - to keep the work out and work cost at its "greatest difference" - the stroke length must be 50% of the
pressure differential or head in "distance"
Critical knowledge: if your "head" is 24 inches inside your buoyancy -stroke is 50% or 12 inches.
In this picture - the stroke length of the Production riser and the stroke length of the displacer pod are the same,
and they 50% of the internal head (in height).
The Spread sheet does not block you from incorrect set ups - incorrect set ups will not function in real world builds
- so maintaining those three variable is critical.
QuoteIn this picture - the stroke length of the Production riser and the stroke length of the displacer pod are the same, and they 50% of the internal head (in height).
The Spread sheet does not block you from incorrect set ups - incorrect set ups will not function in real world builds - so maintaining those three variable is critical.
Wayne.
Since you are unable to show a diagram with correct distances, I have taken the liberty of assembling a scale drawing for you based on your figures. Can you confirm this is correct?
In a scale of 1:5:
1. We have a power stroke length of 15
2. A reset height of 15
3. A riser(buoyant container) of 30(.2) diameter and 30 height
4. A "POD" or displacer of 30 diameter and 35 height (I have added 4 height for ease of view, will not overly affect overall functionality. Feel free to use 31 or 30 for this calculation.)
5. I have shown the top pistons, but have left out the lower ones for simplicity
In scale:The Buoyancy reset is 18 x 3.
At the end of the power stroke, we have the buoyant container pushing up with a force of 36. The upper piston has moved 3 units.
Be Careful, you might find what dreams are made of...
See the progression, Everything is not explained - such as the connected lower Hydraulics allows the parts weights
to cancel leaving the buoyancy differences to be paid for.
To be clear - the strokes of the input and the output are the same
Air remaining in the other side are not considered (which reduces input cost).
and air compression during sink is not considered (Which also reduces input cost).
What is not the same - the Production work force value is not the same as the Sink work force value..
If this drawing helps anyone - send a YES!
Thank You
Mr Wayne
The Science here is simple, too simple. But it is what it is - Free Energy.
Debunking this system is impossible.
Mr Wayne
For a start: Work is force x distance. Your claim is that you get out more "work" than you put in: Hence OU.
Here is another look at position2. Remember these images are from values from your own spreadsheet, and this is why
it reads 200%.
The input cost 18 x 3 units. Your output calculation is taken from an image like Position 1 or Position 3, and it assumes a
force of 36 x 3.
Look closely at figure 2. Air is about to flow across to the left riser to start the power stroke... or is it? The air in the left
riser is connected to the right riser. The left riser has an effective buoyancy in this position of 36 units... so far so good.
The right riser is at its limit and cannot rise further as it is tied to the "pod". It still has an effective buoyancy of 36 units.
The air will not magically flow from right to left, especially when the right "pod" is trying just as hard to rise as the left
"pod". Remember we need the right pod to lower for the left pod to rise....when the reset stroke is longer, this isn't a
problem because the air naturally flows upwards. Here they are at the same potential.
Figure 2 shows an available force of 0. Figure 2.1 shows an available force of 12, which is the difference in effective
buoyancy. If there was a figure 2.2, it would show 24. Figure 3 shows 36. The average of these is 18 units, x 3 distance
on the power stroke.
So, if we take the average of the power stroke, 18 x 3 and compare it to the input stroke, 18 x 3, we get unity. Like you
said, the work input = work output. There is no left over energy to recycle + generate power.
That seems like your system is debunked to me.
[quote author=Tarsier_
You need to use "my" system in your debunking claim - not yours. Thanks.
I provided accurate drawings since yours are misleading, contain function errors, mistaken order and
omitted the key concepts used in the process.
Pay closer attention to Markus Video in the Video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX)
As a reminder - I deal in field tested results.
See attached - After Pod Travel is reached, and locked, air is allowed to equalize, and Both Sides have Full
buoyant force - but only one can move - can you guess what happens... details on the drawing.. Thanks
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on August 05, 2022, 11:54:34 PM
For a start: Work is force x distance. Your claim is that you get out more "work" than you put in: Hence OU.
Here you are mistaken or misleading in two ways - in the Video we share the difference between OU claims
and our system, I claim free energy, not OU, I have been clear about that till Ad Nausium.....sic
Second - your definition of work and OU is lacking context and that is the error that leads to so many failures
in building Free energy Devices -
On that note, I have built 5 Different styles of Free energy Devices using the correct measure of work and
they all generate Free Energy - but none were over unity... Once you understand the proper formula for
free energy - its easy peasy.
Work is a force moving a mass over a distance (and that mass has a value related to the value of gravity
(which is why Markus, and engineer, used the moon versus earth example in the video).
The Work is "UNITY" when the WORK corresponds with the value the mass in relation to Gravity (where it is).
So every single time you say OVER UNITY - you are making the claim that the Mass has more weight than
its relationship to Gravity, and thus the work performed is greater than the relationship to gravity.
I have not claimed "OU" since I discovered and analyzed the Travis Effect - and realized my error - which
you are still making.
Buoyancy is a perfect example of Unity - when the lift force is directly proportional to the volume displaced
(without interference - like the Travis Effect) - and gravity causes the corresponding pressure related to the density.
FACTS:
The Travis Effect "REDUCES" the Air Required to do UNITY...
The Travis Effect does work BELOW unity...
The Travis Effect created the ability to design a (many), Work Differential systems.
When you pay less than Unity for Work, then sell it at UNITY - you have Free Energy ... FACT.
Unless you can debunk basic math Such as 10 Unity-5 cost=5 Free energy - you can not debunk this system.
And in the future - If you are going to quote me - please provide the exact quote and date please .
Thanks
Mr Wayne
The fact is:
You have and will be able to convince people that your system works, even though it does not, and can not.
QuoteI have not claimed "OU" since I discovered and analyzed the Travis Effect - and realized my error - which you are still making.
Finally we agree on something. Your device is not OU.
QuoteBuoyancy is a perfect example of Unity..
Again, I agree with you specifically here.
QuoteThe Travis Effect "REDUCES" the Air Required to do UNITY...
The Travis Effect does work BELOW unity...
Agreed, agreed.
Quote
Unless you can debunk basic math Such as 10 Unity-5 cost=5 Free energy - you can not debunk this system.
... your designs are so easy to debunk. The output - cost = 0 free energy. Perhaps you could introduce a new spreadsheet again. Longstroke V1.3?
Anyway, if anyone else would like an examination on any specific mechanism, I will be happy to oblige.
Wayne, I look forward to people seeing your mechanism for what it truly is.
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on August 06, 2022, 05:50:53 AM
The fact is:
You have and will be able to convince people that your system works, even though it does not, and can not.
Finally we agree on something. Your device is not OU.
Again, I agree with you specifically here.
Agreed, agreed.
... your designs are so easy to debunk. The output - cost = 0 free energy. Perhaps you could introduce a new spreadsheet again. Longstroke V1.3?
Kaine,
Please, please Mr Kaine, debunk that my system does not result in free energy.
If you Can prove that this simple equation is wrong" 10-5=5 " Than I will concede and state that you are the greatest!
Prove my system is 10-0=0 That would be very valuable to everyone.
Otherwise you are a troll, distractor, jealous, maybe just lonely - whatever your intent is - its disingenuous at the best.
I have had to redirect you to my designs repeatedly, you have described my system incorrectly repeatedly,
you have made up quotes, - I have had to correct you on multiple voids in your knowledge of buoyancy
and work, and I have provided ample evidence to prove my system does in fact have a remainder after each cycle.
I don't care if you agree or not - I don't put feelings into my proof - I put science.
You have 20 years at not building Free energy systems, I have 12 successful years - first P.E. tested "success"
at generating free energy was in 2010.
You are the guest student here. I am teaching, so as long as you stomp your foot and ignore real science and facts
- feel free to close the door on your way out.
I made lots of errors until I understood Unity properly - you might just try learning - it is the key to most of your
bad assumptions - and as practice - you might leave the assumptions in the rear where they belong.
To repeat - please, please debunk my system - with science and facts - Thanks!
Sincerely
MrWayne
I added the equalization stages to the process visual.
Thanks For you Input!
Mr Wayne
What Visitors Say - "It cant be that easy... but it is.."
If you want free energy - look.
Confirmation
Thanks
Quote from Personal messages,
"Hello Wayne,Yes your drawing does help allow me more insight into what you have designed, intelligently designed I'll add. Much WORK went into it.
Interesting that no one has yet mentioned the fact that each riser/pod assembly is a dual action/direction air over hydraulic FORCE multiplier.
With two of those assemblies used, one on each end of the hydraulic teeter totter. It is a well designed system that can recycle itself when provided with proper controls, since after all it is a machine of man that can do WORK, made of inanimate "matter" that cannot think and has no ability to ACT on its own.
Nice design, and it fits into my understanding of what is required to "create" so called "energy".Energy per se is not a real thing it is a mental construct of men, and seems everyone is hooked on and hung up on something that never was mentioned as having been created as a thing that was in fact created.
Not that it cannot be created, but rather:Energy is a RESULT. PERIOD!"
Thank You - You have a great Mind!
Mr Wayne
Tarsier_79
QuoteAnyway, if anyone else would like an examination on any specific mechanism, I will be happy to oblige.
I would be interested if you can have another look at the buoyancy/gravity design I posted sometime ago and for which I've as yet not been able to find the reason why this can not work. I'll be more than willing to answer any questions as clearly as possible as to the details of the design.
Hi Novus.
Bump it, and I will take a look in the coming days.
This is too fun...
Quote
Pay closer attention to Markus Video in the Video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX
I did. I based my first calculations on the image straight from the video. It shows input = output. You introduced a spread-sheet that didn't match Markus's image. Now we have a diagram that functions differently to Marcus's animation due to the difference in stroke lengths.
The funny thing, even though you keep moving the goal posts, gravity acts like it should and we get a 0 out at the end each time. Mathematically perfect.
I have a question. Before I do more math to show input = output, (this always happens in gravity systems), I can halve my work by your answer here:
I would like to ask why we are expecting the riser in your image on the right to sink. In cartoon land, we can assume the riser is weightless or neutrally buoyant, which means it will stay buoyant and at the top till all the air is expelled. We could assume the riser has mass, and give it a figure, like 18, which will cause it to start sinking once air moves past the top of the displacer. From your description of it sinking, I imagine we can assume the latter. Is this correct, and will 18 be a suitable figure? I am happy to use whatever figure you like.
Ok, lets jump forward a bit....
If the riser is "weightless", it will not drop. the buoyancy will keep it up until all the air is expelled. This means the air height isn't enough to supply the opposed riser with enough air to sustain a 36 x 3 rise. Ultimately, it will even out to an 18 x 3 equivalent. We can still do the math if you like.
If the riser weighs 18, it still ends up costing us 18 x 3 at the bottom, but now our (36-18 ) x 3 is now only equal work in vs work out.
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on August 06, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
Ok, lets jump forward a bit....
If the riser is "weightless", it will not drop. the buoyancy will keep it up until all the air is expelled. This means the air height isn't enough to supply the opposed riser with enough air to sustain a 36 x 3 rise. Ultimately, it will even out to an 18 x 3 equivalent. We can still do the math if you like.
If the riser weighs 18, it still ends up costing us 18 x 3 at the bottom, but now our (36-18 ) x 3 is now only equal work in vs work out.
Assuming your taking about the initial process of air transfer and the air in side B is flowing to Side A.... (or the other direction)
While the Riser does have some weight - or could be neutral - it is not the weight of the riser that causes it to sink, its the external pressure that collapses the riser - like a balloon with an air hose to the surface - suddenly allows the air to vent - in that instance - which do you think you will see.
A. the Balloon trying to float while it vents
B. the pressure of the water collapse the balloon
Now - will the water rise up from below and crush the balloon, crush from all sides. or will the raised water sink into the void.
In fact - at the moment the higher air pressure is introduced to the lower air pressure - the VOID is collapsed - the riser Sinks.
Buoyant force, as is stated in the video, is a pressure differential.. acting upon the surface area - venting to the atmosphere reverses the direction of the buoyant force.
Regardless if the riser has weight or is neutrally buoyant.
Now - lets say you very slowly vent the air - you have a leaking buoyant object... and water flows from the higher elevation to below and appears to fills from below (but you know that would require a cavity to appear below the system - that just an illusion).
With our design, number of stroke results in power density - we want to allow the pressure drop - and fast.. We use the that method.
And ps... Thanks for your legitimate thinking - this was an early we eliminated by physical testing concern.
By the way - we did not know what would happen - so we built and tested.. and honestly - were shocked to see the near instant sink of the riser it literally slams down - if the air flow path is large enough.
Key Knowledge - THE LIMITER OF SPEED WAS THE OUT PUT CAPTURE - which is why we oversized the high-pressure plumbing...
The MAX speed of the riser is related to the speed at which water falls.
Another point in regards to the weight of the riser - we leave enough air in to maintain close to neutrality - its just a volume and design consideration. Meaning we over size the system to account for it - so we achieve the power out we want.
Mr. Wayne
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on August 06, 2022, 01:56:45 PM
This is too fun...I did. I based my first calculations on the image straight from the video. It shows input = output. You introduced a spread-sheet that didn't match Markus's image. Now we have a diagram that functions differently to Marcus's animation due to the difference in stroke lengths.
The funny thing, even though you keep moving the goal posts, gravity acts like it should and we get a 0 out at the end each time. Mathematically perfect.
I have a question. Before I do more math to show input = output, (this always happens in gravity systems), I can halve my work by your answer here:
I would like to ask why we are expecting the riser in your image on the right to sink. In cartoon land, we can assume the riser is weightless or neutrally buoyant, which means it will stay buoyant and at the top till all the air is expelled. We could assume the riser has mass, and give it a figure, like 18, which will cause it to start sinking once air moves past the top of the displacer. From your description of it sinking, I imagine we can assume the latter. Is this correct, and will 18 be a suitable figure? I am happy to use whatever figure you like.
Now you make a true statement - all week long you have been saying "0" now you say "before I do the math " that's fraud buddy... and you accuse me...sic
I have never moved the post - you keep trying to force your unsuccessful notions into my system, do your homework or you will continue to fail this class.
Mr Wayne
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on August 06, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
Ok, lets jump forward a bit....
Hello Kaine,
Learning new things is a process, its the bigger person who says he/she can.
We will not mock or ridicule you, I understand and have seen great minds come to grips with the realization that their world just changed.
We work hard and remain calm because I know you will get it, and I trust that deep in your heart you want mankind to benefit as well.
That is why we both work so hard - in may case - its been my purpose, mission, and vision to solve the riddle of gravity - I only celebrate what this means for the human race.
Let me know when you solve it also.
Mr. Wayne
Mr Wayne.
I have not learnt anything from being here. I do not believe your design produces excess energy. With the limited differential height between your risers while you are still trying to use the power stroke at its maximum potential, I really don't see how you can vent the air quick enough to the other side to make use of the principle you describe. If you vent the air outside, you might get this movement, but then you will have to input more energy later.
From your diagrams you claim that the free energy comes from the displaced volume. I see no free energy. All I see is force x distance in = force x distance out.
I believe the lossy system you use for recovery is counter-intuitive. It can easily be improved, but without an over-unity transaction to begin with, there is no point in doing so. IMO, the only advantage these hydraulic pistons give is a potential way to fraudulently hide energy input into the real world system.
There is a relatively easy physical way to prove your mechanism works without the hydraulics attached. Your setup is not difficult to mimic and force inputs and outputs are not difficult to measure. If I thought there was an inkling of potential here, I would perform this test. At the moment, as I do not, I have better ways to spend my time and energy in pursuit of free energy.
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on August 09, 2022, 03:04:07 PM
Mr Wayne.
I have not learnt anything from being here. I do not believe your design produces excess energy. All I see is force x distance in = force x distance out.
Well, You said it better than I could..
If that's all you can see, I am sorry, you missed it all.
Mr. Wayne
Ok for all of you who can see:
"I can't see" is not a surprise - It took nearly 40 designs to get all four fundamentals to operate in the right order - so it is simple now.
Yet, the COTI System is Brilliant.
Combining a counterbalance system to eliminate wasted lifting
Orientation to eliminate the need for an air mover
Travis Effect to reduce the cost of reset below Unity
Intelligent design a looped process which repeatedly provides free energy.
For free energy, this an extremely intelligently designed system which causes a remainder - each and every Stroke - if it was simple to imagine or conceive - then we would have had it many years ago.
Like Kaine explained, its just "looks" like a equal system; but that is the mere illusion that kept it's secret.
If it were two Banks - that had a different value for a dollar - anyone could design a process to make money continuously - deposit your dollar in the bank that has the lower value, transfer your funds to the higher value, and take that and deposit into the first bank again - and repeat... your deposits will increase by the difference of the value of the banks continually.
1. The Travis Effect needs less input volume to create lift greater than its volume - due to the pod or displacer
2. The Sink only has the resistance of the lowered volume
3. Greater lift than the volume - sink at the cost of the actual volume
There is your 10lift-5sink=5remainder (Available)
If I plugged the machine in to pay for the sink - it would look like this; 10/5=2 or 200%
So those of you who do see - congratulations! you are on a new frontier of science. But get ready - some people can't deal with the cheese being moved..
Here is a scale size of a 50KW model, the taller tube on top is because in our commercial models - we do the output, input, and Air transfer all through the top of the machine.
Mr Wayne
Besides an artist rendition has this 50kW been installed anywhere. If not when will it be operating at a third party under production circumstances? It's strange that little progress has been made to commercialize this in ten years seeing how "simple" the device is.
Quote from: broli on August 10, 2022, 10:21:07 AM
Besides an artist rendition has this 50kW been installed anywhere. If not when will it be operating at a third party under production circumstances? It's strange that little progress has been made to commercialize this in ten years seeing how "simple" the device is.
There is a term, rolling on the floor laughing - ROFL... yes it is simple now - like designing flying airplanes is now easy, and controlling drones is now easy and calling internationally is now easy... because someone took all the time and money to make it easy... over 250 "someone" working non stop over 10 years...
One of my engineers Quipped "I would have been finished by now if I was in charge... I said really - and I pulled out 8 years of research and development which led the version which is economically viable, reliable, controlled, high power density, and environmentally safe.... and I asked - which one of these could you have unlocked faster?
He said "I see your point, every step was required to come to the completed system, and no one could have done it faster..... no one else would have stuck with it through all that work..I would not have"
Ten years ago, a troll stated - "if I cant buy it at Walmart, or if the inventor isn't powering his house -then its not real" These are idiots....
These comments come from people who never dealt with new science in their lives and have no practical understanding of the length, breadth, and cost of researching and developing new science.
Now add to that doing that work while defending the world against the oppression by the FBI and the State - for 7 years.
In Theory - you have to solve problems and recognize problems that don't exist
In design - you create things to test your theory and see if you can bend the outcome or the result - and to see if any new observation is created or new knowledge is discovered (and restart the theory process)
In development - and you think you may be onto something - you fabricate, build, and alpha tests every individual function and functional aspect of the specific part of the process you are trying to control - or gain reliability of outcome. FOR EVERYTHING - when a OU person says - "I don't think it will work" this is a someone who does not "think" its laziness; either show why it does or does not work - or go eat popcorn and watch.
In testing, you have to know how to value the outcome, and verify the results - now when you are in new science - like UNDER UNITY operations - there is no expert to ask for help, there is not book, you tube, and no Google search which gives results - you have to think on your own - determine facts - not opinions - you have to become the expert.
Third Party - now this is a real joke - who in this group has experience with real energy generation, who has tested positive real free energy (besides my team), and beside the ones who have congratulated me privately - and so who is qualified to do third party testing? The ones who are qualified - already did!
When Some one calls and says - "I have 22 years in testing failed buoyancy or gravity systems" .... Well, that SUCKS DOESNT IT - that's all they got.
In my teams case - science unlocked, engineering unlocked, additional LAWS of physics, design unlocked, economic viability surpassed, proofs of concepts built and tested...
I made it simple for you - its a new frontier in science, it was not simple to get too - in fact - it was hard.
I have "hard systems" for every aspect (including a dozen new discoveries not in this model).
WalMart will never have one to sell - I may never hook one to my house - I may install them to generate free hydrogen and provide fuel, or a hundred other uses for a lot of free power.
My home utility is $200 bucks a month - my 100KW model makes over $7,000 worth of electricity every month - does that make since at all?
We will be installing them where they are needed, where energy is consumed at high volumes - its economics - I would be stupid to install one where I could only use 3% of it...
Your welcome.
Mr Wayne
QuoteWhen Some one calls and says - "I have 22 years in testing failed buoyancy or gravity systems" .... Well, that SUCKS DOESNT IT - that's all they got.
Pretty hard to miss that dig was at me. I have more than 22 years. I value these years of understanding the mechanics and principles much more than I would value defrauding the public for 12. I see you have also become quite proficient in the field you have chosen. We all have our different motivations. Mine is to find a real OU device.
Quote
It's strange that little progress has been made to commercialize this in ten years seeing how "simple" the device is.
Had I made an actual discovery of OU, I guarantee it wouldn't take over 12 years for a device to be on the market, or there be any hard proof that it works, or at least be able to explain how it works, or have an accurate animation, or have a correct mathematical proof that actually matched diagrams/animations.
Quote
I have "hard systems" for every aspect (including a dozen new discoveries not in this model).
When someone discovers a true OU device, it will be due to a single principle they find.
QuoteWe will be installing them where they are needed
I for one won't be holding my breath, but if it happens I will be truly amazed.
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on August 11, 2022, 03:39:46 AM
Pretty hard to miss that dig was at me.
When someone discovers a true OU device, it will be due to a single principle they find.
I for one won't be holding my breath, but if it happens I will be truly amazed.
Kaine,
You continue to set up an adversary relationship - here and elsewhere - I don't play that game- you are on that court by yourself.
I do not get offended, nor attack - if you were to call me bald - you are right, its maturity to accept that which is true.
It is manly maturity not to punch every one in the nose that deserves it - because regardless of what you say or do, the fact remains that each of us make our respectability and or leave it behind - You are leaving yours behind by your actions on this web site and others.
22 years - may fit you - Its not a dig - its a fact - "anyone" you or others who thinks they themselves are arbitrators of truth or an experts in any field of physics where they have no practical experience, and no knowledge, no mental awareness and worse - "they do not know-what they do not know - and refuse to learn" - are not the people you go to for the purpose of determining a new field of physics.
Now if we were to reverse roles here - imagine if after each time you tried to help someone - I posted a disclaimer about you being a fraud - but provided no proof other than troll or shill type accusations. Its what you have been doing, here and elsewhere.
My technology works exactly like I have said, it took international help, over 6 million Dollars in physical research, experts in every field pushed their limits of understanding, and we celebrate the victory of expanding physics.
You come here, acting as an expert and unknowingly calling everyone of them frauds. None of us are mad at you - we are not in competition with you - your way, way, behind - we all know the lightbulb will eventually shine in your head, and we know exactly how strong you 'feel' you know what you think you know... all of us - we have been through it.
So any other person representing themselves as having the skill to tell others what is possible and what is not possible - when the fact opposite that view is right in front of them - is immaturity in the science, and seriously lacking due diligences.
You will catch on, this is an opinion - I will be surprised if you ever admit you prematurely spoke or admit you were wrong - but that would impress me.
One of my P.E. engineers was interviewed by the FBI's top expert (on physics) - and they tried to force him to write a letter saying that his certifications of my discovery were in error - they directly threatened his Job, P.E. License, and asked how he would explain to his wife he threw his career away for not admitting error...
That Engineer sat for a moment and realized that the Physicist that he so respected and admired, did not have his experience - and was not actually the expert any more.... and he said to them: "You can not use the same physics to discredit 'that discovery' which by itself "discredited" those very same physics.... you are in error and do not even know it" - and he chose not to write the letter on the basis that it would be a lie.
p.s. Back story - prior to testing that system- this Engineer said he would eat his degrees and slap his professor - if my machine tested to be able to generate free energy..... he used Bar B Q sauce - That's a real man.
I have in fact repeatedly encourage you to learn and to critical review my presented design; you act like a troll or a paid shill.
Until you do, review the system as I have presented it - you have no credibility.
Note to help - If you lower the pressure inside an open buoyant object lower than the pressure above it - it sinks - that's simple physics of Buoyancy - you reverse the conditions that cause the upward force - its only volume - when that volume creates the pressure required.
Now you asked for that which I have already provided:
The Single Principle - which you ignored - is "UNDER UNITY" as demonstrated in the Fundamental discovery of the Travis Effect. Under unity is the reason you can design many methods to cause energy generation without a consumable.
Under unity is simple - its anytime you use less work to do work than the gravitational equivalent. Under unity work - Unity work = process generated available work.
Buy the work at a cheaper than normal cost, and sell at the normal cost, and you have a profit - its that simple.
In the case of work, the profit is free work, and available work can be measured as energy.
Sleep on it....... but don't hold your breath.
Take Care Kaine,
Mr Wayne
For those of you who skipped the first page,
Here are two video's regarding this technology - Markus is Great at reducing the complex to "Fun"..
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqbJWBtoFMQ
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX
Enjoy,
Mr. Wayne
Quote from: mrwayne on August 11, 2022, 08:07:58 AM
The Single Principle - which you ignored - is "UNDER UNITY" as demonstrated in the Fundamental discovery of the Travis Effect. Under unity is the reason you can design many methods to cause energy generation without a consumable.
Under unity is simple - its anytime you use less work to do work than the gravitational equivalent. Under unity work - Unity work = process generated available work.
Free Energy
MrWayne
"under unity" - Tesla did a long "thing" about a cavity possibly under water (? - don't recall the details) and I never really got it - until now!
Thanks...
Boy I would love to read that about Tesla if anyone has it...
Thanks!
Wayne
This quote is a sad reality..