Well, Thank you Seamus,

You have well described the lateral transfer of energy from side to side.

That is one part of our nine part operational process.

No claim of energy production here- it is very important
It does eliminates the energy normally required to overcome the dead weight of the risers -
kinda makes our pneumatics function like a hydraulic cylinder - no need to compress air to stroke.
I say kinda - because -  well we lift more per pound of pressure x surface area than a hydraulic cylinder can with the same area and pressure - a lot more (wouldn't be over unity if we didn't).

Just a disposition change between the two systems - setting the stage of the next step.

I am going to presume your pet levitating comments are some kind of inside joke?
Wayne

Quote from: Seamus101 on June 12, 2012, 07:33:29 AM
Well sort of ...  but if you expand on your  comment that
"The Travis effect merely effects the speed at which the field of gravity - in buoyancy can begin its capture cylce." then one is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that the effect could also be used to create levitation as it implies some sort of 'gravity shield' field modification.

I think you are missing the gist of his statement. His comment didn't mean gravity shield, but getting something to be ready and able to fall from the influence of gravity...faster...from a higher point. The counterweights, or return load in this case.


I believe that the gist was that if you can remove the upward buoyancy -faster- then the weights up top can drop on down faster...faster cycling = faster return to next stage. More cycles = more output.

Kind of like kicking out the chair from under a hanging man faster, so he falls faster. Bad analogy, but one can either kick out a chair fast from under them, or deflate a balloon from beneath their feet slow.  If you've got a lot of hanging to do, and who doesn't these days, can't have people protesting your gubment and whatnot, then you want a faster reset cycle.


All this here seems to me in a way to be somewhat of a hydraulic energy storage system... a hydraulic capacitor/battery in a way once charged and balancing.


Hydraulic stuff is can be pretty efficient. I recall somebody, can't remember the name who claimed to run a hydraulic motor from a smaller steam or gas engine, and their car went along mighty fine speed on next to no horsepower input. Cannot recall that inventor though...was a long time back.  Maybe a farmer/engineer. Can't remember the name or where I read about it. Wish I could.

I have to admit that I am most disappointed at the amount of nay sayers we are getting here. I have made my position clear, in that based on the evidence so far, I am a believer. I fully respect the rights of those who think otherwise. If the naysayers are right, their day will come and they will be free to say "I told you so" as many times as they wish. Even if you think that the odds against this being real are 14,000,000 to one , give it a chance. Let it run its course. Those odds are the same as the national lottery. What you are doing is like rushing into the studio where the lottery is being drawn, insulting the staff, and smashing the machines. And all because you did not win last week and you do not think you will win this week. And yet there is a winner to every lottery . So if you don`t like the odds, don`t buy a ticket . Go watch the football instead.
 
The time that mrwayne has to spend on the naysayers could be better spent teaching those who would dearly like to learn, rather than trying to get through to those who will never see beyond nit picking definitions, and the Gospel According To Saint Newton.

Quote from: Seamus101 on June 12, 2012, 08:12:23 AM
No, I'm not misunderstanding his statement at all. It may not be obvious to you but this statement implies exactly what I said.   

To fall "faster/longer/from a higher point et al  and end up with a net gain in energy of the masses involved would necessarily imply a localised change in the acceleration due to gravity during the time the motion occured.

I actually don't think so as you could pump out the air in a container creating a vacuum ONCE. After that things inside the vacuum would fall faster as there's less friction falling and it would also take less energy to lift an object to a certain height inside  the vacuum for the same reason or am I missing something?

Prato

Look, here's the argument in a nutshell.

Conventional physics says this device cannot be "overunity"... that is, a net "producer" of energy. This does not require a lot of analysis because it is based on first principles: the _fact_ that gravity is a conservative field of force and gravity is the source of buoyancy effects. The present device confounds pure buoyancy with lifting effects due to gas pressure transmitted through various incompressible fluids, and there are a number of well-known loss mechanisms that are clearly evident in the actual design, yet there is nothing evident in the design that would allow it to operate without replenishing some original store of energy, like the "precharge" with compressed air. This is the default position of conventional physics, a field that many of us have studied in university and which... we thought.... was well-understood.

Now we are presented with a device that, IF it works as described and represented, isn't just a clever mechanism. Rather, the device MUST be "violating" some kind of "law" of physics that nobody has ever been able to violate before, and it's overturning not just some need to plug into the grid for a while, but Thermodynamics itself. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed", remember? This device, since it has no connections to "zipons" or the Zero Point Field or the radio station next door.... must be creating energy that wasn't there before, if it is operating as claimed.

See the problem? This device is OVERTURNING CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS and yet..... it's not being swarmed over by teams of scientists eager to earn a Nobel Prize for the discovery of how to extract useful work from a conservative field of force.

Therefore the "incredulity" level must be high. The bar that MrWayne has to clear, for acceptance, is very high indeed, if he is to be believed. So those who are disrespecting the "naysayers" (mostly me and Seamus at this point, it seems) are really kind of out-of-line. Because it is the NAYSAYERS who are representing the mass of hundreds of years of physics and mechanics and mathematics that MrWayne is attempting to overturn with his simple device. If he cannot convince a bunch of people on an internet forum.... how is he ever going to convince the scientists at GE or Siemens? Look at dealing with the "naysayers" here as good practice.

Which brings up an obvious (to me) question: where are the scientists?

And like I said before... if MrWayne can convince _me_, then I can convince others... much more important others.... to take a real, hard look at the device and its principle of operation..... and if THEY are convinced, then the world will begin changing for the better immediately.

So far, the analyses and drawings and Travis Effect videos have not been sufficiently convincing to me. I suppose that at this point I'd need to see the device itself and poke around a bit, since I'm not seeing any rigorous and convincing mathematical analysis that shows how it would work.

And as Seamus pointed out, if there is confusion about basic terminology like energy and power, torque and pressure, gradients and volumes.... then it will be very difficult to communicate effectively. There is a standard terminology in use, standard mathematical procedures for analyzing systems.... so please, let's not confuse power with energy in our discussions; this has led to major errors and wasted efforts in the past and _some people_ are still terminally confused about the difference.