Hmm.  I've been corresponding with others that have seen it.  NDA's are still in place so they can't say much more than that.  But they say that it works.  Some of these individuals are new to me.  Some are not.

I believe the subjective evidence is still in Mr. Wayne's court.  Any evidence against comes from the "I've been taught that it is impossible" camp.  Same as with flight.  Same.

Rather than go on about how this is not possible because of (insert historical reference here), why not wait and see?  Or run some numbers, simulations, etc., ON THE EXACT CONFIGURATION DESCRIBED!

Changing the unique construction in order to "simplify" or otherwise do analysis is not actually analyzing the same construction, is it?

M.

Quote from: mondrasek on June 20, 2012, 04:23:16 PM
Hmm.  I've been corresponding with others that have seen it.  NDA's are still in place so they can't say much more than that.  But they say that it works.  Some of these individuals are new to me.  Some are not.

I believe the subjective evidence is still in Mr. Wayne's court.  Any evidence against comes from the "I've been taught that it is impossible" camp.  Same as with flight.  Same.

Rather than go on about how this is not possible because of (insert historical reference here), why not wait and see?  Or run some numbers, simulations, etc., ON THE EXACT CONFIGURATION DESCRIBED!

Changing the unique construction in order to "simplify" or otherwise do analysis is not actually analyzing the same construction, is it?

M.

  M.,
Have some very pressing personal business to take care of. After that, will be able to demonstrate where wayne went wrong or missed something. And it does come back to time.
If you try to pump 100in^3 from a cylinder into one with twice the height, it will probably take longer. This is because compression converts the energy in the static head from high volume low pressure to low volume high pressure. They use this principle on steam driven turbines. this what he won't consider.
Wayne is compressing a hydraulic piston to create a flow which converts the pressure into work. When the flow slows because compression reduces the flow rate, the enrgy can not be stored as in a traditional hydraulic device.
The odd part is that if 141.5^3 in. (5 lbs.) of water were pumped up to 16.5 feet from a cylinder that dropped 10 in., then with a 4:1 leverage ratio, it would take a weight dropping 40 in. to pump the water back up.
And since 40 in. is less than 16.5 feet, 5 lbs. dropping 10 feet could perform how much work ? The trick to this is that if a static head of 16.5 ft. is maintained, then when pumping water up, it would be the water in the static head that would be pumped into a reservoir so it can be made to work. In reality, the static head and reservoir would have 10 lbs. of water.
Since the reservoir would top out at 16.5 ft., it would not add any extra resistance to pumping water upwards.
It would take something like that to use the potential of a static head. But then, I figured that out from going to school, studying (it does take some time  ), working with it and a willing ness to consider someone else's work. After all, I am not Bessler but have learned from him and his work.
It will probably disappoint a lot of people to consider that someone already came up with a vaery good idea hundreds of years ago. Of course, a 12 ft. wheel with 20 lbs. of over balance would only generate about 400 watts @ 20 rpm. But that's math and anyone can go over the numbers and show me where I wrong. Of course, I am not the only person to say that Wayne's "Travis Effect" has no extra energy in it. Maybe he can show where my math is wrong ? That is if he really understands this type of behavior.

                                                                             Johnny

edited to change the thought on converting the potential of a static head to more realistically represent their behavior according to accepted principles of engineering.

edited to add. @All, anyway, a static head that is 8 ft. high could be made to work and be a simple perpetual motion machine. Floats could control the release of the water or something similar like flapper valves. And if you want to go smaller, that's up to you. 

edited to add; the shorter the pump, the less movement needed to pump. would require greater amount of leverage to pump quickly. The diagram is fairly basic and is hopefully something everyone can understand.
A float opens the drain on the top reservoir filling a bucket on the lever. When the lever drops, it pumps up the reservoir again. When it is finished pumping (while it is moving downward), a flapper valve could be lifted allowing it to drain into the bottom reservoir which feeds the pump.
And to lift it back up ? Water in the reservoir could float it back up, might take a little playing with it to get this worked out. Maybe have a gate open when the flapper valve opens so a "pond" could be filled with water lifting it back up then feeding (priming) the pump itself.
It would almost be like building a better mouse trap. Not sure if any of you ever played the game but it used basic mechanics to get a lot of things to happen.

Hello all,

My offer still stands - 2k for replication -

I am very impressed with the ones of you that have moved forward.

I am surprised at others - they have seen their own stated "absolutes crumbled" and still call our honor into question - several of the negative contributors have posted outright errors -  proven mistakes - incorrect physics and drawings and they still claim the the authority to call us wrong?


And bravo to those of you who see thru the attempt to call this a pneumatic pump - it is a diversion to avoid discussing the other absolute statement where "Mass was the limitation of buoyancy" - Larry's calculator blows that away.

I suggest you move on to Webby's lead - how much energy is available to transfer - and what does that do to input cost.

Two more misleading contributions - the weight effects all layers - not just the outside - increasing the atmosphere in any layer effects all the layers.

Second - the Pods water level is key to the system - the pods water level is directly related to the nuetrality of the weights and risers weights.

one inch change in the Pod can mean float or sink - when that point is matched to the system - you can control the direction of the Zed's travel by simply raising above that point - or below that point.

To produce power from the system add 12  inches of head to the pod - that translates into 24 inches in each of the layers after that.

SO 12 inch change in the pod (water level) equates to a 7 foot head change in a three layer system.

Now - where our increased efficiency from layering - (this is another "absolute" claim against us - which is wrong)

In a six layer system - increasing the pod 12 inches - increases the head 13 foot head -

8 layer = 12inches  = 17 feet of head - hope you see the pattern merging.

I will pay up to $500 for the flight of the model - representative - to visit for clear teaching and the check.

Wayne Travis

disconnect your battery then,
attacking math with words is weak,

Quote from: johnny874 on June 20, 2012, 10:50:24 PM
disconnect your battery then,
attacking math with words is weak,

I did not see anywhere where Wayne's offer to pay for a replication required a battery in the replicated machine.  The machine requires no battery to demonstrate the principle of operation.  You should encourage someone here to replicate it.  After all that would be the strongest evidence for or against the theory of operation.