Quote from: Seamus101 on July 05, 2012, 03:54:37 PM
Consider finite element analysis for example. The basic equations are predicated on the conservation laws  laws where each element has no specific form. To use it to solve specific situations you define a mesh of elements with specific forms and then solve the resulting system of equations. 

Techniques such as computational fluid dynamics would not exist if it were not possible to do this. I'd doubt any one would doubt the accuracy of such simulations if they have ever flown in a modern jet aircraft which are designed with extensive use of such techniques.

Seamus101, thank you, but I am well versed in the capabilities of FEA and Computational Fluid Dynamics.  Would you care to provide the output of either one of those methods for analyzing the particular configuration of a ZED system or will you just continue to reference non specific cases?

M.

Quote from: Seamus101 on July 05, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
The important part in the demonstration is that the block was connected to the bottom of the tank. Because of that he could have shown the arrangement producing any amount of 'lift'. Perhaps even an infinite amount if there was no air in the cup and then gone to claim the buoyancy did not require displacement of mass to occur...

My question is ..repeat the demonstration with a block that is not attached to the bottom and then see if this extra lift can appear. The answer is it cannot.

From my previous reply #836 to you.
'Now, please show us that you are a person of your word?'

You had 3 choices.
1. Admit that your stated requirements for the Travis effect to be OU have been met and start helping with this project.
2. Just leave.
3. Ignore your original statements and change the subject, in which case it shows that you have no integrity.

You have chosen number 3 and now all know that you have no integrity and just here to present misinformation. My next question is how much are you paid to be a deceiver?

'The important part in the demonstration is that the block was connected to the bottom of the tank.'

Even your new subject change is deceitful. None of GreenHiker videos shows the concrete block connected to the bottom, they were all on stands. Besides, you could easily do these simple test yourself and see the results.

Larry
 

Hello all,
My wife and I have just returned from Wayne Travis' shop in Oklahoma. I was very impressed with Wayne and his machine. I had visited with him for over two hours on the phone prior to the visit and what questions I had left were answered by Wayne in person. I am satisfied that he has an overunity machine currently and the capability to design any size needed. He is level headed and answered my questions and other's truthfully including saying he did not know when asked questions that he did not know the answer to. He is still teaching on this site in spite of being badgered by folks blinded by their faith in professors who have not seen this twist of physics and would not see it if these demo's took place in their own  lecture hall. I have signed an NDA and will not respond to questions. Thank you Stephan for this site. Some day I will tell my grandson that I met Wayne Travis and his original team in person.

Quote from: webby1 on July 05, 2012, 07:51:45 PM
Just to pick nits

The better response is that the block only needs to provide enough force to counter the force of the cup.  If the block were buoyant and that value was higher than the cup on top of it they both would lift, just as in the ZED.

Thanks, webby1,

I'd like to add some info to help clear up the ZED part, as I gave the simple version to seamus101 earlier. It is the retainer wall next to the Pod, and the water between the Pod and retainer wall, and the Pod, that would be considered the total concrete replacement. The moveable part that maintains the air column is only the Pod. This makes it more complex to understand, but since many more are starting to see, I'm sure most can handle it.

@iflewmyown,
Thank you for your witness, it was very inspiring. I wish more would post here, but there would be many attacks against those that just got an id to post it. In your case, you have an established history long before Wayne.


Regards, Larry

I was asked to leave this thread a long time ago and I did.  I glanced in from time to time.  I can see that you have been in ongoing discussions with Wayne and people are still arguing about buoyancy.

My suggestion is to understand the upcoming demo ahead of time.  (I assume that there will be one)

What will be demoed, what is the input (if any), how is it measured?  What will the output be and how will it be measured?  How long will the demo run?  Who will be there?  What measuring instruments will be used?  I am sure that you can butt your heads together and arrive at a consensus about what you want to know, and what the setup will be.

From the amount of interaction that you have had with Wayne, there is no reason that you should not be aware of this information.

Too often demos are done with zero information ahead of time.  Some of you get star-struck and are awed by what you see.  You often see people demoing systems with very little explained and no data.  This is your opportunity to break that pattern.

Look at the example of the Bedini "Ferris Wheel."  What did that thing actually do?  I haven't a clue and the people at the show didn't have a clue either but people cheered.  I doubt there was much discussion of input vs. output and how things were measured and what they were measured with.  It was pretty awful.

You have talked spreadsheets and setups and have engaged a lot with Wayne?  How many of you know what will be shown at the demo and how it will be measured?

For example, suppose the system is claimed to output 10 horsepower from a rotating mechanical shaft.  How do you measure that horsepower?  As an example, you could use some kind of prony brake setup.  In addition you need a prony brake that can run continuously for hours connected to the machine.  10 horsepower is 7.45 kilowatts of power and that adds up to a lot of energy very quickly.  So if the machine is going to output 10 horsepower of free energy for 24 hours, you should know ahead of time how the test setup is going to take care of dissipating 7.45 kilowatts of power continuously.  It's a serious question that demands a serious answer.  This is a suggested example for how you want to deal with the testing issue.

Remember, just seeing a running machine like in the first round of clips is not enough.

MileHigh