Quote from: MileHigh on July 07, 2012, 06:19:08 PM
Wayne:

I have avoided discussing your system and instead I am focusing on the test results.  You have been talking in this thread about thousands of pounds of lifting force in the system, bla bla bla and then when someone comes along and asks you how you measure the energy out you croak.

You have tried to make me the issue and fired off your entire arsenal at me with everything under the sun in an attempt to put the spotlight on me and deflect it away from what really counts, the results.

Everybody knows that the spotlight is on the test results of your system.  It has nothing to do with me.

Why can't you say what the power output from your system is and what form it's in?  Why?  How can you talk about it over almost 60 pages of this thread and discuss all sorts of aspects of it and you crumble when somebody asks you about the output measurements?

If I was in your shoes and someone asked me what the output of the setup was I would tell them.  For Christ's sake, you have been working on it for months and months and months and you can't say what the output is?  You should be able to answer that question without batting an eyelash and give the details.  It's not even a question that asks about how your system works, it's just a question about the useful output and how you measured it.  It's unbelievable that you can't answer that question.

I am NOT the issue and you can whine and pout and deflect all you want, and sound wounded and in need of sympathy and perhaps some of the readers will buy it, and others not.

The first issue is the measurements of the output from your system will all of the data and test apparatus documented for everyone to see.

There is a secondary issue, which is you Wayne.  Watching you squirm and deflect and pout and try to make me out like the bad guy is not at all confidence inspiring for anyone.   It's a pathetic joke that you are pitching that you have a free energy machine based on buoyancy and when someone asks you for data on the output from said free energy machine you can't answer and then you do your dance.

I am done with this thread for now and I will be glancing in from time to time to read about any demos of the system and the results and how they were measured.

MileHigh

I answered before I read your rant ..
I think it is wise for you to leave.
Your tactic to start out attacking does not lend to someone caring to read - listen or answer.
I am sorry if you do not like me avoiding your laten and direct insults.
Have no fear, I do not crouch, nor fear, nor hide, nor get bothered by your insults - I just don't waste my time.
What you do not realize is that what I have shared here is real.
That won't go away.
Have a nice day.
Wayne

Wayne:

QuoteI am sorry if you do not like me avoiding your laten and direct insults.

Bullshit, all I am asking for is data on the output of your device and how it is measured.  I am not going after you and insulting you.  You are lying and using playing the victim as a tactic to avoid discussing the output from your system.

Stop playing the victim Wayne it's tedious.  All that I know is that after 60 pages you still can't even state what the output from your device is.  You just want to deflect attention away from the most important aspect of what you have been talking about for 60 pages - the output.  Without any serious discussion about the output from your black box you lose all credibility as far as I am concerned.

For what it's worth, I have some comments this clip that was recently linked to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHbP3QTncBY

"Travis Effect Demo 5" shows nothing of significance.  "The Travis effect has won the race and is the more efficient system."  If any people reading this thread that watched that clip believe that you are seeing a "more efficient system" then you are wrong.   Once you factor the vertical displacement of the cups into the picture then you should realize that there is nothing there.

If I have accomplished anything it is that some of the readers and contributors will be more focused when you announce the results of your testing.  If you claim that the system produces seven horsepower continuously then they will want to see tangible proof of this.  They will want to know precisely what load you put on the output and how you measured it.   They are now aware than any load has to dissipate the energy output from your system and they will want to know how you are doing that.

We can all wait and see if you are going to deliver any results.

When I come back after you announce some results and ask you some questions about the results, don't you dare play the victim and try to deflect attention away from your results.   i will ask you straight questions and if you start dancing your victim dance I will state that's exactly what you are doing.

MileHigh

MH

I watched some of the videos at the http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/  website, and specifically the "TRAVIS EFFECT" videos, and if this machine is based on these principles it certainly does not produce extra energy, regardless if it is "closed looped" or not.   The "travis effect" is just a static test and the force on the piston is down and is supported by the floor of the water tank.  If this piston is attached to the cup, as some are thinking and designing, this force will than be supported by the cup and it will sink real fast.   


So, let's talk about the proof offered:     CLOSED LOOP


In the free energy "circles" most folks have the impression that "closed loop" operation automatically means proof of free energy, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.   Take for example the simplest closed loop system, a spinning wheel!   If it is on good bearings and friction with air is minimized, it can spin for quite a while if given some initial energy.   Seeing the wheel spin does not mean it is producing extra energy. 


The same concept can be applied to more complex system, where it is not clear what is inside and what forces and energy storage reservoirs are present.   In such cases it is mandatory that the "initial conditions" of a system be specified.    For example, what is the water level in the pistons or bellows, what is the center of gravity of the whole unit, how much pressure is in a cylinder, what springs are compressed, how much charge is in a battery, capacitor, etc..   Anybody who does not specify such things before or after a test might be a good inventor but proves he is not a good tester of a system.


So, looking at a system  moving tells me nothing.  The video of bellows moving is a worthless waste of bandwidth if it is meant to prove overunity.



EM

Quote from: EMdevices on July 07, 2012, 10:37:31 PM
MH

I watched some of the videos at the http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/  website, and specifically the "TRAVIS EFFECT" videos, and if this machine is based on these principles it certainly does not produce extra energy, regardless if it is "closed looped" or not.   The "travis effect" is just a static test and the force on the piston is down and is supported by the floor of the water tank.  If this piston is attached to the cup, as some are thinking and designing, this force will than be supported by the cup and it will sink real fast.   


So, let's talk about the proof offered:     CLOSED LOOP


In the free energy "circles" most folks have the impression that "closed loop" operation automatically means proof of free energy, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.   Take for example the simplest closed loop system, a spinning wheel!   If it is on good bearings and friction with air is minimized, it can spin for quite a while if given some initial energy.   Seeing the wheel spin does not mean it is producing extra energy. 


The same concept can be applied to more complex system, where it is not clear what is inside and what forces and energy storage reservoirs are present.   In such cases it is mandatory that the "initial conditions" of a system be specified.    For example, what is the water level in the pistons or bellows, what is the center of gravity of the whole unit, how much pressure is in a cylinder, what springs are compressed, how much charge is in a battery, capacitor, etc..   Anybody who does not specify such things before or after a test might be a good inventor but proves he is not a good tester of a system.


So, looking at a system  moving tells me nothing.  The video of bellows moving is a worthless waste of bandwidth if it is meant to prove overunity.



EM

You see nothing in the Travis Effect - OK..
Ok, - ya got me, I guess I am done here.....
Have a nice day.
Seriously - have a nice day.
Wayne

@Mrwayne. It would be a great shame if you really are done here. So the verdict has been reached even before the trial begins. Remember that the Flat Earth Society is still in existence and thriving. I dare say that there are people around who do not believe in Flying Machines. I think what would be helpful, is if you are in a position to tell us when the Mark Dansie tests are likely to take place. If for some reason you are still having problems, perhaps you could share that with us. For those of us who wish to see you succeed, it would cheer us up to see how things are progressing.


Regards Neptune.