To All,

To those of you who are sharing and asking for Data privately - please continue - and you may post what you like of what I share.

This Web site has turned into a loop of interuption - of our sharing and efforts.

We should be talking about the details of the Non - linear - the inverted pumps - the cross over hydraulic exchange system.

What Se3d said is exactly right - validation is a long and hard process - and if you do not understand the process of extraordinary proof - you will be confused for a long time.

For those of you who jump to conclusions -  without understanding - I fear you may be on the "Edge of Jealousy"
I am sorry for that - I grew up with the notion that intelligent people helped eachother - for greater good - not of themself.

The professionals we are dealing with - hold their conclusions until the due diligence is done - I am so honored that they are professional.

And Se3d is exactly right - you do not move on to the next stage of validation until you pass the last - we have passed seven stages so far. No one - as I have been told has passed two stages before - in regards to free energy.

And for those of you Who have been professional - I commend you - it is hard to share your pearls of wisdom around split hooves.

And for you who are already typing your victory messages for running off an inventor- I will be back.

I will be back - to present the Conclusions of the Testing - Good or Bad - I am an honest man who keeps his word.

I suggest you get a BB gun and a cook book on how to roast Crow.

You are going to owe me an apology.

Don't bother claiming I did not give you enough information - you wasted your information gathering time - enough said.

To all who care,

Please keep us in your prayers, the preparation for the tests are going very well.

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution.com
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

QuoteYou see nothing in the Travis Effect - OK..

Wayne,  I did not realize it was you who invented the machine,  but sadly yes,  I don't see anything new in your "travis effect" setup, and calling it by your name really insults the great scientists that have explored the physics hundreds of years before you were even born!   So have some respect.


but for discussions sake, here's why the "effect" is not special.   I drew a diagram to illustrate.




Notice that the higher pressure inside the cup is also pushing down on the piston with force F2.    It is true that a lesser volume of air is needed in such a configuration, but that's nothing new because the piston is displacing some of the volume.  Your car breaks work on this principle. F=p A, and you can have a very large area 'A' and create quite a force with very little hydraulic fluid pressure or displaced, or have a small area and high pressure.  But all this is just a STATIC configuration.     


If we want a DYNAMIC cycle based on this "effect", we can perhaps let the cup move up, but it will quickly drop the pressure of the air inside as the air moves up top, since it depends on the water/air interface level.     On the other hand, if we try and attach the piston to the cup,  than the cup will be loaded down with force F2, and then the net force F1-F2 will be small, so nothing gained from this either. 


Do you follow what I'm saying?


EM

I just posted the below to Sterling's site today because someone had made an incorrect assertion on how the Travis Effect was named.

"I (Tom Miller) coined the term "Travis Effect" and used it on the first video. The team liked it and the name stuck. Wayne called it "the Effect" back in April when I visited Chickasha.

Keith & Sterling's article on (PESWiki), talks about it accurately: "Tom Miller, in two videos (1 | 2) on the principle, has termed this the "Travis Effect." And though Mr. Travis may not necessarily approve of the nomenclature,...""

If there are issues with why the effect was named as it was, you may address that criticism to me.

I would suggest that the commenters in this thread read the material available before jumping to conclusions or making their own assumptions up. If you want to post snide comments or incorrect assumptions, they will be mostly ignored.

On the other hand if you want to ask a pertinent question in a nuetral, or a nice way, there are several people here that are happy to help others learn.

Thanks,
Tom

Quote from: webby1 on July 08, 2012, 05:06:41 PM
Hi EMdevices,

You are correct in your observation

How much input did it cost to bring the cup up to lift potential?
How much input does it take to bring an empty cup up to lift potential?

If the cup was to raise 20% the height of the cup how much energy is used?

This demonstration is being used to build the understanding of the functioning system, this is not the whole thing but the basic building block that is needed to understand how the system works.

If you could also raise the block at the same time you are raising the cup, that might be something novel, and this is what Wayne Travis has managed to do.

Another observation to this simple demo is that the input to the cup with block starts out at its highest value, and the lift is at its highest value.

To take this and find advantage would mean using a short up stroke, that is the area where the input is far less than a normal system, if you keep the stroke going then the costs rise up to the same value as conventional, so don't do that.

Nothing has been made, no extra forces nor energy BUT something has been conserved and that is where the gain comes from, after all, we all understand a penny saved is a penny earned.  Take some of those savings and invest them into the system itself and continue with more savings

Outstanding, that was a great explanation.

Regards, Larry

To All,

I visited Wayne Travis last week. I found him and his machine very credible. He was very open with the priciple and the design of his machine.  You can tell this is something he has put a lot of effort into and is very passionate.  He has a small staff working with him and they are well beyond whether the machine works or not. 

There are many reasons to be skeptical about the ideas and inventions out there, especially those promising overunity.  So when I had a chance to check something out personally, I took it.  I may actually be a believer.