Hi fletcher,

A great classical physics analysis and theory.  Glad to have your head in the scrum.

Just a side note question:  Are you in "town" for awhile or heading back out (away from the computer) soon?

M.

Thank you Larry,
All of our production goes into an accumulator -
And then we power the water moving system with a portion of that production.
Our input cylinder (lever arm) - is fed from the accumulator has a surface area of .998 inches - it travels 12 inches - yet we only supply pressure during the last 6 inches.
Our output cylinder is 4.995

It is not an inch for inch system - the lever arm travels (during the last six inches) 2 inches to produce a 1 inch stroke in the production cylinder.
and then the process repeats.
And we have some losses in the process so at the end of the day - 2 inches (consumption) at the lever arm gets us 5 inches production and after losses we end up with just about 2.5 inches gain - per half stroke.
Or a full cycle - we consume 12 inches of fluid - and produce 30 - loose 3 in the process - netting 15 at best.

Now we currently run 3.7 strokes a minute - net just 55 cubic inches a minute
This was supposed to be a 40 watt demo and data collection system.
It is close - about 36watts.
Have a meeting
Later,.
Wayne  - typing in a hurry - so forgive me.

Updates to simple as it gets proof  'Archimedes Pod versus Travis 4 Riser System' picture.

I'll take the green horse colors(4 Riser) for a race, as nobody with common sense would take the red horse colors(Archimedes)?

Wayne has previously stated that the number of Risers effect efficiencies. This should now be obvious that more riser would increase the 37" to 164" advantage and less Risers would decrease the 37" to 164" advantage.

Regards, Larry

PS: How long will it take for the deceivers to bury this one, with their babbling BS, just observes who tries and the fact that not one of them wants the Red colors?

Quote from: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 05:40:01 PM
Hi fletcher,

A great classical physics analysis and theory.  Glad to have your head in the scrum.

Just a side note question:  Are you in "town" for awhile or heading back out (away from the computer) soon?

M.

Hi M .. just in town for a short stopover & away again.

As you can see I am more interested in the energy budgeting approach than the actual mechanics because the Laws of Thermodynamics are over arching above Newtonian physics & mechanics - interestingly Bernoulli fluid dynamics is predicated on COE & makes no allowance for adiabatic cooling followed by isothermal warming, as I propose as a potential way for thermal energy to enter the "apparent" closed system.

I do find it curious that Mr Wayne & other insiders so far [unless I missed it] have not offered up any coherent theories about balancing the energy budget - I do not believe this is an oversight & it would be the main target of my inquiries if the mechanics demonstrated "apparent" OU & I was one of those convinced of what I was seeing - those same resident engineers & advisers [& Mr Wayne] must have formed some theories by now that could be shared here without compromising any patents etc so I don't know why that is not forthcoming, if it is so ?

On that note, & in the interests of resolving and/or replicating these claims, I would trust yourself & TK's build & analysis, if either of you were willing to put some time & effort into an independent build(s) - it would be appreciated by me especially, to help get to the bottom of this.

P.S. to test the ambient thermal energy input hypothesis the uninsulated control system could be tested against a thermally insulated system to see if the results varied significantly - the results, either way, would be a good clue to ruling something in or out.

Excellent!

Thanks fletcher and seamus10n!

Sounds like the MOAC is needed?  TK, what say you?

I am assuming this test will require a miniature ZED system build since the MOAC would be very, very, very difficult to construct on the scale of the current ZED system?

About the "set up" question...

I go into auto manufacturing plants a couple times a week.  I see automobiles being assembled.  About 400 per shift per line, or 800 per day, per line.  Some assembly plants have three lines, so, about 2400 cars per day...

If you do not believe this please use Google Earth to look at the US state of Kentucky.  Before you even zoom in further than the borders of the state you will be able to see a dot just North of Lexington that is known as Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky (TMMK).  They have more acerage under roof than any other company in KY IIRC.

So, an automobile requires how many parts to be assembled?  And each of those parts requires how much energy to manufacture?  And so when I purchase that vehicle it is declared on the MPG (or KPL) rating that the "set up", or manufacturing costs, of the vehicle must be considered? 

Well then my Toyota Camry costs -.025 MPG when I buy it, no?  (Edited to add, I really drive a Chrysler.)

Seamus102, I know this is not an "apples to apples" comparison, so please don't take it as such.  It is only meant as a thinking point.

Sorry.

Back on topic.

So, where were we?

M.