I have seen Se3d's single layer,

He is brilliant and methodical - so if he says he will release - count on it.

His uses the physics to run the model - my terms.

I should in the next couple days -  If my animator can get it done quickly - release mine.

I have a wonderful 2D model cut away - really helps - I am having the optimizations and improvements taken out so I can release it legally (proper timing - patent attorneys...).

Se3d's is better for brains - mine is better for a general grasp of the whole system.

@ Larry,
Please don't argue with Seamus, he has made his stand - any physics that agrees with our claims is "WRONG"
I am not here to push my understanding on others' beliefs....Change is hard to deal with.

TK, my only argument with anything you have said - was calling Seamus a "Skeptic" - he proves he is not - by his predetermination. - Mark Dansie started out that way - He told me it would take less than two hours to determine where I was wrong, by theory or measurement - he determined I was not a fraud before he came.
But he took the time to look - and then made a hard decision - that is a "Skeptic."
Seamus - by his own admission - Antagonist at best.
To All,
I am not ignoring the question of energy - I know why that is pushed as the question - I have never stated and do not believe we are "creating" energy - the purpose of that attempt is not to understand - but to turn this thread to the topic of "energy creation" that is not the stated purpose of my interactions.

I am not here to help someone win their own argument - when I do not disagree with it. Pushing the argument into a corner is a standard tactic.
I could care less about the Energy - if it has Net at the end of the day.

To be clear:

It has been repeated here over and over my purpose is to help others replicate our system.

We capture a natural force - once believed "conservative" gravity - it is a tricky process - and it confuses many.

Probably why it is not in the text books already.

Yet - Our physics are solid as a rock - and yes they come from those text books - and every replication proves it -

It is true that the "Infinity error" is also taught in text books - I never claimed Gravity would last forever - I expect it to in my lifetime. If you can not see past the error of the "error" - lol oh well.

One last note on incorrect assumptions - Our engineers had the most trouble with the down stroke - it is Nonlinear as we have shown here before. Don't be mislead - by others stating it is.

Replications:

I will let Webby answer why he decided to build - but the fact remains - he did - no matter how convoluted and confusing the arguments get here - it can be done and has.

I have never limited my instruction to those "friendly" but I will not sponsor - mud Slinger's.

I loved the simple input output apparatus Webby built, I wish I had thought of it, very clever - I suggest you look into his design for yours.
I build a huge apparatus because I did not trust my fine measurement skills - and I did not want other people to have to question their own. It works - or it doesn't -build it and you will know.
I am not selling kits - Yet - lol we do have working models being built - so don't beat me up on that later - the universities are going to need the models to explain the shift in physics. The instructional has been under preparation by a third party for a few months.

Third party is how we let others come to their own conclusions - replication is the best way to understand.
Good luck to you all! This is a grand puzzle for O/U students old and new - with a twist - you can win.

Update on Mark's return:
We finished the modification to our energy capture system Friday - ten thousand dollars and a lot of work - but we are done. I  have not been this excited in months!

We will resume testing long runs on our system - and if the "fix" to our manufacturing variance works as planned - Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.

So wish us luck, and / or drop a prayer - extraordinary proof on its way!

Energy Independence - not energy creation lol

Wayne Travis

Tk,

I was not referring to your question of input and output - on the Energy push.

Honestly - i do not yet understand your question.

If you were asking Larry - please remember he is comparing Standard buoyancy to ours.

Personal note:

History is filled with attempts to defeat the conservative field of gravity - no success.

It is an illusion - that gravity is overcome by buoyancy
Where our system is different:

Gravity is predictable - or has a measurable effect on mass - in that use - Archimedes is right on the money.
Air and water have different mass / density.

Our Zed - in its simplest form - reuses the same mass over and over simultaneously - in an additive fashion.

Larry is showing that we can get the same effect of Archimedes in a much, much smaller mass - yet the field of gravity did not change - pressure differentials can result in movement - and ours combined.

Recap:
We do not just increase the buoyancy - we concentrate the measurable effect of gravity in a smaller space -

Larry's data is just showing the effect of that concentration.

It has some pretty cool side effects - such as reduced input - increased speed,
in my opinion - it is as if we have concentrated the force of gravity - by concentrating its effect over the same mass against the light mass (air).

With that under our control - we unwrap the Conservative field of energy (referring to gravity and buoyancy).

Every single part of our process is measurable- understandable - and repeatable.

Please forgive me of my layman nomenclature - i am not an engineer - just a blessed mechanical person.

If you are able to ask your question in layman's terms - I will definitely answer.

Thank you for your patience

Wayne Travis

@mrwayne. Thanks for that update. I am sure we are all hoping you get "all your ducks in a row" in time for MD`s visit later this month. It is very interesting that, for the first time I believe, you state that the machine draws energy from Gravity. I always thought that this was more likely than the theory proposed by some, that is was ambient heat.
      I am sure that we all look forward to seeing your animation, another tool to help us understand how it all works.
       Regarding Webby`s build. You seem to know a bit more about this than the rest of us, which is as it should be as you awarded the prize. I believe that few, if any , details have been published here as to just how his water injection apparatus works. He seems to use a vertical pipe full of water to provide the input pressure, but we have no details on how he allows water to exit the ZED for the downstroke. Perhaps he, or you, could tell us more. No doubt when he is ready, Weby will show his how he operates his ZED, and if he has got to that stage, how he measures input/output.
       More and more information is becoming available, and I am hoping that when I am in a position to do some building, after my eye surgery, things will fall into place.

Quote from: fletcher on August 13, 2012, 05:35:39 AM
Mondrasek ..

Has anyone made an animation of one ZED in operation thru one cycle ? If they have perhaps they could share it again ?

See3d mentioned using a sim of some sort to support his case, to be presented in a few days.

None that are public that I am aware of.  Hopefully what see3d and Wayne are preparing now will be accurate and complete through an entire cycle.

I am sorry M,
This is my opinion - my engineers argue..
Gravity causes buoyancy, and in a combination of ways -  causes head pressure.
Our system just works out the relationship and maximizes the relationship difference and gravity's effect on two separate densities.
Our system would work with water and Mercury - no air  as well (actually Better).
I try to let people make up their own minds - but sometimes they get way off track.
Wayne