Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 12:43:58 PM
TK,
I tire of your effort to ask questions outside of the bounds of my limitations and then asserting a nefarious motive. I have put up with it to allow you time to do your due dilligense.

Since you first came to this page - we have repeated I am not here for an armchair review of our equipment.

The offer was - If you want to participate - get your hands wet. I will not be in the business of telling you how to think or observe the repeatable characterstics of our ZED technology.

Each time you rant about how I avoid your questions - let me be clear - and respectful - you were told in advance - stay on topic - badgering and head gaming is not effective. Thank you.

Who exactly is ranting? Perhaps you need to check the definition of that term. I am asking questions that you have NOT answered adequately.

Quote

Your questions and comments give me cause for concern.

What is your motive for coming to a discussion where I am sharing how to build a  ZED and trying to turn the topic into a review of our Hard earned research and data collection?

You are claiming something that is contrary to hundreds of years of scientific research and experimentation and that is inconsistent with the major system that is used to understand and engineer the world around us. You should be able to support that claim against any and all comers... IF IT IS TRUE.

Quote
From my poor memory:
You have asked about our input and out put
then Energy

And you have not answered properly.

Quote
then the patent

The PATENT APPLICATION, you mean....

Quote
then the sensors

Please show where I have ever asked about your sensors.

Quote
then the pumps
then the batteries

I have asked you how the batteries get their charge, yes.

Quote
The run data
You show - two photo misidentifying a hose connect to the other ZED and assert it was a power cord from the lab.

Two photos? And I  misidentified something? I ONLY ASKED ABOUT IT, what it was, and I only showed one photo that I can recall. Please show where I ever asserted that it was a power cord from the lab. A question is not an assertion.... calling my question an assertion is... er... well, Mr Wayne, it is a statement that is untrue, and we have a name for those statements here south of the Red River.

Quote
You were shocked at our initialization system.

Shocked? Did I say that? Really? Where? Please point it out where I said I was shocked by your initialization system.  For the record, the only thing I find "shocking" about your entire system is the evident cost of it.

Quote
You also said you would keep nothing confidential.

What I told you was that I would not carry on back-channel communications with you unless I could share the information you gave me publicly. I also said -- in a personal communication -- that if you engage me in an official manner I would be happy to sign and abide by an ironclad NDA. Thank you for not mentioning this in your present flame.

Quote
you have thrown me away into the idiot file and picked me back out on to the rim.
And you have not persisted on diverting the subject to your personal desires - to find something "secret" within our system.
You have warned that you may file the scientific papers before others..
Now - Exactly what do I owe you?

You owe me the straightforward and unvarnished TRUTH.... and you owe this to the world, and most of all to yourself. As far as scientific papers go... you have shown neither any science nor any respect or understanding of it. What I do with what I learn with my own apparatus and on my own time.... is my own business, and I'll share it with whomever I please and write whatever I like about it. You can rest assured of one thing, though: what I say and write and show will be the truth, and it will be testable by anyone with the ability to test it for themselves. I won't be claiming patents when I don't actually have any, for one thing.

Quote
Who told you that you have a right to hard earned work, discovery and effort - just because it is free energy?

You have not demonstrated any free energy to anyone's satisfaction who knows how to measure energy or work. You've had lots of opportunities to do so and you dodge them every time, with flames like this that simply attack your sincere questioners and divert attention from the real issues: How long has it run for, where does it get its electrical power, how is the clear overunity determined for the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself.

Quote
Thank you and good day.

More sincerity? You are welcome, and I hope you have a good day too. I intend to, myself.

Quote

p.s.
And I do not need to know anything about your pump, it is cute. I hike to the top of the mountains to see natural springs - at the top of the mountain...pretty cool.

The natural springs at the top of the mountain ( in southern Oklahoma...) may or may not work by the same principle as Heron's Fountain. I doubt it, myself. But what about your large reservoirs, compressible bags, water flows, and air chambers? Does anyone really understand how they work? I doubt that too, especially since no one has yet shown just where any "free energy" enters the system, since all of the individual steps are underunity due to losses, and many of them are in fact quite lossy indeed.

@Pirate
... I knew !   

Now the question is "which beer works the very best".

My current favorite is Shiner Wild Hare ale.

I am trying to understand the principle of the ZED but difficult especially with this wind of negativity, if the ZED is fake we will all discover it soon or later and leave one after the other one.

I just watched the MrWayne videos Travis effects videos 1, 2, 3 and 4 (yes I am far behind all of you...) and I can say from these videos that the Travis effect is nothing else than a piston effect on a gas (as clearly mentionned in one of those 4 videos), the larger mass compress the air in the cup (the right located cup has not reached the bottom of the aquarium), nothing new, as soon as the compression is removed the effect disappear. The air compression energy is provided by the mass itself. Only the latest (I believe Travis effect video 4) is interesting, but we dont know the energy spend by the air compressor to fill the cup on the right of the aquarium compared to the one on the left, this is essential information.  Poor videos introduction to the ZED.

Hope to understand the ZED principle with better drawings or explanations. So many pages to read.

What is mainly missing in this thread is some physics (with no numerical values) to explain the phenomena, it seems to be all based on the Archimede force, with so many scientists and engineers having seen it, build it or think at it, something should have come up, all I find are numbers and values in mm, pounds, PSI or whatever, they are sometime difficult to measure precisely like the air pressure in the 2 cups.

Hello mrwayne, TinselKoala and all.

Like some others I too have been observing this discussion out of curiosity. 
Some observations:

Trying to be unbiased; mrwayne did say the power source of his control panel on his device in the pics & video, is a battery.  Charged by his machine. -which was said to put out a total of 36 watts.   He also said:  ..."our 10K system is not much bigger than my 36watt model."(post1275) don't know if that means he built one or just on paper


When Mark Dansie. was there, (with the machine that was outside) mrwayne alluding to that it ran over night, and pressure readings were the same the next morning.  It doesn't appear that there was any charging devices run by that machine to charge the battery then.  When it was rebuilt inside his building, it does show charging equipment there run by his machine.

Mrwayne said his machine will run (when in working condition) until he decides to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself.  I think this is what mrwayne means when he says he clearly has over unity.

Mrwayne said he has funded money, so he must have convinced someone.  He's also dishing it out.  Webby was given $2k on his claim of a 145% efficient experiment.

This is all very incredible!

***************************

Reasons why a rational person would still question:

The promise of Mark Dansie. to do a long run test investigation was delayed, (near the beginning of this tread), and now seems to be indefinitely delayed or dropped.  Mrwayne's last long run test of last weekend must have failed, so Mark Dansie was again called off.

Mrwayne has now taken a different direction.  He is going to build a demonstration machine to prove his over unity claims and has offered $10k to anyone who also can.
So clearly; right now, he does not have a machine to demonstrate his claims. -otherwise he wouldn't have to build one now, or pay others too.

My simple mind says this is what should have been built at the start, before you dump time and money into constructing a building size machine.

Webby didn't have clear measurements and results to prove overunity.  If he did, it should be easy to copy by any scientist to prove it also.

**************************

I'm not attacking anyone; there are just common sense observations.

I wish the best to all!

Hi webby
The suitable item that occupy 90% of the volume inside the cup does not lift with the cup and this is why that cup losses rapidly its ability to lift the mass. is this correct up to now? So the travis effect work only on small distance like the 1" of your example. I start to understand, what still surprise me is that the air pressure is same in both cups.

Quote from: webby1 on June 12, 2012, 11:56:27 AM
I love it when people compare apples to hand grenades

Simple evaluation of the basic effect should be viewed more in this way:

2 identical cups 5 inches tall 4 inches in diameter with vertical walls, 1 cup has its interior space occupied by a suitable item so that it has 1\10 the open volume.  Place a balance tube between the top of the 2 cups, this keeping the pressure values the same.  Fill the 2 cups with air, with the pressure being the same between them the air pocket will progress down the water column inside the cups to the same level, this level will be the bottom of the cups.

One cup will use 1\10 the air at pressure to reach this point as compared to the other cup, conclusion: it has taken 1\10 the energy to fill one cup as compared to the other.

Both cups have the same ability at this point to "lift" the same mass, so now the cups are allowed to lift the mass.  One cup losses it ability to do so rapidly and so for it to continue the lift more energy must be used to fill it with more air, if we limit the "lift" to 1 inch then the amount of relative energy I must add will be 1\5 more for that cup, so to move the same mass the same distance in the same time one cup requires 30% of the energy the other cup needs.

No energy has been created, it has been used more efficiently.