Can we all just settle down for a minute?

Wayne, I think TK said your system did in fact appear to increase the output of the PerPump for a portion of the cycle....

TK, please lay off the instant coffee so late in the day (I'm LIT on diet Pepsi again myself...).  It creates an aggressive Koala when we know you are really soft and cuddly (and have very pointy dangerous claws and teeth!).

Personally, I want to see more TinselZed experiments.

It's the only way to be sure.  (come ON!   Somebody gets what movie my "lines" keep coming from!?!)

M.

@mond: I do get them .... "believe it or not"....   

@parisd: Are we sure that the air pressure is the same in both cups? I've suggested connecting them with a thin tube at the tops, to make sure that they are, and see if the Travis Effect persists. Has anyone done this little experiment?

@MIdone: So thank you for making it clear. Let me summarize so that we can be sure that I've got it straight. The machine in the video that we are talking about, outside there. The control panel and other electrical circuits were powered by  internal batteries, but there wasn't any electrical generator or other "output" from the overall system on that unit, and the energy in the batteries came from some external charger. Right so far?

Please note -- everyone -- that I am not implying... or hoping that anyone else will _infer_ that I find anything wrong or suspicious about this. I am just trying to get the phenomenology straight... what it is that I am actually seeing as opposed to interpreting from descriptions and so on. What does the device actually _do_ as opposed to what the theory says or what the inventor expects will happen when it's fixed properly.

And the longest observed run, unpowered and unresupplied with anything, has been "overnight". Right?

I say my PerPump "will run (when in working condition) until I decide to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself." (MIdone's words). Not only that, I've demonstrated that it will run, several times, at least until it breaks down, springs a leak or runs out of water. May I then claim that this is clear overunity performance? If not.... why not?

I don't even have a battery. Is that why not, since we already know that all overunity machines must have a battery?

Quote from: MIdone on August 25, 2012, 02:35:53 PM
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!

Thank you for the clarity.
A couple of points:
The System we had running last Nov - Marks second visit -  we ran it that night after the complet evacuation of the system and reset - no that system was not allowed to run all night - the battery was not being chargered back then and it would have stopped
What I did say - barring mechanical failure - and having mechanical (latching) valve to switch flow directions - it would run continuously.
I call it overunity - because it has no input - that one overcame six mechanical losses and we had to bleed off the production in order to keep the pressure regulated -(low).
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator - and it took us three months and $60,000 dollars to find out that our multisection Ram - hydraulic cylinder had improper tightened Tie rods - which resulted in the outer housing of the cylinder to bend during high pressure.
He and the rest of the validation team have been patiently waiting.
Next - The direction change and the small model build in house was in response to feed back from Our Engineers ZED presentation.
They decided they wanted more than pointing at the machine.
The $5k and $10k challenge is to end the BS that others are trying to make stick on our real machine.
Webby's work is great - he and his team are going to do better. I am glad to help.
Lastly - the size of the system - before we knew why it worked - we knew what worked and so we built to that understanding - now we know why and how to optimize - our 10K system is much smaller than if we used the original theory.
Much much improvements has been made since  - even our Data collection model.
As I have stated here before - we do have many people replicating the physics - and visiting - and without any help from me - models they send - agree with what our engineers show.
I want to thank you for your research - well done, good thinking and good opinions.
I hope this clears the mud a little.
Wayne Travis

To All,
I am going to begin selecting ignore in our options tab to people who intentionally misdirect the conversation toward their own goals.

So if you see a question that is worth repeating - please restate it - if you like.
Thank you Very much -

@ZED Replication teams -
We have four official teams working on the desk top model - fantastic!
In consideration of the time and effort - All four will receive Share certificates - of HydroEnergy Revolution.
Please share your photo's of your process from time to time.

@All,
I will be focusing on our validation now that our blockage was repaired - but I will answer questions as the come - at least an hour a day.

Thank you all who have suffered thru this last round.

God willing, we will bring Clean Energy to the World - and the Independence it brings.

Wayne Travis

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 25, 2012, 04:35:25 PM

I say my PerPump "will run (when in working condition) until I decide to stop it, consuming no other power than what it develops itself." (MIdone's words).

Not only that, I've demonstrated that it will run, several times, at least until it breaks down, springs a leak or runs out of water.

May I then claim that this is clear overunity performance? If not.... why not?

I don't even have a battery. Is that why not, since we already know that all overunity machines must have a battery?

No cigar TK, sorry  .. you need to complete the cycle & lift ALL the water back to its original PE's [that's additional Work Done] i.e. it must be able to replenish system energy losses & replenish system PE & then this would be OU performance.

It would be showing indisputable OU if it could do external work [like turning a gen etc] on top of the work to cover losses & lift the water masses back to their original positions - that would be a free energy engine that proved gravity was not conservative.

So far you have captured some of the energy of falling water that was previously given PE when you lifted it into position to start the machine [kinda like a ram pump uses a percentage of the water & its KE] - but you need to refill the 'gas' tank as it stands now - somehow you need to close that loop to claim OU performance.


............................


Mr Wayne's team should have their new model ready possibly before the 4 replication teams since they have the advantage of familiarity I would think.

This is a process that leads to a result & it is that result I am most interested in because it should bring forth independent information as no one is following a set of blue prints supplied by Mr Wayne & his engineers - I would expect all teams results/performance to eventually align & have repeatable consistency after some tweaking suggestions from Mr Wayne's engineers if initial results are significantly different.