Quote from: MIdone on August 29, 2012, 09:23:41 PM
Mrwayne, it looks like you just updated your website.

http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/current-objectives

"...I talked to Mark - and he is like the rest of the world - "ready for the delays to be over" Remember that the model I have - was from my theory - before the engineers improved upon it - it is tough to get it to show what it was not designed for - full and continuous run - it works perfectly to show input and output - and the Free Energy.
I have promised that if our team does not meet our objective due to the original design and changes we made in this system - we will quickly divert our efforts to the optimized smaller model.;....."

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

If you are wise and still think you have free energy to show, why not go back to the extreme basics and try to do a simple demo model of what you paid webby to do.  But with clear and exact measurments for all to see.  Then go from there.

Wisdom.............
Here is some wisdom regarding the "Change" process

We started with the "Basics" - PE certification that our design would provide NET (Free Energy) -
The world would not believe - treated us like  - dirt - threatened us for daring to challenge 1000 years of understood facts...
...........
The next "Basics" - measurable input out put system that proved our system -
The world would not believe - called us con men for continuing to dare to challenge 1000 years of understood facts...
............
The next "Basic" - Closed loop system self running and sustaining system -
The world would not believe - called us delusional and mocked us for the gall to challenge 1000 years of understood facts...
.............
The next "Basic" - Data collection of the entire system
Which we have been working on - and the world claims we have nothing, how dare we, how delusional - how illogical...
.............
The future "Basic" - Scalability
Which will be an optimized system - smaller putting out more power than our large model (respectively).
Do you think then the world will believe..........
.................
Here is the result of Wisdom of "Basics"...

A few have accepted our Free Energy claim because of the  PE certification (and their own replication of the physics),

Some have been assured with the input and output measurement (and their own replication of the physics),

Many were excited to see the closelooped running system (after careful and certain inspection),

None of this has changed the worlds position - that we dare to challenge the Past -

The Delema we face here with this discovery is this -

The World is shouting at us - We just want the "Basics"  and the "Basics" will NEVER be enough.
..............................
We push on and persevere because - the world cannot stop us - it is not "Our Energy" that keeps us climbing out of this pit of entropy worship - the energy comes from the pure "Will" for True Independence"  it is the sound crying from the World and the Souls on it.
..............................

The Next "Basic" - We are welcoming the reviews and critiques from the respected and honored institutions and minds of the world.
My experience with the past make me question if they will be brave enough to face the world in its error -that it can't be done.
Challenging the past is the essence of progress in the world, I hope they will.
............................
The final Basic - which we need no approval from the world for - which is the core of HER direction - to install our completed  ZED's where Independence is already realized - where no one can stop us - with the people.

The world can catch up later, the science can adapt when it is ready, the science of our system will be Honored in time.

The only difference is how much longer it will take to reach and spread the technology - if science would do its Due diligence's - the world could have the Technology and Independence right away.
......................

This is the "Basics"
with wisdom regarding our system - "Acceptance and then progress" - that is not the "way or history" of world changing innovation.

"Sooner or Later" is reality - (people will see receive the benefit of our technology - it will be faster if the world will accept the technology - yet we who know will carry it on our shoulders until the world does - steady and true - is the sure way way to win against a world that has taught every highschool-er on up - they will never see Independence.

Thanks for your encouragement - rest assured - we will not fail and we know what we are doing, and where we are going.
The entrenchment has lost its hold  Not by our strength but by the strength of the truth that supports our discovery.

In 119 pages - not one person has offered a single fact relating to our device to disprove it - other than entrenched dogma - "it can't be done"- which our "Basic" technology proves is "Old School" - we are just inviting them to learn - the "New School" is being built by those who have been brave enough to rise above the fray.
I hope they all join in - but that would not be the wisdom to expect.

Yes - they have picked on single parts - picked on the supporters - picked on he inventor - all of that means nothing - I forgive them - it is not as though it is working for them  , or against us.

No one has nor can disprove the simple physics - not with complex, not with anger  - because ours are more accurate - they cover an anomaly - the old school did not know of.
Independence is coming, the lines are just being drawn - it is not "who still thinks the world is flat" but instead "who wants to sail around the world and make new and greater discoveries."

We are working hard - with God's help - to make sure you get to see it in your lifetime.


Thank You
Wayne Travis

Quote from: AmoLago on August 30, 2012, 01:46:28 AM
Hey See3d,

How's things going with your new updated simulation?

I've a couple of questions for you on the vid's currently online. I don't really understand everything that's going on, so bare with me, these may seem a little dumb but I'm bold enough to ask in just case they aren't.

1. In video 3, it appears that as the piston rises, the riser is slowly sinking. Is that correct? If so, I can only assume this is because the buoyant force from H1/H2 is slowly reducing as the riser rises out of that chamber. But is that enough to cause the "sinking" that is apparent? What am I missing?

2. What is the density you are using for the riser. Does it matter? Would this make a difference to the overall output force in the simulation, i.e would something less dense make the system more efficient by producing more output force?

Hi AmoLago,

I have been working hard to make sure I have all the physics details on the updated simulation mathematically correct.  There are a couple of twists that may have escaped many casual observers.  I just have one last formula to iron out before I can release it.  It is easier to know what it should be, than to translate that into a simulation formula.

1.) I just reviewed all my released videos.  I could not see any case where the riser sank while the piston rose.  Perhaps you should advance it frame by frame to make sure. 

2.) The density of the riser material is not a factor, since it is counterbalanced. 

All the videos will have to be redone with the new PDF release. 

Mrwayne,

Yes, we all understand that you & team are working and spending time and money and effort on your device.

You explained well all of the frustrations you feel from doubts pointed at what you SAY.
But the remedy to that is very simple.

Take---the focus---off---of---YOURSELF.

Put the focus on measured facts.

Like webby is still trying to do.

Form a simple experiment like webby.

********
Two masses; one elevated (Mass #1) for input, one mass to be elevated (Mass #2).

At the start:
the elevated mass (Mass #1) has a potential energy according to the height,  (PE= g x m x h)
the mass to be raised (Mass #2) has a potential energy of ‘0’, because it is bottomed out.

---then the elevated mass is released and energy is put through your system and comes to a stop.

At the end:
Mass #1 now has a potential energy of ‘0’, because it has now bottomed out at the end of it’s travel.
Mass #2 has been raised a certain distanced and now has potential energy. (PE= g x m x h)

Compare the input potential energy measurement to the resultant potential energy measurement.

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

Forget trying to tell people with talk and just point at the experiment and measurements.  That's what people wanted at the start of this discussion.

That’s how simple this can be if you really have something.  Just show this, just like webby is trying to do.  He’s not afraid.

Once you did this and shows 145% efficiency, or whatever, the focus would not be on YOU and what you SAY.   But on the experiment and shown measured facts. 

You could get rich by just selling this experimental kit....

I have received pages 13-14 of ZED for dummies, I unfortunately don't have the rest of the ebook. From these 2 pages and help from 1 member I have tried to figure how the additional external layers could bring additional efficiency and quite a lot as I read from 104% to 300% increase from 1 layer to 5 layers.

Please guys correct me Asap if I misunderstood how work those layers and bring additional lifting force, here how I see it:
Initially all air spaces (from 1 to 5) are at same pressure, it could be above or below atmospheric pressure, I would say it is at atmospheric pressure. From layer 1 to layer 2, surface 2 separe air space 1 from air space 2 and the air pressure increase in air space 1 is faster than in air space 2 ( air space 2 is less pressurized because of the water column that form between the 2 layers). The pressure being lower on air space 2 than air space 1 this create a net force going up helping to lift the Zed. same applies from layer 2 to 3 and from 3 to 4 and finally from 4 to 5 (assuming we stop at 5), the 5th air space is at a lower pressure than the other but remain above its initial pressure that I assume to be atmospheric. I dont see anything else from all these layers to helping the lifting of the Zed.

Waiting for feedback (i.e did I get it all wrong) before to make my conclusion on the efficiency of those layers. Tomorrow probably. I prefer to have a kind of theoritical understanding first, instead of jumping blind in fabricating one Zed.

Quote from: MIdone on August 30, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
Mrwayne,

Yes, we all understand that you & team are working and spending time and money and effort on your device.

You explained well all of the frustrations you feel from doubts pointed at what you SAY.
But the remedy to that is very simple.

Take---the focus---off---of---YOURSELF.

Put the focus on measured facts.

Like webby is still trying to do.

Form a simple experiment like webby.

********
Two masses; one elevated (Mass #1) for input, one mass to be elevated (Mass #2).

At the start:
the elevated mass (Mass #1) has a potential energy according to the height,  (PE= g x m x h)
the mass to be raised (Mass #2) has a potential energy of ‘0’, because it is bottomed out.

---then the elevated mass is released and energy is put through your system and comes to a stop.

At the end:
Mass #1 now has a potential energy of ‘0’, because it has now bottomed out at the end of it’s travel.
Mass #2 has been raised a certain distanced and now has potential energy. (PE= g x m x h)

Compare the input potential energy measurement to the resultant potential energy measurement.

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

Forget trying to tell people with talk and just point at the experiment and measurements.  That's what people wanted at the start of this discussion.

That’s how simple this can be if you really have something.  Just show this, just like webby is trying to do.  He’s not afraid.

Once you did this and shows 145% efficiency, or whatever, the focus would not be on YOU and what you SAY.   But on the experiment and shown measured facts. 

You could get rich by just selling this experimental kit....

Webby is doing a great Job, thank you.
Any of you could do the same, good luck!
Wayne