Quote from: powercat on September 22, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
Now for some reason these devices have stopped working and the whole process of development has been started again
to reinvent a better device,.we can all argue that every device ever invented is needing further development.

But why can't one of the original devices be verified by Mark Dansie ?

Either the device runs itself or it doesn't ?

What we appear to have here is devices that used to run themselves, but now can't without redevelopment.

I really want to believe that Wayne has a selfrunning OU device because it would be one of the most important discoveries ever,
and the world really could do with one right now, so why not get on and get it verified by Mark Dansie ?

Powercat,
Do you run your own business or you are an employee ?  To me it seems a bit emotionally irrational to get into an official and critical test sequence when one is not fully confident the system is reliable enough to see it successfully through and that doesn't have to have anything to do with the soundness of the invention. More with the build quality that has been compromised.
Do you think Mark Dansie comes for free ?
What is the cost of a test failure and what does it do to the product image ?

I am sure Wayne considered all the facts and thought it more prudent to do it this way. I am sure it is more of a business decision than a technical one.

Michel

Quote from: AmoLago on September 21, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
What I get from this is that it doesn't seem to matter how you're setup to get the water in to the tank, the work required is the same. Which sort of makes sense, looking at Fletchers work, if you have a container with 74 grams of water 1mm high, all 74grams have to be lifted by the 10mm to fill the tank. However, looking at it simply incrementally, if the container is 10 mm tall, 7.4 grams must be lifted 1mm, 7.4 grams must be lifted 2mm, 7.4 grams ..... must be lifted 10mm. I think that adding up all those 7.4 grams over the various distances equates to lifting the all 74 grams over the one larger distance.

That is the same as what I have come to understand and have argued previously as well.  So unless someone has other ideas the results from my test run are:

Input of 74 grams raised 10mm.
Output of 1217 grams raised 10mm.

Right?

M.

Quote from: Red_Sunset on September 22, 2012, 09:39:04 AM
Powercat,
Do you run your own business or you are an employee ?  To me it seems a bit emotionally irrational to get into an official and critical test sequence when one is not fully confident the system is reliable enough to see it successfully through and that doesn't have to have anything to do with the soundness of the invention. More with the build quality that has been compromised.
Do you think Mark Dansie comes for free ?
What is the cost of a test failure and what does it do to the product image ?

I am sure Wayne considered all the facts and thought it more prudent to do it this way. I am sure it is more of a business decision than a technical one.

Michel

Michel
I do hope you're right as it is all beginning to take a long time and we just seem to get more excuses,
while this situation continues the argument about whether there is really OU or not will continue as well.

At this time I do not want to get into a discussion about mrwayne`s strategy. I have no doubt that when he gets all his ducks in a row he will call Mark Dansie. In the meantime, I am a lot more interested in what has been achieved by Mondrasek. Those recently published results are to say the least, surprising. He talks about raising 1217 Grams a distance of 10 mm. He does not specifically state how much of this is load weight. Let us be really pessimistic and assume that 50% is load weight, and the remaining 50% of the raised weight has to be left in situ to cause the risers to sink. So the load lifted and removed is about608 g.  Therefore output over input would be 608 over 72 =8.4 recurring. What am I missing here? If Mondrasek has made a fundamental mistake in calculating his figures, why aren`t the Naysayers jumping all over him?
A little point here for Mondrasek. it would be the work of a few minutes to provide a mechanical stop to prevent further rise of the risers when the load weight is removed.
     Guys like Mondrasek Weby1, and Wildew are special because the share all results, positive or negative. I think that it will be guys like these who show us the first proof of OU in this device.

Good evening, @neptune.

The Lift Load is entirely separate from the rest of the system (the rest of the system being the pre-load that is required to be present to maintain pressure in the system).  The Lift Load is a small (2.5lb) free weight disc that is added at the beginning of the lift and then removed at the top (after the 10.0 mm stroke of the ZED).  So the input energy to output energy is actually about 16.49ish.

I can give the mass values for all the elements in the system that are part of the pre-load if needed.

My system was designed on purpose to have a maximum mass lift potential.  This is intended to show the energy imbalance.  It could NOT be used well to show power production because it would need to be cycled very slowly so as not to allow the inherent flow restrictions to unbalance any portion of the internal pressures and "blow skirts."

I am hopefull the results are able to show a positive net energy output from a single three layer ZED system.  I am more than willing to share more details or perform more experiments as requested by those on the forum or by PM.

One more time: the reason for the extraordinarily high output ratio (~16.49) is due again to using materials and gap thicknesses that should initially prove very difficult at larger scale.  Also, this test system must have the input water introduced and removed relatively slowly and so would not be very good for power generation.

But still a neat demo, eh?

M.