I've added a new version of the calculator of a Single Top 5 U, instead of the Outside Retainer Water Drop, this version used a Percent of Ideal Force to give the desired results, so 66% or 33% or any % is easy to forecast some of the results for your model. Should help with Wayne's 2505 post. 


@Red,
Great Post (#2557), you may yet break thru the concrete brain barrier of the perverters of the truth here to suit their position and Ego.


Regards, Larry

Quoteyou may yet break thru the concrete brain barrier

- - of even the simple minded experimenters 
so many simple things, so many clues, so much to think about, to get to the truth....
takes time and effort - jury's still out

Red .. FWIW, it isn't that I am deliberately ignoring your attempts at explaining an as yet unproven phenomenon - I just don't see the value in long worded discussions without supporting empirical evidence or at the very least well drawn diagrams by you - I do in fact agree that asymmetric force generation is a necessity to finding gravitational induced OU.

The point of working thru with the likes of Amolago/Chris is that they are prepared to examine first principles [as is See3d] - from that foundation [like building a house from a corner stone] where there is no asymmetry of forces it is possible to move forward to other areas of investigation & not be looking backwards - as most will be aware building a spreadsheet or a sim is far more than plugging in numbers, you have to understand physics principles & apply them mathematically correctly - if a simple spreadsheet or sim shows an anomalous result [such as Marcel's did] against a simple thought experiment or control experiment it is likely a human error is the cause rather than incorrectly unaccounted for physics in the form of the math equations.

I am not attempting to straight jacket anybody's thinking - just examining logic & following the evidence when it might be provided for discussion.

I could have examined what you wrote a lot more but LarryC gave me cause to do something more interesting with my time.

Have a good day.

The simple answer Webby is that when a device is promoted to be OU & its Prime Mover is ONLY Gravity Input [as has been stated, i.e. no environmental heat energy entering or leaving the system via adiabatic cooling & isothermal heating] and you've said that compressible air is not a requirement, just another low density fluid to water, then gravity force is the ONLY force available to change the symmetry of all internal forces & pressures are derived from gravity acceleration etc.

N.B. densities remain constant for all intents & purposes & since some of the modeling & builds shown use compressible air as an internal spring analogue we have to make some allowance for the fact that the graphs will have curves because air is not an IDEAL GAS so is indicative of the IDEAL GAS LAWS behaviour to a point.

The upshot is that ANY Gravity ONLY device which is OU should be able to do at least one of two things.

1. INCREASE the system PE to higher than it started at, assuming it starts at equilibrium conditions of lowest PE [gravity causes mass to find its lowest position of PE].

N.B. this gain in system PE can be used to do WORK OUTPUT.

2. INCREASE the system KE i.e. if a system is in a state of rest & is given Input Energy then to cycle it must have PE restored completely & to do WORK it must have additional KE gained from the dynamic processes, which can be bled off to do external WORK OUTPUT.

The due diligence is to compare the expected math model against an anomalous device - if the two with extraordinary care are still not able to be aligned or synchronized in behaviour then the math model is lacking in some capacity - the additional due diligence is to then come up with a theory that can be described & tested mathematically to emulate the actual empirical behaviour displayed within levels of confidence.

IMO, at this stage in proceedings we have seen 171 pages of much subjective talk & cheer-leading & very little objective information & analysis of any anomalous behaviour that might show indications of items 1. or 2. above, to get excited about from a skeptics point of view.

Correct me if I'm wrong.... but we have not been presented with any anomalous behavior to analyze, have we?

The reported behaviours of actual built systems seem to be, so far, entirely non-anomalous and in line with CofE and normal hydraulics and fluid dynamics. Some results from models have been reported to indicate anomalous behaviour and some have been corrected after errors were found or methods improved. Other models have consistently reported ordinary behaviour. Real-world experience with mathematical models of physical systems indicates that it is quite possible to use the wrong model, or the right on incorrectly, and thus draw invalid conclusions about the system being modelled. Data from real operating systems must be obtained and crosschecked with model predictions if any model is to be considered valid.

The only indication of any anomalous behaviour in a real system comes from MrWayne. He's alleged that there are "replications"... but of what exactly we do not get to know. We do know that his longest reported runs are four hours or less and that a model has made 36 watts extra electrical power while running. This is well within the possible stored energy from precharge, elevated water heads, etc inside the large model.

So... where are the sausages? Where is the anomalous behaviour to analyze?