Wait just a minute.

I posted pictures that were intentionally  misleading? That is a lie, Mister Wayne.  Give a link to these intentionally misleading pictures that you accuse me of posting, and show how they are intentionally misleading. You cannot.

While you are at it, Mister Wayne...... how long is your longest run time? Not days, or overnight, is it. Not even four hours, I'll bet. Yet you claim to have a perpetual free energy self running machine. Where is the demonstration of this?  And you referred to your PATENT many times, not just in a snippet of conversation.... yet you did not then nor do you now have an issued patent.  You have indeed been intentionally misleading... but you cannot point to a single instance when I have been intentionally misleading. You, Sir, are a liar.

And now.... when the going gets tough and nobody here has been able to report any real or correct results that look in the least like any OU.... you bid us goodbye. Do you know just how typical this is, how many times this has happened on this forum alone?

Goodbye Mister Wayne. One day you will answer to that God in whom you profess to believe, as will we all.

All this talk about senior skeptics and true believers is hilarious. Skeptics determine the pace of progress, indeed. What a laugh. Every skeptic can be instantly refuted in the most definite manner possible: show him the sausages. Let the claimant demonstrate the validity of his claims. It is that simple.

Where is this self-running machine? Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself (mister wayne's exact own words) and how was its overunity determined? What is the longest that one of Mister Wayne's machines has run for, unattended, and was its entire precharge still there when it stopped running?

Show me the sausages. Then let's talk about Junior Skeptics and who is holding up progress.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 07, 2012, 02:56:55 PM
All this talk about senior skeptics and true believers is hilarious. Skeptics determine the pace of progress, indeed. What a laugh. Every skeptic can be instantly refuted in the most definite manner possible: show him the sausages. Let the claimant demonstrate the validity of his claims. It is that simple.

Where is this self-running machine? Where is the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself (mister wayne's exact own words) and how was its overunity determined? What is the longest that one of Mister Wayne's machines has run for, unattended, and was its entire precharge still there when it stopped running?

Show me the sausages. Then let's talk about Junior Skeptics and who is holding up progress.

TK,

A senior skeptic has a thick skin.  I have worked with senior skeptics (as well as juniors) for decades.  However, I will not engage in a rebuttable about my observational opinions about skeptics and believers here, simply because I have work to do.  An opinion needs no defense.  A rebuttal conversation just proves my point about skeptics disrupting and delaying progress towards discovery.  However slighted you may feel this time around, you brought it on yourself.  Get over it, and get on with life.

~Dennis

The pic is to show the modifications to the original setup.  It will probably be a bit obtuse for the casual observer, but it is what it is.

The stability of the stroke measurement was greatly improved by replacing the previously used items with a steel spacer and a neo bar magnet (for the digital indicator to read off of).  The stability at the top of stroke is extremely good IMHO.  However, at the bottom of the stroke there is still some variability.  The entire test ZED Pod/Riser group can be rocked back and forth and therefore raise or lower the digital indicator readings.  But it is what I have for now.  I will think if there is something I can do to improve that part of the system (make it less variable) and welcome your ideas.

My goal with this build was to mimic a single ZED though the same production cycle that Wayne uses with two ZEDs.  Since I do not have the same energy capture system I have tried to mimic it with the contraption pictured.

Wayne uses a hydraulic cylinder on top of his ZEDs that is connected (via one way valves) to an accumulator that will NOT accept input until a predetermined pressure level is breached.  So when one of the (un-stroked) ZEDs in his system is preparing to rise it is, in effect, held down, until the predetermined pressure level in the ZED is reached.

At the end of the stroke of Wayne's system that same hydraulic accumulator system will lock out and not allow the pressure it received to push back through the one way valves to help push down through the "sink" portion of the cycle.  So only the weight of the ZED and "pre-load" will assist in pushing that ZED back down.

What I have attempted to build is a system where I can replace the hydraulic capture system of Wayne's twin ZED setup with an equivalent single ZED test system where a "lift mass" is used instead. 

Cycle is as follows:

I can stroke with the "lift mass" in place to a point where the ZED Pod/Riser group is in hard contact with the "top stop."  The "lift mass" can then be removed.  The vent valve (for those who already now the test system setup) can be opened and the Pod/Riser group can be allowed to drop 10mm (the chosen test stroke distance).  At this point the "lift mass" can be placed again on the Pod/Riser group.  BUT it will also rest on the three dowels that have been added to the test setup.  So the pressure in the system will not rise and the Pod/Riser group will not sink.  It is (hopefully) the same as Wayne's system where at the botom of stroke the rise will only be resisted by the requirement that the pressure in the hydraulic capture system overcome the accumulator preset value.

Please let me know if you have questions or if I have missed something!

If you think this is a valid test setup, please let me know what you think should be tested.

M.

Quote from: LarryC on October 06, 2012, 07:20:05 PM
Attached is a calculator based on Wayne's calculation instructions to replicators from reply #2505.

Would any of the replicator please apply your specifications and see how it works out. I used made up data that would give me the same results as Wayne had in #2505.

I've been working with this calculator using data from my calculators and an interesting observation that can be made is that the ratio (not shown) of the 'SI of Pod Retainer' to the 'SI of pod retainer water gap' is the key to the OU.

After running more of my other calculator data thru this #2505 reply calculator, I'm pretty sure it has some issues. I will be working it out with Wayne and repost the update when they are resolved.

Thanks, Larry