seamus,
mr.wynes device can't work, sorry.

edited to add; stefan (hartiberlin) supports his work as far as I know.

Do you "believers" think that physics does not understand gravity to the point of being able to engineer, at will, with it? Please research two topics: Gravity Probe B, and the Cassini mission to Saturn's moon Titan. The gyroscopes in the GPB satellite experiment, which contain the most precise spheres ever made by humans, and the ballistic spacecraft trajectory to Titan, requiring only a single small course correction on the journey from Earth to Saturn, indicate that gravity, its nature and its effects are pretty damn well understood and IF gravity were a "flow" or IF it somehow was possible to extract energy from a gravitational field..... these two experiments, and many MANY others over the years, would have revealed that fact, by adding or subtracting energies that would have to be accounted for. But guess what: over the nearly one BILLION mile journey up the gravitational well of old Sol on the way out to Saturn...... and over the years of GPB's orbital work.... Newtonian physics and standard engineering mechanics and dynamics required no fudging. GPB did reveal that Einstein was right, too.... at even more precise, tiny scales, relativistic corrections to Newton do show up, but there are no surprises in the energy balance of the experiment. What goes up.... comes down, with losses, and there's nothing extra or left over that isn't accounted for by Newton and Einstein.

The idea that MrWayne is a "teacher" who somehow wanted to teach us something, with noble motives, and was chased off or frustrated in his attempt by skeptical challenges is just a lie.  No genuine teacher with knowledge that he wishes to reveal acts as he does. If I want to teach someone the Pythagorean theorem or how to solve a quadratic equation, the first thing I do is to DEMONSTRATE that what I am teaching actually works. And I answer any and all questions along the way.
I don't claim that I have a secret equation that works a miracle on a complicated problem, then drop hints in non-standard language, confusing integers with reals and making other sophomore errors, and have you struggle to derive some equation without ever having seen a real problem worked out with the secret system that I am allegedly teaching you.

Ask relevant questions concerning the Zed, and stop talking about Gravity in general, you say? OK, here's a relevant question for the Teacher and his sycophant Students:
Where is the "Simple, Three Layer System that is clearly overunity by itself"? (Mister Wayne's exact words.)
How was this clear overunity determined, and what is the ratio of input to output work? If you tell me that there is NO INPUT, then I say this: show me this system running, making usable output without any input, and demonstrate the veracity of your claim and your authority and credibility to teach.
Note that I am NOT ASKING YOU TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS FOR ME or to simply "give" me the solution. I just want the Teacher to prove that he has something to teach, by SHOWING WHAT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE and demonstrating that it works.

And another thing: What is this sudden talk about overunity air conditioners? It seems lately like THAT is the definition of "overunity" that MrWayne wants to apply to the Zed. Otherwise why bring it up, why use it as an illustration? An "overunity" system that is OU in the same way that a heat pump or window AC is OU.... is not very interesting, and there aren't many such systems being discussed on OVERUNITY forums.

I can claim to have a herd of invisible pink unicorns, and I can conduct classes in animal husbandry, equestrian performance, and saddle-making all day long, using regular  horses as my examples. I can even show you cartoon animations of how a young Unicorn's horn starts to grow and twist into its nice spiral, and I can demonstrate IN THE ANIMATION how an adolescent Unicorn begins to turn completely pink, discarding its paler juvenile transparency for the more robust adult invisible pigmentation.  By the end of the semester you will know a whole lot of conventional information about horses and their care and feeding. But if I never EVER actually show you a real pink invisible unicorn.... what are you gonna think?

ETA: Did I mention that there are at least 117 people who have confirmed my invisible unicorns? No, I can't tell you any of their names so you can contact them yourselves and ask just what they saw or didn't see. But if you sign my NDA I can show you my barn full of saddles and tack, and the floor covered with unicorn....er..... hoofprints. But sorry, all the unicorns are out in the upper pasture grazing right now, and won't be back until.... after you've gone home.

The Travis gain effect in a nutshell
This is the most simplest way I can describe the principles involved,  I am not going into the workings of how the multi layer lift device accomplice the ratio changes.
Case #1 is your standard and Case #2 is the Travis miracle being disputed. I know you will be coming back with IMPOSSIBLE, CAN NOT BE….ect. But if you have some usable brains at all you will figure it out. I even added a picture and I added related and relevant postings from Wayne to the bottom.

Please note: The Case #1 & 2 examples below are theoretical examples with simplified values for demonstration of the Travis OU principles only. They do not bear direct resemblance to the implementation of the principles within the Zed system

LIFT Case #1 (Standard system)
We lift a weight of 1000kg to a height of 1meter,
Potential energy created in the weight= 1000KgMeter

To do the lift we use an hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. This requires to fill the ram cavity of 1mtr x 1mtr  with 1000 liters (kg) of fluid (the pressure is 1000kg/SqMtr or 0.1kg/SqCm)
Fluid energy input is 1000kg x 1mtr = 1000KgMtr

DESCEND Case #1 (Standard system)
We descend the weight of 1000kg back to down to base level (distance = 1Mtr),
Potential energy released by the weight= 1000KgMeter

To do the descend,  we use the same hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. The ram cavity, 1000 liters (kg) of fluid with a pressure of 1000kg/SqMtr or 0.1kg/SqCm)
Fluid energy output is 1000Kg/SqMtr x 1mtr = 1000KgMtr

LIFT Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
We lift a weight of 1000kg to a height of 1meter,
Potential energy created in the weight= 1000KgMeter

To do the lift we use an hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. This does not require  to fill a  ram cavity of 1mtr x 1mtr  with 1000 liters (kg) of fluid.  The multi layer lifter design reduces the fluid input and pressure requirements.  The effective energy input to lift is reduced to a level below 100% according to the design
Fluid energy input is  >1000kg x 1mtr =  >1000KgMtr

DESCEND Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
We descend the weight of 1000kg back to down to base level (distance = 1Mtr),
Potential energy released by the weight = 1000KgMeter

For doing the descend we have the ability to use an effective different lift area, we choose to descend the weight with an extreme effective reduced piston lift area of 0.1SquareMeter (as an example only). The ram cavity remains unchanged at 1000 liter (kg) of fluid (the pressure is now 10x more, 10.000kg/SqMtr or 1kg/SqCm).
The fluid output is exhausted at 10x the standard pressure, containing 10x the energy level.
Fluid energy output is 10.000Kg/SqMtr x 1mtr = 10.000KgMtr


//////////////////
REFERENCES: 
Some of WAYNE’s POSTINGS in this FORUM that explain this effect, please try to read with comprehension.

« Reply #718 on: June 25, 2012, 02:36:25 PM »
A good question was asked by a college student,  >> (The assumed college student was me at the time, Wayne's answer is what the whole zed principle is all about)

"It is guessed that the weight of the riser assembly (piston/float + top deadweight) is equaled by the default upward buoyancy force of 4.8psi.  A 8psi would nearly double this force. "
The guess is wrong:
The function of lifting a weight using the layering system has a different set of principles than using the weight to increase the pressure in the same chamber.

The linear scale of (hydro) pressure to lift increases toward ideal - this means we get more bang for the buck, lift more for pound in the higher range than in the lower - this is extremely useful - taking advantage of this relationship is fundamental.

In simple terms - increasing the pressure in the pod from 7 psi to 8 psi (hydro) of pressure will lift an additional 687 pounds (for the cost of 1 pound of work)
In the lower scale - 3.8 psi to 4.8 psi (Hydro) 458 pounds creates 1 psi of hydro pressure
So the input value depends on the point in the scale - the weight value - and the lift value is also controlled by that scale
  If you put 5500 pounds of weight on both of the Zed - we would have 8psi at all points - same scale = no gain.
Currently - we uses the lower scale weight to increase the value of the sinking system - while benefiting from the higher range on the upstroke.
Wayne

This may seem like a lot of work to do slight better than a pneumatic cylinder - well that is because - it is not the lift that I had to overcome in my design:
The second hurdle in using buoyancy to generate energy - HOW DO YOU SINK AN OBJECT THAT IS NORMALLY BOUYANT - WHILE MAINTAINING THE FIRST HURDLE - HOW DO YOU REDUCE THE VOLUME REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OBJECT BOUYANT?
I bold these, not to yell - but they are the right questions that had to be answered to make my overunity device work.

////////////////////

You are at the same point at which our Engineers (who where hired to disprove our system started to say omgosh).

Let me help you jump ahead a little - in our system the head -like Larry mentioned - travels up with the stroke - this results in a special condition at the end of stroke -
Namely - all the energy you put into the system is still there - the load is up - and removed - but the buoyancy - "head" - is still intact.

You limited the stroke - unlike other buoyancy systems we do not fill -then - float -then DRAIN and then sink - as you have discovered - moving the head creates a sink condition. The sink condition is directly related to the static load - as one of you mentioned - well done.

Now - we move the head - into the other Zed (equalization - free flow as we call it) the first one does not sink during equalization it sinks (during stroke of the other Zed).

We reserve a large portion of the head (neutralizing the weight of the system - we also do not expand the air in the system (Much) as one of you stated - well done.

Now in the equalized postion - we use the pressure in the lowering Zed to supplament the Stroking Zed -
Guess what this does for efficiency..........very exciting

We add weight to the riser and split the desired force - like this with our 6000 pound force model - 2000 pounds lifts weight - returned in the system (exhaust - lowering Zed transfer),  2000 to fuel the internal operations and 2000 pounds absolutely free.

In short - our three layer system has a total of 1/3 the Ideal - absolutely free.

Do not get trapped into thinking you have to exceed the Ideal of a system to achieve OU - that would be magic - our system is simple physics - seen in a new light.
When you wrap this together - you will see why - every engineer who comes - is so excited to join our work.

Well done men, ladies'

Now you know what I saw in the hot tub back in 2008 - in the Travis Effect - pretty cool, and why we dropped everything and persued this - against all odds.

Please e-mail me when your OMGosh moment hits - I am honored by your work, and will include you in our historical journals (with permission) and possibly work together in the future of Clean FREE Energy.

jwtravis5@peoplepc.com

Wayne Travis


« Reply #699 on: June 24, 2012, 03:32:27 PM »
You People impress me,
My Patent attorney told me that few people could - or would wrap their heads around a system (like ours) that had so many naturally correlating effects within the system - you are doing well!
On that note: does it amaze you yet on how much is going on in basically a single moving part (when they are attached together).
Now for a big jump in your computations - I know some of you are working ahead - so.......
Consider the Weight - I told you it was to keep the air compressed - the heads in place (partially) and to control the sink rate of the system .... right -

Two More reasons for the weight:
First - as you have noticed - the effeciency of the system is best at "ideal" in most systems to get to ideal requires going from 0- ideal and back again = over and over -
The weights let us skip past the first 55% of the system and function only in the begining of the "super effecient range".
The weight would seem to some to be a waste of energy - or a simple teeter taughter effect - which it is (in that normal relm of physics - but to be able to cancel out the need to go from 0 - ideal - and instead operate at 55% of ideal too ideal only is good, very good.
We do not get to "eliminate" the need for the weight - but we do not pay for that part of the process over and over .
That was hard for my engineers - they wanted to squeeze everything out of the system - which means - you have to put it all back in - poor logic with a free energy machine - net Zero. They insisted on light weigting the risers - I argued - it cost us nothing if they are equal on both sides - they argued "Ideal usage" I argued - pay for everything - results in nothing.....

Part two:
The weight and mininum pressure effect:
As in our last model - we have enough weight to keep the pressure at 5.0 psi hydro - this means that if we had chosen to place our pump at the bottom of the system - we would have to overcome the 5.0 and then charge it to 8.0 in order to stroke - but we do not do that - we raised our pump to an elevation equal to that head/psi and so - when we push our water into the pod - the pump has a resistance of - well 0-3 psi - which is much better than 5-8 psi.
Three pounds is not three pounds - Some one will jump on me for that - but to let you all work it out - I will just say - that you can raise the water level in a column from any point - it is harder the lower you go - just in the friction of a seal ---
To be fair - the weight eliminates the input cost of 5.0psi - and reduces the ideal use of the system (please recall that fully utilizing the ideal results in under unity.
Raising the pump eliminates the stress of the exchange - that stress is what tore our model seven apart - during long runs.
- when you get done with this part - let me know - and I will explain the inverted pump system - 20% reduction in pumping cost -(real good).
Got to go
Again - very impressive teamwork.
Wayne Travis

« Last Edit: June 24, 2012, 04:56:27 PM by mrwayne »

« Reply #701 on: June 24, 2012, 04:55:04 PM »
•   Quote
A question was asked about a weight selection calculator -
We do have that in our system - We are not releasing that work without NDA.
Our Model allow us to state the required output "Net"  such as "50kw" and it will find all of the size hieght, width, layers, and weight that will match that output. Then we chose which to select - based on several factors - shipping manufacturing, location etcetera.
The model takes into considerations about 3000times (rough guess) - the information you have uncovered so far.
We have spent four years - not struggling - but in careful understanding.
Concerning your models at this stage, I suggested 1/3 of the ideal of the system - since you have discussed small systems - if your system calculates to lift 600 pounds (at the end of your stroke).
- add the weight of the risers and then add enough weight to reach about 200 pounds.
You will discover that the exhuast pressure created by 200 pounds is over half the energy required to lift 600 pounds.
Some of you may have noticed that we have 5.0 psi in our system from 2500 pounds of weight - and we only add 3psi to get to 8 psi to lift 5500 pounds (which is our operating lift).
So my suggestion - fill out the NDA meet our engineers that have busted it for years to come to a complete and predictive model....
Or, just add a weight to increase your exhuast above half the operting pressure.
We are fortuntate to have a large o/u operating range, this will get you in the good.
Thanks Wayne

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 27, 2012, 03:42:46 AM
........................................ and over the years of GPB's orbital work.... Newtonian physics and standard engineering mechanics and dynamics required no fudging. GPB did reveal that Einstein was right, too.... at even more precise, tiny scales, relativistic corrections to Newton do show up, but there are no surprises in the energy balance of the experiment. What goes up.... comes down, with losses, and there's nothing extra or left over that isn't accounted for by Newton and Einstein.
..........................................................

TK...Your clearly have an agenda ! and a BAD ONE at that.
Why is there a real conflict between what you say in the quote above and your presence on this forum ? considering what follows that statement.

I have lowered the lift stroke from 1.0 cm to 0.8 cm.  Start height for the lift is also slightly lower due to sloppy adjustment of the stroke.  Precharge (initial air and water levels) were necessarily adjusted per the previous methods, but likely resulted in slight differences and therefore results cannot be absolutely compared to those of prior tests.

Lift Mass = 1000 g
Pressure Increase = (from 242 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 24.2 g/cm²
Volume = 102 ml ( or cm³)
Stroke = 0.8 cm

This gives a comparative piston value of 102 cm³/0.8 cm = 128 cm².
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 128 cm² x 24.2 g/cm² = 3100 g. 
Since my lift mass was only 1000 g this is underunity at 1000/3100 = 32.3%.

However, not all of the recorded volume went into the ZED to cause the measured lift.  Approximately 17.2 ml (or cm³) was used to raise the pressure and remained in the input tube.  This caused the 242 mm rise in the input tube water levels between top and bottom of the stroke.  So if this 17.2 ml is subtracted from the 102 ml the comparative piston value would be 84.8 cm³/0.8 cm = 106 cm².  The calculated mass that comparative piston would be able to lift is 106 cm² x 24.2 g/cm² = 2570 g.  This is also underunity at 1000/2570 = 38.9%.

M.