Quote from: mondrasek on October 27, 2012, 08:30:42 AM

Hey!  Welcome back!

M.

Thank you!  Watching the drama unfold!

MileHigh

Quote from: mondrasek on October 27, 2012, 08:29:51 AM

And the electrical assembly area at work has every imaginable size of heat shrink tubing!  The smaller sizes are clear, thin walled, and fairly flexible.  Some 1/16 (ID? OD?) found it's way to my work bench at home.

TK should be proud to know that it was my A&P Tech friend at work who thought of the heat shrink tubing when I asked him what we might have on hand for this application.  This was after he had handed me a spray tube from a WD40 bottle first.

M.

The Local Hobby Shop (the one that sells RC Aircraft models, not electric trains or "crafts")  is an amazing resource. Ask for "antenna tubes" and you will be offered dozens of differently colored plastic tubes about a foot long and of nice wall thickness and stiffness. Ask for Teflon CA application tubing and you will be offered several different gauges of very fine Teflon tubing in rolls or precut short lengths. Ask for silicone fuel line tubing: ditto.
Look there also for packages of metal tubing offcuts, plastic hardware, and specialized adhesives, in addition to fine mechanical parts like inexpensive small precision ball bearings and matching shafts.
I was gonna suggest heatshrink but it's often too flimsy in the smaller sizes to work as good pipeline tubing. Try the very fine Teflon: it can be had in capillary sizes and has wall thickness that is tough enough to withstand bends without collapsing.

Quote from: Red_Sunset on October 27, 2012, 06:17:27 AM
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.

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, I have an "agenda": that is the Truth. What is the "bad" part of that? Can you actually refute any of the things I've said in the post you partially quote? DID YOU LOOK UP the experiments I suggested? How can one send a robot spacecraft on a ballistic UNPOWERED journey of a billion miles through a gravitational field, without noticing a "flow" or anything else NOT understood about gravity? How do you keep gyroscope spheres spinning so accurately for years without understanding the forces they experience? Do not try to tell me that gravity is non-conservative or is some kind of "flow" until you can show your model to be consistent with the results of these two sets of experiments.
But all that is irrelevant, really, because all I am asking for is EVIDENCE that supports the CLAIMS MADE by MrWayne and you and some others. But you cannot or will not provide that evidence, instead choosing to attack me and my "agenda" without, again, providing support for your attack.

Where is the demonstration that Mister Wayne is correct? It does not exist. You and others have pointed out that he's been working on this "basic discovery" since 2008. It is almost 2013 now. If he and his engineers understand the system so well why can't they build a working model?  Why do they claim to have done so, but never succeed in demonstrating that fact? Why is the longest reported run still under four hours, and why is that time well within the capacity of the stored energy in the system?

I'd say, Red, that YOUR AGENDA is slightly more difficult to defend, and is much less legitimate, than mine is. Consider that you have never actually built anything to demonstrate the truth of your contentions. Yet you can lay out the full instructions in a single post. Where are the sausages?

Mr. Webb.

Thank you for that!  It was very interesting!

I started this test with only the preload weight in place and at max stroke on the 8mm stroke setup.  The water from the outer annulus was removed (mostly) by siphoning with the liberated heatshrink tubing.  Then the (insert appropriate name here) was lowered ~8mm by venting water from the Pod chamber per usual testing protocol.  Water was then reintroduced to the outer annulus via a CA applicator pipette (eye dropper).

The (insert appropriate name here) system was expected to rise as the water was returned to the outer annulus.  But it did not.  It did not move at all at first but actually sank as the water neared the maximum level in the outer annulus.

Since the above reported observations were not expected I immediately rejected them and started over.  BUT I changed the testing protocol slightly to correct for the WEIRDNESS that was observed previously.

Again water was siphoned from the outer annulus (the (insert appropriate name here) was still at its lowered state from the previous test).  But then water was added to the FILL TUBE so that it would enter the Pod chamber.  This was done until a noticeable rise in the (insert appropriate name here) was achieved and thus eliminated the weirdness due to the hysteresis/stiction/gremlins in the previous test.

Water was again reintroduced to the outer chamber, drop by drop.  And the (insert appropriate name here) began to stroke upwards as expected.  For a bit.  And then it began to sink.  For a bit.  And as the reintroduced water began to reach its maximum height the (insert appropriate name here) began to lift again.  All in all, it lifted.  But it sank during part of this test.

WTF?

This test is pressurizing the (insert appropriate name here) from the OUTSIDE to the INSIDE rather than the usual method of pressurizing from the inside to the out.

I could really use a sim to check this out further...

M.

Quote from: mondrasek on October 27, 2012, 08:46:57 AM

Well that is seriously disappointing.

Why? All you have to do is add another layer and you'll have your overunity results, improved vastly from your earlier 40 percent. Right?

Or perhaps, you've done something else wrong and after another month of building and playing with a WRONG system, describing everything you are doing in advance publicly, asking for criticism, then doing what you think is "approved"... maybe those "in the know" will tell you about it. Finally.