Red, if we skeptics did what you sarcastically suggest (because you can't actually refute the points Seamus10n and I made) we'd miss out on the chance to see REAL, SOLID EVIDENCE that someone has actually found a workaround or flaw in the main...er.... stream.... understanding of some well-known and trusted physical principle. We'd also miss out on the sheer drama (and occasional high comedy) of watching all these people (here I refer to Archer Quinn, Mylow, Steorn personnel, Rosemary Ainslie, and others of that ilk) finally choke on the feet they stuff into their own mouths with their unsupported, and unsupportable and even untestable, claims.  Does mister Wayne belong in this "ilk"? More and more, it is appearing so.

Personally I think that there are a lot of truly creative people working on various interesting things on this forum. Some of them might have the potential (pun intended) of figuring out how to hook into to the "wheelworks of Nature" that Nicky used to talk about. The extraction of low grade environmental energies and conversion of them to higher-grade, usable forms might someday result in real systems that do operate in that manner, yielding useful output work. But these will most certainly NOT have "no input" if and when they are discovered. Meanwhile, many of these creative and innovative people are distracted by projects that seem simple and logical (based on incorrect assumptions about fundamental principles) and wind up doing what GreenHiker accused me of being responsible for: They waste their time, money and creative juices running down dead-end paths that have long before been explored to the last nook and cranny, because some charismatic individual shows a system that is misinterpreted or some experimental results from bad experiments. Deliberate Red Herrings don't help the case much, either, unless they are so very obvious Red_Herrings that lead folks astray from the main school of fish.... out to where they are easy prey for sharks. The discerning fisherman sees these radical Red Herrings and understands not to chase them, and perhaps even learns from them.
Don't get eaten, Red.

Hi Michel,


if I may still go back to the #2789 post


>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


You are basically saying that lift case is over 100% efficient. Can this be achieved purely by one ZED or only in combination with another ZED which would provide some of its exhaust as input?
Somewhere in the beginning MrWayne said that upward action is not much different from a pneumatic cylinder and that main difference is in down stroke. As I read it lift part is 100% but down stroke over 100%.


Marcel

Quote from: webby1 on November 07, 2012, 02:40:09 PM
A big breakthrough in Chemistry was when they figured out that it is not just what and how much of stuff is in something but how it is connected as well.

This system just takes actions and reactions and connects them differently.  Same ingredients but a different cup of soup.

Your new soup is not very nourishing. Maybe it needs a bit of the meat of EVIDENCE, and the spice of SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS to be completely palatable.

From TK

Red, gravity is a conservative field of force. Buoyancy is just an effect of gravity by another name, worked through displacement of water. This means that there is nothing that "flows" in the force of gravity, and the gravitational potential energy of any object depends ONLY on its height above a reference, not at all on the simple or complicated path that it took to get there or how much work went into getting it there in the first place.[

From NOAA describing percolation in the Hydrologic Cycle:

Percolation is the movement of water though the soil, and it's layers, by gravity and capillary forces. The prime moving force of groundwater is gravity. Water that is in the zone of aeration where air exists is called vadose water. Water that is in the zone of saturation is called groundwater. For all practical purposes, all groundwater originates as surface water. Once underground, the water is moved by gravity. The boundary that separates the vadose and the saturation zones is called the water table. Usually the direction of water movement is changed from downward and a horizontal component to the movement is added that is based on the geologic boundary conditions.
This is being accomplished in a closed never ending cycle that has been ongoing
for millions of years.
Wayne has mimicked nature to a degree!

"When you look at the system most eyes stop at the obvious parts, they do not even need to go any further because they have seen what they need to,, but that does not mean that there is no more things to see."

On that we are in total agreement. I would only substitute the word "want" where you have "need".