Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mrwayne]

Mr. Travis,

I am curious why after having a patent on your device, that Mark Dansie felt it necessary to "Black Box" your device and only showed a very limited video.  Isn't the purpose of a patent so that you have public protection so that you can freely show your device openly and the data of input and output to the public for marketing?   Are there parts of your device that are still under development that do not have patent protection?  Would your device (when stable) be suitable to power the electric motors on a locomotive in your opinion?

Liberty

Black box is my term - it means having a machine you can verify has no external input. If it happens to mean something else - My apology.
We did that back in November - then the even harder examinations started.
There is more than enough information to build our overunity device - as many have replicated the physics of the system correctly - showing and affirming the fact.
Yes, we have improvements - those are under separate protection.
Our systems are big - but they do not have to be heavy - locomotion use would be down the road.
Thanks Wayne

[mrwayne]

Wayne, I am sorry that you think I spread misinformation. I just say, that you will not be believed unless many people can see a working machine which puts out some net energy over a longer time. In fact this is the most trivial requirement of any OU machine and of course it is the most difficult thing to show.

On your web site you announced a test run for Friday 17th of August. May be you can report (after the event) accurately what one could see and the result of this test run, especially the net power output and the duration of the run.

"Verification" for most people simply means that an OU machine puts out "free power" (net power) for a longer time. One should be able to measure the net output and one should be able to see (by walking around the machine) that no power is put in which is not accounted for. A self runner would be helpful, because any human intervention will be suspect.

Once this "trivial verification" is possible for many people, you will be able to generate interest in the scientific establishment and in the serious business world. And if you want scientific recognition and recognition by serious investors you have to provide free machines for testing and verification.

I think that the "flying bicycle example" posted by TinselKoala was a very good way of putting it. If some one flies around me for some time with a "flying bicycle" I start to believe him, even without understanding how it works. If no one can be observed flying around in a bicycle, it will not be believed. One can never prove that a "flying bicycle does not exist", but one can prove that it does indeed exist by flying around people in this bicycle (even when its workings stay a secret).

In analogy, if you can provide a self running OU machine with a consistent net output, one will start to believe you. It would be even better if you could provide scientific institutions with free OU machines for inspection, you would be famous over night.

Greetings, Conrad

Thank You,

I did see where you wrote misinformation, I thought to myself - how could you not know that what you wrote was not true?

It is hard enough in this field of discovery just to "present my findings" and then that kind of stuff is added..... - I will appreciate, and respect that you mean what you say. Thank you.

I do understand that everyone assumes big checks come rollling in - they also believe that with a running system - all questions will stop - both are wrong.

I do understand your guidance - and certain people have had the "thorough walk around the machine" - and they are not the type that comment on Forums.

They are the type that join and help in a good fight, the fight we face - to explain the contradiction that we have presented physics - both being able to prove our system and argue against it.

A big error many here make - is assuming I am trying to convince someone of my machine's ability.

I am not trying to convince anyone - some will check it out - and some won't - those that do - come to the same conclusion -
Some thing is amiss in the Law of thermal dynamics - or it needs an amendment.

We are working very hard on the data converted model that is where we are now.

I understand that for people to believe in flying bicycles - ......... they need to see - but seeing is not believing - I have been there since last May - it gives hope - but the data and the answers to physics follow the sighting.

Then that is followed by a whole new list of questions.

This has been a great adventure - I do not mind sharing my story, and the story of the team working hard here - in its own way - sharing here has brought new team members - after they replicated the machine or the physics - it has been a blessing.

Thanks again

Wayne Travis

[see3d]

Hi All,

While going through the calculations for the 2 layer sim, I found an error in the formula used in the 1 layer sim.  It was pretty glaring once I saw. it.  Unfortunately that one error ripples through later formulas.  I will post a new PDF version as soon as I work through the changes.  It looks like the efficiency will be improved:

PAGE 9)

1. Calculate the AirPSI in the Riser air pocket:

AirPSI = (InputForce - PistonStopLoad) / H0Area

~Dennis

[TinselKoala]

Good. I thought there was something funny about that one, but with all the hidden counterbalancing and the lack of computation of the internal work I wasn't really sure.

When you revise the sim, could you _please_ also account for the internal work, so that the total work "output" includes this internal work and its storage in the compression of the air and the lifted mass of the water? I can live with water density in pounds per cubic inch and hidden counterbalances and an unrealistically low-mass riser  ... but not accounting for _all_ the work seems ... well, it seems like an omission.

At the top of the cycle when the lifted weight is as high as it is going to get, there is energy (work) stored in the system still, and this work isn't fully accounted for, and it is necessary to reset the system. If you released the internal pressure at this point... the weight would fall... and then if you resealed the system... it would have less air/water in it than you started the cycle with, showing that this stored internal work is indeed necessary to reset the system to the starting point of the cycle, and if it is bled off in any way... it will have to be replaced by additional outside work to bring the system back to the starting state.


Also, it would be nice if MrWayne would  measure the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity itself" that he has somewhere, and give you those exact parameters to enter into your sim, so we could see how this clear overunity manifests itself in a simple system.

Your sim has contributed greatly to my understanding of what is happening here. I do hope your revision, including the internal work and MrWayne's starting parameters, will teach us all even more.

Hi All,

While going through the calculations for the 2 layer sim, I found an error in the formula used in the 1 layer sim.  It was pretty glaring once I saw. it.  Unfortunately that one error ripples through later formulas.  I will post a new PDF version as soon as I work through the changes.  It looks like the efficiency will be improved:

PAGE 9)

1. Calculate the AirPSI in the Riser air pocket:

AirPSI = (InputForce - PistonStopLoad) / H0Area

~Dennis

[TinselKoala]

@Seamus10n:

Did you happen to watch Mark Dansie's video that MrWayne recently linked? It's very hard for me to reconcile the running of that system, as shown in the video, with any kind of mechanical resonance. The periods (measured by the interclunk timing) are not symmetrical nor are they exactly equal from cycle to cycle (assuming two clunks per cycle of course); nor does the amplitude of the "oscillation" increase. In fact the constant amplitude of the oscillations seems to be part of the control loop or is fixed by the geometry and is at maximum from the very first cycle. (I find this fact interesting on its own.) However, it seems to me that the f₀ of the system varies a bit in a systematic manner over the 4 minutes of the video. What do you think?

ETA: mechanical or hydraulic resonance needn't be super fast of course; the "water hammer" is an example of (destructive) resonance in an hydraulic system, commonly found in poorly planned domestic plumbing and relatively easily corrected by hydraulic/pneumatic inductor-capacitor analogues that you can buy at Home Despot.