Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

@neptune: Sure, what you've said makes sense, but it's not equivalent to what's going on here, is it. In your first machine, you are taking the output out of the system and storing it in your elevated weights. I think you will agree that a continuing input of energy is required in this case, since you are not recycling anything, just lifting and storing weights, and there's no magic in a simple hydraulic lift. The elevated weights each have their PE increased by exactly the amount of elevation, each time, right?

In the second, MrWayne, machine you are keeping the "output" in the system, and it's equivalent to your "zeroeth" case: up, and down, just split into two, antiphase portions each half as high. There is still no mechanism for extra work or energy to enter the system, and only losses as "output" so the system will quickly stop, just like a bouncing ball does ...unless, just as in the first case, you supply it with energy from outside on a continuing basis. Each cycle still has only the PE it started out with and splitting part of it off to "help" the other Zed only reduces the "output" of the first Zed by the same amount, and you are still doing the same thing as in the "zeroeth" case, just bouncing a ball.

Just like my spring system described above. Nobody has commented on that one.... yet it "seems" to be just as overunity, just as free work producing, as the twin Zed system.... and for the same reasons, using part of the "output" of one spring to "assist" the compression of the other.

And nobody has jumped in with an explanation of where the missing dollar went in the Whirling Dervish Motel example yet either. I figured people would be all over that one, which shows how misdirection and complex accounting can lead to false conclusions, even when it's clear where all the input numbers come from.

[TinselKoala]

I see that Red_Sunset has reproduced one of my responses to one of the sets of PMs circulating in the "back channel" of this thread. And he appears to be commending my last paragraph. OK, let me expand a bit.

I, for one, would be _ecstatic_ if anyone could prove me, and the other skeptics, to be wrong about things like MrWayne's violation of the laws of thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics. Do you think it pleases me to see people wasting their time, misdirecting other creative people, giving false hopes and spinning their wheels? No, it does not.

It would be the best thing in the world, changing just about every aspect of life, causing a great revolution in science, for MrWayne, for example, to be proven correct and his system developed to its full potential. You might even wind up with a tiny twin TinselSpringZed powering your cellphone, who knows. I certainly wouldn't tuck my tail under my belly and climb a tree in shame, I'd be running to my nearest real laboratory to get in on the ground floor of the real science revolution it would cause.

But what would the reaction be, from the _believers_, if it could be shown that MrWayne is mistaken somehow, that his system doesn't work and really _really_ cannot work, as some of us "know" is the case already. Would they just shrug their shoulders, accept the facts and move on? Or would they be terribly disappointed, denying that they have been refuted, clinging to the fixed idea that drove them in their delusions in the first place, making new improved versions (that still don't work) and slinging sacks of stink at the skeptics?

Here's something else that Mile High had to post by PM, since he's not allowed to post here and is on so many ignore lists, just like I am:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY_kd46RfVE

[vince]

@TK

3 men Pay $10 each for $30 room
Room only costs $25
Room attendant give each man back $1 so they only have paid $9 each
Room attendant pockets $2
3 times $9 = $27, minus $2 kept by attendant = $25, which is cost of room

Your right, it all depends on how you look at things

Vince

[wildew]

Since Vince beat me to the $$ exchange I'll expand a little on Neptune's example.
First, to show that things can even be looked at correctly in many ways, back to the money...
The hotel had $25, the bell hop had $2 and each of the travelers had $1 - 25+2+1+1+1=30
Same thing said slightly different.

Netune's example: Instead of lifting one weight, lift 6 smaller ones. And lets pretend that part of the system reset involves pushing down on a plunger that is at the same height as the output at that part of the cycle. 6 weights go up 1 inch - 4 are rolled away from the system as output. 2 are rolled on the plunger and descend back to the starting point. (  and yes, as part of the lift cycle, that imaginary plunger, without weight on it, raises back up... )

Final note: Yes, if this whole project ends up being proven wrong and the fallacy exposed, I will take my model and place it on a shelf as a reminder to not be fooled so easily next time..... and move on with no regrets.
Dale 

[neptune]

TK.You provided a link from MH to a youtube video, which he posted on the back channel. You did not post my response to it, so I will paraphrase it here.


The video tells the story of A woman doctor, Alice Stephens who developed a theory that childhood cancers could result from X-rays in pregnant women,
. This flew in the face of Received Wisdom. She enlisted a sceptic collegue to prove her theory wrong .He failed to do so and in time [20 years] her theory was accepted as fact. Very interesting, but I could not see the relevance to this thread.


Then I remembered this guy who lived in Chickasha Oklahoma USA. I forget his name, but he had a theory that flew in the face of Received Wisdom. He enlisted sceptics, to prove him wrong, but they could not do so. Are we seeing a pattern here?


When discussing my examples, you compare the Zed to a hydraulic lift. You are partly right.But this is a hydraulic lift that can be 100% efficient , and still have usable energy within it at the top of the stroke. This energy does not need to be used to complete the cycle.
 
What would be my attitude if mrwayne was proved wrong? I would be disappointed, yes. I do not discount the possibility that he could be wrong. Right now, based on evidence from all sources, I believe he is right. My attitude is to give it a year from now.