Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Ghost]

I hope, everybody understands:  A patent application (not even a granted patent) is no proof that it works. The patent office only checks whether something similar "was published" before. The patent office does not check the correct functioning of the claimed machine or process.

Nevertheless the patent publication gives us something to talk about.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?NUM=US20120117957

It still may be that crucial concepts are not included in the patent. Is this the case?

If everything is in the patent we can start a meaningful discussion. And Wayne could start to disclose meaningful data.

But as I know the world, he is bound by some money matters to keep secrets.

Greetings, Conrad

Exactly, a patent don't mean shit! And doesn’t prove anything!

[mrwayne]

Conrad is correct,
Just a filing alone does not prove a machine works - I appreciate facts.

In our case, we supplied enough information to build a fully functional machine - that uses buoyancy in a uniques concept to provide net energy from the exchange.

I had to make a decision as the inventor - leave crucial information out - in an effort to undercut theft, to hide our true purpose (net energy), or to fully disclose -

My policy from the begining - and continues - to be completly honest. That decision to publish the patent - without crucial information left out - meant we had to have a very strong patent - close to $40 grand later - you get to read it for free - online!

Now we have things not in "this" patent - Sustantial improvements being covered under additional writing. which meant much more $$ (Please do not ask questions regarding those, I will not be discussing those until they are released as well).

Due dilligense - not becasue "money matters" - I have full authority in all matters.

The rules regarding patents makes it standard to prohibit such discussions until the process is in a released stage - as is the state of our core design. 

Data release will be a business decision - We are sharing our work - not asking for approval.

Those with real curiosity - or able to get involved can contact me regarding that and other information.

mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

Thanks Conrad for the clear and steady mind, it protects individuals.
Wayme Travis

[johnny874]

Conrad is correct,
Just a filing alone does not prove a machine works - I appreciate facts.

In our case, we supplied enough information to build a fully functional machine - that uses buoyancy in a uniques concept to provide net energy from the exchange.

I had to make a decision as the inventor - leave crucial information out - in an effort to undercut theft, to hide our true purpose (net energy), or to fully disclose -

My policy from the begining - and continues - to be completly honest. That decision to publish the patent - without crucial information left out - meant we had to have a very strong patent - close to $40 grand later - you get to read it for free - online!

Now we have things not in "this" patent - Sustantial improvements being covered under additional writing. which meant much more $$ (Please do not ask questions regarding those, I will not be discussing those until they are released as well).

Due dilligense - not becasue "money matters" - I have full authority in all matters.

The rules regarding patents makes it standard to prohibit such discussions until the process is in a released stage - as is the state of our core design. 

Data release will be a business decision - We are sharing our work - not asking for approval.

Those with real curiosity - or able to get involved can contact me regarding that and other information.

mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

Thanks Conrad for the clear and steady mind, it protects individuals.
Wayme Travis

  Wayne,
I think aboiut the only improvements that would allow your device to work are what I am illustrating.
By using low pressure air to create hydraulic pressure, then a spring or even air can be compressed in an
attempt to close an expansion chamber. One thing that would help in this is if the pneumatic piston had a
spring itself could compress. Springs are an equal exchange item. As such, when compression occurs
from closing thew expansion chamber, there is some give in the high pressure air chamber.
Then when it is closed, the spring under the oneumatic piston would help to maintain high pressure air in
that chamber while it expqands along with the low pressure chamber. By having them both expand, the h.p.
more quickly of course would allow for more work to be performed.
Be that as it may, it is difficult to discuss engineering when a claim is made but there is nothing that supports
those claims.

                                                                                                                          Jim

[mondrasek]

For this device to be overunity it is required that more head pressure is available for boyancy than is present in the entire water head.  That is clearly not possible with a single cylinder in either a simple Archemedian set up or the simple "Travis effect" set ups we have compared.

With this design Mr. Wayne has nested three cylinders.  They all use the same water head.  So to be overunity, the sum of the heads for the three cylinders must be greater than the single water head.  Or in the picture below, B + C + D must be greater than A.  That is clearly the case.

He has a workable overunity bouyancy device design.  From the video's I would say he also has the devices built.

Thanks,

M.

[johnny874]

For this device to be overunity it is required that more head pressure is available for boyancy than is present in the entire water head.  That is clearly not possible with a single cylinder in either a simple Archemedian set up or the simple "Travis effect" set ups we have compared.

With this design Mr. Wayne has nested three cylinders.  They all use the same water head.  So to be overunity, the sum of the heads for the three cylinders must be greater than the single water head.  Or in the picture below, B + C +D must be greater than A.  That is clearly the case.

He has a workable overunity bouyancy device design.  From the video's I would say he also has the devices built.

Thanks,

M.

  M.,
Out of respect for you and Mr. Travis, I am going to quit following this thread after I point out one incorrect assumption in your previous post.
When B+C+D have a greater effect than A, energy is being lost. This is because the weight (110?) is trying to compress a hydraulic cylinder. Instead, it is lifting a column of water that does not perform work.
In the patent application, section no. 88, Mr. Wayne states that the static heads need to be recharged with air. I would have to believe this is the reason for the compression of the hydraulic cylinder occuring, not because of any effect.
The reality is that A would seek a balance with B+C+D dependent on their respective air pressure. The water columns would adjust accordingly.