Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

The problem as I see it is that you have not even begun to search. This is a new discovery, and untill you fully understand it, including information yet to be divulged , you are not in a position to judge.
TinselKoala asks where are the scientists. Do you really need to ask. They are busy maintaining the status quo, not even daring to take a sideways glance at things like this , lest it tarnish their professional reputation, and terminate their fat salaries.
   I too have been to university, but some of the most gifted innovators I have met, did not .




  A serious suggestion. Why don`t you guys start another thread with a title such as " Why the Travis Effect can not possibly ever work, nor any similar idea, and we are all condemned to a future of cold and starvation"


That way those of us who wish to learn will be in a better position to do so.

Come on, are you trying to suppress and censor discussion? Put all the naysayers aside, where you won't even look at what they are saying, and prevent them from commenting here? Do you know how typical that tactic is, coming from people who don't turn out to have what they claim?
Even MrWayne himself isn't afraid to engage with your "naysayers", and that is good and appropriate.

Now... on the issue of scientists, status quo, and universities: I assure you, if you gather together a handful of physics _graduate students_ and show them the working prototype that runs on its own, creating energy from buoyancy..... you will immediately have a bunch of scientists crawling all over you, _competing_ with each other to be the first to explain and exploit scientifically the Travis Effect phenomenon.
Scientist careers are made by INNOVATION, not protecting some kind of status quo ante. And they award the Noble Prize not to protectors of the pearly gates, but to people who expand them and make major NEW contributions to knowledge. Your view of science and scientists is simply erroneous. Where, for example, did that fast computer that you are reading these words come from? Certainly not from scientists who were interested in maintaining some kind of closed system.  The electronics in your computer work because they are packed in there by people who thoroughly understand _conventional thermodynamics_ which doesn't have any holes in it and which can be used to predict _precisely and accurately_ such things as energy flows.

Or maybe you think aliens gave us the transistor and large-scale integration.

(Fat salaries for scientists? I am all for that.... too bad it hardly ever happens. The scientists who DO make a lot of money do it.... by innovating.)

[neptune]

@TK. I am more than willing to discuss the points you raise.I fully respect your views. However, just not on this thread , because it just gets in the way of people who want to study this, and then make an unbiased assesment of it .

[neptune]

A LarryC. It has occurred to me that rather than having found a new source of info , you have just done some very clever calculations based on info gleaned from the demonstration diagrams. If this is the case, well done .
The only problem with that, is that some info on the diagrams is not to scale, and as far as I can see, that takes nothing away from what you have show. Unfortunately, however, it does not enable us to accurately calculate some further stuff. We can not for instance calculate the volume of water needed for the inlet phase, because we do not know the width of the inter cylinder gaps. That is a pity because if we knew what that volume was [and the inlet pressure which we already know] we could calculate the energy input per stroke .

The calculation of these gaps is, as I have previously stated , is not easy . The gaps have to get narrower as we work from the centre of the device towards the outside , because we want the volume of water in each stage to be the same , and of course the circumference is increasing at each stage. Coupled with that we have been told that the gaps want to be as narrow as possible .


A practical problem I can forsee is this .When building a model , we really need a way to determine water levels in the various parts of the apparatus. I am not sure that this would be completely solved by the use of transparent building materials, and adding dyes to each volume of water .

[LarryC]

OMG, the follow up. The OMG was meant as a eureka moment and I am still smiling.
This was not intended to be an example of the perfect system, it is intended for the understanding of how the system is producing overunity.

The spreadsheet was developed on the 8 PSI in the precharge equates to 18.6 of water head (8/.43). The surface diameters were based on the stated fact that the first surface is 30". The  other surfaces were based on the drawing dimensions and the stated fact that each lower surface has less lift then the one above due to Travis effect.

I showed the Full Precharge and Full lift as they are the most important to understand. Note that the full lift has more water than the Precharge. This is required in order to maintain the heads, which maintains the air pressure on the inner Riser surfaces as the system lifts. The spreadsheet shows the force produce by each surface. The actual lift force is equal to the difference between the surface above and the surface below.

So as long as water is being forced in to keep up with the lift height, the system will continue to produce much greater lift force than what is required to force the water in (marked in red). Of course this sounds impossible, but the key is that the riser are huge precharged pneumatic cylinders with Travis effect inserts to keep the air requirement down. The water is not lifting the system, only maintaining the head.

Water is almost incompressible. Air is easy to compress and is allready compressed at Full Precharge.
The spreadsheet is included below above the picture, but you need to click on it to view.


Regards, Larry

[neptune]

OK. Back to technical matters . A basic question for mrwayne. The machine itself is complex, involving several subsystems. My understanding is that the OU happens in the ZED itself. So my question is this.


Can one ZED onits own or at worst 2 ZEDs working together show overunity without additional systems.


If we are using just one ZED, we would need a water pump to supply the inlet, and a way to measure the input energy. We would use a the Zed  to raise a weight to measure the output as in force x distance, but the weight MUST be removed at the top of the stroke. It can be replaced again after the downstroke to be lifted again.


@ LarryC. So based on your Eureka moment , and your calculations, how would you answer my question above, noting the bit about "The weight must be removed ".


My reason for asking this question is this. One ZED , or even two, could be built by an experimenter . Then if OU can be shown at this time, there is the motivation to carry on and build a self running machine.