Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[powercat]

Thanks PC,

One thing is for sure -
Many can now answer questions regarding the function and understanding of our technology.
"Open Forum" or not - that is why Stefan invited me.

It is your choice to follow along or not - or to get involved or not - I respect your decision.

What we  have shared - is an enormous amount - and invested a great deal of time explaining (and I have put up with loads of ego dripping trolls).

p.s - regarding private conversation - It is not a nefarious fact that some people get involved at a deeper level - it is their own desire, willingness, time and energy.


Oh .....  I already told you that I will share the Validation findings good or bad - see you then.

Back to the fun   

We are  having an adventure in this new field of discovery!

Best to you as well!
Wayne

Thank you for your response,
I feel disappointed that you're not in a position
to demonstrate to Mark Dansie a fully self-running device, I believe if you truly have OU
this should not be a problem, it is obvious after all this time and 155 pages  that this is a case of work in progress,
and I look forward to the day when you will have a working self-running and self sustaining device.


Good luck

[Red_Sunset]

So now we are starting to achieve some common ground. It would appear that you do agree the laws of physics as elucidated for centuries do hold true and as such mean that this device could not work, unless this device provided a mechanisim by which to break those laws.
Seriously though how likely is that? This device doesn't do anything remarkable. It combines things such as bouyancy and expansion and compression of air, things that we know are categorically non OU , and then claims an overunity result. Logic alone discounts this. However if we are to suspend our disbelief on that and genuinely look for an OU process none can be shown. The original proclamations based on the simple Travis effect are demonstrably non OU so we are left looking more deeply for some other mechanisim and so far nothing arises.
You make appeal to Zero Point energy as a possible source. I don't discount the existence of this energy but  I do believe it is extremely unlikely that this device is able to utilize it.
I await with interest an attempt at explaining how this could be so...

Seamus,
I do not understand why we keep on going around in circles.
I am happy you can see the common ground and I am happy you don't believe one iota of what is presented.
The point here is not for you to believe outright and without proof. The objective is for you to see the proof yourself and if you can not then ask someone to help you by showing how you went about it searching for it.

Can you list the Travis Effects and what they do ?

The game of chance discovery is low.
How likely is it that a fly climbs into your nose?  What are the chances that an plane crashes into your house ? win the lottery.....
Only a small chance, never the less a chance.  If General Electric announced the Zed concept and energy gain, would you believe it then without seeing the proof?  Here the proof is only an arms length away

"I await with interest an attempt at explaining how this could be so..."  
Sorry, as said before, it is not my place here to disclose IP at "point blank range" this information is not owned by me.
If Wayne wanted to disclose it as you expect, he would have done so already.  You know the options you have.
Sure you can say know, he doesn't have it that is why he didn't disclose it.  Lucky for mankind, he is not the only one who knows it.

What can I say Seamus, your roots appear too deep settled in to follow.
Sorry, it looks we have a mismatch, the change has to come now from your side. This side has given you all it can give you over the ~150 pages of post

Michel

[Red_Sunset]

Thank you for your response,
I feel disappointed that you're not in a position
to demonstrate to Mark Dansie a fully self-running device, I believe if you truly have OU
this should not be a problem, it is obvious after all this time and 155 pages  that this is a case of work in progress,
and I look forward to the day when you will have a working self-running and self sustaining device.
Good luck

My viewpoint gathered from a distance by reading between the lines,
What appears not to be clearly understood is that the zed had progressive development phases that led to OU. It was not a flash bang and here it is.  During these development phases there were several models of Zed types (principle different and modified ones.)  At certain points in the tread there is reference to more than one model, this could have confused certain people.

The common zed refereed to is the last demo model used for gathering information that led to new discoveries on how to optimize various performance aspects of the system (shown on video) . It appears that this model got worn out over time by the multiple changes it was subjected to and became unreliable.
With new knowledge gained, it was thought wise to rather go for a new improved version zed for the Mark Dansie demo to ensure reliability and have the assurance of a smooth uninterrupted test.  This is now in progress.
With the new knowledge, experience and optimizations applied, the redesigned model will produce substantially more output in a smaller physical size.  Simplifications would also assure better reliability and lower cost. A better demonstration model all round.

It has to be realized that the zed is a new technology still at its virgin stage of development and the physical execution will still undergo major changes by more effectively applying the concept principles of the invention.

It is presumptuous to think that zed design is already a fait accompli , (the first model T-ford is on the way), be ready for it, it is only the beginning.

The above is pretty much my guesswork on what is going from far away by intuition,
and for sure,  I am open for correction by Wayne

This is my last post of the day, Michel

[see3d]

@see3d:
The pressure of the water due to depth does not affect buoyancy or lift force. It acts in all directions equally. I thought we covered this some pages back. If you are getting some lift force here it's not coming from water pressure per se, I don't think. What is happening in the real world is that as the riser lifts up, it is displacing much less water, so its buoyancy decreases, that is, it's being pressed upwards less by the water trying to flow underneath it. This isn't water depth psi due to depth, but water weight being displaced by thick walls and deep submergence. I think.

TK, I work with pressure differential in my sim math.  Read about the Archimedes Paradox again.  Buoyancy force is independent of the total mass of displaced water.  You might be confusing force with potential energy here.

[powercat]

My viewpoint gathered from a distance by reading between the lines,
What appears not to be clearly understood is that the zed had progressive development phases that led to OU. It was not a flash bang and here it is.  During these development phases there were several models of Zed types (principle different and modified ones.)  At certain points in the tread there is reference to more than one model, this could have confused certain people.

The common zed refereed to is the last demo model used for gathering information that led to new discoveries on how to optimize various performance aspects of the system (shown on video) . It appears that this model got worn out over time by the multiple changes it was subjected to and became unreliable.
With new knowledge gained, it was thought wise to rather go for a new improved version zed for the Mike Dansie demo to ensure reliability and have the assurance of a smooth uninterrupted test.  This is now in progress.
With the new knowledge, experience and optimizations applied, the redesigned model will produce substantially more output in a smaller physical size.  Simplifications would also assure better reliability and lower cost. A better demonstration model all round.

It has to be realized that the zed is a new technology still at its virgin stage of development and the physical execution will still undergo major changes by more effectively applying the concept principles of the invention.

It is presumptuous to think that zed design is already a fait accompli , (the first model T-ford is on the way), be ready for it, it is only the beginning.

The above is pretty much my guesswork on what is going from far away by intuition,
and for sure,  I am open for correction by Wayne

This is my last post of the day, Michel

Thank you Michel for trying to clear things up,
but there is still confusion when I look at the beginning of this thread, it is clear that Wayne
appeared to have a working closed loop over unity device, here are some quotes from him.

I do not claim to have all the answers to the problem, but I do have a very over unity device.

I am on design number seven - and it is works very well) I would say that I am an expert on what does not work, as well

My models 5 and 6 were also over unity

http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg281185/#msg281185

Thank you for your concern.We completed the closed looped system in November last year.

http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg323820/#msg323820

Now for some reason these devices have stopped working and the whole process of development has been started again
to reinvent a better device,.we can all argue that every device ever invented is needing further development.

But why can't one of the original devices be verified by Mark Dansie ?

Either the device runs itself or it doesn't ?

What we appear to have here is devices that used to run themselves, but now can't without redevelopment.

I really want to believe that Wayne has a selfrunning OU device because it would be one of the most important discoveries ever,
and the world really could do with one right now, so why not get on and get it verified by Mark Dansie ?