Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

Well, Red? Where in those posts do I even refer to a Zed, or its operating principles? The posts where I am calculating have NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH ZEDS OR WAYNE TRAVIS's claims at all. They are entirely conventional calculations answering a question that minnie asked. I don't really expect you to be able to follow along with the math, but you could at least read the WORDS.
Then..... all I do is show that a Zed system that makes that much power must be very... special... indeed. That requires no expertise beyond simple algebra and a visual imagination.

But apparently you do not have the reading comprehension skills, either, because I have never said that "one Zed is equivalent to a large hydroelectric dam"... did I. It was MISTER WAYNE that said that, effectively.

Tinsel,
ARE YOU SURE,  I thought YOU said that somewhere in the ~50 posts or so of today, that "one Zed is equivalent to a large hydroelectric dam" ?

[TinselKoala]

Tinsel,
ARE YOU SURE,  I thought YOU said that somewhere in the ~50 posts or so of today, that "one Zed is equivalent to a large hydroelectric dam" ?

I'll leave it up to you to provide a link to where you think I said that. Are you counting posts now? What kind of recreation are you returning from tonight, anyway, that makes you even more incoherent than usual, and so interested in counting posts, instead of providing evidence for your assertions?

Would you like me to ignore direct questions, to answer them incompletely, and to allow people to accuse me of things that are simply false, without allowing me to respond and refute them? I suppose you would. That might reduce my post count to some value... less than YOURS.

[minnie]

Hi,
  I'd decided to give up but my brain keeps churning. I can visualise a machine as big as an up ended 20ft. shipping container, weighing
several tons, costing $50,000 and giving 500 watts.
  To those doing table top experiments there are a lot of things that may lead you astray, changes in barometric pressure, temperature,
contaminants in the water and reactive components in the build.
  In the demo. with tubs, weights and concrete as far as I know this complies with the known laws and gives no advantage, so if you do it
5 times, 5x0=0 ,this is the crucial part where I must look and learn. I'll be over the moon if I'm proven wrong....honest.
  I promise to give up now, but will keep watching....good luck every
                                                                                        kindest regards John.








one!

[mrwayne]

Your system does not operate on NO INPUT, does it? I don't think it does, and neither does Dale's. You are compressing and uncompressing a spring, adding and recovering work, but you aren't "creating" any extra usable work. And I'll bet your arms get tired after a while nevertheless.
I have referred to a possible "leak" being the cause of Mister Wayne's observation of short periods of "self-running" of his systems, giving him the benefit of the doubt.... which I am less and less prone to do these days, but there it is. I'm sure you could imagine a pressure leak that could result in a dual-cylinder system running for a while on stored "setup" pressure as the pressure leaks past seals and so on, into the right (or wrong) chambers during the cycling. Have you ever built and operated a simple Stirling engine? You should, they are easy and enlightening.
Your system doesn't leak. Fine, that's good. Assemble two of them and make your system self run. I'll bet you cannot. But I'll also bet that if you put the right kind of leak in there... it would run for a few cycles, until it went flat.

Mister Wayne has to give some kind of efficiency number to satisfy "bottomline" people like the accountants of investors. How can you do this if you claim to have no input? You cannot, so he has to come up with a new and different definition of efficiency that allows him to come up with a number other than zero or infinity. But since he actually does NOT have a self running system, and won't cite the original data from which his numbers come, nor even describe the system ..... the whole thing is still a big red herring, and is beginning to smell.

In advance - See3d, I want to make one more attempt before we move to another forum.
TK, everyone is trying to help you understand.
You have confused yourself - you have made up so many things you think are facts - which are not facts.
Mark watched the self running system (you claim did not exist)
And Mark noted in his own video - that our system did not consume the air or water in the process - exactly what Webby is telling you -
You have the wrong idea about our system - and after 200 pages of words about what can and can't be - you are no closer to understanding.
Don't give me the pitiful benefit of the doubt that leaks caused us to stop running - that is your created idea.
I told you why we stopped running - we ran out of room for apples - that is a joke 
We were not in the business to prove anything to you - we are in the business to design a system to use our technology that meets the needs of the world. I hated telling you our run times because of what I new you would do with the information - and you did.
Your a bright man - but you miss the mark - and that smell you mention - it is your goose  cooking itself.
We each have a purpose in this life - you make a perfect example of why this machine was not discovered before now - this is not an insult - just the pudding.
To the Data:
The energy Webby used to lift his hose - had the same value as the load he lifted - simple physics
and is exactly what we get "at that point" from a decently built three layer system.
I have said a hundred times with three layer systems - on the upstroke - the output of a three layer system is just about unity - the wonder is in the down stroke. Exactly what I showed Mark on his first visit.
His question - the best question from any skeptic so far - how does it do that?
I gave Mark my theory - but my theory does not matter.
When you have the machine to test - it is secondary - a great question which Michel worked very hard on.
As webby knows - a working machine is eye opening. Gets you out of the educational paralysis.
Which is also why I have begged you to get your hands wet - you spoiled your invitation to my house demanding you would keep nothing confidential - we have investors and a business to run - you don't get to make demands.
Where to start....
So what does Webby have at the end of a full cycle -
(1) a weight lifted to a higher level (paid for)
(2) the weight having the potential to return said work (where the "paid for" comes from)
(3) the energy to lift the load still in the system (stored energy) equal to the input - so what do we do with that?
1- minus 2 = 0 that's ok, because we still have 3
Your Bollard example is off the mark - we are not lifting three pounds - and getting three pounds back out - or using three pounds to push down - unless you can not look beyond the upstroke.
This is what many have told you - look at the whole stroke.
Trying to use your analogy in our example - we lift three pounds - paid three pounds to do it - then we get the weight of the bollard back - "not balanced" on the way down my friend..... only on the way up.
To say it again: We lift a load - and get the input plus the load back out - don't change the system to fit your expectations - look at the system and the test results of others.
It is not in your text books - but you do not need a pedigree to see it.
Webby Got it - and considering how many times you claim to be superior.... maybe a little pie is in order.
Your teeter tauter example - entropy lesson - is also off the mark - in our system - each teeter action adds a new apple, paid for by the "stored energy" and it does cost a bite from the apple to keep things going - internal input - but we have more and more apples.
Our efficiency numbers are based off of how much of each apple is eaten - compared to the total numbers of apples gained - and yes 960% and we have had 1300% with our new system - go ahead and laugh again your goose feathers are smoldering with each comment.
Our ZED technology is not complicated - unless you make it that way.
As far as your efficiency rhetoric - we have tried to tell you over and over - I thought you were pretending not to understand - and since you had boasted you would sell or preempt the discovery - I presumed you were just playing dumb trying to baiting out more confidential info. You set that stage for yourself.
But when you deny Data given by independent replication - I see your goose smoke.
It does not fit your belief system - and you keep throwing the truth and the proof away.
Now - I looked back at a few pages of your complaints - you create them - you talk about non related systems - you introduce non related ideas - that fit your paradigm - and then you argue we do not answer your own conjectures - off subject - no answer.
Have you been insulted??? - OMGOSH - who is the king of insults on this page - flying bikes, invisible unicorns, psychotic - delusional - what else have you said about us?
Start discussing our system - how do we lift a weight - (removed the load) without consuming the energy used to lift it?
And Yes- make even the simple three layer system obviously Over unity ........Very obviously - all a replication had to do was to get to 100% on the upstroke. Pressure and volume is simple enough.
Start here and you will begin to see why we are so excited - why Mark is very patient for our due diligence.
Don't waste my time on spelling errors or decimal points - If the physics work in the simple - no matter how complicated you make them - they still work.
Do you know how many engineers have been here - and how many walked away insulting us - none, do you know how many joined and have helped us - all. The truth is like a magnet to some .
This is it with you - you have abused us long enough - if you go off on another rant about other systems - then you will be alone here with your unicorns  . End of story.Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com

[mrwayne]

Hi,
  I'd decided to give up but my brain keeps churning. I can visualise a machine as big as an up ended 20ft. shipping container, weighing
several tons, costing $50,000 and giving 500 watts.
  To those doing table top experiments there are a lot of things that may lead you astray, changes in barometric pressure, temperature,
contaminants in the water and reactive components in the build.
  In the demo. with tubs, weights and concrete as far as I know this complies with the known laws and gives no advantage, so if you do it
5 times, 5x0=0 ,this is the crucial part where I must look and learn. I'll be over the moon if I'm proven wrong....honest.
  I promise to give up now, but will keep watching....good luck every
                                                                                        kindest regards John.








one!

John, I went back and read all of your posts 25 in the last seven days - to try to see what you were elluding to in your opinions.
Your question does not represent our system -  Michel responded to you correctly.

Good luck.

Wayne