Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

To those interested,

A couple of fun notes - apparently lost in translation last year:

First I mostly ignore all slander and misdirection - if a valid point is made in the middle - I would never know. Why would I listen to people who spit in my face first and last in every breath. (why do they think they add value to anything)?

I shared last year - some want to learn - others just want to be "read" - ask questions relevant to the understanding and do not try to take over the conversation.

What you have never done is shown a single iota of evidence that supports your outrageous claims.

My reading here is short - I have those that have proven they can not control themselves on "block".

...............

A few things missed by some -

In the ZED system - the stored energy is in the individual water columns in each layer.

(When you displace a fluid - as in Archimedes'- you also create an equal value in water column - hard to see in your drawings - but is there - and very usable - if so designed - the ZED is so designed.)

Archimedes' Principle rigidly conforms to CoE, as does gravity.  Lifting and lowering objects in or out of fluids does not change the conservative properties of gravity, or thermodynamic laws.

Our columns connect in series - transfer of the stored energy only requires access to one point in each ZED
(If you get stuck on one ZED - you ignore half the cycle - look at the whole cycle and OU stares you in the face.)

If you believe that then you should be able to show that. After all you say that your physics is "simple".  Yet,  you have yet to show any evidence of energy gain across a complete cycle.

Moving one - moves all - this means the ratio of volume to movement is reduced with the number of series - or the number of water columns created does not add to the input volume. Making Operating speed optimal.

That's meaningless word salad.

The same as Archimedes' in some aspects - there is a difference:

Even our single layer ZED with Pod - creates more buoyancy than the space it occupies - very simple to verify.

This is meaningless with respect to any energy claims.  Force is not energy.  Force is not conservative.  Force is easily multiplied.  Levers, gears, pulleys, hydraulic pumps all rely on that fact.

and It can lift many more times than the whole system weighs.

Again, so can a block and tackle, or a lever, etc.  It's the energy:  the integral of F*ds that matters. 

(P.s. john/Tk - that's where you should focus to understand the reduction in foot print to capture large amounts of gravity)

Gravity is not something that one "captures".

Few notes regarding slander:

Zydro Energy has 210 investors - they all have always known and had the right to a full refund with interest - one has exercised that due to handle a personal home issue - and another wanted to support another inventor - another inventor who did not have as many supporters - I returned his money and let him keep his shares.

They supported me and my efforts to bring good from our work - most of our investors read the slander and accusations on this web site, and most did their due research and saw the value to humanity.

So are you saying that you have cashed out all investors one hundred cents on the dollar or more who have asked to cash out?  A simple yes or no will do.

Another truth:

Good people choose to take a stand - the fact less based slander spewed on this web site - added credibility to our efforts - those with character to see - saw thru it all - they gave us time to develop our other systems.

The failure to back claims, the failure to deliver, and the choice to continue promoting claims that you know to be false or promote in reckless disregard for the truth are all your actions.

Our success adds credibility to all those that desired and tried - against the onslaught of opposition.

If one measures success by how much investment one is able to obtain then you might well be successful.  If one measures success by how well one delivers on their promises, you have not done well at all.

In regard to the "law suit" - my divorce 6 years ago. omgosh.. TK you will twist anything.. trying to twist it into to a claim against character, company, or systems - just pitiful. I am sorry you still do not understand the system - don't take it personally. I wish I had logged in that day so that you were ignored......

Where we are today:

I have on average five meetings a week with Utility companies, Inventors, Engineers, legal teams, political figures, and our new partners regarding our future alignments and focus - working together to bring reliable and clean energy to the world (None of those  meetings are for investment  - we are fully funded).

Unfortunately when it comes to any source of clean energy from your buoyancy devices, your hands are empty.  You have nothing to contribute.  Your buoyancy machines are incapable of delivering a single Joule of excess energy over that put into them.

We also have five legal teams - Patents, International patents, Legal team for the contracting, CPA, and infringement and abatement.

The infringement and abatement teams can phone their work in.  No one can infringe something that has no utility.

Of course - In every meeting - I am introduced to extremely intelligent Engineers, ladies and gentlemen - who do not see the difference or value of our system - (without the distraction of slander and ego's) it takes on average two hours to teach them what Webby and Red, and a dozen other have discovered.....

Webby and Red have both demonstrated that they confuse force for energy.  I would not recommend using either of them as references for the caliber of your technical team.

TK you are "right"  ....hands on models do make a big impact and open minds - several people on this web site built nice ones and were spammed out of desire to share. I think they are onto you.

And just what about TinselKoala would they have discovered, or "be onto" with respect to the gentleman?

Of all our visitors:

I have only turned away one visitor in six years. He thought I was seeking investment - I was not.

Mark Dansie was to witness a promised 48 hour continuous demonstration over two years ago.  Why has this not happened?

To All:

It is valuable to learn the logic that made the ZED possible to produce Net energy - we have applied that logic to four other systems which also now work to produce Net Energy. This is a new frontier - ready for open minds. The world might be able to stop a few people - but it can not stop a thought.... And thoughts are powerful.

The problem is that none of your machines have ever been shown to produce net energy.  Nor have you ever shown that you have even a theoretical means to produce net energy.  Lifting and lowering weights does not produce net energy, in or out of water.

I do not teach that logic here - it is more valuable than our machines.

A little hint - working with "ideal energy" will not produce Net Excess energy - and focusing on Energy Values in the system will not lead to Net Energy. Red has explained it right at least twice.

Unfortunately Red_Sunset has offered a good deal of double talk and no actual evidence that supports your outrageous claims.

I highly highly recommend listening to those who have built models.

That would be wonderful if any of those people actually offered energy balances for their models.  None have.

And to those that slander and spam them - your on your way out......

Pollution free energy is on the way.

That may be, but no free energy is to be had from your machines.

The big picture,

Two of my son's spent last month in China  and toured power plants - the air barely breathable even to the locals - fixing that around the world is what is important.

Nuclear waste is still spilling in Japan, most of our power plant are over 40 years old -

GRAVITY IS ALWAYS ON!

Gravity is indeed always on.  One can extract the difference in gravitational potential by lowering a mass from a higher to a lower potential exactly once.  After that they have to pay back the energy and more to repeat the act.

Maybe some of you have forgotten the reason for the search - the reason for this web site - I am sorry for those of you who missed the boat. I certainly tried to help.

Our system will help.

Nothing you have will do anything to produce clean energy.  Your machines and concepts are as useless for producing energy as James Kwok's.

Best wishes to you all,

Wayne Travis

[TinselKoala]

I disagree. I think the Keenie did work and does work for the reasons I gave. Why not save the puerile insults and and address the arguments. Red ink is not going to make them go away. 

Claims without evidence, Frank.

Not worth the digital bits they are typed with. Your "thinking" something works....well, let's just say that you have been wrong, foolishly wrong, about that in the past.

Your record in these matters is rather miserable, actually. Why don't you just rest on your water-power-law laurels and quit squawking about stuff you can't support with facts, checkable outside references and/or demonstrations of your OWN.

[MarkE]

I disagree. I think the Keenie did work and does work for the reasons I gave. Why not save the puerile insults and and address the arguments. Red ink is not going to make them go away. 

Mr. Grimer, please take your discussion to the Keenie Device thread that I set up for you.  It is unfair to anyone who might be interested in what you might have to say about Keenie to have to dig around to find it here.  It is also very rude of you to keep disrupting this thread.

[TinselKoala]

Travis cracks me up. We haven't seen such blatant bloviation in quite some time. He had a great thread going here a year or more ago, then when the questions get tough he demands that the thread be closed. He puts people on "ignore", he says he isn't going to be posting here.... then he posts here and tries to dialog with people he pretends to ignore. Yet he cannot provide any real data, he just continues to emit the same kinds of verbiage that earned him such skepticism and so many challenges before.

He talks about paying attention to models.... when nobody (except ME !!) has actually demonstrated any kind of model of any of Travis's ideas or claims that actually "work" or perform "better" than some rational baseline measurement. This particularly cracks me up. I can precharge my PerPump, start it up and then stand back and watch it pump, for as long as its input reservoir contains water and there is room in the output reservoir to receive it. No further assists from my hands are required for it to keep on running. No other model of any Travis system can be shown to "run" without further input in this manner. Travis has, due to his egotism and his personal animosity towards me, entirely missed the fact that my PerPump Heron's Fountain withTinselZed is the _only_ model of any part of his system that actually "works". Not only that.... but it also fulfils the specifications for the "self running water pump" that he presented as a challenge to his sycophants and "model builders". And as far as I am aware... nobody else has ever even tried to present something that would fit the spec. But... just as with Sterling Allan and my Mylow replication... since my device isn't "overunity" in any way ... the person who emitted the challenge reneged on making the deserved award. As I knew he would.... and which makes me ROFL every time I think about it.

I highly highly recommend listening to those who have built models.

Yes, pay attention to the models, and to those who have built them ... and the hard results that those models provide. Let Travis -- or anyone else -- produce and demonstrate a model that shows the validity of his claims.




Well?










(sound of crickets chirping....)

[TinselKoala]

Let's break it down. Travis has claimed various output power levels, like the 50 kW unit he claimed he could install at his church three months after getting investments (the PowerPoint presentation). But let's just use the 20 kW claim that he's made "in the footprint of a garden shed".

First let's operationalize some constructs. What is the "footprint of a garden shed" in square meters of area? 2 meters by 3 meters? That's a pretty large garden shed for a city backyard, but we have to start somewhere. How _tall_ must such a shed be, even if it contains Zeds with six layers, to "capture" enough gravity to have an output of 20 kW? (This sentence cracks me up... capturing gravity! What a hoot!)

Next let's examine what we know. The large groaning unit that Dansie saw on his second visit shows an ordinary hydraulic pump/motor turning an ordinary wind-farm type alternator. There is nothing magic about either of these components, so for the output to reach 20 kW the hydraulic motor itself must be supplied with (20 kw / motor efficiency).  Let's just call it 25 kW that must be supplied by hydraulic fluid flow and pressure to the hydraulic motor of 80 percent efficiency. Now.... where is this fluid flow and pressure supposed to come from -- continuously -- for as long as the system operates? And don't forget we have to do it within a footprint of six square meters.

Now let's do a little math, using some online calculators and formulae:

http://www.indianafluidpower.com/Formulas.asp#HydraulicMotorCalculations
http://www.cchydraulics.co.nz/need_to_know
http://www.hydraproducts.co.uk/hydraulic-calculators/output-power.aspx
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-power-d_505.html


What kind of numbers do you get? Is the light beginning to dawn yet? WHERE IS THIS REQUIRED PRESSURE AND FLOW RATE COMING FROM?

From Wayne Travis's fantasy, nowhere else.