Big try at gravity wheel

[minnie]

Hi,
   thank you MarkE and Koala for putting me right on this subject. Grimer I don't think you
need your patent attorney just yet! When you do I hear that Dunnelt and Codding are very
good, they still may take a cheque, ask nicely, of course.
                John.

[Grimer]

Grimer what facts lead you to the conclusion that anyone has ever built a working permanent magnet powered motor?  That dark video that you linked just shows a motor.  What proves that it or any other machine ever constituted a working "magnetic motor"?

You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.


Also I believe it on Hierarchical grounds. Functionally it maps one to one on the Carnot Cycle. And no, I'm not going to explain what that means because I think you are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about and you are obviously too arrogant to try. I suggested you read some of the papers on my web site to see where I was coming from. You didn't deign to or you would have commented on them.

[minnie]

to arrogant Grimer?
                       John.

[MarkE]

MarkE,
You might be correct that the Travis Effect" was pinned to the wrong model demonstration.  I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact.  Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed.  To that purpose they were not misleading.
The Travis Effect referred to a distribution of pressures in the multi-layer pressure assembly. It made possible the asymmetry between the up & down stroke, and in turn the ability to harvest a positive energy balance.
Revisiting the topic pages and a bit of study would clarify this in greater detail.  The current model has evolved and is unrecognizable from the system shown in those pages with dramatic improved efficiency.
Although a principle remains a principle.

Regards, Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset their claimed point is absolutely false.  The upward force exerted on a submerged object is identically the weight of the displaced volume of the surrounding fluid, in this case water.    That is Archimedes' Principle discovered over 2000 years ago.  Submerging an object requires pushing (displacing) the surrounding fluid.  It is the same as lifting the displaced volume because that is what actually happens.  The net force up or down depends on what other forces act on the submerged object.  Obviously, the weight of that object, which for those examples is the weight of the plastic cups is one force.  Tom's hand or the diving weights are other forces applied at different times in the videos.  If the total downward force exceeds the upward buoyant force then the object sinks.  If is less, the object surfaces.  If it is exactly the same, the object can remain stable at any submerged depth.

There is no new principle underlying anything that HER have put together.  They have built a complicated machine that is good for baffling people.  It is not good for delivering a single Joule of energy in excess of what is expended charging it up and operating it.

HER can not now, and could not ever prove excess energy.  When people put together complicated contraptions they often try and convince people that they can come up with free energy by showing what turn out to be under close examination flawed analysis of forces that they then integrate to get to their energy numbers.  A sure fire sanity check against anyone's force integrations is whether or not they satisfy Conservation of Mass/Energy.  If they don't, then it's time to go looking for the mistakes.  For all the levers, valves, bellows, chambers and other mechanisms in the ZED and the TAZ, they are at the end of the day glorified buckets of water and air balloons.

[MarkE]

You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.


Also I believe it on Hierarchical grounds. Functionally it maps one to one on the Carnot Cycle. And no, I'm not going to explain what that means because I think you are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about and you are obviously to arrogant to try. I suggested you read some of the papers on my web site to see where I was coming from. You didn't deign to or you would have commented on them.

Grimer, that's great that you "were there", wherever "there" might have been. 

Did the creator claim the device makes free energy?
Did you personally inspect the device to determine somehow it made free energy?  If so, what tests did you, the declared non-experimentalist perform?
Did a subject matter expert inspect the device?  If so, what tests did they perform, and where may we find their report?
Did a subject matter expert reproduce the device and find a replication produced free energy?

Saying that you believe something is all fine and well.  I asked you what facts you relied on, not what beliefs. 

Do or don't do what you want.  If you want to convince me of an extraordinary claim then you will need to come up with compelling evidence.  You haven't offered any evidence at all.