Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

Hi,
   if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
              John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!

Short of adding an external power source, I do not see how one can get extra height out of even one cycle.  The input GPE translates into KE and then back into GPE.  With zero losses the bob can only get back to starting height.  With even very small losses it won't do that. 

[Red_Sunset]

Yeah right, you know all about scientific analysis, remember you were the one totally convinced that Wayne Travis had a working OU device, when most people could see the BS. 

Hi Cat,
Some advice, get yourself better informed, so you can see the wood from the tree's
Take a trip to Oklahoma and visit the ZED production line.
With due respect, never think you know everything because there are multiple sides to a coin. There is always something out there to outfox you.
Being reasonable and humble is a virtue that can serve you well
Red_Sunset

[powercat]

@@Red_Sunset
Some advice for you, take your head out of Wayne Travis backside, and get a grip on reality, he is a con man that does not have a working over unity device, but with your rose tinted way of looking at science it is no surprise that you fell for it.
Look at his website, he removed the update page, so that he could stop himself  repeatedly promising things that he could never deliver, the man is a liar and a fraud.

[MarkE]

Red_Sunset, I am afraid that Hydro Energy Revolution has failed to show that they can produce any energy such as they claim.  All of their demonstrations of the supposed underlying "Travis Effect" were misdirection of ordinary, well-understood physics going back to the days of Archimedes.  In the various videos HER repeatedly misdirected with the false suggestion that material in a buoyant object is responsible for the buoyant force.  That is completely false.  The buoyant force is the gravitational force of an equivalent volume of the displaced surrounding fluid.  Under water, the buoyant force is the same on a lead filled ball as it is on a helium filled ball as it is on an evacuated ball of the same volume.  Dams have collapsed because of that force.  The net upward force is the difference between the buoyant force and the downward force of gravity on the buoyant object. 

In their first video HER displace most of the volume underneath the left hand cup using a sunken cement insert.  The amount of air underneath each cup is irrelevant.  It is the total volume of displaced water that generates the buoyant force for each.  The only opposing force for each is the weight of the cups themselves.  That is why it takes the same amount of diving weight to hold down each cup.

HER has never set-up the tests they promised to show Mark Dansie for almost three years now.  Instead they chimed constantly about how much progress they were making by constantly changing their rigs.  They claimed almost two years ago to have built their "instrumentation" rig.  No sign of free energy has ever come from that rig.

[TinselKoala]

TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with,  neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here.  The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset

I am not concerned with whether or not I impress YOU, RS. I've seen your sycophancy and your misedutainment already in the Travis thread. In fact I would be quite surprised if you ever actually came up with a cogent argument of any kind, pro or con.

You also don't seem to understand my "very graphical picture", which is taken directly from Grimer's diagram. He seems to be saying that a pendulum bob that starts out on an ordinary circular arc when first released (at height H with zero initial velocity, on the right side of the apparatus) will, when encountering the cycloidal "block" after the first half-swing, rise higher than the release point H, over on the left side of the apparatus. Am I correct so far? Are you following? It's hard to tell just what Grimer claims, since he refuses time and time again to state a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis in operational terms. So please correct me if you think I am wrong about this first part.

So what I have said is that this is wrong; that the bob will not climb higher than initial release unless some extra energy is supplied from somewhere... and it's not coming from a cycloidal block, that's for sure..

And I've tried to get you, or anyone else, to imagine a simple, vertically hinged half-cycloidal block, the hinge being disposed along the line straight down from the pendulum's suspension point. The block is initially on the left side of the apparatus. When the bob has reached its maximum height on the left after encountering the cycloid block, one simply swings the block over to the righthand side about the hingeline. This allows the bob to fall on the circular arc again, converting its _gained_ GPE into KE in the normal manner, until it encounters the cycloidal block on the right side, where it will rise _even higher_ than before. Continually swinging the cycloidal block from side to side costs almost nothing, energetically, since the block isn't loaded and the hingeline is vertical. Therefore.... you now have a perpetual pendulum, at least.

Yet we have no examples of such a perpetual beast, anywhere, even though it would take a decent woodworker a morning's labor to make it. Why not? I know why... and so do you, and so does Frank.