Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

..............................................................
HER & RAR have worked the crowd - so far that is as far as the story for public consumption goes.

Fletcher & MarkE,
You have been busy overnight.  I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Why ?  The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects.
Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
A beneficial outlook could be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model.  A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.

Some more insight on Wayne Travis idea
The basic device
How could a OU idea look like,  lets take a simple lever as an example,
The output side of the fulcrum is 5mtr and the other side is also 5mtr.  Radian input travel 1mtr.
It is a balance seesaw, equal leverage on both sides with equal travel. The lever effect is bi-directional

The idea
If we change the input lever length, so would the output force and the input travel distance (keeping the same output travel)
If we could construct a lever that had a variable input length without impacting the arc angle or input travel distance, that would provide an ability break a direct relationship with the output. Possible ?? Lets for a moment say we can.

How would we use that lever, what is the final objective?
Having always the same travel distance (in & output) with this magic lever, we could choose to use a long lever as input >> Great lifting power at the output
We could use a short lever when we reverse the cycle, input becomes output >> That initial weight would return more than we inputted initially (on assumption that the short lever can deliver that over the same lift distance)

How would a magic lever look like.
The lever fixed travel distance requirement for various desired lever lengths is obvious key to break the energy relationship
Wayne does this using a multi-layer lever.

What does the multi-layer provide,
1.. An input using a fixed limited volume of fluid and pressure (acting as output on down stroke)
2.. Several integral lift surfaces
3.. The ability to manipulate sub-pressures
4.. Pressure vs lift force is non-linear (asymmetry)
5.. Input distance always equals output distance regardless of leverage factor
6.. Single input for all the layers using fluid volume & pressure on one side (reversible)
7.. Aggregated output with Force over Distance (reversible

So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
Force= pressure x area
>> up stroke >>   Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure

At this point you will say that is impossible ?
Is it really impossible ?    Check out Wayne multi-layer hydro lever, you will get far if you have the desire and persistence to learn something new.      http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI
The hydro lever is only one form on the idea in one specific medium.  The basic idea can take on many different shapes in various mediums. 

OU is never simple like tying a few magnets to a rotor.  Never expect that nature is easily fooled and will lie down at your whim.  In the final execution of the idea, there is a fair amount of inventive property involved to achieve reasonable economical outputs. I call it interference with the natural process, a requirement for any OU process.   These were the details that Wayne was reluctant to reveal on a public forum, for good understandable reasons  (annoying TK to the limit, together with some others HiFlyers, destroying the communication for others)

PS: I will not reply or comment on opinions

Regards, Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

Grimer, I am very interested in science.  Science is based on observation.  The dark video shows a device that behaves as a motor does, ergo it looks like a motor.  If you think that video shows something else, then you are free to express your hypothesis and state your observations that support that hypothesis.  Then anyone could try to test that hypothesis against existing information, or by experiment.

While you are thinking about that, then maybe you would like to explain in this diagram of yours, where you indicate you "ersatz gravity" at the circular bob apogee.  You have previously stated that "ersatz gravity" is centrifugal force.  Centrifugal force of a rotating object acts radially.  The radial force on a circular pendulum arm at apogee is zero.  So, why is it that with zero radial force you are indicating a non-zero "ersatz gravity" force?

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//

[minnie]

Hi,
   according to Sunset "if you want to know about asymmetry  ask Wayne Travis".
I bet if you asked his investors' they'd know. Asymmetry in their bank balances!
  I think the Webby prize was an attempt to filch ideas. When Travis realised the
thing wouldn't work he was prepared to try anything.
   I wish the Travis machine had worked as intended and new scientific facts had
been established but at the present time it doesn't look too good.
           John

[MarkE]

Fletcher & MarkE,
You have been busy overnight.  I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.

Because by all available observation it is not possible, and by current physical theory it is not possible.  If anyone would like to change that, they need to show a cheat on the relevant physical theory, or build a working device.

Why ?  The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects. Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
The importance should be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model.  A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.

I disagree.  An OU device is a hypothetical construct that if it is real can be proven like anything else.  The proof requires evidence.  In the case of OU, physical laws that embody our best interpretation of observations to date make OU a very tough proposition.  The evidence must therefore be very strong.

Some more insight on Wayne Travis idea
The basic device
How could a OU idea look like,  lets take a simple lever as an example,
The output side of the fulcrum is 5mtr and the other side is also 5mtr.  Radian input travel 1mtr.

Do you mean vertical travel at one end, or do you mean angular travel of 1 radian?

It is a balance seesaw, equal leverage on both sides with equal travel. The lever effect is bi-directional

I agree.

The idea
If we change the input lever length, so would the output force and the input travel distance (keeping the same output travel)

So far so good, Ein = Eout.

If we could construct a lever that had a variable input length without impacting the arc angle or input travel distance, that would provide an ability break a direct relationship with the output. Possible ?? Lets for a moment say we can.

The motion and ratio of forces on a lever are defined:  S1 * F1 = S2 * F2.  Anything else is not a lever.   It is fine to hypothesize such a machine but as soon as you do you can no longer rely on the the properties of a lever for further analysis.

How would we use that lever, what is the final objective?
Having always the same travel distance (in & output) with this magic lever, we could choose to use a long lever as input >> Great lifting power at the output
We could use a short lever when we reverse the cycle, input becomes output >> That initial weight would return more than we inputted initially (on assumption that the short lever can deliver that over the same lift distance)

When one invokes magic, one can declare any behavior that one desires.

How would a magic lever look like.
The lever travel distance requirement for various desired lever lengths is obvious key to break the energy relationship
Wayne does this using a multi-layer lever.

You have defined a construct with magic properties and used those magic properties to explain HER's supposed device.  You could rephrase this as:  "Wayne uses magic."

What does the multi-layer provide,
1.. A common input/output using a set limited volume of fluid and pressure

Each successive gas layer results in a combined gas spring that exhibits greater and greater distance compliance per unit pressure.

2.. Several integral lift surfaces
3.. The ability to manipulate sub-pressures

More properly, the pressures fall out from the ratios used in strict accordance with 2000 year old hydrostatics.

4.. Input distance always equals output distance regardless of leverage factor

So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.

In a magic machine one can define arbitrary relationships.  In a real machine the relationships are limited by the actual behavior of nature.

Force= pressure x area
>> up stroke >>   Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure

At this point you will say that is impossible ?

You have invoked magic to describe your mythical machine.  In a magic world that mythical machine might work.  In the real world a machine with the properties claimed cannot exist.  Just as the operating principles of a lever cannot be changed by fiat in the real world, neither can the principles of hydrostatics be waved away by declaration.

Is it really impossible ?    Check out Wayne multi-layer hydro lever, you will get far if you have the desire and persistence to learn something new.      http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI
The hydro lever is only one form on the idea in one specific medium.  The basic idea can take on many different shapes in various mediums. 

OU is never simple like tying a few magnets to a rotor.  Never expect that nature is easily fooled and will lie down at your whim.  In the final execution of the idea, there is a fair amount of inventive property involved to achieve reasonable economical outputs. I call it interference with the natural process, a requirement for any OU process.   These were the details that Wayne was reluctant to reveal on a public forum, for good understandable reasons  (annoying TK to the limit, together with some others HiFlyers, destroying the communication for others)

PS: I will not reply or comment on opinions

Regards, Red_Sunset

The citation states that he has a combination pneumatic / hydraulic machine that has a series multiple gas and liquid sections each section with a different area.  He says that he realizes different forces through the use of common hydrostatics by changing the areas of successive sections.  That is all fine and well.   Now, let us examine what those statements mean in the real world:

Force can be multiplied by taking advantage of the fact that under static conditions the pressure in a volume is uniform.  If we construct an incompressible fluid filled device that has a small diameter piston at one end of area A1, and a large diameter piston at the other end of area A2, then we have our analogue of a lever, and:

Relative force:  F2/F1 = A2/A1
Relative displacement:  dS2/dS1 = A1/A2

We can couple multiple such devices together and the net result is:

Relative force:  Fn/F1 = An/A1
Relative displacement:  dSn/dS1 = A1/An

So just as with a single lever we can realize force gain, but energy:  the integral of force * dS is the same at the input as it is at the output.  There is no clever cheat on this.  It is yet another result of conservation of energy.  Force and distance we can manipulate individually at will.  The integral product of F*dS is energy, and it is conserved.

The effect of putting air pockets between these various hydraulic sections is to introduce gas springs that compress under pressure storing energy, and reducing motion at the output side of the machine compared to coupling sections with incompressible elements.

[Marsing]

=================================================================================
I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Why ?  The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects.
Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
A beneficial outlook could be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model.

A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.

===============================================================================

Regards, Red_Sunset