Big try at gravity wheel

[fletcher]

And there lies the problem Red - imperfect information - initially from Wayne Travis as he drip fed the thread, & now, opposing views trying to reconstruct the 'actual' principle that may prove a path to OU or be no more than ordinary physics - the independent verification of a self sustaining working model would have gone a long way towards credibility of the inventor & his claims, as I'm sure all are aware.

I do however agree that asymmetry of forces would be a requirement to find mechanical OU, if it exits to be found - and since force times displacement/distance [Work] under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP] equals energy, then I could speculate that the Equivalence Principle might not be consistent in all circumstances, if OU is ever demonstrated & verified.

And neither HER, nor RAR, nor Grimer, have been able to show in theory or practice that break in Equivalence Symmetry I think is necessary, AFAIK.

[Grimer]

Mention has been made in this thread, by Red Sunset among others about the difficulty in communication of ideas, of getting people to understand what one is saying.


I have a particularly interesting example of that from my own career.


Normally my way-out notes and publications with Clayton were tolerated by my superiors. However, as I was approaching retirement the Buiding Research Establishment had the misfortune to end up with a director sicked up on us from Porton Down - a Dr Rex Watson.


When he read my internal note on Iterative Hierarchical Mechanics he went ape-shit and banned me from writing internal notes. I appealed against his decision and because of the nature of my work (anticipating failures) in the end the appeal went right up to Butler, the Cabinet Secretary.


Anyway, an expert panel was set up to examine the various unorthodox stuff Clayton and I had written over 3 decades.


The members were, Sir Alan Cottrell, Professor F R Farmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._R._Farmer
and Dr D Goodison.


They tried desperately to pick holes in our work but the only point they came up with where Farmer claimed I was wrong was this:


I had written,


"Chance and probability in terms of the observer


A simple point of entry to an analysis of probability is the paradigm of dice throwing. What do probability statements about the chances of a particular number resulting from a given throw mean. To take a specific example, what does it mean when I say that the probability of a 2 coming up in the next throw is 1/6? Is this an objective statement about the next throw, or about the dice; or is it perhaps a subjective statement about my way of looking at the world?


The most traditional answer, that the 1/6 refers to the outcome of a large number of trials is not very satisfying since it seems to get away from the point. I am interested in the next throw, not a large number of trials, and anyway, however many trials I make there is no guarantee that the percentage of 2's will be exactly 1/6. On the contrary, if I make 6N trials where N is a very large integer, even though the fraction of 2's could be 1/6 the probability of this is small and tends to zero as N tends to infinity."


Farmer claimed this was wrong. The other two "experts" remained silent which was rather cowardly of them.
Could we get Farmer to see we were right? No way.


So you can see the kind of thing I would be up against in trying to show a member of this forum how the Keenie worked and why. Perhaps when RAR is shown to work it will be easier.

[Red_Sunset]

And there lies the problem Red - imperfect information - initially from Wayne Travis as he drip fed the thread, & now, opposing views trying to reconstruct the 'actual' principle that may prove a path to OU or be no more than ordinary physics - the independent verification of a self sustaining working model would have gone a long way towards credibility of the inventor & his claims, as I'm sure all are aware.

I do however agree that asymmetry of forces would be a requirement to find mechanical OU, if it exits to be found - and since force times displacement/distance [Work] under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP] equals energy, then I could speculate that the Equivalence Principle might not be consistent in all circumstances, if OU is ever demonstrated & verified.

And neither HER, nor RAR, nor Grimer, have been able to show in theory or practice that break in Equivalence Symmetry I think is necessary, AFAIK. 

Hi Fletcher,
I appreciate your moderate approach to this sensitive topic.  I agree with you that the old Wayne topic has ran its course and it should not be the issue if Wayne has OU or not.
I think what is important is what of benefit can we take along out of that topic. The clever part I referred to was his approach toward asymmetry.
Did he really succeed ?, what snakes were hiding to prevent him to achieve his goal ? What hurdles was he able or not able to overcome is only known by him. 
It was definitely the best logical flow towards OU I have seen in a very long time. I wrote a ~40 page pamphlet/booklet on it "The ZED for dummies", which I gave to Wayne as a base document for him to expand on as he wished and as a "thanks" gesture.

The asymmetry creation is an interference between the 2 half cycles.  The key is to be able to pay for that cost in a way that you pay for it without loosing any money in the process, so to speak.  To say it in a different way, it cost energy that is already within the system, it is a redirection, a re-channeling, an optimization towards the output objective.
To understand this better, is to look a 2 people (Wayne & Renato), showing a remarkable similar high level approach (the reason I re-appeared here after 2 yrs absence).
The successful outcome is a critical process but I am under the firm belief it can be done. Not necessarily in the form or shape as is attempted by these 2 inventors.
It is worthwhile to study these 2 inventions, yes !  although not for the purpose of a quick rip-off OU device(it is pre-historic) but to learn of a path that leads towards the light, absolutely !.  The reality of having the 2 inventions working at this point in time as the first OU system is not exactly the most important criteria here, although it would be nice and very encouraging if they did work.
Do I have (all) the answers ?, no, not yet.
Red_Sunset

[MileHigh]

The asymmetry creation is an interference between the 2 half cycles.

Unfortunately there is no information in that statement.  Two yeas later and there is zero progress from Wayne.  Don't expect Wayne's web site to ever change significantly.  There is no test data and the expectation is that there will never be test data or a demonstration system.  Has anybody looked up James Kwok lately?

It's the classic case where a proposition starts of with the sheen of respectability, appearing to be coming from a legitimate company.  Several years later and any legitimate company would have something to show for themselves.

MileHigh

[Marsing]

Unfortunately there is no information in that statement.  Two yeas later and there is zero progress from Wayne.  Don't expect Wayne's web site to ever change significantly.  ....................

MileHigh

You are too late, MileHigh, above is about an idea, you should post something like this four/seven days ago!!!