Big try at gravity wheel

[fletcher]

So let me make a few summary notes & observations for those following along - please correct me if I have misinterpreted something.

1. Red points out the a ZED by itself is not OU [that there is no gain in energy is accepted by others].

2. Red contends from his own analysis & deductions [supported by Mr Wayne & a cast of 200] that a minimum of two ZEDs connected by levers [rams] can use the exhausted fluid output energy [pressure times volume] from one ZED on downstroke to partially offset the input energy of the second ZED on upstroke, 180 degrees out of phase [like a ICE connected to a crankshaft] - this requires a reservoir of fluid to ride the top of the pod/piston to fill the outer annular ring with a minimum of fluid volume to cause lift force over a greater distance, once the piston can move.

3. Red postulates that everything would be sub-OU [no NET energy gain] unless a metered/pulsed mechanical intervention happens to interrupt the cycle [fluid volume transfer to beneath the pod/piston ?!] - this process gives rise to a self-sustaining movement of the mechanisms with an excess of available energy to do external work.

A. Red is invoking Mr Wayne's contention that the pressure gradient inside the dual ZEDs is not linear [Mr Wayne previously said that compressible gas (air spring energy storage & release analogy which compromises volume) was not required & could be replaced by lighter density fluid/oil] - he further contends that there is a specific limited range of movement to maximize this gradient asymmetry.

B. It has been pointed out that non-compressible fluids have a strictly linear pressure gradient to depth at ordinary depths, except at extreme depths & pressures - MarkE has pointed out that energy & pressure are related thru the work energy equivalence principle i.e.

=> Force = Pressure x Area => Pressure = F / A = F.d / A.d = Work / Volume = Energy / Volume => Energy Density [kinetic energy density plus potential energy density (CoE) per volume].

C. It has been pointed out that Pascal's Law [undiminished transfer of pressure] supports the theory of rams & hydraulic levers as being sub-OU - IOW's, hydraulic levers are no different & conform to Archimedes Law of Levers.

D. It has been pointed out that forces & pressure & power (rate of doing work) [especially in a dynamic system] are not reliable indicators of possible energy surplus - a self-sustaining mechanical device would be able to cover internal energy losses to friction & do some external work, & keep going for an extended period of time, until parts wore out, or the load became to great.

[minnie]

Hi,
   was mrwayne's patent ever granted? I looked at a link Webby gave and it looked like
an awful lot of waffle to me.
                        John.

[Red_Sunset]

I guess you are choosing to use a blind eye then..................................................
....................................................... that is another small little difference,, but will you notice it?   

Webby,

What you noticed, I also observed and I believe that it stems from certain characteristics in Man's nature.  We all have it in us, in various forms and dominance.  It is a general characteristic, and it has all to do with what we expect to find or what we believe should be there.
For example,  just looking at the clock could make you hungry if mealtime was overdue.  It is similar to obsession, what we expect to be there or to find has become a reality in our mind regardless to the reality itself that confronts us. The real reality doesn't register.  Like our mood or an good or bad encounter changes the perception of our surroundings.
It takes at times great effort to guard against it because it hampers greatly logical thinking.

With relationship to posts,  I also noticed that on several occasion, whatever you write goes unnoticed (it didn't sink) due to a pre-conceived idea being so strong that it blocks out any input to the contrary.  The pre-conception is noticeable in the answer of the return post.  A reason for me to request a re-reading with comprehension

There is an other aspect the plays into the hand of this blotting process, the guilt syndrome of being mistaken. 
If you do not recognize it, it doesn't exist.  Have a look back in the sequence of posts that relate to the "Archimedes paradox",  pay attention to the initial post versus the last post on that topic by the same individual.
You will notice that what was written in the posts by others between the initial and last, appears as of it never took place. There was never a dialog. 


This is a great drawback for this forum, in order to function in a productive manner except for blueprint exchanges.

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

Hi,
   was mrwayne's patent ever granted? I looked at a link Webby gave and it looked like
an awful lot of waffle to me.
                        John.

Wayne Travis' application 20120117957 has not gone through any kind of examination yet.  It has been docketed for examination for more than a year.

[MarkE]

I guess you are choosing to use a blind eye then.

It is fine if we do not agree, it will not change the world nor my life at all.

There is a fair amount of my data in the other thread, like I said if you need it it is there for you to retrieve.

Did you read my last post prior to your response,, that is another small little difference,, but will you notice it?

Webby if you had been able to prove a difference in principle of operation then two things should be true:

1) You should be able to succinctly state the difference in principle of operation.
2) You should be able to demonstrate how to utilize that difference.

I am unaware that you have done either.  If you have done either, then kindly point precisely where you did, or simply quote yourself for the statement of 1).  The reason that I keep asking you for data, is that data can be used to reconcile which position is correct.  I trust that you are interested in resolving what is real and not just engaging in an endless exchange of:  "Yes it is. No it isn't."