Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 724355 times)

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #900 on:** February 06, 2014, 02:12:17 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 06, 2014, 12:01:18 PM

You have indeed made many CLAIMS wrt Travis and his alleged devices. Just like Travis did, when the going gets tough for you, you want to stop communicating instead of supporting your CLAIMS with solid data, logical arguments, checkable outside references to valid sources, and repeatable demonstrations of your own.In the first place that is not a grammatical English sentence so I can only attempt to decode it.
In the second place you are, as usual, misrepresenting what is being said to you. What "the Wayne skeptics" have been demanding is NOT a video "giving Zed working knowledge". We have videos of a couple of Travis's devices "working" already, and we had the Flash animation that he has removed, after the name change and the lawsuit. What we are demanding is _data that supports the claims_ and that can be verified and repeated independently. That is, the usual stuff that anyone demands from anyone else with a radical claim. We would especially like to see, up close and personal, the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (Travis's own words). Yes, a video of that system, along with some data that supports the OU claim made for it, would be helpful. But why didn't Travis show this system to Mark Dansie on either of his site visits? Why haven't we ever seen anyone's report of this system? I know why, and so do you: it doesn't exist.
On the contrary, the video provided sufficient information to determine that the device is faked, not doing what the claimant said it is doing. As usual the video revealed more than the (amateur) hoaxer wanted to reveal. The type and extent of the deformation of the SPRING SHAFT COUPLING clearly shows that the "generator" is driving the "magnet motor", not the other way around. Had the claimants not inadvertently provided close-ups of the spring in the two conditions, running and not running, we would not be certain, but the spring is, to my mind, a definite "tell" that blows Kahloon out of the water entirely. Like Mylow's fishing line drive, only even easier to see once you know what to look for.
Your strawman raises its head again. No contradiction. Any video is bound to reveal as well as to conceal. The videos we have of the Travis items in action reveal much that Travis didn't intend, and do indeed contain "tells", but they are not necessary and aren't what "Wayne's skeptics" really want, as discussed above.
If you are talking about Kahloon's video.... whether his device is real or not is certainly NOT immaterial, and his videos are indeed very informative and are not "enigmas" at all. They clearly show, as I have explained, the "smoking gun" that proves his fakery, if not exactly how power is delivered to the system. But even without that there is still much information in those videos that raises doubt, and not much that makes one confident in the claims.
Or rather, your fake interpretations and misrepresentations of our posts do.

Your tactics are so transparent, Red.

Tinsel > That was a lot of writing, the truth must have gotten too close to home.
MarkE > Webster definition of ENIGMA : "something that is difficult to understand or explain". The question was not if you can see it as Fake or Not. It would be irrelevant to the argument
PowerCat said ><the rest of us challenge you to produce some proper evidence>. If that was so, why did you ignore the invitation?

The claim reference was addressing the previous mail by MarkE that referred to the "Wasif Kahloon" video's, not to the Wayne Travis, but that didn't stop you both to pull Travis into the picture ( transperent....or murky... maybe somewhat)

Although the video link was not in support of a claim, it was only an example in the demonstration of a point. Still puzzled to what insults and evidence have to do here.

Quote

Red_Sunset you posted the video link as support for your claims. It didn't provide any support. You can carry on as you have with back handed and/or direct insults. If that's all you can come up with then so be it. It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.

Yes, I need to agree that our communication is becoming too predictably transparent.
So let bury the axe......?

Red_Sunset

MarkE · « **Reply #901 on:** February 06, 2014, 02:19:33 PM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 02:12:17 PM

Tinsel > That was a lot of writing, the truth must have gotten too close to home.

MarkE > Webster definition of ENIGMA : "something that is difficult to understand or explain". The question was not if you can see it as Fake or Not. It would be irrelevant to the argument

There is nothing difficult to explain. The device is an obvious hoax. The claimed motor is not driving a generator that then supplies the loads shown.

Quote

PowerCat said ><the rest of us challenge you to produce some proper evidence>. If that was so, why did you ignore the invitation?

Over and over people including myself have asked you to present evidence of the surplus energy generation that you claim. Each time you have declined. The offer / request remains open. Keep dodging and/or refusing or present actual evidence as you see fit. By obstinately refusing to provide evidence you make your claims very weak.

Quote

The claim reference was addressing the previous mail by MarkE that referred to the "Wasif Kahloon" video's, not to the Wayne Travis, but that didn't stop you both to pull Travis into the picture ( transperent....or murky... maybe somewhat)
Yes, I need to agree that our communication is becoming too predictably transparent.
Let bury the axe......

Red_Sunset

It was your choice to bring in the terribly bad fake demonstrations by Wasif Kahloon. You associated those videos with Wayne Travis. Why you keep chasing yourself in circles remains a mystery.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #902 on:** February 06, 2014, 02:36:24 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 02:19:33 PM

.......................................................Why you keep chasing yourself in circles remains a mystery.

because none of your comments are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

MarkE · « **Reply #903 on:** February 06, 2014, 02:41:02 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 06, 2014, 02:24:13 PM

That came out of the file I posted.

We will start from state2 and move the medium to the start condition, allow for the start condition to move up and become state2.

I will have to go looking for that file.
Are you OK with filling both the top bubble and the annular cavity with our "air" by the end of State 2?
What mechanism would you like to use to go from State 2 to the starting condition? We could for example add a vent valve to the top of the cylinder.
What external work would you like to do, and in which state would you like to do it?

powercat · « **Reply #904 on:** February 06, 2014, 02:51:56 PM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 02:12:17 PM

PowerCat said ><the rest of us challenge you to produce some proper evidence>. If that was so, why did you ignore the invitation?

By invitation I take it you mean travelling to Wayne's premises to see his device, Wayne already has somebody capable of this task (Mark Dansie) but as we all know Wayne is scared of verification and has lied and broken his promises on numerous occasions over the last two years.

If Mark Dansie can't get access to verify Wayne's device why would you think of suggesting I should go ?

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #905 on:** February 06, 2014, 03:27:36 PM »

Quote from: powercat on February 06, 2014, 02:51:56 PM

By invitation I take it you mean travelling to Wayne's premises to see his device, Wayne already has somebody capable of this task (Mark Dansie) but as we all know Wayne is scared of verification and has lied and broken his promises on numerous occasions over the last two years.

If Mark Dansie can't get access to verify Wayne's device why would you think of suggesting I should go ?

I have been telling myself already for quite a while to give up on this forum, and I should.
I think what is keeping me is the entertainment value.

PowerCat,
In which post did you get an invitation to travel to Wayne's premises. >> in none! so why imagine that ?.
You guys are like loose cannons, your comments are seldom relevant to the discussion at hand.

There was a post that said the following as your invitation to participate,

Quote

Gravity powered devices / Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« on: February 03, 2014, 09:52:55 AM »
.................................
So in order to proceed, I need the acknowledgement of all skeptic members listed below, for all line items shown.
A "yes" or "no" or "don't know" or "impossible" or "maybe" are all valid answers.
We have 6 days remaining because by that time I will be at the bottom of Africa with only intermittent internet access

Mandatory detailed response needed from
1., MarkE
2.. TinselKoala
3.. Mile High
4.. PowerCat
5.. EnergiaLibre
6.. Fletcher
and anybody who wants to participate is welcome to do so.
...........................................

Red_Sunset

Marsing · « **Reply #906 on:** February 06, 2014, 03:40:31 PM »

hi all

it's coffe time.. any news about RAR?

powercat · « **Reply #907 on:** February 06, 2014, 03:51:59 PM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on February 06, 2014, 03:27:36 PM

PowerCat,
In which post did you get an invitation to travel to Wayne's premises. >> in none! so why imagine that ?.

Red_Sunset

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 21, 2014, 03:01:57 PM

[/font]Hi Cat,Some advice, get yourself better informed, so you can see the wood from the tree'sTake a trip to Oklahoma and visit the ZED production line.

No doubt you will twist the meaning of what you said, that is a predictable thing that you do, I repeatedly have shown you to be contradictory, aggressive, and repetitive.

As for your second invitation I refer you to the yellow sign in my previous post
You really need to get it into your deluded mind that it is you that has to produce evidence, the members of this forum are not accountable to your delusions of grandeur.

minnie · « **Reply #908 on:** February 06, 2014, 06:59:40 PM »

Hi,
I'm really impressed with Webby, he really is giving this his best shot.
As for Sunset I think about the best adjective to use is pathetic.
John.

MarkE · « **Reply #909 on:** February 06, 2014, 10:44:44 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 06, 2014, 04:12:38 PM

It is right after the post from Wayne.

The cavity and bubble have to be filled by then,, there is not enough space in the starting condition to hold it all.

When I go through this I use a connecting tube of some sort to dump the "air" from state 2 back into the starting condition.

External work would just be extracting something from the change in height from the starting condition up to state 2, whether that is by weight or external resistance does not matter so much, it ends up being the same energy.

Are you OK with a vent in the top of the inverted cylinder? We could have that feed back to a reservoir on the surface that the pump uses as its source of "air".

The external work statement needs refinement. Lifting and dropping a weight would not do any net work. Would you like to propose something whereby a weight on top of the cylinder is removed at the end of state 2, and a new one is placed on top of the cylinder at the end of the starting condition? That would be fine by me. Pick an SG and value for the weight. One such weight would have an SG of 1.0: It would be the water that we raise going from the starting condition to State 2. One could place a series of valves along the side of the container so that water above a certain height will drain off. We can count the work performed as the water weight times the fall height from the particular valve.

minnie · « **Reply #910 on:** February 06, 2014, 11:24:01 PM »

Mark,
thank you for answering my question. I can now see the point of simplifying
things and this makes it much easier to calculate what is actually going on.
I'm a semi retired old farmer and have been intrigued with this since Mark Dansie
started taking it seriously.
I do appreciate the efforts you scientists put in to explaining things. Who would
have thought such a simple device as could have been so difficult to analyse?
John.

MarkE · « **Reply #911 on:** February 06, 2014, 11:55:50 PM »

Minnie it is my pleasure. Buoyancy for some reason plays with people's intuition. It doesn't help when some people go very far out of their way to misrepresent things as happened in those five aquarium videos and much discussion that followed. The reality is actually dirt simple as explained by Archimedes' Priniciple:

Immersing anything in a fluid subjects that object to an offsetting buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid volume.

When something has a lower density than the fluid, we have to do work to submerge that thing. We are lifting fluid while sinking the thing. When something has a higher density, we have to do work to lift it. The fluid that falls as we lift the thing has less mass than we lift. If the density of the thing is the same as the surrounding fluid, then the thing can move around in the fluid without expenditure or gain of potential energy to the system because if we go up a like mass of surrounding fluid falls, or if we go down a like mass of surrounding fluid goes up.

What all of this adds up to is that buoyancy doesn't change the behavior of gravity: The net weight lifted or dropped is just the original object weight offset by the weight of the displaced fluid mass that would occupy the object's volume. We do relatively less work going up and relatively more work going down. At the end of the day we are still lifting and dropping the net masses in a gravitational field. Our combined experience is that gravity is conservative: If we take a test weight from some starting point through an arbitrary path in a gravitational field, as long as we and come back to where we started we neither gain nor lose gravitational potential energy. For all of the demonstrations, protests, and various hand waving by: Red_Sunset, Tom Miller, Wayne Travis, etc. none have shown that HER or anyone else can coax gravity into non-conservative behavior.

MarkE · « **Reply #912 on:** February 07, 2014, 12:01:46 AM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 06, 2014, 11:36:55 PM

I started by just having the vents at the top connected together with a simple transfer pump between them. I actually built other testbeds many years ago using this setup so it was easy for me to think about and understand how it worked.

A weight that is removed is how I went about it, I did not bring in the PE change of the water in the outside big container, since that volume after the setup stays the same and since the cylinders are not interacting with the surface that subtle change in pressure should have no impact.

I learn faster by doing, hands on, so most of the things I get up to I try and use things I have done as parts of the build or concept.

Webby, so what would you like to do for work here? If you want to count weight that can be raised going from the starting condition to state 2, I am good with that. We can stipulate that the water container is so large that the water level change is incidental. Does that work for you?

minnie · « **Reply #913 on:** February 07, 2014, 12:48:16 AM »

Hi,
trouble is, if you simplify everything down, unless you add some form of
energy, you end up with a pail of water!
John.
ETA in this country we've got that much water that a rail line that's lasted
150 years has been washed into the sea.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #914 on:** February 07, 2014, 08:23:21 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 11:55:50 PM

.....................................................
..................................For all of the demonstrations, protests, and various hand waving by: Red_Sunset, Tom Miller, Wayne Travis, etc. none have shown that HER or anyone else can coax gravity into non-conservative behavior.

MarkE,

A perfect faultless explanation of buoyancy ! the previous demonstrations, protests, and various hand waving were not DISPUTING anything you said as incorrect, it was incomplete for not being the whole possible story.
But it nevertheless is an other angle of approach to analyze the process and it should lead to the same conclusions, except the view might not be as intuitive as provided using area and pressure with height displacement.

That Red_Sunset, Tom Miller, Wayne Travis, coax gravity into a non-conservative behavior is a misnomer ! That reveals a lack of understanding. If seen indirectly, yes this could be understood that way, but if looking closely into the process flow, this is definitely not what happens. The device responds to the natural gravitation as expected according to the condition the device is in without abnormality.

Lets stay within the boundaries of reality.
Red_Sunset

News:

User Menu