Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 724343 times)

MarkE · « **Reply #915 on:** February 07, 2014, 08:33:42 AM »

Red_Sunset you can repeat your false assertions that anyone has managed to coax non-conservative behavior from gravity all you want. Each time anyone has asked you for evidence you have come back with empty hands. Ditto any and all other HER supporters and Wayne Travis himself. You or anyone else who would like to rehabilitate this situation for HER are welcome to offer actual evidence anytime that you like.

You offer a unique point of view when you suggest that you will be performing reality checks when it is you who continue to make fantastical claims without evidence. I suggest that you cure your own fantastical claims first.

MarkE · « **Reply #916 on:** February 07, 2014, 09:48:45 AM »

Webby here is a picture to go along with what I believe are the conditions we have set.

When the cylinder is initially at rest over the piston, we place a 2.22gm SG = 10.0 payload weight on top of the cylinder. That mass has an underwater weight of 2gms.
Then we pump 2cc of "air" into the cylinder from the bottom. This makes the whole assembly neutrally buoyant, because we specified the cylinder as massless and volumeless with an SG of 1.0.
In order to get the assembly to rise we pump in another 0.1cc of air. The assembly rises to the stop.
We collect the work done by removing the raised weight.
Then by unspecified means, we reclaim the energy that is in the "air" bubble now trapped under the top of the cylinder. That energy is the weight of water displaced by the bubble: 2.1gms multiplied by the average distance that the bubble travels back to the surface: 171mm, multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

When we add up the energy that we put in: displacing 2.1gms of water at a depth of 315mm versus the energy we get out and reclaim: 2gms payload lifted 15mm, and 2.1gms of water lifted 171mm we get less than 60% out versus what we put into the cycle. The problem is that we pay that 315mm depth but only get to reclaim an average of 171mm plus the payload movement of 15mm.

You might want a word of explanation of why I picked a 2.22gm payload. The payload had to be small enough so that the assembly would become neutrally buoyant before the annular ring fills. If the payload were heavier, then the cylinder would never rise and a bubble would never form between the top of the piston and the inside of the top of the cylinder. If these results surprise you, especially in light of Video #5, remember that we are starting without any displaced water and complete a full cycle whereas Video #5 begins by displacing water and does not execute a complete cycle. Video #5 like the other four is misdirection.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #917 on:** February 07, 2014, 09:51:08 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on February 07, 2014, 08:33:42 AM

Red_Sunset you can repeat your false assertions that anyone has managed to coax non-conservative behavior from gravity all you want. Each time anyone has asked you for evidence you have come back with empty hands. Ditto any and all other HER supporters and Wayne Travis himself. You or anyone else who would like to rehabilitate this situation for HER are welcome to offer actual evidence anytime that you like.

You offer a unique point of view when you suggest that you will be performing reality checks when it is you who continue to make fantastical claims without evidence. I suggest that you cure your own fantastical claims first.

MarkE,
I made a modification to my mail, in order to make it more precise,
You are doing good with your test process, this is the best way to prove it for yourself, so you can believe what Wayne demonstrated and in this way it will be indisputable.
I never claimed to have physical data, only a theoretical understanding that matches the process and flow of Wayne physical data
Wayne neither me, claimed to coax gravity into a non-conservation. You have forgotten the "MAGICAL LEVER" that can change its lift parameters at low cost and therefore would respond differently to gravity. Gravity stays unchanged and is not interfered with.
It is advisable to wait until you have finished your due diligence before you make unfounded statements

Red_Sunset

Quote

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

minnie · « **Reply #918 on:** February 07, 2014, 03:22:30 PM »

Sunset,
have you witnessed a buoyancy/gravity device working?

If no, do you know someone who has?

If no to both above, have you got conclusive documentary evidence to
prove your case?

Yes/no answers perfectly acceptable.........but honesty a must.
John.

minnie · « **Reply #919 on:** February 07, 2014, 03:32:06 PM »

Sunset,
have you witnessed a gravity/buoyancy machine working?

If no, do you know someone who has?

If no to both above, have you got documentary evidence to prove your case?

Yes/no answers perfectly acceptable.......honesty a must!
John

Marsing · « **Reply #920 on:** February 07, 2014, 04:07:27 PM »

yes,
8 posts are mine ,
2 from mark,
1 from red,
the rest i don't know >>

<<

i made 8 empty posts to jump to this page, as it did not work so i gave up.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #921 on:** February 07, 2014, 04:37:09 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 03:43:06 PM

There is an advantage to being the one who adds the energy, that is you can pick and choose how it is done.

Some times you can take 2 systems that have a given value of efficiency and add them together and raise the efficiency of the system as a whole.

Can you give an example of such a case? Other than Travis's system, I mean.

Generally speaking.... efficiencies "multiply" rather than add. So if you have one system that is, say, 90 percent efficient --say, an electric motor -- and you put the output of that into a system -- say a generator -- with 80 percent efficiency, you get 0.90 x 0.80 = 0.72, or 72 percent efficiency overall.

MarkE · « **Reply #922 on:** February 07, 2014, 05:33:32 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 03:45:45 PM

Strange server behavior.

anyone else not getting some of the posts?

My response gave a new page and MarkE had his response on its own page and it looks like some posts might not be showing up.

I think that the server may have choked on my diagram. I've reduced the resolution this time.
The basic arrangement is that we have the same set up as in the previous drawing, but now we will do work lifting a payload weight. I choose a payload with a dry weight of 2.22 gms and an SG of 10.0 so that it has a submerged weight of 2.00gms.

We start with the cylinder on top of the piston.
We place the payload on top of the cylinder.
We pump in 2cc of "air" under the cylinder. The cylinder with the payload on it is now neutrally buoyant.
We pump in an additional 0.1cc of "air". The cylinder now rises 15mm to the stop.
We remove the payload. The work extracted is: 2.0gms * 15mm * 9.8m/s/s = 0.294mJ.
We vent the bubble under the piston and by unspecified means recover all of the energy in the bubble.
We push the now neutrally buoyant cylinder back down to the starting position.

Work input: 2.1cc water displaced from 315mm at 9.8m/s/s = 6.48mJ
Work extracted: 0.294mJ + 2.1gms * (165mm + Hbubble/2) * 9.8m/s/s. Hbubble = 11.9mm. Work extracted = 0.294mJ + 3.518mJ = 3.81mJ
Cycle energy efficiency = 3.81mJ / 6.48mJ = 58.8%

I chose the 2.22 grams mass so that the "air" injected under the cylinder would cause the cylinder plus payload to become neutrally buoyant before the annular ring filled with "air". If the payload weight is too heavy the annular ring would fill without the cylinder rising and any additional air would just leak out. I chose the 2.22 number because the arithmetic is easy with an SG of 10.0: 2.00gms submerged weight.

minnie · « **Reply #923 on:** February 07, 2014, 05:33:55 PM »

Sunset,

ruling out stored potential,

have you ever witnessed a working gravity/buoyancy device?

If no, has someone you know seen such a device?

If no to both above, have you documentary evidence to support your claim?

Yes/no answer acceptable .......honesty a must!

John

MarkE · « **Reply #924 on:** February 07, 2014, 05:35:49 PM »

OK it was the diagram that made the server choke. I've moved a lower resolution image into my response. All should be good now.

MarkE · « **Reply #925 on:** February 07, 2014, 05:41:58 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on February 07, 2014, 03:43:06 PM

There is an advantage to being the one who adds the energy, that is you can pick and choose how it is done.

Some times you can take 2 systems that have a given value of efficiency and add them together and raise the efficiency of the system as a whole.

For any values: 0<N<1 and 0<M<1, N*M < M, N*M < N. The only way to improve efficiency with two lossy processes is if the addition of the second process allows one to change the operating point of the first process to one where it operates more efficiently by a factor greater than the inverse of the second process's efficiency.

powercat · « **Reply #926 on:** February 07, 2014, 05:44:48 PM »

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

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

It was in this one the one below, so nothing wrong with my imagination.

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

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.

minnie · « **Reply #927 on:** February 07, 2014, 06:09:17 PM »

Powercat,
visit the ZED production line. Sounds as if they're churning them out!
It'll be a flat pack so you'll be able to take one home in the van.
John.

powercat · « **Reply #928 on:** February 07, 2014, 06:56:23 PM »

Hi John
Mark Dansie can't get in there to verify the device, so even if I was to go the likelihood is I would be shown the outside of a building that houses the production line, but for security reasons and keeping golden nuggets of technical information secret and business reasons, I can't actually see anything worth seeing, they might show me a stack of empty boxes and claim they contain the finished products that are in the process of being shipped out..... (to never never land)

minnie · « **Reply #929 on:** February 07, 2014, 07:35:03 PM »

Webby,
it's the petrol that makes this happen, you're putting energy in to the system
and modifying how it's used.
What we're looking for is more back than we put in. Koala pointed out the
illusion of something for hardly anything with his spring assisted bollard.
John.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 724343 times)

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Marsing

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

powercat

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

powercat

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel