Will this perpetual motion machine (electric generator) be suppressed?

Well it's a eureka moment using buoyancy.......

They shoulda given a hint....

a reply to: MrWayne

As someone with a science based university education and a love for physics. I'm waiting with bated breath for details on how your over-unity device works. If you have a patent or patent pending, I would also love some schematic of its workings aswell.

a reply to: MrWayne

CANT work WONT work anything claimed to use gravity would have to return the system to the starting point for gravity to release energy again and of course that requires energy. There is another thread on here with a machine claimed to do the same and a customer going to use after many months the only people to benefit from it was the local scrap dealer.

I wont hold my breath.

Hopefully the referred web site tell us what to do:

- Publicity
- Provide money
- Subscribe to us
- Harass professionals in relevant sector (more finely targeted publicity)

Typical, like the good old free energy magnet motor scam...

a reply to: GLontra

a more critical question - is does it ACTUALLY work

and the nobel prize will be awarded if you explean how

originally posted by: jtma508
reply to post by 3danimator

 

Well then 3danimator, you seem to think that you understand physics and have tye universe well figured-out. For the benefit of those of us not quite at your level --- but with a healthy dose of college-level science under their belt --- woiuld you be kind enough to explain the bouyancy anomaly (described as the 'Travis Effect') shown in the two vidoes? I'd love to have a clear understanding of that.

Simple boyancy is not based off volume. It is based off surface area. We have been using it for hundred's of years we call them boats. How does a huge ocean liner weighing hundreds of tons float?? Simple it has a large enough surface area to create boyancy. I was laughing at the video because they are trying to give you the impression that boyancy is somehow dependent on volume. Doesn't matter in the least if they are different volumes as long as they use the same amount of surface area on the cup.

This isnt new it isn't earth shattering and it doesn't provide excess energy. It's just a neat trick that fools the uneducated.

a reply to: dragonridr

what utter bollox :

bouyancy [ in water ] = the difference in mass of the object and the mass of the water it displaces

the fresh water // sea water plimsol lines on commercial vessels demonstrates this - as brine = denser than fresh water

also the dead sea ? - its density is the higest of any natural water body - so people [ with the same surface area ] float better in the dead sea - than in a fresh water swimming pool next to it [ assuming both bodies of water are at the same temp

the scietific illiteracy of some on ATS is always a source of ammusement

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Hello,

I am going to explain redundantly, so my apology, but the process is simple once you wrap your mind around it, but so foreign to some that it takes a bit of repeating.

The first mind wrap to get out of is the limited thinking taught in most academia that in order to have work available from a closed system then some laws have been broken......

The entire mathematics regarding work and energy is based on equal reference values - and this has excluded unequal reference values.

Since our systems are powered by gravity (the effect of gravity), I want to be clear that when I discuss "reference values", I am not saying that we turn gravity up or down, I am saying that the effect gravity has on part of our process is increased beyond the standard effect of gravity. p.s. (we never decrease the effect of gravity).

We do alternate between standard and compounded, and you can visualize the compounded as explained in my patents - Wayne S. Travis

In conclusion of this explanation, you will see that the key to our ability to use 'gravity' to do usable work, is our ability to "reduce the cost of the reset process", and that is impossible when the reference to gravity in the process is constant.

To be clear, our work exceeds the current institutional limitation (which is focused on constant reference points).

In order to reduce the reset cost, we designed systems to alternate the reference value - #1 which makes the process complex.

To be clear, #2 reducing the reset cost is only possible in a complex process, only with fluids, and only when alternating between compounded and standard potentials.

Our system is extremely predictable and measurable #3 The amount of usable work is the difference between the compounded and standard values - minus the operational losses.

Old knowledge: When capturing work from gravity, in a simple process, the work produced is equal to the work required to reset the process - which makes the simple process "conservative".

Yet, in our complex process, the intentionally transfer of work at unequal reference values is the design, and it is intentionally a non conservative process.

In short - #4 The process works to create a differential between the upstroke and the down stroke (directional according to gravity).

It is simple math to realize that what ever amount you "reduce a reset cost" in an operation, that reduction becomes available work (very simple).

This may be redundant, but worth noting: The current education systems theory of work and energy is based on simple systems - with equal references to the force of gravity, while our work is to intentionally control and separate the reference values.

Alternating the reference value to gravity in a system makes it possible to change the relative value of weight or buoyancy (potential or reset).

Much like an air conditioner alternates its temperature reference to use the hot outside air to release its heat, an air conditioner alternates the heat reference values, which is a complex process, making the outside air cooler - and the ability to dump the heat at a reduced cost.

The end result of alternating the reference value, is a production potential greater than the cost of the reset.

In the first closed looped system we built and demonstrated in 2010, we reduced the reset cost by nearly 50%, that meant we had nearly 50% available. Since then our team has reduced the rest cost to less than 15%

Test question: is this process creating energy......?

Hint, the output "Work" comes from a Force "interacting unequally" in a "Process"

MrWayne

a reply to: dragonridr


Of course it's based on VOLUME you could get a flat sheet of steel with the same SURFACE area as a boat hull and it will sink.

Buoyancy is the Flat Earther's go to argument against gravity and we know they are as dumb as a box of rocks sorry I take that back that's a insult to the rocks.

a reply to: MrWayne

TOTAL AND UTTER RUBBISH . All systems lose energy due to friction noise & heat generated post a link to the patent I need a good laugh.

Found them dated 2014 yet you are not a Billionaire yet so I think that sums up the chances that this would work as ZERO.

a reply to: Badams

Hello Badams,

It is not over-unity, it is not perpetual motion, it creates and captures force differentials - and that is the Work available.

I posted a explanation earlier, for a physics person, it is the next evolution in energy production.

MrWayne

a reply to: wmd_2008

Hello Eyeball,

No where Did I say that the system does not have losses?

I will not be repeating myself after this message, so if you wish to make an argument, read my explanation thoroughly.

I did infer clearly that the differential created had to be greater than the losses, and is.

Thanks

Mr Wayne

a reply to: Cofactor

Hello Cofactor,

No, I am not soliciting any support in any form, I just wanted you to know that clean affordable energy is already available in is in the business process.

Suppression is very real, and starts with a slander campaign - with the internet - that is very cheap to do.

I have been at this for a while and have excellent support, thank you for the offer.

Mr Wayne

a reply to: MrWayne

We all want it to be a breakthrough but after over 500 years of hoaxes and failures you'd have to understand the skepticism you're likely to run into.

My main question (assuming does in fact work) is how is the system governed/regulated when supplying a variable load? EG if the output was AC how does it keep a constant frequency and voltage on variable loads and prevent overspeed if the load is removed. On a DC system the frequency is not a concern but runaway will still occur if load is disconnected suddenly so there has to be a governor to prevent the machine destroying itself.

a reply to: GLontra

So how is this process of achieving alleged perpetual motion not privy to the same laws regarding friction and thermodynamics that prevent such a machine from ever functioning effectively?

a reply to: dragonridr

Hello Dragonrider,

There is not trick on anyone, the Travis effect simple shows that two separate designs in buoyancy will use a different amount of air.

Now for the carefully observant minds, and the initial starting place of my inventions - when you wrap your head around using both designs in one process - you have a problem....

If one uses less air than the other, and you build a system that pushes the air down with the Archimedes design, and use the Travis Effect to stroke. Now... what are you going to do with the extra air?

Subtract the different amount of air and that is your potential.

No tricks on the uneducated - but food for those that continue their education...

So simple it boggles the mind...

Mr.Wayne

a reply to: Pilgrum

Hello Pilgrum,

Frauds can not explain their systems using current physics, which separates our work, and we have been transparent the whole time.

we intentionally worked out the science first, and that makes all the difference.

Our systems initial output is Pv (pressure and Volume) which we store in an accumulator to do three things; cause the differential, set the resistance, and store the production.

We use the production that is left over after the standard losses and reset - to run a hydraulic motor and turn a generator - so regulation is simple,

Also the system is not kinetically based - you can stop and start it as many times as you like, the production is every single stroke.

Thanks

MrWayne

a reply to: andy06shake


This is not a perpetual motion system, it converts a force differential into work, and then the work into energy.

Thermal dynamics are responsible for all the looses in the system.

The factual theory that losses render continual production of work impossible from gravity is based on the assumption that the reference to gravity is constant. All the laws of physics are accurate when a single reference to gravity is the basis of the formula.

An 'story' example that sometimes helps - lets say that we are dealing with a rock, and not buoyancy, and your systems potential is coming from the weight of the rock here on earth, and the you perform work and save it as energy. Now, you lift that rock on the moon, and you record the cost at the moons gravity, now subtract the two... if this were possible - you would have a reduced the reset cost and have energy left to do more work..

Now reality: we don't alter gravity - we compound the effect gravity is having on the upstroke (production in buoyancy) and we release the compound effect on the down stroke - the reset.

Hope that helps

MrWayne

The amount of work to put air underwater is equal to the work available through buoyancy.

A sphere is the most buoyant design, there is no way to increase that efficiency.

a reply to: MrWayne

So you're saying the production excess is being stored which is OK but there has to be a limit to that at which point the machine has to shut down if there's nowhere to send the energy. Also it looks & sounds like the output is in slow pulses which would limit it's usefulness if it were to be synchronised to the grid or even as an off-grid stand-alone installation unless it had a secondary storage facility to enable a steady output.

The generator wouldn't speed up if the load was reduced?
That's what I find hard to accept but it's not unusual for systems that don't actually produce any energy.