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

a reply to: MrWayne

please provide direct links to your alledged patents - because " wayne travis " as " inventors name " yeilds zero results in any patent search for the US

a reply to: dragonridr

i am struggling to work out :

are you really so clueless - or just taking the piss ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Look Under Wayne S. Travis

a reply to: MrWayne

why dont YOU just post direct links ???????????????

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Thank You for the question about posting direct links,

First, this thread was about suppression, and I joined to share a follow up to the FBI investigation.

Second, I am not here to convince anyone, if people don't get the science, then those will have to wait.

Third, I shared the only way known to mankind to draw work from gravity (continuously), and in the end, that is the only important fact - Repeatable physics are what is important.

And lastly, I have the hard copies, not Links - but I know they can be found - I hear from data miners regularly.

Thanks again,

MrWayne

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: MrWayne

why dont YOU just post direct links ???????????????

Try here first it's worth a laugh NOTHING else just a laugh.

The BS Machine

a reply to: MrWayne

Second, I am not here to convince anyone, if people don't get the science, then those will have to wait.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.
It is not science, therefor the wait is for those that believe in pseudoscience, to anticipate.
If you cannot fathom the importance of the gauntlet, the effective tool of the scientific method, then as a person that believes in science, you understand that in 99.9999% of the time, we observe the tail trying to wave the dog. As scientists, the dog itself represents our reality. A reality that the world we know has been successfully built upon.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: MrWayne

why dont YOU just post direct links ???????????????

Try here first it's worth a laugh NOTHING else just a laugh.

The BS Machine

You don't have to be so rude.

Without people like MrWayne we would never have flown. One day, hopefully, an inventor/crackpot/dreamer may make free energy, but until then, they continue to make other life hacks and inventions that do contribute to our lives.

Great. There's another five minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Yes, I actually watched the video. I saw some kind of weird-looking mechanism with parts moving back and forth in a seemingly random pattern, a motor of some sort spinning, and a wattmeter that wasn't showing anything. Even if tor oit did show something, it wasn't evidenced in the video where those wires went.

I heard the video too. I heard regular clicks and whirs... which are evidence of wasted power. Not evidence by itself of failure, but a definite indicator of wear/poor engineering. Those do not give me confidence in the machine.

But the real tell wasn't what I saw or heard, or even what I read. It was what I didn't see and didn't read. Not one word of explanation of the actual principles involved, and not a single frame showing the complete machine, or even indication that power is being generated. In fact, there are so many hidden areas that I suspect the motor (probably a motor/pump combo) is driving the whole thing from a plug hidden behind the machine.

People who post garbage like this are largely why actual power production is stifled. These fools are trying to raise money to open a company, start production, pocket the proceeds, and have a friend conveniently sue them for something that shuts them down. Then they cry about being "suppressed" and retire for a few years on investor's money while those investors run around in circles trying to find out who the evil moneybags are who stole their money from the real thieves.

I can't say that over-unity power is impossible... but I can say this ain't it.

TheRedneck

Here is really what I am trying to convey, when it comes to going up against the building blocks of scientific knowledge we have been able to conquer in this world. It further explains my conjecture of "Waging the tail of the Dog". There is no substitute for proof.

When Professor Andrew Wiles of Princeton University announced a solution for Fermat's last theorem in 1993, all of the top mathematicians of the world attended. It was considered to be the most elusive, and important, non-proven mathematical theories ever. You can read about it , online, ad-nauseum.

At the presentation, he filled 3 blackboards with the most incredible mathematical reduction in history. At the end, as he was writing his last symbols on the board, he turned to the audience, with tears in his eyes, and said.. "I think I will stop here...".

The audience, mostly the cream of the crop of world class mathematicians, also with tears in their eyes, sat for a moment with jaws open... eventually bursting into an applause that sounded for minutes.

The problem was to prove Fermat's Last Theorem which states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2.

Now, take this seemingly obscure mathematical example, and put it up against a successful blackboard presentation proving the existence of a Perpetual Motion Machine. Can you imagine the scientific response? This is the kind of pressure it takes to undo old ideas, especially when they pertain to what we really understand as the reality of this world, and have the ability to change them.

Do you get how serious science is ?

a reply to: Forensick

BS from you as well real pioneers like the Wright Bros knew the principles of flight and constructed a machine to achieve it.

Snake oil salesmen concoct stories to try and bamboozle potential investors.

Seriously look at the video about the so called Travis effect see if you can work out the problem with the claim, this thing has ss much chance of working as me seeing Santa riding the Easter Bunny chasing the Tooth Fairy.

a reply to: wmd_2008

WMD,

You might want to study your history a bit more, every ground breaking idea, device, or thought had someone playing the all knowing taunting turd (I guess someone has to do it, so those types don't bother me).

The wright brothers flew their planes successfully for four years before the entrenched academia would admit it, and before the first newspaper would report it. So your example is a perfect fit to what I do.

Your valuable cognitive contributions have a purpose in all of this, if you weren't attacking what you don't understand -then that which you attack might not be an new idea.... or new science.

Let me expand, we tried on our own to share the success we were having - since 2010, and it was the attack on us that showed the right support where to find us.

So - keep it up.

MrWayne

originally posted by: MrWayne
a reply to: wmd_2008

WMD,

You might want to study your history a bit more, every ground breaking idea, device, or thought had someone playing the all knowing taunting turd (I guess someone has to do it, so those types don't bother me).

The wright brothers flew their planes successfully for four years before the entrenched academia would admit it, and before the first newspaper would report it. So your example is a perfect fit to what I do.

Your valuable cognitive contributions have a purpose in all of this, if you weren't attacking what you don't understand -then that which you attack might not be an new idea.... or new science.

Let me expand, we tried on our own to share the success we were having - since 2010, and it was the attack on us that showed the right support where to find us.

So - keep it up.

MrWayne

My suggestion would be to learn about physics and boyancey. As long as the same surface area is removed from water it will have the same force. The amount of air required doesn't matter since that can be altered by shape or even using something else to fill the space. The key to this is the cups 1 having a core means air can take up the same amount of space but less being used. Boyancey will be determined bt rhr amoint of water displaced.doesn't matter if its cement air or even foam. The force will be the same as long as the surface area under thr water is the same. This is why we can float things on the water that weigh tons. Boyancey is based on nothing more than how much water you can displace. In your tank the surface area is the same just what your using to displace the water is different in both cups.

This isn't a method you can get more force than you put in to it. If you claim otherwise your a fraud.

Here this video may help you understand the force you are trying to rename.


PS flight was all ready known to be possible on fact the Wright brothers had a toy helicopter you wound up with a rubber band. Everyone knew flight was possible they just were not sure how to upscale it to transport humans. Here's a shocker they were not even the first their design was just better.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Forensick

BS from you as well real pioneers like the Wright Bros knew the principles of flight and constructed a machine to achieve it.

Snake oil salesmen concoct stories to try and bamboozle potential investors.

Seriously look at the video about the so called Travis effect see if you can work out the problem with the claim, this thing has ss much chance of working as me seeing Santa riding the Easter Bunny chasing the Tooth Fairy.

Pipe down you cranky little man, I am not questioning or agreeing with the theory, just your attitude.

originally posted by: MrWayne

The wright brothers flew their planes successfully for four years before the entrenched academia would admit it, and before the first newspaper would report it. So your example is a perfect fit to what I do.

You should take your own advice, unless you're going to claim the Wright Brothers first flew in 1899.

Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, December 18, 1903.
The problem of aerial navigation without the use of a balloon has been solved at last.
Over the sand hills of the North Carolina coast yesterday, near Kitty Hawk, two Ohio men proved that they could soar through the air in a flying machine of their own construction, with the power to steer it and speed it at will. This, too, in the face of a wind blowing at the confirmed velocity of twenty-one miles an hour.

www.learnnc.org...

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: MrWayne

The wright brothers flew their planes successfully for four years before the entrenched academia would admit it, and before the first newspaper would report it. So your example is a perfect fit to what I do.

You should take your own advice, unless you're going to claim the Wright Brothers first flew in 1899.

Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, December 18, 1903.
The problem of aerial navigation without the use of a balloon has been solved at last.
Over the sand hills of the North Carolina coast yesterday, near Kitty Hawk, two Ohio men proved that they could soar through the air in a flying machine of their own construction, with the power to steer it and speed it at will. This, too, in the face of a wind blowing at the confirmed velocity of twenty-one miles an hour.

www.learnnc.org...

I think he meant academia didn't acknowledge lift until 1907?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks,

Not sure when they first flew. or how many times they tried giving proof.
My work started in 2006, first successful tests in 2008, and first completely self sustaining running system demonstrated in 2010. Followed by several extremely improved models...

MrWayne

a reply to: dragonridr

The Travis Effect is a good starting point for your discovery.

The great thing about science is that new things are discovered, the bad thing about the internet - It has a lag time to catch up.

You are right here - 'Standard buoyancy' - even with a brick taking up space will have a lifting force equal to the same weight of the displaced fluid minus the weight of the buoyant container. This is because the upward lift is caused by the pressure differentials on the surfaces, and is a simple mathematical formula.... Pressure differential X Surface area - weight of the object = lift

And with the brick not attached to the lifted object - you don't have to subtract its weight from your lift calculations - which is why that original discovery resulted in a reduction of air required to reach lift.

And you are correct that In standard buoyancy designs, you can not create more lift than the weight of the displaced fluid.

But, new, and not in school yet...when you design so that you increase the surface areas beyond the external surface area - then things change.

My second Eureka moment in all of this research was the discovery that the Travis Effect could be layered upon itself - listen carefully - using each previous layer as if it were a solid displacement - resulting in a displacement inside a displacement inside a displacement as many times as you like..

That resulted in new understanding in the physics regarding buoyancy. Multiple pressure differential and multiple surface areas in nearly the same space.

Multiple layers and multiple pressure differentials resulted in a multiple of the lift affect (compared to the volume - equation you pointed out).

This did not debunk Archimedes because he was talking about a Simple Displacement, simple buoyancy.

Much time was spent on this aspect of buoyancy - but "multiplicative buoyancy" is not where the energy came from in our system. It did deserve extreme research and full 3d analysis (which took a year).

Let me give you an example of the value that design brought - Called the ZED design, the system in the original patent drawings was the first layered system we built. It required 10 cubic feet of displacement and lifter nearly 40,000 pounds, and its actual volume was 235 cubic feet.

In standard buoyancy (and water) the 235 cubic feet (not subtracting the weight) has less than 15,000 pounds.

One last point - the Travis effect shows that a different amount of effort is required than standard - that is the point. The implication is that doing the same work dos not require the same effort (in certain cases) and that is where the opportunity begins.

Thanks

MrWayne

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hello Redneck,

You are right that video's prove nothing, I tell my friends the same thing, that is why I shared the source of the power.

I would call every system BS, or at least incomplete unless they can explain where the work or energy comes from.

P.s My systems are not Over-unity, ours has a power source - we just don't have to pay for it.

Thanks.

MrWayne

a reply to: MrWayne

You are right that video's prove nothing, I tell my friends the same thing, that is why I shared the source of the power.

The thing is, I am still not understanding your explanation. You have mentioned the "Travis effect" a couple times, but as of yet I have found noting that properly defines this. The "Travis effect" is not an accepted theory. By that, I mean that it is not something one can simply look up and receive an explanation of.

I can mention Maxwell's Equations and anyone with any physics background can find out exactly what Maxwell's equations are. I can mention Ohm's Law and anyone can find out that I refer to the equation E=IR and its implications. These (and many more) are well-defined; the "Travis effect" is not. So in order to use it as part of your explanation, it becomes necessary to explicitly define what this "Travis effect" is.

I must say I do not believe you understand some basics of physics. Back on page 3, you posted this:

Actually, the amount of work to create the air for buoyancy is 3 times the amount of work available form the buoyant object.

When you push air into water, you store potentials three ways, raised water (head) compressed air (Pv) and Buoyancy (lift).

In truth, all of the buoyancy is created by the displacement and therefore the surface level rise of the water. The pressure differential in the air is created by the increased pressure due to the water level rise and serves to minimize said water level rise by transferring a portion of the increased gravitational attraction into pressure. The lift is the result of the other two forces, not a third energy storage mechanism. A similar equation exists in a gaseous medium, but the increased gravitational pull on the medium is due to pressure instead of surface level.

If the pressure differential in the air was a separate energy mechanism, then one could immerse two essentially identical containers, one being closed and the other having holes in the bottom, and since the former would not experience a pressure differential in the air, there would e a measurable difference in the force produced between the two.

There is not.

However, I do try to have an open mind, primarily because there are aspects of gravitational force that I also see potential in. Therefore, I give you this opportunity: can you explain, in quantifiable detail, the nature and implications of this "Travis effect"?

TheRedneck