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

a reply to: Miccey

Not to Micey, but to Eyeball,

Once again,

So what do you think happened when we did the practical demonstrations, do you think the world said WOW - the holy grail, free energy??? lol,.. we lived happily ever after... the idea that a running system provides any more proof than a video is laughable.

How many times have you seen hidden magnets, hidden air lines, and web is full frauds of pranksters who mock inventors... and plenty of demonstrations.... yet nothing, for one very good reason....

But listen carefully, based on your inputs to this thread - you are a virgin when it comes to real research - the development process, and real innovation....smile.. not an insult...

We learned the hard way, that demonstrating running machines proves nothing.
It is the repeatable, verifiable science that is the only proof that is accepted, it is that requirement for serious funding, and that is what matters.

We demonstrated, allowed the engineers from around the globe to measure, skeptics to critique, physicists to mine data - all of this while we were still "technology developmental virgins" - before we new that it was the science that mattered.

p.s. I absolutely thought the world would be excited and come help...

The lessons learned - When you can't explain where the power is coming from, the risk is too high for investment, and add to that the academia thinks its impossible - so they act like turds, or chickens.....and who do you think advises the board members? Bunch of turds and chickens..... lol

One guy said - i will eat my degree.... another said - you are not going to solve what i could not.....another, i cant risk making a mistake.... and the rest said - when you are done we want to help you....(when the risk is gone)

As I shared earlier, when we were "matured" by experience - we redirected our entire operation to unlocking the source of the power, and it was hard to find - and amazingly - two days after I announced that we had solved the issue - 60 agents showed up at my lab, house, and many friends houses and they confiscated everything.

Now, they jumped the gun literally - and have given us our stuff back, but they certainly harmed us, they interrupted a purchase of our IP and its full development - the investor was spooked at the possibility that the FBI or another agency would do it again near the end.

Now stop and think for a minute - if you can not explain where your energy is coming from, are you of any concern to anyone.... no, not really.. funding alone will be nearly impossible.... that is suppression in itself.

Also, if you can explain where the energy is coming from - confiscating, and other means of suppression does not work.

A key unspoken aspect in all of this - how far does your voice reach, those that know what he have and have done is a tiny bubble in relationship to the whole of the population, and so even if someone capable would help - your chances of them finding you is nearly impossible.

We recognized that also, and that is why we self funded.

Now, You tell me "what would be your next insult" after i showed you the system running and did not explain it to you...yeah, that is my point... you have no intention of helping no matter what.

Hope that helps

MrWayne

a reply to: MrWayne

I am enjoying our discussions, Thank you.

As am I. The Travis effect is intriguing, and I am actually hoping that you can clarify how you are using it to achieve your claimed result. My skepticism is honest, not malicious.

On - "accepted theory" - we are in the business of defeating accepted theory - or expanding it, as one of our engineers said to the FBI's engineers - "Your going to have to realize that you can't use the very theories that we defeat to disprove our abilities...your going to have to put more effort into it than that".

And I agree with that sentiment.

However, are you overturning Pascal? Newton? It will take quite some effort to overturn those laws. Even Einstein did not overturn Newton; he demonstrated a restricted domain for Newton using Newton's own predictions that did not match observations.

It is never gravity that is consumed, it is the Work caused by gravity. Gravity provides the potential.

Potential converted to work is not over-unity - the potential is converted, the focus needs to be on "how do I reset the potential" because in the end, all of our systems work like this..

That explanation assumes unlimited potential. Let me try to clarify:

If I take a perfect capacitor with electrodes attached to each terminal, and charge it to an electrical potential, I have created a force between the electrodes due to the potential difference on the capacitor. That force can produce work as it generates an attractive force between the electrodes. However, if I use that potential, i.e. allow a current to flow, the potential is not infinite and will be reduced (in this case according to the equation It=CE). I then have to add potential to the capacitor in order to draw more energy from it.

The force between the electrodes is a direct result of the potential. It will always e attractive and only directed from one electrode to another. Any work I get out of it will be limited by the need to not draw current.

No matter how large the capacitor is, there is a finite amount of energy and therefore work that can be produced by the potential. Even of I use a battery instead of a capacitor, there is still a finite amount of energy that can be withdrawn before the potential drops.

In order to create an alternating source of energy, which is what you describe through your use of the term "reset potential," the potential must change with time. I am not understanding how you accomplish this without using as much energy as you release.

I have shared that the current commonality to all "entropic mathematics" is "the reference point - to gravity" this is assumed to be constant or part of the formula. I share that because that is why current physics is entropic.

This I find interesting... again, I need to consider it before I give a response.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hello Redneck,

I have to run, but i wanted to say while it was fresh on my mind,

Your example with capacitors is correct, but don't conflate force (as in gravity) with actual energy, they are not the same, gravity does not get consumed.

And moving as potential from one spot to another does not increase the total potential, the method is to have two opposing potentials of different values.and to cause work between the differentials - and you can not get work from that system unless you ave altered the reference - such as concentrated potential against standard.

As I shared a while back - if you have 100' of head pressure (open system) but only 20 feet tall, your center of gravity for the 100' (50') is reduced by a factor of 5, or to 10' - you have effected the reference position of the COG to 100' of head.

Think about all you know about levers - what happens to the cost of a lever to lift a load if you can move closer to the fulcrum without Affecting the work done.......... Yeah....

Now by design imagine you can turn the head concentration off you have (returned to normal) altered the reference from 100' head to 20'

note: Its not important how to turn the concentration off and on, that is in the Liquid, pneumatic, interaction with the mechanics of gravity acting on a fluid... for later.

Which reference would you take work out of, and which reference would you reset the process, out at the 100' value and return at the 20' value....

So your process creates a potential of 80, which from the 80, you must pay for the work required to alter the reference twice and the cost at the second reference value.

Being very basic:

100'-(Reference reset + 20 '+ reference reset) = Net

Got to Go,

Thanks,

MrWayne

a reply to: MrWayne

Oops, unlimited potential -- I wish, the potential is limited to the density of the fluids - Not how powerful gravity is, how powerfully we can interact with it.

MrWayne

originally posted by: MrWayne
a reply to: TheRedneck

Hello Redneck,

I have to run, but i wanted to say while it was fresh on my mind,

Your example with capacitors is correct, but don't conflate force (as in gravity) with actual energy, they are not the same, gravity does not get consumed.

And moving as potential from one spot to another does not increase the total potential, the method is to have two opposing potentials of different values.and to cause work between the differentials - and you can not get work from that system unless you ave altered the reference - such as concentrated potential against standard.

As I shared a while back - if you have 100' of head pressure (open system) but only 20 feet tall, your center of gravity for the 100' (50') is reduced by a factor of 5, or to 10' - you have effected the reference position of the COG to 100' of head.

Think about all you know about levers - what happens to the cost of a lever to lift a load if you can move closer to the fulcrum without Affecting the work done.......... Yeah....

Now by design imagine you can turn the head concentration off you have (returned to normal) altered the reference from 100' head to 20'

note: Its not important how to turn the concentration off and on, that is in the Liquid, pneumatic, interaction with the mechanics of gravity acting on a fluid... for later.

Which reference would you take work out of, and which reference would you reset the process, out at the 100' value and return at the 20' value....

So your process creates a potential of 80, which from the 80, you must pay for the work required to alter the reference twice and the cost at the second reference value.

Being very basic:

100'-(Reference reset + 20 '+ reference reset) = Net

Got to Go,

Thanks,

MrWayne

Well I see a huge problem gravity stores potential energy. And it does get used like any other type of energy it isn't different like you seem to think. After reading I noticed you don't seem to know where this extra energy you claim to be there is coming from. See that presents a huge problem because you could be decieving yourself.

If you go online seveal videos will claim herons fountain is perpetual motion. Well it isn't and works off basic principles. Yet video after video will tell us it's magic.

a reply to: MrWayne

Your example with capacitors is correct, but don't conflate force (as in gravity) with actual energy, they are not the same, gravity does not get consumed.

Force IS related to energy! That, sir, is a concept rooted in definition itself. While the cause of gravity may be unknown, the effect is that a force is created between any two massive particles.

Force is measured in Newtons: N = kg*m/s^2 (F=ma)
Energy (or work) is measured in Joules: J = kg*m^2/s^2 = J*m (E=mc^2)
Power is measured in Watts: W = kg*m^2/s^3 = J/s (rate of energy with respect to time)

Energy is the ability to produce force; a force is created by energy. If that force moves through a distance, work is done. Period. That is the basis of all physics, from how a tractor runs, to how a TV works, to how a baseball bat causes a baseball to change direction and speed. The big question surrounding gravity is where the energy to create the force comes from.

I believe your issue here is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms involved and their relationship to each other. Entropy is not required to understand this... my personal work uses mathematical theories developed entirely without the use of thermodynamic equations (due to my belief that such may be incomplete) and their applications. But all are based on an understanding of the relationship between work, energy, force, and power.

We must communicate to achieve anything. To do so, the terms used must be known and accepted. Work, energy, force, and power are already known and accepted to the rest of the STEM industry; they do not need a redefinition.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MrWayne

This travis effect, as demonstrated in your videos, is just a spring type of mechanism based on fluids under pressure. You push it down, let go, and it springs back up. The only energy you can tap out of a spring is what you put into it first.

Since the mechanism relies on simple principles, and you cant explain your concept with any clarity whatsoever, I can't help but think that you are trying to fool people. Either that or you have made a mistake and are unable to admit to it.

You have a vessel, a concrete core, some air and some water. If you can't explain what you are doing with this simple arrangement in a systematic manner using readily available technical terms then their is something wrong. You only have to describe mechanics and forces.

a reply to: dragonridr

"After reading I noticed you don't seem to know where this extra energy you claim to be there is coming from. See that presents a huge problem because you could be decieving yourself."

It may be confusing because I am forced to jump between systems, the Travis Effect is just the First Eureka moment, and the ZED was the first self looped running system, and we now have three others - which are far superior... and designed to test our knowledge of the process.

Other wise it is tough to explain online, or really tough to tell if the other person is understanding.

We are certainly not deceived, and certainly don't expect anyone to believe, just not be so surprised when we publish and supply systems.

Thanks

MrWayne

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hmmm.

So tell me that you are not saying "gravity" gets consumed when it creates force?

Or when a potential is consumed?

Because that is what I was discussing.

One more note - just for fun:

Are you aware that this theory you referenced;

"the effect is that a force is created between any two massive particles."

Can not be replicated, repeated, or demonstrated repeatably.... and that recuses it from actual science.

It never works with Macro models, ....... think about that.... ZERO attraction - other than static, of any mass we can test.

Should that theory be called a fact... And so is the inverse square Law that goes along with it.

MrWayne

a reply to: mrwiffler

Hello MrWiffler,

thanks for your input, Watch Travis effect #5 where comparative work is shown.

So all you see is a spring,....... does it have the same energy foot print as Archimedes'?

Also, I did not say we were pulling energy from the Travis Effect - I said very clearly - and accurately that the key value of that discovery was that the same work could be created with different amounts of work, or foot prints.

And When you design a system that combines the two so that one direction is the Travis Effect, and the other Direction is Archimedes' then you will have to do something with the difference between the two foot prints.

I hope that helps, it is not complex - unless you run the wrong way and have to pay for the difference between the foot prints.

Thanks

MrWayne

a reply to: MrWayne

"the effect is that a force is created between any two massive particles."

Can not be replicated, repeated, or demonstrated repeatably.... and that recuses it from actual science.

It has been duplicated, observed, and understood since the first human picked up the first rock. Particularly in macro as opposed to micro environments.

Please go back and carefully read what I wrote. You just told me gravity does not exist.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Forensick

You have NO idea about me so go take a flying you know what all my secondary school subjects were physics & engineering science based then working in thr design drawing office of a structural steelwork company and tgen a technical role in the construction industry . There have been a 1001 threads all over ATS & the net with rash claims of super efficient machines STILL to see one and comparing what gas happened in the past hss absolutely no relevance. .

originally posted by: GLontra
Now, the question is: how many time until this invention is suppressed by The Powers That Be? They will NEVER allow humanity to have access to a working free energy device.

And yet somehow this one fought hard through the "suppression" and managed to get on that super secret website "abovetopsecret.com." The Powers That Be must really be slacking off.

Anyway, you be sure to send this guy your life savings. Let us know how that works out.

a reply to: MrWayne

The problem we have in understanding you is that there is no apparent work being done. You have a spring and buoyancy. For any work you need to input energy.

How do you make a system like this create "work"? Can you explain simply where the work is being done?

(I have to go to bed now but I look forward to your response. I think your idea is wrong but I'm not a hard nosed skeptic. I'm just too lazy to be courteous like TheRedneck.)

a reply to: TheRedneck

I hope I didn't say gravity does not exist - I said that no two masses (other than static or magnetic) can be demonstrated to attract each other. that was a theory created to explain how orbits formed and maintain orbit.

But not experiments, on earth or in space replicate that theory.

Sorry.

Wayne

a reply to: wmd_2008

WMD,

Don't know why you sound angry, But if i upset you, my apology.

Sincerely

MrWayne

a reply to: Blue Shift

Blue Shift,

Was that just a rhetorical statement?

Why would you say for people to send me their life savings?

I have asked for nothing, and made that clear.

To be clear, I also said that the only way to beat the financial suppression is to self fund.

I hope that is clear.

MrWayne

a reply to: mrwiffler

It is really to complicated for a simple answer to make sense.

In the original machines we captured the difference of work being performed when we created to different buoyancy foot prints.

The new ones work by eliminating the reset cost and capturing a secondary potential...

Won't make sense unless you were here.

So don't waste any time.

Thanks

MrWayne

originally posted by: MrWayne
To be clear, I also said that the only way to beat the financial suppression is to self fund.

That's a good pitch. I'm sure your investors will eat it up.

a reply to: MrWayne

Hi Mr Wayne, Bruce maybe?

Anyway, I will not waste anyones time and state upfront I do not understand most of the mechanics explained within this thread, BUT as usual I have learnt somethings, thanks Redneck, WMD, Draginrdr and others.

My Question is more on a commercial and practical level, what will be the first use of the product?

It seems you have the answers to MANY questions that have been raised by brains much more accomplished than mine

Thus why are you on ATS and not ScienceDaily what is holding this discovery back, are you under some type of supression?

Forgive my ignorance but your ability to answer all the science questions peaks my desire to understand why this is not making you VERY rich...and happy....hopefully