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

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hello Redneck,

Gosh, you bring back memories, I remember my engineers with that same argument years ago.

Just a couple notes,

By your comments and questions, I must presume you started reading after my explanation of how my actual system worked.

I explained the basis behind the ability to use Gravity in a non conservative complex system a couple pages ago, someone else pulled up the Travis Effect, which is a significant find in the right process, and i discussed. Please don't conflate the two, one lead to the other in logical fashion.

I also made it clear that the Travis Effect was a very significant 'discovery' - that the same work could be accomplished with different amounts of energy - that discovery was the building block to what was to come, namely designing systems to increase the 'different amounts of energy'.

In the Travis Effect - two different amounts of Pv, let me repeat- two different amounts of Pv, were put in and in both cases the same lift achieved - that is all, and that was the beginning of everything.

Kindly - On your buoyancy example - you are wrong, easy error, they both have a pressure differential, with a bottom or without (on your buoyant objects) the pressure differential is the same - the bottomless has the higher pressure transferred to the upper Surface area, and the one with a bottom has the higher pressure directly on the bottom - pushing also against the lower pressure at the top. instantaneously they are the same - but during lift they will not remain the same - as the bottomless will experience expansion.

Regarding the energy stored - the buoyant object must be vented to begin resetting the process - that vented air is under pressure, and is stored energy - use your own sealed box example. to complete a cycle - venting must occur - the venting does not have to be wasted.

And lastly add to your knowledge on buoyancy - when the water is risen, the bottom of the tank has an increase in pressure from the effect gravity has on a raised fluid - regardless of the surface area - that is what causes the Archimedes paradox. More surface area than volume needed to create pressure.

Presuming you to be a very good thinker, which you have demonstrated with the knowledge available, what "effect" does Travis Effect have on the current academic theory that every action has an opposite reaction?

None - unless you tie the two methods into one system (making it a complex system).

The complex system intentionally designed to not do the same thing in both directions (energy foot print wise); One used to create lift, and the other used to produce more displacement for the next lift.

Because - "Unequal Energy Values" used in conjunction with "Equal Work" must result in production or loss depending on which direction you operate.

You can find that "common sense" stated inversely in academia "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" and the extension of that theory - "energy can not be created or destroyed..."

Now before feathers ruffle - Energy can not be created or destroyed - their is a third option, Force can be converted to work, and the process can be designed so that it is not a conservative process. That results in Gravity into work - and then Work into energy.

Regarding academically established equations - right, you can look them up. Regarding breaking edge discoveries - that's another story.

Regarding your request - please go back a couple pages and read where I explained "Altering Reference Points" thanks.

MrWayne

a reply to: MrWayne

By your comments and questions, I must presume you started reading after my explanation of how my actual system worked.

Actually, I went back and read through all of your posts in this thread... more than once.

I explained the basis behind the ability to use Gravity in a non conservative complex system a couple pages ago, someone else pulled up the Travis Effect, which is a significant find in the right process, and i discussed. Please don't conflate the two, one lead to the other in logical fashion.

Your explanations were extremely vague, almost metaphysical. I am asking for a technical explanation.

I also made it clear that the Travis Effect was a very significant 'discovery' - that the same work could be accomplished with different amounts of energy - that discovery was the building block to what was to come, namely designing systems to increase the 'different amounts of energy'.

Yet you never explained what this 'Travis effect' is. The match was a significant discovery. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was a significant discovery. That is not an explanation.

Without more information, I couldn't conflate it with anything if I tried.

In the Travis Effect - two different amounts of Pv, let me repeat- two different amounts of Pv, were put in and in both cases the same lift achieved - that is all, and that was the beginning of everything.

Abbreviations are fine for scientific journals, wherein they are industry-specific. In my specialization, 'PV' stands for Photo-Voltaic, but I doubt that is what you intended. Are you referencing a pressure? If so, what pressure at what point?

On your buoyancy example - you are wrong, easy error, they both have a pressure differential, with a bottom or without (on your buoyant objects) the pressure differential is the same - the bottomless has the higher pressure transferred to the upper Surface area, and the one with a bottom has the higher pressure directly on the bottom - pushing also against the lower pressure at the top. instantaneously they are the same - but during lift they will not remain the same - as the bottomless will experience expansion.

That's another way of stating the same thing I did. The effect can be seen as a differential force equal to the mass of the displaced medium minus the mass of the buoyant substance, or as a pressure differential between the top and bottom surfaces of the buoyant material. Both give the same results in every way I know of.

Expansion of a non-isolated buoyant material such as air will occur during lift, but that is due to the acceleration occurring on it, which equates to a force.

Regarding the energy stored - the buoyant object must be vented to begin resetting the process - that vented air is under pressure, and is stored energy - use your own sealed box example. to complete a cycle - venting must occur - the venting does not have to be wasted.

If the buoyant material is released to decrease buoyancy, and if the buoyant material is isolated from the medium, the size of the isolating container must be decreased appropriately, otherwise a vacuum will be created. A vacuum has greater buoyancy than air, negating the reduction of lift.

If the buoyant medium is released to decrease buoyancy, and if the buoyant material is not isolated form the medium pressure, this is not a concern.

Either way, the release of the buoyant material is a release of energy that must be expended to refill the device in the next cycle.

what "effect" does Travis Effect have on the current academic theory that every action has an opposite reaction?

None - unless you tie the two methods into one system (making it a complex system).

There again, this statement is meaningless unless you specify exactly what the Travis effect is. It is not an accepted theory as far as I can find, and therefore must be explained in detail before being referenced.

The whole idea of 'complex' versus 'simple' system is another point you make which is vague and undefined. In your statements, what differentiates a simple system form a complex system?

The complex system intentionally designed to not do the same thing in both directions (energy foot print wise); One used to create lift, and the other used to produce more displacement for the next lift.

So you are considering energy as having orthogonal dimensions? How do you make that distinction?

Because - "Unequal Energy Values" used in conjunction with "Equal Work" must result in production or loss depending on which direction you operate.

Work is the transfer of energy to a mass. You are stating that the transfer of energy is not equal to the amount of energy transferred.

I think you need to clarify your terminology. That makes no sense.

Now before feathers ruffle - Energy can not be created or destroyed - their is a third option, Force can be converted to work, and the process can be designed so that it is not a conservative process. That results in Gravity into work - and then Work into energy.

There are 'loopholes' (for lack of a better term) in the conservation of energy theorem. The biggest one is the determination of system status, as in open or closed.

But your explanation is still making absolutely no sense. Mass is the property of matter that causes it to be attracted by gravity (weight). Gravity is a force that develops between masses. Force is the effect of energy on matter which induces an acceleration. Work is the result of a force traveling through a distance. Energy is the result of a force on a mass.

These are very specific terms, and are interrelated to each other. They are not separate orthogonal quantities. Perhaps your terminology is off, but your explanation using specific terminology is indecipherable.

Regarding academically established equations - right, you can look them up. Regarding breaking edge discoveries - that's another story.

And that is exactly why it is improper to attempt to use a not-established theory in an explanation without explaining it in detail.

"I have a wasserator combination convoluter which uses the Johnson Principle to achieve results inconsistent with the Higgenbotham paradox" sounds like nonsense, because it is nonsense... I just made it up and it means absolutely nothing.

Please restate your claim using standard terminology.

TheRedneck

There are references back to 2010 yet at 2017 NOTHING significant has happened. He is just another victim of his own delusions of what he thinks he has seen/ found like every other gravity powered machine ever mentioned on here like the link below.

The machine below had a customer it didn't work and ended up as expensive scrap.

Gravity Power

a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sounds to me like it's Herrons fountain.He's building up air pressure to force movement of water. Problem is eventually it comes to a stop when all the pressure bleeds off.

They use this in physics to teach hydrolics.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
There are references back to 2010 yet at 2017 NOTHING significant has happened. He is just another victim of his own delusions of what he thinks he has seen/ found like every other gravity powered machine ever mentioned on here like the link below.

The machine below had a customer it didn't work and ended up as expensive scrap.

Gravity Power

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am so glad you post, you crack me up,

Now since you have no reservations poking at me, and i am a great sport, I am sure you can take the same good sport right, I mean I would hate for you to say I was hurting your feelings and have me kicked off the web site, if not, let me know... I will apologize...

Certainly it is possible that 'One of us' is victim of our own delusion

It could be me... smile.... actually why I hired my first engineer... just to make sure it wasn't me. Imagine how you would feel - with your obvious prejudice, if you actually had success in your lab with physics that increased the knowledge of mankind... what would you do... I decided to make sure I wasn't delusional, misguided, or conflating data... of course that is my character.

Is it possible that the "delusion" could be the person who thinks he "knows" something he can't possible know.... such as "NOTHING significant" and the bold type.... lol...

Come on, you surely know that 'just because something isn't on the internet' doesn't mean it doesn't exist..

p.s. I think people are wise to those that try to steer opinion by slanderous comparison ;-)

Thanks

MrWayne

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah, heroins fountains a starting point to understand altered reference points, but it is not a complex system. You add work and it runs out.

The "reference point" which is 'altered' is the total head height versus the actual height of the system. if you add the internal heads, they exceed the physical height.

Eventually the heads are equal, and the system stops.

On our third proto type series - we used that altered head to actual height to reduce the reset cost in a complex manner.

that system has 100 foot of head pressure and is only 20 foot tall, so if we were building a fountain.... it would shoot water 80 feet higher than it self, and run out of pressure.....

Yet, being twenty feet tall and a hundred feet of head has major effects on the energy references, such as the COG is ten feet instead of fifty feet, the volume required to reach pressure is divided by 10, and the time required to reach pressure is divided by ten.

And if you do the same thing in both directions - you still have nothing.... but don't do the same thing in both directions and you have opportunity.

If you wanted to refill the herion fountain, you would have to put the same energy back in, unless you turned it on its side, now the altered head in the herion fountain is not very much, so the cost to tilt the system would eat up any possible advantage.

But when your ratio is 5X, and you COG so reduced - the cost to reset is almost insignificant...

So altering the reference point to head is no advantage unless the purpose is to alter the process in which the reset occurs.

That process is complex, as in four process steps instead of two, which would normally be discounted because of the theory that adding something to a system adss friction - therefore makes a system less efficient is based on the all references begin equal.

To be clear, adding to a system makes it complex, and when the complexity reduces the reset cost, it certainly can improve efficiency.

All physics that are based on equal reference points are circular, and those argument and theories are correct - as long as they are remain self confined.

Thanks

MrWayne

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hello Redneck,

You amply describe the disconnect from established academia and working in the new frontier of physics.

Our internal team has had to develop a terminology base and definitions in order to communicate.

Being that we have had to innovate terms to describe the new discoveries - which don't have text book definitions, we have the burden of trying to catch up a new comer to 11 years of new terminology.

You want me to use old school terms to describe new discoveries, and I so wish I could. On average, It usually take two hours to bring a new physicist up to speed, the first hours is teaching the application of the language.

That is why i have worked so hard to return to focus to the key elements - and that is operating a system in unequal referances...

How our systems look, how they are designed, how the operate is not as important as that one understanding. Because if you do not have that one attribute in your system, it does not exceed the CAUSE of the entropic theory based mathematical models that is all of current academia.

The reason all mathematics (energy) is entropic is because they are based on equal reference points. The absolute key to exceeding entropy is to change that single condition.

In my original training videos to my team, I called the process of finding opportunity for unequal references "ERMT" Energy Refererance Mapping Technology.

A short summary - find examples where the Time Distance and Mass (TDM) of two otherwise equal functions (work) are not the same.

Evaluate if the differences are sufficient enough to be exploitable (needs to be 30% difference just to overcome standard system losses).

Subtract the differences and that is the potential.

................

All you are doing is comparing two functions - like in the Travis Effect, compile the TDM of both and see if their is a difference.

To make it obvious we made the Travis Effect video #5 its on you tube.

................

When you understand that ERMT, that the references are not the same, and the implications - a light bulb will go off, and if you are like the Dozens of engineers and physicists that have visited here - the hair on your arms will raise, I watch it all the time on visitors.

It very cool to be part of something with real value and real purpose.

I am sorry it is hard to communicate, Thanks for putting in so much effort, it is admirable.

MrWayne

a reply to: wmd_2008

I remember that! I spent some time trying to understand its operation, because it bore more than a small resemblance to a small-scale model I built back (I think) in the 1980s. Mine only made about a half-turn before showing me dramatically that I had bungled a stress calculation; it ripped itself apart. At the time, I didn't have the funds to rebuild it with a better design, so more probable methods took my attention. I think I still have it somewhere.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding. Does it work? If not, then it does not bear advertisement. If it is inconclusive, it bears further investigation. If it works... then I will get excited.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dragonridr

That sounds like a probable explanation. I simply can't discount it out-of-hand until I find something to indicate it does not work. Even a minuscule possibility of success in an area with such potential is worth investigation, and I refuse to allow the previous charlatans to change that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MrWayne

You amply describe the disconnect from established academia and working in the new frontier of physics.

Oh, I am quite familiar with working in research. It's what I do. I have 35 years of experience in electronics design with more than a passing familiarity with hydraulics, pneumatics, mechanics, and chemistry. I spent ten years operating a structural steel design service. I recently obtained my BSEE from UAH with honors and am presently pursuing my MSEE in Control Theory and Communications. I own my own laboratory and work there (thank you Obamacare!) to test and develop new technologies.

Right now, I have projects on the board in power generation, both stationary and mobile, robotic group intelligence, artificial intelligence, and space propulsion.

Our internal team has had to develop a terminology base and definitions in order to communicate.

Being that we have had to innovate terms to describe the new discoveries - which don't have text book definitions, we have the burden of trying to catch up a new comer to 11 years of new terminology.

I typically come up with new terms as well in my research. However, such terminology can easily destroy the ability to communicate an idea if not carefully defined and explained. Any explanations I present for my work either avoid new terminology or take an extremely proactive approach to establishing the new terminology before using it. Otherwise, I run the risk of damaging my credibility by confusing my audience.

There is a tendency among scientists and engineers to develop a terminology that is specific to their field. My advisor typically jokes about when giving a presentation, one should get as deep as they can, and just as the audience is losing track of the explanation, switch variables to complete the confusion.

But that does not enhance understanding; quite the opposite.

You want me to use old school terms to describe new discoveries, and I so wish I could. On average, It usually take two hours to bring a new physicist up to speed, the first hours is teaching the application of the language.

Oh, you can. We have a very complex and extensive language called "English" that serves us well. We even have the ability to expand that language by defining new terminology or by implicitly extending known concepts. The language is not the problem.

I understand, as I mentioned just above, that it is human nature to develop a field-specific terminology. I guess it makes people feel important to be able to talk among themselves and others not know what is being said. I do not consider that a positive. If your purpose is to convey information, trying to include a new language as a prerequisite is a poor and ineffective way to do so. If your purpose is to confuse and make yourself appear intelligent, then forcing such is a very effective way to do so to the uninitiated.

So I ask, without malice but out of a preponderance of evidence: which is it? Are you attempting to convey information or confuse? Your present audience is quite capable of handling technical language.

The reason all mathematics (energy) is entropic is because they are based on equal reference points. The absolute key to exceeding entropy is to change that single condition.

Now, on this I understand and agree. You are stating that energy is relative, a hypothesis I subscribe to.

What frames of reference are you using to achieve over-unity?

TheRedneck

This video explains the travis effect:

www.youtube.com...

And this comment from another travis effect youtube vid does a good job of explaining what is going on:

This the same as two hydraulic cylinders of different diameters being pumped with the same pressure to create different force. The smaller diameter will have less force but more travel. The larger one more force less travel for the same volume of fluid pumped. Conversely, smaller cylinder produces the same force as the larger one with less displaced volume, but also less travel of the piston.

Same work in both cases. It is used in hydraulics all the time to create force multiplication—leverage. No over unity otherwise, a simple lever would be an OU device.

In this case the cement plug acts as a diameter reduction scheme and the water as the piston. The force is the same but the displacement volume is different, as would be expected in hydraulic cylinders of different diameters.

I've been watching these travis effect vids and thinking that it looks like some sort of hydraulic mechanism. Then I read the above comment. 10 points to MrWayne for thinking outside the box. Not so many points on the hydraulic engineering side of things.

There have been a 1001 claims over the years for machines like this that say they have come up with new ways to enhance power output compared to energy input using magnets, gravity, water or from fresh air guess what none of them work.

As soon as these inventions are required to produce anything worthwhile thats the point they fail.

So how much longer does this one require it's around 7 years now so how much longer for some real proof I wont hold my breath.

a reply to: mrwiffler

Thank you for the explanation. I have some thinking to do.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hello Redneck,

Sounds like we have a lot in common, you maturity and intelligence shows (smile).

We don't achieve over-unity, we do use gravity to do work.

I know it looks like over-unity, feels like over-unity, and confused the best of us many times...

If you can answer where the input to the system is, or where the energy comes from, you do not have over unity.

In using gravity - you have to create the conditions for a differential between the upstroke the down stroke, and then the value of the difference is your available work. (or else we are stuck with a conservative force).

Look again at the old "you cant drop a rock twice" analogy, As you realize, a rock can not change weight in the relative distance of it being dropped or picked up, but buoyancy can change its value - as you see in the Travis Effect.

We also recycle the pressure between strokes, which reduces the cost of the next cycle.

The ZEDS were the first systems we built, since then, we have built and tested massively improved systems until we could guarantee that the systems were practical, feasible and scale-able.

It is not only the "volume" that can be effected to create a usable differential; so can - time - distance - virtual mass - and gravity.

(virtual mass is the term we use to describe the effect of having more buoyancy that the actual space/volume normally required) - the first system after the Travis Effect.

MrWayne

a reply to: TheRedneck

I just would like to say that I am jealous... smile

"Oh, I am quite familiar with working in research. It's what I do. I have 35 years of experience in electronics design with more than a passing familiarity with hydraulics, pneumatics, mechanics, and chemistry. I spent ten years operating a structural steel design service. I recently obtained my BSEE from UAH with honors and am presently pursuing my MSEE in Control Theory and Communications. I own my own laboratory and work there (thank you Obamacare!) to test and develop new technologies.

Right now, I have projects on the board in power generation, both stationary and mobile, robotic group intelligence, artificial intelligence, and space propulsion. "

We have very similar training, I did metallurgy instead of chemistry, and industrial electricity and only a few course on what used to be called micro processors - my career was more in Leadership, Training, Management, statistical process control, SPC and so on.

Inventing was a hobby, and until 2008, I gave all my invention and robotics solutions away to the respective industry - well - they bought me dinner....smile.

MrWayne

a reply to: wmd_2008

You are right,

Lots of poor theory and poor measurement - and frauds,

Energy has evolved over the years from solid fuel, to liquid, to gas, to atom, and the top theoretical physicists predicted that the next energy evolution would be some type of force amplification - I have had the producers of that documentary at my lab...

Also, when I went for my patents - my attorneys had to sift through hundreds of other gravity or buoyancy patents, hundreds - of intelligent, well funded innovators, research labs, and academia have felt that something was missing with the understanding, or at least something wasn't understood..... and they thought it out and patented there thoughts..

Let that sink in a bit - very intelligent "thinkers" have the idea that there may be something to unlock,

Because - patent engineers know the cycle, as more and more interest and thinking is applied - the patents become better and better, more refined, and one day the pyramid of patents results in the final solution.

You have described the process well, and i will add - that is the patent engineers that have said that my patents are the peak of that pyramid... Someone had to be... That is how the history of innovation works.

My first system was designed to produce 500 watts, which is a ridiculous low amount of energy for the $65k that model cost... science is not cheap...

Forget that not one else could do 1 watt, that is not the point, to me - if the system was not economical, scale-able, and reliable - in other words 'economically feasible' - then it was all a waste of time.

So the last three years we continued the research until we could produce the electricity at a cost of less than 2 cents a KW. Now that beats all combustible energy sources hands down..

That is business, if you can not bring a return, than the economy will stop you.

If it takes five more years, tell me, what will you contribute to the benefit of mankind in those 5 years?

We can all do our part.

MrWayne

a reply to: MrWayne

We don't achieve over-unity, we do use gravity to do work.

Eh... how to phrase this...

Under the presently accepted theory of gravity, gravity itself cannot be an input force. For gravitational energy to be the input, the result of producing power from your device would have to be a decrease in the amount of gravitational energy, and I do not believe you are experiencing that. So in that sense, what you describe is technically over unity, i.e. an efficiency greater than 100%.

I personally do not consider over-unity to be a 'poisonous' term; while it could be seen to contradict Thermodynamics, Thermodynamics itself is an incomplete work in progress when one considers the work of Albert Einstein. Perpetual motion is indeed a misnomer, because any system will eventually fail, whether due to corrosion, wear, or repeated fatigue; therefore there can be no such thing as perpetual motion.

Incidentally, that was my major concern over the gravitational model I constructed mentioned earlier. The bearings, although some of the best commercially available, held the working lifespan to the space of a few days/hours depending on the size.

I will admit that our knowledge of the nature of gravity is incomplete as well; I have been working some mathematical equations in my spare time to prove this, but of course I will publish nothing until it is more complete. The only reason I mention it is to admit that your explanation of gravitational energy conversion rather than over unity might be applicable depending on the result of my calculations.

But for now... sorry, you are describing over-unity.

Look again at the old "you cant drop a rock twice" analogy, As you realize, a rock can not change weight in the relative distance of it being dropped or picked up, but buoyancy can change its value - as you see in the Travis Effect.

As I mentioned above, I am still considering the Travis effect to see if there appears to be anything practical there.

Thus far, the effect seems to be the result of effectively increasing depth. To clarify, assume, as in the video I watched linked above, a volume of air trapped in an upside-down cup immersed in water. There will be a buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced water minus the weight of the air. This can also be described as the pressure differential between the force on the bottom surface of the air mass minus the force on the top surface of the air mass. Now place that air mass over a solid object so that the air mass is forced farther down due to reduced available volume. The buoyant force will now be the difference between the pressure at a much deeper depth minus the pressure at the top of the air mass... an increase to be sure, but does that explain the magnitude of the increase in buoyancy? That is a question I must research.

I have no idea at this time of what type of mechanism would allow the buoyancy to change without inputting an equal amount of work to force a change in the shape of the air mass.

We also recycle the pressure between strokes, which reduces the cost of the next cycle.

Some of the pressure could of course be recycled, but some of it would also be necessary to effect movement of the air mass.

If you have had the success you claim, I fail to see why you have not been able to go public with a scaled-down device yet. Scalability is an area where proof is not truly needed; the nature of the mechanism would dictate clearly whether or not the device was scalable. As long as it produces energy without any traditional energy input, it works. The only requirement is proof that there is no traditional energy input, as in having a device that is transparent enough to prevent any such power input to be applied surreptitiously. My technique is to use a lot of acrylic/polycarbonate in my construction, so there are few if any hidden areas that could hide power inputs. Plus, they are easy to work with, and acrylic is available locally.

You could also model your device in a virtual demonstration using one of the many 3-D animation programs (SolidWorks, Maya, Poser, DAZ3D). Anything, really, would be better than the video that started this discussion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MrWayne

A patent you say that ain't worth sweet f a , plenty of impossible ideas have patents.

Been on this pale blue dot long enough like others to have seen many claims bite the dust.

So as my background from school was physics, engineering science based and worked in a technical role in the construction industry lets see a practical demonstration you have a patent after all.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MrWayne

A patent you say that ain't worth sweet f a , plenty of impossible ideas have patents.

Been on this pale blue dot long enough like others to have seen many claims bite the dust.

So as my background from school was physics, engineering science based and worked in a technical role in the construction industry lets see a practical demonstration you have a patent after all.

True tiger, sick him...
I mean we cant have this can we......

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hello RedNeck,

I am enjoying our discussions, Thank you.

Well, I recognize by your response that I am in error - I am trying to leapfrog you to the end, and you have preconceived notions that have to be dealt with first, and my ability to explain over a key board is lacking.

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".

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..

The first correct engineer said - what you have is a 10,7,3 complex system, you never generate 11 (which would be over-unty) you have a system that is capable of 10 ideally, but you only produce 7, and the internal operational cost is 3.

The Ideal may be '10' the production '7' and the cost to reset '3'

We train our kids that this process would be 40% efficient.... think about that for a bit..

Yet, the end result - we have 4 to give to the customer.

An important note - leave entropy design for a second - the "3" cost - is not the input - it is the cost to alter the reference points so that the a new potential is available (the potential from gravity).

The theory that "you get out what you put in" is correct in simple systems, but does not have to be in complex systems.

If you wish to understand then you will need to direct your focus on what it takes to create a complex non conservative process, you will then get to the heart of the matter.

The theory that adding to a process add friction is true, but not adding to the process eliminates the ability to build non conservative systems... think about that circular error - friction is not the enemy - it is the IDEA that simple is best.... that is what has kept our kinds, our future, and our energy evolution Down.

Over-unity, how buoyancy works, accepted theory, Travis Effect, The ZED system, all of this is distraction of what is important.

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.

It is not the Gravity that has to be changed to cause the process of work in gravity to be non conservative, it is the ability to reset the potentials. (Notice that is plural).

Again, the "Potentials" i mentioned are "plural" because no "simple" process by itself can break the conservative nature of gravity - or the potential and work performed by gravity.

Also - as long as you break down any attempt at a Non conservative into individual simple processes, you will never see a non conservative complex system. seriously circular entrapment- we spent almost three years analyzing running systems to make that now silly realization.

Now the Travis Effect is the first example I have ever seen of unequal reference points, meaning the cost of generating the potential to do work - were not the same between the Travis Effect and Archimedes' buoyancy.

The simple fact that reference points can be altered is new frontier in physics - that is what will usher in the new.

To have altered reference points, it helps to have a standard - and this is where entropic mathematics is key - they well define the standard.

Archimedes's could be called the standard,

The Travis Effect lift started sooner, and took less volume, and completed the total cycle faster - and as you well understand that our references to energy are in basic form - time, distance and mass.

Side rant - leave the realm of entropic mathematics for a moment and ask - why do the same thing? Why design conservatively...? I know it is what we are taught was the most conservative method... and so on.

Catch that - Design conservatively - another circular logic with entropic mathematics is that designing conservatively is the best standard practice..... think about that for a while - what have we been teaching the kids minds to do all these years - yep to limit themselves to equal values.... very sad indeed. (and don't dare teach them to exceed equal values).

Of course its easy for me to say that, I don't rely on the hope that it is possible.

I am sorry that I can not seem to communicate on a key board what is important.

MrWayne