Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[johnny874]

If you attach the displacement to the cup "brick or water" the Travis effect is nuetralized because the water becomes a weight when surrounded by air (in simple terms).
The buoyancy with that design is exactly equal to Archimedes'
The "Travis effect" will not work with a submarine -

key to the design of the invention is opposite forces not connected - connected leads to nothing.

Yeah, but what would work better is what water districts use, a water tower. Call me Mr. Obvious if you like. But it does take less energy to pump water to an elevation of 128 feet than the work it creates. That would supply a hydro geneerator.
After all, using something as old as a bellwos, if it moves 6 inches to close, it could as an example use 2 pounds of force to have 1 pound of water at an elevation of 33 feet.
In Newton's term's, if it free falls, it will have the same force. The trick is that the water at the base would have the same force. This would mean that the 2 pounds of force would be a part of a staic head which means that for 33 feet of movement, 2 pounds of force would be generated.
If every inch in the static head represented 1 pound of water, then where is the overunity ? it's in the leverage. Leverage (torque) amplifies force, even in a hydrogenerator. It could generate 4 times the force doubling it's power requirement.
And entirely environmentally friendly. I just have to wonder why someone doesn't try something like that.
Still, best of luck on your discovery and wish you all the success you deserve.

                                                                                   Jim

edited to correct the math and errors in concept 

[norman6538]

I took a 1 qt container and taped some lawn trimmer string on the sides
so that a second matching container could not go down all the way
leaving a small air space at the top and sides.

And then I filled that 1st container with water and a lid so it
had no boyancy and inverted it into a bucket of water.

Then I pushed a second matching container down over the first container
squeezing most of the air out till only a little was at the top and
sides and it had very little lifting pressure. - disappointing....

Then I took the same 2nd container and pushed it down in the water
and it had much more lifting pressure.

Its easy to try.

I'm curious if others get similar or better results on this basic experiment.

Norman

[mrwayne]

Hello Norman,
I am a little confused by what you wrote - i just mean I do not understand what you did.
But - your experiment sounds very familiar - I had both cups in my hands - in the tub, both inverted one completly full of water, one completly full of air.
Carefully feel how much the water filled cup weighs - not much at all (under water)
Carefully feel how much the buoyancy in the air filled cup (full submerged)
Now, in that same condition - both cups fully submerged - slowly lower the air cup over the water cup,
What you will notice is this -
the water filled cup will "increase" in downwad force (like a weight)
The air will begin escaping the air filled cup, (should see a loss in buoyancy right ;-)?
But the buyancy of the air filed cup does not change - even as the air escapes - because the diffirential pressure acting upon the surface area has not changed
If you reach bottom, the water cup will now weigh the same as the lift in the cup.
The weight in the water filled cup increased a lot of air was lost in the air filled cup, and the buoyant force is the same as you started.
Now begin to lift the partially filled air cup - almost instantly the weight of the water cup dissapears, and the buoyancy of the air cup is reduced to nill.
NOW - think a little diffiretly then my critics - if you reverse the process - you can turn both of those forces on (the weight and the buoyancy very quickly with little very little dicplacement -
Now - do you know why Buoyancy has never been succesfully utilized - it takes too long to get the conatiner to fill and to sink - oops solved that
You now know how to nearly skip that fill and drain time -
p.s this is only the begining of our process - so don't try to jump to the end with conlcusions

Good Job all of you who look!

Wayne

[norman6538]

OK Wayne I'll try this again.

experiment 1
I took a 1 qt container and taped some lawn trimmer string vertically on the outer sides
(  simple spacers evened out and simetrical )
so that a second matching container could not fit down on top of it all the way
leaving a small air space at the top and sides.

And then I filled that 1st container with water and put a lid on it and turned
it upside down and put it into a bucket of water. - result - it has neutral buoyancy.

Then I pushed a second matching upside down container into the water and down over the first container squeezing most of the air out till just like the video only a little air was at the top and  sides and when it was in position with a little air on top and some on the sides
where the spacers were it disappointingly it had very little lifting pressure.

experiment 2

Then I removed that 2nd container from the bucket of water which filled it with air and then I pushed it down in the water and it had much more lifting pressure than experiment 1.

I expected experiment 1 to have nearly equal lifting pressure to experiment 2.

Its easy to try this. I hope this makes it clearer.

I'm curious if others get similar or better results on this basic experiment.

Norman

[neptune]

When it comes to grasping new concepts, even simple ones, they can be very hard to grasp, or maybe people, including me, are just lazy. I have previously criticised the Travis Effect video. I have suggested that the use of a see-saw, or if you like an inverted beam balance be used to compare the upthrust on the two cups. 
   My point is this. If the Travis effect, on its own is  capable of overunity, Then it should be possible to build a self running machine based on this principle alone. It does not have to show a fantastic COP, and it does not need to be fully self acting . By that I mean that it would be acceptable to manually operate valves, etc, as long as no energy is added by hand to the device.
     If this is not the case, then there are other undisclosed principles involved. It would be useful to know, either way. Are we for instance saying , that if we pump a small amount of air into the travis device , that the energy we can harvest from the resultant bouyancy is greater than the energy necessary to pump the air?