Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

I guess I haven't been clear, or I'm not understanding you.

My conjecture is that the majority of the lift is due to stored energy in the precharge, in analogy to the action of the spring-loaded automatic bollard that weighs 300 pounds but only requires a few ounces lift to bring it up into full up position. Most of the energy to lift the bollard is stored in the spring, reversibly, and this is its "precharge".  In your system the precharge includes compressed air _and_ elevated water heads. In order to test this conjecture, one must compare lifting the _same_ total weight in two conditions: Precharged as normal, and totally NOT precharged. Totally  not precharged means that all the water levels inside and out are exactly the same, and the chambers have been opened at the top to release all pressurised air, then sealed, then you add your water or air to perform your lift.
So from your description and photos, I think you are 1) lifting a different amount of weight and 2) you are still starting with different water levels in the various chambers.

[TinselKoala]

I don't know about the fun part - sometimes my "fun" is doing something less challenging - like taking an ultralight for a 30 mile jaunt on a dead calm afternoon.

that sounds good to me too

But I also like to be challenged -sometimes.

"All I add is air pressure" - yes. But it completely changes the system.
Not JUST because of the air pressure - but what that air pressure does to the rest of the system.

Er... isn't that kind of a tautology? It's sort of like saying "Food is good, but not JUST because it's food, but because you can eat it."

It has a direct impact on the hydraulics - minor - the greater impact is in what it does to the higher density fluid.

One of us is wrong

That's an interesting way of putting it. I don't really see how someone who is just asking questions can possibly be "wrong". I'm asking questions, testing conjectures, and pointing out that there is no evidence for some claims being made in this thread, and in fact there is some evidence against some of the claims. These things aren't "wrong" and I am not wrong to maintain them. You also are not wrong, because you are asking questions and collecting data. And I believe that you will not allow yourself to be fooled, once you are a little more enlightened about the scientific method. Vary variables one at a time, examine their results on the system and collate your data. When patterns emerge, that's the time to make testable conjectures about what you think you are seeing. If you cannot _disprove_ one of your conjectures no matter how hard you try, then you just might be right about that conjecture. One might even say that a scientist tries as hard as possible to be wrong, and when she fails.... she writes a paper and publishes it.

I have a long history of being both right and wrong, I totally accept being a blithering idiot at times.

As long as it doesn't happen on takeoff or landing.....

Hope you have a clear view of the night skies
Dale

Thanks, it can be frustrating because of the light pollution. It looks clear, but apparently there is a lot of water in the air that's affecting transparency, and we are just about down to the dew point already at 11 pm.

Last night's efforts, all night, yielded this cartoonish image of the Dumbbell nebula, complete with a couple of satellite traces. Since these are oriented roughly N-S they are in polar orbits and so are likely ...er.... surveillance satellites.

[Red_Sunset]

The precharge is doing most of the lifting. The injected water only  needs to be of sufficient amount to push the system back and forth around its neutral buoyancy point. An automatic bollard weighing hundreds of pounds can be lifted with fingertip lift, because most of its true weight is taken up, and stored, in the compression of its lifting spring.

TinselKoala, MT, Seamus & All,
Tinsel, the example is not pre-charged, it is a standard hydraulic lift example out of the text book (MT hydraulic car lift picture at the time is exactly what it is). The purpose of the #2789 post is to make a point as simple as possible to digest.
The objective is to show in a simplified way how a relationship change affect the balance in a normal symmetrical system.  The values used are extreme to clearly show the difference. 
The key point of interest that we introduce, is a hypothetical piston that can change its area size properties at little to no cost.

Case #1 uses the known standard piston and the simplified energy balance is shown
Case #2 uses a hypothetical piston (that can change its surface area for the up and down-stroke) but maintains the same control on he hydraulic fluid chamber and the simplified energy balance is shown.

The point of the example is to demonstrate that if engineering a  "hypothetical piston"  that possesses these properties is possible,  then OU would be possible. (sure, so long the property change metamorphosis costs are neglige)

The possibility of a working hypothetical piston that can do that is NOT the question here, we assume we can engineer one. A consideration that the Law of thermodynamics would make it impossible to engineer this piston is not under the scope at the moment.
The only question here, that is looking for your answer is,  Case #2, POSSIBLE,  " YES" or "NO" !

[Red_Sunset]

Last night's efforts, all night, yielded this cartoonish image of the Dumbbell nebula, complete with a couple of satellite traces. Since these are oriented roughly N-S they are in polar orbits and so are likely ...er.... surveillance satellites.

Tinsel,  Fantastic astro picture, never thought that this quality was possible from a home setup.
I am impressed !

[TinselKoala]

"The only question here, that is looking for your answer is,  Case #2, POSSIBLE,  " YES" or "NO" !"

Well, what you are asking is kind of like, "if pigs had wings, pilot's licenses, current medicals and clearance from the tower, could they fly?" In other words, an energy input is required to make your hypothetical piston do what it is supposed to do, but your conditions don't allow that. So sure, if the world of Avatar were real, the people would have blue skins. If the Pope was a Southern Baptist, he'd still have to ....er...... use the toilet now and then.
What is the point of constructing impossible hypotheticals? Isn't it better to posit a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis, and then test it? I think it is.

Two kids are equally balanced on a see-saw. They toss an apple back and forth horizontally ... thus doing no work, right? ... at just the right rate (mechanical resonance) and pretty soon they be rocking hard and high.

RE the astrophoto: thanks, but that's not anywhere near the best I've done; I'm still getting familiar with the monochrome imager and the process of shooting thru filters to make a color image. A lot of stuff can and does go wrong, like the satellite trails. Hopefully the other data I took last night will come out better: a "closeup" of the Orion Nebula. I haven't had time to process it yet.