Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

As usual, Larry, you fail to address the MAIN POINT: I obtained the greatest of all three lift numbers without resorting to consideration of "pods" or multiple ringwalls. Is there something wrong with MY math?
All that I required was a riser open on the bottom and a means of bubbling air into it, and standard buoyancy of a single moving part.
And you have failed to tell me how you calculated your lesser, "hydraulic lift" value that you compare with.
But yet, you accuse ME of .... well, whatever it is you are attacking me for now.
I think you've got a problem. Why is MY result even greater than yours?

TinselKoala,  >>  RE: Why is MY result even greater than yours? >>>For a very simple reason, ask maggie, she knows!
                     >>  RE: And yet you do not dispute any of my points. >>> You fill me with disgust !
Larry >> What are you trying to do ?  >>  Do not present math beyond basic elementary level !  TK is not ready for that complexity level yet.

TK, Due to the stacked water column, the top and bottom experience the same base pressure level, therefore only the differential matter.
I don't know how you are going to figure out the Zed,  I think we need a better skeptic here !!

[TinselKoala]

TinselKoala,  >>  Why is MY result even greater than yours? >>>For a very simple reason, ask maggie, she knows!
                     >>  RE: And yet you do not dispute any of my points. >>> You fill me with disgust !
Larry >> What are you trying to do ?  >>  Do not present math beyond basic elementary level !  TK is not ready for that complexity level yet.

TK, Due to the stacked water column, the top and bottom experience the same base pressure level, therefore only the differential matter.
I don't know how you are going to figure out the Zed,  I think we need a better skeptic here !!

I am using LARRYC's numbers and calculating WITHOUT ANY stacked water columns, using only a riser that is open on the bottom and Larry's own air pressure numbers.  And I get a lift value that is greater than he does. And I have calculated using LarryC's configuration and I get the same values he does.

Due to the stacked water column, the top and bottom experience the same base pressure level, therefore only the differential matter.

Care to explain this in English, with numbers and references to LarryC's sketch? And show just how my calculations differ from LarryC's?
I think that if you disagree, you need to show where my calculation is wrong. But of course, since I'M DOING IT THE SAME WAY THAT LARRYC IS DOING IT.... then you will also be showing where he is wrong.

[Red_Sunset]

Wayne's misunderstood program of scientific creativity was available in this thread, 
It centered to overcome the limitations imposed by education on "out of the box" thinking.

The 1.25 min. audio clip attached provides an interesting view on the polarization of this thread
The reasons for the discomfort and opposition to a new idea

[TinselKoala]

Here, Red. Try to follow along. Look at LarryC's diagram below, and imagine the riser pulled completely out. The outer water column will drop from its present height just under 72 inches down to 36 inches. Now imagine a tub of the same outer dimension as the outer retaining wall, and this tub full to the 36 inch level with water. Now imagine a solid riser, sealed across the bottom. The dimensions the same as the complex riser of LarryC. Force this riser down into your tub. The water outside will rise up until it overflows, but if your wall height is at 72 inches, that's the level you will have. What then, is the buoyant force that is attempting to lift this riser?
I say that it is about 1032 pounds. Do you disagree? Please show your work. After all the talk about "inverted Travis effect" and "virtual water" I should have thought that this point is not arguable, but I'd love to see your numbers.
Now, take that same system, open the bottom and apply an upward force of 2.42 psi x the area of the underside of the riser. What is this upward force value? It is only pressing DOWN on the water and UP on the riser itself, so there's no problem there, the downward reaction is transferred to the container and the ground. SO MY riser experiences the buoyant force PLUS this upward force from the air pressure I've bubbled in there. Do you disagree on this point? If so, why, and what are your corresponding calculations? I've reproduced LarryC's image so you can see where the numbers and the methods I used CAME FROM.
Now, since my riser is open on the bottom, it probably will allow some water up inside its "skirt".... just as you can see on LarryC's drawing. This will reduce the total displacement of the riser by a corresponding amount... so it drops my total lift figure so that it is less embarassingly greater than LarryC's figure. But if you want to omit this step... you may.
Now, do what you've insisted that I do. DO THE MATH, and tell me where I'm wrong.

While you are at it, and for the third time now, please explain where the "hydraulic lift" comparison value came from in LarryC's spreadsheet.... because to me, it looks like MY calculation is computing the true "hydraulic lift".

Or do you find it so much easier to just ignore my points and insult me instead, so tempting an alternative that you just can't resist?

[TinselKoala]

Wayne's misunderstood program of scientific creativity was available in this thread, 
It centered to overcome the limitations imposed by education on "out of the box" thinking.

The 1.25 min. audio clip attached provides an interesting view on the polarization of this thread
The reasons for the discomfort and opposition to a new idea

There is no discomfort or opposition to new ideas THAT HAVE EMPIRICAL SUPPORT.

If Mister Wayne was able to demonstrate what he claims to have, do you really think we'd be having this conversation now?

Please hold Powercat's list of Mister Wayne's....er..... forward-looking statements in one hand, and your Mister Wayne's  "misunderstood program of scientific creativity" in the other.... and tell me which one is more convincing.