Big try at gravity wheel

[LibreEnergia]

MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was.  I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.

For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1..  The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2..  The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.

We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate.  You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.

Red_Sunset

Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'. His conclusions from the provided videos and demonstrations of the 'principle' are demonstrably false.
Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework that could explain how it might work.

Initially I think he was deluded, but now he acts fraudulently.

[Red_Sunset]

Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'. His conclusions from the provided videos and demonstrations of the 'principle' are demonstrably false.
Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework that could explain how it might work.
Initially I think he was deluded, but now he acts fraudulently. 

LibreEnergia,
You appear to hold similar opinions as MarkE.
Lucky for all of us, that opinions and hearsay are not upheld as evidence in the "court of law" otherwise we all would have been convicted a few times over, unjustly.

So you make 6 statements:
1..  Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'
2..  His conclusions from the provided are false
3..  Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework
4..  Neither did he ever explain how it might work.
5..  Initially I think he was deluded,
6..  Now he acts fraudulently.

Why would I just belief your opinions, especially since I received the same information as you did  from the forum, and I can testify that the first 4 knowledge items were addressed and understood from the forum.

In order to advance your understanding, Did you address these specific shortcomings in your understanding with Wayne ? If yes, pls state which messages they were.

What specific behavior or statements did he made, that you attribute to "delusion" ?
What action did he made to warrant a "Fraud" charge ?

Be careful, because assumptions and opinions are not allowable at this grave level of accusation. 
Also do consider that delusion or fraud must be of a non-technical nature since you already admitted to not understanding the first 4 items that encompass the technical nature of the invention.  This puts you in a peculiar position since our interests are of a technical nature.

Are you also of the opinion that Renato Ribeiro also falls into this same category?  After all this topic "Big try at Gravity Wheel " is his system that is under the spotlight. 

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was.  I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.

For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1..  The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2..  The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.

We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate.  You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset, I agree with you that just bantering:  "Yes it is." / "No it isn't" opinions is not productive.   I trust that you are amenable to reviewing facts.  Please allow me to address your disappointment:   In 2012, I asked HER several times to state what the "Travis Effect" is.  Each time I asked, they refused.  HER are the ones who claim that this "Travis Effect" exists and is responsible for what Wayne Travis calls "disruptive technology" that allows for free energy from their gravity / buoyancy machine.

I also note that HER promised Mark Dansie many times over the past several years that they would have a machine available for him to observe during a 48 hour run down test.  To this day they have never delivered on that promise.

Do you agree that in order for HER to have anything worthwhile that:

1. There must be a "Travis Effect" and
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to exploit non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field 

If you do, then please point me to any declaration by HER of what the "Travis Effect" supposedly is.  Once we have a statement of what they claim makes their free energy machine possible, then we can rationally address how to test if such an effect is possible.  Do you think that is fair?

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset, do you agree that in order for HER to have anything worthwhile that:
1. There must be a "Travis Effect" and
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?

Questions.
1. There must be a "Travis Effect"
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?

Answers.
The Travis Effect is a general grouping of characteristics that are instrumental to create an asymmetric behavior in the Hydro Piston/Lever,  that can be employed to milk the gravitational field.

If you go back to the Wayne's data, you would see that his pressure vs lifting capacity data presented are non-linear. 
1..  More Kg per psi in the high end pressure range (Ascent).   
2..  More pressure per Kg in the lower end range (Descend) .

Since this is a hydro system, water movement impedes the cycle rate, therefore it is important to minimize the water volume that need to be shuffled around (one of the aquarium demo's).
The inverted multi-layer piston as an asymmetric hydraulic lever, is the key to that asymmetry.  The cycle is played out over the same travel distance  (key important fact to differentiate it from a simple lever)

Renato Ribeiro with the RAR "in principle" does the same thing.  Sure he approaches it from a different design angle and it is mechanical, but the "fine print principle", is the same concept.  I have still some reservations about Renato's implementation and I "feel" that he is marginal in the differentiation between up & down strokes.  But that is purely an engineering issue that needs to be overcome.

Some assumptions of comparison, the ZED vs the RAR System.
*     The RAR would be able to achieve more cycles/min than the ZED,
**   Zed would be able to master more energy per cycle due to the greater force ability. 
*** The RAR would have a larger foot print than the Zed for the same capacity

Red_Sunset

[Grimer]

Grimer, please take better care representing what is contained in references that you cite.  In the video that you linked that Desertphile character insisted that the video of the motor failed to prove over unity.

No. He insisted it was a Effing Fraud - (or words to that effect    )- because he realised full well that if it wasn't a fraud it proved overunity.