Big try at gravity wheel

[Grimer]

Hi,
   thank you MarkE and Koala for putting me right on this subject. Grimer I don't think you
need your patent attorney just yet! When you do I hear that Dunnelt and Codding are very
good, they still may take a cheque, ask nicely, of course.
                John.

I hope the sheep are doing well, John. 

[Grimer]

...
If you want to convince me of an extraordinary claim then you will need to come up with compelling evidence. 

I've no wish to convince you of anything, Mark.


As I said to Dr Blackman, before he began uncontrollably blubbing, 
"You're free to have your opinion Dr Blackman but you must let me have mine."

[Grimer]

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) .
...

I'm beginning to like the sound of this "Travis Effect", Red. Where's the best place to read about it.

[MarkE]

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.

I am sorry, but this opaque statement does not state anything specific. Please point me to where I may find a description of the "Travis Effect" by HER. Or alternatively, please state the specific characteristics that define it.

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

I reiterate that the aquarium demonstrations failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle.  I believe that it was the second video where Tom made the assertion that the demonstration had shown an avenue to gain energy by way of the so-called "Travis Effect".  The videos imply that the "Travis Effect" has something to do with the absolutely false notion that the amount of air underneath either cup had anything to do with the buoyant force exerted by the surrounding water which is in fact entirely defined as the equivalent weight of the displaced water. 

ETA:  Here is some food for thought.  A ways back in this thread, Grimer recounted his experience employing Archimedes' Principle to determine the volume of odd shaped samples.  Grimer and his coworkers measured the volume of their SG > 1 samples by suspending them submerged, in a volume of water.  They obtained the volume as the difference in weigh scale readings of the set-up with a submerged sample versus the reading with no sample and dividing that difference by the density of water.  What he did was completely valid.  Now, think about that with respect to any and all of the videos or any statements that HER have made.  Grimer's method relied on the absolute fact that the buoyant force is the equivalent weight of displaced water.  It did not matter that his samples had an SG > 1.  The buoyant force up on his samples transmitted through the container to the weigh scale below, identically increasing the reading by the equivalent weight of displaced water.

A cute experiment that you can try if you have a balance arm and a bucket is to hang matching weights on either side of the balance arm so that it is level with one weight hanging in the bucket while the bucket is empty.  Now gently add water to the bucket until the water is just short of the weight.  Note that the balance arm remains level.  Now add enough water to submerge the weight.  What happens to the balance arm?  Why?  See how much weight you need to add to rebalance the arm.

[minnie]

 Hi Grimer,
    conditions are awful for the poor sheep. I've been working on this land for 55 years and this is the
wettest I have ever seen it.
  I like you Grimer, you've got a sense of humour, a thing a lot of contributors don't seem to have.
I have been on  a similar journey with Fletcher-we never got anywhere, but I enjoyed the ride.
Glad to hear you've got grandchildren, we've got a baby in the house at the moment and I just
can't imagine how my wife and me managed when we had four in under five years.
                                                      John.