Big try at gravity wheel

[fletcher]

You're welcome John.

Note that the Hydrostatic Paradox is a sub-set of Archimedes buoyancy - the important thing to note that there still needs to be volume displacement & replenishment if a piston moves etc, so whilst it can make for a powerful force the distance the force acts over is dictated by the volume displacement beneath the piston, IINM.

ETA: at the time of the original thread Mr Wayne [upon questioning] was adamant that air in the ZED cycle was not required i.e. that pneumatic principles [& air spring effect] had nothing to do with his principle or the OU claim - the air pockets could be replaced by a lesser density oil fluid for example - fluids are effectively non-compressible.

Compressibility would be a factor in his pre-charge psi so I guess that there was a gas bladder somewhere in the self-sustaining system - probably the accumulator IIRC.

[LibreEnergia]

Webby,
One of the upside down cup aquarium demonstrations was exactly done to prove that Buoyancy is a FORCE due to PRESSURE .  To understand buoyancy in this context is pivotal to understanding the working of the Zed.

I think MarkE has the wrong end of the stick here.

MARKE,   that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct.  But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure.   It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter).  Integral formula's do not aid understanding

Red_Sunset

This is the crux of the matter,  and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.

Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME,  nothing else.

A volume of water in water is neutrally buoyant because it weights the same as the medium that surrounds it.
A volume of air in water experiences a buoyant force equivalent to the weight an equal volume of water minus it's own weight. It does not matter what pressure it is at.

Everything ever described as the 'Travis effect' simply falls apart once you realise that.

[TinselKoala]

So a scuba diver's tanks, filled to 3000 psi or something like that, are no more buoyant than the same tanks when empty.

However, in the demonstrations of the "travis effect" there is an upward force due to the pressure component. Air is compressed slightly by the displacer; this results in an upward force that adds to the buoyancy. The pressure force acts in all directions but the system is only free to move upwards, and this pressure force only acts over a short distance. At least I think that's what I recall.
In the TinselZed, and also in Webby's construction, the fact that water levels in the various chambers aren't equal demonstrates that the air pressures aren't equal either.

ETA: The scuba tank's volume is fixed; therefore its buoyancy is also. The ZED, in Travis's device, as well as in my Heron's Fountan, and in Webby's nested tube array, has a variable effective volume in part controlled by the air pressures inthe chambers. It's like a Cartesian Diver, whose buoyancy is adjusted by changing its volume (and internal air pressure) by changing the external pressure applied to the outer container of the water it's floating in. All the lift of the Diver is from buoyancy, the air pressure changes only alter the floater's effective volume. But in the Zed the air pressure can act to lift, augmenting the buoyancy due to volume displacement.

[Red_Sunset]

Hi,        Webby and Sunset, do you pair really understand the implications of Archimedes paradox?
              John.

Please explain what it is you think I am missing.
I learn many things from many people,, if you are not learning you are not moving

Hi John,
" Hi, nice one Fletcher, thank you,   John.  ",  THAT IS A POOR RESPONSE TO Webby,

You better come up with something more specific to make a statement like that
Red_Sunset

[Red_Sunset]

This is the crux of the matter,  and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.

Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME,  nothing else.
A volume of water in water is neutrally buoyant because it weights the same as the medium that surrounds it.
A volume of air in water experiences a buoyant force equivalent to the weight an equal volume of water minus it's own weight. It does not matter what pressure it is at.
Everything ever described as the 'Travis effect' simply falls apart once you realise that.

EnergyLibre and others,

What property do you think materializes buoyancy in FORCE  equivalent to displace volume ?

"It does not matter what pressure it is at." (if you refer to depth location pressure) >> That is correct

The pressure we are talking about is NOT the depth pressure but the submerged pressure height of the obect,
Example, for a sealed air box of 1mtrx1mtrx1mtr, at a depth of 100mtr ,  the buoyancy pressure responsible for the box upward force is determined by the 1mtr box height, not the depth.

For a ship it would be the pressure height from the waterline to its bottom surface.  And it is calculated by the weight of the water collumn, So heavier/denser liquid would produce more pressure

That is the crux of the matter, you can see that clearly when you step outside the convenience of formula's that often hide the essence of natural properties.

OK Guys, your turn now!
Red_Sunset