Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset there is no need to go down a garden path.  Either you can describe this so-called "Travis Effect",  or you can't.  Perhaps you can do better than Tom Miller who demonstrated Archimedes' Principle over and over claiming that those demonstrations showed a unique "Travis Effect" that somehow did something better than Archimedes' Principle.  Poor Tom kept suffering the from the odd idea that air in an inverted cup is responsible for the buoyant force exerted by water around the cup.  Let's hope that you can do better than that.

MarkE,

You are incorrigible and start to sound unnecessary repetitive.  Your perceived misunderstanding were clarified in earlier posts but you seem to like that things remain unresolved. That outlook is not conducive towards advancing in understanding. 
The ball is your court and waiting for you and the incorrigible others to demonstrate their action.

Red_Sunset

[powercat]

Quote from: Red_Sunset on September 08, 2012, 07:42:35 AM[/size]

Gents,
Goodbye until there is a drastic change in this forum
I have nothing to gain or loose for being on this forum and I can no longer justify my time to be here
I start to be bothered by questions such as,
Why am I here ? taking time typing explanations, some philosophy ...ect,  to what purpose? when I can be spending my time on a better and more productive purpose. I think I have full-filled my obligations in context with this forum (as repayment to previous gains)

http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335395/#msg335395


Isn't it time you left again, your old posts are so entertaining and show you regurgitating the same old arguments, like the one where everybody has to prove to you why Wayne travesties device can't produce OU,  it's the only argument you have, as you can't produce any genuine evidence of a working device.

[MarkE]

MarkE,

You are incorrigible and start to sound unnecessary repetitive.  Your perceived misunderstanding were clarified in earlier posts but you seem to like that things remain unresolved. That outlook is not conducive towards advancing in understanding. 
The ball is your court and waiting for you and the incorrigible others to demonstrate their action.

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset:  The extraordinary claim of excess energy production remains yours to evidence.  All you need do is perform those energy calculations:  Energy at the start of a cycle, energy added during a cycle, energy removed during a cycle, and energy remaining at the end of a cycle where all elements of the machine have returned to their respective starting positions. Likewise, the extraordinary claim of the existence of a magical "Travis Effect" remains yours to evidence where Tom Miller fell down.  The ball is and has been in your court.  Pick it up or continue to ignore it as you please. 

[minnie]

   We've got a few facts. Obviously the Boy Scout  ZED didn't work,Mark Dansie was never
  able to validate it.
   Then we had the Tilt a Zed, that was never validated as far as I know.
  Then there was talk of a Rotary ZED and a flat pack ZED.
   It's no use us trying to find anything there because even Travis hasn't been able to.
   Sunset must have details of the mark V which obviously works. We could do well
   to concentrate our efforts on that one!
                             John.

[fletcher]

The ZED "working" as in going up an down, has never been a question, it is whether or not the external accumulator maintained its charge while running the ZED's and supplying for some other output or if that charge itself diminishes as the system operates.

Yes Webby - I think we all realize that tipping water in the outer annular ring will increase the head - most of us are sure that pods etc can't rise unless additional water volume is allowed into the cavity beneath the pod so that it can raise full height - this is volume substitution to allow piston travel.

What I suspect is that there might be some fudging around how that extra water from the accumulator enters that cavity - if the head pressure is increased, & all water communicates, & pressure with depth is linear, then the greatest pressure is near the bottom of the cavity - on opening a gate valve the water must be pumped in to the cavity overcoming the force of the water pressure at the depth of entry.

We know this because of experiments of tanks of water where a hole is punched in the side - water exits horizontally at velocity proportional to depth - IOW's, a packet of water dropped vertically a given height will have the same velocity & Ke as the same packet exiting horizontally under pressure from the hole in the vertical side of the tank at that same height.

N.B. in many hydraulic PM ideas where floats enter tanks at depth etc thru water tight 'gates or seals' this back pressure & energy requirement is often forgotten - whether it is or is not in this case I can not say.