Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

Hook up a generator to the shaft of a pulley through a clutch.
Release the clutch.
Lift a bucket of rocks using a rope thrown over the pulley.  Measure the work required.
Engage the clutch. 
Let the bucket of rocks of rocks come down as the generator drives a load.  Measure the work recovered.

Release the clutch.
Next attach a second bucket to the opposite end of the rope as the first bucket.
Pour some water in the bucket.
Lift the bucket of rocks.  Measure the work required.  Note that it is lower than the first experiment.  Hallelujah!  Lower input cost.
Engage the clutch.
Let the bucket of rocks of rocks come down as the generator drives a load.  Measure the work recovered.  Damn!  Lower output work.

Get 42 gallon garden waste can.
Fill it with water.
Put it under the path of the bucket filled with rocks.
Dump out the bucket of water.

Repeat the lifting and falling experiments.
Record the results.

Compare the results of the experiments.  Discuss.

[MarkE]

TBZED, simple, crude and interesting.  It showed that the lift from lift ready to end of lift took less in than what I took out, it showed that after that lift there was potential stored within the system, enough that on an easy setup I could get 1\2 the input water back after dropping the reservoir 1\2 the distance it was raised.

Is there an analysis that shows energy balance over a full cycle?  This is a yes or no question.  If there is, then show the analysis and see if it holds up.

Excuse me for a minute here, but with that I am calling BS.  The big objections to heat losses and frictional losses blah blah blah,, where were they in TBZED?

Then look at MarkE and his free flow only argument,, like I did not actually cover that one all ready,,

You have never presented a complete cycle to evaluate.  I have shown that at least one part of the cycle: the pressure equalization phase, is very lossy.  Do you dispute that?  I've posted the picture and the calculations.  If you believe that I have made a mistake, please feel free to show how you get different results.

TK and imagine,, except the picture it creates does tell the story, and that story does not sit well with TK's argument.

Should be simple to test for.

Can you take a buoyant item after some distance of lift and transfer the air into another item at a lower depth for less cost than filling the item from the surface.

Is it cost effective to have 90 percent of the cost of making that buoyant item prepaid by the buoyant item before it.

Can you recycled potential that has not been destroyed or given away.

Anyone care to come up with more or better tests?

Yes, conduct a complete cycle.  You can do it with your two cylinder arrangement.  Perform a complete cycle energy balance.  See where you end up.

[TinselKoala]

Webby, can't you see that if your claims were true, it would be trivial for YOU to build a self runner, or at least something that would clearly produce more WORK output than input, over a complete cycle? But you cannot. No one can. You are making false claims based on your poor understanding of the physics involved, and your measurements are full of errors caused by things like compressibility, leaks, wall friction, and your general technique. You have not yet set up or described any proper experiment or even a simple demonstration that would actually test your ill-formed hypothesis of energy gain.

Furthermore, unless someone actually SHOWS this "simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" that Travis has claimed to have.... not on paper or in theory, he actually said he HAS it..... we must conclude that it does not exist and that Travis was simply lying about it. Otherwise, why are you lot not analyzing that simple, three layer, single ZED system that is clearly overunity by itself? You must not believe it exists, either, or you wouldn't be doing this present exercise with some _other, different_ system that you and Mark E are making up. Why not just use the "simple, three layer system that is clearly OU by itself" that Travis claims? Or.... why not just admit that it doesn't really exist after all. Then I'll be able to stop reminding you that Travis claimed it did exist.

[TinselKoala]

Why do you keep avoiding the issue?

If your claims and "measurements" are correct you should be able _easily_  to put together a "self runner" or at least some demonstration that you get more _work_ out than you put in. Why don't you do that simple thing? Here's a hint: Travis has a "simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself." Why don't you show that system producing its "clear overunity by itself"?

I know why, and so do you. In spite of your large monetary award from Travis... you are all out of tennis ball packaging tubes.

[TinselKoala]

What a laugh! YOU are making the claims, Webby, and YOU are the one ... the _only one_ at this point ... who claims to know how it's done! It is up to YOU to prove the truth of your claims! You are just being silly.

We've calculated the hydraulic pressure and flow rate necessary to drive the ordinary hydraulic motor to drive the ordinary windmill alternator to produce 20 kW output. There is no mechanism in any diagram of any Travis system, anywhere, including the animated one that used to grace his website.... there is no spreadsheet model, no demonstration _anywhere_ that explains where all that hydraulic pressure and flow is going to come from, in a device with the "footprint of a garden shed". Or any other footprint, unless there is included a power _source_ at least as powerful as an old VW engine.

And all of your devices and measurements are powered by your hands and arms! You cannot just set it up, pull a pin and walk away while it makes a complete cycle, or even "runs" for a few seconds! You have to raise and lower, slide weights around, all of which require more energy input from your hands and arms. You can't even show an improvement over some baseline measurement, as I did for my TinselZed-containing Heron's Fountain.

Just as Wayne made a cynical attempt to get his secret layer of sycophants in their secret forum to do what he could not do... .you want ME to do YOUR homework for you! Yet..... who has made the solid video demonstrations of the various phenomena involved in Travis's claims? Who actually DID incorporate a functioning Zed in a self-running table top waterpump? Eh? I've already done lots of your homework for you, and I've pointed out many things that are wrong with your descriptions and your testings. Now that Mark E is attempting to guide you into making some proper measurements and reporting them properly... you start flailing around again. Why don't you pay more attention to what Mondrasek is doing, and how he's doing it, instead of taking cheap pot-shots at me, trying to get me to do your work for you.

You claim to know how to get extra work out of a hydraulic system. Fine... demonstrate it! But you cannot.