Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

The air is nothing more than a stored potential, energy in equals energy out.

When you try and use that stored potential directly against another system that has a reversed force curve both systems loose.

Take the potential out of the air all by itself, not against another air pocket you are trying to use or create, hence against the piston.

Think this one over.

Try and build the air pocket under the cylinder with NO resistance applied against the cylinder, I know your answer, now think it all over for a while.

We can ponder all day long.  What we do not have is you stating what methods you claim to have used to obtain your stated results.  There are many systems that store energy and are very lossy, IE energy out is much less than energy in.  It is up to you to state what method you used and show that it does not suffer the losses that I have shown exist:

Venting B to A and then using a transfer pump.
Using a transfer pump for the entire transfer from B to A.

Unless I messed up my numbers, even using a very large, nearly isobaric intermediate transfer store does not help.

Remember, you have posted numbers that are supposed results.  If the numbers are valid there is no reason why you should not be able to describe the method by which you obtained them.

[Marsing]

Marsing,

A simple method could be to have the weight as a large steel ball resting on a small track on top of the cylinder, when it reaches the top of the lift that ball is released and rolls over and onto a waiting platform that is held up by a string, that string goes over a pulley and down and runs a cam drive gear that runs the pump.  These are designed so that at the end of motion the ball and the cylinder are back down at the same height where the ball can roll back onto the cylinder.

With proper design, and if symmetry and CoE are valid considerations, then you can see that this system, baring frictional losses, can readily hit 100 percent efficiency.

webby,

this is exactly i want to know, how can you make ball roll back onto cylinder?.

maybe you can get second cylinder reach the top position, but you need "third energy" to put ball on top of the second cylinder,

when second cylinder reach the top position, and you think it have 100 % efficiency, i disagree..

i thing, the discussion about yours ZED is over, at least for me.

[MarkE]

Marsing I believe that Webby's proposal is to use a ball as the payload weight.  When the A cylinder rises the ball is now at the same height as the B cylinder 165mm up.  The idea is that the ball is supposed to roll from there to some lever that will then operate the pump to restore the "air" to the B  side after of course the B side has been pushed back down and a ball has been loaded on top of it.  Ostensibly that ball would be the one that had rolled off the top of the B side at the end of the previous half cycle.  For any of this to work the system has to be at least 100% efficient.  There webby's claimed 83% is a major problem.  The less than 30% efficiency I claim as the actual best case makes the problem monumental.  I has been over two weeks and webby still isn't offering any explanation of how he got to his 83%.  I doubt that he ever will.

[minnie]

  Hi,
      MarkE, have you looked at the HER patent application? If yes, do you consider that
  it to be of any value? A yes/no answer is fine by me.
    Another thing I think some here don't quite get is relevance of the acceleration due
  to gravity. Fletcher pointed this out to me and I found that even Sunset was confused
  by it. Anything driven by gravity is going to be necessarily absolutely huge.
                         John.

[MarkE]

Minnie I have now read 13/292,954.  I find that it is junk  They will get killed on paragraph 0008 which is their perpetual motion from buoyancy claim.  That will earn rejection for lack of utility.  Most of the language construction is OK up to page 28.  Then on pages 28-31 they stab themselves in the chest multiple times by offering vague language that  refers to things like cost without specifying what is being spent. 

How they fare depends on who the examiner is that they get.  If they get someone who is on the ball, they will note that at the end of the day the machine just raises and lowers masses, making it a backyard artwork and not something that is capable of "capturing buoyancy forces to produce power consistently".

Yes, storing energy as raised mass has a very low energy density.  Lifting 1 m^3 of water by 1m takes about the same energy as contained in a pair of AA alkaline batteries.  A buoyancy machine has even lower energy density than a straight reservoir.