Well I just received my first update from the mailing list Mr. Wayne said we could all request to join.  It came out late last night, 11:37 PM EST.  In it he states that the patent is now online.  Anyone able to locate it?

Thanks,

M.

   Stefan,
This is what I think Wayne is attempting. The left side would use comprssed air to expand. When this happens,
the right side is lifted. This is when the "Travis Effect" would pump water/fluid tp power the hydraulic motor.
One thing I have come to understand about the Travis Effect is that it is a poor idea. By increasing the motion
or movement of a shaft, it's inefficient design is made to appear more effecient by placing an object in the
cylinder. Any engineer I know would use a hydraulic cylinder that has less depth.
Since air is compressible, this is what has the only potential to be taken advantage of. This is because air/gas can
be compressed or allowed to expand. There is nothing I have seen in the design that has something that attempts
to manipulate the air pressure by changing the physical volume of the cylinder. This would be about the only
opportunity to do so.
With Bessler's wheel, it uses compression to pump/move water/fluid in one direction. Overunity is achieved
because a lever can increase the potential of a mass. And since the weight/lever assembly would need to be reset,
the rotation of the wheel does this. With the basic example, a 2.2lb. or 1 kg weight 1/2 meter or 20 inches from
axis of rotation can be lifted/pumped or moved by a 1.1 or 1/2kg weight. And the 1kg weight can be lifted 37.5 cm's
while the weight performing the work (the lighter weight) only moves/drops 15 cm's.
It's interesting in a way but I don't think most people have worked with pressurized systems.

                                                                                                                              Jim

edited to change pics

Patent:  http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120117957

Hello All,  .

The key to understanding the system - or even the patent - is to understand the Buoyancy utilization of the "Travis Effect" 

We spent five days trying to wade thru the claims by some that it was impossible to defeat the "volume" requirement of Buouyancy and that it was impossible to have the ability to capture more buoyancy than the mass of the object could float. 
With those under our belt for most - you can then realize how the design of our machine operates.

The layering system as designed, has been tested and patented, it is a unique arrangment of the Travis Effect - Each Layer has the ability to capture the mass of the Buoyancy as if it were stand alone - that is why the effeciency increases with the number of layers. 

The theory of decay has competition.... and this..... is a good thing.

Thank you for the questions. 

Wayne Travis

I hope, everybody understands:  A patent application (not even a granted patent) is no proof that it works. The patent office only checks whether something similar "was published" before. The patent office does not check the correct functioning of the claimed machine or process.

Nevertheless the patent publication gives us something to talk about.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?NUM=US20120117957

It still may be that crucial concepts are not included in the patent. Is this the case?

If everything is in the patent we can start a meaningful discussion. And Wayne could start to disclose meaningful data.

But as I know the world, he is bound by some money matters to keep secrets.

Greetings, Conrad