Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 02:15:07 PM
I am very familiar with that inventors work, and I am you know him well.
Each man must stand on his own merits.
That is all I care to say for the "comparison".

Sorry guys, I wasn't trying to get anyone upset or insinuate anything. I just wasn't sure if mrwayne was familiar with James Kwok's work. It appears to be using nested cylinders of different diameters. His original design used buoyancy and I am assuming the latest design I linked to uses it as well somewhere in the system.


mrwayne says he is familiar with it so I will leave it at that. Sorry for even saying anything. Scheesh!


Over the years posting here on Overunity I am tired of the ill feelings that pop up. I'm done with this.

Quote from: ResinRat2 on June 10, 2012, 02:47:07 PM

Sorry for even saying anything. Scheesh!

Sorry if I cam accross wrong  Resin,

My dissapointment is in my dealings with that inventor, and he has been used as a reason to discredit my work for years - unfairly.
We have nothing in common other than water in our system.

Wayne

Somebody wake up Hicks!

Err, I mean, Sean.

Anyone know where CLaNZeR is these days?  I can't post or PM on his forum.  Not sure if it is working right or if it is just user error.

M.

Quote from: neptune on June 10, 2012, 11:35:49 AM
Suppose we have a simple inverted cup , sitting over a Travis block, with no air in it, so it is completely full of water. Then we pump a small amount of air into it , and allow it to lift a weight .So is the energy needed to pump that air , smaller than the "output energy" , of lifting the weight . Hope fully , you can give us a yes, no , or don`t know answer.
@Mondrasek, you are a star. Brilliant diagrams . That is exactly the kind of thing we need.

Back when I did force calculations I would be quick to answer yes -

Now I will give a clear answer (not as shown in the video) -  if you build your system so that the volume of the air you use to stroke is 1/5 of the total volume and the stroke is 1/4 of that same volume -

And YES - the Travis Effect can create more power than it takes to pump the air into itself -
(It is even better if you use that "still pressurized" air to assist filling the next Travis effect).

In simple inventor talk - you have to use a lever to to capture the force and transfer it to the longer end of the lever to allow for the extra stroke length needed to compress the air to the pressure of the depth.

Since the cost of "compression of air" is not the same value of standard buoyancy you must prepare to pay three times as much to compress the air as the value you get out of standard buoyancy- or to produce at least 1cf for the depth.

I am tired, so let me just ball park my expample:

1cf of air submerged = 33% worth of standard buoyancy you start in the hole 66%
1cf of air Travis effect with 5/1 ratio and I/4 stroke = roughly 111% the value of 1cf
This is not much in the plans of supplying power - so we moved well past this.

Wayne

@mrwayne . Thanks for the detailed explanation, and answer to my question. I fully realise that you have moved on a long way beyond this. However, for us guys just starting out on this, we have got to start somewhere, and experience has taught me that it essential to start at the beginning. All I am looking for at this stage is experiments that are cheap and simple, that can be built from junk on a zero budget.
         I do not doubt what you have achieved, but there is no substitute for seeing some thing with ones own eyes. My dream has always been to be able to show an experiment where 1 kilogram falling 10 cms will raise 1kilogram 11cms, or higher. I have been trying for about 50 years now, and I am getting old . Maybe the Travis Effect could be the catalyst that makes my dream a reality .