It is a bit late for nay-saying,there is a self working model producing excess energy and a patent. It reminds me of the fact that newspapers were still publishing articles to prove that flight was impossible, three or four years after the Wright Brothers flew. And there is still a thick book in our local library proving that man will never fly by pedal power.Time to move on.
 
  A word on dimensions and proportions. If we look at the example of the coiled hosepipe hanging on the wall, each lower half of each turn is full of water. So each separate mass of water has the same volume . So I get the gut feeling that the same should apply inside a ZED. So perhaps it is ideal if all the separate rings of water have the same volume for best efficiency . So perhaps the gaps between cylinders decrease as we move towards the outside of the machine.


The relationship between the diameter of a ZED and its output power is not a linear one. I suspect it is proportional to the cross sectional area. So a small increase in diameter gives a very large increase in power . Sadly, a small decrease in diameter gives a massive power decrease . So there is a minimum realistic size for a working model.


All comments welcome.
@Seamus 101. Mrwayne has already stated the OU is possible with a single layer, however, the COP is only 1.1. So the OU would be lost in the system, for example the friction in an air pump.

@Seamus101. You really need mrwayne to answer those questions, but in the meantime, I will throw in my two cents. In my understanding , which is as yet incomplete, adding layers is basically a way of getting a greater head of water in a compact space. Read and try to understand, in the early posts of this thread, the example of the coiled hosepipe.
      I agree that it should be possible to show OU with one layer, but look at the practical difficulties. Suppose we recreate the classical Travis Effect as in the video . So we inject a given amount of air into the cup, using say a hypodermic syringe and a tube . We use a weight to press down the syringe. So we are measuring the input energy. No we are not, because it would probably waste 50% of the input energy in friction in the syringe.
      I would actually like to do this experiment, and I have spent much time thinking about it . Here is an idea. Imagine a large U tube, say half a metre high . We half fill it with water. The top of the right arm is now sealed, except for a thin tube which leads to a point under the Travis cup.By adding water to the open left arm , we push air under the cup . We should be able to calculate energy input by what weight of water we add and how far it falls. Very little friction . Output is weight of load x distance it rises.


As for sinking a large object in the ocean , you missed your best chance when they filmed "Titanic."

Neptune said
"    I agree that it should be possible to show OU with one layer, but look at the practical difficulties. Suppose we recreate the classical Travis Effect as in the video . So we inject a given amount of air into the cup, using say a hypodermic syringe and a tube . We use a weight to press down the syringe. So we are measuring the input energy. No we are not, because it would probably waste 50% of the input energy in friction in the syringe. "

This is what I intended to do and realized that my syringe has too much friction so decided
to use a bellows/diaphram  type air supply. I tried Tom's demo 3 experiment and did not get the same results.
Being puzzled I then took 2 qt containers and discovered that at around the 3 ounce
level line the air provides a good bit of resistance so to test the true Travis effect will require
more air than at the 3 oz level. 
I'm still working on the simple demonstration of the Travis principle. When I see the Travis effect I will proceed onward.

Norman

@Norman6538. Hi Norman and good to see you are doing practical stuff. Not all quart containers have the same height to diameter ratio, so you may well have to experiment to find the ideal air volume. They say that great minds think alike, and I was thinking along similar lines, using a balloon as a diaphragm . Things are a bit critical when the expected cop is so small. Good luck, and please post your results, whether positive or negative.
@Seamus101. It is vital to realise that the Travis Effect only operates over a short distance, probably one centimetre  in the video example.Once the travis cup starts to rise , and the water level comes up to the top of the concrete block , the effect is finished . So any experiment must make use of this short stroke.

Quote from: Seamus101 on June 11, 2012, 03:10:10 AM
If there is an "exhaust pressure" then perhaps there is an input pressure as well?. Can you absolutely confirm there is no supply of a hydraulic working fluid at a higher head than the exhaust pressure. This would include suppplying fluid at a higher altitude than the exhaust , a supply of pressurised water from a tap, or any other mechanical means (other than this magical bouyancy effect). 

The same test would apply to any air in the system.

Thank you,
I realize you have not looked reviewed all that is written: The entire system is closed looped - What I have called exhaust pressure - (and sorry - I see the point of the question created by the term)
By exhaust pressure I do not refer to something leaving the system - I meant the energy still available in the head - at the end of a troke - is transfered laterally - we call the exchange free flow - and since it is the energy transfer during the "down" stroke of one side of the system - we call it exhaust.
Our system have been verified concerning the pressure suspension, increases, and no external energy put into the system - it does not require any external input. - You do have to have the initial water and air in  the layers - you do have to start the hydraulics - and the system generates on the first half stroke - twice the fluid consumed.
Thanks
Wayne