Quote from: Seamus101 on June 12, 2012, 08:26:55 AM
Picking apart a diagram and pointing out the inconsistencies is hardly nay-saying. If this thing works (and I don't discount the very small possibility that it might) then surely a robust theory of why it works is equally valid to search for.

The problem as I see it is that you have not even begun to search. This is a new discovery, and untill you fully understand it, including information yet to be divulged , you are not in a position to judge.
TinselKoala asks where are the scientists. Do you really need to ask. They are busy maintaining the status quo, not even daring to take a sideways glance at things like this , lest it tarnish their professional reputation, and terminate their fat salaries.
   I too have been to university, but some of the most gifted innovators I have met, did not .




  A serious suggestion. Why don`t you guys start another thread with a title such as " Why the Travis Effect can not possibly ever work, nor any similar idea, and we are all condemned to a future of cold and starvation"


That way those of us who wish to learn will be in a better position to do so.

OK. Back to technical matters . A basic question for mrwayne. The machine itself is complex, involving several subsystems. My understanding is that the OU happens in the ZED itself. So my question is this.


Can one ZED onits own or at worst 2 ZEDs working together show overunity without additional systems.


If we are using just one ZED, we would need a water pump to supply the inlet, and a way to measure the input energy. We would use a the Zed to raise a weight to measure the output as in force x distance, but the weight MUST be removed at the top of the stroke. It can be replaced again after the downstroke to be lifted again.


My reason for asking this question is this. One ZED , or even two, could be built by an experimenter . Then if OU can be shown at this time, there is the motivation to carry on and build a self running machine.

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 12, 2012, 09:15:31 AM
Look, here's the argument in a nutshell.

Conventional physics says this device cannot be "overunity"... that is, a net "producer" of energy. 

Therefore the "incredulity" level must be high.

I think the level -is- (appropriately) high.

I'm still on the fence about this one, appropriately, since I can't see it, measure it, or touch it more than over YouTube so far, and because a) none of these things ever do seem to work in the end, there's a neutrino problem somewhere (meaning a measurement error), and b) I read about it online...where the world is nebulous and funky, and known to be vaporous. I await more news.


Time will tell all about The Colossus of Chickasha.

OMG

I'll send more later when I get time.

Regards, Larry

@webby1. I like your explanation, and your way of looking at it. However there is a little bit of a dilemma here that I can not quite get my head around .
Look at this real life example. Two guys set out on a journey on a flat level road . The plan is to travel until each of them has expended 200 calories of energy. One decides to walk, and the other chooses to ride a bicycle. At the end of the competition, the bike guy has travelled 3 times as far as the walker. This, although true seems strange, because a bike has mechanical losses. We know a bike is not OU. so the only possible conclusion is that walking is a very inefficient form of locomotion.
  So if we assume that raising a weight by pumping air into a submerged tank[disregarding pump inefficiency]
is a 100% efficient process, then this must show that the Travis Effect is OU.


In the diagrams the pod, inner riser, and outer riser lift as a unit. Am I right in thinking they are fixed together at the top, but fixed in such a way that air can flow through this join?


@Larryc. Where in heavens name did you get that from?
Do we know what units are used to measure "head"? would that be feet or inches , presumably feet.]
What units are used to measure "Force"? is that really pounds?
Yes it is pounds.