Quote from: webby1 on June 12, 2012, 02:09:23 PM
MrWayne is not getting out any more energy than what is being provided by an interaction with gravity, he IS supplying something just like a damn\hydroelectric facility.  Build the damn and nature supplies everything else, but you have to guide it through something YOU can take advantage of.

The damn (hydroelectric facility) is a good thought experiment. The flaw is the water coming out after it flowed through the turbine. The water was put in the reservoir behind the damn by solar power (rain, inflow from a river) and then drops through the machinery. The water was higher up before going into the machinery (generator) and is lower down afterwards. The difference in height is the determining factor for the amount of energy which can be generated.

What bothers me most in the Travis concept, is the "closed system". After it is set up, while running, the Travis machine does not suck water or air in and does not let water or air out.

It could let heat in and cool it, but this is not claimed.

To claim it lets "gravity" in and destroys it or makes it lighter, is a bold concept which is difficult to accept.

As far as I understand:

There are two "pumps" in the system. One pump is a "conventional pump or known convection" which transports air from one cavity to an other in order to reset the system (system is brought to state A). The second "pump" is the "Travis pump" which sets the system up (system is brought to state B).

The claim is, that setting the system up costs less than resetting the system (and consequently the net difference can be harvested as output power).

In other words: state B has more energy than state A or at least has the same energy, but going from state A to B (Travis effect) costs less than going from state B back to A (conventional pump or known convection).

And exactly that is not proven, neither by a calculation nor by a self running system. Also the patent application ultimately just states that without any attempt to proof it (no calculation, no energy balance sheet).

I am not very keen on calculations and theories, because they could be false or based on false assumptions. So, let us hope that Mr. Travis can eventually demonstrate a self running machine with some net output. "Self running" would be best, because input versus output calculations or measurements are always very difficult and will always be questioned.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: neptune on June 12, 2012, 12:57:28 PM
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?

@neptune, I believe the pod, inner riser, and outer riser do lift together, if properly restrained by the hydraulic accumulator system and not allowed to stroke beyond design limits.  But there is no reason for them to be attached together at the top.  In the patent I believe it states that they can be separated by spacers/bumpers and this allows for the air gap and geometry shown in the illustrations.

M.

Deleted due to double post.

@mondrasek, thanks for clearing that up.
@Conradelektro. He already claims a self runner with net output. He has said that those willing to travel and sign an NDA can go and have a look .

Wayne,
can you do me a favor and post that as a Christian you will respect my reruest to not involve yourself with my efforts to demonstrate that Johann Bessler who was a devout Christian did build a perpetual wheel that worked.
  Thank You in advance.

  Jim