Wayne has stated that a 1" rise in the Pod water results in a 2" increase in the water head of each layer.

The attached picture shows how the height changes in each water channel. First, water is added to the Pod retainer, then air pressure causes the water in the next channel to lower, which causes the water in the next channel to rise. So the difference between the last two water channel in now twice what was added to the Pod area.

I'm sure some allready understand, but it important that most understand, as my next example is based on this concept. The next example will show the great difference in Input volume and obvious time of input as the number of Layers increase.

Regards Larry

I'm very late to this thread.

I will be very surprised if Mr Wayne can can make a self sustaining engine, with no additional input of energy once it is started - I do wish him luck in proving his hypothesis - if he can do that it would be game changing - like others I will watch with interest the final analysis of all data.

I read the first 20 or so pages of this thread & then the last few to be current - I watched the Travis 1 & 2 video's.

What I saw I thought was not inconsistent with Archimedes principle.

Archimedes says that the upthrust force of buoyancy of an object is equal to the weight force of water displaced less the weight force of the mass doing the displacement, IINM.

The Work Energy Equivalence Principle says Work in Joules [ force x distance] is interchangeable with energy [PE + KE].

It says that if PE is raised then the PE gained is equal to the Work Done to achieve that gain, not adjusted for system losses - this applies equally to forcibly sinking a floatation device.

So what was different about the Travis effect ?

Well, buoyancy is well known - if the displacement volume doesn't change then the buoyancy force will raise an object a distance vertically - it takes the same energy [Work Done] to sink the object to a release height as the Work Done capability of the buoyancy force can do on an object rising the same height - zero sum energy game.

In the Travis video's the upthrust force is the same 'initially' as the ordinary buoyancy control - there is no doubt that this takes considerably less volume or air that the standard control - the difference IMO is that the Travis effect example cannot do as much Work i.e. f x d, IINM.

IOW's, & has already be identified, the control buoyancy test has an upthrust force that doesn't change as the object rises in the fluid - this is because the pressure differential top & bottom is maintained & is proportional to the height of the air gap [volume] - since water pressure is linear then that upthrust force remains constant as it moves up thru pressure levels - this is a constant force x distance = WD.

In the case of the Travis effect experiments, although the same upthrust force is created initially [because the effective air gap distance & pressure differential is the same], as the object rises it leaves behind the concrete block & the air gap depth reduces dramatically - this reduces the pressure differential between top & bottom of water & the upthrust force reduces rapidly accordingly - this lesser buoyancy force has less capability to do Work i.e. variable force x distance.

In many ways, this is a variation [the reverse application] of the "hydrostatic paradox" IMO.

I would be surprised if there is enough energy to cyclically transfer the required volume of water from cylinder to cylinder & have excess energy left to do external work.

Then I guess that's why competent people like Mr Wayne appears to be do experiments & have them independently validated.

If it can self sustain & do any measure of external work then the hunt will be on for the energy source - good luck to him.

Quote from: fletcher on July 20, 2012, 06:43:28 PM
In the case of the Travis effect experiments, although the same upthrust force is created initially [because the effective air gap distance & pressure differential is the same], as the object rises it leaves behind the concrete block & the air gap depth reduces dramatically - this reduces the pressure differential between top & bottom of water & the upthrust force reduces rapidly accordingly - this lesser buoyancy force has less capability to do Work i.e. variable force x distance.

Very late indeed!  Welcome @fletcher.  Did New Zealand just get the Internet?  Or are you somewhere else now?

What if the object never "leaves behind" the concrete block as you mention?  What if the concrete block is replaced by the Pod member that is also allowed to rise as it is also buoyant in a separate annulus of water?

M.

Quote from: LarryC on July 20, 2012, 06:24:48 PM
Wayne has stated that a 1" rise in the Pod water results in a 2" increase in the water head of each layer.


Regards Larry

Hello Larry,
That quote was a general statement - not intended as a control number -  Please let me be a little more clear, and forgive me of the statement.
The exact movement of each layer in relationship  to the pod is related to both the clearance and pressure between each additional layer
So you must consider if you matched the volumetric clearances - or if you adjusted the volume metric clearances for the pressure.
(This example is of equal clearnaces - not matched volumes - not the best method - but what is in our data model)

Now since we push down - to cause an upward movement of the next layer - the differential pressure is increased at twice the rate as the volume - directly in the first inner layer and while the next layer is (under lower pressure) is pushed down - and the differential changes twice the downward movement, and so on.

In our Little model (5.0 to 8psi) - a 1 inch push in the pod is against all three layers - this results in a .68 downward push - or 1.36 inch differential in the first (inner) layer.

The Next layer pushes down .40 with a .80 differential and the next layer pushes down with .28 with a differential of .56 (corrected)

SO - 1 Inch in the pod results in a differential change of:

Pod - 1 (this movement is direct)
Layer 1.36
Layer .80
Layer .56 (Corrected)
Total   3.72 inch differential (corrected)

This value changes with layers - higher pressure means more differential between layers. (Partially -where the Non Linear comes from).

p.s. We have our Data collection Model are up and running - free energy.

Mark says to ignore the Baiters -

Mark has now given our crew some homework and a few simplafiying steps to take and changes to make - I will let you know how things go.

Wayne

Quote from: Seamus101 on July 21, 2012, 09:27:56 AM
I remember getting an acceptable internet connection in NZ back in 1996, so more than enough time to become familiar with the medium. I don't think being in NZ is a significant disadvantage for ferreting out bullshit when it is presented as fact actually...

What if the object never  'leaves behind the block' you ask. It's a fair enough question. What you need to answer though is what provides the energy to 'raise the block' so that the pod can continue to push upwards. Perhaps the fairies that would provide the necessary impetus just haven't made it this far south yet

@Seamus101

1)  I was addressing Fletcher.

2)  My comments about Internet access in NZ were intended as a joke.  Fletcher would get that.

3)  The Pod is in a separate annulus of water and rises for the same reason that the Riser does:  Buoyancy.  No fairies need be involved.

4)  We understand that you do not believe the ZED system can operate as explained.  Repeatedly stating that fact adds nothing towards understanding the Invention that was presented at the beginning of this thread.  It only aids in interupting.  You have been asked to take discussions that do not pertain to understanding the Invention that was presented at the beginning of this thread elsewhere.  Regretfully, I ask again.

M.