@All,
a simple test anyone with 2 pressure gauges can do.
Connect a 3/4 & a 1/2 inch tube (the 1/2 in. tube wil fit inside the 3/4 in. tube) and put water in them then cap them with the pressure gauges,
Then pressurize th larger tube. You will see tbat the 1/2 in. tube will have more psi.
  Then multiply the psi by surface area for both tubes and you'll see they have the same answer,
And as far as patents go, they're pretty much worthless if the invention doesn't work.
And if Mr. Travis invention does work then maybe he could give a simple demonstration like I just posted and then send it to Stefan since everyone would accept his word for varifying Mr. Travis' claims.

MrWayne, thanks for the reply, and I'm glad that you, at least, aren't misinterpreting my intentions like some others seem to be doing.

The patent discussion, from my part, isn't about the intellectual property protection, the filing dates, the difference between "provisional application" and "application" or any semantic argument like that. It is simply about getting straight answers to straight questions, and yes, drawn out not just for me but for everyone else whose vision might also be a bit cloudy when viewing the "fine print".

And I think Webby's work is fine, and certainly if I were doing it, I'd be reporting my best numbers, not a random set taken casually without controls, so I believe that he's doing the best he can do under the circumstances.

What my calculations show, IF THEY ARE CORRECT.... is that his gain is small, small enough so that minor imprecision in measurement and/or general experimental technique could account for the COP>1 finding.

And, since this is so very important..... the first demonstrated overunity work-producing device that doesn't need a battery or a big flywheel and can be made in an afternoon and demonstrated in anyone's lovely back yard garden -- no machining or fancy tools needed ..... and that would also overturn not just our ideas about buoyancy but also, like, the past 200 years of physics knowledge and require all the textbooks, from 10th grade on, to be rewritten.... sitting there on Webby's garden furniture, made out of tennis ball packaging tubes....

Well, we need to be absolutely certain that the measurements are precise, accurate, and properly obtained, as well as repeatable on demand, don't we?

And I myself would LOVE to be the principal or second author on the first scientific paper in a journal like Science or Nature or PhysRevB that brings the effect to the attention of real scientists around the world.

I should think that with 2 large to play around with, one could make a precise, rigid, easily measured, model that didn't leak and had some simple automated data collection capability. Certainly I could implement such a system.... I'd use a USDigital linear optical encoder setup to monitor heights to the half-millimeter, velocities and acceleration etc. of moving parts (3 or 4 hundred dollars), a good sensitive digital scale for weights (under 100 dollars), and something like an Arduino for automated data collection and recording (under 100 dollars), in addition to the basic apparatus made out of polycarbonate tubes from a plastic supply house (certainly less than 200 dollars). I'd borrow or rent a good force gauge like the Mark-10  M5-05 that I have sitting here gathering dust, get a couple of sensitive piezo pressure gauges ... And I'd have enough left over for a nice little vacation after I proved, repeatedly and well above noise floor, that I was making more work out than I was putting in. Did you know that Koalas are great bass fishermen? I'll bet you didn't.

But I realise that Koalas generally approach problems like this differently than most people on internet forums do.... it comes from living in a tree and eating eucalyptus leaves (which are a little hard to get in South Texas, believe you me).

any working perpetual motion machine or overunity device would be able to run contiuously under it's power.

@TK. I am probably one of those people who appeared to question your motives. However appearances can be deceptive. I have already said that I endorse your insistance on precise measuring methods. I would ask you to bear in mind that we are all different when it comes to abilities and resources.  When I say that, I am not complaining, just stating a fact. You obviously have measuring equipment, and probably machine tools, and the abilities to use both. My hope is that you will , sooner or later, be sufficiently convinced of the reality of this technology, to do your own build. I realise that you are involved in other things as well.

Quote from: johnny874 on August 19, 2012, 12:56:16 PM
any working perpetual motion machine or overunity device would be able to run contiuously under it's power.
[/quote
Whilst this would be the ideal situation, a machine does not have to self run, to prove OU. If it can be proved to be OU by a sufficient margin, a feedback loop can be added later.