Big try at gravity wheel

[orbut 3000]

You weren't there. I was. Search the archives (if they still exist) and you'll find out why.

As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.

[TinselKoala]

It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.

No, it won't. Conservation laws and practical experience and the reductio ad absurdum I presented all say it won't. The only thing you have presented as "evidence" for your assertion... it isn't even a claim... is a mistaken interpretation of the brachistochrone/tautochrone problem.

Get off your lazy ass and build something for yourself and see. Quit insulting your betters and quit making assertions that you cannot support with evidence or even a logical argument.

[TinselKoala]

As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.

Exactly.

[Grimer]

to arrogant Grimer?
                       John.

Thank you for pointing out the typo, John. I've now corrected it.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset their claimed point is absolutely false.  The upward force exerted on a submerged object is identically the weight of the displaced volume of the surrounding fluid, in this case water.    That is Archimedes' Principle discovered over 2000 years ago.  ..............................................................
................................................................................... 

MarkE, 
Nobody is claiming that Archimedes was wrong or that the exact working principle of the ZED is what is shown with the cups. Nobody is claiming OU with the cups.   As I stated in my previous post, shown again below.....

POST #436............................................I agree that all the cups demonstrations showed normal physics, the only point they tried to convey that pressure creates lift, not volume (volume is secondary), a basic fact.  Small water volume and pressure utilization were important in realizing the principle that underpins the Zed.  To that purpose they were not misleading.

Post #436 is conveying the message that the invention is based on the basic physics principles shown in the aquarium cup demonstrations. That was to refresh readers mind and set he stage of understanding for what follows.
The invention uses certain physics properties as shown in the demonstration to achieve the inventor's objective. Although the demonstration is not a direct representation of the invention, neither of possible OU,  only optimization or minimal requirements.
Please read and think beyond the start phase of any inventive property presented or you might/will miss the essence of their communication.

Red_sunset