Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

You have the setup input cost, right?

Then you have the cost to move that potential DOWN into the lower cylinders, that would be the cycle cost, then those could rise UP into the position of the uppers and that would be the return, then you would have to move the potential back DOWN again.

Webby, the picture that I have is the one that you posted.  It has one inverted open cylinder on top of a piston, both submerged.  "Air" is pumped in underneath the inverted cylinder displacing water first in the annular gap then forming a bubble between the inverted cylinder and the piston until the gap is 15mm.  Unless I missed it, you did not state the mass of the of the open cylinder, nor did you place a load on top of it.  Since it has not floated, it must be heavier than the displaced water volume of 5.04gms.  So, we have displaced some water by pumping our incompressible mass that has the density of air.  The work we did identically converted into additional GPE of water in the overall container.  We have not completed a cycle yet, because we have not returned to a starting condition.  Please add any additional detail and states that you want.

[MarkE]

Webby, I have revised the drawing:
315mm depth instead of 300mm.
Added a stop 165mm above the bottom.
Massless and volumeless inverted cylinder with a density of water.  The reason for volumeless is so that we do not introduce displaced water volume from the cylinder body.  The reason for the density of water is that makes it neutrally buoyant.  These mythical properties keep the cylinder itself from contributing to the problem.

The cycle has to be acted upon one set of objects start to end.  We need to start in some state, do something and return to the original starting state.

If you want we can compare two machines one with and one without the piston and pump in air until each one rises against the stop.  If that is the proposal then I suggest further simplification of stipulating an infinitesimal clearance between the piston OD and the cylinder ID so that we only calculate "air" volume in the bubble above the piston.  An alternative is just to increase the diameter of the cylinder by a large multiplier while retaining the 0.38mm annular clearance so that the bubble volume above the piston is large compared to the portion of the bubble that is in the annular gap.

[Red_Sunset]

Just looking at my closeup screengrabs of the spring coupling, a consideration of the direction of the rotation wrt the spring's coils, and the shaft torque required to produce a couple of kW of power at 80 rpm......  This will tell you which unit is driving, and which unit is being driven. 

Tinsel, MarkE,
My point was, regardless of what is shown on a video (in todays world), it means Jack-Sh.. as any possible proof.
Everything hovers around a principle concept turned into a device. That knowledge is the key towards proof.
Not something you would be keen to admit, having the opposite denunciations plastered all over the thread.

That admission proof can also be seen in your fumbling your way back into the Wayne device, with pictures and all.   
Something must have clicked,    * Is it because you don't believe your own denunciations and you came to the realization that there is still a gem hidden in there you hadn't seen before ?

Good luck, I wish you find it.
Maybe Wayne 4xx ++ and my 4xx ++ posts weren't in vain.

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

Tinsel, MarkE,
My point was, regardless of what is shown on a video (in todays world), it means Jack-Sh.. as any possible proof.
Everything hovers around a principle concept turned into a device. That knowledge is the key towards proof.
Not something you would be keen to admit, having the opposite denunciations plastered all over the thread.

That admission proof can also be seen in your fumbling your way back into the Wayne device, with pictures and all.   
Something must have clicked,    * Is it because you don't believe your own denunciations and you came to the realization that there is still a gem hidden in there you hadn't seen before ?

Good luck, I wish you find it.
Maybe Wayne 4xx ++ and my 4xx ++ posts weren't in vain.

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset you posted the video link as support for your claims.  It didn't provide any support.  You can carry on as you have with back handed and/or direct insults.  If that's all you can come up with then so be it.  It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset you posted the video link as support for your claims.  It didn't provide any support.  You can carry on as you have with back handed and/or direct insults.  If that's all you can come up with then so be it.  It's a poor substitute for actual evidence. 

MarkE,
It is to our mutual benefit that we do no longer engage in communication,  we always appear to miss each others points.
I did not make any CLAIM, neither did I mention anything about support information.

The point was:
The Wayne skeptics have been demanding a video,  giving ZED working knowledge has been refused since it violates the conservation laws.

The reason for Wasif video was:
Here is a video with no other information, no working knowledge.

The conclusion
The Wasif video means less than nothing, because it provides nothing. It has no value without working knowledge.
The contradiction:  Although Wayne's skeptics think it is everything in the ZED case. 

It is immaterial if what was shown in the video is real or not, at this point it is an enigma
I hope you see the point
I do not want to discourage you with your current exploration of Wayne's piston but I hope you also see the point, that Yours & TKs current posts contradict your previous statements.

Red_Sunset