Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

Red_Sunset you can repeat your false assertions that anyone has managed to coax non-conservative behavior from gravity all you want.  Each time anyone has asked you for evidence you have come back with empty hands.  Ditto any and all other HER supporters and Wayne Travis himself.  You or anyone else who would like to rehabilitate this situation for HER are welcome to offer actual evidence anytime that you like. 

You offer a unique point of view when you suggest that you will be performing reality checks when it is you who continue to make fantastical claims without evidence.  I suggest that you cure your own fantastical claims first.

[MarkE]

Webby here is a picture to go along with what I believe are the conditions we have set. 

When the cylinder is initially at rest over the piston, we place a 2.22gm SG = 10.0  payload weight on top of the cylinder.  That mass has an underwater weight of 2gms.
Then we pump 2cc of "air" into the cylinder from the bottom.  This makes the whole assembly neutrally buoyant, because we specified the cylinder as massless and volumeless with an SG of 1.0.
In order to get the assembly to rise we pump in another 0.1cc of air.  The assembly rises to the stop.
We collect the work done by removing the raised weight.
Then by unspecified means, we reclaim the energy that is in the "air" bubble now trapped under the top of the cylinder.  That energy is the weight of water displaced by the bubble: 2.1gms multiplied by the average distance that the bubble travels back to the surface:  171mm, multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

When we add up the energy that we put in: displacing 2.1gms of water at a depth of 315mm versus the energy we get out and reclaim:  2gms payload lifted 15mm, and 2.1gms of water lifted 171mm we get less than 60% out versus what we put into the cycle.  The problem is that we pay that 315mm depth but only get to reclaim an average of 171mm plus the payload movement of 15mm.

You might want a word of explanation of why I picked a 2.22gm payload.   The payload had to be small enough so that the assembly would become neutrally buoyant before the annular ring fills.  If the payload were heavier, then the cylinder would never rise and a bubble would never form between the top of the piston and the inside of the top of the cylinder.  If these results surprise you, especially in light of Video #5, remember that we are starting without any displaced water and complete a full cycle whereas Video #5 begins by displacing water and does not execute a complete cycle.  Video #5 like the other four is misdirection.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset you can repeat your false assertions that anyone has managed to coax non-conservative behavior from gravity all you want.  Each time anyone has asked you for evidence you have come back with empty hands.  Ditto any and all other HER supporters and Wayne Travis himself.  You or anyone else who would like to rehabilitate this situation for HER are welcome to offer actual evidence anytime that you like. 

You offer a unique point of view when you suggest that you will be performing reality checks when it is you who continue to make fantastical claims without evidence.  I suggest that you cure your own fantastical claims first.

MarkE,   
I made a modification to my mail, in order to make it more precise,
You are doing good with your test process, this is the best way to prove it for yourself,  so you can believe what Wayne demonstrated and in this way it will be indisputable.
I never claimed to have physical data, only a theoretical understanding that matches the process and flow of Wayne physical data
Wayne neither me, claimed to coax gravity into a non-conservation.   You have forgotten the "MAGICAL LEVER" that can change its lift parameters at low cost and therefore would respond differently to gravity.  Gravity stays unchanged and is not interfered with.
It is advisable to wait until you have finished your due diligence before you make unfounded statements

Red_Sunset

MarkE,

A perfect faultless explanation of buoyancy !   the previous demonstrations, protests, and various hand waving were not DISPUTING  anything you said as incorrect, it was incomplete for not being the whole possible story.
But it nevertheless is an other angle of approach to analyze the process and it should lead to the same conclusions, except the view might not be as intuitive as provided using area and pressure with height displacement.

That Red_Sunset, Tom Miller, Wayne Travis, coax gravity into a non-conservative behavior is a misnomer !  That reveals a lack of understanding.  If seen indirectly, yes this could be understood that way, but if looking closely into the process flow, this is definitely not what happens. The device responds to the natural gravitation as expected according to the condition the device is in without abnormality.

Lets stay within the boundaries of reality.
Red_Sunset 

[minnie]

     Sunset,
                have you witnessed a buoyancy/gravity device working?


      If no, do you know someone who has?


      If no to both above, have you got conclusive documentary evidence to
      prove your case?


      Yes/no answers perfectly acceptable.........but honesty a must.
                                  John.

[minnie]

 
      Sunset,
                 have you witnessed a gravity/buoyancy machine working?


     If no, do you know someone who has?


     If no to both above, have you got documentary evidence to prove your case?


     Yes/no answers perfectly acceptable.......honesty a must!
                     John