Big try at gravity wheel

[powercat]

PowerCat,
You amaze me, I know you are avoiding your claims, but I remember.
Why can we not stick to some good old fashioned technical discussion to take the topic at hand,  forward ?

Yes, I know they say that my theory is flawed but they do not demonstrate why ? (just mentioning conservation is insufficient). When it comes to Wayne, I have never met him. It is not Wayne but the principle he tried to convey to you all that you all so nonchalantly rejected , that aligns me favorable towards him.

What give me control, I know the knowledge is based on sound principles, we also know that you can not assimilate a decent argument and the posts you threw this far at me, you were unable to make stick, that is why I became cocky.

<<"virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence",>>
The asymmetry proposal provide the conceptual understanding on how the invention accomplishes the gain at the end of the cycle.  It doesn't provide the means on how is done in the implementation. You need to accept that.

What evidence can be provided has been provided, that should be clear by now.  You must realize by now that you can not get it all, this has not been promised. If you can connect the dots..you are entitled to it. Then you deserve it.
Have you seen anywhere a question what follows similar lines to "What is the reason? or why do you think that?, or how did you come to that conclusion?." 
or do you see mostly accusations in 4 letter words like, deluded, you don't have anything, fraud, liar, cheat...ect

I don't see why it is so difficult for people to ask some decent questions of inquiry that are not preceded by an accusation

How would you rate the response made by MarkE following my "asymmetry proposal ",
1..  An inquiry to figure out more working details, trying to understand the proposal (finding the good, expanding on the idea)
2..  A judgement call on how to shoot down the proposal (finding the bad in the proposal, breaking it down)

My rating was a "#2" , what do you then expect to receive ?
A bad question usually receives  a bad answer.  You can not expect a good favorable reaction when you call 4 letter names before you "demand" an answer. I thought this was universally understood

You can be the judge..
Give me good counter argument based on due diligence, I don't give you much chance that you will be able to do that, or just surprise me so I can change my mind.

Red_Sunset

Wow look even more words from you, this time twisting things again, making out I owe you an explanation of theories and claims, you need to get it into your delusional head, that you are the one making the extravagant claim, that has never been seen in history before,  it is you the control freak that needs to come up with evidence that supports your claim.  There are now two threads that are full of your and Wayne Travis's propaganda for a device that doesn't work, they are numerous posts pointing out why it doesn't work, but yourself and Wayne choose to ignore them, so it is blindingly obvious that nothing will change your point of view.

[Red_Sunset]

I do believe on this one you have the test backwards,, that is the water on top of the float will make it sink by the added weight on the float and the loss of fluid from the outisde water, then putting the water from the top container back into the water will lighten the float and raise the water level. 

Webby,

That wasn't the only thing the ZED opposition had backwards today !
And I am sure, that will not be the last one either !  being their own worst enemies

Red_Sunset

[minnie]

  Hi Sunset,
               no way am I the opposition. Just give me a few crumbs of hope.
  Every bulletin Travis used to give contained the word validation, then he
  dropped using that word and a while later dropped his updates altogether.
    Usually with these claims, if it didn't  work more or less from the start it
  never did work
                     John.

[MarkE]

I see things are still going down in the usual direction,, that is sad,, it gets in the way of simple sharing.

It would be very helpful if you could find your measurement data.  If you can't, you can't.

The thing that I find to be a sort of paradox is long winded and not really on topic,, it is all to do with the way I choose to look at things.

The supposed paradox is ordinary well understood behavior.  Do you disagree with the explanation?  Do you not understand the explanation?

BAck to the question


The risers act as several things, several levers, all at the same time and they share the same parts.


Pressure can not be built up without a resistive force against the input pressure, in building this pressure the system must store that built up pressure, when more volume is stored then the container must expand to hold that stored volume at pressure.  Reduce the risers down to the single equivalent riser for lift and you loose the other components.

You are kind of all over the map here with multiple declarations from scattered directions.  If you really think that the scheme cannot be analyzed in a simplified form then so be it.

The risers, as a group, provide the resistance that is needed, with a little outside help.


Shifting the water provides the counter pressure to the input that allows pressure to build, the step down in pressure between risers allows for that resistive pressure to be compounded by the number of risers and the shift in water column, the shift in water column allows for the buoyant lift to materialize, the rising risers allows for more storage of input medium by expanding the storage volume of the device, the increased pressure allows for a hydraulic lift on top of the buoyant lift.

Here is the simple answer.


A jack will not provide any return of input unless some weight is left on the jack, the multiple riser system will return some input with no weight left on the risers.

You are again all over the map here.  The machine has a buoyant section in series with the hydraulic section.  By return of input, do you mean:  Force, fluid volume, work?

If I have a 20cm taller water column on the outside of the riser, how far do I have to let that fall to bring the riser down to zero lift?


Answer, 10cm.

Again you are all over the map here:  20cm taller than what?  You say "that fall": are you proposing a moveable column?

As silly as this may sound, you just raised the  ocean floor and lowered the ocean surface level all at the same time,, yes, this has a cost.

It sounds very silly as you are dancing from one premise to another by mere declaration.

[Red_Sunset]

  Hi Sunset,
               no way am I the opposition. Just give me a few crumbs of hope.
  Every bulletin Travis used to give contained the word validation, then he
  dropped using that word and a while later dropped his updates altogether.
    Usually with these claims, if it didn't  work more or less from the start it
  never did work
                     John. 

Hi John,

It is surprising and incredible how the "Travis" name triggers so much emotions.
In the end, I was trying to get a discussion going that tries to be completely separate from the name Wayne Travis and that slowly migrates to possibilities in over-unity scenario's,  an impossibility. 
One gets shot down before you leave the starting blocks by so called experts who are a arrogant and overbearing and have not mastered the Archimedes basics yet.
I better get back down to work on my new design, compact and powerful. No gravity on that one.

I am sure tending sheep is a more peaceful activity
Regards, Red_Sunset