Room for Free Energy and its Physics

[mrwayne]

Considering all three aspects of power, and wish to get the greatest "Efficiency" - then the physicist comes out - not the engineer.


It is clear that the Travis Effect uses less volume to cause the initial buoyant lift the load


Unlike standard buoyancy which must wait to reach the full volume required.... and then floats


It is clear to the Observer that the stroke distance determines the "Efficiency" difference.


Critical KEY:


The Cause of the efficiency difference is Linear to the concretes volumetric displacers  ratio to the Air.

[mrwayne]

A huge incorrect assumption is made when critics observe the work difference


In no place do I claim the "Efficiency" in the Travis effect by itself produces Free energy - That would be a violation
of the physics of a simple system.


The Travis effect demonstrates a more Ideal buoyant lift. See attached


Critical Key - if you are lifting with a 33% efficient lift - you need 67% more input to be at unity - or to make up for the
loss  and that is POOR designing.


Likely every buoyancy system that uses standard volume based buoyancy will fail for that simple reason.

[mrwayne]

So Ideal lift is a great start to designing a potential free energy device, but we are not there yet.


As Markus shared in his second video - adding a second system to recycle the air volume and a method to cause
that air volume - eliminates the horrible efficiency of most air compressors.


If you have not seen that video - here is the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y&lc=UgzZVZ2Yld1XqiS7BbB4AaABAg.9dnMD1elZwd9dnSPWu-6sX

[mrwayne]

What led to the discovery of the Travis Effect and its potential - while I was analyzing a failed bucket brigade system
- I realized that I was only utilizing the lift of buoyancy and not the other potentials - they were wasted:


1. wasting the compressed air - during vent to re-sink


2. wasted the opportunity to capture value from the raised water


3. and wasted down forces created when air displaces a fluid and water is raised


That's sucky engineering...but I had no idea I was overlooking the other potentials  - I was taught that the more simple
a system - the efficient - not I am seeing that adding way to capture lost opprtunity (potential) is a superior design.


On the course of designing with the intent of capturing more potential -  i posed the question - could the Potential
distribution ratio's be altered?


The Travis Effect was originally an attempt to alter the potential distribution caused when air displaces a fluid (and the
answer is Yes).


Side note: Squirrel


Some cool physics here - when you unlock what Archimedes stated about volume - he is literally saying - when submerged
- air causes some of the same effect as a physical mass does - air - becomes as a weight - but is not a weight.....
its a hole - a missing mass - cool stuff there...  its the reason that more than 5000 patents have been filed on buoyancy
systems - intuitive minds try to cope with the "Somethings missing in our understanding of buoyancy.. and that
missing knowledge - CHANGES EVERYTHING


So what is different between a Brick and a Hole in Water..... LOTS!


Two aspects we use in the system i am presenting here - A hole can be filled, and filling the hole can change the
distribution of potentials - and weight can be added inside the hole. 

[mrwayne]

Stroke length is critical to our ideal lift and our sink, the ratio of the inner displacer is critical - that relationship has
an optimization - moving away from that relationship reduces the work differential.


An unaware member here changed that relationship to eliminate the work differential and reloaded my file and then
claimed my system does not work - his mistake, troll, or what ever - since he left the file name the same - I deleted it.


Critical knowledge: If you want power out of the system - you can not do the same thing in both directions - and it
is not effective to use inefficient methods - as they eat away at the value of your differential work.


The Travis Effect provides both an Ieal lift - if stroked the proper distance


And the Travis Effect sinks at a lower cost directly proportional to the value of the displacer


Combining those two - the power out stroke is logically 50% of is value and the sink is logically the same 50%


That means - to keep the work out and work cost at its "greatest difference" - the stroke length must be 50% of the
pressure differential or head in "distance"


Critical knowledge: if your "head" is 24 inches inside your buoyancy -stroke is 50% or 12 inches.