Hey, if I "imagine" frictionless or negative friction bearings, my magnet motors would run forever, too. But we aren't talking about imaginary, cost-less processes here, are we?

Every time you compress something and then return it to the starting pressure, you LOSE energy due to radiated heat. This energy must be replaced just to break even. Every time you transfer something through a pipe, you LOSE energy due to viscous friction, eventually radiated away as heat. This energy must be replaced just to break even. Every time you "precharge" something, and this precharge is then distributed through the system, you must supply energy to RESTORE the system back to its starting state, with all the precharge back where it started from. This energy needs to come from somewhere, and Travis Himself says you don't need another Zed to do it, or all those layers. "A simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself"... remember? His exact words, talking about something real, tangible, he actually claimed to have years ago. SO why aren't we analyzing THAT very system? I know why... and so do you.

So not only do you have to show some stage in the process where energy _increases_ somehow, you also have to show that the increase in energy is sufficient to overcome the _real world losses_ that are inevitable... no matter whose "physics, simple and clear" you use. Unless you are using the Wizard of Oz's physics, that is. Follow the yellow brick road, all the way to Travis's bank, for the "real" secret of the Zed.

If you look at the drawings for the walk through and draw 2 lines, one comes from the top of the filler for the start condition side and goes across the sate 2 side and the other comes from the bottom of the state 2 cylinder where the air column should stop, and comes back across the stat condition cylinder.

I am sure that either MarkE or TK know off the top of there heads what formula or law or whatever states this,, but you can move the stored potential from the state 2 side over to the start condition side free of charge.

If need be imagine sealing and cutting the cylinders and filler on those lines,, you can move them anywhere laterally with no cost.

For a buoyant lift the cost is in building the "float" so when you look at this free shift, you can see that 90 percent of the cost in building the "float" is paid for by the previous "float",, that potential is recovered and recycled.

Webby for about the twentieth time: hand waving is no substitute for performing an energy balance.  You can go about things like Mondrasek is by defining geometry and then the steps in a a complete cycle.  Carefully evaluate the energy that it takes to get from one step to another and then tally it all up and see where you get.

I will point out to you as I have before that when one takes those two columns with one "fully charged", IE in the up position with all water displaced out from under the cylinder, and then equalizes the pressure with the second column initially filled with water and held in the down position that for your geometries:  nearly half of the stored energy is lost to heat during the pressure equalization.  That energy will have to be restored to complete a cycle.  For geometries similar to yours that lost energy is about twice the energy you can extract lifting the weight.  IOW you are already down to a best case efficiency of only about 50% just by equalizing the pressures.

  Hi,
      mrwayne is naive in the extreme when it comes to the real world.Last week I was
   using a 15kw water pump to flush my sewage treatment plant  and the volume of
   water it was shifting was quite amazing. There's no way you could get a flow like
   that through a see- sawing ZED unless it was gigantic and even then there would
   be massive problems with inertia if you tried for many cycles per minute.
      To get a bit of an idea about flow and pressure I was talking to my brother
   yesterday, he does pipelines, and he said that some of the 120cm mains run at
   a staggering 85 bar.
      I believe that if you could get a ZED to work, by some means, you'd end up with
   a 30 ton phone charger.
                                         John

Moving weights around is one of the least energy dense way that one can store energy.  An ordinary AA alkaline battery holds about 3.4Wh energy, or roughly 12kJ.  In order to get the same energy lifting weights, one has to lift ~1200kg * m  or ~8900lb * ft.  An iPhone battery requires about 14,000 lb*ft raised weight equivalent per full charge.

Wasn't the demonstration to be for 48 hours?
20kW = 2,040kg*m/s.
20kW * 3600s/h * 48h = 3.46GJ.
Total net mass*distance that would have to be lifted in that time:  353E6 kg*m.

At 20kW if the machine teetered and tottered by one meter each way every 10s, then:  the net mass that would have to be dropped each cycle would be 10,000kg.

About two years ago I repeatedly asked Mr. Wayne what the power output from his system demoed in his clips was.  I also repeatedly asked him what form the power output took.  He repeatedly ignored me.  It's ridiculous, here you have a dude claiming that he has a free energy machine and he is unable or refuses to state what the power output is!  I don't think a single participant in the thread at that time backed me up.

Mr. Wayne often talked in terms of "excess fluid ounces" per cycle, which was meaningless.

Then you have the case of Webby struggling to understand what is going on in a discussion with MarkE.  It's a continuous struggle to get him to understand that you have to talk about energy per cycle and not pressure, etc.  Roll back the clock two years and Webby makes a Tupperware nested Russian Doll experiment that proves nothing.  What does Mr. Wayne do?  He congratulates Webby on his "success" and throws two thousand dollars at him.

Why did Mr. Wayne do it when Webby accomplished nothing?  What was in Mr. Wayne's interest?  My best guess is so that he could use the event as part of his pitch:  "Yes Mr. Investor, I was working with a researcher on an Internet forum and he proved my concept and he won an award of $2000 for replicating the effect."  So the whole thing was possibly just a farce, a free money give-away so that Mr. Brain could claim that Tupperware Russian Dolls are the real thing to gullible investors with real money.  It was a small investment that he could leverage by telling the same story over and over until he hit the right person that took out his check book and signed away some money.

Then Mr. Brain comes back today and tries to pretend that some very smart people "don't get it" which is just a cheap attempt at sending out a subliminal signal that the thing really works.  In other words, the same MO as Red_Sunset.  Brainwashing for Dummies in soft cover for mushy brains.

Then we have the "sermon from the mount" deliverd by Brother Wayne.  You can't possibly doubt that it's real if you get that quasi religious buzz all in the name of the Almighty Dollar, can you?

Hopefully, if any susceptible investors are reading this thread, they will "come back to the light of reason" and see things how they really are.  Things are not pretty and Mr. Wayne's Brain will never ever deliver a working system, you can be sure of that.

MileHigh

TBZED, simple, crude and interesting.  It showed that the lift from lift ready to end of lift took less in than what I took out, it showed that after that lift there was potential stored within the system, enough that on an easy setup I could get 1\2 the input water back after dropping the reservoir 1\2 the distance it was raised.

Is there an analysis that shows energy balance over a full cycle?  This is a yes or no question.  If there is, then show the analysis and see if it holds up.

Excuse me for a minute here, but with that I am calling BS.  The big objections to heat losses and frictional losses blah blah blah,, where were they in TBZED?

Then look at MarkE and his free flow only argument,, like I did not actually cover that one all ready,,

You have never presented a complete cycle to evaluate.  I have shown that at least one part of the cycle: the pressure equalization phase, is very lossy.  Do you dispute that?  I've posted the picture and the calculations.  If you believe that I have made a mistake, please feel free to show how you get different results.

TK and imagine,, except the picture it creates does tell the story, and that story does not sit well with TK's argument.

Should be simple to test for.

Can you take a buoyant item after some distance of lift and transfer the air into another item at a lower depth for less cost than filling the item from the surface.

Is it cost effective to have 90 percent of the cost of making that buoyant item prepaid by the buoyant item before it.

Can you recycled potential that has not been destroyed or given away.

Anyone care to come up with more or better tests?

Yes, conduct a complete cycle.  You can do it with your two cylinder arrangement.  Perform a complete cycle energy balance.  See where you end up.

Why do you keep avoiding the issue?

 If your claims and "measurements" are correct you should be able _easily_  to put together a "self runner" or at least some demonstration that you get more _work_ out than you put in. Why don't you do that simple thing? Here's a hint: Travis has a "simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself." Why don't you show that system producing its "clear overunity by itself"?

I know why, and so do you. In spite of your large monetary award from Travis... you are all out of tennis ball packaging tubes.