As far as I remember it was you and only you who insisted that the whipmag video was proof of OU. The creator of the video always denied your interpretation. But you didn't listen and stalked him instead with your conspiracy theories. And now you blame him for your self delusion.

Interesting that you don't refer to Al by name.


It wasn't only me. Desertphile also insisted very volubly that the WhipMag video was proof of OU.

Interesting that you don't refer to Al by name.


It wasn't only me. Desertphile also insisted very volubly that the WhipMag video was proof of OU.

Grimer, please take better care representing what is contained in references that you cite.  In the video that you linked that Desertphile character insisted that the video of the motor failed to prove over unity.

MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was.  I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.

For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1..  The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2..  The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.

We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate.  You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.

Red_Sunset

Travis never demonstrated any 'working principle'. His conclusions from the provided videos and demonstrations of the 'principle' are demonstrably false.
Neither did he ever produce a usable theoretical framework that could explain how it might work.

Initially I think he was deluded, but now he acts fraudulently.

MarkE,
This reflects bad on you, I am surprised that you state that after Wayne's 200+ pages, with full option to ask technical questions, you were not able to determine what the principle was.  I admit that Wayne didn't spoon feed.
Notwithstanding, just be careful with your word choices.

For any misunderstanding, there are 2 possible choices,
1..  The result of misdirection due to deceiving information presented (intentionally or not)
2..  The result of misinterpretation due to lack of knowledge or ability or effort to interpret the presented material correctly.

We should be happy that Renato Ribeiro does not join this forum, I would guess he would be Wayne's duplicate.  You can only guess at TinselKoala's reaction if this were to happen.

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset, I agree with you that just bantering:  "Yes it is." / "No it isn't" opinions is not productive.   I trust that you are amenable to reviewing facts.  Please allow me to address your disappointment:   In 2012, I asked HER several times to state what the "Travis Effect" is.  Each time I asked, they refused.  HER are the ones who claim that this "Travis Effect" exists and is responsible for what Wayne Travis calls "disruptive technology" that allows for free energy from their gravity / buoyancy machine.

I also note that HER promised Mark Dansie many times over the past several years that they would have a machine available for him to observe during a 48 hour run down test.  To this day they have never delivered on that promise.

Do you agree that in order for HER to have anything worthwhile that:

1. There must be a "Travis Effect" and
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to exploit non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field 

If you do, then please point me to any declaration by HER of what the "Travis Effect" supposedly is.  Once we have a statement of what they claim makes their free energy machine possible, then we can rationally address how to test if such an effect is possible.  Do you think that is fair?

Grimer, please take better care representing what is contained in references that you cite.  In the video that you linked that Desertphile character insisted that the video of the motor failed to prove over unity.

No. He insisted it was a Effing Fraud - (or words to that effect    )- because he realised full well that if it wasn't a fraud it proved overunity.

...
If you want to convince me of an extraordinary claim then you will need to come up with compelling evidence. 

I've no wish to convince you of anything, Mark.


As I said to Dr Blackman, before he began uncontrollably blubbing, 
"You're free to have your opinion Dr Blackman but you must let me have mine."

Questions.
1. There must be a "Travis Effect"
2. The "Travis Effect" must allow one to obtain non-conservative behavior from a gravitational field?

Answers.
The Travis Effect is a general grouping of characteristics that are instrumental to create an asymmetric behavior in the Hydro Piston/Lever,  that can be employed to milk the gravitational field.

I am sorry, but this opaque statement does not state anything specific. Please point me to where I may find a description of the "Travis Effect" by HER. Or alternatively, please state the specific characteristics that define it.

If you go back to the Wayne's data, you would see that his pressure vs lifting capacity data presented are non-linear. 
1..  More Kg per psi in the high end pressure range (Ascent).   
2..  More pressure per Kg in the lower end range (Descend) .

Since this is a hydro system, water movement impedes the cycle rate, therefore it is important to minimize the water volume that need to be shuffled around (one of the aquarium demo's).
The inverted multi-layer piston as an asymmetric hydraulic lever, is the key to that asymmetry.  The cycle is played out over the same travel distance  (key important fact to differentiate it from a simple lever)

Renato Ribeiro with the RAR "in principle" does the same thing.  Sure he approaches it from a different design angle and it is mechanical, but the "fine print principle", is the same concept.  I have still some reservations about Renato's implementation and I "feel" that he is marginal in the differentiation between up & down strokes.  But that is purely an engineering issue that needs to be overcome.

Some assumptions of comparison, the ZED vs the RAR System.
*     The RAR would be able to achieve more cycles/min than the ZED,
**   Zed would be able to master more energy per cycle due to the greater force ability. 
*** The RAR would have a larger foot print than the Zed for the same capacity

Red_Sunset

I reiterate that the aquarium demonstrations failed to demonstrate anything other than Archimedes' Principle.  I believe that it was the second video where Tom made the assertion that the demonstration had shown an avenue to gain energy by way of the so-called "Travis Effect".  The videos imply that the "Travis Effect" has something to do with the absolutely false notion that the amount of air underneath either cup had anything to do with the buoyant force exerted by the surrounding water which is in fact entirely defined as the equivalent weight of the displaced water. 

ETA:  Here is some food for thought.  A ways back in this thread, Grimer recounted his experience employing Archimedes' Principle to determine the volume of odd shaped samples.  Grimer and his coworkers measured the volume of their SG > 1 samples by suspending them submerged, in a volume of water.  They obtained the volume as the difference in weigh scale readings of the set-up with a submerged sample versus the reading with no sample and dividing that difference by the density of water.  What he did was completely valid.  Now, think about that with respect to any and all of the videos or any statements that HER have made.  Grimer's method relied on the absolute fact that the buoyant force is the equivalent weight of displaced water.  It did not matter that his samples had an SG > 1.  The buoyant force up on his samples transmitted through the container to the weigh scale below, identically increasing the reading by the equivalent weight of displaced water.

A cute experiment that you can try if you have a balance arm and a bucket is to hang matching weights on either side of the balance arm so that it is level with one weight hanging in the bucket while the bucket is empty.  Now gently add water to the bucket until the water is just short of the weight.  Note that the balance arm remains level.  Now add enough water to submerge the weight.  What happens to the balance arm?  Why?  See how much weight you need to add to rebalance the arm.