Red_Sunset, the gas is compressible.  The load changes.  Ergo the gas volume and / or pressure change.

MarkE,
Sure it is, but that has nothing to do with the price of potato's

Sorry Red_Sunset but if you want to know the change in energy in a compressed gas volume, you need to know both the starting and ending volumes and pressures.

The liquid and gas are pressurized together while the piston is held, when reaching the set aggregate pressure,

In other words you are doing work compressing a gas volume and again, you need to know the starting and ending pressures and volumes.

On each level,
 > The liquid is under its destined sub-pressure
 > The gas is under its destined sub-pressurre
 > The lift surfaces are under their destined sub-pressures and exerting full lift force.

At this pre-stroke point, nothing changes, it is a steady condition untill the stroke lock is released.
At that point, the input only needs to keep up with displacement.  Inflow is only into the POD area at stroke pressure.

Red_Sunset

It is our good fortune that you are intimately familiar with the construction and operation of the machine.  That means that you should be able to perform an energy analysis through one complete cycle of the machine.  Since you insist that you believe that the machine can produce surplus energy, it is reasonable to surmise you've already undertaken such an effort.  So, now assuming that your purported beliefs are correct, all you need to do is show your work and have it hold up to scrutiny and all will finally be able to see that HER's claims have merit.  I look forward to your analysis.

Red_Sunset, I am looking forward to your complete energy analysis over one cycle.

Sorry Red_Sunset but if you want to know the change in energy in a compressed gas volume, you need to know both the starting and ending volumes and pressures.In other words you are doing work compressing a gas volume and again, you need to know the starting and ending pressures and volumes..................................
......................................... 

MarkE,
The energy absorbed into the gas as a type of spring effect is not lost,  it is recycled.
So the gas volume quantity is not directly of importance except for design sizing and pre-provisioining
Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset are you pulling a brave Sir Robin of Camelot?  Going, going, ...

MarkE,
My advantage is that I know what I am talking about after diligent research. 
Most members contesting here, are doing this like you "off the cuff".  That puts you at a great disadvantage.

I see my effort here as providing a contribution to the community,  sharing what I think is worthwhile to share.
It doesn't matter really to me if you or others believe me or not.  The knowledge I proclaiming is not even my own. (sure, a productive response is always preferable)
 I would never respond to a complex mail without sleeping over it for at least one night.  One can appreciate a well though through question rather than wasting time with off the cuff mungo jumbo noise which is often missing the point and is disturbing.

It is clear to me that you didn't understand the process presented and therefore revert immediately to the standard conservation responses or looking for spelling mistakes so to speak. I know that still some parts are hidden, like how the switch from big to small lift area takes place. I know you can not visualize how this can happen.  It took me also quite some time to figure this out but it can be done.  I believe that is specific Inventive Property, and is not exactly mine to reveal, I respect Wayne and I wouldn't think about it otherwise. If he chooses so, he can.

At this point there is no purpose to go further until there is some common ground.
I didn't feel you made any contribution in that direction, sadly to say.
Hopefully others can.

Red_Sunset

Red,,

Taking a small amount of time and trying to explain things is all it takes to see if the person you are explaining things to is understanding what it is you are trying to explain.

MarkE,

Using the same old argument and pointing out the same old things means that you are only seeing the same old thing,, or more to the point that you do NOT see anything that is not normal.  Red myself and others see something that is not normal and that is why the communication breaks down.

In the first thread I posted a bunch of numbers from many lifts I made, some were good some were bad and some were just down right UGLY,, but there they are.

In all of those posts I kept trying to engage on the recovery,, the argument about the risers is VERY complex due to all the variables including that delay thing you mentioned, so I limited myself to looking at the lift for a close to unity value, which I had by the way, and then the recovery,, I do believe that the same pressure dropping down to 1\3 that pressure will provide at least 1\3 of the input back to the operator as per an accumulator,, that would be air over hydraulic.

This is what I put forward to you and this is what you did not speak to,, no problem, you are more than welcome to your opinion and it is not my job to convince you of anything.

In your analogy it would be closer if you used 3 terms, jack, accumulator and pressure (I was looking for the correct term to use and absent that) lever.  It has the attributes of all three of these devices and demonstrates them all at the same time using the same input.

And as a small note, I am one of a few people who have built and played with this device.

Webby did you:

Ever think that you broke even?
Identify any mechanism to realize non-conservative  behavior from gravity?
Ever get a machine to cycle until you forcibly stopped it?

The device as diagrammed in that document that Minnie led me to and according to your descriptions has:  a concentric compound hydraulic piston hampered by air pockets.  The piston ultimately pushes on a pool of water that holds a float.  So what we have are weights going up and down:  the water, the float, and the weight on top, air getting compressed, and a hydraulic force amplifier, IE the hydraulic equivalent of a lever.  There is nothing unusual about the individual components, nor has anyone shown any unusual, much less extraordinary behavior from the combination.  Red_Sunset has appealed that we use analogies of magic levers, or substitute force calculations for energy, or ignore integrals.  What no one has done has shown any mechanism that would allow for a cycle by cycle energy gain, nor have they demonstrated anything that even gives such an appearance.

Webby did you:
..................................................................
Ever think that you broke even?
Identify any mechanism to realize non-conservative  behavior from gravity?
Ever get a machine to cycle until you forcibly stopped it?

The device as diagrammed in that document that Minnie led me to and according to your descriptions has:  a concentric compound hydraulic piston hampered by air pockets.  The piston ultimately pushes on a pool of water that holds a float. So what we have are weights going up and down:  the water, the float, and the weight on top, air getting compressed, and a hydraulic force amplifier, IE the hydraulic equivalent of a lever.  There is nothing unusual about the individual components, nor has anyone shown any unusual, much less extraordinary behavior from the combination.  Red_Sunset has appealed that we use analogies of magic levers, or substitute force calculations for energy, or ignore integrals.  What no one has done has shown any mechanism that would allow for a cycle by cycle energy gain, nor have they demonstrated anything that even gives such an appearance.

Webby,
Do yourself a favor, this guy was/is leading you and me on,  for someone who had multiple standing arguments 2 yrs ago on PESN forum about the same device with the same half cooked arguments, would know very well what the physical hardware is all about.
Now he comes across as if has never seen the ZED
He was just told in one of the earlier posts today that a dual configuration is mandatory, now he is talking about standalone cycling for your single unit.  This is not the only occurrence I have noticed of this behavior.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think MarkE,
He is hard of hearing or his intentions are not who he pretends to be, don't waste your time, he is far from having genuine intentions
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Red_Sunset

Hey Red, you are out of control there. YOU cannot present any proof of your conjectures, whereas MarkE has all of physics standing behind him.

Furthermore..... if a single Zed is, say, 99 percent efficient, how can two of them connected together be more efficient? 0.99 x 0.99 = a little more than 0.98. The only way to get OU efficiency from one unit feeding its output to another identical unit and back again, is for one or both units to be clearly OU themselves.

Even furthermore..... why isn't Travis showing all the self-running prototypes he and his engineers have constructed over the last several years? Where are all these self-runners? Nowhere, that's where. I do believe that if YOU, Red, had anything like what Travis was claiming three years ago, you wouldn't be having lawsuit or investor problems. I certainly know I wouldn't.

The conclusion from all this weight of actual evidence is that Travis, and by extension YOU, Red..... are simply FOS.