Re the Wayne Travis device.

1. Over all, the verbal descriptions given in the videos are lacking in detail.

2. The device is being configured differently in some of the videos than it was
configured in other videos, without full description be given of those changes.

3. If the air output tube is connected directly to a tube passing through the concrete
filler, this raises the height at which the air in that container is exiting the tube.
This would cause that vessel to fill with air more rapidly than the other vessel.

My vote is that its a bogus device.

Build one and test it for your self then show us.

There are over unity devices and methods that work.

However, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Willy Firstly, you can call me Nix as it is my actual nickname as clearly written

I know well there are (many) overunity devices and methods that work
and i spoke about many of them in my threads below, as for burden of proof
no one wants to prove you anything, realize that, instead be grateful inventors
share their worthy efforts with the world.

https://overunity.com/18619/another-lenzless-idea/
https://overunity.com/18391/two-kinds-of-induction-henry/msg541681
https://overunity.com/18272/kunel-device/
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/
https://overunity.com/19090/just-another-don-smith-thread/
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/
https://overunity.com/18848/plausons-converter/
https://overunity.com/18592/few-general-formulas
https://overunity.com/19384/mechanical-resonant-oscillation-as-basic-overunity-method/

Now, you 'expound' on few absolute physics basics i believe every first grader knows
and you turn these absolutely basic things into long paragraphs as if you are talking quantum physics

Realize, i am am in depth student of physics for many years on a level that is far above the level
you represent.

Some of it is summarized in my formulas https://justpaste.it/c5avk
And about some of it i speak on my blog https://vril12.wordpress.com/

With that said, i know perfectly well water is almost incompressible and that air is much easier to compress than water and that balloon is less buoyant at ten feet cause it shrinks and becomes denser than it is when near the surface of the water just like in vacuum it expands, and that buoyancy is caused by the difference in density of that object and the fluid (does not have to be fluid) it is immersed within. And that density is the relationship of an objects volume to its weight aka "The mass per unit of volume of a substance under specified conditions of pressure and temperature". And that denser matter sinks in a medium of less dense matter lol, you repeat yourself, and that steel floats in liquid mercury and that mercury has a higher density than steel. And that balloon's volume shrinks when it is submerged below water and its weight remains unchanged but it's more dense due to higher pressure.... ALL these are absolute basics and it is funny you write it all as if all this is not perfectly understood by any first-grader, and you even add to be continued as if more "relevations" to come lol.

Understand, the mere fact, and you said it yourself but you don't get it, that air is pumped below the cups at same depth, SAME PRESSURE, and the fact it takes only few bubbles to make the right weight buoyant and it takes many more bubbles to make the left weight buoyant alone proves right one with a spacer is far more efficient. This by itself does not necessarily mean it is overunity, but Travis has proved it is so, by looping it, now, that you don't believe him is your problem only. You will learn that you are wrong.

Nix

Not caustic one bit, just stating facts. You did expound on basic physics principles of density and
buoyancy as if you are making some big revelation.

Then you caustically put basics and empirical experimentation/replication in one basket, two different things.

Of course these basics are beneath me, there is nothing in what you wrote a firstgrader does not know. And i don't mind you posting here, i just don't like you making claims it's not overunity
when you did not even test it.

As for empirical experimentation/replication of this principle, i said i did not and will not replicate
this one, maybe i will for fun some day surely not to prove anything to you.

Point is, as stated before, that this method of generating buoyancy is clearly proven as highly
efficient. As for overunity, i believe Travis he did loop it in 2010. as he says. It is rediculous to
think he would go to such length and invest so much money and time if it was not overunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqbJWBtoFMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y

pressure = force / area (means small amount of water in narrow high tube can explode a barrel below)

I will say again, Travis' system, altho overunity, is absurdly bulky, overcomplicated, pretty much horrible. But still, i have no doubt it is overunity.


Nix

I know, but it's been dead for years.

Nix

I have read this entire topic and in fact I also studied the first design presented.

Didn't you under stand that each time one of the floats moves into the top tank,
it is because an amount of water which is equal to the weight of the float has been
transferred to the bottom tank.

The energy expended in filling the top tank with water, is all that can be gotten out of
that method or device. 

One could accomplish the same thing by filling a bucket while it is at the top tank height
and then lowering that bucket by a line through a pulley so that the float attached to the
other end of the line is raised by the bucket of water falling.

https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/msg554971/#msg554971