Webby, I have revised the drawing:
315mm depth instead of 300mm.
Added a stop 165mm above the bottom.
Massless and volumeless inverted cylinder with a density of water.  The reason for volumeless is so that we do not introduce displaced water volume from the cylinder body.  The reason for the density of water is that makes it neutrally buoyant.  These mythical properties keep the cylinder itself from contributing to the problem.

The cycle has to be acted upon one set of objects start to end.  We need to start in some state, do something and return to the original starting state.

If you want we can compare two machines one with and one without the piston and pump in air until each one rises against the stop.  If that is the proposal then I suggest further simplification of stipulating an infinitesimal clearance between the piston OD and the cylinder ID so that we only calculate "air" volume in the bubble above the piston.  An alternative is just to increase the diameter of the cylinder by a large multiplier while retaining the 0.38mm annular clearance so that the bubble volume above the piston is large compared to the portion of the bubble that is in the annular gap.

Tinsel, MarkE,
My point was, regardless of what is shown on a video (in todays world), it means Jack-Sh.. as any possible proof.
Everything hovers around a principle concept turned into a device. That knowledge is the key towards proof.
Not something you would be keen to admit, having the opposite denunciations plastered all over the thread.

That admission proof can also be seen in your fumbling your way back into the Wayne device, with pictures and all.   
Something must have clicked,    * Is it because you don't believe your own denunciations and you came to the realization that there is still a gem hidden in there you hadn't seen before ?

Good luck, I wish you find it.
Maybe Wayne 4xx ++ and my 4xx ++ posts weren't in vain.

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset you posted the video link as support for your claims.  It didn't provide any support.  You can carry on as you have with back handed and/or direct insults.  If that's all you can come up with then so be it.  It's a poor substitute for actual evidence.

@ markE

 i don't get your calculation.

 - displaced water volume B, why do you calculate upper side  ( 135 mm not 15 mm )
 - why displaced water volume is A + B  not A - B.

according to your pict, total of displaced water must less than displaced volume A.

webby, did i miss the point ?.

   Mark,
          In reply 962 is atmospheric pressure involved?
              Thank you,
                            John.

MarkE,
It is to our mutual benefit that we do no longer engage in communication,  we always appear to miss each others points.
I did not make any CLAIM, neither did I mention anything about support information.

You have indeed made many CLAIMS wrt Travis and his alleged devices. Just like Travis did, when the going gets tough for you, you want to stop communicating instead of supporting your CLAIMS with solid data, logical arguments, checkable outside references to valid sources, and repeatable demonstrations of your own.

The point was:
The Wayne skeptics have been demanding a video,  giving ZED working knowledge has been refused since it violates the conservation laws.

In the first place that is not a grammatical English sentence so I can only attempt to decode it.
In the second place you are, as usual, misrepresenting what is being said to you. What "the Wayne skeptics" have been demanding is NOT a video "giving Zed working knowledge". We have videos of a couple of Travis's devices "working" already, and we had the Flash animation that he has removed, after the name change and the lawsuit. What we are demanding is _data that supports the claims_ and that can be verified and repeated independently. That is, the usual stuff that anyone demands from anyone else with a radical claim. We would especially like to see, up close and personal, the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (Travis's own words). Yes, a video of that system, along with some data that supports the OU claim made for it, would be helpful. But why didn't Travis show this system to Mark Dansie on either of his site visits? Why haven't we ever seen anyone's report of this system? I know why, and so do you: it doesn't exist.

The reason for Wasif video was:
Here is a video with no other information, no working knowledge.

The conclusion
The Wasif video means less than nothing, because it provides nothing. It has no value without working knowledge.

On the contrary, the video provided sufficient information to determine that the device is faked, not doing what the claimant said it is doing. As usual the video revealed more than the (amateur) hoaxer wanted to reveal. The type and extent of the deformation of the SPRING SHAFT COUPLING clearly shows that the "generator" is driving the "magnet motor", not the other way around. Had the claimants not inadvertently provided close-ups of the spring in the two conditions, running and not running, we would not be certain, but the spring is, to my mind, a definite "tell" that blows Kahloon out of the water entirely. Like Mylow's fishing line drive, only even easier to see once you know what to look for.

The contradiction:  Although Wayne's skeptics think it is everything in the ZED case. 

Your strawman raises its head again. No contradiction. Any video is bound to reveal as well as to conceal. The videos we have of the Travis items in action reveal much that Travis didn't intend, and do indeed contain "tells", but they are not necessary and aren't what "Wayne's skeptics" really want, as discussed above.

It is immaterial if what was shown in the video is real or not, at this point it is an enigma
I hope you see the point

If you are talking about Kahloon's video.... whether his device is real or not is certainly NOT immaterial, and his videos are indeed very informative and are not "enigmas" at all. They clearly show, as I have explained, the "smoking gun" that proves his fakery, if not exactly how power is delivered to the system. But even without that there is still much information in those videos that raises doubt, and not much that makes one confident in the claims.

I do not want to discourage you with your current exploration of Wayne's piston but I hope you also see the point, that Yours & TKs current posts contradict your previous statements.

Red_Sunset

Or rather, your fake interpretations and misrepresentations of our posts do. 

Your tactics are so transparent, Red. 

   Mark,
          In reply 962 is atmospheric pressure involved?
              Thank you,
                            John.

Minnie, because everything is submerged in the local atmosphere, and we have stipulated no compressible materials, the local atmospheric pressure cancels out of any work.  For example air taken from just above the water to pump down is at 1 ATM, and the total pressure at the bottom of the tank is the weight per sq cm of the water plus 1 ATM.  So the work done pumping air down is still just the weight of the displaced water multiplied by the height of the water.