Thanks for the drawing with numbers and stuff.

To communicate it is necessary to come to an understanding, you have your definitions, I get that, you have your methods, I get that, I have mine, I am trying to use yours but you are unwilling to try and use mine,,

I use definitions as they are commonly accepted in science and academia.  I do not invent "Mark definitions".  If you want to make up "Webby definitions" then the burden is on you to justify that your definitions are physically valid.  That's a LOT of work.  You are free to do that work.  You are also free to skip all that effort and simply use the commonly accepted definitions.  It's up to you.

Have you finished a complete analysis of a dual ZED?  You started making those statements with no due diligence,  only what you understand to be allowed and how you thought the ZED functioned.

You seem to suffer the misconception that it is up to me to prove that a combination of ordinary things behaves ordinarily.

Back on that note,, when I convert the filler into a pod, still using magic air, I have a change in required volume to go from start to buoyant lift, it is now down to 1\3  the total volume, and then 2\3 for lift, but the return is not the same, right now it looks like it will be a constant gradient down for the whole volume.  Is there something I should be careful of?  I am fine when things are all the same,, but this might not be.

You appear to be hung up on what I call the: "Miller Misconception" that air is responsible for buoyant force of any kind.  It is not.  For objects immersed in water, displaced water is responsible for buoyant force.

Actually TK your response is my point.

I have a tendency to describe things, describe what I am thinking or playing with, you and MarkE and all the other well educated and talented people "define" things.

Ahhh... but it's not "my" definition, webby. If I have seen further (than you), it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.   

(And by the way, it is a result of many many observations of how the real world behaves, codified by consistent analysis of those observations and never disproven; no counterexamples exist.)

May I suggest that you spend a little time working through the problems sets in this book here:

http://excelhonour.com/free-vector-mechanics-for-engineers-statics-and-dynamics-free-pdf-download-8th-edition/

One or two of us have already done so.   

(Just kidding but you might want to take a quick glance at that textbook, which has been used and is still in use in various editions for many years in engineering classrooms all over the world, to  train the folks that design the bridges you drive over, the cars you drive over them in, the airplanes you fly in when you get to the airport, and even the computer keyboard you are typing upon. )
 

Webby, the book in the link is
Statics and Dynamics, Vector Mechanics for Engineers, by Beer and Johnston.
There are many links where it may be examined in its various editions, and it even has several of its "own" websites where you can look at individual chapters and work through problem sets. Just google "beer and johnston" and you will find whatever tiny bits or complete copies of old editions you need.


http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073398136/information_center_view0/

The Beer/Johnston textbooks introduced significant pedagogical innovations into engineering mechanics teaching. The consistent, accurate problem-solving methodology gives your students the best opportunity to learn statics and dynamics. At the same time, the careful presentation of content, unmatched levels of accuracy, and attention to detail have made these texts the standard for excellence.

It is a classical fundamental textbook for engineers, usually given as a two semester course for advanced freshmen or sophomore engineering students. In various editions it has been in use for many years and is still used today, in engineering schools and universities all over the planet. It is a formidable textbook and contains many problems sets and solutions. Calculus is an absolute prerequisite for success with the courses using that textbook. It contains analyses of just about any and every mechanical system you can think of, broken down into the component parts.

I give it as an illustration of the kinds of problems and the problem solving methods that even "baby" engineers have to be able to deal with. Take a look, and then re-evaluate the credibility of some of the claims and problem solving methods we have seen that Travis's employees are apparently using.

(The full text of the combined Statics and Dynamics version is over 1300 pages long.)


(Sorry about the many edits....       )

Why Mark is donating his time, knowledge and engineering expertise to Travis's operation is puzzling me a bit, I must say, but I'm glad he's doing it.

I like to call it HBO.  Help a Brother Out.  People do it all the time.  What, you wouldn't hold a door open for someone who has their hands full?  Of course you would.  And you do.  And it is greatly appreciated when you do.  When you don't, and you can, then you are just being kind of an asshat, right?

That would be the case when he helps _you_ out, and perhaps to a lesser degree Webby. But when he "helps" LarryC out, he is working for Travis for free, and that ain't right, IMHO, but if he wants to do it that is of course up to him. I just think he should be justly compensated for it. After all.... look at what Travis gave Webby, and for what.

There is help and there is help.  If one wants to unwind a story, sometimes there is no substitute for legwork.  If anything, all I have done is to give these guys a taste of what an expert witness could do to them if they get sued or prosecuted.  There was talk of a lawsuit at one time.  I don't know if they have resolved that with a settlement or not.  If there is value to them in what I have done it is not towards realizing a working machine, since that is impossible.  It may be in recognizing how readily an expert can show their claims as so ridiculously false that there is no credible ignorance defense.  Nor is there any viable obfuscation defense.  A good expert will simply cut through all the hand waving and reduce the problem for the trier of facts to Wayne Travis'/HER/Zydro's false claims of getting free energy from lifting and dropping "rocks".

The astute observer will note a few things:

LarryC's spreadsheet shows under unity for the ZED.
LarryC's spreadsheet does not integrate F*ds.  Nor does it even attempt to do that.
LarryC's spreadsheet calculates the input energy as essentially two linear quantities: 
Half water density times ( Pod water height change from start to ready to start times the sum of pod and riser annular ring volumes at the start and ready to start values ) And
Half water density times ( Pod water height change from ready to start and end time the sum of pod and riser heights  at the ready to start and end values multiplied by the pod chamber area)

In other words the spreadsheet asserts that input energy is:  an average pressure value calculated across multiple column volumes multiplied by a change in height.  This does not reflect proper integration and yields dubious values, much as LarryC obtained when he was initially so thrilled with his erroneous evaluation of the 0+3+3 versus 1+2+4 example.  LarryC thought that he was somehow getting something for free in that example, when nothing of the kind was true, as shown when the correct math was applied as corresponded to the actual physical circumstances. 

A couple of interesting things to me about all of this are:  Wayne Travis insists that LarryC knows all about the supposed magic free energy technology, and LarryC insists that he is abundantly qualified to analyze these sorts of machines as he says others are whom he works with at HER / Zydro.  So, why is it that the work is fundamentally flawed?  Why does it remain fundamentally flawed after the major problems have been pointed out multiple times?  Everyone makes mistakes.  Competent people recognize and correct mistakes especially when they have been pointed-out.  So, is this a problem where no one at HER/Zydro knows how to calculate energy?  Or is it a problem where no one at HER/Zydro wants to calculate energy in their alleged free energy generating system?

MarkE,

Yep,, now the vertical weight does not offer enough resistance to the horizontal weight so gravity can and does accelerate the system,, so the momentum is the storage of the non-resisted force from gravity interacting with the weight.  As I said, I can get it to stop after 45 degrees of rotation,, but I use another lever and weight to balance those forces and end up with a VERY slow rotation.

No that doesn't work.  If you think it does, build a scale model.

I called these play toys my "balancing levers",, I used gears in them as well, many different variations.

Now, on the end of the I\O port for the system, attach a pneumatic ram.  Now take that ram and use something as simple as a cam gear, ala TK's pic in the other thread.

At this point, everyone else can see that the volume ratio can be changed readily, it can be changed to the point where the resistance from the low pressure cylinder can match the available force from the high pressure cylinder.

It seems that you still do not comprehend the physics.  A pendulum can swing end to end (ideal case), just as a resonant circuit can swing voltage end to end and current end to end (also ideal case) because in each the energy is completely transformed from one form to another and then back.  That is the necessary trick.  Arms, levers and gears won't do that for you.  They don't transform energy into another form, they translate potential energy.

This change, the one by using an external device, breaks the special condition that your argument is based on.

This is in no way a "gain", it is a reduction in loss.  This only allows for the usage of the stored potential within the cylinder in an effective fashion.

You have yet to describe any viable means for reducing the loss.

This in no way violates CoE.

Of course it doesn't.  It's lossy, just like the ZED is lossy.  The best dual cylinder scheme is no dual cylinder scheme just as the best ZED is no ZED at all.

This abides by the laws of levers,, or whatever you actually call it.

"The laws of levers?"  Are you serious?

There are many ways of setting this external device up, depends on what is actually wanted and or needed, so a cam gear, a series of stepped pistons,, many variations.  A lot of these variations are used in the real world, the lifters in a car engine, hydraulic suspensions,, some ant-lock brake systems,, even the jaws of life,, a piston on a lever,, who would of figured.

You are simply demonstrating that you do not get the physics.  As long as the energy is stored as potential, which is all that:  levers, pistons, gears, pulleys, springs etc can do for you then you are stuck with the losses I have shown.  So instead of these combinations of cylinders creating some window to cheat gravity, they just lose energy to heat.  You can make the machinery more and more complicated and never do better than never having the second cylinder in the first place.  And if you don't do something to convert the energy from potential energy into another form and back, you are stuck with the huge losses I have shown. 

No, it's a overcomplicated and very inefficient version of this:

Thank you, that cheered me up considerably.