I told you that I might answer the question if you actually posed it so that it was comprehensible.  So who is the real troll I wonder?

This is where you fall flat on your face Wayne.  There is the nonsensical "selective memory" when the discussion is only 20 minutes old.  Likewise, you may be able to razzle-dazze a bunch of retired farmers and their wives out of their retirement savings with your ridiculous nonsensical "Wayne's vocabulary" but not me and not here.


MileHigh

Do you have proof that our system does not work or that anyone was cheated out of their retirement?
Or just more Trolling...
and as far as insulting my words.... get a life....
One more thing - you type a lot ..can you add an intellectual argument...
Thanks

Yet, it has been shown to completely conform to understood laws of physics.  The exceptional behavior that you thought you calculated was all a result of errors on your part.    Make a rock bigger or make a rock smaller and it is still a rock.

Yeah, you see that it conforms to standard physics! First admission ever - way to go MarkE!!
Just a correction again.....lol
We are Still not lifting rocks though? I do not think they are usually buoyant....
Here is a hint - buoyancy displaces Mass - while Rocks have mass.....
Rocks confirm to your statement..... Buoyancy does not - in some cases...
..................
The load on the real ZED system is Hydraulic - as we have shared ten thousand times....
The neutral buoyancy produced a hydraulic output (not a rock) when floated up...
You lock in the ROCK theory on your device - that is fine with me - The ZED on the other hand is a cool process...
Thanks

Hello Librea...
Good - narrow it down...
Transformed is not a requirement in energy and is not the only thing that you can do with energy - you can store it also.

That is a blatantly ignorant statement.  Do you know why?

Our displacement is stored one side - low pressure higher volume - higher pressure lower volume..according to boyles law.

Dufus:  Boyle's law applies to gases not liquids.

In a perfect world - two equal bodies of PV - can produce the other - with standard seal type losses.

Wrong.  Ask your pal Tom whether he pressure tests his SCUBA tanks by first filling them almost entirely with water, or just pumping them up with air.  If it's the latter, you don't want to be around when he does it.

So if you have 2cubic feet of air at 10 psi, or 10cubic feet at 2 psi - they are the same amount of energy.

PV=nRT.  They are only equal if the temperature is also the same for each.

Either one can produce the other - with the right matching conversion (pressure increaser  - or volume increaser.

"right" being the key operative term.  The potential energy must first be converted completely to kinetic, and then back to potential.

Moving those two Pv's between the two states would not be useful if they were in the same body of water - because the desired output from this movement is "water height from displacement."

That's pure bafflegab.  If you take energy from either store for output, you deplete your store.

Now - the point - How you "store energy" - makes the difference (NOT TRANSFORM).

If you do not transform from potential to kinetic then you suffer energy loss due to N*(X/N)².

The point - is that the Pv we transfer from one ZED and Back is not being transformed....It is a simple Boyles law transfer.

That's hilarious on multiple levels:  Incomrpessible liquids do not store energy.  You can shuffle as much hydraulic fluid as you like back and forth and the only work you will have done will have been due to the viscosity of the fluid.  Boyle's Law applies to compressible gases.  It does not apply to incompressible fluids. The available energy stores are the GPE and the compressed gas volumes.  Each time you compress and rarefy a gas volume you lose energy to heat.  Each time you equalize GPE between two volumes you also lose energy to heat.

Moving a float side ways - does little to effect the buoyant values... and does little to consume its energy.
Yet where the Pv is "present" and which form of Boyles is controlled - the effect of "displacement" in a mechanically designed system to take advantage --- water levels are raised - and the boat floats up... External work -

No dufus:  Lowering one internal weight to raise another internal weight does not produce external work.  One has to deliver work outside the system for that work to be external.

The input is the cost to transfer Pv Energy one PV body to the Other PV body.
Transfer - not transformed....

Because your processes are each individually lossy that "cost" in energy is real and non-zero.  And yet, oops:  No output work results.

and the anomaly in the ZED... being able to utilize the head "WITHOUT EXPANDING"

Ooh, ooh, ooh, is this a new "anomaly" claim?  What physical law requires that for something to "utilize head" IE respond to pressure, requires something "expanding"?  Does the pavement beneath your feet "expand" when you step upon it?

All of this would be mute - if we used the expansion to do work - MarkE knows this - which is why he refused to do anything but pop up our system....

This "pop up" junk that you and Tom cooked up is a hoot.  The Mondrasek "ideal ZED" performs as a compression spring.  In Mondrasek's new arrangement all compression is performed in the S1 to S2 transition, and relaxation occurs in the S2 to S3 transition.  Where Mondrasek would like the machine to cycle S1 => S2 => S3 => S1 the "spring" consists of two "springs" one of which he lets "fall out" in order to get back to S1.

p.s. Librea... The pop up energy - is also equal to the input - so if we did it that way - we would be transforming the energy.
Thanks

PS:  as has been shown over and over again:  No matter how ridiculous the dimensions or weak the power output of the machine the S2 <=> S3 cycle is fundamentally lossy even for the idealized machine.  Mondrasek's latest proposal to dump energy going from S3 => S1 only aggravates the losses.  What one ends up with is a big machine that can pass only a tiny amount of power and does so quite inefficiently.  The entire machine and all of its parts completely conform to well known physics.  The contraption is useless.

Yeah, you see that it conforms to standard physics! First admission over - way to go MarkE!!
Just a correction again.....lol
We are Still not lifting rocks though? I do not think they are usually buoyant....

The risers in your useless contraptions are no better than rocks.  Those who travel about in ferrocement boats might beg to differ.

Here is a hint - buoyancy displaces Mass - while Rocks have mass.....

Here is a hint:  You speak clueless nonsense.  Buoyancy does not displace.  Buoyancy exerts buoyant force.  The buoyant force results from displaced fluid weight.

Rocks confirm to your statement..... Buoyancy does not - in some cases...
..................
The load on the real ZED system is Hydraulic - as we have shared ten thousand times....

Why don't you point out where this hydraulic output comes out of your useless contraption and show what external work it performs?

The neutral buoyancy produced a hydraulic output (not a rock) when floated up...

Ah, it's morning and you are treating us to more of your meaningless bafflegab.

You lock in the ROCK theory on your device - that is fine with me - The ZED on the other hand is a cool process...
Thanks

The nested Russian dolls of ignorance  just do a bad job of emulating a compression spring.

Given you have only be able to demonstrate this device working for a short period of time it should be apparent to you that your apparent 'output' is merely the initial energy it contains (the pre-charge) winding down, perhaps assisted by the 'flow-assist' you speak about.  (I'm assuming by now you've tracked down the last of the leaks)...

I could remind you that you are making huge assumptions.... A better assumption might be that we were satisfied with the simple ZED system enough to move onto to optimizations.....
Might notice that fits better with the "facts" presented by visitors.....
Just saying ..... Trolls have tried to lead the discussion for one intent - to prove they are right.
Discounting all supporting facts is not very scientific.... just saying....
p.s. I built the ZED, to see if it worked..........and from the awesome knowledge of "how to" use physics as never realized before - we went gang busters lol.
If you actually look at the history without diversions - we are on an awesome frontier...
 

The question with assumptions that preceded this questions I corrected on the last post ..
Yet the rest of the question is correct - we do have to make up the mechanical losses between the transfer of pv  from side to side.....
The cool thing is this - the transfer cost is much cheaper than the External load - and as a added benefit - the two pv's equalize at not cost... so half the transfer "Could be" loss free -
I say could be - because we are dumping high pressure to low - the "Stupid weights" as MarkE called them on the transfer system were used  to correct that dump transfer by loading the system during the equalization and then benefiting from the load on the other side.
p.s. The water tube was much more effecting than the weights...
In conclusion - the actual cost to operate a ZED is mechanical loss in the transfer system - not consumption of the PV (which does not happen in the ZED).
Now - that cost is pretty low when the whole system is considered.

The cool thing is this:  You offer fantastical and completely false claims, but some people are dumb enough to believe them and give you money.  Now the trick is how to make your exit without retribution. 

The great news is that it is another beautiful day in southern NV.  Viva!  Las Vegas!

To MarkE, MH, Powercat, and TK.
You have proven to be nothing but Ego inflated Trolls.
I have given you precious time and you gamed it.........assumptions, diversions, lies, manipulation's threats and attempts at suppression....
I wish any of you four were at least half the man Mark D is; he has proven how a true skeptic, a professional, and an honorable man.

To the rest of you: If you have a valid technical questions - I would be glad to answer it.
I have four days left..
Thanks
Wayne