Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED  (Read 703229 times)

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2100 on: April 14, 2014, 01:28:29 PM »
Correct, 'Reuse' does not create or destroy energy, as energy can only be transformed from one form to another (First law applies).

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.
Our displacement is stored one side - low pressure higher volume - higher pressure lower volume..according to boyles law.
In a perfect world - two equal bodies of PV - can produce the other - with standard seal type losses.
So if you have 2cubic feet of air at 10 psi, or 10cubic feet at 2 psi - they are the same amount of energy.
Either one can produce the other - with the right matching conversion (pressure increaser  - or volume increaser.
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."
Now - the point - How you "store energy" - makes the difference (NOT TRANSFORM).
The point - is that the Pv we transfer from one ZED and Back is not being transformed....It is a simple Boyles law transfer.
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 -
The input is the cost to transfer Pv Energy one PV body to the Other PV body.
Transfer - not transformed....
and the anomaly in the ZED... being able to utilize the head "WITHOUT EXPANDING"
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....
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

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2101 on: April 14, 2014, 01:29:39 PM »
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

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2102 on: April 14, 2014, 01:41:03 PM »
Posting before breakfast again, honest Wayne Travis? (For our international readers, it is just after 6:30 AM, Monday Morning, as I post this.)

My goodness. It's nice to know that arguing with insignificant internet trolls is more important to you than just about everything else, honest Wayne Travis. Why don't you just WIN the argument once and for all, by showing what you claim to have?

I know why, and so do you, and so does everybody else, even LarryC and Webby. You cannot, so you continue to attempt to deflect the issue by demanding something you have no right nor logical standing to demand. IT IS NOT UP TO US TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS. They are BY DEFAULT WRONG, until YOU, as CLAIMANT, produce evidence to the contrary.... and after all these years and words from you, you have not done so, and in fact get further and further away from doing so with every Monday Morning Before Breakfast post you make.

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2103 on: April 14, 2014, 01:44:53 PM »
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

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2104 on: April 14, 2014, 01:49:01 PM »

However you cannot 'have your cake and eat it too'... If the system is powering an EXTERNAL load , then by definition that energy is LEAVING the system. Once it has left, it is not available to the system again. (unless the system replenishes it somehow.)

I think I covered this - but to be fair - Our input process - the pV Transfer - is not consumed - so the argument about the Cake is not Valid...
The Pv to Pv transfer is pretty simple.... the real question should be - how does lift occur without consuming the pV....
Thanks

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2105 on: April 14, 2014, 02:14:15 PM »
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?
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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?
Quote

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.
Quote

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.

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2106 on: April 14, 2014, 02:18:29 PM »
Consider a spring. A 'perfect' spring will alternate between stored potential and kinetic energy and would oscillate between the those states forever. However if you were to capture the kinetic energy of the oscillation and divert it to an external load then the amount of energy inside the system would diminish.

Our system works the opposite of a spring - which is why we get lift without consuming the Pv in transfer......
Our ZED gets taller as the Pv heads (in series) - adjust for the energy storage - and the production occurs externally to keep the energy inside the system.
Since the spring analogy jumps a transfer process - lets cover it now.
The PV input into a ZED gets stored as HEAD pressure and volume. The more the Head to be stored - the taller the series of Head columns.
Head columns in series are far more efficient that a single column - because of the exponential increase and reduction in both time and volume to reach pressure.
The ZED is preloaded with External resistance (hydraulic) - when that point is reached (to over come the resistance) the system has only one choice - expand.
A spring on the other hand - gets shorter until the load is over come and then travels with the load...
If you compressed a spring and it lifted the load while compressing to match the load now that is a horse of a different color..........
Wayne

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2107 on: April 14, 2014, 02:24:00 PM »
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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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?
Quote

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.
Quote

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.

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2108 on: April 14, 2014, 02:31:45 PM »

So, what is the process that is replenishing the potential in a Zed as it oscillates back and forth? You cannot count any part of the oscillation energy as output as you are mistakenly doing.

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.

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2109 on: April 14, 2014, 02:38:24 PM »

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...

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2110 on: April 14, 2014, 02:38:40 PM »
Our system works the opposite of a spring - which is why we get lift without consuming the Pv in transfer......
No it does't Mr. Fraud.  Push down on the risers, and the weight of the displaced water and compressed air pushes them back against your effort.   That's what springs do:  exert force against the direction of motion.  Maybe you and your brain trust should brush up by getting a high school kid to tutor your team on basic mechanics.
Quote

Our ZED gets taller as the Pv heads (in series) - adjust for the energy storage - and the production occurs externally to keep the energy inside the system.
It's another early morning bafflegab treat!
Quote

Since the spring analogy jumps a transfer process - lets cover it now.
"jumps a transfer process" LOL.
Quote

The PV input into a ZED gets stored as HEAD pressure and volume. The more the Head to be stored - the taller the series of Head columns.
It's truly remarkable how hard you work to avoid describing energy input and energy output in your alleged free energy machine.  How much energy do you think 10cc of hydraulic fluid under 10 BAR has?  How much do you think 100cc of hydraulic fluid under 100 BAR has?
Quote

Head columns in series are far more efficient that a single column - because of the exponential increase and reduction in both time and volume to reach pressure.
LOL, the only thing that is "exponential" is your chutzpah.  The nested Russian dolls of ignorance simply apply Archimedes' Paradox.  Every dry dock in the world also applies the same principle.  It is not new.  It does not yield surplus energy.
Quote

The ZED is preloaded with External resistance (hydraulic) - when that point is reached (to over come the resistance) the system has only one choice - expand.
A spring on the other hand - gets shorter until the load is over come and then travels with the load...
Such ignorance:  A compression spring expands towards its relaxed, IE zero energy state.  A ZED expands ... wait for it ... towards its relaxed, IE zero energy state.
Quote

If you compressed a spring and it lifted the load while compressing to match the load now that is a horse of a different color..........
Wayne

You have just demonstrated that the ZED does in fact emulate (poorly) a compression spring.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2111 on: April 14, 2014, 02:42:03 PM »
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!

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2112 on: April 14, 2014, 02:49:17 PM »
You are completely fooling yourself here.  The amount of energy put in to the system is not somehow magically multiplied by the geometry of the masses ,  boat or container.  If you think otherwise then you are absolutely mistaken.

Some geometries may amplify the FORCES involved but the distances those forces can act over is correspondingly reduced as it is simply a lever)

Now, it is true that the layered ZED system when considering forces only does give rise to a 'non linear' lever.

However when considering ENERGY this no longer applies. As the effective leverage of the system changes so to does the distance over which those forces can act change.

Energy is still conserved and no amount of manipulation of the geometry will change that.

I do not have time to follow all your ideas, but I do not think the ZED creates energy?? So I do not know you point?
"but this comment:
"Some geometries may amplify the FORCES involved but the distances those forces can act over is correspondingly reduced as it is simply a lever)"
Is incorrect....
The corresponding reduction does not match a lever.
A lever in simple terms trades mass for distance - a small load can lift a large load but the small load has to travel further at a higher speed.......
In the ZED, the serpentine effect in the layers each reduce the distance the lighter load must travel.
That is KEY to understand..... and why we originally called it a folded liquid lever system.
...............
As an example we move our input head (in the old ZED) three feet to generate 24 foot of head.
So we have the potential of 24 foot for 3... WE Move the short end of the lever....... to lift an equal load....
I know that is difficult.......... but so was designing a free energy machine....

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2113 on: April 14, 2014, 02:56:58 PM »
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

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2114 on: April 14, 2014, 03:32:52 PM »
I do not have time to follow all your ideas, but I do not think the ZED creates energy?? So I do not know you point?
"but this comment:
"Some geometries may amplify the FORCES involved but the distances those forces can act over is correspondingly reduced as it is simply a lever)"
Is incorrect....
The corresponding reduction does not match a lever.
The successively smaller annular rings act just like a lever.
Quote

A lever in simple terms trades mass for distance - a small load can lift a large load but the small load has to travel further at a higher speed.......
No, levers trade force gain for distance gain.  Mass never enters into it.  Neither does speed.
Quote

In the ZED, the serpentine effect in the layers each reduce the distance the lighter load must travel.
That is KEY to understand..... and why we originally called it a folded liquid lever system.
You were doing better at first.  It is just a serpentined hydraulic ram.  By leaving one end open:  AR7, you crippled that long known and useful device and turned it into a crummy spring emulation.
Quote

...............
As an example we move our input head (in the old ZED) three feet to generate 24 foot of head.
So we have the potential of 24 foot for 3... WE Move the short end of the lever....... to lift an equal load....
I know that is difficult.......... but so was designing a free energy machine....
You have never designed, or built, or ever had a means to build a working free energy machine.  All of your contraptions are fundamentally lossy.