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.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

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 657629 times)

#### Pirate88179

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 8366
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #765 on: March 08, 2014, 08:04:17 AM »
Not to sound redundant.... but how then do you get that low pressure fluid, after the interaction with something along the lines of a motor.... how do you get it back into the Zeds?

Easy, employ the principle of inertial translinear transference.  This requires 0 energy input and, in fact, actually adds 10% back into the closed system.    So, the more you transfer, the more energy is added to the system.  This principle was first developed to be used with bricks.

Bill

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #766 on: March 08, 2014, 09:21:43 AM »
Not to sound redundant, but the pressure can leave the system when the fluid under pressure interacts with something along the lines of a motor.
Webby, output is what actually exits the device or system being evaluated.  If it does not come out, it is not output.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #767 on: March 08, 2014, 09:25:48 AM »
Easy, employ the principle of inertial translinear transference.  This requires 0 energy input and, in fact, actually adds 10% back into the closed system.    So, the more you transfer, the more energy is added to the system.  This principle was first developed to be used with bricks.

Bill
I first heard of this transference principle in 1974.  It gave Peter Boyle a somewhat more sophisticated way of expressing himself.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #768 on: March 08, 2014, 11:24:27 AM »
I conceded the ID vs OD point earlier.  The math you see before you reflects OD.

MarkE, sorry, I missed that.  Once I head home for the evening I rarely commit myself to reading this forum with complete attention.  I should have looked for that correction.  I appreciate that you rolled that into your calculations that you openly posted prior to my comment.

So, why have you not returned yet to the 3-layer ZED Analysis and calculated the Work that the outer riser could perform during it's lift from State 2 to State 3?  That is necessary to complete the Analysis of that system that I CLAIM shows the OU potential.

The recent "side track" Analysis of the no-pod, single riser system was only intended to simplify the SUT so that its operation and proper Analysis method could be more easily understood.  There was never any chance that it would turn out OU, right?

However, I think it proved that the system is behaving NON-CONSERVITIVELY.  Is this correct?  I mean, we have an IDEAL system, so Ein should = Eout, right?

We have been told by Mr. Wayne Travis both in his Patent App., and here in this forum, that it takes several layered risers in a ZED system to achieve OU.  Specifically he has made a CLAIM to the effect that a single 3-layer ZED can clearly show this OU.

My COMPLETE Analysis of the 3-layer model we have worked through together so far DOES show OU.  I would like to know if when you complete your Analysis of the same by finally adding the calculation for the Work the system performs when lifting from State 2 to State 3, do you also end up with results that show OU?

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #769 on: March 08, 2014, 12:03:11 PM »
MarkE, sorry, I missed that.  Once I head home for the evening I rarely commit myself to reading this forum with complete attention.  I should have looked for that correction.  I appreciate that you rolled that into your calculations that you openly posted prior to my comment.

So, why have you not returned yet to the 3-layer ZED Analysis and calculated the Work that the outer riser could perform during it's lift from State 2 to State 3?
First, those numbers are easy enough for you to extract from the spreadsheet.  Second, I have posted them here anyway in post #733.  I might ask that you show your work that yields OU, because there is nothing that should lead to that, and my numbers with readily audited derivations don't show it.
Quote
That is necessary to complete the Analysis of that system that I CLAIM shows the OU potential.

The recent "side track" Analysis of the no-pod, single riser system was only intended to simplify the SUT so that its operation and proper Analysis method could be more easily understood.  There was never any chance that it would turn out OU, right?
Of course there wasn't.  If it makes the mechanics easier to discuss, that's fine.  It did create a fair amount of extra work, but I have captured that work and audited it.  The efficiency killer remains:  N*(X/N)2.  In this case, N extends over 1.0 by virtue of the riser wall thickness.  If you drive that to zero then given a load with a matching force versus distance function as the riser, then you can theoretically get out what you put in with the caveat that the power is zero, because with epsilon for the net up force it literally takes forever to transition from State 2 to State 3.  Anything that we do to address that harms the efficiency.  That leaves us in the position of having made extraordinary hypothetical accommodations for the "ideal ZED" and it is still outperformed by a brick.
Quote

However, I think it proved that the system is behaving NON-CONSERVITIVELY.  Is this correct?  I mean, we have an IDEAL system, so Ein should = Eout, right?
Why would you think that?  The math keeps showing under unity performance despite all the unrealizable idealized stipulations we have applied.  A real system will only be less efficient.  If Y < X, and X < 1, then Y is also less than 1.
Quote

We have been told by Mr. Wayne Travis both in his Patent App., and here in this forum, that it takes several layered risers in a ZED system to achieve OU.  Specifically he has made a CLAIM to the effect that a single 3-layer ZED can clearly show this OU.
Wayne Travis's patent application has not been examined.  His statements are false as shown by this exercise.  Here we have given virtually every benefit to the device and it is still under unity.  And it will remain under unity unless someone can show non conservative gravitational behavior.  That will not result from any proper application of math that follows first principles.
Quote

My COMPLETE Analysis of the 3-layer model we have worked through together so far DOES show OU.
Where?  AFAIK you have yet to share your work.
Quote
I would like to know if when you complete your Analysis of the same by finally adding the calculation for the Work the system performs when lifting from State 2 to State 3, do you also end up with results that show OU?
Again, I already posted that, and the result is under unity.

Post #733 quoted for your convenience below.  Feel free to check my work, it uses the same r3 revision of the spreadsheet that has been posted for some time.  But, I really think it is about time for you to show your work that you keep saying yields an OU result.

Magluvin does seem to claim that there is no boost.  But it is quite possible that Magluvin is mistaken.  It is possible that the circuit is a booster, and Magluvin did not recognize it. It is also possible that MileHigh made a mistake.  We will have to see what Magluvin comes up with for history.

Meanwhile back in Zydro-land Mondrasek came up with a fairly clever scheme to try and harvest as much of the energy as possible going from State 2 to State 3.  Let's apply that to the three riser "ideal ZED":

ST2UPTOTALUPF   1.195618   N   Total uplift force at the end of State 2
ST2_3KFORCE   -0.479825   N/mm   Total Rate of Force Change / mm
ST3_UPLIFT   2.491781   mm   Up Lift Distance

From these we can calculate the size of the water pan necessary:
Water_pan_area =-ST2_3KFORCE/(G0*pWater*(m_per_mm3)) = 49,107 mm2
Water_pan_diameter = 249.8mm
Water_pan_depth = ST3_UPLIFT = 2.49178mm

Energy imparted pushing water up over the spillway:
=0.5*-ST2_3KFORCE/m_per_mm*((ST3_UPLIFT*m_per_mm)2) = 1.490mJ  That's right a quarter meter diameter pan to deliver ~1.5mJ

The energy that will be required to return to State 2, is the same as the internal loss going from State 2 to State 3:  1.903mJ.
The idealized efficiency of the State 2 <=> State 3 cycle is therefore:  1.490mJ / 1.903mJ = 78.3%.  This is better than the single riser case.  But still way short of what we can do with an electric motor directly moving the payload.

Since the single riser and triple riser examples demonstrate different idealized efficiencies, is there some configuration of the idiotic ZED that can at least theoretically compete with a brick?  Or is there an upper limit on the idealized efficiency that can be realized that is well below the idealized 100% of a brick?

Looking at comments in the old thread there was talk by the HER/Zydro proponents of: "capturing" 15in3 hydraulic fluid at 640psi pressure 3.7 times a minute.  There was also some talk talk of 30in3.  If we take the larger number it means that there is 15W power being expended.  Given the tiny energies we see in the "ideal ZED" it is not surprising that the real ZEDs have very low power density, seeing how they slowly raise and lower weights.  And there is no sign of any surplus energy from those machines at all.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #770 on: March 08, 2014, 01:19:18 PM »
Post #733 quoted for your convenience below.  Feel free to check my work, it uses the same r3 revision of the spreadsheet that has been posted for some time.  But, I really think it is about time for you to show your work that you keep saying yields an OU result.

Sorry MarkE.  I must have missed that as well.  And your request for me to show my results is fair at this point.

I'm at home now, and do not have access to my previous calculations or CAD.  But I'd be happy to work from your drawings if you want.  If so, can you tell me exactly (or please post again) which set of diagrams your post 733 refers to?  Also, are those diagrams and calculations all correctly based off of a buoyancy Force calculated from the OD of the pod and each riser?

I am not inclined to open any of your spreadsheets.  Not that I don't think they are probably masterpieces!  I expect that they are very impressive works!  I just don't want to be influenced in my methods by anything I might read in them.  Much like how I expressed that I preferred you do your math your way and not be influenced by mine.  I hope to only share results at first and methods only if discrepancies were found while you assisted me with this double check.

To remind you, I am running no calculation in a spreadsheet except some simple summations for volume and Energy balance double and triple checks.  The spreadsheets I have are only used as a table to record the results of hand calculations.  Those calcs were all run on an old Casio calculator that I was given at my first job.  That is also at work.  But I can dust off my old TI 15C, and suffer with the switch to RPN (which I truly love).  What a marvelous piece of EE work that is!  I've had it nearly 30 years now and had to change the batteries once!  Of course, it has been turned on very little since undergrad years.

If you have a complete and accurate Stage 2 to Stage 3 drawing for me, I'll give it a go.  Or we can wait until I am back at work.  I wont press you for anything in the mean time.

Thanks,

M.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #771 on: March 08, 2014, 01:29:03 PM »
Sorry MarkE.  I must have missed that as well.  And your request for me to show my results is fair at this point.

I'm at home now, and do not have access to my previous calculations or CAD.  But I'd be happy to work from your drawings if you want.  If so, can you tell me exactly (or please post again) which set of diagrams your post 733 refers to?  Also, are those diagrams and calculations all correctly based off of a buoyancy Force calculated from the OD of the pod and each riser?

I am not inclined to open any of your spreadsheets.  Not that I don't think they are probably masterpieces!  I expect that they are very impressive works!  I just don't want to be influenced in my methods by anything I might read in them.  Much like how I expressed that I preferred you do your math your way and not be influenced by mine.  I hope to only share results at first and methods only if discrepancies were found while you assisted me with this double check.

To remind you, I am running no calculation in a spreadsheet except some simple summations for volume and Energy balance double and triple checks.  The spreadsheets I have are only used as a table to record the results of hand calculations.  Those calcs were all run on an old Casio calculator that I was given at my first job.  That is also at work.  But I can dust off my old TI 15C, and suffer with the switch to RPN (which I truly love).  What a marvelous piece of EE work that is!  I've had it nearly 30 years now and had to change the batteries once!  Of course, it has been turned on very little since undergrad years.

If you have a complete and accurate Stage 2 to Stage 3 drawing for me, I'll give it a go.  Or we can wait until I am back at work.  I wont press you for anything in the mean time.

Thanks,

M.
You want the drawings with values on them, but you don't want to be influenced by those values?  What???  We agree on everything up to State 2 I think.  Show the process by which you solve for State 3.  Algebra and some descriptive text is fine.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #772 on: March 08, 2014, 01:32:23 PM »
The energy that will be required to return to State 2, is the same as the internal loss going from State 2 to State 3:  1.903mJ.

MarkE!  I just realized that you may have found it!  It takes the exact same amount of energy to return from State 3 to State 2.  But WE do not have to supply that Energy.  If we simply pull the plug at the bottom of the ZED when at State 3, the water will drain out and the system will fall through State 2 and all the way back to State 1.  WE supply zero energy to do that.  That Energy comes from GRAVITY acting on the mass of the water.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #773 on: March 08, 2014, 01:50:53 PM »
You want the drawings with values on them, but you don't want to be influenced by those values?  What???

I said I don't want to be influenced by the METHOD you used to calculate those values.  I have double checked your calculated values (by whatever method you use) with the results from my own and find they agree on the 3-layer model.  They did not on the no-pod, single layer and that is how we found some miss in your spreadsheet.  I did not look at how you originally calculated that value or what you changed it to recently.  For this reason:

Remember when we were figuring out the proper way to account for the Energy that leaves the system when the riser lifts?  I figured it could be calculated simply two different ways:

1)  As the integral of the buoyant Force * the change in the riser height
or
2)  The amount of Energy that exists in the water on top of the piston that is push up and "disappears" during the lift.

Both of those methods are correct and yield correct results.

But we have both seen that one can choose the wrong equation and get the wrong results.  If I looked at your equations, I might be influenced to do things by that method (rather than a separate and equally valid method that yields a good double check for both of us), or actually follow down the path of using the wrong method (not saying you would ever intentional use the wrong method).  So it is best to only share methods when the results are first compared and found to be in agreement or not, I think.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #774 on: March 08, 2014, 01:51:01 PM »
MarkE!  I just realized that you may have found it!  It takes the exact same amount of energy to return from State 3 to State 2.  But WE do not have to supply that Energy.  If we simply pull the plug at the bottom of the ZED when at State 3, the water will drain out and the system will fall through State 2 and all the way back to State 1.  WE supply zero energy to do that.  That Energy comes from GRAVITY acting on the mass of the water.
Are you serious?  Sure, throw away a whole bunch of energy each cycle.  See how that works out efficiency wise.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #775 on: March 08, 2014, 01:55:49 PM »
I said I don't want to be influenced by the METHOD you used to calculate those values.  I have double checked your calculated values (by whatever method you use) with the results from my own and find they agree on the 3-layer model.  They did not on the no-pod, single layer and that is how we found some miss in your spreadsheet.  I did not look at how you originally calculated that value or what you changed it to recently.  For this reason:

Remember when we were figuring out the proper way to account for the Energy that leaves the system when the riser lifts?  I figured it could be calculated simply two different ways:

1)  As the integral of the buoyant Force * the change in the riser height
or
2)  The amount of Energy that exists in the water on top of the piston that is push up and "disappears" during the lift.

Both of those methods are correct and yield correct results.

But we have both seen that one can choose the wrong equation and get the wrong results.  If I looked at your equations, I might be influenced to do things by that method (rather than a separate and equally valid method that yields a good double check for both of us), or actually follow down the path of using the wrong method (not saying you would ever intentional use the wrong method).  So it is best to only share methods when the results are first compared and found to be in agreement or not, I think.
You claim an extraordinary result: calculated free energy.  You asked for help finding the error in your method.  Yet, even now weeks later you still have not published your method.  So let's see your method and the equations that you use in your attempt to execute that method.  I have already published.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #776 on: March 08, 2014, 02:08:20 PM »
Show the process by which you solve for State 3.  Algebra and some descriptive text is fine.
MarkE, I have never solved for the correct final State 3 lift height.  I have solved for a State 3 calculated from an Energy balance (drawings are on page 2 IIRC) that still showed a positive total buoyant Force.  Due to the presence of this Force I concluded that the ZED could not stop in this state, must lift further, and therefore was breaking the law of COE in favor of OU.  It is very similar to how you initially solved for a State 3 based on a Vin = Vout relationship and also learned that it resulted in a condition where the ZED must also lift further due to the remaining sum positive buoyant Force.

I have openly stated on several occasions that I did not know how to calculate for the correct final State 3 lift height, and that I believed that would require iterations or calculus that I was not prepared to delve into.  But I will make a correction:  It does not require iterations or calculus.  That was a mistake on my part and came from my previous attempts (two years ago) to do this type of analysis without the assumption of the air being incompressible.  So yes, it can be done algebraically.  But I have not done that, nor do I intend to do it this weekend.  I would gladly start by accepting that you have done that, and done it correctly.  If so, you can publish the numbers for the water heights in each annulus, and the lift height, and I would be happy to work from there.  If not, I will show the results of my false State 3 calculations next week.  Or if you insist, I can work them up from the diagrams I posted on page 2.  But please be clear that my State 3 is not, and has never been said to be, a correct final State where the sum of the buoyant forces is zero.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #777 on: March 08, 2014, 03:52:59 PM »
Not to sound redundant,, by putting that low pressure fluid into the production ram as it is going down.  That ram needs no pressure fluid when it goes down.
Uh-huh, right. Can you provide a dimensioned drawing and some pressure measurements or calculations that show this process?

I mean, I can wave my hands about too, and the draft from them can be channeled through my TK Vor-TKs device to produce energy from the breezes. That Vor-TKs needs no air pressure to operate. You know I'm honest because I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster every mealtime and before I go to bed at night. What does that have to do with the fact that there is no self-running Zed machine in honest Wayne Travis's stable? Nothing, you say.... and you would be right, because nobody has ever seen my Vor-TKs and nobody has ever seen a "production ram" on a Travis device that needed no pressure fluid when it goes down.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #778 on: March 08, 2014, 03:55:21 PM »
MarkE, would it be okay with you to show how I would evaluate your State 3 shown here?

#### minnie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1244
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #779 on: March 08, 2014, 03:56:46 PM »
Oh Webby,
please don't spend the rest of your life looking for something that
isn't there.
Go back to the see-saw and just take a few grams off of one side and
try to think of a way to get it back in balance-without doing any work!
John