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 657667 times)

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #960 on: March 12, 2014, 02:42:24 PM »
I am not much of a spreadsheet person,, but the annotations help with following what you are doing,, that was after I realized that those were not the named ranges,, just notes.

Then I used my calculator to follow the formulas,, that helped me in understanding "HOW" the formulas should be used,, I am a hands on learner for the most part.
Do you realize that all the actual formulas use named ranges?  The named ranges are but for the audit items in column B.  The names are in column A.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #961 on: March 12, 2014, 03:25:01 PM »
I see that and that makes it so that I have to keep moving all around.

I found that there is an error in one of the A columns, the formula calls for a ST_2 but in the A column it is ST_3 but the formula still gets the information,, so I assumed that the A column was just notation.

A 126
The names are supposed to be self evident.  The whole point is to not need to jump around, but read it as though it were written out on paper.  In some cases the names refer to things that happen during the transition between states.  I can rename those to the form STn_STn+1 to make that more obvious.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #962 on: March 12, 2014, 03:40:14 PM »
Hi MarkE,

While I am at it,, I do have an issue with the pressure under the pod.

B 107

I do not think it impacts much but that actual pressure would be

1719.31171611pa

But it looks like you are using the head value for lift consideration.
A126 ST2_AR6_Hdel_pmm is the water height in mm in AR6 for each mm that the risers go up.  I can rename this ST2_ST3_AR6_Hchg_mm_per_mm if that will make it more readable.

B107 looks wrong to me too.  It's missing the multiplier factor:  (1+AR1area/AR2area + AR1area/AR3area ... AR1area/AR7area).  I get 1719.304806Pa using 9.80665 for G0 and 998.2N/m3 for pWater.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #963 on: March 12, 2014, 03:42:51 PM »
I can get what you are referring to,, then I go and find it to stick into my calculator,, and all the parts that go along with it,, that is what I meant.

So I see what you are calling and in what sequence, but for me to stick it into my calculator for practice I must go and look at each of the cells.
I think that you can make your life a lot easier by just inserting a column or columns some place and putting your formulas in those cells.  Then you will have everything written down for yourself without having to worry about keystroke errors or trying to remember what you have done.

#### LarryC

• Hero Member
• Posts: 911
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #964 on: March 12, 2014, 03:57:51 PM »
Well, under special circumstances one can get the right answer for energy using PAVE*V.  The single column is such a case, and we can see that in Larry's example, provided that we pick the right PAVE.

What we cannot do to get the right answer is use PAVE obtained across multiple columns.
If we set K1 = pWater*G0 then
In the [0,3,3] left hand case of Larry's example we would incorrectly calculate an internal energy of,

PAVE is: K1*(0+3+3/3) = K1*2.
V is Area*(3+3) = Area*6
PAVE*V = K1*Area*12

The correct answer can be found by adding the energies of each column, and for that the individual PAVE*V gives the right answer:

0.5*K1*Area*(0 + 3*3 + 3*3) = K1*9

Larry chose to calculate the energy added to get to the [1,2,4] case by calculating the average pressure in the left hand column and multiplying that by the volume in the left hand column.  And for those circumstances he got the right answer.  His analogy to a 3ft high column needs a bit of work, because while that gives the correct pressure, it yields the wrong volume and represents three times as much energy as was added.
MarkE,

All column energies are accounted.

The End Col 1 PSI in the spreadsheet is 1.30. The PSI for  Col's 1, 12" of water is .43. The 1.30 is calculated as Col 1 PSI - Col 2 PSI + Col 3 PSI = .43 - .87 + 1.73 = 1.30 after rounding. Col 2 is subtracted from Col 3 to give the water head pressure.

Pavg*V works for all cases from 1 to infinity number of columns or risers.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #965 on: March 12, 2014, 04:09:45 PM »
MarkE,

All column energies are accounted.

The End Col 1 PSI in the spreadsheet is 1.30. The PSI for  Col's 1, 12" of water is .43. The 1.30 is calculated as Col 1 PSI - Col 2 PSI + Col 3 PSI = .43 - .87 + 1.73 = 1.30 after rounding. Col 2 is subtracted from Col 3 to give the water head pressure.

Pavg*V works for all cases from 1 to infinity number of columns or risers.
Larry look at your own problem above.  Unless I am reading your intent wrong, you tried to equate pumping 1ft of water into the serpentine structure as equivalent to pumping 3ft into a single column.  They do not end up with the same energy.  The 3ft column requires three times as much energy to fill as the 1ft working against the serpentine that starts with 3ft in each the second and third columns.  So while you can get the right answer for going from equilibrium to some height in the single column by figuring out that column's pressure, your analogy fails, as would averaging pressure across columns to find energy in the whole structure.  Pave_col(m)*Vcol(m) works for any single column m.  You have to go column by column.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #966 on: March 12, 2014, 05:10:13 PM »
It takes me a while to learn new things,, like your spreadsheet.  After I have played with it for a while now, I now look at the cell formula and I see what it is saying,, where as before I saw a bunch of "stuff" and I needed to go find out what that "stuff" was.

I am sure that most people could figure out what you are doing very easy, and in a shorter time period than it took me, it is very well written and very self explanatory.  I like the side comments next to a few spots where the cell is in, like the circ units, but the side column gives the actual number that people like me would understand easier.
I do not understand what you mean by this: "but the side column gives the actual number that people like me would understand easier."  What would you like to see?  What would make it easier to understand?

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #967 on: March 12, 2014, 05:36:24 PM »
E 81 gives me the number that I can understand,, where as

3108mm^3   circ mm^2*mm  does not mean much to me

2441.0174918393  tells me right off of the bat that it is 2.44cc

You can think of circular mm2 as a world where pi = 4, or in other words where circular sections are squares.  In calculations where it is the relative area that matters it is convenient for several reasons to use circular units instead of absolute units.  This leaves multiplying by pi()/4 to the end when we need absolute values such as force or energy.

E81 was a stray value that I forgot to delete.

#### LarryC

• Hero Member
• Posts: 911
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #968 on: March 12, 2014, 05:38:52 PM »
Larry look at your own problem above.  Unless I am reading your intent wrong, you tried to equate pumping 1ft of water into the serpentine structure as equivalent to pumping 3ft into a single column.  They do not end up with the same energy.  The 3ft column requires three times as much energy to fill as the 1ft working against the serpentine that starts with 3ft in each the second and third columns.  So while you can get the right answer for going from equilibrium to some height in the single column by figuring out that column's pressure, your analogy fails, as would averaging pressure across columns to find energy in the whole structure.  Pave_col(m)*Vcol(m) works for any single column m.  You have to go column by column.
MarkE,

The intent was to show that the two methods ends up with the same Total PSI 1.3. No OU.

But, if you have a system that utilizes PSI to do work, would you want want to take 3 times as long and require 3 times the input to cycle it?

My Input foot lbs is equal to your Ein after correcting the .65 to .43.

The spreadsheets title start with 'Analysis of flow'. So Input and Output foot lbs or Ein and Eout is our only concern as we need to be able to teach people with a high school educations. So stored energy initial and final is not required, as it would be confusing to most. Our intent is not to confuse, unlike some people here.

Showing the starting and ending water levels in the drawing is sufficient for anyone with common sense to understand the stored energy is the same. But, if that's the only way you can understand a system, please continue and you can double check your Ein and Eout against my results.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #969 on: March 12, 2014, 06:01:15 PM »
MarkE,

The intent was to show that the two methods ends up with the same Total PSI 1.3. No OU.
Pressure is not energy.  At the end of the day we are interested in determining the energy into and out of an alleged free energy machine.  Free pressure machines are called fixed weights.
Quote

But, if you have a system that utilizes PSI to do work, would you want want to take 3 times as long and require 3 times the input to cycle it?
Pressure is not work.  Pressure is not a capacity to do work.  Pressure is simply force per unit area.  How fast a process should go depends on the process.

If it's speed your after, these buoyancy schemes are a very poor choice, because they combine large masses with low effective spring rates.  That ~\$1. spring from Amazon that outperforms the "ideal ZED" also has a self resonant frequency that is close to 1kHz.   The "ideal ZED" has a self resonant frequency that is orders of magnitude lower.  Mark up another win for the ~\$1. spring.
Quote

My Input foot lbs is equal to your Ein after correcting the .65 to .43.
The density of the fluid is really rather immaterial to the problem.  If you always integrate then you will never make a mistake due to an invalid simplifying assumption as to how to calculate the work.  Unless I am mistaken, the spreadsheet of yours that I decomposed averaged pressure across multiple columns.  That's not going to calculate energy correctly.  You can use PAVE_COL(m) * VCOL(m) to obtain the energy column by column and then add those energies to get valid results.
Quote

The spreadsheets title start with 'Analysis of flow'. So Input and Output foot lbs or Ein and Eout is our only concern as we need to be able to teach people with a high school educations. So stored energy initial and final is not required, as it would be confusing to most. Our intent is not to confuse, unlike some people here.
Either you balance the books or you don't.  The history of free energy claims is riddled with bad accounting.  The audience does not determine the characteristics of a claim.  First and foremost you need to prove that you've got what you claim.  If the proof is not accessible to an audience of interest, you can later figure out how to explain your proof to a broad audience.  If you don't have a valid proof then who might find the material accessible is irrelevant.
Quote

Showing the starting and ending water levels in the drawing is sufficient for anyone with common sense to understand the stored energy is the same. But, if that's the only way you can understand a system, please continue and you can double check your Ein and Eout against my results.
Are you claiming to have something that shows an OU result?  If you are, then kindly point me to which post links your spreadsheet or other work that yields the claimed result.

#### minnie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1244
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #970 on: March 12, 2014, 06:50:38 PM »

LarryC,
mind-boggling!
John.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #971 on: March 12, 2014, 07:22:22 PM »
Quote
So stored energy initial and final is not required, as it would be confusing to most.

People say the darndest things, don't they?

I'm pretty sure that even a high-school student understands the difference between the gasoline in your tank when you begin a journey, and the gasoline remaining when you have gotten to wherever it is you are going.

Or maybe not, these days.

#### LarryC

• Hero Member
• Posts: 911
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #972 on: March 12, 2014, 07:47:07 PM »
MarkE,

I'm done.

It is impossible to teach someone without the common sense to understand what 'Utilize PSI' implies.

#### LarryC

• Hero Member
• Posts: 911
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #973 on: March 12, 2014, 07:52:02 PM »
People say the darndest things, don't they?

I'm pretty sure that even a high-school student understands the difference between the gasoline in your tank when you begin a journey, and the gasoline remaining when you have gotten to wherever it is you are going.

Or maybe not, these days.

True, but only a fool would waste his time checking, if the gasoline never changed.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #974 on: March 12, 2014, 08:00:23 PM »
I see. Since you know it never changes, you don't need to check it. That sure saves a lot of time and effort!

Maybe that's why your "Self Running" machines have always mysteriously stopped running after a little while. You are so sure that they are "overunity" that it never occurs to you to check to see if maybe they are running on the stored energy from the precharge.