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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 894409
• Total Topics: 15729
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 5
• Guests: 11
• Total: 16

### Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED  (Read 522619 times)

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2014, 03:09:50 PM »
And your nested system is significantly different.... how?

The analysis I have shown, in effect, isolates the system being analyzed just as the red box did to yours.  It is similar to treating the enclosed system as a "black box."  Then we only need to concern ourselves with what crosses the barrier of that box.

The point of significant difference is this:  A correct analysis of your UTube system shows that the Work/Energy input=output (unity).  The results of the ZED system that I am analyzing show that input<>output (non unity).

1. You are confusing yourself with "Boyle's Law" pressure/volume calculations, because Travis and Red Sunset and Webby have all said that the air can be replaced with incompressible fluid. All chambers in your system should be filled with fluid that doesn't change in volume when it's under pressure.

All internal chambers have been replaced with an incompressible fluid.  There is the water (SG=1), and the air (SG=0) that is ASSUMED to be incompressible for this ideal case.  We can change those two fluids to real incompressible liquids of different specific gravity values if the assumption needs to be tested falsifiable.  But when you do the math you will see that the greater the difference in the SG of the two fluids used, the greater the output to input ratio once unity has been surpassed by proper ZED design.  Also, you can see that a compressible fluid such as air only causes a loss to the system.  So using two liquids will result in a higher performance, just so the difference in the SG of those fluids is > 1.

The outer chamber of the system is NOT filled with an incompressible fluid.  It is open to the atmosphere.  So an open system.  I find that interesting and a possible reason that Boyle's law may not apply?

1b. Air -- wet air -- is not an ideal gas and you will find that it deviates from strict Boyle-Charles law behaviour. How much? Enough to account for your numerical result? I don't know. Do you?

No air (or wet air) is used in the system under analysis.

2. You should be able to demonstrate some actual gain in something, somewhere, using just three layers. Travis has told us so!

The analysis of the 3-layer ZED does show that.  PinVin<PouVout.

3. What, exactly, is the real "output" of your system? Is it a lifted weight? If you are counting pressing against a stop as "output work", that's not kosher!

The output is being calculated as the Integral of Pout * Vout, ie. Work/Energy.  Pout is the average pressure of the ASSUMED linear declination of the maximum lift pressure (calculated from the buoyancy force at full charge applied to the surface area of the outer riser) as it falls to zero (where the system should be at neutral buoyancy after being allowed to rise due to the charge).

I have never calculated the real Vout.  Instead I have ASSUMED the system follows Boyle's law and would therefore have a Vout that can be calculated by the specified and calculated Integral of Pin, Vin, and the Integral of Pout.  Once that Vout is calculated I construct a model that has stroked to the height that would require and reevaluate.  If Boyle's law were true, then the system after applying this stroke value should be at neutral buoyancy.

It is not.

In the 2-layer model the system fails to satisfy Boyle's law by displaying PinVin>PoutVout (underunity).

In the 3-layer model the system fails to satisfy Boyle's law by displaying PinVin<PoutVout (overunity).

M.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2014, 03:09:50 PM »

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2014, 04:23:05 PM »
Quote
All internal chambers have been replaced with an incompressible fluid.  There is the water (SG=1), and the air (SG=0) that is ASSUMED to be incompressible for this ideal case.

So what are you doing mentioning Boyle's Law at all? Boyle's Law is the relationship between Pressure and Volume of compressible (ideal) gases. You are assuming incompressibility at the top, then complaining that your system doesn't follow the law of compressible gases?

Quote
I have never calculated the real Vout.  Instead I have ASSUMED the system follows Boyle's law...

Maybe that's your problem then, since incompressible fluids do not follow Boyle's Law of the pressure-volume relationship of ideal, compressible gases.

And work is only performed when forces act over distances. Pressing against a stop with some pressure is not work. Does your butt do work on the chair you are sitting in?

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2014, 04:49:15 PM »
So what are you doing mentioning Boyle's Law at all? Boyle's Law is the relationship between Pressure and Volume of compressible (ideal) gases. You are assuming incompressibility at the top, then complaining that your system doesn't follow the law of compressible gases?

Maybe that's your problem then, since incompressible fluids do not follow Boyle's Law of the pressure-volume relationship of ideal, compressible gases.

So you are saying that Boyle's law does not apply to a fluid once it changes state from a vapor/gas to a fluid?  I thought that once the fluid is incompressible then the volume cannot change.  And then Boyle's law of P1V1=P2V2 would reduce to Integral of P1 = Integral of P2.  Are you saying this is incorrect?

And work is only performed when forces act over distances. Pressing against a stop with some pressure is not work. Does your butt do work on the chair you are sitting in?

I'm not sure how this applies?  Work is not being calculated while pressing against a stop.  A non unity quantity of Energy is.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 10:20:55 PM by mondrasek »

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2014, 04:49:15 PM »

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2014, 05:23:15 PM »
So you are saying that Boyle's law does not apply to a fluid once it changes state from a vapor/gas to a fluid?
Who is talking about phase changes here? Your device is filled completely with two incompressible fluids. No phase change happens. Boyle's Law does not apply to incompressible fluids!
Quote
I thought that once the fluid is incompressible then the volume cannot change.
That's right: The pressure applied to the fluid is _unrelated_ to the volume of the fluid, it does not affect the volume, and no amount of applied pressure can change the volume of an _incompressible_ fluid, and no energy can be stored by "compressing" or applying pressure to an incompressible fluid.
Quote
And then Boyle's law of P1V1=P2V2 would reduce to Integral of P1 = Integral of P2.  Are you saying this is incorrect?
How many pounds per gallon does a speed of 60 seconds per bushel represent?
I am saying that no pressure change will result in a volume change of an incompressible fluid, therefore Boyle's Law is irrelevant and inapplicable! So Boyle's Law reduces to P1V1 = P2V1 since volume cannot change in an incompressible fluid, and this relation is contradicted by experiment (pressures can certainly be different for the same volume of water, a nearly incompressible fluid) because Boyle's Law is not applicable to _incompressible fluids_ !! It is an IDEAL GAS LAW and ideal gases are ideally compressible ... that is what Boyle's Law tells you!

Quote
I'm not sure how this applies?  Work is not being calculated while pressing against a stop.  A non unity guantity of Energy is.
In a previous post you stated that the pressure against the stop caused by your calculated excess buoyancy represented a gain, I thought. And work and energy have the same units, the Joule in SI. If you are calculating Energy you are also calculating Work and vice versa.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2014, 07:08:11 PM »
Who is talking about phase changes here? Your device is filled completely with two incompressible fluids. No phase change happens. Boyle's Law does not apply to incompressible fluids!

Sorry if my previous explanation was not precise.  I did not mean to imply that any phase change occurs in the ZED system.  It does not.  I was only tring to explain that I thought Boyle's law would apply to liquids once they had changed phase from vapor to liquid.  If that is in error, I accept that and appreciate you pointing out my misunderstanding.

That's right: The pressure applied to the fluid is _unrelated_ to the volume of the fluid, it does not affect the volume, and no amount of applied pressure can change the volume of an _incompressible_ fluid, and no energy can be stored by "compressing" or applying pressure to an incompressible fluid.

I'm sorry if I don't understand your point here.  I would appreciate if you can try another way to help me grasp it.  Seriously.  But I see no Energy being store in "compressing" anything in the process I am analyzing.

How many pounds per gallon does a speed of 60 seconds per bushel represent?
I am saying that no pressure change will result in a volume change of an incompressible fluid, therefore Boyle's Law is irrelevant and inapplicable! So Boyle's Law reduces to P1V1 = P2V1 since volume cannot change in an incompressible fluid, and this relation is contradicted by experiment (pressures can certainly be different for the same volume of water, a nearly incompressible fluid) because Boyle's Law is not applicable to _incompressible fluids_ !! It is an IDEAL GAS LAW and ideal gases are ideally compressible ... that is what Boyle's Law tells you!

I know!  But the analysis appears to show that the ZED system would need to stroke (under pressure) more than would be required by inputting the same volume of charge liquid under the same pressures that an equivalent hydraulic system would.  And so I don't understand!

Now if using Boyle's law to calculate the energy input due to the charge volume being introduced is wrong, then the analysis is wrong.  Completely wrong.

Can you offer a correct method?

In a previous post you stated that the pressure against the stop caused by your calculated excess buoyancy represented a gain, I thought. And work and energy have the same units, the Joule in SI. If you are calculating Energy you are also calculating Work and vice versa.

I tried to state that by the method I was using to calculate it appears there must be more energy after the system "power stroke" than is predicted by the falsification test.  So either the test is erroneous or there must be excess energy left in the system.

TK, thank you for engaging and helping me to work this out.  It is much appreciated.

M.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2014, 07:08:11 PM »

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2014, 10:38:45 PM »
Mondrasek, I think that the confusion here is in how does one measure the energy of a submerged buoyant object.  For an object of constant height, the amount of force that we must apply to the object to initially submerge it changes from the value at zero submersion to the fully submerged value.  From there on the buoyant force is constant and the amount of additional work required to submerge the object further is the difference between that constant buoyant force and the constant force of gravity on the mass of the object multiplied by the change in depth.

The attached graphic will hopefully help.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2014, 11:06:09 PM »
Mondrasek, I think that the confusion here is in how does one measure the energy of a submerged buoyant object.  For an object of constant height, the amount of force that we must apply to the object to initially submerge it changes from the value at zero submersion to the fully submerged value.  From there on the buoyant force is constant and the amount of additional work required to submerge the object further is the difference between that constant buoyant force and the constant force of gravity on the mass of the object multiplied by the change in depth.

The attached graphic will hopefully help.

TK,

I would appreciate if you would stay on topic.  Can you please explain exactly how this post is relevant to the "Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED" models so far presented?

M.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2014, 11:06:09 PM »

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2014, 11:29:33 PM »
Do you have me confused with someone else?

But look again at Mark's diagram. Do you see what he is integrating? Do you see any need for an ideal gas law in determining the work required to submerge a _sealed_ buoyant object?

Now, if you were considering a Cartesian Diver (an _unsealed_ buoyant object)  and didn't stipulate beforehand that all your fluids were incompressible, that would be a different story.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2014, 12:01:06 AM »
Do you have me confused with someone else?

No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably).  Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?

But look again at Mark's diagram. Do you see what he is integrating? Do you see any need for an ideal gas law in determining the work required to submerge a _sealed_ buoyant object?

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!   We get to the Ideal gas law!  Which is PV=nRT.  Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in  Boyle's law:  PVinput=PVoutput.

Now, if you were considering a Cartesian Diver (an _unsealed_ buoyant object)  and didn't stipulate beforehand that all your fluids were incompressible, that would be a different story.

Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?

M.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2014, 12:01:06 AM »

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2014, 12:56:05 AM »
No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably).  Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!   We get to the Ideal gas law!  Which is PV=nRT.  Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in  Boyle's law:  PVinput=PVoutput.

Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?

M.
No Mondrasek I am not a sock puppet of TinselKoala.  And no when a gas is incompressible, the ideal gas law of which Boyle's Law, and Charle's Law are consequences do not apply.

I finally got to spending some time with your model today and have a couple of questions.  The first is that when you admit water you want to fill up the pod chamber to 60mm height.  But that will drive all of the water out of annular ring 2.  What would you like to do here?  One option is to add water in the pod chamber until AR2 gets down to 2mm above the bottom.  A second option is to prefill to a much greater height than 32.5mm.  For instance 52.4mm would leave 2mm in AR2.

#### LarryC

• Hero Member
• Posts: 911
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2014, 01:28:52 AM »
Hi M.,

Your uncompressible air made it easy to do the flow spreadsheet for 2 zeds with 1 riser. I used the rule that 1X head change in the pod creates 2X head change in the riser to calculate the water heads.

Got an efficiency of ~154% with 2 zed units and ~74% with 1 Zed unit.

It makes it obvious that the average PSI differential between the Left and right zed units during water transfer is key to it's efficiency. I included the Archimedes spreadsheet again, compare the PSI differential from each, the Zed is superior.

I did have weight on the pod as it is critical that a pod sink point is specified for the water head calculations.

I recommend that anyone looking at these, understand the Archimedes calculations first, then the 2 Zed version will be easier.

M., please check for errors, thanks. This will be an interesting simple proof if we get it cleaned up.

Larry[size=78%]   [/size]

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2014, 01:28:52 AM »

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2014, 01:38:30 AM »
No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably).  Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?
Sure, Rosemary, you have finally tracked me down.

It's hilarious, isn't it? People just cannot believe that there could be _two_ different people both of whom want to see real data that support claims, so they must be the same person posting under two different aliases.

Quote

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!   We get to the Ideal gas law!  Which is PV=nRT.  Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in  Boyle's law:  PVinput=PVoutput.

Boyle, Charles, Gay-Lussac, Avogadro all lumped together.
Check the Wiki article for the derivation.
Unfortunately none of these apply to _incompressible fluids_.

Quote

Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?

M.
Not, as you have stipulated the Zed contains only incompressible fluids. So it is not comparable to the unsealed buoyant object like the Cartesian Diver, whose buoyancy depends upon the Volume of the compressible gas contained within it, which is open to the pressure of the surrounding incompressible fluid. Changing the pressure of the outer incompressible fluid changes the pressure _and hence the volume_ of the compressible gas within it, thus making the Diver rise or sink as its buoyancy is changed by the changes in the pressure of the surrounding incompressible fluid. Your Zeds, ex hypothesi, have only incompressible fluids, so no pressure changes can result in any volume changes anywhere. In an incompressible fluid, volume is conserved. The only way to get more or less volume is physically to add or subtract more of the incompressible fluid.

Gas laws do not apply to incompressible fluids! If a substance does NOT respect the pressure-volume relationship of Boyle's Law... you can't use Boyle's Law to describe or predict its behaviour!! Ditto for Charles's Law, the combined Boyle-Charles Law, or the full "ideal gas law", since in an incompressible fluid the volume does not change with application of external pressure! By Definition!

So you either must drop references to the gas laws in your analysis and workings, or you must use _compressible gas_ instead of one of the incompressible fluids in your model. I'm arguing for the former, as it will simplify your analysis.

And admit it... you are really Webby, aren't you? And you both post as Red Sunset. And you all are on Travis's payroll. Right.

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2014, 02:30:10 PM »
I finally got to spending some time with your model today and have a couple of questions.  The first is that when you admit water you want to fill up the pod chamber to 60mm height.

MarkE, the volume of water admitted is only enough to fill the pod chamber to 37mm height.  That is shown in the second diagram here:

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854

#### mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2014, 02:59:20 PM »
So you either must drop references to the gas laws in your analysis and workings, or you must use _compressible gas_ instead of one of the incompressible fluids in your model. I'm arguing for the former, as it will simplify your analysis.

Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?

Here is what I would propose to try next:  Using the incompressible fluids in the model.  Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?

If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right?  If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2014, 04:59:20 PM »
Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?
Of course.
Quote
Here is what I would propose to try next:  Using the incompressible fluids in the model.  Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?
So it would seem, if I am understanding you correctly. However, consider the simple lever. If I "admit" a certain weight on the long end and it sinks, should that be equal to the Height Output as measured by the height change of the weight on the short end? I think nested hydraulic cylinders can act like a compound lever, and I think that the multiple layers might distribute an initial "volume input" over several outer risers, so the final "rise" might be small, but with increased force.
Quote
If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right?  If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?

Now you have lost me. Neutral buoyancy means that the mass of the displaced water is equal to the mass of the displacing object. Adding additional force pressing down on the "neutrally buoyant" object makes it sink, so is this extra force to be included in the figuring?  Since your risers are "massless" I think you are once again up against a place where your assumptions are non-physical and may be leading you off the correct track.

Try putting some Red Herrings in the water. That has helped Travis and Red Sunset along greatly.