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 571831 times)

mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #60 on: February 25, 2014, 06:34:13 PM »
And if that weren't enough... I still believe the automatic bollard is showing the same "anomaly" that you think you have found. Nobody has "done the math" to prove me wrong about that. Why not? Do you deny that the 300 pound bollard can be raised to its full height, and lowered back down again, with just a few pound-feet of work? Reducing the input, getting the big output, subtracting the input from the output to get the "net" gain in work .... it's all there in the automatic bollard. So?

Here is where I see your automatic bollard example falling short:  What big output?  You put a little in, and it raises a far distance, but with no appreciable force!  In fact the force it rises with is exactly equal to force you are putting in, minus losses.

With mine and LarryC's analyses we find that the force in to force out relationship is not equal.  These forces can be calculated also as pressures.  And the average of those pressure * the volume they are affecting (work and/or energy) is also not equal.

My analysis also shows that a 2-layer ZED of the chosen dimensions results in PinVin>PoutVout or underunity.  Just like the published results from MY physical ZED build and test data.  A build that failed miserably to follow one of the recommended relationships for the dozen or so design variable not fixed by the choice of building material I used:  the height of the ZED I built and tested was NOT ~ 3 times the diameter.  It is my belief, from observations of my physical build, that a taller ZED height to diameter ratio is a critical design factor when optimizing performance.  You can see that I corrected that ratio in this mathematical model.

Have you seen published data on any other tested ZED models?  How can you say that all valid experimentation has failed?  You are by far our resident master replicator/experimental physicist.  But you passed on building a true representation of the ZED as Wayne described.  I was very disappointed, but understand if you have no interest, or if it is a bit more complicated to do that you can actually take on right now (not intending to imply anything negative there at all).  It is, in fact, quite complicated.  Especially when you have not even figured out what dimensions are supposed to allow for what type of performance.  Which was the case when I built.  But I think I may have found the solution to that with this analysis.  But still, to analyze the affect of changing all the dimension variables to find the best configuration is a daunting task by hand.  It screams for a solution by simulation.  Maybe by CD-adapco?  I know I couldn't do it with the tools I have!

mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 909
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #61 on: February 25, 2014, 06:52:28 PM »
Here's an incontrovertible fact: If your calculations show "overunity" performance, then you are making an error somewhere.

I have placed you on ignore out of respect.

---------- Your "incontrovertible fact"  only applies to conservative applications - in which I would agree with you.

Your inability to see that the 'Math presented' perfectly defines a non conservative system - which in itself is a new realm of understanding - you continue to miss - we graciously tried to explain.

I know how you will respond - it will not be to analyze and learn.

Back to ignore

Good Day.

TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #62 on: February 25, 2014, 07:15:53 PM »
Well, Wayne old boy, you who are still paying electric bills on your home and shop... I will return your "respect" by ignoring your BS and I'll just focus on your lack of evidence to support your silly claims. And maybe I'll come and visit you... when you are safely tucked away in prison.

TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #63 on: February 25, 2014, 07:25:09 PM »
Quote
Here is where I see your automatic bollard example falling short:  What big output?  You put a little in, and it raises a far distance, but with no appreciable force!  In fact the force it rises with is exactly equal to force you are putting in, minus losses.
How can you say that? A three hundred pound bollard is lifted by its full height of four feet, which represents 1200 pound-feet of work! Yet the input was only, say, 5 pounds of manual lift over that same distance, or 20 pound-feet of work, for a "net gain" of 1180 pound-feet of work. DO THE MATH.

Sorry, just pointing out that your evidence is the same as mine. The auto bollard is easy to see through because it's just a spring (the preload) and the single weight, plus the usual latches. The ZEDs, being so full of Red Herrings, are more difficult to see through, but they do the same thing. And you will note that the automatic bollard's performance can be described in _exactly_ the same terms that Travis has been using, lo these past years. Reduce the input, get a large "net" output.

But the ZEDs fail in the same way as the bollard, they just sort the variables differently. The ZEDs amplify force at the expense of distance travelled, as you yourself have found and admitted freely, but the output work will be less than the input work, because of the inevitable losses. Nobody has ever shown anything different, in a real system.

Quote
How can you say that all valid experimentation has failed?
Rather, all valid experimentation has failed _to confirm Travis's claims_, a far different thing than saying that the valid experimentation has simply failed. The experiments have provided valid data that fails to support Travis.... this is a failure of Travis's theories, not the experiment.

And it's easy to say, because we are still here discussing the issue, right? And nobody is running their homes or shops using the output of any ZED system, are they? QED. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

ETA: I can absolutely guarantee you this: If you show me some system that you can sit on a table top that genuinely produces 153.94 (not 153.95? Not 154? Are you sure?) percent OverUnity, I can use that to make a self running machine in a short time. Couldn't you? Couldn't any competent engineer?  So where are these self-runners? I still think that my Heron's Fountain with TinselZed is the closest thing to a self-runner that any of you lot have produced. Again... please correct me if I am wrong, but do provide references and evidence.
While we are on the subject of math, the Heron's Fountain with reservoirs of 100 mL, elevated by 20 cm,  will run for, say, a minute. How long will a Heron's Fountain with reservoirs of ten thousand liters, elevated by five meters, run?

mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 909
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #64 on: February 25, 2014, 07:51:07 PM »

Any problem other than can't work.

Wayne

minnie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1244
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #65 on: February 25, 2014, 07:53:31 PM »

Yes they can and will work, if you have a transfer pump!
John

mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1300
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #66 on: February 25, 2014, 07:54:26 PM »
The ZEDs amplify force at the expense of distance travelled, as you yourself have found and admitted freely,

Which is the basis for absolutely no conclusions.  Because I also freely admit that from what I have found, the Integral of the resultant force * distance does NOT equal that of the input.  I never said the ZEDs amply force by a relationship to a reduced distance of travel that conforms to a conservative system.

but the output work will be less than the input work, because of the inevitable losses.

This is not what the Mathematical Analysis supports.  It is your assumption and/or position, not a proven fact.

On another related note, please tell me what you think about this.  Imagine the ZED model surrounded by the "red box" I showed when analyzing your U tube joke.  There are more than the two volumes I have shown in the analysis crossing that system barrier.  Yes there is the input water, and the output riser stroke that cross the barrier.  But there is also air that leaves and enters the system through the outer annulus (outside the outer riser) that is open to the atmosphere.  So the ZED is an OPEN system, right?  Also, it is the air that crosses through this opening that allows the fluid levels to redistribute and create a resultant buoyant force that is calculating to be not equal to the force predicted by the input.

minnie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1244
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2014, 08:02:22 PM »

I want to get this straight, you lift a weight with one side of your device, you remove the
weight and use it, and it sinks by itself and also raises a weight on the other side of your device.
Now if that isn't a bit of magic nothing is!
John.

TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2014, 08:06:48 PM »

Any problem other than can't work.

Wayne

LOL. What other problems do you need?

You can't produce evidence to the contrary, even though you've had many years to do so. "Can't work" wins the day, then, until YOU show otherwise... but you cannot.

TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2014, 08:15:14 PM »
Which is the basis for absolutely no conclusions.  Because I also freely admit that from what I have found, the Integral of the resultant force * distance does NOT equal that of the input.  I never said the ZEDs amply force by a relationship to a reduced distance of travel that conforms to a conservative system.
No? I could have sworn that you did, when you agreed with me here:
Quote
Of course the riser moves a much shorter linear distance than the syringe plunger, assuming a syringe with diameter smaller than the ZED's outer riser.  That is why I proposed to compare volumes.

Quote
This is not what the Mathematical Analysis supports.  It is your assumption and/or position, not a proven fact.
It is my "assumption" and position, based on thousands of years of experimentation by hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, and amateurs like some of us. Nobody, nowhere, has ever demonstrated otherwise. Please see the quote from Feynman re the relationship between "theory" and "experiment".
Quote

On another related note, please tell me what you think about this.  Imagine the ZED model surrounded by the "red box" I showed when analyzing your U tube joke.  There are more than the two volumes I have shown in the analysis crossing that system barrier.  Yes there is the input water, and the output riser stroke that cross the barrier.  But there is also air that leaves and enters the system through the outer annulus (outside the outer riser) that is open to the atmosphere.  So the ZED is an OPEN system, right?  Also, it is the air that crosses through this opening that allows the fluid levels to redistribute and create a resultant buoyant force that is calculating to be not equal to the force predicted by the input.

No, I don't think that is right. I considered this issue before when the "incompressible fluid" was replacing the air in the trapped chambers. The outer ringwall and the outermost layer of trapped whatever seals the rest of the system from contact with the outside air, and even in spite of that, there is nothing happening, or that can happen, in any Zed system that can change the pressure of the _outside air_. For all practical purposes its volume is infinite, so you can raise and lower your levels in the outer trapped stuff as much as you like without changing the pressure it feels from the outside air at all. Here is a place where Boyle's Law does apply: PV init = PV final, and since Vinit  and Vfinal are equal and (practically) infinite.... well, do the math.

And my U-tube isn't a joke, it's an illustration of one of the many ways that interpretation of spreadsheets can go wrong. You hit the nail on the head when you drew the red box, although there may be even simpler ways. So I have no doubt that when you draw your red box _properly_ around your system or a "real" Zed, you will also hit the same nail on the same head. No pun intended.

ETA: While we are on the subject of math, the Heron's Fountain with reservoirs of 100 mL, elevated by 20 cm,  will run for, say, a minute. How long will a Heron's Fountain with reservoirs of ten thousand liters, elevated by five meters, run? And with what pressure head?

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #70 on: February 25, 2014, 08:23:25 PM »
Oh come on!  And you also gave _no real answer_ to LarryC's question.  He specifically asked how his MATH is incorrect.  To do so does not require any more words.  It requires math.

LarryC has presented evidence by the accepted method of science:  A mathematical solution/analysis.  If it is correct, it is correct.  If it is incorrect, it is incorrect.  There is no gray area.  There is only one correct solution to the math.  Checking his math and process is the only correct way to move forward.

I have also presented evidence by the method of a mathematical analysis.  I have also asked for my math and process to be checked.  I thank MarkE for his assistance so far and offer to double check.  TK, your assistance with the math is also appreciated.

If anyone would like to work on LarryC's math question instead of my own, that is fine, as his work appears to show the same anomaly that I am trying to find the reason for.

Thanks,

M.
Mondrasek, I have done some looking at Larry's spreadsheet.  The first thing that jumps out at me is that it does not look like he accounts for the cross-section areas of his various cavities.  For example on the '2 Zed' worksheet he lists four conditions:  Start, Equalized, Ready to Stroke, and Stroke End.  For each he lists two head values:  Riser and pod.  I gather these refer to the outermost annular ring, and the pod chamber annular ring heights.  These values are shown as having very nicely rounded numbers:  95,50  65,35  51,28  and 35,20.  Fluid moving in the various annular ring moves as V/28^2,V/27^2,V/26^2, and V/25^2.  IE V/784, V/729, V/676, and V/625.

TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #71 on: February 25, 2014, 08:23:38 PM »

I want to get this straight, you lift a weight with one side of your device, you remove the
weight and use it, and it sinks by itself and also raises a weight on the other side of your device.
Now if that isn't a bit of magic nothing is!
John.

Oh, it's magic all right. And it is also something that has _never been demonstrated_. Let's not forget that part!

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #72 on: February 25, 2014, 08:25:17 PM »
I have placed you on ignore out of respect.

---------- Your "incontrovertible fact"  only applies to conservative applications - in which I would agree with you.

Your inability to see that the 'Math presented' perfectly defines a non conservative system - which in itself is a new realm of understanding - you continue to miss - we graciously tried to explain.

I know how you will respond - it will not be to analyze and learn.

Back to ignore

Good Day.
Math that does not reflect physical reality is just so many numbers on a page.  The conservative nature of gravity does not change just because someone performs the wrong calculations.

mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 909
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #73 on: February 25, 2014, 08:32:42 PM »
The phrase Can't work is understood - it is said by some - before all new discoveries.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #74 on: February 25, 2014, 08:35:15 PM »
Multiple different people have shown now how our system can and does work.

You have said much....

The "can't work" is your misunderstanding.

Wayne
Wayne Travis where is one of these working systems, and who has verified its operation is as you claim?