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.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83535
  • *Latest: Fritzman

  • *Total Posts: 514368
  • *Total Topics: 15304
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED  (Read 431415 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #240 on: March 02, 2014, 01:12:50 AM »
"John", anytime you would like to discuss the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED I would be pleased to engage further.  However, your present course of questioning takes us off topic and onto the path that TK is also inclined to head down.  That path is this argument:  If the Physics premise is true, then why have we not seen the Physical Representation of a Functioning Device released?  Ergo, if no Physical Representation of a Functioning Device, then the premise to build one must be false.

That argument is a "chicken or the egg" type of thing, isn't it?  Ie. Which comes first, the Mathematical proof of an exploitable Physics phenomenon, or the product (or video?) which shows the utility of that phenomenon for the first time?

I am claiming that the math does not support the preconception that an ideal ZED performs identical to an ideal Hydraulic Cylinder.  I have requested from this forum that others check it out for themselves and either show me the error of my math and/or methods or confirm the same findings.  This process is similar to what is known as "Peer Review."

I have openly become an exposed target for proclaiming what I have presented so far.  Feel free to shoot me down.  Please do it in the language of Science:  Mathematics.

M.
Monderasek, there are two ways to go about a discovery:  Show it in theory or experiment.  HER/Zydro have claimed to have working apparatus for years.  HER/Zydro claimed that they had their instrumented data collection unit cranking away two years ago.  They were to install that 50kW unit at the church three years ago.  Wayne says he has all the money HER/Zydro need.  Yet the experiments do not happen.  Any math that is applied to a problem must be based on underlying assumptions of the physical rules that must be enforced.  First principles dictate that energy is conserved.  That then becomes the verification mechanism for any mathematical analysis.  That means that for practice and purpose the analysis can stop before it begins, because any conservation violation will be treated as an error that needs to be tracked down.   

HER/Zydro make the extraordinary and non-physical claims that they:

Generate free energy,
Generate free energy by violating the conservative nature of gravity,
Generate free energy by lifting and dropping weights in quantities that are orders of magnitude off if they simply dropped the weights.

HER/Zydro face the burden of showing not just any, but all of the above.  The fact is that they cannot show any of the above.  They cannot show under any circumstance that they can carry a weight through a closed path and end up with more gravitational potential energy when they return to a starting point than when they left.  In other words:  They cannot show their claimed violation of the conservative nature of gravity.   Since by their own claims they rely on that supposed breach as their energy source, they are stuck on the free energy point.  And the last point is simple arithmetic.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #240 on: March 02, 2014, 01:12:50 AM »

Offline mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #241 on: March 02, 2014, 04:46:53 AM »
Hello Monderask,

Keep up the good work - a true Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.............

Great focus.

Wayne











Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #242 on: March 02, 2014, 04:56:29 AM »
Hello Monderask,

Keep up the good work - a true Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.............

Great focus.

Wayne
It's good for anyone to do such a thing.  It's not something HER/Zydro seem interested in publishing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #242 on: March 02, 2014, 04:56:29 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline LarryC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #243 on: March 02, 2014, 05:07:46 AM »
Monderasek, there are two ways to go about a discovery:  Show it in theory or experiment.  HER/Zydro have claimed to have working apparatus for years.  HER/Zydro claimed that they had their instrumented data collection unit cranking away two years ago.  They were to install that 50kW unit at the church three years ago.  Wayne says he has all the money HER/Zydro need.  Yet the experiments do not happen.  Any math that is applied to a problem must be based on underlying assumptions of the physical rules that must be enforced.  First principles dictate that energy is conserved.  That then becomes the verification mechanism for any mathematical analysis.  That means that for practice and purpose the analysis can stop before it begins, because any conservation violation will be treated as an error that needs to be tracked down.   

HER/Zydro make the extraordinary and non-physical claims that they:

Generate free energy,
Generate free energy by violating the conservative nature of gravity,
Generate free energy by lifting and dropping weights in quantities that are orders of magnitude off if they simply dropped the weights.

HER/Zydro face the burden of showing not just any, but all of the above.  The fact is that they cannot show any of the above.  They cannot show under any circumstance that they can carry a weight through a closed path and end up with more gravitational potential energy when they return to a starting point than when they left.  In other words:  They cannot show their claimed violation of the conservative nature of gravity.   Since by their own claims they rely on that supposed breach as their energy source, they are stuck on the free energy point.  And the last point is simple arithmetic.


MarkE,


You guys really need to wait for results.
It took a while to figure out the parenthesis problem in your output formula, creating unbelievable output. Attached, shows your results from your new reduction formulas. I did make some changes as the 51 was your constant, but the spreadsheet was using 40.06. Also the Pod Channel area is not 676 SI, but 530 SI.
Bottom line, your calculations increased the efficiency of the Zed from 66.14% to 81.84%. Don't believe it increased, so there must be an issue. Please check.


After we correct this issue, you need to send your Archimedes formulas to compare the two efficiency's.


   

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #244 on: March 02, 2014, 06:07:42 AM »

MarkE,


You guys really need to wait for results.
It took a while to figure out the parenthesis problem in your output formula, creating unbelievable output. Attached, shows your results from your new reduction formulas. I did make some changes as the 51 was your constant, but the spreadsheet was using 40.06. Also the Pod Channel area is not 676 SI, but 530 SI.
Bottom line, your calculations increased the efficiency of the Zed from 66.14% to 81.84%. Don't believe it increased, so there must be an issue. Please check.


After we correct this issue, you need to send your Archimedes formulas to compare the two efficiency's.


 
I checked the results before I posted.  They agree with the spreadsheet to five digits.  The 51 is the constant annular ring area expressed in circular inches that you agreed to use:  IE the area of the annular gap between the pod and the innermost ring wall.  40.06 is what you get when you convert from circular inches to square inches, which the constant K1 rolled-up along with the density of water. 

Maybe you are not familiar with the concept of circular area units.  They get used in power electronics quite a bit.  A circular area unit is the area a square would take that has the width of a given circle's diameter.  The relationship between circular area and absolute area is:  absolute area = circular area * pi/4.  With a pod of 25" diameter, the circular area is 252 = 625.  The ring wall at 26" diameter is 262 = 676.  The area difference is of course the sum of the two diameters = 51 circular inches.  We can work in these more convenient units throughout the problem before applying the common constants pi/4 and the density of water, and our conversion from cubic inches volume and inches height to cubic feet and feet height.

My reduction simply reproduced the net total of the spreadsheet formulas in algebraic form. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #244 on: March 02, 2014, 06:07:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #245 on: March 02, 2014, 12:57:00 PM »
The Mondrasek three layer ZED.

Yes, Virginia using incompressible fluids it behaves just like the serpentine hydraulic piston that it is.
One must take into account a couple of key points:

1) The increasing area of the annular rings means that there is force gain from the innermost annular ring to all other annular rings.  So, when pumping water into the inner most ring, the so called pod chamber, while we displace a like weight in each of the other chambers due to using incompressible fluids, the weight that reflects back to the inner most ring decreases as we move out.  The total force that opposes the input energy source at the end of filling 37mm is the weight of the 37mm added to the innermost ring plus the loss of the same weight as a counterbalance in AR2 times the area ratio of AR1/AR2, plus the same weight times the area ratio of AR1/AR3, etc out to AR7.

2) The correct energy values are always obtained by integrating F*ds.  When we do this, we get 3.412mJ total stored energy in the various water columns at the end of the first state where we fill annular rings 2-7 up to 32.5mm high.

3) The added energy required to pump 37mm of head into AR1 works out to 2.099mJ.  This is identically the difference between the 3.412mJ stored at the end of the first state and the energy that one obtains by calculating and summing the stored energy in each of the annular rings at the end of State 2: 5.5111mJ.  IOW, ignoring things like friction loss, the device is completely conservative pumping water in.  Gravity has not been cheated. 

4) Releasing the risers and allowing them to rise causes the the water levels in the various annular rings to move towards equalized heights.  As I have already shown, anytime we take two columns one filled higher than the other and allow them to move towards equalization, we lose energy to heat.

So the bottom line here is that the three layer device is conservative until one lets the risers move, and then it is lossy.  If we change out the incompressible air with a compressible gas then we will add pumping losses on top of the other losses.  There is nothing in the ZED that cheats gravity.  There is nothing in the ZED that increases efficiency lifting and dropping weights over an electric winch.  The best ZED is no ZED.  QED.

What we have seen from the HER/Zydro team is an unwillingness to evaluate energy properly as any ME would learn in college: by performing the integral of F*ds.  HER/Zydro is a case of garbage in and garbage out.  HER/Zydro's representatives who post here claim that they are fully competent.  So, we are either witness to Dunning-Kruger in action, or the refusal to analyze properly as any competent ME would is a deliberate choice.

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #246 on: March 02, 2014, 03:02:05 PM »
The Mondrasek three layer ZED.

Yes, Virginia using incompressible fluids it behaves just like the serpentine hydraulic piston that it is.
One must take into account a couple of key points:

1) The increasing area of the annular rings means that there is force gain from the innermost annular ring to all other annular rings.  So, when pumping water into the inner most ring, the so called pod chamber, while we displace a like weight in each of the other chambers due to using incompressible fluids, the weight that reflects back to the inner most ring decreases as we move out.  The total force that opposes the input energy source at the end of filling 37mm is the weight of the 37mm added to the innermost ring plus the loss of the same weight as a counterbalance in AR2 times the area ratio of AR1/AR2, plus the same weight times the area ratio of AR1/AR3, etc out to AR7.

2) The correct energy values are always obtained by integrating F*ds.  When we do this, we get 3.412mJ total stored energy in the various water columns at the end of the first state where we fill annular rings 2-7 up to 32.5mm high.

3) The added energy required to pump 37mm of head into AR1 works out to 2.099mJ.  This is identically the difference between the 3.412mJ stored at the end of the first state and the energy that one obtains by calculating and summing the stored energy in each of the annular rings at the end of State 2: 5.5111mJ.  IOW, ignoring things like friction loss, the device is completely conservative pumping water in.  Gravity has not been cheated.

MarkE, thank you for double checking everything up to this point.  I'm glad that we agree so far.

4) Releasing the risers and allowing them to rise causes the the water levels in the various annular rings to move towards equalized heights.  As I have already shown, anytime we take two columns one filled higher than the other and allow them to move towards equalization, we lose energy to heat.

MarkE, you did not finish the test.  And I must insist that you do.  Because it is only when again measuring the Energies AFTER the lift that I am finding things do not add up.  And, unfortunately, the rise (stroke) is the hardest part (for me at least) to calculate.  I cannot simply calculate the final resting position that the ZED will rise to if allowed to do so where all the buoyant forces induced by the water charge sum to zero.  I would have to do this iteratively and it would take forever.  You and LarryC would probably write a VBA program to do that.  I lack that ability.

So I took a different approach:  I ASSUMED first that all the added Energy from the input charge would convert to motion of the outer riser by F*ds.  I then re-drew the ZED model with that exact amount of rise and re-distributed the water.  If all the added Energy had been converted to motion of the outer riser then the sum of the buoyant forces in the system should be zero at that state.  When I did that analysis the sum of the buoyant forces was NOT zero.  It was a positive value that meant the ZED would need to rise even further.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #246 on: March 02, 2014, 03:02:05 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #247 on: March 02, 2014, 03:28:48 PM »
MarkE, thank you for double checking everything up to this point.  I'm glad that we agree so far.

MarkE, you did not finish the test.  And I must insist that you do.  Because it is only when again measuring the Energies AFTER the lift that I am finding things do not add up.  And, unfortunately, the rise (stroke) is the hardest part (for me at least) to calculate.  I cannot simply calculate the final resting position that the ZED will rise to if allowed to do so where all the buoyant forces induced by the water charge sum to zero.  I would have to do this iteratively and it would take forever.  You and LarryC would probably write a VBA program to do that.  I lack that ability.

So I took a different approach:  I ASSUMED first that all the added Energy from the input charge would convert to motion of the outer riser by F*ds.  I then re-drew the ZED model with that exact amount of rise and re-distributed the water.  If all the added Energy had been converted to motion of the outer riser then the sum of the buoyant forces in the system should be zero at that state.  When I did that analysis the sum of the buoyant forces was NOT zero.  It was a positive value that meant the ZED would need to rise even further.
Are you saying that you agree with the analysis through State 2?  It is OK if you don't, but I will then want to know specifically what you object against.

You have stipulated that the pods and risers are massless.  Unless you specified some sort of payload someplace that I missed, going from State 2 to State 3 therefore does no work, but we know that it is lossy, because any increase in the internal volume requires the water columns to move towards equalization.  The cylinder volume from the Riser 3 OD inward increases only at the expense of a reduced water column in AR7.  Water volume from AR7 and AR6 go towards equalization, as do AR5 and AR4, and AR3 and AR2.  The internal volume can increase no more than the ratio of the area of riser3 to the entire area including AR7 multiplied by the water volume added in State 2.  And we know that equalizing columns is a lossy process.  So before I go off to show the specific changes going to a State 3, I need more information from you about what useful work  you intend this thing to do going from State 2 to State 3.  As long as it can be shown that work is less than the energy loss going between those two states, then the machine is lossy.


Offline LarryC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #248 on: March 02, 2014, 03:42:48 PM »
I checked the results before I posted.  They agree with the spreadsheet to five digits.  The 51 is the constant annular ring area expressed in circular inches that you agreed to use:  IE the area of the annular gap between the pod and the innermost ring wall.  40.06 is what you get when you convert from circular inches to square inches, which the constant K1 rolled-up along with the density of water. 

Maybe you are not familiar with the concept of circular area units.  They get used in power electronics quite a bit.  A circular area unit is the area a square would take that has the width of a given circle's diameter.  The relationship between circular area and absolute area is:  absolute area = circular area * pi/4.  With a pod of 25" diameter, the circular area is 252 = 625.  The ring wall at 26" diameter is 262 = 676.  The area difference is of course the sum of the two diameters = 51 circular inches.  We can work in these more convenient units throughout the problem before applying the common constants pi/4 and the density of water, and our conversion from cubic inches volume and inches height to cubic feet and feet height.

My reduction simply reproduced the net total of the spreadsheet formulas in algebraic form.


MarkE,


Okay, now we have 66.14% Zed Efficiency for both approaches.






 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #248 on: March 02, 2014, 03:42:48 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #249 on: March 02, 2014, 03:43:19 PM »
Are you saying that you agree with the analysis through State 2?  It is OK if you don't, but I will then want to know specifically what you object against.

I agree with your analysis through State 2.  Everything adds up exactly as I also found.

You have stipulated that the pods and risers are massless.  Unless you specified some sort of payload someplace that I missed, going from State 2 to State 3 therefore does no work, but we know that it is lossy, because any increase in the internal volume requires the water columns to move towards equalization.  The cylinder volume from the Riser 3 OD inward increases only at the expense of a reduced water column in AR7.  Water volume from AR7 and AR6 go towards equalization, as do AR5 and AR4, and AR3 and AR2.  The internal volume can increase no more than the ratio of the area of riser3 to the entire area including AR7 multiplied by the water volume added in State 2.  And we know that equalizing columns is a lossy process.  So before I go off to show the specific changes going to a State 3, I need more information from you about what useful work  you intend this thing to do going from State 2 to State 3.  As long as it can be shown that work is less than the energy loss going between those two states, then the machine is lossy.

I utilized the same analysis method for the output rise as was used for the input of the water charge:  F*ds as expressed for the case of a Volume of a Fluid that is being moved by a change in Pressure that either starts or ends at zero:  Paverage*V.  The riser initially will want to move with a Pressure that can be calculated from the buoyant force sum of the pod and risers.  That Pressure should drop linearly to zero as the ZED reaches equilibrium at the end of the rise.  The physical device that would restrain the initial Pressure and allow it to drop to zero while performing the rise is not important for the analysis I think.  Please let me know if you think otherwise.

Offline mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #250 on: March 02, 2014, 04:41:04 PM »
Great Work Mark E and Monderask.

You have worked thru the Math to properly analyzed the "Ideal charge"

That deserves a victory Lap for the Math so Far - well done.

Again - Great work thru the first step.

Note to Mark, "Ideal charge" is great for Monderask's question.


It is incorrect to use that state of a ZED or Marks stated operation as any conclusion, you have one wheel on the Gravity Wagon so far..Smile

p.s. Don't feel bad - almost every engineer jumped to your conclusion - you will get it soon.

Wayne



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #250 on: March 02, 2014, 04:41:04 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #251 on: March 02, 2014, 05:09:58 PM »
To All,

The drawing all lend confusion to our process.

Non show a static load - we used Hydraulic resistance as the load - above the risers.

This resulted in a state where the charge to lift a load is balanced - once buoyancy to load neutral  is reached - any additional input resulted in overcoming the resistance and resulted in stroke and output.

Also important to understand - at the end of the desired stroke - a mechanical stop is used to keep the precharge and stroke input from being released.

In effect - the load was removed during stroke, and then the precharge and stroke input recaptured.

As Webby described - we invented several methods to improve the value of that re use of the precharge and stroke input.

- The Video Mark Dansie took - we recaptured 57% of the input. (was our first  three layer ZED system)

This resulted in a simple input reduction to the over all process.

The comparisons to a Hydraulic cyclnder - which Larry has shown - is for one simple realization.

When we configure the ZED to upstroke loaded - with the same or better value than a simple hydraulic cylnder - and then re-use any portion of that input - the result is a input reduction.

Just as Fletcher described.

Our design requires three layers to be equal to or better than a Hydraulic cylinder.

The seal less jack comparison - with resuse is simple and clear - it continues to surprise me - that the men who slander me - won't see that.

............

Larry and Mark have agreed that a single layer and pod system is in the 60%'s area, I agree.

Watch what happens when you add two and then three - you can stop at three if you like - but you do not have to. smile

............

It took three minutes to realize the value of the ability to recycle input in a ZED system......... no magic, no fuss, no agenda.

Just good hard work.

Wayne


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #252 on: March 02, 2014, 05:12:14 PM »
Come on Travis, answer minnie's question.

It has been asked of you very politely and you have dodged it multiple times. Eventually everyone will think that your non-answer is a NEGATIVE answer. Some of us already know this.

Answer another question: Where is the 50 kW unit you promised was only three months away, in November of 2010? You claim to be fully funded, so it should be no problem for you NOW.

Unless of course you CANNOT, being constrained by reality.

What do the Trinity Baptist Church fathers think about your promise, now? Or is that part of the "doors closing, expectations not met"?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #253 on: March 02, 2014, 05:18:54 PM »
Quote
Our design requires three layers to be equal to or better than a Hydraulic cylinder.

Quote
But let me say - a single Zed system can demonstrate a gain over the operating cost

 Let's see you reconcile those two quotations from you, Travis.

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #254 on: March 02, 2014, 05:34:30 PM »
Let's see you reconcile those two quotations from you, Travis.

TK,  MarkE and I are currently working through the analysis of a SINGLE ZED that is composed of THREE LAYERS.

 

OneLink