MarkE, I agree with all of it except for your statement #5.  And that is because I have done the math and did not find those expected results for this unique construction (ZED).  I would fully have expected your statement to hold true due to my training and experience (and knowledge of history).  But I could not find the classical expected result to present itself.  And so I did, and still do, ask for a double check of the analysis of this 3-layer ZED model.

Mondrasek, take two columns and connect them with a pipe at the bottom.  For the moment we will use identical cross-sections only for simplicity of the illustration.  Now, fill each of the columns to a height H1 and calculate the stored energy:

1) E = 2*0.5*pFluid*area*(H1² - 02) = pFluid*area*H1²

Next, move some amount of fluid from the right hand column: C2, to the left hand column C1 such that C1 increases by H2, and C2 decreases by H2:

2) Eadded_or_removed = integral F*ds.
Estored = integral F*ds column left ending + integral F*ds column right ending
K1 = pFluid*area
Estored = 0.5*K1*((H1+H2)² - H12) + 0.5*K1*((H1-H2)² - H1²) = 0.5*K1*((H1+H2)² - (H1-H2)²) = 4*0.5*K1*H2

Fstart = 0, because the columns are balanced.
Fend = Weight_left - weight_right = 2*pFluid*area*H2 = 4*K1*H2
Kf = 4*K1*H2/H2
Eadded = 0.5*Kf*(H2² - 0²) = 4*0.5*K1*H2

Ergo, in order to introduce a difference in height, we must apply 2*pFluid*area*Height change.  IOW, we did the work of lifting two volumes of the fluid each volume the change in height times the column area.  The exact reverse happens when we move a pair of connected columns towards equalization:  We lose internal potential energy identically equal to the sum of the weights times the distances: H2 moved.  Ergo, equalization loses stored energy.  Ergo equalization is lossy.  Ergo statement #5 is true.  QED.

This means that it is unequivocal that the State2 to State3 transition loses energy making the overall process lossy.  Now, someone could hypothesize that if we added a payload weight and lifted it that could produce some sort of net gain.  However, the incremental process amounts to lifting a weight.  All prior evidence is that gravity is conservative, and therefore lifting and lowering weights (neglecting losses) is also conservative.  Therefore adding a payload weight to the problem does not change the underlying conservative physics.

So tell me what you think.  Because as far as I can tell we are past establishing that the ZED is a loser, and are now down to giving you a solution for the ending heights of each of the columns.

Engineers "jumped to your conclusion".  You are a hoot.  The seemingly effortless way that you continue to shamelessly keep suggesting that you have something behind your tattered curtain is really awesome.

Thanks Mark,

I have warned you that our system is counter intuitive - and you are trusting your intuitive - and it is good - Not the best I have seen - you get lock jaw when you trust in what you already know - is making you blind.

Richard is one of the best - and when he found what he thought was a dead end - he said - How did you get around "this" and he learned the system very quickly.

Jumping to conclusions is a big mistake........... and I believe - that is why our system eluded the world.

The Math will reveal the truth, Keep up the good work.

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

You do not need me - you are on the right path to either conclusion.

Wayne

Wayne Travis you do not speak for me.  Larry's spreadsheet remains broken.  The analysis above shows that there is no gain to be had with the serpentine piston.  As soon as we release the device, we lose energy that we paid.  There is no sign of over unity.  There are only losses.

Right you are - my bad for the inclusion..

You have a one track mind - what you think the end is going to be..........

Get to the end of the Math - show the errors - everyone is appreciative.

The end is a three layer dual ZED system - Net Energy.

The new end of discussion will be; What is the Difference between a Non conservative Net Energy system and O/U.

That difference is what required our engineers to rethink of the black box.

We let people call it what they understand - for now.

Wayne
 

Right you are - my bad for the inclusion..

You have a one track mind - what you think the end is going to be..........

Get to the end of the Math - show the errors - everyone is appreciative.

The end is a three layer dual ZED system - Net Energy.

There is not and never was net energy.  You can tell that lie all you want.  It has never had any evidentiary support.  It is a bald-faced lie.

The new end of discussion will be; What is the Difference between a Non conservative Net Energy system and O/U.

They are both figments of the imagination.

That difference is what required our engineers to rethink of the black box.

Any engineer who believes your lies needs to go back to school.

We let people call it what they understand - for now.

Hey maybe Bubba will be calling you something else in a cozy 6'x9' for two.  Only time will tell.

Wayne
 

  Hi,
      thank you mrwayne for answering my question- by not answering!
   Now I feel I have enough information from Mondrasek and MarkE
   to be able to have a crack at the maths myself. It'll take me some
   time but between us we'll get to the bottom of it in the end.
                    John

Do I understand you to be saying that you refuse to discuss basic physics as it directly applies to your example?  Your example in going from State 2 to State 3 moves the water columns towards equalization, does it not?  The same physics applies to each pair of annular rings divided by a riser wall as it does to my example, does it not?

MarkE, I am refusing anything but to discuss the MATH.  That is the only thing that matters, AFAIKS.

Principals of basic physics can be discussed later.  But first, please finish your math when you can.  Also, I am happy to help out since the volume changes in each annulus due to the changing height of the risers gave me a pause (once again).  Luckily I had encountered that issue a few years ago in the original discussion on this subject and was able to quickly recover again due to my previous "learning curve."  I'm happy to share that knowledge if it would expedite your own learning curve.  And, of course, I have no doubts that you can get by the tricky part that I found!  But the offer stands if it is useful.

Let us presume for a while that the mathematical analysis as presented by LarryC is correct, in that it shows an energy increase or identically speaking a 'reduction in input' over a full cycle.

1. The first point would be to qualify that 'an energy increase' is in fact the same as a 'reduction in input', and simply a matter of semantics as to where you consider the lowest energy state of the cycle to be.  I'd be interested in Wayne or LarryC's comment to that.

If the above is agreed, then question then becomes, where did this energy increase during the cycle come from? It must be transferred from somewhere, unless you are going to challenge the first Law that states energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Nowhere have I seen a coherent explanation of this process.

We have claims of non-conservative gravity. This would imply lifting some mass was somehow easier when inside a ZED compared with outside of it. Certainly one can use levers to achieve lower force requirement but this is at the expense of displacement so we would expect in a conservative field such as gravity that the energy requirement remains constant.

If it works, then the ZED must break that symmetry. No where have I seen coherent explanation as to how this occurs within the ZED.

Does it somehow 'modify gravity' locally?  From all accounts the machine doesn't becoming  lighter while working, the workers are not floating away while working on it and I don't think Wayne is claiming that this is the working principle, so we can discount this.

So, from the agreed starting point given in point 1.  I'd like LarryC or Wayne to provide a coherent explanation of  how that happens.  The description must explicitly state how and where the energy increase occurs. It cannot contain reference to  time-based quantities such as power, as that is only valid when certain conditions are true that cause time to be eliminated from the math.

Perhaps, when this explanation is offered, we can then use mathematics to model JUST that process, as it is the only interesting part of the machine cycle.

I appreciate your turn and tone from trying to discredit our engineers - to asking a good question.

I think Monderask is taking a logical and clear method.

With the proper Math - of the whole system - opinions are not part of the equation.

Thanks Wayne

I appreciate your turn and tone from trying to discredit our engineers - to asking a good question.

I think Monderask is taking a logical and clear method.

With the proper Math - of the whole system - opinions are not part of the equation.

Thanks Wayne

You need still need  to clarify point one. Unless you do that any further discussion with you is futile.

The only part of the system that is actually of interest from an energy point of view is when transitions from it's state of lowest energy to the highest.

In 4 stroke engine for instance, from an energy point of view it is only necessary to look at the power stroke. An engine will still "work" in the sense that it will pump air if it is driven from an outside source, But we see the power stroke alone is responsible for the energy output.  All other part of the cycle simply reset the conditions to allow that to occur.

From a thermodynamic view point we don't even need to consider that is has pistons or fuel or any other physical embodiment.  We just model is as a volume of ideal gas with starting pressure p1 and temperature t1, heat is introduced and the volume expands to a pressure p2 and ending temperature t2. From those values alone we can deduce energy efficiency.

So, for the ZED, you should then be able to

1. Identify the lowest energy state in the zed cycle.
2. Identify the highest energy state in the zed cycle
3. Describe how it transitions between the two states. To be valid for performing an energy balance,  such an explanation cannot make reference to time based quantities.