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 742411 times)

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #300 on: March 03, 2014, 06:03:13 AM »
Monderask - I hope you do not mind,

MarkE,

The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.
The  math simply shows the physics that has been known for over two millennia.  It is the same physics that proves you are selling lies for cash.
Quote

I will act as you were never told the states - for sake of time.
With you it is always acting.
Quote

So lets get your states set up, and in order.

...........

Conditions
ZED A Sunk remaining head due to riser weight and any added weight - ZED A  will be the receiving ZED,

ZED B is at the end of delivering a load and in the raised position - and was not allowed to Bob up after the load was removed.

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

p.s. Adding weight is counter intuitive - most people assume adding weight induces losses

Lesson to be learned - trying to achieve Ideal usage results in self determined conservative process.

The next state is post free flow - this is where the other ZED A and B have equalized between the stroked ZED and the sunk ZED. No riser movement in either ZED - only fluid and pressure.

Note: Free flow results in equalized pressure - but not equalized volume.

The next State is changing from Free flow too "precharge"

Full precharge is the end of the state between free flow and enough buoyancy to nuetralize the determined load and no riser movement either ZED.

The process to get to the full precharge state - two inputs are utilized :

One - the continued consumption of pressure from the ZED B - and the hydro assist.

The hydro assist adds enough pressure - that when combined with the exhuast from the other ZED - reaches load neutrality (buoyancy). This is full precharge for ZED A.

Note: ZED B will not sink until the stored head has dropped below nuetrality of the risers and any added weight.

The Hydro Assist continues to be combined with the Pressure from ZED B - the input cost is the differance between the sinking ZED pressure and the stroking pressure required.

The next state is the Production Stroke of ZED A. ZED A stroking and ZED B sunk is the first half of a Dual ZED cycle - the process repeats in the other direction - notice I did not say reverses.

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

To understand Stroke - you must determine both the proper load and the proper stroke.

The proper load is the lift safely available at the determined end of stroke.

Iterations are helpful..... I will give you a rule of thumb - Do not make the stroke longer than 1/11 the height of the ZED.
(another counter intuitive - short stroke is a more efficient process)

Use your baseline calculator already prepared to determine what the load is at that height - and that is a good load - presuming riser weight and any added weight has already been considered.

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

Unlike the states Mark described - the precharge and stroke is only released into the other ZED - not bobbed up or consumed as production.

The transfer of the precharge and Stroke is made mechanically more efficient as Webby described and posted two of our methods.

but you do not need to add those improvements to find the outcome.

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

Last notes - when the full precharge is reached - any additional volume input into the ZED A results in production - so once precharge is hit - no consumption of the previous pressure occurs - the ZED B hits bottom at the end of the production stroke on ZED A.

In simple observation - the true cost of stroking a half cycle is all of the stroking Pv ZED A, minus the sinking ZED B Pv, and then repeat for a full cycle.

A full cycle is a return of ZED A to "Sunk.

MarkE - if you do understand these States - you should be able to see how we transfer two sets of PV left and right - not consuming that value and truely reducing the total input cost.

Lastly - the Hydro Assist is the external input - which can be powered by the Production. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production - you will understand why I have been so patient.

Wayne
So many words you utter, so much attempt you make to distract with utter bull shit.  Nothing you have shown or can show will result in an energy gain from cyclically lifting and dropping weights.  The "Ideal ZED" as Mondrasek has laid it out is a less than useless machine that expends energy while doing no useful work.  It is an allegory for what investor funds in your sham companies do: No useful work.

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #301 on: March 03, 2014, 06:09:36 AM »
The  math simply shows the physics that has been known for over two millennia.  It is the same physics that proves you are selling lies for cash.With you it is always acting.So many words you utter, so much attempt you make to distract with utter bull shit.  Nothing you have shown or can show will result in an energy gain from cyclically lifting and dropping weights.  The "Ideal ZED" as Mondrasek has laid it out is a less than useless machine that expends energy while doing no useful work.  It is an allegory for what investor funds in your sham companies do: No useful work.

So do you give up?  it is simple from here.

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #302 on: March 03, 2014, 06:10:32 AM »
Is there really any need to say more?

"Lastly - the Hydro Assist can be a external input - or powered by the Production leaving excess. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production - you will understand why I have been so patient."

TK, Did you think that thru....

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #303 on: March 03, 2014, 06:16:48 AM »
Everything you need to prove our claim of Net Energy

The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.

I will act as you were never told the states - for sake of time.

So lets get your states set up, and in order.

...........

Conditions
ZED A Sunk remaining head due to riser weight and any added weight - ZED A  will be the receiving ZED,

ZED B is at the end of delivering a load and in the raised position - and was not allowed to Bob up after the load was removed.

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

p.s. Adding weight is counter intuitive - most people assume adding weight induces losses

Lesson to be learned - trying to achieve Ideal usage results in self determined conservative process.

The next state is post free flow - this is where the other ZED A and B have equalized between the stroked ZED and the sunk ZED. No riser movement in either ZED - only fluid and pressure.

Note: Free flow results in equalized pressure - but not equalized volume.

The next State is changing from Free flow too "precharge"

Full precharge is the end of the state between free flow and enough buoyancy to nuetralize the determined load and no riser movement either ZED.

The process to get to the full precharge state - two inputs are utilized :

One - the continued consumption of pressure from the ZED B - and the hydro assist.

The hydro assist adds enough pressure - that when combined with the exhuast from the other ZED - reaches load neutrality (buoyancy). This is full precharge for ZED A.

Note: ZED B will not sink until the stored head has dropped below nuetrality of the risers and any added weight.

The Hydro Assist continues to be combined with the Pressure from ZED B - the input cost is the differance between the sinking ZED pressure and the stroking pressure required.

The next state is the Production Stroke of ZED A. ZED A stroking and ZED B sunk is the first half of a Dual ZED cycle - the process repeats in the other direction - notice I did not say reverses.

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

To understand Stroke - you must determine both the proper load and the proper stroke.

The proper load is the lift safely available at the determined end of stroke.

Iterations are helpful..... I will give you a rule of thumb - Do not make the stroke longer than 1/11 the height of the ZED.
(another counter intuitive - short stroke is a more efficient process)

Use your baseline calculator already prepared to determine what the load is at that height - and that is a good load - presuming riser weight and any added weight has already been considered.

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

Unlike the states Mark described - the precharge and stroke is only released into the other ZED - not bobbed up or consumed as production.

The transfer of the precharge and Stroke is made mechanically more efficient as Webby described and posted two of our methods.

but you do not need to add those improvements to find the outcome.

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

Last notes - when the full precharge is reached - any additional volume input into the ZED A results in production - so once precharge is hit - no consumption of the previous pressure occurs - the ZED B hits bottom at the end of the production stroke on ZED A.

In simple observation - the true cost of a stroke half cycle is all of the Hydro assist - which is also the stroking Pv ZED A, minus the sinking ZED B Pv, and then repeat for a full cycle.

The production cycle is both ZEDS having produced once and combined.

A full cycle is a return of ZED A to "Sunk.

MarkE - if you do understand these States - you should be able to see how we transfer two sets of PV left and right - not consuming that value and truely reducing the total input cost - the remaining input cost is the hydro assist.

Just As Webby pointed out that Mark D stated in his own video of our running system.

Lastly - the Hydro Assist can be a external input - or powered by the Production leaving excess. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production - you will understand why I have been so patient.

The Excess or Net per half cycle is no more than the value between the Pv sinking and the production - Not magical - but free.

Wayne

#### MileHigh

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7600
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #304 on: March 03, 2014, 06:29:44 AM »
So we have been waiting YEARS for that verbage, Wayne?  Your precharge this and assist that would make any hydraulic engineer have a good belly laugh.  How about an energy audit for each stage of your alleged system?   You know, Joules, energy states, stuff like that?

Your teaser game where people have to figure it out with "pointers" from you is truly sick.  Why do you play this game Wayne?  What is your motivation?

What you really need is a big honking compressed air tank.  I am convinced that's what powered the groaning bellows monster that you showed on video two years ago.

When are you going to deliver a working system, Wayne?  What will the power output be, and what form will it take?  Where will it go?

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #305 on: March 03, 2014, 06:30:28 AM »
So do you give up?  it is simple from here.
Your shamelessness is awesome.  I have proven that the "Ideal ZED" is less efficient than a brick.

#### MileHigh

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7600
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #306 on: March 03, 2014, 06:36:44 AM »
Quote
it is simple from here.

Shameless sleaze.

Brainwash attempt.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #307 on: March 03, 2014, 06:42:23 AM »
In the video..... Note the hoses and lines on the ground, the cable up high apparently going back to the barn, the fact that Dansie did not endorse the device, even though he did say what you told him was the explanation, note ...... the _battery_.....

Mister Wayne, by showing stuff like that you are not helping your case, as I pointed out to you quite a while ago.

Please take your simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, and show it in a video, with an explanation of how exactly it is overunity. Or show and explain the operation of the nice colored layer thing in the photos you've presented. Things like that will enhance your credibility and prove that you are cooperating in the spirit of this OPEN SOURCE website we have here.

Or don't, but the impression you leave is your responsibility.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #308 on: March 03, 2014, 06:44:44 AM »
(MY goodness, how does he manage to type on three keyboards at once, that evil puppetmaster Snitlekloaka. )

#### LibreEnergia

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 332
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #309 on: March 03, 2014, 07:06:17 AM »

Lastly - the Hydro Assist can be a external input - or powered by the Production leaving excess. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production

So from this description, the most efficient embodiment of the device would be to connect the 'Excess Output' directly to the input of this 'hydro assist system' and use it in the same stroke... would you agree?

After all as the system is stroking and producing the excess output then some or all of that could be redirected to assist input, surely?  Capturing it, storing it and moving it,  even if it is to another Zed can only result in losses compared with using it directly. I see no reason to the contrary.

I'd be interested in your opinion as to why/why not. I'm only trying to help you achieve the most efficiency here.. which appear to be LarryC's stated aim too.

#### Pirate88179

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 8366
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #310 on: March 03, 2014, 07:19:16 AM »

The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel.

Mark:

That is very funny indeed.  Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.

Excellent terminology and very, very funny.

Well done.

Bill

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #311 on: March 03, 2014, 07:21:44 AM »
So from this description, the most efficient embodiment of the device would be to connect the 'Excess Output' directly to the input of this 'hydro assist system' and use it in the same stroke... would you agree?

After all as the system is stroking and producing the excess output then some or all of that could be redirected to assist input, surely?  Capturing it, storing it and moving it,  even if it is to another Zed can only result in losses compared with using it directly. I see no reason to the contrary.

I'd be interested in your opinion as to why/why not. I'm only trying to help you achieve the most efficiency here.. which appear to be LarryC's stated aim too.
As you are no doubt acutely aware, Wayne Travis' wall of words is just a bunch of flim-flam hand waving.  Mondrasek put up his configuration of an "ideal ZED".  Wayne Travis wrote several posts approving Mondrasek's configuration.  Yet analysis shows that this "ideal" device is quite lossy.  A cinderblock brick would be more efficient.  Faced with that, Wayne belted out his wall of words suggesting that there is more to it.  One needs to hook up two of these lossy things together to make up the losses in volume.  Then our correspondent Wayne Travis filled out a long post of:  do this, do that, blah, blah, blah, but yet in the end he is still lifting and dropping weights, where we have just shown that doing is not only underunity, if done incompetently as in the "Ideal ZED" it requires input work and yields no useable output work.  It takes work to go from State 3 to State 2.  Going from State 2 to State 3 yields no useable output.  It does dissipate heat.  A rope, a spring, a rock would all be more efficient and useful than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".

How about this?  How about we secretly replace the "air" in the "ideal ZED" with water?  Why by gosh and by golly:  Praise Jesus!  It gets more efficient.  How about we get rid of the serpentine chambers?  Praise Jesus again!  A simple hydraulic piston is like a rock, a spring, or a rope more efficient than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".  The best ZED, the most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.  A glass of water is more efficient than a ZED.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #312 on: March 03, 2014, 07:24:58 AM »

Mark:

That is very funny indeed.  Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.

Excellent terminology and very, very funny.

Well done.

Bill
Bill, thanks.  What's fascinating to me is the absolute conscience free chutzpah of our correspondent:  Wayne Travis.  It apparently matters not to Mr. Travis that the "ideal ZED" is shown to be an energy wasting contraption.  Wayne just brass balls his way right past those inconvenient facts and alludes once more to some supposed secrets behind the curtain.  Wayne is so busy trying to talk fast that he's missed the fact that the curtain blew away a long time ago.

#### LibreEnergia

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 332
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #313 on: March 03, 2014, 07:50:39 AM »
How about this?  How about we secretly replace the "air" in the "ideal ZED" with water?  Why by gosh and by golly:  Praise Jesus!  It gets more efficient.  How about we get rid of the serpentine chambers?  Praise Jesus again!  A simple hydraulic piston is like a rock, a spring, or a rope more efficient than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".  The best ZED, the most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.  A glass of water is more efficient than a ZED.

I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.

#### mrwayne

• Hero Member
• Posts: 975
##### Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #314 on: March 03, 2014, 02:34:07 PM »
The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.

I will act as you were never told the states - for sake of time.

So lets get your states set up, and in order.

...........

Conditions
ZED A Sunk remaining head due to riser weight and any added weight - ZED A  will be the receiving ZED,

ZED B is at the end of delivering a load and in the raised position - and was not allowed to Bob up after the load was removed.

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

p.s. Adding weight is counter intuitive - most people assume adding weight induces losses

Lesson to be learned - trying to achieve Ideal usage results in self determined conservative process.

The next state is post free flow - this is where the other ZED A and B have equalized between the stroked ZED and the sunk ZED. No riser movement in either ZED - only fluid and pressure.

Note: Free flow results in equalized pressure - but not equalized volume.

The next State is changing from Free flow too "precharge"

Full precharge is the end of the state between free flow and enough buoyancy to nuetralize the determined load and no riser movement either ZED.

The process to get to the full precharge state - two inputs are utilized :

One - the continued consumption of pressure from the ZED B - and the hydro assist.

The hydro assist adds enough pressure - that when combined with the exhuast from the other ZED - reaches load neutrality (buoyancy). This is full precharge for ZED A.

Note: ZED B will not sink until the stored head has dropped below nuetrality of the risers and any added weight.

The Hydro Assist continues to be combined with the Pressure from ZED B - the input cost is the differance between the sinking ZED pressure and the stroking pressure required.

The next state is the Production Stroke of ZED A. ZED A stroking and ZED B sunk is the first half of a Dual ZED cycle - the process repeats in the other direction - notice I did not say reverses.

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

To understand Stroke - you must determine both the proper load and the proper stroke.

The proper load is the lift safely available at the determined end of stroke.

Iterations are helpful..... I will give you a rule of thumb - Do not make the stroke longer than 1/11 the height of the ZED.
(another counter intuitive - short stroke is a more efficient process)

Use your baseline calculator already prepared to determine what the load is at that height - and that is a good load - presuming riser weight and any added weight has already been considered.

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

Unlike the states Mark described - the precharge and stroke is only released into the other ZED - not bobbed up or consumed as production.

The transfer of the precharge and Stroke is made mechanically more efficient as Webby described and posted two of our methods.

but you do not need to add those improvements to find the outcome.

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

Last notes - when the full precharge is reached - any additional volume input into the ZED A results in production - so once precharge is hit - no consumption of the previous pressure occurs - the ZED B hits bottom at the end of the production stroke on ZED A.

In simple observation - the true cost of a stroke half cycle is all of the Hydro assist - which is also the stroking Pv ZED A, minus the sinking ZED B Pv, and then repeat for a full cycle.

The production cycle is both ZEDS having produced once and combined.

A full cycle is a return of ZED A to "Sunk.

MarkE - if you do understand these States - you should be able to see how we transfer two sets of PV left and right - not consuming that value and truely reducing the total input cost - the remaining input cost is the hydro assist.

Lastly - the Hydro Assist can be a external input - or powered by the Production leaving excess. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production - you will understand why I have been so patient.

The Excess or Net per half cycle is no more than the value between the Pv sinking and the production - Not magical - but free.

Wayne Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com