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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED  (Read 749585 times)

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2205 on: April 15, 2014, 10:28:16 PM »
ST1 => ST2 2.0984mJ of Energy enters the system.  Please note that the Energy is added by a non-specified input mechanism.
The stipulated act of pumping water into the pod chamber is somehow non-specific to you?
Quote

ST2 => ST3 1.6510mJ of Energy (maximum) exits the system during the lift.
Using the spill mechanism yes, 1.651 is delivered as useful output.
Quote

ST3 => ST1 0.2022mJ of Energy exits the system during this reset phase.  Please note that this Energy could be recovered by a non-specified collection mechanism.
No, almost all could be recovered with an idealized collection mechanism.
Quote

Energy Out/Energy In = (1.6510mJ + 0.2022mJ)/2.0984 = 88.3%.
Beware assumptions! 

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2206 on: April 15, 2014, 10:36:33 PM »

That is funny Mark,, I remember Mondrasek saying that we should NOT need to include an actual device and you insisting on there being one.

Here YOU are saying, look see, there it is with all its loss,, see, see I told you so,, see,,


You put that loss in there,, YOU decided it must be a real world thing,,


Edit,, I messed up the quote
As usual Tom, you are confused as to even the point of discussion.  Mondrasek insisted that a mechanism could be devised that would extract all the internal energy loss going from State 2 to State 3.  He proposed his spillway gizmo as an example.  The spillway gizmo like any mechanism cannot extract all the internal energy loss.  The mechanism will not move, even with zero friction if the force transfer functions of the ST2 => ST3 risers and the payload identically match.  The payload transfer function must exhibit a lower force at least initially or the machine does not move.  The faster that one wants the machine to be able to cycle, the greater the required acceleration of the spill pan, and the greater that force difference must be, resulting in lower and lower efficiencies of the already absurd machine.

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2207 on: April 15, 2014, 11:16:53 PM »
A couple of classic quotes, and some new ones showing how things have progressed to the current situation

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 30, 2014, 02:28:17 PM
The Zydro Energy expands the understanding of science - and shows that a mechanical super conservative device can be built.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 29, 2014, 06:35:37 PM
So what have we been doing for four years........ you will know soon enough.

Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 04:32:45 PM
We will not be publicizing our test results until the Public release of our Manufactured models - which are currently scheduled to roll out in October 2015.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 31, 2014, 03:57:19 PM
Third - It is maturity - and the understanding that Super Conservative Net Energy Systems do not require OU

Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!
Quote from: mrwayne on March 29, 2014, 05:33:58 PM
p.s. two days run was for those of you who are stuck in the past......... We left you all behind.
Mark will be invited to our public release. He is a great skeptic.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 31, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
You are not wrong about me being over optimistic, you are not wrong about me being imperfect.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2208 on: April 15, 2014, 11:21:30 PM »
In the real world you are correct,, but in an ideal world the force of acceleration can be recovered as well,, it must, or else energy has left the system unaccounted for.

It was you who said a mechanism must be presented and Mondrasek complied with the spillway.

Analyzing an ideal something and a practical something are two different somethings,, even I know that :)
LOL.  Tom, even in an idealized world without friction, there is no acceleration without force.  "Idealized" does not mean "anything that I want something to be".  It means that certain real world behaviors that are not important to the problem being analyzed are disregarded.  When evaluating the idealized energy efficiency of some process, the process must be specified.  Otherwise one can simply declare:  "We will ignore all loss mechanisms in the process.  Therefore the process will be 100% efficient."

Of course I said a mechanism must be presented.  And yes Mondrasek came up with the giant pizza pan.  You or anyone else who would like to take a stab at designing a more complex pizza pan that can do better than the "simple" rectangular cross-section pan is welcome to put their hand to it.  One could for example attempt to devise one with a transfer function that would result in an initial fixed lift force that transitions to a net down force in such a way that the velocity is ideally almost zero by the end of the travel. 



MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2209 on: April 15, 2014, 11:29:29 PM »
MarkE,

I am wondering on the riser weight energy.

Is that input cost returned when the risers go back down, as in a reduction from the input cost?

Or, is it included within the return from state 3 to state 1 value already?  meaning that to take it out of the input cost AND then use the full return to state 1 would be double dipping.
Mondrasek has specified the machine as cycling ST1 => ST2 => ST3 => ST1.  The GPE of the riser does not change during the ST1 => ST2 transition and has no impact on the input energy added there.  The GPE increases during the ST2 => ST3 transition, taking away from useful work that otherwise would have gone to the output.  The GPE falls identically back during the ST3 = > ST1 transition. 

You might want to join me in reminding Mondrasek to check his assumptions in his energy calculations.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2210 on: April 15, 2014, 11:37:41 PM »
This is why I am asking on the riser weight energy part.

If I do not take it out of the input and use the full return then energy has left the building, and with no friction or lost water or air,, where did it go,, plus no heat.

st2estoredtotal                 0.0055107459J
st1estoredtotal                  0.0034123194J
st3estoredtoatal                 0.0036144798J
st2input                             0.0020984266J
ideal output                        0.0016509930J
Riser weight energy            0.0002452732J
Change in riser GPE ST2 => ST3
Quote
st1 to st3 return energy       0.0002021604J
Is it?  Assumptions!
Quote
Input minus Riser weight     0.0018531534J
Why would you calculate this value?  The input energy required to go from ST1 => ST2 is unaffected by the riser weight Mondrasek has added.
Quote
Output plus return               0.0018531534J
Your getting closer, but no cigar.
Quote

So using everything in an ideal setup takes the system back to its starting energy level,, and is that not a required condition?

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2211 on: April 15, 2014, 11:38:29 PM »



  Am I getting it with my ideal see-saw?
  My see-saw has an equal weight on each side.
  It just sits there, motionless.
  I add a bit of extra weight to one side, the speed depends
  on how much extra weight I use.
  Now one side descends and hits a stop at the low point.
  To get it to move again I have to either remove the extra weight
  from the low side and put it on the high side or put more weight
  on the high side which is sufficient to make it move and overcome
  the extra bit I originally put on.
                    John.

camelherder49

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2212 on: April 15, 2014, 11:38:53 PM »
When water is about to fall over a dam there is no acceleration without gravity.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2213 on: April 15, 2014, 11:42:49 PM »
A couple of classic quotes, and some new ones showing how things have progressed to the current situation

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 30, 2014, 02:28:17 PM
The Zydro Energy expands the understanding of science - and shows that a mechanical super conservative device can be built.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 29, 2014, 06:35:37 PM
So what have we been doing for four years........ you will know soon enough.

Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 04:32:45 PM
We will not be publicizing our test results until the Public release of our Manufactured models - which are currently scheduled to roll out in October 2015.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 31, 2014, 03:57:19 PM
Third - It is maturity - and the understanding that Super Conservative Net Energy Systems do not require OU

Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!
Quote from: mrwayne on March 29, 2014, 05:33:58 PM
p.s. two days run was for those of you who are stuck in the past......... We left you all behind.
Mark will be invited to our public release. He is a great skeptic.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 31, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
You are not wrong about me being over optimistic, you are not wrong about me being imperfect.
I love the new additions to the Wayne Travis bafflegab lexicon:  "Super Conservative Systems" and "Energy Reference Mapping".  These meaningless terms, much like the "Travis Effect" have been concocted to give a false pretense of scientific knowledge and legitimacy to the Wayne Travis investment fraud scheme.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2214 on: April 15, 2014, 11:46:33 PM »
When water is about to fall over a dam there is no acceleration without gravity.
The acceleration due to gravity:  It's real!
Instructions at the bottom of the reservoir:  "When reservoir is empty, obtain more water.  Condensed atmospheric vapor formed from evaporated sea water is a good source."

camelherder49

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2215 on: April 15, 2014, 11:57:24 PM »
My statement:

Your answer: What has that got to do with the price of banana juice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very helpful to the discussion.

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2216 on: April 16, 2014, 12:14:22 AM »
Of course I said a mechanism must be presented.  And yes Mondrasek came up with the giant pizza pan.  You or anyone else who would like to take a stab at designing a more complex pizza pan that can do better than the "simple" rectangular cross-section pan is welcome to put their hand to it.

MarkE, I still don't see the point of any physical Energy capture mechanism for an Ideal Analysis.  The IDEAL Energy that is output from the SUT during the ST2 => ST3 rise could simply be calculated as the integral of F*ds as reduced to 0.5*ST2_Max_Lift_Force*ST3_Lift_distance (I'm using descriptive terms here, not calling out the actual ones from the spreadsheet).  That would return the same value as the "spillway" Energy calculations as the time constant approaches infinity.  So for the IDEAL case, no actual mechanism is required.  Only the maximum theoretical Energy value need be calculated.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2217 on: April 16, 2014, 12:14:31 AM »
My statement:

Your answer: What has that got to do with the price of banana juice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very helpful to the discussion.
Camels, banana juice, a woman named John?

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2218 on: April 16, 2014, 12:33:14 AM »
MarkE, I still don't see the point of any physical Energy capture mechanism for an Ideal Analysis.  The IDEAL Energy that is output from the SUT during the ST2 => ST3 rise could simply be calculated as the integral of F*ds as reduced to 0.5*ST3_Lift_Force*ST3_Lift_distance.  That would return the same value as the "spillway" Energy calculations as the time constant approaches infinity.  So for the IDEAL case, no actual mechanism is required.  Only the maximum theoretical Energy value need be calculated.
Well, maybe you have a different idea of what it is that you would like to try and obtain from this analysis exercise than I think you do.  Please state clearly and succinctly what you are trying to determine from this exercise. 

I maintain that if you are trying to determine what level of efficiency is "ideally" possible, then the mechanisms do need to be specified, or else the exercise is rather pointless.  It is pretty simple to state that as the throughput power approaches zero the energy efficiency approaches, but never reaches 100%.  If you are content with that conclusion, then we are back to the device being more or less a complicated way to emulate a spring, actually two springs, where one more or less falls out in the ST3 to ST1 transition. 

If you have not been picking up the hints, the change in R3 GPE is negative in the ST3 => ST1 transition as is the internal energy change in the water columns.  In your spreadsheet you did not account for the R3 GPE.  If you did then your 88.3% number under the assumptions you state would come up to close to but less than 100%.  The device remains fundamentally lossy.  The whole question of whether something like this could be OU was answered by Powercat or Minnie back at like page 3 of the thread:  Using accepted First Principles, a properly constructed math model cannot show over unity as First Principles do not allow for it.


LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2219 on: April 16, 2014, 12:43:18 AM »
..
Librea... hit it on the head - whether he knows it or not....Doesn't matter...

To solve any real problem - you must reduce it to its simplest form.....


Ok, so lets not introduce any nonsensical statements like 'Super  Conservative' or 'Energy reference mapping'

With out reference to such ill defined concepts, show me just where in your machine that

"Water spontaneously flows up hill",  or
"Expanding air recovers more energy then is required to compress it" or perhaps even,   
"A buoyant object gains more energy when it rises compared to the energy required to sink it".

Have I missed any potential 'simple processes' that might be occurring in your machine?