Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: mondrasek on February 13, 2014, 03:17:30 PM

Title: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 13, 2014, 03:17:30 PM
All, please check the math.  I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions.  Feel free to send your input by PM if you don’t want to post in the thread.  It would be nice to know if you check the analysis and agree as much as if you find mistakes.

I preformed this analysis using a CAD model, Excel, and an old Casio calculator.  So precision of the values was carried out to as many as 10 significant digits.  I limited the CAD dimensions to only 7 digits after the decimal so errors are introduced but should still give accurate results if rounded to 6 significant digits or there about.

The model is of an ideal 2-layer (2 risers and 1 pod) ZED.  It was constructed using values intended to simplify the analysis, NOT to optimize expected performance or to show OU.

All dimensions in the CAD drawings are in millimeters.

The model was constructed by first starting with a 20 mm diameter x 60 mm tall pod.  Gaps, ring walls, and risers were all constructed by drawing lines that were offset by 1 mm from that pod and subsequent geometry.  Water (white color) was added to heights that approximate a setup condition that was expected to work for the purpose of analysis, but were otherwise randomly selected.

The remaining black areas under and around the risers are filled with air that is ASSUMED to be an incompressible fluid for the purpose of simplifying the analysis. 

The risers and pod are first ASSUMED to be weightless.  Due to the position of the water in contact with the inside and outside surfaces of both risers, they both would be neutrally buoyant.  The pod would have an initial buoyant force equal to the weight of the water it is displacing.  This calculates to be ~8.168 grams.  Therefor it is assumed that an equal weight of 8.168 grams is applied to the outer riser in order for this setup to maintain an overall neutral buoyant condition.

Please note that the 1 mm gaps between the upper surfaces of the pod and risers are only present to eliminate any confusion about possible stiction between those surfaces.  In reality there would need to be physical spacers to maintain those gaps.  Those spacers are ASSUMED to be in place and are not shown.

With this construction and set up condition we can calculate the pressure at the bottom of the pod chamber due to the 27 mm of water head resting on it as 264.87 Pa.

More to come.

M.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 13, 2014, 04:40:39 PM
Now the ZED is “charged” by adding additional water into the bottom of the pod chamber.  This will require Work/Energy that can be calculated by the Integral of the Pressure of that added water multiplied by the Volume of that added water.

The amount of water added was limited to be that which would cause the water level in the pod chamber to riser to 1 mm less than the total height of the pod when the pod and risers are not allowed to rise.  That volume can be calculated to be ~2.1771 cc.  This will be called Vin.

The positions of the air and water around the risers can also be calculated since their volumes must remain constant.  Once those new positions are found the resultant buoyancy force can be calculated.  For the pod the force now will be able to lift ~18.535 grams.  For the inner riser it is ~31.783 grams.  And for the outer riser it is ~40.440 grams.  The total the ZED can now lift is ~90.758 grams.  Since the setup required the outer riser to weigh ~ 8.168 grams, this needs to be subtracted.  The resultant lift capacity is reduced then to ~82.590 grams.

The Pressure of the water added during this charging cycle must rise from the initial pressure of 264.87 Pa (calculated in first post) due to the increase in the water head in the system.  The total water head in the final charged state is ~151.3463 mm and so the final pressure is ~1484.71 Pa.

If we ASSUME that the Pressure rise of the added water was linear, then the Integral of the Pressure for the added water become the average of the initial pressure before charging and the final pressure after charging.  The average of those two values is ~872.2567 Pa.  This will be called Pin.

The total Work/Energy needed to introduce the additional water to charge the ZED is now calculated as Pin x Vin which works out to ~1.8990 x 10^-3 N.m.

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 05:35:00 PM
The first thing that you will want to be very careful with is the assumptions that you make with respect to the amount of work it takes to displace "air" or water in any of the chambers.  A mistake can easily throw energy off by the ratio of area of the cylinder area to the annular ring area of the chamber.  It is tempting to calculate force based on the smaller area in cases where it is actually a function of the much larger area.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2014, 05:36:06 PM
Quote
And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU - if you simple store the recycled energy and return it on the next stroke, as I said two yeas ago - which you omitted every time you miss applied the context. As I said before - why add the extra effort and time - simply transfer between systems. Get over it - you missed it.

Well, that's a relief. You aren't going to need to complicate things by making dual ZEDs, because we here ONCE AGAIN have Wayne Travis claiming that a single ZED can be OU.... "IF".  Maybe he'll deign to give YOU , mondrasek, the design for the "simple, three layer system that is clearly OU by itself" (his own exact words). Don't hold your breath though.

Quote
On another note - my contact information has never changed - to  those that have tried to discredit me and our company all this time - those people never made one call or asked me one single question about their claims against us. Shame on all of you who slander by assumption.

Are you quite sure of that, Travis? How exactly do you KNOW that some of your detractors and scientific critics haven't been there, haven't talked to you and your "engineers" and your lawyers? You shouldn't be so confident, because you DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING that is transpiring around you. Your "contact information" hasn't changed? But your websites certainly have. Name changes, removal of many of the outrageous claims, the Zed animation is gone..... it has been clear for some time that you are scrambling about, reorganizing, shuffling that pea around, flipping the cards in your three-card Monte game. By the way, there is a difference between slander and libel, you should learn what it is.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 05:49:47 PM
Beware of nondescript old pickup trucks.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 13, 2014, 06:44:09 PM
The first thing that you will want to be very careful with is the assumptions that you make with respect to the amount of work it takes to displace "air" or water in any of the chambers.  A mistake can easily throw energy off by the ratio of area of the cylinder area to the annular ring area of the chamber.  It is tempting to calculate force based on the smaller area in cases where it is actually a function of the much larger area.

Thanks for the input, MarkE.  Please let me know if you see any of those type of mistakes so far.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 13, 2014, 08:09:18 PM
If we ASSUME that the ZED is acting exactly as a hydraulic cylinder, then it would have to follow Boyle’s Law.  The Integral of PinVin must equal the Integral of PoutVout.  To find the lift that would result in this case requires that we find the Vout.  Again I must also ASSUME that the output Pressure that the outer riser can provide is a linear function, starting at an initial pressure found from the buoyant lift force applied to the cross sectional area of the outer riser, and ending at a pressure of zero.  The hydraulic lift force of ~82.590 grams results in an initial pressure value of ~795.980 Pa.  The average Pout becomes half of that, or ~397.990 Pa.  With Pin of ~872.257 Pa and Vin of ~2.1771 cc (from a previous post), we solve PinVin = PoutVout for Vout = ~4.771 cc.  The lift of the outer riser is then calculated to be ~4.688 mm.  This is drawn and analyzed (after redistributing the fluids properly) to see if it is neutrally buoyant or not.

The evaluation of this ZED shows it is definitely NOT neutrally buoyant.  In fact, it sucks, literally.  It is displaying a positive lift force from the pod of ~10.050 grams.  But the risers are both negatively buoyant.  The inner riser has a lift force of ~-7.238 grams and the outer riser has a lift force of ~-43.130 grams.  The total is ~-40.318 grams.  When we add the additional downward force of the ~8.168 grams the outer riser needed to weigh for the system to be neutrally buoyant in the setup position, the total lift in this analysis is now ~-48.486 grams, far below a neutral buoyant condition.

So this test failed.  The ZED could never rise to the height calculated by Boyle’s Law.  If the ASSUMPTION of linear pressure transfers are correct (or close) the ZED could only rise a bit less than 2/3 of the required value necessary to satisfy Boyle’s Law.  Therefor we are left with the possibilities that a) there is a mistake in the math, b) the ASSUMPTIONS are greatly skewing us away from expected results, or c) an Ideal ZED is NOT analogous to an Ideal Hydraulic Cylinder.

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 08:16:27 PM
If we ASSUME that the ZED is acting exactly as a hydraulic cylinder, then it would have to follow Boyle’s Law.  The Integral of PinVin must equal the Integral of PoutVout.  To find the lift that would result in this case requires that we find the Vout.  Again I must also ASSUME that the output Pressure that the outer riser can provide is a linear function, starting at an initial pressure found from the buoyant lift force applied to the cross sectional area of the outer riser, and ending at a pressure of zero.  The hydraulic lift force of ~82.590 grams results in an initial pressure value of ~795.980 Pa.  The average Pout becomes half of that, or ~397.990 Pa.  With Pin of ~872.257 Pa and Vin of ~2.1771 cc (from a previous post), we solve PinVin = PoutVout for Vout = ~4.771 cc.  The lift of the outer riser is then calculated to be ~4.688 mm.  This is drawn and analyzed (after redistributing the fluids properly) to see if it is neutrally buoyant or not.

The evaluation of this ZED shows it is definitely NOT neutrally buoyant.  In fact, it sucks, literally.  It is displaying a positive lift force from the pod of ~10.050 grams.  But the risers are both negatively buoyant.  The inner riser has a lift force of ~-7.238 grams and the outer riser has a lift force of ~-43.130 grams.  The total is ~-40.31771688 grams.  When we add the additional downward force of the ~8.168 grams the outer riser needed to weigh for the system to be neutrally buoyant in the setup position, the total lift in this analysis is now ~-48.486 grams, far below a neutral buoyant condition.

So this test failed.  The ZED could never rise to the height calculated by Boyle’s Law.  If the ASSUMPTION of linear pressure transfers are correct (or close) the ZED could only rise a bit less than 2/3 of the required value necessary to satisfy Boyle’s Law.  Therefor we are left with the possibilities that a) there is a mistake in the math, b) the ASSUMPTIONS are greatly skewing us away from expected results, or c) an Ideal ZED is NOT analogous to an Ideal Hydraulic Cylinder.

M.
Something else that one needs to be careful about is evaluating integrals.  Where the pressure which translates to force changes, we need to solve the integral.  If the force or pressure starts at zero and goes to some other value then the integral is trivial.  If the pressure / force starts and ends at non-zero values then we get both linear and quadratic terms.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 13, 2014, 09:36:34 PM
Something else that one needs to be careful about is evaluating integrals.  Where the pressure which translates to force changes, we need to solve the integral.  If the force or pressure starts at zero and goes to some other value then the integral is trivial.  If the pressure / force starts and ends at non-zero values then we get both linear and quadratic terms.

Can you lend assistance with how to evaluate the PinVin integral properly since it starts from a non-zero condition in this setup?  Or would it be necessary for me to start over with a setup that initially has no water in the pod chamber?

Also, to be clear, is there any issue with evaluating the PoutVout where Pout starts at non-zero but should end at zero?

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 05:13:15 AM
Can you lend assistance with how to evaluate the PinVin integral properly since it starts from a non-zero condition in this setup?  Or would it be necessary for me to start over with a setup that initially has no water in the pod chamber?

Also, to be clear, is there any issue with evaluating the PoutVout where Pout starts at non-zero but should end at zero?

M.
Sure:

Take a volume where we are going to eject water replacing it with an incompressible fluid, where:

H is the height of the volume.
A is the cross-sectional area of the volume.
Ge is the acceleration due to gravity on earth.
pW is the density of water.
pX is the density of the incompressible fluid.

The pressure difference from bottom to top of the volume varies from 0 to H*Ge*(pW-pX).
The force required varies from 0 to H is A*Ge*(pW-Px)*H.
The work done is the integral of F*ds: = Integral( A*Ge*(pW-Px)*H dh)
The solution of the integral from 0 to H is of the form:  Kh*(H2^2 - H1^2) + F0*( 0.5*A*Ge*(pW-pX)*H^2

For pX = 0:  = 0.5*A*Ge*pW*H^2
And since the weight of water in the volume would be: Wdisplaced = A*Ge*pW*H, we get:  E = H/2*Wdisplaced. 

That should be intuitively satisfying because we "lift" only an infinitesimal amount of water by 0 height at the start, and another infinitesimal amount of water by all of the height at the end, so the average amount by which we "lift" all of the water that we displace is 0.5*H.  So far, so good.

But what happens when we already have displaced some water?  The math is still the same, just some terms are no longer zero.  Force needs to be defined as a function of what is being changed, displaced height for our problems, and then integrated.  The net work done is the difference between the integral at the start and end points.  Typically, this reduces to:

F = F0 + Kf*H  (Kf may be positive or negative depending on the circumstances)
Integral from H1 to H2 is:  F0*H2 + 0.5*Kf*H2^2 - F0*H1 - 0.5*Kf*H1^2.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 14, 2014, 03:43:08 PM
MarkE, thank you for that detailed example.  But I'm not sure how it is useful for the ZED analysis I am trying to perform?

Take a volume where we are going to eject water replacing it with an incompressible fluid...

I cannot see where in my analysis that I am ejecting water and replacing it with an incompressible fluid?  To "charge" the ZED additional water is being added to the volume of water that initially existed in the pod chamber.  That initial volume of water did cause an initial pressure (at the bottom of the pod chamber) that would need to be overcome in order for the additional water to be introduced (again, at the bottom of the pod chamber).  As the water is introduced, the total water "head" in the system increases, and so the pressure of the additional water being introduced must rise to overcome it.

I apologize if I am simply missing how your example applies.  Or possibly you are mixing up webby1's attempts from the RAR thread.  I would appreciate if you could clear this up for me.

I agree from your explanation that since the additional water introduced starts and ends at non zero pressures that my assumption that I could use their average as the solution to that integral may be erroneous.  And I definitely need help with defining the proper equations for this specific ZED model to do that integration properly.  Could you take another look at what I am describing in this setup and let me know if your example is still correct and how?  Or assist with one more specific to the ZED model I am trying to analyze?

Thanks,

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 04:08:32 PM
Mondrasek the math is generic and applies where ever you displace one fluid for another with a different SG.  That happens in the different chambers of the ZED.  I have not gone through an analysis of your problem so my guidance remains somewhat generic:

1) Calculate energies at each state in a cycle.
2) Make sure that you calculate energy as the integral of F*ds.
3) Make sure that you define F correctly.
4) Tally the four energies for one complete cycle:  Energy at start, energy added, energy removed, energy at end. 
5) Determine net energy gain or loss as:  Net energy expended = Energy at start + energy added - energy removed - energy at end.
Positive values mean the machine is an energy sink.
Negative values mean the machine appears to produce free energy.
6) Perform sanity checks on each of the states evaluated based on understood physics.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 14, 2014, 06:47:49 PM
MarkE, thanks again for explaining further.  And I see where you are coming from.  But a full energy balance of the internal workings of the ZED is both beyond my current abilities and not of so much interest.  For it to be of interest to me I think I would first need to see some simple indication that something unexpected would be found.  And that is why I settled on this current effort.

I am trying to treat the ZED as a "black box" during this part of my analysis.  And then just see if it acts like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder by conforming to Boyle's law.  So I think I only need to be concerned with the Energy that crosses the boundaries of the "black box" as represented by the integral of PinVin (water pumped into the pod chamber to charge the ZED) and the integral of PoutVout (rise of the ZED due to the buoyant forces caused by the charging).

You have pointed out an apparently valid flaw with the way I was calculating the Pin.  That pressure was not starting or ending at zero.  So my simplification of using the average pressure as the integral value would not be correct.  And that can be resolved by two different methods I believe.  First, the proper integral equation could be used.  Second, the model can be revised to have an initial starting condition where Pin is zero.  Since the former would require much assistance and would result in an overall more complex analysis, I think it would be best if I tried the latter.

Thanks again!

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 06:53:33 PM
Mondrasek, I think it is fine to try and take a greatly simplified view of the box.  If you get an answer that makes sense then there is a decent chance that it is reasonable.  If you get an answer that doesn't make sense such as seems to show over unity, then it is time to look more closely.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 14, 2014, 09:59:30 PM
All,  I need someone to double check my work.  I have redrawn the model so that the start condition has no water in the pod chamber.  AFAIK this model is expected to be bound by Boyle's law (P1V1 = P2V2) under the ideal conditions being analyzed.  But it does not calculate to do so.  I am again finding PinVin > PoutVout, but by a much smaller margin.  I've triple checked all my calcs, so unless I am missing something simple, either a) the analysis process being applied is wrong, or b) the ZED is NOT acting like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder.

Would anyone care to independently verify my work?  It is fairly simple algebra, no calculus needed.

Thanks,

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 14, 2014, 10:20:42 PM
New diagrams.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 16, 2014, 08:34:21 AM
I wanted to put all of the dimensions in one place and it is easier for me to see the different pieces by using more colors.  So, here is the initial state drawing.  I would like to know whether we are stipulating that we got to this state, or that we are following some assembly procedure in order to get to this state.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 16, 2014, 02:09:21 PM
I wanted to put all of the dimensions in one place and it is easier for me to see the different pieces by using more colors.  So, here is the initial state drawing.  I would like to know whether we are stipulating that we got to this state, or that we are following some assembly procedure in order to get to this state.

An assembly procedure would be needed to get to this initial state I think.  It would likely involve vent ports for allowing air to move out (equalize pressure) while the risers and water were assembled.  Those vent ports would then be sealed and not used during the cycle.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 16, 2014, 02:31:55 PM
OK that works.  For now I will just assume that we can get to the state in the picture.  One other question:  I assume that the pod does not seat.  I used mythical 1um spacers for that.  The idea is that any water pumped into AR1 will freely flow underneath the pod.  Does that work for you?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 16, 2014, 02:41:21 PM
Yes, there would have to be that mythical spacer under the pod.  That condition does move this model further from a truly obtainable real world construction but was the only way I could conceive of to start with no water in the pod chamber and still allow for no motion when the water charge is being introduced.  But since the entire model is bound by engineering ideals, we can make that spacer infinitely small.  Assigning it a very small value as you suggest should not cause a noticeable difference I think.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 16, 2014, 02:44:24 PM
OK so we will treat it that way:  Allowing water admitted to AR1 to flow underneath in a very thin layer without consideration of surface tension, etc.  Are you also OK with the assumption that any water we admit, that we admit through the bottom of AR1?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 16, 2014, 02:50:48 PM
OK so we will treat it that way:  Allowing water admitted to AR1 to flow underneath in a very thin layer without consideration of surface tension, etc.  Are you also OK with the assumption that any water we admit, that we admit through the bottom of AR1?

Yes, water is to be admitted through the bottom of AR1.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 20, 2014, 03:52:12 PM
All, MarkE has not been able to work out his double check of the analysis yet.  Would anyone else like to help?  I am happy to assist in any way possible.  Or if anyone can explain why the method I am using in this analysis is incorrect that would also be helpful.

The reason I am asking is because what my analysis has shown so far is extraordinary.  It appears to show that the ZED is NOT conforming to Boyle's law.  Possibly because it is an open system?  And so PinVin<>PoutVout.  And in the case shown in the analysis, PinVin>PoutVout, so underunity.  But that leads to the following question:  If PinVin<>PoutVout, is there some possible change to the geometry of the ZED model that could lead to PinVin<PoutVout, ie. overunity?

I have already tested the next logical step:  I added the third riser to the current model.  The results of that analysis, by the exact same method outlined in this thread, does result in PinVin<PoutVout, ie. overunity.  So I am anxious to have the analysis duplicated and/or shown to be erroneous.

Thanks,

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 20, 2014, 08:59:14 PM
Hi M.


First, thanks for the inspiration. I've been looking for an improved way to help other understand the recovery and you gave it to me.


One of the issues is not recovering the stored energy from the previous lift. The attached spreadsheet shows a simple flow analysis between 2 Archimedes and also for a single Archimedes. The efficiency is ~83% with 2 and ~50% with a single. It doesn't have to be a second Archimedes, but some method of recovering the stored energy from the previous rise is required. Only change the parameters in yellow, all others are calculated.


You have seen my older spreadsheet with recursive iterations performing millions of calculations to get the water levels in the risers correct during the rise, due to interconnection of air compression/decompression. I don't know how to do this it any other way, so I can not help with your calculations. My recent spreadsheets analyze the latest design Zed flows the same as the attached Archimedes and they all show efficiency's much greater than 100%. But, as you know, I can not post them here due to my NDA.


Good work and please let me know if you or anyone find any errors in the spreadsheet, should be easy as there is no VBA.


Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 20, 2014, 09:38:18 PM
And of course your NDA is preventing you from producing any kind of real system that shows the same degree of OU as your spreadsheet. But what's preventing Travis from using your information to get himself out of his hole? I know the answer to that one... and so do you.

Meanwhile, here's proof that a simple U-tube is overunity.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 20, 2014, 09:38:46 PM
You have seen my older spreadsheet with recursive iterations performing millions of calculations to get the water levels in the risers correct during the rise, due to interconnection of air compression/decompression. I don't know how to do this it any other way, so I can not help with your calculations.

Hi LarryC!

Oh yeah, I remember the spreadsheets and the iterative nature of those calcs!  I even did some by hand a few times but found that too frustratingly tedious.  I would have had to ask someone to write a program just like you did in your spreadsheet if I was to continue that way!  Hopefully MarkE can show us the proper way to simply set up and solve the Integrals instead.

In this "ideal" analysis the air is assumed to be incompressible.  So no iterations needed.  I just solve for all the needed values on a calculator and keep track of them in a spreadsheet and by drawing the results and measuring new results and relationships in CAD.  CAD is not even necessary but saves me some time.  It is all very straight forward math now.  I also use the spreadsheet to do some quick volume checks at each step to double check my work.  If you don't catch a mistake in one fluid interface adjustment it throws off all the subsequent ones!  A complete analysis of the model presented in this thread only takes me about two hours now, including those double checks.

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 21, 2014, 03:49:48 PM
Great collaboration! I am logging out till needed.

Looks Like you Men have a great handle on the ZED system.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 21, 2014, 09:58:25 PM
I was hoping to have someone check my math and process of analyzing the 2-layer system before ever posting the 3-layer.  That has not happened and so here is the next model if anyone is interested.  It utilizes the exact same 2-layer model and adds an additional third riser on the outside.  That way the same calculations for the 2-layer portion to find the water levels after introducing the Vin volume "charge" could be re-used.

The PinVin I calculate now rises to ~2.103 mJ.  If PoutVout is to be equal to that per Boyle's law, then the system should stroke ~1.9094 mm.  That is drawn on the right hand side and analyzed to see if it is neutrally buoyant.  It is not, and actually is still pushing upward with ~31.8276 grams of force.  So the ZED would stroke further than shown until it could come to rest again with neutral buoyancy.  And that would require that PouVout would be greater than the PinVin of ~2.103 mJ.

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 22, 2014, 12:37:17 PM
All joking aside, the system to be analyzed is surrounded by the red box.  Everything that occurred previous to these steps are "manufacturing" or "setup" costs/conditions for the process to be analyzed and do not need to be considered.

There are exactly two "units" (blue box) crossing into the system on the right.  That is equal to the two "units" that are exiting the system on the left.  Both are crossing into or out of the system at the same height and both are moving the same vertical distance.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 02:24:38 PM
And your nested system is significantly different.... how?

1. You are confusing yourself with "Boyle's Law" pressure/volume calculations, because Travis and Red Sunset and Webby have all said that the air can be replaced with incompressible fluid. All chambers in your system should be filled with fluid that doesn't change in volume when it's under pressure.

1b. Air -- wet air -- is not an ideal gas and you will find that it deviates from strict Boyle-Charles law behaviour. How much? Enough to account for your numerical result? I don't know. Do you?

2. You should be able to demonstrate some actual gain in something, somewhere, using just three layers. Travis has told us so!

3. What, exactly, is the real "output" of your system? Is it a lifted weight? If you are counting pressing against a stop as "output work", that's not kosher!

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 22, 2014, 03:09:50 PM
And your nested system is significantly different.... how?

The analysis I have shown, in effect, isolates the system being analyzed just as the red box did to yours.  It is similar to treating the enclosed system as a "black box."  Then we only need to concern ourselves with what crosses the barrier of that box.

The point of significant difference is this:  A correct analysis of your UTube system shows that the Work/Energy input=output (unity).  The results of the ZED system that I am analyzing show that input<>output (non unity).

1. You are confusing yourself with "Boyle's Law" pressure/volume calculations, because Travis and Red Sunset and Webby have all said that the air can be replaced with incompressible fluid. All chambers in your system should be filled with fluid that doesn't change in volume when it's under pressure.

All internal chambers have been replaced with an incompressible fluid.  There is the water (SG=1), and the air (SG=0) that is ASSUMED to be incompressible for this ideal case.  We can change those two fluids to real incompressible liquids of different specific gravity values if the assumption needs to be tested falsifiable.  But when you do the math you will see that the greater the difference in the SG of the two fluids used, the greater the output to input ratio once unity has been surpassed by proper ZED design.  Also, you can see that a compressible fluid such as air only causes a loss to the system.  So using two liquids will result in a higher performance, just so the difference in the SG of those fluids is > 1.

The outer chamber of the system is NOT filled with an incompressible fluid.  It is open to the atmosphere.  So an open system.  I find that interesting and a possible reason that Boyle's law may not apply?

1b. Air -- wet air -- is not an ideal gas and you will find that it deviates from strict Boyle-Charles law behaviour. How much? Enough to account for your numerical result? I don't know. Do you?

No air (or wet air) is used in the system under analysis.

2. You should be able to demonstrate some actual gain in something, somewhere, using just three layers. Travis has told us so!

The analysis of the 3-layer ZED does show that.  PinVin<PouVout.

3. What, exactly, is the real "output" of your system? Is it a lifted weight? If you are counting pressing against a stop as "output work", that's not kosher!

The output is being calculated as the Integral of Pout * Vout, ie. Work/Energy.  Pout is the average pressure of the ASSUMED linear declination of the maximum lift pressure (calculated from the buoyancy force at full charge applied to the surface area of the outer riser) as it falls to zero (where the system should be at neutral buoyancy after being allowed to rise due to the charge).

I have never calculated the real Vout.  Instead I have ASSUMED the system follows Boyle's law and would therefore have a Vout that can be calculated by the specified and calculated Integral of Pin, Vin, and the Integral of Pout.  Once that Vout is calculated I construct a model that has stroked to the height that would require and reevaluate.  If Boyle's law were true, then the system after applying this stroke value should be at neutral buoyancy.

It is not.

In the 2-layer model the system fails to satisfy Boyle's law by displaying PinVin>PoutVout (underunity).

In the 3-layer model the system fails to satisfy Boyle's law by displaying PinVin<PoutVout (overunity).

M. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 04:23:05 PM
Quote
All internal chambers have been replaced with an incompressible fluid.  There is the water (SG=1), and the air (SG=0) that is ASSUMED to be incompressible for this ideal case.

So what are you doing mentioning Boyle's Law at all? Boyle's Law is the relationship between Pressure and Volume of compressible (ideal) gases. You are assuming incompressibility at the top, then complaining that your system doesn't follow the law of compressible gases?

Quote
I have never calculated the real Vout.  Instead I have ASSUMED the system follows Boyle's law...


Maybe that's your problem then, since incompressible fluids do not follow Boyle's Law of the pressure-volume relationship of ideal, compressible gases.

And work is only performed when forces act over distances. Pressing against a stop with some pressure is not work. Does your butt do work on the chair you are sitting in?




Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 22, 2014, 04:49:15 PM
So what are you doing mentioning Boyle's Law at all? Boyle's Law is the relationship between Pressure and Volume of compressible (ideal) gases. You are assuming incompressibility at the top, then complaining that your system doesn't follow the law of compressible gases?

Maybe that's your problem then, since incompressible fluids do not follow Boyle's Law of the pressure-volume relationship of ideal, compressible gases.

So you are saying that Boyle's law does not apply to a fluid once it changes state from a vapor/gas to a fluid?  I thought that once the fluid is incompressible then the volume cannot change.  And then Boyle's law of P1V1=P2V2 would reduce to Integral of P1 = Integral of P2.  Are you saying this is incorrect?

And work is only performed when forces act over distances. Pressing against a stop with some pressure is not work. Does your butt do work on the chair you are sitting in?

I'm not sure how this applies?  Work is not being calculated while pressing against a stop.  A non unity quantity of Energy is.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 05:23:15 PM
So you are saying that Boyle's law does not apply to a fluid once it changes state from a vapor/gas to a fluid?
Who is talking about phase changes here? Your device is filled completely with two incompressible fluids. No phase change happens. Boyle's Law does not apply to incompressible fluids!
Quote
I thought that once the fluid is incompressible then the volume cannot change.
That's right: The pressure applied to the fluid is _unrelated_ to the volume of the fluid, it does not affect the volume, and no amount of applied pressure can change the volume of an _incompressible_ fluid, and no energy can be stored by "compressing" or applying pressure to an incompressible fluid.
Quote
  And then Boyle's law of P1V1=P2V2 would reduce to Integral of P1 = Integral of P2.  Are you saying this is incorrect?
How many pounds per gallon does a speed of 60 seconds per bushel represent? 
I am saying that no pressure change will result in a volume change of an incompressible fluid, therefore Boyle's Law is irrelevant and inapplicable! So Boyle's Law reduces to P1V1 = P2V1 since volume cannot change in an incompressible fluid, and this relation is contradicted by experiment (pressures can certainly be different for the same volume of water, a nearly incompressible fluid) because Boyle's Law is not applicable to _incompressible fluids_ !! It is an IDEAL GAS LAW and ideal gases are ideally compressible ... that is what Boyle's Law tells you!

Quote
I'm not sure how this applies?  Work is not being calculated while pressing against a stop.  A non unity guantity of Energy is.
In a previous post you stated that the pressure against the stop caused by your calculated excess buoyancy represented a gain, I thought. And work and energy have the same units, the Joule in SI. If you are calculating Energy you are also calculating Work and vice versa.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 22, 2014, 07:08:11 PM
Who is talking about phase changes here? Your device is filled completely with two incompressible fluids. No phase change happens. Boyle's Law does not apply to incompressible fluids!

Sorry if my previous explanation was not precise.  I did not mean to imply that any phase change occurs in the ZED system.  It does not.  I was only tring to explain that I thought Boyle's law would apply to liquids once they had changed phase from vapor to liquid.  If that is in error, I accept that and appreciate you pointing out my misunderstanding.

That's right: The pressure applied to the fluid is _unrelated_ to the volume of the fluid, it does not affect the volume, and no amount of applied pressure can change the volume of an _incompressible_ fluid, and no energy can be stored by "compressing" or applying pressure to an incompressible fluid.

I'm sorry if I don't understand your point here.  I would appreciate if you can try another way to help me grasp it.  Seriously.  But I see no Energy being store in "compressing" anything in the process I am analyzing.

How many pounds per gallon does a speed of 60 seconds per bushel represent? 
I am saying that no pressure change will result in a volume change of an incompressible fluid, therefore Boyle's Law is irrelevant and inapplicable! So Boyle's Law reduces to P1V1 = P2V1 since volume cannot change in an incompressible fluid, and this relation is contradicted by experiment (pressures can certainly be different for the same volume of water, a nearly incompressible fluid) because Boyle's Law is not applicable to _incompressible fluids_ !! It is an IDEAL GAS LAW and ideal gases are ideally compressible ... that is what Boyle's Law tells you!

I know!  But the analysis appears to show that the ZED system would need to stroke (under pressure) more than would be required by inputting the same volume of charge liquid under the same pressures that an equivalent hydraulic system would.  And so I don't understand!

Now if using Boyle's law to calculate the energy input due to the charge volume being introduced is wrong, then the analysis is wrong.  Completely wrong. 

Can you offer a correct method?

In a previous post you stated that the pressure against the stop caused by your calculated excess buoyancy represented a gain, I thought. And work and energy have the same units, the Joule in SI. If you are calculating Energy you are also calculating Work and vice versa.

I tried to state that by the method I was using to calculate it appears there must be more energy after the system "power stroke" than is predicted by the falsification test.  So either the test is erroneous or there must be excess energy left in the system.

TK, thank you for engaging and helping me to work this out.  It is much appreciated.

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 22, 2014, 10:38:45 PM
Mondrasek, I think that the confusion here is in how does one measure the energy of a submerged buoyant object.  For an object of constant height, the amount of force that we must apply to the object to initially submerge it changes from the value at zero submersion to the fully submerged value.  From there on the buoyant force is constant and the amount of additional work required to submerge the object further is the difference between that constant buoyant force and the constant force of gravity on the mass of the object multiplied by the change in depth.

The attached graphic will hopefully help.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 22, 2014, 11:06:09 PM
Mondrasek, I think that the confusion here is in how does one measure the energy of a submerged buoyant object.  For an object of constant height, the amount of force that we must apply to the object to initially submerge it changes from the value at zero submersion to the fully submerged value.  From there on the buoyant force is constant and the amount of additional work required to submerge the object further is the difference between that constant buoyant force and the constant force of gravity on the mass of the object multiplied by the change in depth.

The attached graphic will hopefully help.

TK,

I would appreciate if you would stay on topic.  Can you please explain exactly how this post is relevant to the "Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED" models so far presented?

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 11:29:33 PM
Do you have me confused with someone else?

But look again at Mark's diagram. Do you see what he is integrating? Do you see any need for an ideal gas law in determining the work required to submerge a _sealed_ buoyant object?

Now, if you were considering a Cartesian Diver (an _unsealed_ buoyant object)  and didn't stipulate beforehand that all your fluids were incompressible, that would be a different story.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 23, 2014, 12:01:06 AM
Do you have me confused with someone else?

No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably).  Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?

But look again at Mark's diagram. Do you see what he is integrating? Do you see any need for an ideal gas law in determining the work required to submerge a _sealed_ buoyant object?

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!   We get to the Ideal gas law!  Which is PV=nRT.  Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in  Boyle's law:  PVinput=PVoutput.

Now, if you were considering a Cartesian Diver (an _unsealed_ buoyant object)  and didn't stipulate beforehand that all your fluids were incompressible, that would be a different story.

Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 12:56:05 AM
No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably).  Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!   We get to the Ideal gas law!  Which is PV=nRT.  Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in  Boyle's law:  PVinput=PVoutput.

Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?

M.
No Mondrasek I am not a sock puppet of TinselKoala.  And no when a gas is incompressible, the ideal gas law of which Boyle's Law, and Charle's Law are consequences do not apply.

I finally got to spending some time with your model today and have a couple of questions.  The first is that when you admit water you want to fill up the pod chamber to 60mm height.  But that will drive all of the water out of annular ring 2.  What would you like to do here?  One option is to add water in the pod chamber until AR2 gets down to 2mm above the bottom.  A second option is to prefill to a much greater height than 32.5mm.  For instance 52.4mm would leave 2mm in AR2.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 23, 2014, 01:28:52 AM
Hi M.,


Your uncompressible air made it easy to do the flow spreadsheet for 2 zeds with 1 riser. I used the rule that 1X head change in the pod creates 2X head change in the riser to calculate the water heads.


Got an efficiency of ~154% with 2 zed units and ~74% with 1 Zed unit.


It makes it obvious that the average PSI differential between the Left and right zed units during water transfer is key to it's efficiency. I included the Archimedes spreadsheet again, compare the PSI differential from each, the Zed is superior.


I did have weight on the pod as it is critical that a pod sink point is specified for the water head calculations.


I recommend that anyone looking at these, understand the Archimedes calculations first, then the 2 Zed version will be easier.


M., please check for errors, thanks. This will be an interesting simple proof if we get it cleaned up.


Larry[size=78%]   [/size]
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 01:38:30 AM
No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably).  Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?
Sure, Rosemary, you have finally tracked me down.

It's hilarious, isn't it? People just cannot believe that there could be _two_ different people both of whom want to see real data that support claims, so they must be the same person posting under two different aliases.

Quote

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!   We get to the Ideal gas law!  Which is PV=nRT.  Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in  Boyle's law:  PVinput=PVoutput.

Boyle, Charles, Gay-Lussac, Avogadro all lumped together.
Check the Wiki article for the derivation.
Unfortunately none of these apply to _incompressible fluids_.

Quote


Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?

M.
Not, as you have stipulated the Zed contains only incompressible fluids. So it is not comparable to the unsealed buoyant object like the Cartesian Diver, whose buoyancy depends upon the Volume of the compressible gas contained within it, which is open to the pressure of the surrounding incompressible fluid. Changing the pressure of the outer incompressible fluid changes the pressure _and hence the volume_ of the compressible gas within it, thus making the Diver rise or sink as its buoyancy is changed by the changes in the pressure of the surrounding incompressible fluid. Your Zeds, ex hypothesi, have only incompressible fluids, so no pressure changes can result in any volume changes anywhere. In an incompressible fluid, volume is conserved. The only way to get more or less volume is physically to add or subtract more of the incompressible fluid.

Gas laws do not apply to incompressible fluids! If a substance does NOT respect the pressure-volume relationship of Boyle's Law... you can't use Boyle's Law to describe or predict its behaviour!! Ditto for Charles's Law, the combined Boyle-Charles Law, or the full "ideal gas law", since in an incompressible fluid the volume does not change with application of external pressure! By Definition!

So you either must drop references to the gas laws in your analysis and workings, or you must use _compressible gas_ instead of one of the incompressible fluids in your model. I'm arguing for the former, as it will simplify your analysis.


And admit it... you are really Webby, aren't you? And you both post as Red Sunset. And you all are on Travis's payroll. Right.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 23, 2014, 02:30:10 PM
I finally got to spending some time with your model today and have a couple of questions.  The first is that when you admit water you want to fill up the pod chamber to 60mm height. 

MarkE, the volume of water admitted is only enough to fill the pod chamber to 37mm height.  That is shown in the second diagram here:

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 23, 2014, 02:59:20 PM
So you either must drop references to the gas laws in your analysis and workings, or you must use _compressible gas_ instead of one of the incompressible fluids in your model. I'm arguing for the former, as it will simplify your analysis.

Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?

Here is what I would propose to try next:  Using the incompressible fluids in the model.  Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?

If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right?  If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 04:59:20 PM
Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?
Of course.
Quote
Here is what I would propose to try next:  Using the incompressible fluids in the model.  Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?
So it would seem, if I am understanding you correctly. However, consider the simple lever. If I "admit" a certain weight on the long end and it sinks, should that be equal to the Height Output as measured by the height change of the weight on the short end? I think nested hydraulic cylinders can act like a compound lever, and I think that the multiple layers might distribute an initial "volume input" over several outer risers, so the final "rise" might be small, but with increased force.
Quote
If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right?  If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?

Now you have lost me. Neutral buoyancy means that the mass of the displaced water is equal to the mass of the displacing object. Adding additional force pressing down on the "neutrally buoyant" object makes it sink, so is this extra force to be included in the figuring?  Since your risers are "massless" I think you are once again up against a place where your assumptions are non-physical and may be leading you off the correct track.

Try putting some Red Herrings in the water. That has helped Travis and Red Sunset along greatly.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 23, 2014, 05:34:48 PM
Of course.

*sigh*  Would you be so kind as to describe the correct method in the form of a mathematical relationship?

Now you have lost me. Neutral buoyancy means that the mass of the displaced water is equal to the mass of the displacing object. Adding additional force pressing down on the "neutrally buoyant" object makes it sink, so is this extra force to be included in the figuring?  Since your risers are "massless" I think you are once again up against a place where your assumptions are non-physical and may be leading you off the correct track.

Please refer to the start condition and the charged condition shown in the first two diagrams here:

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854

A specific volume of water is being added to the pod chamber (AR1).  If the ZED is acting strictly like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder, then the outer riser should need to rise by an amount that would be equal to having received that same volume of water.  That volume is calculated by measuring how much the outer riser lifts, I think.  It is the same way we correctly measure your U tube diagram:  Draw a box around the ZED.  Then see what enters and exits that box.  Since we are using incompressible fluids the volume of water entering "the box" must be equal to the volume of the outer riser that exits "the box."  Is that correct?

When the charged ZED is released to rise, it will rise due to buoyant force until it is neutrally buoyant.  If the above paragraph is correct, that rise amount should be the measured volume of the outer riser that lifts up (and out of "the box").  So the actual rise * cross sectional area of the outer riser = volume that exited "the box."  That volume must be equal to the volume of water added during the charge.

I propose to draw the ZED as if it has risen to satisfy having stroked by the exact same volume that has been added by the charge.  The position of the fluids will be redistributed correctly due to the constraints of being incompressible.  If the ZED is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder, then it should come to rest at this condition, and so equalize the buoyant forces caused by the charge and be neutrally buoyant.  If it is found to be NOT neutrally buoyant in this condition, it would have to stroke less or further and definitely not be acting like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 06:27:14 PM
MarkE, the volume of water admitted is only enough to fill the pod chamber to 37mm height.  That is shown in the second diagram here:

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854
Thanks.  That helps.  37mm will not cause an underflow / overflow problem.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 06:31:01 PM
Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?

Here is what I would propose to try next:  Using the incompressible fluids in the model.  Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?

If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right?  If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?
The work calculation is still performed as the integral of F*ds.  You can normalize by using the area of the feed pipe ID.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 11:16:19 PM
*sigh*  Would you be so kind as to describe the correct method in the form of a mathematical relationship?
Say you have a syringe full of water, connected by a tube to the input port of your device. You use a spring scale to press the syringe plunger into the syringe. You monitor the distance the plunger has travelled (s), you record the instantaneous force readings from the scale (F), and you calculate the integral of the spring scale's instantaneous force readings over the distance the plunger has travelled. (Integral from 0 to s of F ds.) This results in an input energy (or work) value. You can press the empty syringe the same distance to get a value for the syringe frictional work that isn't injected, subtract the latter from the former, and you then have the actual work injected into the system.
I thought we had already covered that.
Quote

Please refer to the start condition and the charged condition shown in the first two diagrams here:

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854 (http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854)

A specific volume of water is being added to the pod chamber (AR1).  If the ZED is acting strictly like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder, then the outer riser should need to rise by an amount that would be equal to having received that same volume of water.  That volume is calculated by measuring how much the outer riser lifts, I think.  It is the same way we correctly measure your U tube diagram:  Draw a box around the ZED.  Then see what enters and exits that box.  Since we are using incompressible fluids the volume of water entering "the box" must be equal to the volume of the outer riser that exits "the box."  Is that correct?
Maybe. Without knowing exactly what you mean I'm not sure. Recall that the surface area of a cylinder isn't cut in half when you cut the cylinder itself in half across its height, since the ends are still the same area as before... only the "wall" area has been cut in half.
Quote

When the charged ZED is released to rise, it will rise due to buoyant force until it is neutrally buoyant.
Nope. The buoyancy of an item does not change as it rises; if it was buoyant at the start, it will rise until the mass of the displaced water is equal to the _entire mass_ of the object.  Neutral buoyancy means that the entire volume of the item displaces the same mass of water as the item itself masses.  If you now only want to count the part of the item that still remains under the water line in your "neutral buoyancy"... I don't think this is legitimate.
Quote
If the above paragraph is correct, that rise amount should be the measured volume of the outer riser that lifts up (and out of "the box").  So the actual rise * cross sectional area of the outer riser = volume that exited "the box."  That volume must be equal to the volume of water added during the charge.
Maybe. How _far_ does the riser need to rise in order for that to be true? More, or less, than the distance you depressed the plunger of the syringe? Much less, I'll wager, since the syringe is of smaller cross sectional area. How much work is performed by that lift, though?

Quote
I propose to draw the ZED as if it has risen to satisfy having stroked by the exact same volume that has been added by the charge.  The position of the fluids will be redistributed correctly due to the constraints of being incompressible.  If the ZED is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder, then it should come to rest at this condition, and so equalize the buoyant forces caused by the charge and be neutrally buoyant.  If it is found to be NOT neutrally buoyant in this condition, it would have to stroke less or further and definitely not be acting like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder.

Automatic bollard. Is the retracted 300 pound bollard nearly "neutrally buoyant" because it only takes a few ounces lift to raise it all the way up? Compressible fluids store energy like springs, in the compression. Incompressible fluids can only store energy by "head height". But when you have raised up the head height of an incompressible fluid you have stored energy there, which can be returned, just as the spring in an automatic bollard helps you lift it easily and lower it gently. Once the bollard is "precharged" by assembling it with its compressed spring, you can lift and lower over and over again as many times as you like, making complete cycles, with only a few ounce-feet of work put in each time. And this is a single-layer system! So you've input a small amount of work (say one pound x lift distance) by reducing the input required to perform the task of lifting the bollard, and you've recovered a huge amount of work (the 300 pounds x lift distance) and so your "net" is just the difference between the two, say 299 pounds x lift distance. Right? So now all you have to do is take some of this "net" and use it to power another automatic bollard. And _THAT_ is where the difficulty lies.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 24, 2014, 01:42:45 AM
In the JPG below, I copied some of the important results from the 2 Flow Analysis and did comparisons to highlight some important performance differences between the Zed and Archimedes single and dual versions.


In the original 2 spreadsheets I added a separate column for the important 'PSI differentials' values (peach color), they are key to the efficiency of the Zed. It was previously part of the Input Ft Lbs formula.


Any ideas, questions or suggestions to improve the comprehension of the Zed process with these spreadsheet would be appreciated.


[size=78%]Thanks, Larry [/size]
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 24, 2014, 03:09:14 PM
Say you have a syringe full of water, connected by a tube to the input port of your device. You use a spring scale to press the syringe plunger into the syringe. You monitor the distance the plunger has travelled (s), you record the instantaneous force readings from the scale (F), and you calculate the integral of the spring scale's instantaneous force readings over the distance the plunger has travelled. (Integral from 0 to s of F ds.) This results in an input energy (or work) value. You can press the empty syringe the same distance to get a value for the syringe frictional work that isn't injected, subtract the latter from the former, and you then have the actual work injected into the system.
I thought we had already covered that.

Sorry to put you through that explanation.  My question was supposed to be tongue in cheek.  In this case (assumed linear pressure rise starting at zero Pa) that Integral resolves to Pin average * Vin.  When solving for the supposed Vout using an Energy Balance the equation is of the form similar to PinVin = PoutVout.  Which is also a representation of Boyle's law.  But just because it has the same form as Boyle's law does not mean it is correct to site that law for this case.  I was incorrect to do so.

Nope. The buoyancy of an item does not change as it rises; if it was buoyant at the start, it will rise until the mass of the displaced water is equal to the _entire mass_ of the object.  Neutral buoyancy means that the entire volume of the item displaces the same mass of water as the item itself masses.  If you now only want to count the part of the item that still remains under the water line in your "neutral buoyancy"... I don't think this is legitimate.

When the ZED is released from it's position in the "charged" state, the pod and risers will rise.  When that is happening, the water levels in the various annuli begin to change.  This affects the head level on each of those moving members and their buoyancy changes as they move.  It does not remain constant.  And so the pod and risers will rise until they are in a position where the sum of the buoyancy forces on each individual member resolves to zero.  This is what I am trying to represent when I describe the system rising until it is neutrally buoyant.  Neither the pod or any of the risers actually resolve to an individual neutrally buoyant state in the analysis being performed so far.  In the final state shown in the 2-layer analysis the outer riser is actually negatively buoyant, by a lot!  But the pod and inner riser are still pushing up.  The sum of these forces is a net negative buoyancy and would require that the system sink back down in order to achieve the neutrally buoyant system condition required for no further motion.  And since that appears to require less energy than predicted by the input, I conclude that the energy balance for the 2-layer ZED is showing underunity.

Maybe. How _far_ does the riser need to rise in order for that to be true? More, or less, than the distance you depressed the plunger of the syringe? Much less, I'll wager, since the syringe is of smaller cross sectional area. How much work is performed by that lift, though?

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.

The work performed by the lift is again the Integral of Pout * Vout.  The Integral of Pout is the average of the starting P due to the buoyant lift force (applied to the outer riser cross sectional area) and the ending P which must be zero.  Vout must equal Vin if the ZED is acting identical to a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 04:27:55 PM
Mondrasek, yes the levels are going to rearrange.  Ignoring the base there are four things that matter:

1) The surrounding atmosphere, and also trapped fluid.  We have defined this to be massless, incompressible material.
2) The riser cylinders.  We have defined these to be massless SG=0 materials.
3) The water.  SG=1.  I don't know what you are using for acceleration due to gravity, or density of water.  I use 9.80665N/kg for G0, and 0.9982g/cc for the density of water at 20C.

The cylinders do not exert any downward force of their own.
The trapped fluid does not exert any downward force due to weight.
Only the water exerts a downward force due to its weight, and a counter upward force on whatever displaces some volume of same.  That is the buoyant force.  Unless you change the problem by adding weights to the cylinders, only the water can be neutrally buoyant.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 24, 2014, 04:52:27 PM
3) The water.  SG=1.  I don't know what you are using for acceleration due to gravity, or density of water.  I use 9.80665N/kg for G0, and 0.9982g/cc for the density of water at 20C.

MarkE, I had used values of 9.81N/kg and 1.0g/cc for simplicity.  I was doing some cross checking with a conversion program that used those values and so also used their roundings for this simple study.  Feel free to use your values or change them as suits your preference.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 02:45:40 PM
Hello Monderask,

I can remember when you were quite opposed to the ZED system, you were almost hostile - but you helped another engineer "Do the Math" and you asked me very hard questions.

I impressed with your intelligence and character, you did the math.

Our systems do not defy the math - and you are doing a great job presenting that.

Logically, that is obvious - a person should be able to prove or deny with the "math".

The right questions have to be asked - and the wrong prejudices have to be put on hold.

I hope you are able to teach others - You have certainly earned my respect.

Wayne

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 03:08:41 PM
Hello Monderask,

I can remember when you were quite opposed to the ZED system, you were almost hostile - but you helped another engineer "Do the Math" and you asked me very hard questions.

I impressed with your intelligence and character, you did the math.

Our systems do not defy the math - and you are doing a great job presenting that.

Logically, that is obvious - a person should be able to prove or deny with the "math".

The right questions have to be asked - and the wrong prejudices have to be put on hold.

I hope you are able to teach others - You have certainly earned my respect.

Wayne
Isn't it funny then that you have shown neither math that works, nor a unit that works in six years of selling this snake oil?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 03:52:52 PM
Come on, Travis, show your electric bills for the last six months.

And then explain why they are non-zero, since you claim to be able to build a 20 kW free energy self running generator plant that will fit in the footprint of a garden shed. After all, you have all that empty space in your building. Where are the ZEDs pumping out free electricity? You have plenty of room.

I know where... and so do you.

How's that for math?


(sound of crickets chirping....)



Don't forget, Wayne old boy, that we have the PowerPoint demonstration where you claimed to your investor prospects that you would put a 50 kW free energy generating plant at your CHURCH in three months after receiving funding from the investors. And this PPT was made in November of 2010, according to data in the file.

I imagine the Church elders are pretty disappointed in you, since they have had to spend many thousands of dollars on electricity since they first read your promise back in 2010.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 25, 2014, 04:14:58 PM
Isn't it funny then that you have shown neither math that works, nor a unit that works in six years of selling this snake oil?


Interesting, then could you please show why the math showing an efficiency of 153.94% in the attached spreadsheet is incorrect? The efficiency is in field B16. The drawing shows the process cycle.


Thanks, Larry

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 04:25:50 PM

Interesting, then could you please show why the math showing an efficiency of 153.94% in the attached spreadsheet is incorrect? The efficiency is in field B16. The drawing shows the process cycle.


Thanks, Larry

Interesting, then could you please show why Travis, and everybody else, has been unable to produce a device that actually works and demonstrates a gain of energy? The failure to produce a real powerplant is evident in Travis's (and your) electric bills. The image in my last post above shows that he promised something years ago and has never accomplished it yet.

Thanks, TK

(Of course I know that Larry and Travis both have me on their "ignore" lists.... so I don't expect any kind of real answer to my questions. By the way, the word for a person who IGNORES things is.... ignoramus.)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 25, 2014, 05:39:11 PM
so I don't expect any kind of real answer to my questions.

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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 05:44:22 PM
Here's an incontrovertible fact: If your calculations show "overunity" performance, then you are making an error somewhere. It may be in the math, but it is more likely to be in the underlying assumptions that go into setting up the model. If you or LarryC want to pay me my usual daily consulting fee I would be more than happy to waste, er, spend the necessary time to go over things with a fine toothed comb. Otherwise, I think that spreadsheet analyses without real experimental data going into them, are worth approximately what they cost: nothing.

Meanwhile, real experimentation has never revealed any "gains" in work or energy from anything Travis, you, webby, LarryC, dale, RedSunset, etc have ever presented. That has got to be telling you something. After all, if LarryC gets 153.94 percent OU (lol) from two Zeds, think of the OU he would get if he chained six of them together. Easy and simple to get hundreds or thousands percent OU, right? But where, then, are the functioning models? FFS, it's just a bunch of stacked tubes. How complicated can that be, to build and demonstrate, if it's true? But we are in the position where _ALL_ valid experimentation has failed to show any OU at all, and in fact the experiments show massive losses and inefficiencies. Therefore... the theoretical models are failing, because they must be wrong somewhere. Digging out the place where the models are wrong is actually the responsibility of the person putting forth the model, not mine.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
--Richard P. Feynman

ps: Just why should I respond reasonably to a strawman question from someone who is deliberately ignoring me? I respect people who respect me, like you. LarryC and Wayne Travis.... I don't respect them, because they have both insulted me and placed me on their ignore lists.

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?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek 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!
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne 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.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala 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.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala 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?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 07:51:07 PM
What about what Larry and Monderask have presented.

Any problem other than can't work.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 25, 2014, 07:53:31 PM



  Yes they can and will work, if you have a transfer pump!
                                              John
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 08:06:48 PM
What about what Larry and Monderask have presented.

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.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala 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?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala 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!
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
The phrase Can't work is understood - it is said by some - before all new discoveries.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 08:35:56 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

Demonstrate it, then. You cannot.
Show us your electric bills. You will not.
Your words mean nothing, against the lack of a practical demonstration of your claims. Just think how easy it would be for you to refute me utterly, had you what you claim. But you have not, and you cannot, because you DO NOT. Go ahead, prove me wrong by showing a valid demonstration.

I'm holding my breath in anticipation.....











NOT.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 08:42:03 PM
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.

Mark,

I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.

The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.

Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.

This does not require higher math to understand or verify.

Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 08:42:58 PM
Wayne Travis where is one of these working systems, and who has verified its operation is as you claim?

Why not give Kevan Riley,PE, a call? I posted his telephone number somewhere earlier. See if he still stands by the material presented in the PowerPoint slideshow. Ask _him_ why the Trinity Baptist Church is still paying for electricity.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 08:44:36 PM
Mark,

I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.

The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.

Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.

This does not require higher math to understand or verify.

Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.

Good luck.

Then why hasn't it been? Why are you not running your house, shop, and Trinity Baptist Church on the wonderful output of your Zed system?

I know why, and so do you.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 08:46:29 PM
Why not give Kevan Riley,PE, a call? I posted his telephone number somewhere earlier. See if he still stands by the material presented in the PowerPoint slideshow. Ask _him_ why the Trinity Baptist Church is still paying for electricity.
If he really is a PE, then he can be sued by any and all of the burned investors for his expressed support of HER/Zydro's false claims.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 08:47:41 PM
Demonstrate it, then. You cannot.
Show us your electric bills. You will not.
Your words mean nothing, against the lack of a practical demonstration of your claims. Just think how easy it would be for you to refute me utterly, had you what you claim. But you have not, and you cannot, because you DO NOT. Go ahead, prove me wrong by showing a valid demonstration.

I'm holding my breath in anticipation.....











NOT.

Good thing Sock Puppets don't breath...

Lets get something clear -

You set the standard making claims against our ZED device using supposed indisputable mathematical proof.

Now you refuse to accept  that same method as proof. you speak out of both socks at the same time...

The question at hand - no pun intended - is Mathematical analysis - if you are not interested - put the boys back in the dresser.

Your diversion is a waste of time.

Wayne



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 08:52:00 PM
If he really is a PE, then he can be sued by any and all of the burned investors for his expressed support of HER/Zydro's false claims.

Once again - Our system is real - you are making a fool of yourself.

How hard is your apology going to come......that is if you have an honor.

You should really look at the spreadsheets Monderask and Larry shared - ask for their help if you do not understand.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 08:55:30 PM
Mark,

I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.

The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.

Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.

This does not require higher math to understand or verify.

Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.

Good luck.
Wayne Travis it is not slander to state the fact that you are making false claims of among other things:  A way to get non conservative behavior from gravity, free energy from cyclically lifting and dropping weights.  The threat to you is from burned investors who have believed your false and reckless statements.  They can sue.  If there are enough of them with any influence they can bring law enforcement against you as well.  You claim to have many legal groups.  Have them look into the Acts:  1933, and 1934.  See what they have to say about selling securities while making fraudulent statements. 

The conservative nature of gravitational fields is an extremely well observed fact.  If you wish to counter that you go up against known science at least back to Kepler and arguably back to the Greeks.  The burden of proof is upon you.  You haven't a shred of evidence, much less proof.  That makes your false claims at a minimum reckless.

Larry has yet to prove anything, ditto Mark, and most of all:  ditto you.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 08:55:44 PM
Then why hasn't it been? Why are you not running your house, shop, and Trinity Baptist Church on the wonderful output of your Zed system?

I know why, and so do you.


Let me help you TK - you can't prove our system is anything less than we claim....

End of story.

Good Day - I have a meeting.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 08:59:03 PM
Once again - Our system is real - you are making a fool of yourself.

How hard is your apology going to come......that is if you have an honor.

You should really look at the spreadsheets Monderask and Larry shared - ask for their help if you do not understand.

Wayne
Your system does not produce the free energy that you claim.  We know it doesn't even give an appearance of something interesting because you have never lived up to the years over due Dansie demonstration.  You can bluff and bluster all day long.  The fact that you don't demonstrate underlies the simple fact that you can't demonstrate.

It is just amazing to see how persistently you repeat your suggestions that there is some magic behind your tattered curtains.  There isn't.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 09:00:59 PM
Wayne Travis it is not slander to state the fact that you are making false claims of among other things:  A way to get non conservative behavior from gravity, free energy from cyclically lifting and dropping weights.  The threat to you is from burned investors who have believed your false and reckless statements.  They can sue.  If there are enough of them with any influence they can bring law enforcement against you as well.  You claim to have many legal groups.  Have them look into the Acts:  1933, and 1934.  See what they have to say about selling securities while making fraudulent statements. 

The conservative nature of gravitational fields is an extremely well observed fact.  If you wish to counter that you go up against known science at least back to Kepler and arguably back to the Greeks.  The burden of proof is upon you.  You haven't a shred of evidence, much less proof.  That makes your false claims at a minimum reckless.

Larry has yet to prove anything, ditto Mark, and most of all:  ditto you.

You know - I did not know that everything in the universe was taught to you when you went to school - Research should just stop now....

What a waste ......

Or try learning something new - RED Sunset tried to show you that the conservative field of gravity - has been broken...

That's the end - and you are making such a fool of yourself calling me names and slandering,,,,

Do the Math - it tells the truth without predisposed assumptions.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 25, 2014, 09:02:59 PM



   Rove is to wander aimlessly mrwayne, I feel that perhaps that's what you're doing.
                            John
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 09:05:07 PM
You know - I did not know that everything in the universe was taught to you when you went to school - Research should just stop now....

What a waste ......

Or try learning something new - RED Sunset tried to show you that the conservative field of gravity - has been broken...

That's the end - and you are making such a fool of yourself calling me names and slandering,,,,

Do the Math - it tells the truth without predisposed assumptions.

Wayne
Red_Sunset failed to present any evidence of a conservation breach.  He did attempt to invoke such comic relief as magic levers.  Your claims to investors of free energy technology and gravitational breaches are false and misleading.  You know that they are false and misleading and/or are reckless in not recognizing them as such.  For someone selling stock that's the end with or without a registration exemption.

You cannot show math that is faithful to the real world that also shows a cycle by cycle energy gain in your system.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 25, 2014, 09:08:37 PM
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.


Thanks for checking the math, any confusion that is perceive helps me to improve the example.   


The water head in the Pod is equal to water in the pod chamber annular ring heights, however the water head for the riser is equal to the Outermost annular ring (O1) - Next inner annular ring (O2).


Thus the 95 represents 100 in O1 - 5 in O2. Then during equalization the water dropped 15 in the Pod to 35. When this occurs, the water in O2 follows up and rises 15 to 20 and the water in O1 follows down and lowers to 85. So now the water head is 65 which represents 85 in O1 - 20 in O2. That is why I brought up earlier that 1X changes in the Pod Water causes 2X change in riser water head as Wayne stated early is his thread.

You can see this effect in the drawings.

Larry


 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 09:43:25 PM
Good thing Sock Puppets don't breath...
Your characterization of me is false. This is the only alias I have ever used here, the only account. If you don't believe me, ask our host Stefan. You cannot provide any evidence for your claim that I may have multiple accounts or usernames here.
Quote

Lets get something clear -

You set the standard making claims against our ZED device using supposed indisputable mathematical proof.

Again... false. I have only recently begun any mathematical analysis of your claims. The FACT that you do not have anything that demonstrates your claims has always been indisputable proof that ... you don't have what you claim!
Quote
Now you refuse to accept  that same method as proof. you speak out of both socks at the same time...
You are deluded, nearly as much as our dear old Ainslie. Believe it, Travis.... more than one person is able to see through your misrepresentations and outright lies.
Quote

The question at hand - no pun intended - is Mathematical analysis - if you are not interested - put the boys back in the dresser.

Your diversion is a waste of time.

Wayne
You are hilarious! The QUESTION AT HAND is whether or not your claims are valid and true. Since you cannot produce any evidence that they are true, besides some spreadsheet numbers that you yourself didn't even come up with.... well, I think even a bright sixth-grader could DO THAT MATH.

Why are you wasting your time, then? Take your stuff over to the Norman campus and tell us what they think. You will not do it, because you know the result already.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 09:46:52 PM


Let me help you TK - you can't rove our system is anything less than we claim....

End of story.

Good Day - I have a meeting.

Heh... guess what, I don't have to "rove" or prove anything at all! YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING CLAIMS, it is up to you to "rove" them. But you cannot, all you can do is point to LarryC's apparently two dimensional spreadsheet numbers. Where is the self-running system you have claimed to have? Nowhere, that's where. Go ahead, prove me wrong. You cannot !
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 25, 2014, 10:01:14 PM

Thanks for checking the math, any confusion that is perceive helps me to improve the example.   


The water head in the Pod is equal to water in the pod chamber annular ring heights, however the water head for the riser is equal to the Outermost annular ring (O1) - Next inner annular ring (O2).


Thus the 95 represents 100 in O1 - 5 in O2. Then during equalization the water dropped 15 in the Pod to 35. When this occurs, the water in O2 follows up and rises 15 to 20 and the water in O1 follows down and lowers to 85. So now the water head is 65 which represents 85 in O1 - 20 in O2. That is why I brought up earlier that 1X changes in the Pod Water causes 2X change in riser water head as Wayne stated early is his thread.

You can see this effect in the drawings.

Larry




Got hung up on explaining water head and forgot to mention about your volume point. In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser. These kind of calculations are done in my complex spreadsheet, but I was trying to keep this simple for easy understanding. I can add if that small difference is your hangup.



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 25, 2014, 10:29:03 PM
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_.

TK, here the "red box" has been drawn around the ZED system.  The charge water is not shown in the diagram on the left, but is assumed to cross that barrier and enter the system into the pod chamber to result in the state of the center diagram.  When doing so, air in the outer annulus (shown in yellow) is also pushed across that barrier.  Then when the system is allowed to stroke, the Outer Riser (and the volume within it's borders) crosses the barrier at the top.  When doing so, the initial volume of air in the outer annulus crosses back into the system, and is followed by even more air.  Therefore the system is open to the atmosphere, right?  Am I misunderstanding what you presented?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 25, 2014, 10:38:47 PM



Got hung up on explaining water head and forgot to mention about your volume point. In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser. These kind of calculations are done in my complex spreadsheet, but I was trying to keep this simple for easy understanding. I can add if that small difference is your hangup.


Went ahead and added a riser gap that would give it the same SI as the pod gap. Wanted to see how big a difference it would make in the efficiency. Darn, it went from 153.94% to 153.56%.
Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 10:48:12 PM



Got hung up on explaining water head and forgot to mention about your volume point. In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser. These kind of calculations are done in my complex spreadsheet, but I was trying to keep this simple for easy understanding. I can add if that small difference is your hangup.
Larry, it is not my hang up.  It is that the math does not represent the model represented.  It's like estimating pi as 3.  Whether or not that is close enough depends on the circumstances.  In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences.  That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable.  It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions.  Introducing ~16% error terms is a recipe for trouble.  I don't care if you fix the ring dimensions for constant area or keep them on a 0.5" grid as long as your calculations represent the model faithfully.

Let me make a suggestion that will make it easier to keep simple numbers on the spreadsheet:  Assign a constant to pi/4.  Then you can represent all your circular areas in integer units multiplied by the constant.  This should make it easier for you to audit your calculations.  The other thing that can be an immense help is to use named fields.  That saves a lot of chasing around.  Instead of a formula looking like: = $H$2*F19*E12 it would look like:  = riser_diameter*riser_length.  My last suggestion you may or may not like:  Using MKS units generally makes it easier to avoid mistakes between mass and force.  I can work in whatever units you are comfortable using.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 10:51:51 PM
Heh... guess what, I don't have to "rove" or prove anything at all! YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING CLAIMS, it is up to you to "rove" them. But you cannot, all you can do is point to LarryC's apparently two dimensional spreadsheet numbers. Where is the self-running system you have claimed to have? Nowhere, that's where. Go ahead, prove me wrong. You cannot !

I am a really nice guy - so if this is too much - let me apologize up front:

Here is what I have learned from your last 300+ postings

Larry has demonstrated more intelligence and capability than I have ever seen from you and your socks.

You could learn three things from Larry - manners, due diligences (before slander),  and how non conservative is possible.
 
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need. Stop wasting my time with your diversions.

Mathematical Analysis - take your time.

Wayne


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 11:01:15 PM
TK, here the "red box" has been drawn around the ZED system.  The charge water is not shown in the diagram on the left, but is assumed to cross that barrier and enter the system into the pod chamber to result in the state of the center diagram.  When doing so, air in the outer annulus (shown in yellow) is also pushed across that barrier.  Then when the system is allowed to stroke, the Outer Riser (and the volume within it's borders) crosses the barrier at the top.  When doing so, the initial volume of air in the outer annulus crosses back into the system, and is followed by even more air.  Therefore the system is open to the atmosphere, right?  Am I misunderstanding what you presented?

What would you do if I told you I was colorblind?

Just kidding. The outer part always sees the same pressure from the outside air, whether the yellow lines are out, in, or neutral. Therefore the outer air pressure doesn't make any difference between the three states. Open to the atmosphere is one thing, able to be affected by it is another. Your system is NOT open in the same way that the Cartesian Diver is, where the surrounding fluid pressure changes DO affect the buoyancy.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 11:05:00 PM
I am a really nice guy - so if this is too much - let me apologize up front:

Here is what I have learned from your last 300+ postings

Larry has demonstrated more intelligence and capability than I have ever seen from you and your socks.

You could learn three things from Larry - manners, due diligences (before slander),  and how non conservative is possible.
 
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need. Stop wasting my time with your diversions.

Mathematical Analysis - take your time.

Wayne

Again you misrepresent me and what I am and what I do. On this side of the Red River, we call that Lying, and it's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Remember that one?

YOU could learn a thing or two about what is required to support a claim like yours, and it isn't error-full spreadsheets making false assumptions.

YOU are wasting OUR time, and everyone else's time, by not demonstrating the truth (sic) of your claims. But of course we know that you cannot.

How did your meeting go? Pretty short meeting. Did you cut it short to rush back here and insult me, yet again?



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 11:08:03 PM
Quote
In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser.

This sure sounds to me like you have a "desired performance level" at the outset, and you "adjust" the data in order to reach that level. Is that really the way experimental research is done?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on February 25, 2014, 11:08:35 PM
Wayne:

Quote
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need

Without being specific to Larry because I haven't followed his spreadsheet, I note MarkE's comments:

Quote
In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences.  That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable.  It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions.

And yet you endorse LarryC.   You endorse Webby when he can barely explain himself.   You are one piece of work.

With respect to you:

Quote
I am a really nice guy
  - brainwashing attempt
Quote
Larry has demonstrated more intelligence and capability
- brainwashing attempt
Quote
and how non conservative is possible
- brainwashing attempt
Quote
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need
- brainwashing attempt

Quote
due diligences

That one I can latch onto and agree with.

Wayne, please demonstrate YOURSELF that YOU have something.  That is the real due diligence.

Do you have anything?  ANYTHING?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 11:18:57 PM
Of course he has. He has another meeting.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 11:38:40 PM
How did your meeting go? Pretty short meeting. Did you cut it short to rush back here and insult me, yet again?

The interview went well.

Now that I am sure you know the concept of making ignorant claims against other people is wrong - I will apologize to you when you do.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 11:44:38 PM
Wayne:

Without being specific to Larry because I haven't followed his spreadsheet, I note MarkE's comments:

And yet you endorse LarryC.   You endorse Webby when he can barely explain himself.   You are one piece of work.

With respect to you:
  - brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt

That one I can latch onto and agree with.

Wayne, please demonstrate YOURSELF that YOU have something.  That is the real due diligence.

Do you have anything?  ANYTHING?

MileHigh

I am sorry MH - you should ask Monderask or Larry to explain.

It is an eye opener - not a preconceived notion.

Wayne

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 25, 2014, 11:46:21 PM
What would you do if I told you I was colorblind?

That would suck on so many levels.  But I think we could then resort to labels.  But it would be so much harder to follow.

My apologies to any colorblind individuals trying to follow along.

Just kidding. The outer part always sees the same pressure from the outside air, whether the yellow lines are out, in, or neutral. Therefore the outer air pressure doesn't make any difference between the three states. Open to the atmosphere is one thing, able to be affected by it is another. Your system is NOT open in the same way that the Cartesian Diver is, where the surrounding fluid pressure changes DO affect the buoyancy.

TK, I never said that the atmospheric air pressure makes any difference to any pressures inside the ZED.  Thankfully, it doesn't!  What having the outer annulus open to the atmosphere does do is allow for the Vin to NOT equal the Vout.  Because air also moves freely into and out of the system from the atmosphere and adds ANOTHER V (that is not costing us anything) that must be accounted for in an Energy Balance.

The air that freely crosses into and out of the system allows the water levels to redistribute to satisfy simple volumetric constraints.  And when allowed to do so it results in a lift force that is due to BUOYANCY, not the usual pressure * volume relationship found in a simple hydraulic cylinder.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 25, 2014, 11:47:16 PM
Hello Monderask and Larry,

I had extra time between meetings, so I spent too much time here.

I am sorry if I disrupted the conversation.

Great work on the Math!

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 11:48:07 PM

Went ahead and added a riser gap that would give it the same SI as the pod gap. Wanted to see how big a difference it would make in the efficiency. Darn, it went from 153.94% to 153.56%.
Larry
Larry, that helps.  I will continue to go through the spreadsheet.  Please confirm that the drawing below is correct:
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 12:05:58 AM
That would suck on so many levels.  But I think we could then resort to labels.  But it would be so much harder to follow.

My apologies to any colorblind individuals trying to follow along.

TK, I never said that the atmospheric air pressure makes any difference to any pressures inside the ZED.  Thankfully, it doesn't!  What having the outer annulus open to the atmosphere does do is allow for the Vin to NOT equal the Vout.  Because air also moves freely into and out of the system from the atmosphere and adds ANOTHER V (that is not costing us anything) that must be accounted for in an Energy Balance.

The air that freely crosses into and out of the system allows the water levels to redistribute to satisfy simple volumetric constraints.  And when allowed to do so it results in a lift force that is due to BUOYANCY, not the usual pressure * volume relationship found in a simple hydraulic cylinder.

Air freely crosses the boundary of your incorrectly drawn Red Box. The air does not enter the Zed system at all. The outer ringwall's only purpose is to keep the two outer incompressible fluid columns from running off down the drain. The level of the outermost liquid layer is partly determined by the pressure--- the _constant pressure_ -- exerted by the air, and this does not change, it does not move in and out of the system. The only thing the air pressure does is to press down on the outer fluid columns, and it presses down with the same pressure, a constant force, no matter the stage of the system. It does not add another "V" .... the volume of the outer air is essentially infinite, anyway, and so it does not change. Now, if you want to build a zed that is a hundred thousand feet tall, things will be (slightly) different wrt the outside air, because then the pressure it exerts on the top of the outer fluid layer will change, from zero altitude to the highest altitude of the water level. But for realistically sized Zeds, the volume and pressure of the outer air is constant, volume infinite and unchanging, and at the local atmospheric pressure. And don't forget, please, that the outer air pressure is also pressing down on the entire top surface of your apparatus, with that same pressure, but over a much larger area than the area of the outer fluid column.

The proper drawing of your red box would follow the outline of the surface of the outer liquid layer, I think, because that is the sealed surface. It rises and sinks, of course, but that's no problem as far as the boundary condition goes.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 12:14:49 AM
The interview went well.

Now that I am sure you know the concept of making ignorant claims against other people is wrong - I will apologize to you when you do.

Wayne

Save your apologies for the judge. I understand they take remorse into account when sentencing.


Now.... just what part of "Show me the sausages" don't you understand?
Quote
Show me the Sausages! (http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/06/show-me-sausages.html)    A philosopher designs a marvellous sausage machine. A scientist comes to marvel at this wonderful creation, and raises an eyebrow.
 The philosopher says, "Ah, behold the wonderful cogs and sprockets and temperature-controlled mixing chambers in my wonderful machine - surely you can see how it must produce the most fantastic sausages!"
 The scientist says "Yes, that is all very interesting. Show me the sausages."
 The philosopher says "How dare you, a mere scientist, question my wonderful philosophical reasoning?"
 Scientist: "I'm not questioning your reasoning - I want to know if your machine really produces sausages."
 Philosopher: "Can you point to any flaw in my argument that it produces sausages?"
 Sci: "I don't know - I just want to know if it produces sausages. Here is some meat. Why don't you feed it through and see if you get any sausages?"
 Phil: "And sully my wonderful machine with mere offal?"
 Sci: "You said it was a sausage machine. I want to see the sausages."
 Phil: "Are you questioning my ingredients?"
 Sci: "I'm just questioning whether it produces sausages or not. Show me the sausages."
 Phil: "Ah, so you cannot attack my premises and you cannot attack my argument. Therefore I'm right and you lose."
 Sci: "Don't be such a melodramatic prancing arse. Show me the sausages."
 Phil: "The sausages inevitably flow from the argument. You see my fine machine.  You can even inspect the meat & onions. The sausages necessarily flow."
 Sci: "Show me the sausages or I'm off to Tesco."
 Phil: "You are a mere scientist with no understanding of philosophical matters."
 Sci: "Bye."

http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/06/show-me-sausages.html (http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/06/show-me-sausages.html)

You see, Travis? You aren't the only person with no sausages.
Don't be such a melodramatic prancing arse. Show me the sausages.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 26, 2014, 12:27:34 AM
The proper drawing of your red box would follow the outline of the surface of the outer liquid layer, I think, because that is the sealed surface. It rises and sinks, of course, but that's no problem as far as the boundary condition goes.

But that would require that the red box changes shape (edit: but NOT change by an unpredicted volume) as the Energy Balance is performed.

Maybe so.  Could you explain further?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 26, 2014, 12:34:20 AM
Larry, it is not my hang up.  It is that the math does not represent the model represented.  It's like estimating pi as 3.  Whether or not that is close enough depends on the circumstances.  In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences.  That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable.  It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions.  Introducing ~16% error terms is a recipe for trouble.  I don't care if you fix the ring dimensions for constant area or keep them on a 0.5" grid as long as your calculations represent the model faithfully.

Let me make a suggestion that will make it easier to keep simple numbers on the spreadsheet:  Assign a constant to pi/4.  Then you can represent all your circular areas in integer units multiplied by the constant.  This should make it easier for you to audit your calculations.  The other thing that can be an immense help is to use named fields.  That saves a lot of chasing around.  Instead of a formula looking like: = $H$2*F19*E12 it would look like:  = riser_diameter*riser_length.  My last suggestion you may or may not like:  Using MKS units generally makes it easier to avoid mistakes between mass and force.  I can work in whatever units you are comfortable using.


MarkE,


Thanks for the suggestion, some will help.


But, don't understand your ~16% error, the .38% drop in efficiency was a ~.2% error.


PI/4 constant would help.


On the named fields, I do use them all the time for VBA modules. But, It is a good suggestion to use names on the constant parameter fields at the top for this example. I do like to use them at the multiple line level, in this case the 'Cycles', because when you copy one line to the next, the named fields do not increment its position. I use the 'Trace Precedent' to check formulas, it points to all the fields in the formula.


I agree with your points about MKS units. I don't use it because I've worked with many field engineers that use Imperial because the field workers that apply the specifications wouldn't understand and most times upper management wouldn't either. And I am more comfortable using Imperial, so thanks for working with my unit choice. 


Larry   



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 12:35:04 AM
But that would require that the red box changes shape (edit: but NOT volume) as the Energy Balance is performed.

Maybe so.  Could you explain further?

Consider a simpler system for a moment.
A syringe full of air is connected by a short tube to a deflated balloon.

Where do you draw your red box now? Do you include the outside air that the balloon expands into when you depress the plunger? How much of it? Or does your red box follow the actual perimeter of the "hard parts" of the system? Here, the outer air is displaced by the expanding balloon, isn't it? But its only effect on the expansion is its pressure, which remains constant no matter how big the balloon is.
Since the balloon is increasing in total surface area, the total _force_ exerted by the outside air grows.. but that doesn't happen in your Zeds because the surface area of the fluid column is constant.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 12:57:51 AM

MarkE,


Thanks for the suggestion, some will help.


But, don't understand your ~16% error, the .38% drop in efficiency was a ~.2% error.


PI/4 constant would help.


On the named fields, I do use them all the time for VBA modules. But, It is a good suggestion to use names on the constant parameter fields at the top for this example. I do like to use them at the multiple line level, in this case the 'Cycles', because when you copy one line to the next, the named fields do not increment its position. I use the 'Trace Precedent' to check formulas, it points to all the fields in the formula.


I agree with your points about MKS units. I don't use it because I've worked with many field engineers that use Imperial because the field workers that apply the specifications wouldn't understand and most times upper management wouldn't either. And I am more comfortable using Imperial, so thanks for working with my unit choice. 


Larry   
Larry, 28^2/26^2.  Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there.  The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers:  28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area:  55/51 ~8%.

I am going through the spreadsheet now.  I have created a new worksheet for the 2 ZED where I am using named formulas and have substituted the exact geometry relations.  However, I see a fundamental error:  It looks like you failed to integrate when calculating your energy.  The force required to lift a column of water increases with the head.  In order to get the actual energy we have to perform the integration.  This should make intuitive sense if you consider punching a pin hole near the bottom of one of the columns.  When the column is very full, the stream is very strong, and as the column comes down to the pin hole the stream dribbles off to almost nothing.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 26, 2014, 01:19:17 AM
Consider a simpler system for a moment.
A syringe full of air is connected by a short tube to a deflated balloon.

Where do you draw your red box now? Do you include the outside air that the balloon expands into when you depress the plunger? How much of it? Or does your red box follow the actual perimeter of the "hard parts" of the system? Here, the outer air is displaced by the expanding balloon, isn't it? But its only effect on the expansion is its pressure, which remains constant no matter how big the balloon is.
Since the balloon is increasing in total surface area, the total _force_ exerted by the outside air grows.. but that doesn't happen in your Zeds because the surface area of the fluid column is constant.

I really like the idea of changing the red box to follow the outline of the ZED system outer riser and only include the water in the outer annulus!  That does make sense.

Now as the input charge is entering the bottom of the pod chamber (Energy in), some Energy is also leaving the "red box" through that initial barrier in the outer annulus.

But wait, isn't that water rising up through the top surface of the red box and is therefore another PE source that is being generated?

I've definitely got to check out how it all balances when I can get back to it.  Unfortunately Wednesdays are a travel day for me so I don't know if I can get to it quickly.

Thanks so much for this correction!

M.

PS.  Is there any problem you see with calculating the Vout of the outer riser breaching the top of the red box as the volume of that cylinder that rises above (stroke distance * surface area of the outer riser)?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 26, 2014, 02:09:53 AM
Larry, 28^2/26^2.  Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there.  The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers:  28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area:  55/51 ~8%.

I am going through the spreadsheet now.  I have created a new worksheet for the 2 ZED where I am using named formulas and have substituted the exact geometry relations.  However, I see a fundamental error:  It looks like you failed to integrate when calculating your energy.  The force required to lift a column of water increases with the head.  In order to get the actual energy we have to perform the integration.  This should make intuitive sense if you consider punching a pin hole near the bottom of one of the columns.  When the column is very full, the stream is very strong, and as the column comes down to the pin hole the stream dribbles off to almost nothing.


Hi MarkE,


Liked what you did with the drawing, but has a few minor issues, I'll respond later on that post.


You're too fast, so I'll also respond to your ~8% later.


But wanted to address your integration concerns as it is key to the process.
The Left avg. psi at E13 is the average pod psi from the end of equalization to the start of ready to stroke.
The Right avg. psi at H13 using the same technique. So left 3.233, right 3.992. Now when adding water to the right along you would multiply that average psi times the volume to get the input cost.


But, if at the same time we are allowing water to flow out the left at its average PSI, it is returning energy to the Right. This return of energy reduces the input energy applied to the transfer by the average pressure differential between the two units. So the Average PSI Differential shown at I13 is the average pressure required to transfer the fluid. I can show this process in a little different format if it would help.


In your pinhole example, if you had two columns of water with one having 25% less water and you had a small tube connected to the pinhole in each column. Would the water flow out as fast as your one column example or would the speed be reduced by 75%? Its all about the pressure differential.


Larry     
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 26, 2014, 02:38:04 AM
Larry, that helps.  I will continue to go through the spreadsheet.  Please confirm that the drawing below is correct:


MarkE,


Thanks for continuing, like your analysis technique.


Few minor issues in the drawing. The Riser Head bottom arrow should be even with the water height in the next column to the left. I have .48150 for D5 Riser Gap and the arrows are pointing at the pod water, should move to the right one column for the Riser gap.


Larry

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 02:46:17 AM

Hi MarkE,


Liked what you did with the drawing, but has a few minor issues, I'll respond later on that post.


You're too fast, so I'll also respond to your ~8% later.


But wanted to address your integration concerns as it is key to the process.
The Left avg. psi at E13 is the average pod psi from the end of equalization to the start of ready to stroke.
The Right avg. psi at H13 using the same technique. So left 3.233, right 3.992. Now when adding water to the right along you would multiply that average psi times the volume to get the input cost.


But, if at the same time we are allowing water to flow out the left at its average PSI, it is returning energy to the Right. This return of energy reduces the input energy applied to the transfer by the average pressure differential between the two units. So the Average PSI Differential shown at I13 is the average pressure required to transfer the fluid. I can show this process in a little different format if it would help.


In your pinhole example, if you had two columns of water with one having 25% less water and you had a small tube connected to the pinhole in each column. Would the water flow out as fast as your one column example or would the speed be reduced by 75%? Its all about the pressure differential.


Larry   
Larry, if I have a capsule of water and lift that capsule from one height to another then I can just multiply the weight by the distance moved and I am done because the gravitational force on that capsule is constant.  But if what I do is change the height of a column by pumping water in or letting water out then I need to perform the integration. 

Let's suppose that we have two water towers each 1 sq meter in area, and 2m high.  First, let's fill each to 1m height:

Fstart = 0
Fend = 9789N
F/z = 9789N/m
Integral of:  (kf*z dz) = 0.5*kf*z^2
zstart = 0
zend = 1m

0.5*9789N/m*1m^2 - 0 = 4894.5J
We have that in each of two columns, so the total energy stored is:  2*4894.5J = 9789J

Now, let's pump the water back out of one column into the other, emptying the one and filling the other:

Fstart = 9789N
Fend = 19578N  Filled
Fend = 0 Emptied
Kf/z = 9789N/m

work added to column filled = 0.5*9789N/m*(Hend^2 - Hstart^2) = 0.5*9789N/m*(2^2-1^2) = 3*4894.5J
work removed from column emptied = 0.5*9789N/m*(Hend -Hstart) = 0.5*9789N/m*(0^2-1^2) = -4894.5J
net work performed: 9789J

So, we had 2*4894.5J = 9789J in the two columns combined at the start, we added 3*4894.5J to the column that we took up to 2m, and we removed 4894.5J from the column that we emptied.  We have the same total volume of water, but we doubled the stored energy, and we added every Joule of that extra energy from the outside. 

The converse of this is that when we equalize a column filled to a higher level with a column filled to a lower level, we lose energy to heat.  The worst case is where we take a column filled to 2H and equalize it with an empty column so that we now have 2 each of 1H.   This is the exact complement of the fill exercise that I just described and it loses half the stored energy:  That energy is lost forever: kaput, toodleoosky, goodbye Charlie. 

Your spreadsheet appears to be calculating energy by a series of linear adds and subtracts based on average pressure.  That yields incorrect results.  Integration is necessary.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 03:04:41 AM

MarkE,


Thanks for continuing, like your analysis technique.


Few minor issues in the drawing. The Riser Head bottom arrow should be even with the water height in the next column to the left. I have .48150 for D5 Riser Gap and the arrows are pointing at the pod water, should move to the right one column for the Riser gap.


Larry
Larry, OK I fixed that.  Because the stipulation is equal cross-section area in each column, I changed the formulas to derive the diameters with the areas fixed at 51circular inches, IE 51*pi/4.  Consequently, the formulas are:

Riser area = (26^2 + 51 )*pi/4  = 570.9844647900
Vessel area = (26^2 + 2*51)*pi/4  = 611.0397711233
Riser diameter = (26^2 + 51 )^0.5 = 26.96293752543
Annular clearance = (26.96293752543 - 26)/2 = .4814687627128
Riser diameter = (26^2 + 2*51 )^0.5 = 27.89265136196

The precision of these numbers are not particularly significant once we defined the annular cavities to all have the same 51 circular inch areas and perform our calculations based on that stipulated area rather than calculated area. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on February 26, 2014, 03:19:34 AM
Quote from Wayne:

Quote
I am sorry MH - you should ask Monderask or Larry to explain.

Quote from MarkE to Larry:

Quote
Your spreadsheet appears to be calculating energy by a series of linear adds and subtracts based on average pressure.  That yields incorrect results.  Integration is necessary.

Webby, Mondrasek, Larry:

It's wake up time.  Can't you see what's happening?  You guys are trying your best but you aren't technical and you are simply wrong.  Wayne is using you and stroking you and trying to pretend that you guys know what you are doing but you clearly don't know what you are doing.  Wayne is using you to create the pretense that you are right for his own reasons.  The reason is to create the general impression that you guys 'get it' and his system is real.

You are lucky to have guys like MarkE and TK to give you guidance.  If they work out the whole sequence with you then you will be lucky to get that amount of hand-holding.

Be clear that I have nothing against you guys.  You are simply being used by Wayne for his own nefarious purposes.

To Wayne:

Quote
I am sorry MH - you should ask Monderask or Larry to explain.

Not so.  If MarkE and TK do a full cycle with your "explainers," holding their hands all the way then you will be exposed for the cynical manipulator you desperately try to be in order to keep your gravy train flowing.

The whole thing is reprehensible.  The Hammer of Justice, I can hear the knocking in the distance.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 03:54:38 AM
MileHigh, it could be a long time before you see any satisfaction wrt to Wayne Travis.  It's the odd burned investor or investors who can become real nightmares for even experienced sharpies.  When a burned investor has the resources and the intent to get satisfaction, they have been known take sharpies down a long, dark, and painful road.  Such cases are rare, but they do happen.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on February 26, 2014, 03:58:21 AM
Mark:

Yes I know many times they get away with it.  It's unfortunate.  How many people may have sunk their life savings into Wayne?  I don't know if we will ever know.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 05:26:24 AM
Do you suppose that Wayne Travis may have paid off some early investors with money obtained from later, larger investors? I seem to recall that there is a name for that kind of activity. Pongy? Ronzy?  Something like that, anyway.

Ignoring for the moment the rather large conceptual error that MarkE found in LarryC's spreadsheet analysis.....

Now what I'd like to know is why Zeds don't blow up. If one Zed is underunity but two Zeds are 154 (or whatever) percent OU after the first transfer, then what happens to the first zed after the first complete cycle and the transfer is back to it? Does it get pumped up to greater than 154 percent? How about after the fourth transfer? Just when does the OU stop increasing? This is pretty scary. Is there some pressure relief system somewhere? Is _matter_ being created out of nothing?  You guys had better put some brakes on that thing, or make sure you are drawing enough power out of it constantly, so that it doesn't blow up, right?

Somehow, I doubt it.

 :o :P :-[ :-\ :'(
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 05:39:19 AM
MarkE: the 2-d drawings don't seem to reflect the fact that, if all the fluid annuli have the same surface area, their thickness in the radial direction has to be getting smaller the further out from the center you go. In the 2-d simplification, as drawn,  the thickness is the same, producing the same surface area regardless of layer number, but in the 3-d situation this isn't true anymore, the annuli must get thinner as the inner radius increases, if they are to have the same surface area.
Or am I interpreting "surface area" incorrectly?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 05:49:40 AM
C h a r l e s P o n z i was quite adept at using new money to keep old investors at bay.  Alas when there is nothing of value to come out of the investment scheme as is the case here, it's a case of musical chairs.  Those who are fortunate enough to get some or all of their money out do so at the cost to those who don't.  Some of Madoff's investors who got money out actually had to give it back to the receiver because of their knowledge and the timing.

Wayne Travis told us that HER / Zydro are fully funded and are not out trying to pull in new investor money.  Surely Wayne wouldn't lie about something like that.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 05:55:24 AM
MarkE: the 2-d drawings don't seem to reflect the fact that, if all the fluid annuli have the same surface area, their thickness in the radial direction has to be getting smaller the further out from the center you go. In the 2-d simplification, as drawn,  the thickness is the same, producing the same surface area regardless of layer number, but in the 3-d situation this isn't true anymore, the annuli must get thinner as the inner radius increases, if they are to have the same surface area.
Or am I interpreting "surface area" incorrectly?
We are talking about LarryC's analysis of a hypothetical device.  The walls have zero thickness, the "air" is massless and incompressible, and he has now stipulated that the annular widths get smaller in order to hold a constant 51 circular inch annular ring area:

The gap between the 25" diameter pod and the pod chamber wall, exactly 0.5", IE 26" diameter chamber.
The gap between the pod chamber wall and the riser wall, exactly: (727^0.5 - 26)/2", IE 727^0.5" diameter riser.
The gap between the riser wall and the vessel outer wall, exactly: (778^0.5 - 727^0.5)/2" IE 778^0.5" diameter vessel.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 06:12:38 AM
OK, thanks. So the drawings aren't to scale then, that's OK with me as long as the numbers are right.

BTW, the "sub" and "sup" BBCode tags are available just above the line of smileyfaces, they work pretty well.

e.g. 5^0.5 = 50.5
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Grimer on February 26, 2014, 07:36:34 AM
We are talking about LarryC's analysis of a hypothetical device.  The walls have zero thickness, the "air" is massless and incompressible, and he has now stipulated that the annular widths get smaller in order to hold a constant 51 circular inch annular ring area:

The gap between the 25" diameter pod and the pod chamber wall, exactly 0.5", IE 26" diameter chamber.
The gap between the pod chamber wall and the riser wall, exactly: (727^0.5 - 26)/2", IE 727^0.5" diameter riser.
The gap between the riser wall and the vessel outer wall, exactly: (778^0.5 - 727^0.5)/2" IE 778^0.5" diameter vessel.
The air is very compressible unlike the water which is incompressible for practical purposes.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 07:50:22 AM
The air is very compressible unlike the water which is incompressible for practical purposes.
Mr. Grimer, for purposes of the analysis LarryC has stipulated that the "air" is incompressible and massless.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 26, 2014, 08:17:27 AM



 Hi,
    MarkE, TinselKoala, thanks for all your effort at trying to solve this puzzle.
        Not that easy is it?
    I'm real excited now, will Wayne be exonerated ? Will he be world famous?
    It all comes down to two little letters, I and N.
      Famous or infamous!
     What I have learned is that numbers on a page are as good as useless, unless
     they are accompanied by detailed drawings, the assumptions employed and
      a step by step chronological plan.
                                John.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 09:10:23 AM
Actually certain aspects are trivially easy.

For example it is very easy to see that Travis himself cannot and/or will not provide any evidence for his claims. Just go over the posts he's made and count the times he has actually given any data or said anything substantive about the devices he claims to have. Then count the insults and disrespects he's emitted, veiled and overt. Stack them all on the pans of a balance and see to which side it tips.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Marsing on February 26, 2014, 09:19:35 AM
Well, we are still facing the same problem, " third energy ",
but i like to call it "external energy". lol

i hope both mondrasek and larry won't get a hard day.   :o
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on February 26, 2014, 10:24:59 AM
Wayne Travis told us that HER / Zydro are fully funded and are not out trying to pull in new investor money.

Things don't always fit in little boxes...............

Let me be clear - Our investors will not part with there part ownership in our company - none of them.

They have been offered 10X returns by out side investors...........wanting in........ and our members flat walked away. It does not take long to realize how well our company is growing.......

The idea that any of them have been harmed is ignorance. (beside the fact that about 30% of our owners are engineers -good ones).

I refused to let any of my friends and family support us unless they verified it was non risk money - and I have gifted much to needy friends and family.

We never asked for money - and we always had exactly what we need to pay for parts, tests, legal fee's - tools.

We did not buy cars - houses - jewelry, take vacations, or anything that would harm our ability or threaten the value of our members.

We built the product and the company.
........................

We "are" fully funded............... "Turnkey funded" and no investor has been paid off from other investors.

Paid off? you assume thay don't want to be part of our future............your mistake - your box.

One day - you may realize the gross misdirection - harm done - by your good intentions - to the good people - on this web site.

Or not - I have always hoped your intentions may have been meant for good, but you have no excuse.

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

The gross error by critics on this subject has been "Stark faith in what was presumed "known" - and lack of due effort and discovery."

The demands that you be handed a operating system - after you ignored the originals, ignored original analysis, ignored replications - tells me one thing - misdirection. I am just not sure if thier is more than one puppet master leading the way.

Demands that you control the education - of what you did not understand - was arrogant. While you called me arrogant for trying to teach you....

HERE IS THE SAD POINT:

A fraction of the time spent slandering us, a fraction of that energy spent - would have been more than enough to share in our discover - don't give me more misdirection and excuses.

The closing of the opportunity has passed.
.......................

Yes, we are in the process of interviewing and selecting a full scale engineering team - to both develop our systems and applications, yes we have recently moved into temporary facilities while the permits for ground breaking are being processed and the 7-8 months required to build our show case facility -

As of Yesterday - we have hired 21 of our 27-28 people.

This first building will house our Management, Engineering, additional Research, legal, and training facility. It will be a show case for the visiting representatives.

Both City and state incentives have been negotiated, Both the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy, and the Oklahoma Senate has been prepared and briefed -on our discovery and progress.

Our Benefactor is well represented in Both the US Senate and Congress, and has an incredible legal team.

One Senator spoke at our company launch three weeks agp - "Oklahoma has been known for its creative Energy solutions - and now that legacy continues with ZYdro Energy."

And yes - our facility will be grid tied - and powered by our systems - works great for the Training Department.

Our funding includes automated manufacturing - we will have another round of hiring in less than 12 months. Different locations.

This will also supply advancement opportunities for our first team members.

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

It is only by God's blessing that we were able to survive long enough to be discovered, examined, and supported.

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

MarkE, you have the skills - and after the replication teams - you have begun to put in effort - I hope you can handle the truth - when the realization sweeps over you.

I am blessed to see it happen almost every day - it is good for the world.

How you handle that will determine much, reveal much, for you. Good luck.

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

I was asked nicely - to update Overunity.com on our development.

And that time has now been spent, God speed to all of you.

Wayne


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 26, 2014, 11:36:31 AM



  Hi Wayne,
             have you got a 5hp. self running machine? Please answer yes or no. (zero waffle)
                            John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 12:25:16 PM
Yet another post on the "no data, no support for claims, no sausages" side of the balance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A)

Who is that fellow I wonder. Why is he playing around with a whiteboard instead of showing us an operating device? I know who, and I know why.

Your senator is going to be an awfully disappointed fellow when you can't provide what you promised to provide.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 26, 2014, 01:25:00 PM



     Koala,
             if we don't get an answer to question on 131 from Wayne we can take it
       as a no I would assume.
                            John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 02:40:03 PM


     Koala,
             if we don't get an answer to question on 131 from Wayne we can take it
       as a no I would assume.
                            John.

That is what I would also conclude. Meanwhile, while he tries to think of a way to answer you without answering you .... we hear the sound of crickets chirping.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 26, 2014, 03:29:28 PM
The proper drawing of your red box would follow the outline of the surface of the outer liquid layer, I think, because that is the sealed surface. It rises and sinks, of course, but that's no problem as far as the boundary condition goes.

I looked at it two slightly different ways.  But both result in the same Energy Balance in the end, so I don't know if it matters much if one is correct or not.  But I would like to know.

The first way is what you described above.  It makes sense, but having the red box change volume is a bit counter intuitive.  So I also thought about fixing the red box in the initial state as shown below.  Now when the water charge is introduced to cause the configuration in the center diagram, water leaves the red box through the upper surface of the "step" in the box across the outer annulus.  That water is a PE that flows right back into the red box when the system is allowed to rise, so it sums to zero with the energy that was lost when the water left in the first place. 

So by either method, I end up back to the same Energy Balance that I used for the second attempt at the 2-layer ZED analysis.

You have not answered if you agree that the output energy is correctly established by the volume of the outer riser (boxed in yellow) that rises up through the top of the red box boundary.  That volume starts rising at a Pout that is calculated from the buoyant forces of the pod and risers shown in the middle charged state diagram, and would presumably drop to zero if the ZED were to come back into equilibrium (neutral buoyancy) in the final position on the right.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 04:14:21 PM
Things don't always fit in little boxes...............
You were absolute in your statements.  Are you trying to weasel in modifications now?
Quote

Let me be clear - Our investors will not part with there part ownership in our company - none of them.
Ah, pay attention to the language.  Will and want are quite different.
Quote

They have been offered 10X returns by out side investors...........wanting in........ and our members flat walked away. It does not take long to realize how well our company is growing.......
Again, language matters.  Those who have stayed, have stayed.  How many have asked to get out, and/or have gotten out?
Quote

The idea that any of them have been harmed is ignorance. (beside the fact that about 30% of our owners are engineers -good ones).
Any trained engineer who thinks that there is energy to be gained by raising and dropping weights cyclically is incompetent.  Full stop.  The incompetence may be a temporary induced condition, but it is incompetence just the same.
Quote

I refused to let any of my friends and family support us unless they verified it was non risk money - and I have gifted much to needy friends and family.
Only the records will tell whether that is true or not.  And your record vis-a-vis truth is not so good.
Quote

We never asked for money - and we always had exactly what we need to pay for parts, tests, legal fee's - tools.
Really?  Again records would be the judge.
Quote

We did not buy cars - houses - jewelry, take vacations, or anything that would harm our ability or threaten the value of our members.
So it's OK to take money under false premises if you don't spend it "lavishly"?
Quote

We built the product and the company.
You've built an illusion on a stack of lies.  There is no product.  Your technology claims are false.
Quote
........................

We "are" fully funded............... "Turnkey funded" and no investor has been paid off from other investors.
Oh, this is new "Wayne speak".  Your previous declarations were that you were both "fully funded" and were not seeking any new funds.  Since the company has no source of revenue other than investors, either no investors have been cashed out, or your statement is false.  The business records are again the better evidence of fact.
Quote

Paid off? you assume thay don't want to be part of our future............your mistake - your box.
There is no future for HER / Zydro, because there is not now and never was the technology that you claim.
Quote

One day - you may realize the gross misdirection - harm done - by your good intentions - to the good people - on this web site.
The harm that has been done is your selling investment in a pipe dream that you know to be false, or are reckless in ignoring that it is false.  The Acts, 1933, and 1934 do not distinguish between the two.
Quote

Or not - I have always hoped your intentions may have been meant for good, but you have no excuse.
No, Wayne Travis, you have no excuse.  The physics is painfully simple:  Gravity is conservative.  You have no counter evidence.
Quote

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

The gross error by critics on this subject has been "Stark faith in what was presumed "known" - and lack of due effort and discovery."
You have not made any physical discovery.  You have discovered how a yarn skillfully told can separate people from their cash even when the yarn is utterly and entirely preposterous.  Just as many people have fallen for scams claiming they've won a big lottery they never entered, there are people foolish enough to fall for the idea that there is free energy in a pail of water.
Quote

The demands that you be handed a operating system - after you ignored the originals, ignored original analysis, ignored replications - tells me one thing - misdirection. I am just not sure if thier is more than one puppet master leading the way.
There it is!  Yes, try and shift your burden of proof onto others.  No Mr. Wayne you have no sausages.  Just hope that isn't prophetically because someone of the temperament of Lorena Bobbitt has been burned by your shameless lies.
Quote

Demands that you control the education - of what you did not understand - was arrogant. While you called me arrogant for trying to teach you....
All that you teach is the age old story that if the tale is pitched properly, some people will believe almost anything, no matter how preposterous.
Quote

HERE IS THE SAD POINT:

A fraction of the time spent slandering us, a fraction of that energy spent - would have been more than enough to share in our discover - don't give me more misdirection and excuses.
That's right Wayne Travis:  Stay on point.  Keep insisting that you have a scientific discovery when you don't and never did.  For you it's staying on message.  For a prosecutor it is evidence of scienter.
Quote

The closing of the opportunity has passed.
That's just what John Rohner used to say.  And yet there was always more stock for sale.  There still is.
Quote
.......................

Yes, we are in the process of interviewing and selecting a full scale engineering team - to both develop our systems and applications, yes we have recently moved into temporary facilities while the permits for ground breaking are being processed and the 7-8 months required to build our show case facility -
"Show" being the key operative term.  You can show props.  You cannot show a working demonstration of the claimed technology, never could, and never will.  Pails of water do not emit beams of glorious free energy from the heavens.
Quote

As of Yesterday - we have hired 21 of our 27-28 people.
That's lots of investor cash burn applied to something that you know is a lie.
Quote

This first building will house our Management, Engineering, additional Research, legal, and training facility. It will be a show case for the visiting representatives.
HER/Zydro cannot deliver anything to representatives of anyone.  But you can sell worthless licenses and franchises to non-existent technology.
Quote

Both City and state incentives have been negotiated, Both the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy, and the Oklahoma Senate has been prepared and briefed -on our discovery and progress.
That's what MediaFusion said.
Quote

Our Benefactor is well represented in Both the US Senate and Congress, and has an incredible legal team.
Oh goody:  You've found a mark with means and connections.  Now, all you have to do is work out that exit strategy where the greatest thing since fire fails but not because it was always a lie.  Hmmm, will it be the Men In Black?  Madison Priest used the amnesia story.  You can look for other story lines that have been used on day time TV.
Quote

One Senator spoke at our company launch three weeks agp - "Oklahoma has been known for its creative Energy solutions - and now that legacy continues with ZYdro Energy."
Imagine that:  A politician talking up something that they do not understand.  Will that senator still be your buddy when the house of cards inevitably collapses?
Quote

And yes - our facility will be grid tied - and powered by our systems - works great for the Training Department.
Sure, that will happen right after JWK's systems get tied in.  His investors have been waiting longer, so the JWK systems will get tied in first.  Oh, and then of course the Inteligentry systems will have to be tied in first.  And then hell will have to freeze over.
Quote

Our funding includes automated manufacturing - we will have another round of hiring in less than 12 months. Different locations.
You're in good company:  The scammer Rossi also likes to talk about his non-existent automated factories.
Quote

This will also supply advancement opportunities for our first team members.
There you go:  Stay on message.  "Get in now!"  "Step right up!"  "Surrender your common sense and cash before it's too late!"
Quote

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

It is only by God's blessing that we were able to survive long enough to be discovered, examined, and supported.
Why yes, it is God's blessing that you have been discovered.  But that's not in the sense that you mean.   "Lorena!  No!"
Quote

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

MarkE, you have the skills - and after the replication teams - you have begun to put in effort - I hope you can handle the truth - when the realization sweeps over you.
I know the truth:  You are a shameless individual selling false dreams to gullible investors, all with your Bible in tow.  You know the OT is full of stories of retribution.  You better stick to the NT that focuses more on forgiveness.  You will be needing to seek a lot of that.
Quote

I am blessed to see it happen almost every day - it is good for the world.
Yes, you benefit everyday from OPM.  It is difficult to say if you would be doing more harm if you didn't have access to that.
Quote

How you handle that will determine much, reveal much, for you. Good luck.
Luck has little to do with physics.
Quote

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

I was asked nicely - to update Overunity.com on our development.
And yet you have done nothing but repeat your empty talking points.  There is no development.
Quote

And that time has now been spent, God speed to all of you.

Wayne
God speed to the poor investors who have been foolish enough to believe your lies.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 26, 2014, 05:07:40 PM

Your spreadsheet appears to be calculating energy by a series of linear adds and subtracts based on average pressure.  That yields incorrect results.  Integration is necessary.


Thanks, MarkE.


Your example is using a CoE system and can never be > 100% efficiency. In my other spreadsheet for the flow between 2 Archimedes using the same energy calculations, you can change the yellow parameters all you want and it never goes over 100%. That not an override, just the math. So, If the energy calculations is the cause of >100% in the 2 Zed , I would be able to get over 100% in the 2 Archimedes system.
 
The only subtraction is for the Average PSI differential value. Without that the formulas would just use Pin average * Vin per cycle.


Since that seems to be causing your issue, we could remove using the differential and just compare the single Zed to the single Archimedes, where the Zed still shows a higher efficiency than the Archimedes.


The current 1Arch sheet has an input advantage and still is less efficient at 48.13% to the 1Zed at 73.76%. So I'm going to modify and resend, making the input volume the same and combining them on one sheet to make it easier to compare the two.


Hope you're willing to continue, as I'm learning a lot about the issue areas.


Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 06:35:26 PM

Thanks, MarkE.


Your example is using a CoE system and can never be > 100% efficiency. In my other spreadsheet for the flow between 2 Archimedes using the same energy calculations, you can change the yellow parameters all you want and it never goes over 100%. That not an override, just the math. So, If the energy calculations is the cause of >100% in the 2 Zed , I would be able to get over 100% in the 2 Archimedes system.
 
The only subtraction is for the Average PSI differential value. Without that the formulas would just use Pin average * Vin per cycle.


Since that seems to be causing your issue, we could remove using the differential and just compare the single Zed to the single Archimedes, where the Zed still shows a higher efficiency than the Archimedes.


The current 1Arch sheet has an input advantage and still is less efficient at 48.13% to the 1Zed at 73.76%. So I'm going to modify and resend, making the input volume the same and combining them on one sheet to make it easier to compare the two.


Hope you're willing to continue, as I'm learning a lot about the issue areas.


Larry
Larry, both the ZED and the "Archimedes" scheme rigidly conform to Archimedes' Principle.  The fundamental problem for both the scheme using an insert and a scheme without an insert is that sloshing water around between filled and partially filled columns throws away a big percentage of the input energy.  Using inserts reduces the amount of water moved around and therefore reduces the losses.  A crude analogy is where one drives a car with one's foot on the brake: very inefficient, compared to driving applying less pressure on the brake: less inefficient, but still bad.  There is an parallel to this situation in electronics where one charges multiple capacitors to different voltages and then connects the capacitors together.  The energy relationships areas described by the same form of differential equations.

The next logical step is for you to calculate the energy applied and the energy that you recover during your cycle.  The general form for work changing the water level in a column is:

Work_applied = Area*(StartingPressure*(EndingHeight - StartingHeight) + 0.5*PressureChange/UnitHeight*(EndingHeight^2 - StartingHeight^2))

If the column shrinks then the Ending Height is less than the starting height, and work is released with a resulting negative value.
If the column grows then the Ending Height is greater than the starting height, and work is added with a resulting positive value.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 07:55:11 PM
@mondrasek:
I may have been kidding about the color blindness (I actually have fine color vision according to Ishihara and other tests, even though my father was a deuteranope) but nevertheless I can't easily tell the Red from the Magenta when they are closely adjacent in your drawings. How about using a contrasting color for the "red" box outline?


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 08:08:46 PM
Hilarious. Michael Teague doesn't seem ever to have heard of Travis or Zydro whatever. Or maybe he just can't talk about it because of the usual boilerplate NDAs. One thing that Travis does have is a lawyer or two, sucking up some of the cash that's leaking out of the ZEDs.

http://www.ok.gov/energy/ (http://www.ok.gov/energy/)
http://www.ok.gov/energy/documents/Teague%20-%20Oklahoma%20Energy%20&%20Environment%20Secretary.pdf (http://www.ok.gov/energy/documents/Teague%20-%20Oklahoma%20Energy%20&%20Environment%20Secretary.pdf)

Oklahoma is a major oil and natural gas producing State. Methinks Travis might want to consider who has the deepest pockets and who has the most to lose, or gain, should he ever succeed in demonstrating what he claims.

But he's safe from the minions of Big Oil, because he cannot and will not ever be able to produce any energy over and above what his noisy leaky kludge is supplied with in the first place.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 26, 2014, 08:08:53 PM
@mondrasek:
I may have been kidding about the color blindness (I actually have fine color vision according to Ishihara and other tests, even though my father was a deuteranope) but nevertheless I can't easily tell the Red from the Magenta when they are closely adjacent in your drawings. How about using a contrasting color for the "red" box outline?

TK, I switched the red to a soft blue in Paint (I'm on the road now and don't have the big 2nd monitor I would use for CAD).  Hopefully it works better for you.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 08:10:37 PM
Mond, much better, thanks.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 08:53:16 PM
Mondrasek, I know you are busy today so don't feel the need to reply right away, I can wait.

Does your diagram represent your actual test system?


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 09:02:16 PM
Here's another few interesting links I found. The U of OK has a world-class engineering school at its Norman campus.

http://ourearth.ou.edu/ (http://ourearth.ou.edu/)
http://www.ou.edu/content/coe/research.html (http://www.ou.edu/content/coe/research.html)


Musharraf Zaman,Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering
CONTACT INFORMATION : EMAIL: zaman(at)ou.edu PHONE : (405) 325-4536 FAX : (405) 325-7508
Quote
RESEARCH INTERESTS: Geotechnical Engineering
 Soil dynamics, rock mechanics, soil structure interaction, flow through porous media, constitutive laws of engineering materials (testing and modeling), mine system design and ground control, bridge approach settlements, expert systems, application of numerical techniques to complex geotechnical engineering problems, earthquake engineering, and geotechnical aspects of hazardous waste disposal.

The Norman campus is about 35 miles from Chickasha.


Why do you suppose they are concentrating on mining energy resources, biofuels and other things like that, instead of buoyancy drives that make huge percentages OU, like Travis has claimed?

I know why, and so do you.



Quote
Dear Professor Zaman,

Greetings and felicitations! I am writing on behalf of a few interested researchers who are looking into the claims of one Wayne Travis, dba "Zydro Energy LLC" located in Chickasha, OK, a short drive away from your Norman campus. Travis claims to have a mechanical, buoyancy driven system that "captures gravity" and which produces more energy output, by a large margin, than is input, and that will run itself with no input but will still produce usable "net" output energy. Needless to say, this scheme violates the law of Conservation of Energy as well as the conservative nature of the gravitational field. Travis has quite an operation going in Chickasha, he apparently has investors with deep pockets, and we are concerned that his claims might not actually be valid.

http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/)

I know you are very busy, but you may be amused by looking over this PowerPoint presentation, attached, that Travis presented to prospective investors in late 2010 or early 2011. I am wondering if you might have a stray graduate student looking for a thesis project, who may be able to look into this issue a bit more deeply. I myself cannot travel to Chickasha personally, but it may be convenient for someone from the Norman campus to go and have a look.

Thanks for your time and consideration, and I am looking forward to hearing your opinions about the claims of Wayne Travis and Zydro Energy LLC.

Sincerely, I remain
(name and contact info redacted)
aka TinselKoala

attachment: the ppt file
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 09:40:57 PM
Here is a basic diagram that shows how to calculate the potential energy that is in a single column of water.  The constants are set for 20C temperature.  One can derive the energy correctly by multiplying the average pressure by the total volume.  As the head changes, so both change the volume and the pressure, causing the energy to change as the square of the head.

ETA: LarryC noticed that the multiplication was wrong on the middle numbers.    I have updated the drawing to fix that.  The energy progression is 1X, 4X, 16X, for volumes of 1X, 2X, and 4X respectively.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 26, 2014, 10:37:58 PM
Mondrasek, I know you are busy today so don't feel the need to reply right away, I can wait.

Does your diagram represent your actual test system?

Back at home now.  I travel every Wednesday, but it does mean I get home a little early, and since it is trash night that works to my advantage.

This ideal model is completely unrelated to the physical test system I built.  I drew it up for the expressed purpose of performing a Mathematical Energy Balance Analysis per the methods I had recently learned from posts by MarkE.  The dimensions were chosen to simplify some of the expected calculations, or were random.  However, I did choose a 3:1 height to diameter ratio for the pod since that was much closer to the general guidelines given by Wayne so long ago.  And I had found that a higher ratio should have benefited my previous build that was only about a 1:1 from observations of that experiment.

Other than that, this is a pure Mathematical Analysis of a generalized random representation of a ZED.  I just wanted to see what the math would show.  I was surprised with the results.  And so I asked for a double check.  On both the math and the analysis process.  So far I have learned of one mistake in an assumption I used in my first attempt that I have corrected, and also another in the whole Energy Balance process concept in general (the proper "red box" you helped with) that is good knowledge to have, but did not impact the previous calcs AFAICS.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on February 26, 2014, 10:38:44 PM
Good for you TK.  I have been seriously considering calling one of those journalists I linked to a week ago.  I have the flu right now and if I am home tomorrow during the day and feeling up to it I may call.  It may be possible to put fire into somebody's belly and get them to do some investigative journalism.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 10:49:56 PM
That's good, MH. Please let me know if there is any way I can help, bearing in mind that I can't travel to Chickasha. You are welcome to my compendium of Travis info, like the ppt and the video I posted earlier where he is clearly pitching an "opportunity" to investors.
--TK

(Hope you feel better soon...)






     Koala,
             if we don't get an answer to question on 131 from Wayne we can take it
       as a no I would assume.
                            John.

Sound of crickets chirping....
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 26, 2014, 11:58:33 PM



  "We have a net 5hp. system" Feb 21 2014. He's an honest man so cannot say yes if he hasn't.
    If he says no, we'll all know! If he doesn't answer, we'll all know.
                                           John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 27, 2014, 12:30:33 AM
Larry, both the ZED and the "Archimedes" scheme rigidly conform to Archimedes' Principle. 


Hi MarkE,


Attached is the 1 Zed to 1 Archimedes spreadsheet. I decided to change the Archimedes water head so that its input Ft Lbs is equal to the Zed input Ft Lbs.


The Zed output Ft Lbs is 33.55% greater than the Archimedes, thus this excess needs to be resolved to rigidly conform.


On the remarks about incompressible air, which causes a 1X head change in the pod area to create a 2X head change in the riser. In the current design the air still compresses but the mechanical changes can produced > 2X. So not an issue.


The Archimedes part (Pod) of the Zed main purpose is to keep the air gap between the Pod and the Riser from increasing. Any additional lift by the Pod is only bonus.


Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 27, 2014, 02:10:02 AM
Larry, OK I fixed that.  Because the stipulation is equal cross-section area in each column, I changed the formulas to derive the diameters with the areas fixed at 51circular inches, IE 51*pi/4.  Consequently, the formulas are:

Riser area = (26^2 + 51 )*pi/4  = 570.9844647900
Vessel area = (26^2 + 2*51)*pi/4  = 611.0397711233
Riser diameter = (26^2 + 51 )^0.5 = 26.96293752543
Annular clearance = (26.96293752543 - 26)/2 = .4814687627128
Riser diameter = (26^2 + 2*51 )^0.5 = 27.89265136196

The precision of these numbers are not particularly significant once we defined the annular cavities to all have the same 51 circular inch areas and perform our calculations based on that stipulated area rather than calculated area.


MarkE,


Thanks for the calculations. Nice, I understand and learn.


The riser head is still incorrect, but it may be due to my previous explanation. The bottom arrow should be at the same level as the water level height between the riser wall and pod retainer wall.


Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 27, 2014, 02:34:17 AM
Larry, 28^2/26^2.  Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there.  The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers:  28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area:  55/51 ~8%.



Another point you made, that I said I would answer later. I see how you came up with 8%, but it has little relevance to the efficiency when dealing with pressure differential between 2 Zeds. FYI, I am working a clearer explanation for pressure differential energy calculations.


Larry


 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 02:55:22 AM

Another point you made, that I said I would answer later. I see how you came up with 8%, but it has little relevance to the efficiency when dealing with pressure differential between 2 Zeds. FYI, I am working a clearer explanation for pressure differential energy calculations.


Larry


 
Larry, if you are about to make significant changes to your spreadsheet, then I will hold-off taking the time to go through the one you just sent. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 27, 2014, 03:06:02 AM
Larry, if you are about to make significant changes to your spreadsheet, then I will hold-off taking the time to go through the one you just sent.
No effect to the one I just sent as it has no differential. It would only effect a new 2 Zed and 2 Archimedes version.


But, no rush.


Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 27, 2014, 08:48:46 AM



  Hi MarkE,
        I've been looking at Larry's drawings and don't quite know what "flow assist" means.
   I realise you're having to go back over all this stuff and more or less start again and I'm
    beginning to sort of understand it.
               Thankyou John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 08:58:34 AM


  Hi MarkE,
        I've been looking at Larry's drawings and don't quite know what "flow assist" means.
   I realise you're having to go back over all this stuff and more or less start again and I'm
    beginning to sort of understand it.
               Thankyou John.
Minnie you will have to ask Larry.  I guess that it means external energy added.  Whenever the machine sloshes water from a high column to a lower column it loses stored energy.  The whole gag has been misdirection by Wayne and company away from calculating energy values correctly over the course of a full cycle.  Please see the next post.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 09:07:08 AM
Larry, I've looked at the latest spreadsheet.  There is still a good deal of work to do here.  Please refer to the drawing below:

We need to either insure that the starting and ending energy states are identical, or else account for the stored energy in each state.    No matter what, we do need to calculate the work added and going from each state to the next.  Knowing the stored energy at all states provides a good sanity check.  Please be aware that each time water equalizes from a taller single column to two or more lower columns that we lose stored energy.  The drawing includes formulas for calculating stored energy under the assumptions previously stated:

20C
G0=9.80665m/s/s
zero thickness walls
25" diameter pod
26" diameter pod chamber
51 circular inch riser gap and riser head areas

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 27, 2014, 01:01:26 PM



  Hi Larry,
            could you please explain what is meant by "flow assist".
    You show a stop to limit the travel, this would indicate that
    there is stored energy to be accounted for.
            Thankyou  John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
We have Flow Assists on this side of the Red River too.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 27, 2014, 03:25:06 PM



   Koala,
           I guess Travis has "gone to ground" so to speak.
    That is what I imagined flow assist to be!
     Love listening to those crickets
                                        John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 27, 2014, 04:03:09 PM


  Hi Larry,
            could you please explain what is meant by "flow assist".
    You show a stop to limit the travel, this would indicate that
    there is stored energy to be accounted for.
            Thankyou  John.


Hi John,

Flow assist is the input energy required above that supplied by the differential PSI between the 2 units.


Yes, there is stored energy.


Larry   
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 27, 2014, 05:32:30 PM
The multiple connected columns require 1/3 the input Ft Lbs as the single column to have the same PSI.


Wouldn't it be great if someone could design a system to utilize and maintain the PSI in the multiple connected columns example.


Oops.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 07:35:53 PM
The multiple connected columns require 1/3 the input Ft Lbs as the single column to have the same PSI.


Wouldn't it be great if someone could design a system to utilize and maintain the PSI in the multiple connected columns example.


Oops.
Oops is right Larry.  You miscomputed the input work.  Work is the integral of F*ds.  The initial force adding your 1ft of water is zero.  But the force at the end is:  4+1-2 = 3*0.65psi/ft.  The added work is therefore the integral evaluation from 0 to 1ft of:  0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*z2 = 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*1ft2, which happens to be identically the difference between the starting and ending energies of:  EINITIAL = 2*0.5*0.65psi*area*3ft2 = 18*0.5*0.65*area and EFINAL = 0.5*0.65psi*area*(12 + 22 +42) = 0.5*0.65psi*area*21.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 27, 2014, 09:07:20 PM
Oops is right Larry.  You miscomputed the input work.  Work is the integral of F*ds.  The initial force adding your 1ft of water is zero.  But the force at the end is:  4+1-2 = 3*0.65psi/ft.  The added work is therefore the integral evaluation from 0 to 1ft of:  0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*z2 = 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*1ft2, which happens to be identically the difference between the starting and ending energies of:  EINITIAL = 2*0.5*0.65psi*area*3ft2 = 18*0.5*0.65*area and EFINAL = 0.5*0.65psi*area*(12 + 22 +42) = 0.5*0.65psi*area*21.




MarkE,


Our Zed spreadsheet output formulas are F*ds as Force * Stroke. The input Ft Lbs formulas use P average * Volume of the fluid moving into the Pod retainer. That also increases the head in the risers.


The pressure rises faster than would account for just the input volume height, due to the riser head change. Are you now saying we have to account for the riser head change? That would be double dipping as its already factored in P average.


Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 09:38:18 PM



MarkE,


Our Zed spreadsheet output formulas are F*ds as Force * Stroke. The input Ft Lbs formulas use P average * Volume of the fluid moving into the Pod retainer. That also increases the head in the risers.


The pressure rises faster than would account for just the input volume height, due to the riser head change. Are you now saying we have to account for the riser head change? That would be double dipping as its already factored in P average.


Larry
Larry, under conditions where force changes as a function of distance (height) as it does in your example, then the integral of F*ds becomes integral(f(z)dz).  The incompressible fluid in the three columns transmits pressure between each.  At the end state: The right most column has a head of 4' that presses down trying to push the entire fluid volume towards the left.  The middle column has a head of 2' the presses down trying to push the entire volume towards the right.  The net pressure is: (4-2)ft*0.65psi/ft.  The leftmost column adds one more foot of head that the input energy source has to push against.  Now, the total pressure that the input source has to work against at the end is:  (4-2+1)ft*0.65psi/ft = 3*0.65psi/ft.  The total force at that point is:  3*0.65psi/ft*area.  Therefore:  the force that the input source has to work against changes from 0 to 3*0.65psi/ft*area as the input head changes from 0 to 1ft.  The input energy is therefore the integral of:  3*0.65psi/ft*area/ft*z dz, evaluated from 0 to 1ft input z.  That evaluates to:  0.5*3*0.65psi*area*ft in ft. lbs. work as the drawing shows. That input energy identically matches the change in stored energy from 18*0.5*0.65*area to 21*0.5*0.65*area.  That is the inescapable physical reality. 

If you plug non-physical formulas into a calculator, spreadsheet, or computer codes, you simply create bogus results.

If you are having difficulty with these concepts, then I suggest looking at the situation in two places:

The incremental work that you have to do to pump in the first microinch, and the work that you have to do pumping in the last microinch.  When you start the two 3 inch heads cancel the net force seen by the pump at the left most tube:  F~= 0, and the work to pump in 1uinch head of fluid is also ~0. When you end, the input source is working against (virtually) the right head plus the left head less the middle head and the work is: E ~= F*s ~=3*0.65psi/ft*area*1uinch.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 09:58:03 PM
Quote
If you plug non-physical formulas into a calculator, spreadsheet, or computer codes, you simply create bogus results.

Heh... IGI-IGO:

Incompressible garbage in, incompressible garbage out.

Sounds like the plumbing in this old house.

 ::)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 27, 2014, 10:04:44 PM
MarkE and LarryC,

I took some liberties with your current analysis to illustrate something that I think might be helpful to some who are following along.  Feel free to ignore if it does not raise any talking points for you two.

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 10:47:41 PM
O U Kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8WYI7QCj0k
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 27, 2014, 10:54:17 PM
Larry, under conditions where force changes as a function of distance (height) as it does in your example, then the integral of F*ds becomes integral(f(z)dz).  The incompressible fluid in the three columns transmits pressure between each.  At the end state: The right most column has a head of 4' that presses down trying to push the entire fluid volume towards the left.  The middle column has a head of 2' the presses down trying to push the entire volume towards the right.  The net pressure is: (4-2)ft*0.65psi/ft.  The leftmost column adds one more foot of head that the input energy source has to push against.  Now, the total pressure that the input source has to work against at the end is:  (4-2+1)ft*0.65psi/ft = 3*0.65psi/ft.  The total force at that point is:  3*0.65psi/ft*area.  Therefore:  the force that the input source has to work against changes from 0 to 3*0.65psi/ft*area as the input head changes from 0 to 1ft.  The input energy is therefore the integral of:  3*0.65psi/ft*area/ft*z dz, evaluated from 0 to 1ft input z.  That evaluates to:  0.5*3*0.65psi*area*ft in ft. lbs. work as the drawing shows. That input energy identically matches the change in stored energy from 18*0.5*0.65*area to 21*0.5*0.65*area.  That is the inescapable physical reality. 

If you plug non-physical formulas into a calculator, spreadsheet, or computer codes, you simply create bogus results.

If you are having difficulty with these concepts, then I suggest looking at the situation in two places:

The incremental work that you have to do to pump in the first microinch, and the work that you have to do pumping in the last microinch.  When you start the two 3 inch heads cancel the net force seen by the pump at the left most tube:  F~= 0, and the work to pump in 1uinch head of fluid is also ~0. When you end, the input source is working against (virtually) the right head plus the left head less the middle head and the work is: E ~= F*s ~=3*0.65psi/ft*area*1uinch.


MarkE,

I think you picked up my P average from the example and using it as .65psi/ft. Water is .43psi/ft. That's part of the confusion. So going from 0 to 3*.43 makes sense. But When the pressure change is linear, as in the example and simulations, the Integral resolves to Pin average * Vin, this was also stated by M. earlier. Now if you don't agree, I can write a program with your micro inch height change and calculating the force, but it should be obvious.


Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 11:24:12 PM

MarkE,

I think you picked up my P average from the example and using it as .65psi/ft. Water is .43psi/ft. That's part of the confusion. So going from 0 to 3*.43 makes sense. But When the pressure change is linear, as in the example and simulations, the Integral resolves to Pin average * Vin, this was also stated by M. earlier. Now if you don't agree, I can write a program with your micro inch height change and calculating the force, but it should be obvious.


Larry
Larry, yes I picked up the wrong constant for water density.  However, it drops out of the equations in terms of relative work.  The initial stored energy is 18X 0.5*pWater*area/height, the final stored energy is 21X the same quantity, and the energy input is 3X the same quantity which is the exact difference between stored energy at the end versus the beginning.  Energy is conserved.  There is no gain.

Here is the drawing updated removing the specific density coefficient for water.  Substitute whatever fluid for the water that you like, and plug in the corresponding density in the units of your preference.  The equations still work the same way.  The relative quantities do not change.

You are welcome to code whatever you like as long as you can show that it if physically reasonable.  We know that at the end of the pumping cycle that we are supporting net 3ft of fluid.  Therefore we can write a simple computer program:

NumberOfSteps = 1000 ;
FluidHeightEnding = 1#;
FluidDensity = 1# ;
FluidArea = 1# ;
FluidHeightIncrement = FluidHeightEnding/NumberOfSteps ;
Kf = 3#*FluidDensity*FluidArea*FluidHeightIncrement ;
EnergyIn = 0 ;

for(StepCount = 0;StepCount < NumberOfSteps;StepCount++)
{
ForceAverage = 0.5*(StepCount+StepCount+1)*Kf ; //Average force between the start and end of the step
EnergyIncrement = ForceAverage*FluidHeightIncrement ; //Average force * incremental height added.
EnergyIn += EnergyIncrement ;
}

Whether you use 100 steps, 1000 steps, or 1,000,000 steps, for 3 units height you will get exactly 1.5*FluidDensity*FluidArea each time, which is identically the 3*0.5*FluidDensity*FluidArea of the 0+3+3 versus the 1+2+4 configuration.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 28, 2014, 12:33:47 AM
Larry, yes I picked up the wrong constant for water density.  However, it drops out of the equations in terms of relative work.  The initial stored energy is 18X 0.5*pWater*area/height, the final stored energy is 21X the same quantity, and the energy input is 3X the same quantity which is the exact difference between stored energy at the end versus the beginning.  Energy is conserved.  There is no gain.

Here is the drawing updated removing the specific density coefficient for water.  Substitute whatever fluid for the water that you like, and plug in the corresponding density in the units of your preference.  The equations still work the same way.  The relative quantities do not change.


It is conservative. Never said there was a gain with the multiple connected column setup. Said that you can get the same PSI with 1/3 the input Ft Lbs (using P average * Volume). If you released, it would have the same 1/3 output Ft Lbs. 


Smaller fluid volumes in and out for the same PSI reduces cycle time. Cycle time reduction increases HP. To take advantage of its properties you need a setup that can use the rise in water in the first column (Archimedes) and also use the PSI generated by the second and third columns (Riser dome).


Larry




 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 28, 2014, 12:40:45 AM

It is conservative. Never said there was a gain with the multiple connected column setup. Said that you can get the same PSI with 1/3 the input Ft Lbs (using P average * Volume). If you released, it would have the same 1/3 output Ft Lbs. 


Smaller fluid volumes in and out for the same PSI reduces cycle time. Cycle time reduction increases HP. To take advantage of its properties you need a setup that can use the rise in water in the first column (Archimedes) and also use the PSI generated by the second and third columns (Riser dome).


Larry




 
Larry comparing force or pressure with energy is a pointless exercise.  They are not comparable quantities.  I can get lots and lots of force and / or pressure with zero work or lots of work. 

Changing time scales without holding energy constant does not lead to power.  The system you have presented is both ordinary and conservative. 

You need to fix your spreadsheets so that they reflect the actual energy values.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 28, 2014, 12:59:34 AM
Larry comparing force or pressure with energy is a pointless exercise.  They are not comparable quantities.

The Integral of Pressure * Volume is Energy. 

The Integral of Pressure is equal to the average of Pstart and Pend for an incompressible fluid.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 28, 2014, 01:42:32 AM
The Integral of Pressure * Volume is Energy. 

The Integral of Pressure is equal to the average of Pstart and Pend for an incompressible fluid.
No.  You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances.  Work is always the integral of F*ds.  If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid.  If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work.  When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to:  E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2

The energy is not stored in compression of the fluid for the simple reason that the fluid is incompressible.  The energy is stored in the gravitational potential of the raised mass.  Larry  asserted that raising some cross-section by 1' to end up with the 1+2+4 configuration "cost only 1/3" of some other configuration.  But it doesn't.  The force went from 0 to 3X what it would have raising an isolated column by 1'.  Identically, the amount of work performed was 3X that required to raise an isolated column by 1'.  The force and the energy both scaled by 3X versus the isolated column.  Had we done the exercise totally emptying the middle column, then the force would have gone from zero to 9X over a 3X stroke.  Kf would still be 3*pWater*area, and the integral would be:  0.5*3*pWater*area*(32-0) = 27*0.5*pWater*area, IE 27X the energy of raising an isolated column by 1' and 3X the energy of raising an isolated column by 3'.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 28, 2014, 02:18:58 AM
No.  You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances.  Work is always the integral of F*ds.  If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid.  If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work.  When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to:  E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2

The energy is not stored in compression of the fluid for the simple reason that the fluid is incompressible.  The energy is stored in the gravitational potential of the raised mass.  Larry  asserted that raising some cross-section by 1' to end up with the 1+2+4 configuration "cost only 1/3" of some other configuration.  But it doesn't.  The force went from 0 to 3X what it would have raising an isolated column by 1'.  Identically, the amount of work performed was 3X that required to raise an isolated column by 1'.  The force and the energy both scaled by 3X versus the isolated column.  Had we done the exercise totally emptying the middle column, then the force would have gone from zero to 9X over a 3X stroke.  Kf would still be 3*pWater*area, and the integral would be:  0.5*3*pWater*area*(32-0) = 27*0.5*pWater*area, IE 27X the energy of raising an isolated column by 1' and 3X the energy of raising an isolated column by 3'.

Have you met Fletcher?  (sorry, but he is AFK) for a bit.  But I think he would like this exchange immensely!

And so do I.  Thank you for all your input and hard work.  The introduction of the maths you have been presenting to this topic has been a breath of fresh air to say the least!

M.

PS.  I did not actually read through and "digest" your post, and I apologize.  I'm otherwise preoccupied.  But I do plan to check it out shortly (hopefully in the morning).  You have taught me alot so far, and again, I thank you.  I do appreciate your considerate contributions to this forum!
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 28, 2014, 07:15:27 AM
Darn, Gif display problem.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on February 28, 2014, 03:27:52 PM



   Hi,
      I've got a feeling if you used liquids with different sg's instead of air the thing would
   work just like a hydraulic jack. Wouldn't be much use because pressure would be so
   small and then it would vent.
      mrwayne  seems to have gone quite quiet all of a sudden.
   In industrial applications hydraulic pumps can deliver pressures of up to 20,000 psi
   which seems very far removed from what we're messing with here!
                        John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 28, 2014, 03:49:12 PM
      I've got a feeling if you used liquids with different sg's instead of air the thing would
   work just like a hydraulic jack.

Minnie, that is exactly the gist of the analysis I performed.  We are assuming the air is incompressible, so we are, in effect, using two liquids with different SG's.  I then tried to see if the ZED performed exactly like a hydraulic jack by inputting a known amount of energy in the form of a specific volume of fluid over a specific pressure range.  Then I checked to see if the ZED (jack) would rise by the appropriate amount to provide an equal energy output in the form of the outer riser (jack piston) rising a balancing calculated volume for the specific pressure range that was developed due to the buoyant forces the input created.  It did not act just like a jack (a simple hydraulic cylinder).  The 2-layer ZED (jack) would fail to stroke far enough, so under unity.  The 3-layer ZED (jack) would stroke further than predicted, so over unity.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 28, 2014, 04:28:15 PM
Larry, I've looked at the latest spreadsheet.  There is still a good deal of work to do here.  Please refer to the drawing below:

We need to either insure that the starting and ending energy states are identical, or else account for the stored energy in each state.    No matter what, we do need to calculate the work added and going from each state to the next.  Knowing the stored energy at all states provides a good sanity check.  Please be aware that each time water equalizes from a taller single column to two or more lower columns that we lose stored energy.  The drawing includes formulas for calculating stored energy under the assumptions previously stated:

20C
G0=9.80665m/s/s
zero thickness walls
25" diameter pod
26" diameter pod chamber
51 circular inch riser gap and riser head areas


MarkE,


Attached spreadsheet with your Stored energy Ft Lbs request.



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on February 28, 2014, 04:34:14 PM
No.  You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances.  Work is always the integral of F*ds.  If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid.  If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work.  When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to:  E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2

The energy is not stored in compression of the fluid for the simple reason that the fluid is incompressible.  The energy is stored in the gravitational potential of the raised mass.  Larry  asserted that raising some cross-section by 1' to end up with the 1+2+4 configuration "cost only 1/3" of some other configuration.  But it doesn't.  The force went from 0 to 3X what it would have raising an isolated column by 1'.  Identically, the amount of work performed was 3X that required to raise an isolated column by 1'.  The force and the energy both scaled by 3X versus the isolated column.  Had we done the exercise totally emptying the middle column, then the force would have gone from zero to 9X over a 3X stroke.  Kf would still be 3*pWater*area, and the integral would be:  0.5*3*pWater*area*(32-0) = 27*0.5*pWater*area, IE 27X the energy of raising an isolated column by 1' and 3X the energy of raising an isolated column by 3'.

No, MarkE, you are misunderstanding me.  When I said:

The Integral of Pressure * Volume is Energy,

it was in reference to the analysis of the ZED.  The Volume I was referring to is that which moves into and out of the system.  The input Volume is water.  The output Volume is that which is encompassed by the portion of the outer riser that lifts up above the original start condition height.

Sorry I did not make that more clear.  I realize you are looking at several things at once and I did not point out exactly which case I was making reference to. 

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 28, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
Please do not forget that +incompressible fluids+ do not store energy in volume changes due to applied pressure.

In a spring, when you press on it with a certain force (pressure) the spring compresses (changes "volume") and thus the energy integral is valid. If you press with the same force (pressure) on a concrete block... no (or extremely little) energy is stored in compressing the concrete, its volume does not change due to your applied pressure, so the energy integral in the form you have stated it does not apply, just as the various individual ideal gas laws Boyle, Charles, Gay-Lussac and Avogadro, or indeed the full combined ideal gas law pV=nRT  do not apply to incompressible fluids.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 28, 2014, 06:00:36 PM
Correction, noticed that the Pod Lift values wasn't squared.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 28, 2014, 06:44:04 PM
No, MarkE, you are misunderstanding me.  When I said:

The Integral of Pressure * Volume is Energy,

it was in reference to the analysis of the ZED.  The Volume I was referring to is that which moves into and out of the system.  The input Volume is water.  The output Volume is that which is encompassed by the portion of the outer riser that lifts up above the original start condition height.

Sorry I did not make that more clear.  I realize you are looking at several things at once and I did not point out exactly which case I was making reference to.
If you stick with integral of F*ds there is no room for confusion.  See for example LarryC's example of 0+3+3 columns versus 1+2+4, picking pressures or average pressures and volumes easily leads to non-physical results, whereas integrating F*ds yields the correct result every time.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 28, 2014, 07:35:17 PM
Correction, noticed that the Pod Lift values wasn't squared.
Larry, the height used in a calculation is the height of a single column.  In your Stored energy calculations it looks like you took the water column height, subtracted one and then doubled it. 

You need to track the energy in each of the four water volumes as shown in this picture that I posted previously. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 28, 2014, 08:29:02 PM
If you stick with integral of F*ds there is no room for confusion.  See for example LarryC's example of 0+3+3 columns versus 1+2+4, picking pressures or average pressures and volumes easily leads to non-physical results, whereas integrating F*ds yields the correct result every time.


MarkE,


Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work.


With a pump that is rated for 1 cubic foot per minutes. Then the single column would take 3 minutes and the multiple connected columns would take 1 minute to create the same PSI in each system.





Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 28, 2014, 08:41:06 PM
Larry, the height used in a calculation is the height of a single column.  In your Stored energy calculations it looks like you took the water column height, subtracted one and then doubled it. 

You need to track the energy in each of the four water volumes as shown in this picture that I posted previously.


MarkE,


In your multiple connected column example you used 4-2+1. The Zed is a multiple connected column based system, so why wouldn't it be Riser Head - Riser Gap Head + Pod Head.


Don't understand the 'doubled it' comment. I'm summing the fields and the -value is only used once.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on February 28, 2014, 09:09:53 PM
Quote
Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work.


Power is not energy. Pressure is not energy. Flow rate is not energy.

Where are the sausages (excess energy that can be used outside the system without making the system come to a stop)?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 28, 2014, 10:14:43 PM

MarkE,


In your multiple connected column example you used 4-2+1. The Zed is a multiple connected column based system, so why wouldn't it be Riser Head - Riser Gap Head + Pod Head.


Don't understand the 'doubled it' comment. I'm summing the fields and the -value is only used once.
LarryC, energy is the integral of F*ds.  The force that must be exerted to go from the 3+3 state changes from 0 to pWater*area*3ft of total head because the column in the middle counterbalances the column on the right, so it is the difference between those heads, plus the head that we develop in the left hand column that determines the net weight:  IE force that we lift each increment of distance as we pump water into the left hand column.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on February 28, 2014, 10:16:17 PM

MarkE,


Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work.


With a pump that is rated for 1 cubic foot per minutes. Then the single column would take 3 minutes and the multiple connected columns would take 1 minute to create the same PSI in each system.
Larry, pressure is no measure of work or power.  I can create lots of pressure instantly without doing any work.  In column K you labeled values as Stored Energy in Ft. Lbs.  In row 8 you have a value of 329.63.  The corresponding head is 35".  The work to fill a column to 35" is:  Integral F*ds = 0.5*62.316lb/cuft*0.27816sqft*(35/12)ft2 = 73.69 ft. lbs.  You've calculated a value more than four times that.  You need to calculate energy for all four parts that the drawing identifies:

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LibreEnergia on February 28, 2014, 10:29:09 PM

"Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work."


This statement epitomises the misunderstanding  (or perhaps ignorance) that the majority of the over-unity community appears to be suffering. It certainly seems to pervade all threads in describing mechanical or electrical free energy devices.

Power is a 'rate of change' of work or more specifically the derivative of work with respect to time. The ONLY time you can compare 'power' from the point of view of deducing if a machine produces energy is when it transitions between two identical states in a cycle AND over the same timescale. It should be obvious from that that time falls out of the equations and you are back to considering just energy.

POWER is not ENERGY... learn and understand that, then you will begin to see how ridiculous the assertions are that devices such as the ZED can produce net energy output.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on February 28, 2014, 11:56:04 PM
Larry, pressure is no measure of work or power.  I can create lots of pressure instantly without doing any work.  In column K you labeled values as Stored Energy in Ft. Lbs.  In row 8 you have a value of 329.63.  The corresponding head is 35".  The work to fill a column to 35" is:  Integral F*ds = 0.5*62.316lb/cuft*0.27816sqft*(35/12)ft2 = 73.69 ft. lbs.  You've calculated a value more than four times that.  You need to calculate energy for all four parts that the drawing identifies:


I am calculating energy for all four parts, you need to learn to use the Trace Dependents and Trace Precedents button. The 35 in J8 is not used anywhere, it is a visual double check for me to make sure I set the newly added Inner and Outer riser water ht correctly so they equal the original riser heads in column C. The Inner and Outer riser water ht is used in the store energy calculation.


Never said pressure is a measure of work or power.  You would have known, I was talking about the multiple connected columns is the basis for the Zed design as I have stated many time. The PSI is used in the Risers the same as in a pneumatic cylinder and does create Work during the stroke. Getting the PSI up and down with less input volume is key to increased Power.
In the spreadsheet the volume input to get to Ready to Stroke is 22 for the Zed and 81.02 for the Archimedes and the Output Ft Lbs is 33.55% greater for the Zed. Based on the fact that it would take much longer for a pump to ready the Archimedes than for the Zed, the Zed will cycle faster. Cycle faster increases Work done over time or Power.


Misleading statements caused Librenergia to take it out context and put his big foot in his mouth, when I know just as much about work and power as most of you and apparently with better comprehension, since most of you cannot understand how the Zed works.
   
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 12:03:29 AM
Larry, I have gone through at least four spreadsheets now and none of them appear to calculate the all the energy values correctly and use those values to generate a balance.  I tell you what:  Rather than asking me to second guess what you are doing, why don't you add a couple of notes in your spreadsheet that say what you are using for what purpose, and where you draw your conclusions. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LibreEnergia on March 01, 2014, 12:12:57 AM

Misleading statements caused Librenergia to take it out context and put his big foot in his mouth, when I know just as much about work and power as most of you and apparently with better comprehension, since most of you cannot understand how the Zed works.
 

Sorry. ..You have only confirmed my hypothesis.

 It matters not one bit that a Zed compared with Archimedes might have different power characteristics. When you move from identical starting states to identical ending energy states only the change in energy is important, not how long it takes to transition between those two states

Consider the two statements

1. How much energy would it take to raise the Titanic from the bottom of the sea, vs
2. 'How much power would it take' to raise it.

The answer to 1 is a fixed amount irrespective of time. , The answer to 2 is 'any amount of power you happen to have available.

The ZED is no different to that scenario. Stop using power considerations to explain why the ZED 'works'. It just doesn't. Any person with even  modicum of understanding of physics or engineering understands  why.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 01, 2014, 12:39:36 AM
Sorry. ..You have only confirmed my hypothesis.

 It matters not one bit that a Zed compared with Archimedes might have different power characteristics. When you move from identical starting states to identical ending energy states only the change in energy is important, not how long it takes to transition between those two states

Consider the two statements

1. How much energy would it take to raise the Titanic from the bottom of the sea, vs
2. 'How much power would it take' to raise it.

The answer to 1 is a fixed amount irrespective of time. , The answer to 2 is 'any amount of power you happen to have available.

The ZED is no different to that scenario. Stop using power considerations to explain why the ZED 'works'. It just doesn't. Any person with even  modicum of understanding of physics or engineering understands  why.


And you still have your foot in your mouth.


The spreadsheets have no reference to power only work. Power only came up because of a multiple connected column example that relate to the Zed that we were discussing.


Our engineers have a lot more than a modicum of knowledge and with the ability to comprehend the Zed.


You should go back and review what has been posted and than make some knowledgeable statements, instead of trying to show off with these simpleton examples.   
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 01, 2014, 12:45:28 AM
LarryC, energy is the integral of F*ds.  The force that must be exerted to go from the 3+3 state changes from 0 to pWater*area*3ft of total head because the column in the middle counterbalances the column on the right, so it is the difference between those heads, plus the head that we develop in the left hand column that determines the net weight:  IE force that we lift each increment of distance as we pump water into the left hand column.


That's exactly what I'm doing, as I previously stated 'Riser Head - Riser Gap Head + Pod Head'.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 12:46:34 AM

I am calculating energy for all four parts, you need to learn to use the Trace Dependents and Trace Precedents button. The 35 in J8 is not used anywhere, it is a visual double check for me to make sure I set the newly added Inner and Outer riser water ht correctly so they equal the original riser heads in column C. The Inner and Outer riser water ht is used in the store energy calculation.


Never said pressure is a measure of work or power.  You would have known, I was talking about the multiple connected columns is the basis for the Zed design as I have stated many time. The PSI is used in the Risers the same as in a pneumatic cylinder and does create Work during the stroke. Getting the PSI up and down with less input volume is key to increased Power.
In the spreadsheet the volume input to get to Ready to Stroke is 22 for the Zed and 81.02 for the Archimedes and the Output Ft Lbs is 33.55% greater for the Zed. Based on the fact that it would take much longer for a pump to ready the Archimedes than for the Zed, the Zed will cycle faster. Cycle faster increases Work done over time or Power.


Misleading statements caused Librenergia to take it out context and put his big foot in his mouth, when I know just as much about work and power as most of you and apparently with better comprehension, since most of you cannot understand how the Zed works.
 
Larry, good if you know about energy and power, then kindly correct your spreadsheets once and for all so that they evaluate energy as the integral of F*ds.  Stop using averaged pressure between multiple columns and other methods that you must know from your declaration of your personal expertise are wrong.  Kindly stop uttering physically meaningless statements such as:

Quote
Getting the PSI up and down with less input volume is key to increased Power.

If you understand energy then you know that there isn't any stored in an incompressible fluid.  You should also know that pressure and volume are meaningful with respect to energy only under special conditions.  You should also know that power is not a measure of energy.  You should know that energy is the integral of F*ds.  So since based on your claimed expertise you know better, please cut the BS. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 01:47:50 AM
I'm going to guess that there aren't many bowhunters on this thread.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 01, 2014, 01:53:03 AM
Larry, good if you know about energy and power, then kindly correct your spreadsheets once and for all so that they evaluate energy as the integral of F*ds.  Stop using averaged pressure between multiple columns and other methods that you must know from your declaration of your personal expertise are wrong.  Kindly stop uttering physically meaningless statements such as:

If you understand energy then you know that there isn't any stored in an incompressible fluid.  You should also know that pressure and volume are meaningful with respect to energy only under special conditions.  You should also know that power is not a measure of energy.  You should know that energy is the integral of F*ds.  So since based on your claimed expertise you know better, please cut the BS.


MarkE,


Testy, I gave you your Stored Energy calculations, the other calculation are for working field engineers so they won't be removed.


I knew when the Stored Energy calculations didn't help you explain the 33.55% increase, you would have to find some other excuse not to admit the Zeds excess output, which is BTW calculated as Force * Stroke. 


So thanks for your time, you have helped in a lot of ways. As a business, we are trying to increase Horsepower in the Zed and you may have inadvertently helped.


Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 02:49:03 AM
Larry, you can toy with the power all you want.  What you can't do is deliver excess energy.  You've got formulas in your spreadsheet that are flat wrong.  There is no excess energy in that system:  not 1% not 33%, zero, zip, nada, de novo.  Once again:  Energy is the integral of F*ds.  Only in the special case where F is constant does that evaluate to F*s.  In these devices where water is being pumped in and out of columns, F is not constant, and energy is not F*s.  If you are still unclear on that point then I have not helped enough.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 02:55:23 AM

MarkE,


Testy, I gave you your Stored Energy calculations, the other calculation are for working field engineers so they won't be removed.


I knew when the Stored Energy calculations didn't help you explain the 33.55% increase, you would have to find some other excuse not to admit the Zeds excess output, which is BTW calculated as Force * Stroke. 


So thanks for your time, you have helped in a lot of ways. As a business, we are trying to increase Horsepower in the Zed and you may have inadvertently helped.


Larry

Bingo. Now we know. You are a paid minion of Wayne Travis, you are not an impartial observer who is only interested in the truth.

And POWER IS NOT ENERGY.  You want more horsepower? Then just move your magic Zeds further apart. Or closer together, or make them a thousand feet tall, I don't care. You will never be able to make what Travis has claimed to _have already_: a device that will run itself with no input but with usable energy left over that can be used outside the system, without making the system lurch to a groaning halt more or less quickly. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing the "three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself." Or show the 5hp system that is running itself. Or show the _actual design_ of the 50 kW system that Travis claimed he could build and install in three months time after receiving the funding.

Of course we know that LarryC is ignoring my posts, and now we know just why.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 03:15:21 AM
As a business, you want to increase the horsepower output?

I can tell you how to make rapid and amazing progress in that direction, and I will tell you for free:

How about this: Simply provide one credible demonstration of the devices that Travis claims to have ALREADY: a self running device that produces usable output ENERGY without stopping and with no external input. 1/10 HP output in a self running machine is quite enough to get every scientist and engineer in the entire world looking at you and "helping" to improve your output and get your Nobel Prize and all the rest of that.

But you cannot, Travis cannot.... because what Travis has claimed is a lie.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 01, 2014, 03:56:57 AM
TK:

If you recall in the previous thread Wayne always talked about an excess of a certain number of fluid ounces of water at a certain pressure as a "gain."  Actually that may predate your joining of the old thread.  As MarkE recently commented, pressurized water itself stores no energy.

I think we are literally seeing an "Attack" of the Zombie Pod People.  Minions that succumbed to the brainwashing because they were unable to mount a defense?  Like one of those old sci-fi movies where the whole town has converted?

I hope this story ends with some good drama.  Like the water tower bursts and everything gets washed away!  lol

MileHigh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFnSxeDfENk
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LibreEnergia on March 01, 2014, 04:25:33 AM

Our engineers have a lot more than a modicum of knowledge and with the ability to comprehend the Zed.

You should go back and review what has been posted and than make some knowledgeable statements, instead of trying to show off with these simpleton examples.

I'd like to ask these engineers to reveal themselves.

If in fact they exist and belong to any professional or governmental body that attests to their competence to hold the title 'Engineer', I'd like to formally complain to that body as to their competence to continue practising in that capacity.

They should be ashamed of themselves for believing such nonsense.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 01, 2014, 04:38:21 AM
My gut feel is telling me that they are "Zombie Pod" engineers.  They aren't real engineers with the educational credentials and the memberships in professional engineering associations like the IEEE to back up their alleged titles.  They are just pretending that they are engineers and when Wayne says that he has engineers working for him be is also 'pretending' or choose a stronger word if you want.

It's probably illegal in most or all States to claim that you are an engineer when you are not.

Then we got the pictures of the props and the 'fake company' headquarters with the wide open spaces and not much of a sense of anything going on at all.

The whole sad story is laid out for all to see, you just have to open your eyes.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 01, 2014, 04:40:38 AM
Larry, you can toy with the power all you want.  What you can't do is deliver excess energy.  You've got formulas in your spreadsheet that are flat wrong.  There is no excess energy in that system:  not 1% not 33%, zero, zip, nada, de novo.  Once again:  Energy is the integral of F*ds.  Only in the special case where F is constant does that evaluate to F*s.  In these devices where water is being pumped in and out of columns, F is not constant, and energy is not F*s.  If you are still unclear on that point then I have not helped enough.


MarkE,


Flat wrong? It has always amazed me about the Physicist wannabees on this site that think they know better than actual working engineers including a hydraulic engineer. They do use P average * V and F average * stroke when P or F is linear, that is just common sense.


So, what is wrong with the Stored Energy calculations that I added for you. Every time you said a calculation was in error, I've had to explain to you why it was correct. State where it is now incorrect and I'll fix or explain why it is correct, then you can tell all why there is no excess energy.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 01, 2014, 05:23:10 AM
I'd like to ask these engineers to reveal themselves.

If in fact they exist and belong to any professional or governmental body that attests to their competence to hold the title 'Engineer', I'd like to formally complain to that body as to their competence to continue practising in that capacity.

They should be ashamed of themselves for believing such nonsense.


They do exist, but why would they be ashamed of having better comprehension abilities than you. You should be wondering why you don't have the ability to comprehend the system.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 06:52:34 AM
 More ad hominem abuse from the Great Engineer LarryC, who is apparently on Travis's payroll, just like Webby. Thousands of free dollars will buy a lot of loyalty, won't it.



Google is your friend, or not, as the case may be.


Kevan Riley, PE:
Phone number
  405-222-1928
   Address in Chickasha OK:

  (known but redacted)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 06:58:29 AM
http://www.boschrexroth.com/business_units/bri/de/downloads/hyd_formelsammlung_en.pdf (http://www.boschrexroth.com/business_units/bri/de/downloads/hyd_formelsammlung_en.pdf)

Good luck finding some support for your claims in there, employee LarryC. You can skip ahead to Page 33 if the preliminary stuff is too boring.

(It's wonderful knowing that he's ignoring my comments. It makes it impossible for him to refute me!)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LibreEnergia on March 01, 2014, 07:06:10 AM

They do exist, but why would they be ashamed of having better comprehension abilities than you. You should be wondering why you don't have the ability to comprehend the system.

I trained as a professional mechanical engineer at a reputable university for 4 years. I don't claim to be an engineer now however as my speciality is software development.  During the time I studied engineering however I developed more than enough comprehension to understand why the ZED system cannot possibly work as claimed.

I will state again, Any professional engineer would agree with me that this machine does not work as claimed. Those who disagree could only be described as manifestly incompetent to retain the title 'Engineer'.

So I reiterate, who are these engineers and to what professional or regulatory bodies are they affiliated? It's time for them to put their reputations on the line.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 07:07:46 AM
Give Kevan Riley a call. I found his phone number for you, it's a matter of public record. Of course maybe the initials "PE" don't mean in Oklahoma what they mean on this side of the Red River. Maybe he's the high school PE coach.

I would love to hear his explanation of why, in November of 2010, they told prospective investors that they would be able to install a 50 kW working unit in three months.... but have never managed to do so. Not even 20 kW... not even 10 kW..... and we still have seen no proof of the "5 HP Net" thing nor have we gotten any answer to minnie's question.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 07:24:04 AM

MarkE,


Flat wrong?
Yes indeed Larry: flat wrong, even in your latest spreadsheet you labeled a column "Stored Energy in Ft Lbs" that calculates values that do not represent such values.  That is indeed: flat wrong.
Quote

It has always amazed me about the Physicist wannabees on this site that think they know better than actual working engineers including a hydraulic engineer. They do use P average * V and F average * stroke when P or F is linear, that is just common sense.
No Larry, it is not common sense and it is incompetent for an engineer, particularly a hydraulic engineer to say that P average * V equals energy without qualifying that to very limited circumstance that do not apply here.  Use the wrong formula in the wrong circumstances and get the wrong result.  Insist upon doing that after having pointed out is just incompetence or worse.
Quote

So, what is wrong with the Stored Energy calculations that I added for you. Every time you said a calculation was in error, I've had to explain to you why it was correct.
No Larry, each incorrect calculation I have pointed out was in fact wrong.  You still insist on relying upon the same invalid premises to obtain the same invalid results.
Quote
State where it is now incorrect and I'll fix or explain why it is correct, then you can tell all why there is no excess energy.
We have been through this before:  The stored energy in each of the four columns is separately obtained by integrating F*ds for the respective columns.  The work applied is obtained by integrating F*ds applied to the input.  You can insist on using incorrect methods and get the resulting incorrect results all day long.  And as the time has come and gone to show that the supposed results are correct in a physical embodiment HER / Zydro of which you count yourself a member have seen that the embodiments do not reflect the results of the calculations you show.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 07:26:58 AM
I trained as a professional mechanical engineer at a reputable university for 4 years. I don't claim to be an engineer now however as my speciality is software development.  During the time I studied engineering however I developed more than enough comprehension to understand why the ZED system cannot possibly work as claimed.

I will state again, Any professional engineer would agree with me that this machine does not work as claimed. Those who disagree could only be described as manifestly incompetent to retain the title 'Engineer'.

So I reiterate, who are these engineers and to what professional or regulatory bodies are they affiliated? It's time for them to put their reputations on the line.
Any shareholder who relied on the expressed opinion of a professional engineer for their decision to invest in HER/Zydro can sue that engineer for professional negligence.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 02:36:44 PM
Here is LarryC's latest spreadsheet with decomposition and reduction.  Larry is free to defend the physical basis he thinks justifies his model.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Marsing on March 01, 2014, 03:28:31 PM

markE, can you attach xls file

thanks
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 03:35:32 PM
Marsing, LarryC published it in message 182.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 01, 2014, 04:02:21 PM
Here is LarryC's latest spreadsheet with decomposition and reduction.  Larry is free to defend the physical basis he thinks justifies his model.


MarkE,


Impressive. I'm not anal enough to review, unless someone brings up an issue. If anyone would like to check, it is easy to see all the formulas at once in excel by pressing Ctrl`. The accent is next to the 1 key.



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 04:27:05 PM
How about this for an issue: FLOW ASSIST.

That sure sounds to me like an injection of energy from outside the system of the two zeds. So I must be wrong, because we have been told by Travis that the system has no input, no exhaust, just constant clean energy output.

So can someone please tell me what _exactly_ is meant by "FLOW ASSIST" in employee LarryC's scheme?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 01, 2014, 04:44:22 PM
So can someone please tell me what _exactly_ is meant by "FLOW ASSIST" ... ?

Some of the Pressure left in a first ZED at the end of its "power stroke" is allowed to "Free Flow" to a second ZED that is at the bottom of its stroke and therefore at a lower Pressure.  This equalizes the Pressure between the two ZEDs and requires no additional Energy.  But it does not bring the second ZED up to the full Pressure necessary to perform its "power stroke."  So additional Energy is required and is called the "Flow Assist."  The Energy for the "Flow Assist" is a recycled portion of the excess energy that is supposed to be harvested during each "power stroke" where the rising ZED is pumping fluid under pressure into a hydraulic accumulator.  The harvesting portion of the system is not being shown in the spreadsheets currently being analyzed, AFAIK.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 05:06:21 PM
Some of the Pressure left in a first ZED at the end of its "power stroke" is allowed to "Free Flow" to a second ZED that is at the bottom of its stroke and therefore at a lower Pressure.  This equalizes the Pressure between the two ZEDs and requires no additional Energy.  But it does not bring the second ZED up to the full Pressure necessary to perform its "power stroke."  So additional Energy is required and is called the "Flow Assist."  The Energy for the "Flow Assist" is a recycled portion of the excess energy that is supposed to be harvested during each "power stroke" where the rising ZED is pumping fluid under pressure into a hydraulic accumulator.  The harvesting portion of the system is not being shown in the spreadsheets currently being analyzed, AFAIK.

Uh-huh. So what part of pumping fluid into a hydraulic accumulator and getting it back out is "overunity"? You get the same work out from an accumulator as you put into it, minus losses. Did you check out the PDF file I linked to up above (or maybe in the other thread, this is pretty silly having this discussion in two threads.) I think, based on that PDF, that hydraulic systems are pretty darn well understood, and in fact in that PDF you will find illustrations of every individual piece of any Zed system that I have ever seen diagrammed, with the proper equations to compute pressures, volumes, flow rates..... and, after page 33, ENERGIES. 

So to get more work out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, you will need to supply some outside source. It really sounds to me like you need to get more _volume_ out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, and that situation will not last very long.... and the longest _confirmed_ reported run of any of Travis's devices that I can find is only about four hours.

It is obvious that the need for "flow assist" means that the output of the single Zed is not OU. So where does the pressure for the "flow assist" come from ON THE INITIAL CYCLE? The only possible places I can identify are from the pre-charge, which will eventually run out, or from outside the system. And the "flow assist" only resets the second zed back to the start condition, right? So _where_ is the excess whatever coming from? Do the zeds create fluid volume out of nothing?

That's why I asked my question about the Heron's Fountain that was ignored. If a small Heron's Fountain with 100 mL reservoirs will pump a head to, say, 10 cm above the highest level in the reservoirs, and continue doing that for, say, about a minute, as mine do.... what would happen if you had reservoirs of 10,000 liters, elevated by 5 meters above your reference level? How long would you expect it to run, pumping a head of, say, 1 meter? Long enough to impress the money, er, "heck" out of the observers? I've had educated people accuse me of faking Heron's Fountain runs on the tabletop system, it is so unbelievable to them.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Marsing on March 01, 2014, 05:18:05 PM
hi larry

did  you scale the pod height ,water height, .. etc  in this picture?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 01, 2014, 05:31:38 PM
Uh-huh. So what part of pumping fluid into a hydraulic accumulator and getting it back out is "overunity"? You get the same work out from an accumulator as you put into it, minus losses. Did you check out the PDF file I linked to up above (or maybe in the other thread, this is pretty silly having this discussion in two threads.) I think, based on that PDF, that hydraulic systems are pretty darn well understood, and in fact in that PDF you will find illustrations of every individual piece of any Zed system that I have ever seen diagrammed, with the proper equations to compute pressures, volumes, flow rates..... and, after page 33, ENERGIES. 

So to get more work out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, you will need to supply some outside source. It really sounds to me like you need to get more _volume_ out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, and that situation will not last very long.... and the longest _confirmed_ reported run of any of Travis's devices that I can find is only about four hours.

It is obvious that the need for "flow assist" means that the output of the single Zed is not OU. So where does the pressure for the "flow assist" come from ON THE INITIAL CYCLE? The only possible places I can identify are from the pre-charge, which will eventually run out, or from outside the system. And the "flow assist" only resets the second zed back to the start condition, right? So _where_ is the excess whatever coming from? Do the zeds create fluid volume out of nothing?

That's why I asked my question about the Heron's Fountain that was ignored. If a small Heron's Fountain with 100 mL reservoirs will pump a head to, say, 10 cm above the highest level in the reservoirs, and continue doing that for, say, about a minute, as mine do.... what would happen if you had reservoirs of 10,000 liters, elevated by 5 meters above your reference level? How long would you expect it to run, pumping a head of, say, 1 meter? Long enough to impress the money, er, "heck" out of the observers? I've had educated people accuse me of faking Heron's Fountain runs on the tabletop system, it is so unbelievable to them.

TK, the only way a ZED system could work, IMHO, is if a single ZED somehow is able to produce more Energy output than it is supplied Energy input.  And that is what I started this thread to check for.  You keep citing the known behavior of conservative hydraulic systems.  Presumably because you are convinced that a ZED is acting as a simple hydraulic cylinder (under ideal conditions).  The purpose of the analysis I posted (and original intent of this thread) was to determine if that is, in fact, true.  Simply put I am testing:

Does an Ideal ZED behave identically to an Ideal Hydraulic Cylinder?

My first attempt at the analysis was found to be erroneous.  MarkE pointed out that the way I was calculating the Energy input was incorrect.  So I modified the model so that I could use the simplest correct method (that I have learned so far). 

The results of the corrected analysis have still not shown the expected relationship of Energy in = Energy out.  And so I have asked for anyone to double check my math and the method of the analysis.  MarkE has agreed to do so.  I also welcome anyone else to take a look at it.  Because until an error is found I have to believe the results of the math and physics.  And that is showing that the ZED is not a conservative system.  And after you explained the error in my "open system" theory, I have no theory to support how that can be.  Only that the math and physics appear to show that unexpected behavior.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 05:33:06 PM
Really, it seems to me that the "flow assist" is only making up the losses, so that the system will reset to the start state. Next cycle, more losses. Where does the extra energy for the flow assist really come from?

(Watch out.... when you "quote" me, Travis's employee LarryC won't be able to ignore what I wrote, and he has already descended into flaming and ad-hominem abuse directed at MarkE. We don't want to overpressure his abuse accumulator, his head will a splode.)

Have you taken a look at the pdf with all the hydraulic formulae in it? Do your calculations of events and performance of parts jive with the calculations in that pdf?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 05:44:13 PM
Mondrasek said:
Quote
TK, the only way a ZED system could work, IMHO, is if a single ZED somehow is able to produce more Energy output than it is supplied Energy input. 
That seems right to me, unless extra energy is added from outside. Since the  Zed system on the first cycle needs "flow assist" for the system to reset to the start state.... well, that in itself proves that the single Zed is not OU enough to complete the action on its own.
Quote
And that is what I started this thread to check for.  You keep citing the known behavior of conservative hydraulic systems.  Presumably because you are convinced that a ZED is acting as a simple hydraulic cylinder (under ideal conditions).
No, a _compound_ hydraulic cylinder, full of Red Herrings swimming around inside, all of which will be found to obey real physics.

But I don't know why you lot are fiddling around with Travis Employee LarryC's dualzed spreadsheet. We have been told by his employer, you may recall, that a SINGLE ZED is already OU by itself, and that there _exists_ a three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself. Why are you lot not analyzing THAT simple system to see if Travis's claims about it are true? After all, you have a direct line into Travis's engineering department through Employee LarryC. Don't you?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 01, 2014, 06:18:20 PM
But I don't know why you lot are fiddling around with Travis Employee LarryC's dualzed spreadsheet. We have been told by his employer, you may recall, that a SINGLE ZED is already OU by itself, and that there _exists_ a three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself. Why are you lot not analyzing THAT simple system to see if Travis's claims about it are true?

The single 3-layer ZED is EXACTLY what I posted as the logical progression of my analysis.  I was hoping that someone would have first examined my work on the 2-layer.  The 2-layer was found, by the methods outlined in this thread, to be non-conservative and under unity.  The 3-layer was found, by those same methods, to be over unity.

To be honest, I am baffled that no one has followed through on a double check of my math and methods.  MarkE said he would, but decided to check out LarryC's latter postings of his spreadsheets instead.  Which is okay, since that examination was helpful to me as well.  MarkE outlined in that exchange a method that I have been able to use as a further triple check point in my own work.

MarkE has told me privately that he would still check my work if I send it to him, which I intend to do next week.  It is on my laptop at work, not here at home.  I would prefer that he do his own math rather than check mine so that I did not unintentionally influence him to follow an incorrect step.  But I do believe that he would find any mistakes sooner or later.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 06:21:08 PM
So are you saying that your three layer system is the same one that Travis refers to in the famous quote? It isn't something _he has_, a real tangible object,  but is actually only something that exists in the spreadsheet you have calculated?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 01, 2014, 06:31:38 PM
So are you saying that your three layer system is the same one that Travis refers to in the famous quote? It isn't something _he has_, a real tangible object,  but is actually only something that exists in the spreadsheet you have calculated?

No, I have no idea what system Mr. Travis would have been referring to in that "famous quote."  I prepared my analysis model(s) as described to you earlier.

All of the necessary dimensions are included in the posted drawings.  You, or anyone else, can see if what is presented it true or not.  The math is relatively simple, though tedious.  I can run through a complete 3-layer ZED analysis in about 3 hours, if I'm able to concentrate.  And that is with triple checking each step by one method or another.  If I was not error prone, I could probably cut it down to less than 2 hours.

I am not using any equations in the spreadsheet where I record the data except simple summation for several of the double and triple checks.  All the calculations are run on a physical Casio calculator and then logged in the spreadsheet.  So errors are frequent in my work and forces the necessary double and triple checks.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 01, 2014, 08:09:29 PM
hi larry

did  you scale the pod height ,water height, .. etc  in this picture?
Hi Marsing,


No, it's main purpose is just to show a close approximation of water level and Pod / Riser movement. In Wayne's old model, the pod was 30" diameter and height was 72". There are many combinations of dimensions and this it not the current design. We use very complex spreadsheets with VBA code to determine the best combination. The spreadsheets shown are very simple.


Much higher efficiency occur when two zeds are flow connected. I showed that in my earlier spreadsheet attached.


Larry   
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 01, 2014, 08:28:05 PM



   Hi,
       the reference to hydraulic accumulator is a load of crap. You can't store energy in a
   non compressible fluid. Hydraulic accumulators are gas or spring sort of things and are
   used to even out the flow in systems. I suppose a water tower is a type of hydraulic
   accumulator, but look at how high you have to pump the water to be able to store an
   appreciable amount of energy.
                                       John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 08:32:04 PM
Let me ask you (any of you) if you really believe that, within three months of receiving necessary funding, Wayne Travis could erect a 50 kW self running powerplant at his Church, or anywhere else. Heck, give him six months to do it and a million dollars to work with.

Do ANY of you believe it?

(I won't post the slide again; I'm sure everybody has a copy of the PowerPoint slide show that was presented to prospective investors in late 2010 or early 2011, PROMISING to do just such a thing.)

Do ANY of you really believe he could actually fullfill that promise?  Red-Sunset? LarryC? What about it, put your FAITH where your spreadsheets are and answer the simple question. Do you really believe that Travis could do what he promised in that PPT presentation to prospective investors?


Or have there been too many "setbacks", "door closings", "expectations not met" and "funds not delivered" and "lawsuits" which distract Travis from the main business of Saving the World?

(DARN, it stopped again. Where did I put that Teflon tape?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A)

The date on the white board looks like 9-12-2013, I think.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 01, 2014, 08:46:31 PM


   Hi,
       the reference to hydraulic accumulator is a load of crap. You can't store energy in a
   non compressible fluid. Hydraulic accumulators are gas or spring sort of things and are
   used to even out the flow in systems. I suppose a water tower is a type of hydraulic
   accumulator, but look at how high you have to pump the water to be able to store an
   appreciable amount of energy.
                                       John.

What's the problem? As long as you can get more volume out of the accumulator than you are putting back into it, everything will be fine. Heron of Alexandria even knew that much.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 08:49:26 PM

MarkE,


Impressive. I'm not anal enough to review, unless someone brings up an issue. If anyone would like to check, it is easy to see all the formulas at once in excel by pressing Ctrl`. The accent is next to the 1 key.
Larry, you can easily just plug in the final formulas into a pair of cells, referencing the corresponding source cells and see that you get the same answers so long as you don't muck around with the ring diameters / gaps.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Some of the Pressure left in a first ZED at the end of its "power stroke" is allowed to "Free Flow" to a second ZED that is at the bottom of its stroke and therefore at a lower Pressure.  This equalizes the Pressure between the two ZEDs and requires no additional Energy.  But it does not bring the second ZED up to the full Pressure necessary to perform its "power stroke."  So additional Energy is required and is called the "Flow Assist."  The Energy for the "Flow Assist" is a recycled portion of the excess energy that is supposed to be harvested during each "power stroke" where the rising ZED is pumping fluid under pressure into a hydraulic accumulator.  The harvesting portion of the system is not being shown in the spreadsheets currently being analyzed, AFAIK.
As has been shown several times, allowing fluid to flow from a column filled to some height H1  to a second column H2 such that the ending heights equalize at an intermediate height H3 loses energy.  For the HER/Zydro claims that creates a deficit that they then would have to overcome with whatever it is that is supposed to be over unity in their process.  Unfortunately for HER/Zydro, there is nothing over unity in their process.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 01, 2014, 09:01:46 PM


  Hi,
     let's try a little mind experiment. Say you had to stake your life on either the laws of
     physics being right or Travis's Overunity being true?
         I know which option I'd plump for, which would you choose?
                                   John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 09:28:41 PM

  Hi,
     let's try a little mind experiment. Say you had to stake your life on either the laws of
     physics being right or Travis's Overunity being true?
         I know which option I'd plump for, which would you choose?
                                   John.
The comedy here is that Wayne Travis, Red_Sunset et-al claim to have a found a way to breach the conservative nature of gravity.   No spreadsheet that relies on gravity being conservative, IE treats the GPE of a mass the same based on its height the same no matter what its history of getting to that height happens to be, is going to show such a non-conservative behavior.  So in order to buy into the cult's promise of 72 ever flowing water towers one first has to find a demonstration of this non-conservative gravity claim.  No one at HER / Zydro has, or ever will come up with such a demonstration. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 01, 2014, 10:24:44 PM



 Hi,
     I feel that it's pretty much over here. Not one fact has been offered from HER or it's
  supporters to substantiate the OU. claim.
                                          John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 01, 2014, 11:12:38 PM
     I feel that it's pretty much over here. Not one fact has been offered from HER or it's
  supporters to substantiate the OU. claim.

Bullshit, "John."  The facts are called math.  And you have presented none in this thread that is titled "Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED."  But others have.  And still others have shown where those maths are in error.  And corrections have been made.  Yet the corrected Mathematical Analysis that has been the most recent offered has not been confirmed or proved incorrect.  And it does currently substantiate OU.

Please understand that I am not from HER, but I must stand by the math and physics as presented in my analysis until shown how they are in error.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 01, 2014, 11:30:21 PM



   Hi Mondrasek,
                      are you claiming verifiability? If you can we'll call it a fact. Do you know of
    anyone else who has proven OU. with this device?
                          John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 01, 2014, 11:55:32 PM
   Hi Mondrasek,
                      are you claiming verifiability? If you can we'll call it a fact. Do you know of
    anyone else who has proven OU. with this device?
                          John.

"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.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 02, 2014, 12:37:44 AM
And neither one of us has received answers to our questions which are very simple.

Minnie has asked, several times: Travis, do you in fact have an actual real "5 hp" unit that runs itself and provides usable energy that can be used outside the system?

And I have asked, Is there anyone reading this thread who believes that Travis could do what he promised to do, to a group of prospective investors, in the PowerPoint slide show from November 2010?

Two simple questions. LarryC could presumably answer the first one, since he is a paid employee of Travis. And everyone could answer the second one, with a simple one-word answer.

Why is this distracting or "off topic"? They are just questions Leon, they are written down for me.

(My answer to the second one is "NO". My guess as to the first one is that nobody will  actually answer it, meaning "NO".)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne 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










Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC 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.


   
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC 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.






 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne 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


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne 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

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala 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"?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 02, 2014, 09:33:00 PM
Let's see you reconcile those two quotations from you, Travis.

Dear Sir,

If you would like an answer to your last 100 posts - look to the answers I gave the first five times you asked them.

I always look for good in people -  your supposed issues - show you have imagination.  ;)

I found it a sad day when I had to accept that this Zed invention was not in your field of expertise.

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

To summarize all of our time together:

This is not your invention, you do not understand it, and your aversions and accusations only implicate your obvious  purpose.

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

Feel free to read and learn - or go to a thread where you have expertise and can add to the conversation.

Wayne





Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 02, 2014, 09:38:28 PM
TK,  MarkE and I are currently working through the analysis of a SINGLE ZED that is composed of THREE LAYERS.

Then it should be trivially easy to show that it is "Clearly overunity by itself". Travis has told us that a single ZED is overunity, and when they are put together they are even more so. I'm not making this up, HE SAID IT.


Travis, you have nothing to worry about from me. All you have to do is to SHOW US THE SAUSAGES. But you cannot, and neither can your paid employee LarryC, whose spreadsheet has been found to be so error-ridden and false that it really makes it hard to believe that he has the engineering expertise that he claims.

Consider how trivially easy it would be to SHUT ME UP AND PROVE ME WRONG, if only you had what you claim to have had years ago.

And you still aren't answering minnie's question, nor are you answering mine, but then... I knew you wouldn't. And you lie baldly and transparently when you claim to have answered the questions I have been asking. What happened to the 50 kW unit you promised to install 3 months after receiving funding? Didn't you get enough? But you have said you are FULLY FUNDED. But I happen to KNOW that there is no 50 kW self running powerplant over at TBC. SO WHY NOT? If you have answered and I missed it, I apologise. Please provide a direct link to your answer. If you have NOT answered it.... then you are exposed once again to have lied to me.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 02, 2014, 09:49:46 PM
MarkE,


Added the Integral F*ds for the Archimedes and they also agree with the original spreadsheet results. So we still have a 33.55% efficiency increase for the Zed over the Archimedes that needs to be explained.[size=78%] [/size]


The majority of people coming to learn about the Zed would not understand your math approach and would think that we were trying to fool them. But they do easily understand concepts like buoyancy, pressure, force, volume, water levels, etc., which can be used in simple easy to understand math formula. A few that come, will like you, insist on Integrating F*ds and now I understand that we need to have that available. So, thank you for the heads up.


Larry
 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 02, 2014, 09:55:07 PM
I think that Wayne drops in once in a while to try to do some damage control.  He desperately wants this this thread to create the illusion that the Zed is real and his company is real for the true hard-core rabid believers.  Hence he himself, Red_Sunset and LarryC always try to imply that everything is real with their cynical manipulative use of the English language.  Where else could Wayne possibly get money?  It's only from the hard-core rabid believers with deep pockets.  Think of the people that built replications of the Mylow "motor."  There was one wealthy person that was paying a machine shop to build his replication.

There is gold in them thar hills and Wayne wants that gold.

I will repeat again, I am so creeped out by his fake quasi North Korean "Leader" persona mixed in with the all of the religious jargon and fake preaching.  Big Wayne is going to give you sausages and soothe your soul.  Eeeeek!!!

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 02, 2014, 10:02:32 PM
MH: somewhat earlier you (iirc)  linked to a movie called "Split Image" about a person who got caught up in a cult and was rescued by his family and deprogrammer. I enjoyed that one a lot, and I've found another one that's perhaps even more gripping, as it clearly shows the brainwashing techniques used by cults... and it is portraying the early Moonies under a thin disguise.
Ticket to Heaven:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoavV7D74BU
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 02, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
I think that Wayne drops in once in a while to try to do some damage control.  He desperately wants this this thread to create the illusion that the Zed is real and his company is real for the true hard-core rabid believers.

MH, I disagree.  From what I can tell, Mr. Wayne drops in to encourage us to finish the Mathematical Analysis.  I have done mine.  I was surprised.  I asked for a double check.  And I still wait for that double check to be completed.

You, or anyone else, are welcome to perform a double check.  Now that MarkE has performed and presented his analysis right up to the final step(s), and I have confirmed that his results conform to my own, you could skip those steps and just pick it up from there.

The results I have found, if corroborated by anyone, would definitely require a triple, and even a quadruple check!
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 02, 2014, 10:09:34 PM
MH, I disagree.  From what I can tell, Mr. Wayne drops in to encourage us to finish the Mathematical Analysis.  I have done mine.  I was surprised.  I asked for a double check.  And I still wait for that double check to be completed.

You, or anyone else, are welcome to perform a double check.  Now that MarkE has performed and presented his analysis right up to the final step(s), and I have confirmed that his results conform to my own, you could skip those steps and just pick it up from there.

The results I have found, if corroborated by anyone, would definitely require a triple, and even a quadruple check!

So you must be building away in secret then, so that you will be the FIRST actually to show on a real system, more output work than input work, and a real self-runner. Certainly nobody on Travis's payroll can do that much.

And let's not even mention the little incident involving calculations that brought you and me together in the first place, shall we?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
I agree with your analysis through State 2.  Everything adds up exactly as I also found.

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.
It all depends on what one wishes to determine. 

1) Since we agree that there is no energy gain going between State1 and State2, we have established that the "ideal Zed" you have set-up can only do something that you find interesting by buoying the risers and pod. 

2) The risers and the pod have zero mass, so no energy is gained by their increase in height.

3) Buoyancy force is just acceleration due to gravity operating on fluids.

4) Gravity acts conservatively on any mass independent of state:  solid, liquid, gas, plasma.

5) Now that you are using the integral of F*ds, you know that as soon as we release the risers, that the stored energy will go down. 


Do you agree with all of that or not?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 10:15:46 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
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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 10:19:29 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
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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 10:25:41 PM
MarkE,


Added the Integral F*ds for the Archimedes and they also agree with the original spreadsheet results. So we still have a 33.55% efficiency increase for the Zed over the Archimedes that needs to be explained.[size=78%] [/size]


The majority of people coming to learn about the Zed would not understand your math approach and would think that we were trying to fool them. But they do easily understand concepts like buoyancy, pressure, force, volume, water levels, etc., which can be used in simple easy to understand math formula. A few that come, will like you, insist on Integrating F*ds and now I understand that we need to have that available. So, thank you for the heads up.


Larry
 
Who cares how much less horrific one scheme is than another?  The HER/Zydro claim is for a gain in energy.  No such gain occurs.  Do you drive your car around with the emergency brake on?  Do you get excited about a huge boost in gas mileage when you release the emergency brake?

Nature doesn't care what any individual may or may not understand.  It's hilarious that you would claim that your convoluted spreadsheet that used dozens of cell formulas in place of a few lines of algebra was constructed to create an easy to follow illustration of your claims.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 02, 2014, 10:32:08 PM
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.


MarkE,


Where is it broken now? You've proved that our Engineering calculations that you been saying were wrong, are correct, as they match your Integral F*ds calculations.


 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 02, 2014, 10:43:13 PM
It all depends on what one wishes to determine. 

1) Since we agree that there is no energy gain going between State1 and State2, we have established that the "ideal Zed" you have set-up can only do something that you find interesting by buoying the risers and pod. 

2) The risers and the pod have zero mass, so no energy is gained by their increase in height.

3) Buoyancy force is just acceleration due to gravity operating on fluids.

4) Gravity acts conservatively on any mass independent of state:  solid, liquid, gas, plasma.

5) Now that you are using the integral of F*ds, you know that as soon as we release the risers, that the stored energy will go down. 


Do you agree with all of that or not?

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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 02, 2014, 10:56:04 PM
I think that Wayne drops in once in a while to try to do some damage control.  He desperately wants this this thread to create the illusion that the Zed is real and his company is real for the true hard-core rabid believers.  Hence he himself, Red_Sunset and LarryC always try to imply that everything is real with their cynical manipulative use of the English language.  Where else could Wayne possibly get money?  It's only from the hard-core rabid believers with deep pockets.  Think of the people that built replications of the Mylow "motor."  There was one wealthy person that was paying a machine shop to build his replication.

There is gold in them thar hills and Wayne wants that gold.

I will repeat again, I am so creeped out by his fake quasi North Korean "Leader" persona mixed in with the all of the religious jargon and fake preaching.  Big Wayne is going to give you sausages and soothe your soul.  Eeeeek!!!

Lets score:

People who independently built ZED's and then analyzed to understand the system - are trying to share with the ones that would rather not.

And you have what to offer?




..........................................OK

Got it.

Wayne 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 02, 2014, 10:57:51 PM
So you must be building away in secret then, so that you will be the FIRST actually to show on a real system, more output work than input work, and a real self-runner. Certainly nobody on Travis's payroll can do that much.

TK, I see no reason why you keep making things like this up, and stating them in the form of a fact that you will repeat as true unless some "proof" is given that they are false.

And let's not even mention the little incident involving calculations that brought you and me together in the first place, shall we?

TK, you can bring up the "mondrasek wheel" (please Google it if you want to see it everybody) anytime you please.  But it appears you are trying to "shame" me for a mistake from my past, rather than discuss the Mathematical Analysis.  And you have tried that before.  And the last time you did so I think I was open and transparent about what happened during that occasion as well.  So why the thinly veiled threat again?  I openly admit I made a mistake then and that you were instrumental in helping me realize that fact.  I have thanked you multiple times for helping me to find the error in what first brought me to OU.com and "Energy research" in the first place.  So, what of it?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 11:16:49 PM
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.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 11:18:16 PM

MarkE,


Where is it broken now? You've proved that our Engineering calculations that you been saying were wrong, are correct, as they match your Integral F*ds calculations.
LarryC you obviously have not been paying attention.  But since you now agree that the algebraic reduction is correct, feel free to try and justify that those equations represent the physics.  If you succeed you fail, because by your own words they do not yield even close to unity.  And if you fail you establish that for all your claimed expertise you still have not modeled the system correctly.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 02, 2014, 11:25:50 PM
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


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 11:31:17 PM
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, it's awesome that you misrepresent so freely.  Your claims of excess energy and breaches of conservative behavior by gravity are in fact completely unevidenced falsehoods.  You choose to ignore what has already been proven.  That's a big sign of scienter.

No, I don't need you.  You have nothing to offer but lies.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 02, 2014, 11:41:27 PM
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
 




Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 02, 2014, 11:45:19 PM
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:

No, MarkE.  I will only discuss the Analysis of the unique construction of the ZED that you have participated in so kindly so far.

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 11:47:50 PM
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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

Wayne
 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 11:50:56 PM
No, MarkE.  I will only discuss the Analysis of the unique construction of the ZED that you have participated in so kindly so far.

M.
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?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 03, 2014, 12:02:34 AM



  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
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LibreEnergia on March 03, 2014, 12:06:18 AM
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.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 03, 2014, 12:07:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 12:21:18 AM
There is not and never was net energy.   Only time will tell.

Mark,

Does it give you any pause to make conclusions before the homework is done........

I will wait. We have done ours.

Good luck.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 12:30:31 AM
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




Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 12:38:22 AM


  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

Am I confused or what?

I thought you were just a simple farmer who had friends that did the math you could not understand?  ;)

p.s. trying to create stories to support your other stories - is just.... TK (thats "Thumb Knitting" - or sock puppetry).

Gravity is Always on  :)

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LibreEnergia on March 03, 2014, 12:48:21 AM
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.

 

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 01:00:05 AM
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.
Mondrasek I have presented you with math that irrefutably describes the physics.  It is a fluid model.  The added fluid volume redistributes across the cross section.  The incompressible water and "air" then redistribute accordingly.  There is no need for iterative calculations.  Ordinary algebra yields the values.  However, the character of the result is already known.  Yet, you refuse to discuss that indisputable fact.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 01:01:32 AM
Am I confused or what?

I thought you were just a simple farmer who had friends that did the math you could not understand?  ;)

p.s. trying to create stories to support your other stories - is just.... TK (thats "Thumb Knitting" - or sock puppetry).

Gravity is Always on  :)

Wayne
Gravity is indeed "Always on", and contrary to your false claims it is always conservative.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 01:39:26 AM
Gravity is indeed "Always on", and contrary to your false claims it is always conservative.

 :) Just finish the Math....... I don't expect anything or ask anything else from you.

and No, You are not done - you just set the simple baseline.

Stay on Subject.

Wayne



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 03, 2014, 02:15:13 AM
TK, I see no reason why you keep making things like this up, and stating them in the form of a fact that you will repeat as true unless some "proof" is given that they are false.

TK, you can bring up the "mondrasek wheel" (please Google it if you want to see it everybody) anytime you please.  But it appears you are trying to "shame" me for a mistake from my past, rather than discuss the Mathematical Analysis.  And you have tried that before.  And the last time you did so I think I was open and transparent about what happened during that occasion as well.  So why the thinly veiled threat again?  I openly admit I made a mistake then and that you were instrumental in helping me realize that fact.  I have thanked you multiple times for helping me to find the error in what first brought me to OU.com and "Energy research" in the first place.  So, what of it?

Well, "what of it" is that you seem to me to have a slight tendency to get overly excited about your mathematically-derived results, and the last time it happened it turned out that your math was good but your procedure and some of your assumptions were wrong. Right? And when, with a little prodding from me, you reconsidered your assumptions, did a little research into circularly rotating machines, moment arms and torques, and you re-did your calculation _procedure_ and came up with the true answer. Note that your math was always right, so your answers were right. They just weren't true reflections of reality because the "world" they existed in is not our world. I saw the first part happening, here, when you started talking about using Boyle's Law but you had already stipulated that both fluids in your contraption, er, Device Under Test, were incompressible. We headed that one off at the pass, good. Now, I told you earlier under what conditions I would do what MarkE is doing for LarryC, I think. I can't do that kind of deep work for free any more. That other time, I think you will agree that I worked pretty damn hard and long for you, probably saved you a boatload, or at least a small canoe load of cash, and had we encountered each other a bit earlier, even more might have stayed in your pocket where it belonged.
So I am worried about you, my friend. That other time, if you will pardon me saying so, was a bit trying on both of us, I recall you reporting loss of sleep, etc.
So.... we can accept that your MATH is probably right. After all  you are using a spreadsheet too, aren't you? So, since we know a priori that these claims are extremely unlikely to be true, that means if our model "confirms" the claims, it is likely, just as likely, to be in error. Probabilities, not certainties, of course, keep an open mind but don't let it blow skirts and overflow your earholes.
Reexamine your assumptions. Make sure you are using the _right_ mathematical model. GIGO applies very strongly here. Respect sig digs from real measurements, especially muchly. Review your calculus and vector mechanics. And have fun!

Fair enough?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 02:26:20 AM
So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3.  Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem?  Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3?  Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors?  Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 03, 2014, 02:42:01 AM
Quote
Just finish the Math....... I don't expect anything or ask anything else from you.

and No, You are not done - you just set the simple baseline.

Stay on Subject.

More fake creepy pseudo social engineering from sinister minister Wayne.

He has the answer but he won't tell you, you have to work for it.  Sure.  Join the Wayne Drone Club and work hard for your secret decoder ring.  You all were born with and suffer from the sin of not knowing.  You are not worthy but keep working.  Eeeek!
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 02:47:54 AM
More fake creepy pseudo social engineering from sinister minister Wayne.

He has the answer but he won't tell you, you have to work for it.  Sure.  Join the Wayne Drone Club and work hard for your secret decoder ring.  You all were born with and suffer from the sin of not knowing.  You are not worthy but keep working.  Eeeek!
The hilarious part is that actually doing the math, which I have and is presented above in clear, easily audited form, refutes Wayne Travis' false claims.  The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel.  One puts energy into it, gets no work out, and then has to replenish the lost energy.  It does make a little heater.  A piece of resistance wire is a lot cheaper.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 03, 2014, 03:09:57 AM
Wayne:

Quote
Lets score:

People who independently built ZED's and then analyzed to understand the system - are trying to share with the ones that would rather not.

And you have what to offer?




..........................................OK

Got it.

Wayne

Nobody understands the system, that's a lie.  Unless you define understanding the system as understanding that it will never work.

You see that big blank space up above?  That's what you have to offer, absolutely nothing.  You are just a huckster in a carnival selling junk, a magic elixir made from vinegar, ink, and beet juice.

And I am trying to get people to get it.  I could follow the derivations if I wanted to but I don't.  Just one look at your piece of crap is enough.  It's like when someone plays with coils and transistors and resistors and thinks that they have over unity.  You just have to look at the circuit to know that it's under unity.  Something about no combination of under unity electronic components can produce over unity.  Likewise, no combination of Tupperware containers in a Russian Doll nested configuration can produce over unity.

You still haven't answered Minnie.  Remember I asked you what the power output from your alleged device was and what form it was in?  You flatly refused to answer.

Likewise, you point to some people here that are trying to replicate and understand what you are doing, and you ask people to get guidance from them.  Then when MarkE and TK interact with the replicators it's so painfully obvious that they don't really know what they are doing and instead they are getting their guidance from MarkE and TK.  It's all so pathetic this fake drama that revolves around your fake proposition.

You are circling the drain, sinister minister Wayne.  You can't show anything working after five years and you yourself know it's all an impossible dream for the rabid believers.  It's all a confidence game.  You put on a brave face, because that's what people like you do, you simply don't have any other choice.  You are trapped on your own ride, and it's going to crash.  Perhaps you will get a visit from the FBI.  You are really not a good guy.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 03:20:03 AM
This week marks one year since the FBI raided Dr. Dr. Dr. John P. Rohner Ph.D.' s offices with as he put it:  "guns drawn".  He had been running his ruse for about as long as Wayne Travis has been running his.  The sad part is that there are a good number of people who believed the stories and will see nothing from their investments.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 03, 2014, 03:44:05 AM
Oh, it can go on for much longer. Remember Sean McCarthy and Steorn, 25 million Euro burn over five or six years, nothing delivered, five or six different iterations, a flat-packable Ikea-stocked Orbo (just kidding about that one), e-orbo, SSOrbo, kinetica toy, all of that? A couple of genuine red herrings too, the Core Effect pulse motor and the magnetic bearings, improper use of test equipment to produce misleading results.... a secret inner circle private Steorn Knowledge Base club with layers like an onion .... he's still running around from pub to pub in Dubalin-town and has changed products, or rather imaginary products again.... and is burning still more cash with no end in sight.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 03, 2014, 03:54:18 AM
IN fact, let's look at some parallels.

A charismatic and well-spoken PI. Check.
Serendipitous discovery of a claimed effect that would lead to OU. Check.
A couple of catchy names for the org and the device. Check.
Slick websites. Check.
Three blind mice engineers who endorse the claims. Check.
A demonstration device shown to invited parties from around the world. Check.
The demonstration device didn't quite work when every body came to see it. Check.
Larger more better devices in the works after the failed demonstrations. Check.
The original device that should have worked at the demos disappears, never to be heard from again. Check.
Several forum threads where, inexplicably, the PI engages with insignificant critics who nevertheless present cogent criticisms. Check.
A secret forum where the self-selected sycophants discuss their various projects with the PI. Check.
Yet nobody can make what the PI claimed was easily made. Check.
Obvious attempts by the PI to get help solving the various problems from the internet posters. Check.
TinselKoala is a thorn in their side and he gets banned from one forum and causes the PI to flee from another thread. Check.
Nevertheless TK produces apparatus that demonstrated their claimed effects. Check.
In some cases TK is even able to show the same kinds of bogus measurements that led to the original OU claim. Check.
Rigorous analysis by others proves mathematically that the PI is FOS. Check.
Nevertheless the PI and his org keeps on keeping on... Check.

As far as I can tell, the only major difference between Zydro and Steorn is that one  burns dollars and the other burns Euro, and the major difference between Travis and McCarthy is Guinness Stout.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 04:45:44 AM
Oh, it can go on for much longer. Remember Sean McCarthy and Steorn, 25 million Euro burn over five or six years, nothing delivered, five or six different iterations, a flat-packable Ikea-stocked Orbo (just kidding about that one), e-orbo, SSOrbo, kinetica toy, all of that? A couple of genuine red herrings too, the Core Effect pulse motor and the magnetic bearings, improper use of test equipment to produce misleading results.... a secret inner circle private Steorn Knowledge Base club with layers like an onion .... he's still running around from pub to pub in Dubalin-town and has changed products, or rather imaginary products again.... and is burning still more cash with no end in sight.
I don't dispute that.  Some scams go on for many years.  Then again others get ripe enough and guys with badges and guns visit and they are in no mood for coffee and donuts.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 05:52:42 AM
So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3.  Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem?  Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3?  Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors?  Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?

Monderask - I hope you do not mind,

MarkE,

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.

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

State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
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
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 05:56:18 AM
The hilarious part is that actually doing the math, which I have and is presented above in clear, easily audited form, refutes Wayne Travis' false claims.  The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel.  One puts energy into it, gets no work out, and then has to replenish the lost energy.  It does make a little heater.  A piece of resistance wire is a lot cheaper.

Good math - your not done yet.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 03, 2014, 06:01:29 AM
Quote
Lastly - the Hydro Assist is the external input - which can be powered by the Production.
Is there really any need to say more?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.

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

State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne 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....
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne 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.

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

State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc

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
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh 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?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 03, 2014, 06:36:44 AM
Quote
it is simple from here.

Shameless sleaze.

Brainwash attempt.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala 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. )
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LibreEnergia 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LibreEnergia 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.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne 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.

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

State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
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
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 02:57:19 PM
To All;

The Word ideal In our ZED, is merely the MAX calculated static condition with the Risers At the lowest position and the pressure differentials at the highest point.

Going from lowest to highest is a simple exercise with no benefits.

In my previous post, I outlined the process in which to utilize the Calcs to determine stroke and select the load.

And then the states in which to operate a full cycle.

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

All of this information was shared Two years ago, and then again last year.

And the result was the same as last night - pages and pages of disruption without a brain.

Except Energyliberia.

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

Since the inception of the NET Energy producing system - We worked hard to develop the systems, business, contact, and friendships.

I have put up with the nonsense from TK and his bandwagon now for two years for this reason.

Now we are hiring, we have Turn Key funding. We have selected 18 of our start up of 27 members.

We are hiring now, and we have temporary offices while our world class LEED building is being built.

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

We have Patent application pending in almost every county - some granted - some being exercised.

If you are interested in Clean and Green energy future - that has the only Alternative ON DEMAND CAPABILITY:

Welcome, our door has been open.

Wayne Travis

ZydroEnergy.com





Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 03:01:00 PM
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?



If the timing was of production was precisely that of Hydro assist - yes - it is not.

Production occurs after full precharge - and free flow to precharge requires Hydro assist - in the old model (the one in discussion)..

And with the new model - no hydro assist. Better Bird.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 03, 2014, 03:02:53 PM
So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3.  Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem?  Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3?  Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors?  Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?

MarkE, please look at the ZED in State 3.  There is still a positive water head on the pod and each riser!  Therefore there is still much buoyant Force to be resolved.  Ego, the ZED could NOT come to rest in this condition.  It must stroke further if unrestrained.  This proves that the ASSUMPTION that Energy in is equal to Energy out was wrong.  Unless you have some other way to resolve the remaining buoyant Force without more stroke?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 03:05:13 PM

Mark:

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

Excellent terminology and very, very funny.

Well done.

Bill

I realize you did not mean this seriously;

But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.

That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.

SO check in never check out - exactly

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 03, 2014, 03:14:59 PM
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.
If you have too many Red Herrings, things start to smell pretty fishy. Besides, a three-pronged teeter-totter is clearly just too weird.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 03:15:52 PM
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.

The design of the system was just to mechanically amply force - by request we spent the money to self loop itself - even in its infant stage of development - with no engineering - that was possible.

Once again here is the link to that self contained closed loop system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc

The arguments will always come from some...

Thank You

The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.

Thanks.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 03, 2014, 03:17:38 PM
I realize you did not mean this seriously;

But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.

That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.

SO check ion never check out - exactly

Wayne

Then why do your machines ALWAYS STOP after a few minutes or hours unless they are driven from the outside? Still having "leak" problems? That precharge just keeps leaking away, doesn't it.

Show the sausages, Mister Wayne, or admit that you have none.

Minnie asked you a question, politely, several times. Why are you not answering him directly, without misdirection and stalling, waffling about?

I know why, and so does everybody else including Webby and LarryC.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 03, 2014, 03:22:31 PM
The design of the system was just to mechanically amply force - by request we spent the money to self loop itself - even in its infant stage of development - with no engineering - that was possible.

Once again here is the link to that self contained closed loop system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)

The arguments will always come from some...

Thank You

The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.

Thanks.
Now you are piling lie upon untruth. Mark Dansie DID NOT CERTIFY that system as self running. It has a tummy ache on one side, to boot. And you are practically admitting in this statement that you do not in fact have a self runner any more than my Heron's Fountain is a self-runner.  You can waffle about and dodge the direct question as much as you like, you can invoke God's blessings... but you cannot deny that for some reason, God did not permit you to put up that 50 kW plant that you "expected" to be able to install at TBC years ago.
Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain, mister Wayne, and someday you will have to account for your Zeds and your business plan before an Authority with whom you cannot argue.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Marsing on March 03, 2014, 03:27:39 PM
I realize you did not mean this seriously;

But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.

That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.

SO check ion never check out - exactly

Wayne


The bad thing so far there is no energy can be extracted from the system.
every cycle you need to allocate some external energy                  .......... ALWAYS.......       ::) :o
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 03, 2014, 03:44:01 PM
MarkE, I was going to draw your State 3 and dimension the remaining heads on the pod and each riser that need to be resolved.  But I ran into an error with your stated water height in AR2: 49.651mm.  That is obviously not correct.  Could you provide the correct value?  And you should try calculating the buoyant Forces that remain on the pod and each riser that still need to be resolved.  The ZED cannot remain in the position you show in State 3 unless restrained.  It has more Energy that needs to be released due to the still remaining buoyant Forces.

I would have liked to just present my own diagrams again, but I see you calculated the rise based on Volume in = Volume out.  This is another error since there is a third Volume of air that is interacting with the system by the nature of the outer annulus being open to the atmosphere.

I calculated my lift distance based on the ASSUMPTION that Energy in = Energy out, not by simple volumes.  That results in a stroke that should be 1.9094mm.  But the results are similar in that the system could not come to rest at that larger lift distance either.  There is still 31.828 grams of buoyant lift force at that larger lift distance.  So again, the lift would have to be even further to resolve the remaining buoyant Forces.

And FWIF, no iterations need to be performed for this simple analysis.  The iterations would be needed (for me at least) to find the final resting state of the charged ZED.  That state requires that the sum of all the internal buoyant Forces be zero.  That is definitely not the case in your State 3, nor in the one I calculated via an Energy Balance approach.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Marsing on March 03, 2014, 03:52:09 PM
The design of the system was just to mechanically amply force - by request we spent the money to self loop itself - even in its infant stage of development - with no engineering - that was possible.

Once again here is the link to that self contained closed loop system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc

The arguments will always come from some...

Thank You

The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.

Thanks.

The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.

what is this mean ?

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 05:03:59 PM

The bad thing so far there is no energy can be extracted from the system.
every cycle you need to allocate some external energy                  .......... ALWAYS.......       ::) :o

DOn't know what you are referring to?

The LOAD - is the energy extracted, with every half cycle?

We use Hydraulic production as the load - because it can be used to both apply Hydro assist and rotational output to a generator (thru a hydraulic motor).

Thanks
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 05:16:39 PM
The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.

what is this mean ?

Good Question..

It means that clear minds do not refute the obvious - they try to understand.

The obvious - is this - if the total input to output is near 100% and then the original input can be recycled to reduce the cost of another cycle - you have a simple method of defeating conservative outputs.

In our original model - we recycled over 57%

It also means:e If a system dos not work simply.............complex Calcs do not and will not make it work either, complex math is good for explaining, and opening minds.

So when it does work simply - experienced minds value the simple.

Lastly - the comment was in reference to our blessing to have found the people who can see the obvious and experienced enough to value the simple.

I hope this helps.

Wayne


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Marsing on March 03, 2014, 05:23:47 PM
DOn't know what you are referring to?

The LOAD - is the energy extracted, with every half cycle?

We use Hydraulic production as the load - because it can be used to both apply Hydro assist and rotational output to a generator (thru a hydraulic motor).

Thanks

Eout - Ein =  extracted energy,  and of course with full cycle

do you have a self running machine ?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 05:28:59 PM
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.

Two years ago - one of the TK "likes" said something Similar - meant to be an insult:

Why not just continue hooking the ZEDs together to forever..

In reality - the layering system works in much the same effect - but with reduced Capital cost and reduced foot print.

Net is the Product - two Six Layer ZEDs can be optimized to put out the same Net production as four three layer systems, in roughly the same foot print.

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

So it is a business decision - and a structural mechanical (Cost) limitation - to continue to up size each system.

Wayne

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 05:35:17 PM
Eout - Ein =  extracted energy,  and of course with full cycle

do you have a self running machine ?

With Respect - I am sharing what I am not contractually bound to reserve.

Our Contract gives our Benefactor exclusive rights to first utilization of the manufactured models and their absolute first public demonstration.

Previous to that contract, we allowed a Skeptic to video our early model.

The Link has been posted.

Thank you.



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 08:54:13 PM
The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.

...  Wall of pointless blather ...

Wayne Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com
Ah another wall of BS text from the shameless huckster Wayne Travis.  One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.

Maybe the lying huckster wasn't completely honest with us about his investment situation.

Maybe the lying huckster has some fish he is trying to reel in and he doesn't want them to see the empty bag he is trying to trade them for their cash.

Note that in his entire wall of text, Wayne Travis cannot refute anything in the analysis.  Note that in the entire wall of text Wayne Travis fails to bring in any actual new information that supports his false claims of getting free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 03, 2014, 09:00:34 PM
One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.

MarkE, one might wonder why you are ignoring my two posts that point out a mistake in your presented values as well as a couple in the methods in your final Stage 3 presentation.  It is an invalid "Energy Balance" Analysis, as well as completely ignores that works was done in the form of F*ds.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:02:12 PM
To All;

... Wall of text ...

Since the inception of the NET Energy producing system - We worked hard to develop the systems, business, contact, and friendships.

I have put up with the nonsense from TK and his bandwagon now for two years for this reason.

Now we are hiring, we have Turn Key funding. We have selected 18 of our start up of 27 members.

We are hiring now, and we have temporary offices while our world class LEED building is being built.

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

We have Patent application pending in almost every county - some granted - some being exercised.

If you are interested in Clean and Green energy future - that has the only Alternative ON DEMAND CAPABILITY:

Welcome, our door has been open.

Wayne Travis

ZydroEnergy.com
Those are just more lies from you Wayne Travis.  You do not now have and have never had a device or a method to generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights as you claim.  The analysis of the "ideal ZED", the device model that you so glowingly approved, shows that the device is completely useless.  You can post as many walls of text as you want.  What you cannot do is get that ridiculous contraption to even match the efficiency of a brick.  Each time one goes from State 2 to State 3, a transition that performs no useful outside work, one loses 28% of the internally stored energy which must be replaced in order to return to State 2 to set-up for the next futile cycle.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 09:07:28 PM
Those are just more lies from you Wayne Travis.  You do not now have and have never had a device or a method to generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights as you claim.  The analysis of the "ideal ZED", the device model that you so glowingly approved, shows that the device is completely useless.  You can post as many walls of text as you want.  What you cannot do is get that ridiculous contraption to even match the efficiency of a brick.  Each time one goes from State 2 to State 3, a transition that performs no useful outside work, one loses 28% of the internally stored energy which must be replaced in order to return to State 2 to set-up for the next futile cycle.

I am sorry MarkE,

You seemed to miss this post. I will post it again.

MarkE,

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

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

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

...........

Conditions

At least three layers and Pod each ZED:

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.

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

State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)



Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com
Every time you or TK, or the puppets come back.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:15:00 PM
MarkE, please look at the ZED in State 3.  There is still a positive water head on the pod and each riser!  Therefore there is still much buoyant Force to be resolved.  Ego, the ZED could NOT come to rest in this condition.  It must stroke further if unrestrained.  This proves that the ASSUMPTION that Energy in is equal to Energy out was wrong.  Unless you have some other way to resolve the remaining buoyant Force without more stroke?
Mondrasek, would you like to bet?  The system as presented is physically and mathematically correct.  Why?  Because of the venting necessary to create State 1, the pod and the risers are stable as you stipulated as a requirement for the State 1 condition.  You will recall that I went to pains to discuss with you how the system would be brought to State 1. 

In State 2 3108 cir mm2*mm was added to the system.  Unrestrained that volume lifts the entire cross-section by a distance equal to the volume divided by the cross-section as shown.  A rising tide does indeed lift all boats.

If you object to State 3, then you must object to your own stipulations for State 1.  At the end of State 1 the massless materials:  The "air", the pod, and the risers are all in effect simply floating on the surface of one pool of water.  State 2 holds those masses restrained while water is pumped in.  State 3 releases those masses so that the water can equalize.  They rise, gaining no work because they are massless and the previously lifted water falls, losing a great deal of the energy added during State 2.


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:18:03 PM
I realize you did not mean this seriously;

But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.

That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.

SO check in never check out - exactly

Wayne
Your piece of junk machine is a sink for energy.  The special features of:  A serpentine hydraulic piston corrupted by pockets of air, and with an outer venting column all take a useful machine:  a hydraulic piston and turn it into a lossy piece of junk.  This is of course contrary to your often stated lies that those very features enable you to cheat gravity.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 09:23:53 PM
Ah another wall of BS text from the shameless huckster Wayne Travis.  One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.

Maybe the lying huckster wasn't completely honest with us about his investment situation.

Maybe the lying huckster has some fish he is trying to reel in and he doesn't want them to see the empty bag he is trying to trade them for their cash.

Note that in his entire wall of text, Wayne Travis cannot refute anything in the analysis.  Note that in the entire wall of text Wayne Travis fails to bring in any actual new information that supports his false claims of getting free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights.

MarkE,

I am still patient with you.

As far as your insinuations and slander, my motives have been clear and consistent from my first post.

......

I know, our ZED system is tough to wrap your head around for some, you are very close - don't give up.

If all you see is lifting and dropping weights - you missed the production which is removed before dropping, and the re use of each half cycles charge.

That is not dropping a rock twice.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 03, 2014, 09:24:58 PM
Mondrasek, would you like to bet?  The system as presented is physically and mathematically correct.  Why?  Because of the venting necessary to create State 1, the pod and the risers are stable as you stipulated as a requirement for the State 1 condition.  You will recall that I went to pains to discuss with you how the system would be brought to State 1. 

In State 2 3108 cir mm2*mm was added to the system.  Unrestrained that volume lifts the entire cross-section by a distance equal to the volume divided by the cross-section as shown.  A rising tide does indeed lift all boats.

If you object to State 3, then you must object to your own stipulations for State 1.  At the end of State 1 the massless materials:  The "air", the pod, and the risers are all in effect simply floating on the surface of one pool of water.  State 2 holds those masses restrained while water is pumped in.  State 3 releases those masses so that the water can equalize.  They rise, gaining no work because they are massless and the previously lifted water falls, losing a great deal of the energy added during State 2.

In the condition you show in your State 3 drawing the pod is still submersed in 28.537mm of water.  It is displacing 89.652 cc of that water.  Are you saying that does not create a buoyant Force equal to ~89 grams?  What is keeping it from rising further?  Where is the equal and opposite force that is cancelling this buoyant Force that remains?

The three risers are likewise still positively buoyant due to the head difference of the water on their OD and ID, right?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 03, 2014, 09:30:26 PM
Your piece of junk machine is a sink for energy.  The special features of:  A serpentine hydraulic piston corrupted by pockets of air, and with an outer venting column all take a useful machine:  a hydraulic piston and turn it into a lossy piece of junk.  This is of course contrary to your often stated lies that those very features enable you to cheat gravity.

MarkE

Lots of losses - and bigger gains...

The ratio to losses is too high with a single layer ZED, We have agreed with you.

The ratio to losses does not increase at the same rate of output increase as you add layers.

Monderask and Larry detailed that.

But go to three layers - smile

Reuse the differential pressures, with a dual system and WOW.

DOn't give up!

Wayne



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:31:15 PM
MarkE, I was going to draw your State 3 and dimension the remaining heads on the pod and each riser that need to be resolved.  But I ran into an error with your stated water height in AR2: 49.651mm.  That is obviously not correct.  Could you provide the correct value?  And you should try calculating the buoyant Forces that remain on the pod and each riser that still need to be resolved.  The ZED cannot remain in the position you show in State 3 unless restrained.  It has more Energy that needs to be released due to the still remaining buoyant Forces.

I would have liked to just present my own diagrams again, but I see you calculated the rise based on Volume in = Volume out.  This is another error since there is a third Volume of air that is interacting with the system by the nature of the outer annulus being open to the atmosphere.

I calculated my lift distance based on the ASSUMPTION that Energy in = Energy out, not by simple volumes.  That results in a stroke that should be 1.9094mm.  But the results are similar in that the system could not come to rest at that larger lift distance either.  There is still 31.828 grams of buoyant lift force at that larger lift distance.  So again, the lift would have to be even further to resolve the remaining buoyant Forces.

And FWIF, no iterations need to be performed for this simple analysis.  The iterations would be needed (for me at least) to find the final resting state of the charged ZED.  That state requires that the sum of all the internal buoyant Forces be zero.  That is definitely not the case in your State 3, nor in the one I calculated via an Energy Balance approach.
If you opened the spreadsheet, you will see that was a transcription error.  The value posted was the height of the air from the top of the innermost ringwall down to the surface of the water.  The correct value: 11.349mm is simply that value subtracted from the ring wall height. 

Once more:  Under the stipulation that you set that the system is stable, unrestrained in State 1, it is similarly stable unrestrained in State 3.

The materials are incompressible.  Did you get that?  They are incompressible.  One more time:  They are incompressible.  By definition their volumes cannot and do not change.  Fluid can be pumped in through the various inlets when those valves are open.  Fluid can be released through vents as you stipulated in State1.   Once the valves are closed, fluid may be forced into or drawn from AR7.

Your assumption that energy would not be lost is false for the reasons that I have already proven.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:34:01 PM
DOn't know what you are referring to?

The LOAD - is the energy extracted, with every half cycle?

We use Hydraulic production as the load - because it can be used to both apply Hydro assist and rotational output to a generator (thru a hydraulic motor).

Thanks
Gee, Mr. Wayne, where is the load bank?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:40:52 PM
Two years ago - one of the TK "likes" said something Similar - meant to be an insult:

Why not just continue hooking the ZEDs together to forever..

In reality - the layering system works in much the same effect - but with reduced Capital cost and reduced foot print.

Net is the Product - two Six Layer ZEDs can be optimized to put out the same Net production as four three layer systems, in roughly the same foot print.

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

So it is a business decision - and a structural mechanical (Cost) limitation - to continue to up size each system.

Wayne
Ah more lies from Wayne Travis.  As can be seen from the analysis of the "ideal ZED", and LarryC's spreadsheet, one has two basically two choices:  make each successive annular ring  narrower and narrower to hold constant area per ring, or watch as the change in water height in the outer rings and therefore the stroke converges towards zero.  The ultimate ZED as opposed to the "ideal ZED" is a device with just one riser, and just one pod, where each are very, very wide, and the vertical stroke approaches zero.  In the limit, such a system approximates but never quite matches the efficiency of a brick.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:42:50 PM
With Respect - I am sharing what I am not contractually bound to reserve.

Our Contract gives our Benefactor exclusive rights to first utilization of the manufactured models and their absolute first public demonstration.

Previous to that contract, we allowed a Skeptic to video our early model.

The Link has been posted.

Thank you.
Once again the lying huckster Wayne Travis appeals to claims that he has something magic behind the curtain.  No worries Wayne.  Bubba is anxiously keeping his magic something for you with him in his cell.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 03, 2014, 09:43:15 PM
If you opened the spreadsheet, you will see that was a transcription error.  The value posted was the height of the air from the top of the innermost ringwall down to the surface of the water.  The correct value: 11.349mm is simply that value subtracted from the ring wall height. 

I knew it was a simple typo.  Sorry I did not notice that you posted a spreadsheet from which I could have found the correct value.

Once more:  Under the stipulation that you set that the system is stable, unrestrained in State 1, it is similarly stable unrestrained in State 3.

I can't see how?  In State 1 there are no unresolved buoyant Forces.  The pod is in no water, and there is zero water head between the ID and OD surfaces of any riser.  This is clearly not the case in State 3 where the pod and risers are all affected by buoyant Forces that are not zero.

The materials are incompressible.  Did you get that?  They are incompressible.  One more time:  They are incompressible

I have never said or thought that they were compressible!  Compressibility is not at issue.  Unresolved buoyant Forces are the issue.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:45:01 PM
I am sorry MarkE,

You seemed to miss this post. I will post it again.
... Wall of pointless text ...

Nonsense video with no measurements:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)



Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com
Every time you or TK, or the puppets come back.
If your last line is a promise to keep spamming your wall of text, I don't think Stefan will appreciate that.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 09:58:07 PM
MarkE, one might wonder why you are ignoring my two posts that point out a mistake in your presented values as well as a couple in the methods in your final Stage 3 presentation.  It is an invalid "Energy Balance" Analysis, as well as completely ignores that works was done in the form of F*ds.
You are absolutely wrong.  The spreadsheet correctly shows all of the math.  Each energy value in the spreadsheet explicitly calculates energy as the integral of F*ds.  All of the math reflects real physics.  The drawing had one transcription error, picking up a value one row off from the spreadsheet.

Here is are all the files again with the transcription error in the AR2 value that was pasted onto the State 3 drawing corrected.

You are free to show by competing analysis and / or demonstration that I got anything wrong in the spreadsheet.  If you do, then make certain that you apply actual physics and not contrived ideas such as you have so far.

The math shows exactly what I told you and that you refused to discuss:  That equalizing water column heights as occurs in the transition from State 2 to State 3 loses stored energy without doing any useful work.  The most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.

ETA: Also the spreadsheet is here.  No values or formulas were changed.  It adds more comments and corrected the State 3 graphic.  It also includes audit of the incompressible fluid volumes.  Got that Mondrasek:  The fluids are incompressible:  Their volumes are fixed.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 10:09:57 PM
In the condition you show in your State 3 drawing the pod is still submersed in 28.537mm of water.  It is displacing 89.652 cc of that water.  Are you saying that does not create a buoyant Force equal to ~89 grams?  What is keeping it from rising further?  Where is the equal and opposite force that is cancelling this buoyant Force that remains?

The three risers are likewise still positively buoyant due to the head difference of the water on their OD and ID, right?
I have shown all the work in the spreadsheet in convenient easy to read algebraic form.  If you aren't going to bother to read and understand the work, then there is little hope for you.  Either you accept your stipulation that the system was vented in State 1 so that there was no net force up or down on the risers, or you change your problem definition.  If you accept the former, then what you have is no different than objects floating on a volume of water at the end of each:  State 1 and State 3.  State 2 added volume to the water which because of the restraint on the Russian Dolls of Ignorance was forced into AR7.  Once the restraint was released at State 3, the added fluid effectively redistributed to an equal height across the entire cross-section as required by fluid behavior.  Ergo, we poured some water into Archimedes' bath and his rubby ducky, Spanish Armada playset all rose with added water.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 10:13:46 PM
MarkE,

I am still patient with you.

As far as your insinuations and slander, my motives have been clear and consistent from my first post.
Quote
Yes you are selling lies to investors.  That has been clear for years now.

......

I know, our ZED system is tough to wrap your head around for some, you are very close - don't give up.
Despite the complications of detail that you try and use to obfuscate the fact that you have nothing of value, the fact is that at the end of the day, you lift and drop weights.  There is no energy gain to be had from doing such a thing.  You have never shown the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary.
Quote

If all you see is lifting and dropping weights - you missed the production which is removed before dropping, and the re use of each half cycles charge.
I see it for what it is, not the illusion that you try and misrepresent.
Quote

That is not dropping a rock twice.

Wayne
You should be more concerned about where your burned investors might want to drop rocks.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 03, 2014, 10:27:01 PM
You are free to show by competing analysis and / or demonstration that I got anything wrong in the spreadsheet.  If you do, then make certain that you apply actual physics and not contrived ideas such as you have so far.

MarkE, your math is not in question.  But it results in a paradox, right?  If you solve to balance Energy, you end up with unbalanced Forces left over (this is what your analysis shows).  If you solve to balance the Forces, then the Energy balance is not correct.  Do you disagree?  Are there not unbalance buoyant Forces in State 3 of your analysis?

The math shows exactly what I told you and that you refused to discuss:  That equalizing water column heights as occurs in the transition from State 2 to State 3 loses stored energy without doing any useful work.  The most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.

There was useful work performed that you have ignored.  The ZED in this Analysis was not allowed to rise uninhibited by a load.  We agreed on this from post 249 of this thread:

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.

You violated this first by NOT calculating the lift difference using the described method of an Energy balance.  You instead resorted to a Volume balance which is flat wrong for this open ZED.  Then you ignore that work output preformed upon the non-physical device agreed upon would provide the theoretical output F*ds as the Paverage*V, or simply Faverage*ds where ds is the lift distance.  So there is Work that can be performed by the change from State 2 to State 3 and you ignore that in your Analysis.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 03, 2014, 10:35:08 PM
I have shown all the work in the spreadsheet in convenient easy to read algebraic form.  If you aren't going to bother to read and understand the work, then there is little hope for you.  Either you accept your stipulation that the system was vented in State 1 so that there was no net force up or down on the risers, or you change your problem definition.  If you accept the former, then what you have is no different than objects floating on a volume of water at the end of each:  State 1 and State 3.  State 2 added volume to the water which because of the restraint on the Russian Dolls of Ignorance was forced into AR7.  Once the restraint was released at State 3, the added fluid effectively redistributed to an equal height across the entire cross-section as required by fluid behavior.  Ergo, we poured some water into Archimedes' bath and his rubby ducky, Spanish Armada playset all rose with added water.

MarkE, the venting allowed for assembly without inducing buoyant Forces and kept internal Pressures neutral.  It is the fact that there is zero water head between the OD and ID of each riser (and no water around the pod) that determines that each element is being acted on by no buoyant Forces and therefore in equilibrium.  In your State 3 there exists positive buoyant Forces on the pod and all three risers that are yet unresolved.  How do you wish to resolve those Forces?  Or can you point out an equal and opposite Force that is neutralizing the remaining buoyant Forces?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 10:56:48 PM
MarkE,

There is no way the system you have presented will stop in this position.

This system will continue to lift until the water level in AR7 has been drawn down below the water level in AR6 to counter the decreasing buoyant lift of the  other 2 risers and the pod.

It will be the negative buoyant condition of the 3rd riser that stops the movement, and your setup has not reached that.

The duckys are playing submarine,, and they are filled with air!
Webby do try and pay attention.  State 1 was stipulated by Mondrasek.  AR7 increases in height over the State 1 stipulated equilibrium condition just like the entire rest of the cross-section does.  That's what fluids do webby:  They flow to fill the available area.  The outer walls of the base assembly define that area.  The Russian Dolls of Ignorance configuration does not change that reality.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 10:59:40 PM
MarkE, the venting allowed for assembly without inducing buoyant Forces and kept internal Pressures neutral.  It is the fact that there is zero water head between the OD and ID of each riser (and no water around the pod) that determines that each element is being acted on by no buoyant Forces and therefore in equilibrium.  In your State 3 there exists positive buoyant Forces on the pod and all three risers that are yet unresolved.  How do you wish to resolve those Forces?  Or can you point out an equal and opposite Force that is neutralizing the remaining buoyant Forces?
Mondrasek, again you are flat, stinking wrong.  Under the condition that you again reiterate for State 1 above, the act of adding water in State 2 is to move that condition to one where the water level rises by the added water volume divided by the cross section.  If you are going to continue to dispute basic physics then go find a suitable reference to support your absolutely incorrect argument.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 11:04:13 PM
MarkE, your math is not in question.  But it results in a paradox, right?  If you solve to balance Energy, you end up with unbalanced Forces left over (this is what your analysis shows).  If you solve to balance the Forces, then the Energy balance is not correct.  Do you disagree?  Are there not unbalance buoyant Forces in State 3 of your analysis?

There was useful work performed that you have ignored.  The ZED in this Analysis was not allowed to rise uninhibited by a load.  We agreed on this from post 249 of this thread:

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.

You violated this first by NOT calculating the lift difference using the described method of an Energy balance.  You instead resorted to a Volume balance which is flat wrong for this open ZED.  Then you ignore that work output preformed upon the non-physical device agreed upon would provide the theoretical output F*ds as the Paverage*V, or simply Faverage*ds where ds is the lift distance.  So there is Work that can be performed by the change from State 2 to State 3 and you ignore that in your Analysis.
Monderasek, there is no paradox.  The behavior is all very well understood.  If you think that this is a paradox, then you must think that connecting one charged capacitor to a second uncharged capacitor is a paradox as well.  There is no more paradox here than there is to slowing down your car by applying the brakes.  Your latest incorrect assumption is that the stored energy remains constant.  You insist on this incorrect position even when the physics have been explained to you multiple times.  This whole foolish contraption is a glorified pool of fluid.  Add more fluid and it rises.  End of story.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 12:05:02 AM
Yes MarkE do pay attention.

Where are the water heights in state 1.

Where are the water heights in end of state 2.

Where are the water heights in end of state 3.  Not back to a neutral height are they.
Nope, you are still not paying attention.  Mondrasek stipulated the neutral condition as State 1.  Now you may reasonably object to that stipulation, but then you will have to take that up with Mondrasek.  But as long as he stipulates that State 1 is as he depicted it, the result in State 3 falls out.

Now, suppose that we object to the State 1 stipulation.  Suppose that we note that the real neutral water level is in a State 0 where no risers have been inserted.  The mechanics don't change.  The "ideal ZED" remains an energy wasting piece of junk outperformed by a brick.
Quote

Water will flow and find its own level.
Tell that to Mondrasek.  He seems to think that incompressible fluids behave some other way.
Quote

There is a buoyant lift left in the risers, all of them as you have them at the end of state 3.  They all have a positive buoyant lift potential that is left,, repeat, the water still wants to move down and that will move things and make the risers go up.
Again, State 3 arises from Mondrasek's:  Wayne Travis approved stipulation of State 1.  If you object to the State 1 stipulation, and you should, then you need to ask that pair why Mondrasek stipulated State 1 as he did and why Wayne Travis approved of that stipulation.
Quote

The only avenue there is for the increase in volume needed for all of that movement is from AR7, that will get sucked down until the suction, the negative buoyant lift equals the positive buoyant lift of the other 2 risers and the pod.
Again, you need to change the stipulation of State 1.  Otherwise, we get exactly what has been shown.
Quote

Do remember that I have played with a 5 riser system, and look at some of the pics I posted of that system.

I can tell you that the system as you have it in end of state 3 WILL move up and I can tell you that the water in AR7 WILL get sucked down.
Again, that is because your experiment did not have the State 1 stipulation:  Apples and oranges.
Quote

Use your finger and follow the movement,, see that the movement can happen, see that nature will want to make that movement happen, see that that movement will happen.

You know that movement can happen because it happened for the system to go from state 1 to end of state 2.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 04, 2014, 01:52:35 AM
It's incredible watching Wayne ply his craft.  It's very similar to debating with John Rohner.  In both cases they post incomprehensible goop and pretend that they are actually saying something valid.

I really hope this one ends where the good guys win.  It's soooo creepy to see this stuff happening in real time.  There must be a lot of passive observers reading this thread that can distinguish right from wrong.  It's incredible how so many of them remain mute in the presence of such wrong.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

- Edmund Burke (1729-97)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 01:59:32 AM
Regarding State one:

Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.

Has stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.

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

MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.

These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.

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

It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.

While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.

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

MarkE slow down, we are not attacking you, if you make these mistakes on purpose - that is wrong.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 04, 2014, 02:04:29 AM
Quote
if you make these mistakes on purpose - that is wrong

See how incredibly creepy he is?  He is playing the MIB card and he is playing it to a specific type of audience.

I really and truly hope that you make the national media Wayne for all the right reasons.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:05:03 AM
MarkE.

Look at your state 3 drawing.  Do you not see 4 floats that are partially sunk.

State 1 is neutrally buoyant, and that is not an issue, state 2 has had a volume placed into the pod chamber, that volume not only forces the water and air to redistribute and create a buoyant force it also raises the base line for the pod chamber, this increase in base line height also then creates a physical step for the other columns to negotiate and in this negotiation there is a continued buoyant condition for the risers and pod.

Those heads will fall, and when they do they will push the air up and force the risers to move a further distance, at that time the water in AR7 will be below AR6 and the other 2 risers and pod will still have a positive buoyant value, but it is the negative buoyant value of the 3rd riser that will balance against that so that the forces sum BACK to zero as in state 1.
Webby you cannot have it both ways.  Either you accept Mondrasek's: Wayne Travis approved State 1 or you don't.  If you accept it then State 3 falls out as shown.  If you don't accept it then you change the problem.  So pick your poison:  State 1 as stipulated by Mondrasek and approved by Wayne Travis with State 3 as the result, or State 1 as your experience tells you which yields a different and still lossy result.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:07:54 AM
MarkE, the venting allowed for assembly without inducing buoyant Forces and kept internal Pressures neutral.  It is the fact that there is zero water head between the OD and ID of each riser (and no water around the pod) that determines that each element is being acted on by no buoyant Forces and therefore in equilibrium.  In your State 3 there exists positive buoyant Forces on the pod and all three risers that are yet unresolved.  How do you wish to resolve those Forces?  Or can you point out an equal and opposite Force that is neutralizing the remaining buoyant Forces?
Mondrasek the stipulation that State 1 has no buoyant uplift is your Wayne Travis approved stipulation.  Choose:  Keep the stipulation, in which case State 3 results, or remove the stipulation and solve for a different State 3.  The results all depend on your stipulation.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:09:20 AM
It's incredible watching Wayne ply his craft.  It's very similar to debating with John Rohner.  In both cases they post incomprehensible goop and pretend that they are actually saying something valid.

I really hope this one ends where the good guys win.  It's soooo creepy to see this stuff happening in real time.  There must be a lot of passive observers reading this thread that can distinguish right from wrong.  It's incredible how so many of them remain mute in the presence of such wrong.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

- Edmund Burke (1729-97)


Is that your version of a "triumph"???

Sad.




Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:13:22 AM
Regarding State one:

Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.

His stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.

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

MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.

These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.

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

It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.

While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.

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

MarkE slow down, we are not attacking you, if you make these mistakes on purpose - that is wrong.

Wayne
Wayne Travis, do you now speak for Mondrasek?  If you don't and you aren't a mind reader then you had better let him speak for himself.  As for you, you approved of his stipulations and applauded his work.  Now that your minion Webby has noticed Archimedes' Principle acting on 21.5mm riser height that Mondrasek's stipulation ignored, what have you to say about that stipulation that you approved?

There is no mistaking that whether one starts with Mondrasek's stipulation or any real arrangement that the most efficient ZED that anyone can design is outperformed by a brick.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:14:19 AM
Webby you cannot have it both ways.  Either you accept Mondrasek's: Wayne Travis approved State 1 or you don't.  If you accept it then State 3 falls out as shown.  If you don't accept it then you change the problem.  So pick your poison:  State 1 as stipulated by Mondrasek and approved by Wayne Travis with State 3 as the result, or State 1 as your experience tells you which yields a different and still lossy result.

Repost:

Regarding State one:

Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.

Has stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.

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

MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.

These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.

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

It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.

While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.

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

I hope you can see the difference

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:19:29 AM
See how incredibly creepy he is?  He is playing the MIB card and he is playing it to a specific type of audience.

I really and truly hope that you make the national media Wayne for all the right reasons.
Wayne has crawled over a bear trap with his fly undone.  Of course Wayne tells us that he is not seeking new investment.  Of course that would mean that he has no concerns that any prospective investors could be watching as he approved Mondrasek's non-physical stipulation, or as the inevitable result with or without that stipulation is a machine that is just a lossy piece of junk.  Of course he wouldn't be worried that it would dawn on a new prospective investor that all the HER / Zydro charade amounts to is a game of three card monty.  We know that because the self-declared the God fearing, Jesus loving Wayne Travis told us he isn't seeking any new investors.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:24:06 AM
Wayne Travis, do you now speak for Mondrasek?  If you don't and you aren't a mind reader then you had better let him speak for himself.  As for you, you approved of his stipulations and applauded his work.  Now that your minion Webby has noticed Archimedes' Principle acting on 21.5mm riser height that Mondrasek's stipulation ignored, what have you to say about that stipulation that you approved?

There is no mistaking that whether one starts with Mondrasek's stipulation or any real arrangement that the most efficient ZED that anyone can design is outperformed by a brick.

MarkE

I applaud due diligence, I ignore your comments and assumptions and bogus conclusions.

If you do you math right - I know the conclusion - will you have the honor to admit it - I know you have not finished - because the Math does not lie.

It could turn out that you are smarter than the 40 plus engineers that have traveled this road - that would be fantastic - but then we would have to solve why it works in the physical???

We will see if you do.

I know it will be hard for you - you have dished out so much fodder - it is going to be hard to swallow.

I tried very very hard to warn you. I find no pleasure in your errors.

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

Monderask can speak for himself - and has.

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

I presented the "operational states" so that you could make a true conclusion - nothing to do with Monderasks State 1 or any other.

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

Take care.

Wayne

 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:26:59 AM
Repost:

Regarding State one:

Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.
Yep, stick with that:  An ideal ZED as you approved the description that relies on Mondrasek's State 1 stipulation.  Remember you approved that.
Quote

Has stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.
No Wayne, Mondrasek never stated such a thing, but it is nice that you repeat your lies so that all can see that is intentional.
Quote

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

MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.
No, many including I have shown that the ZED is an overcomplicated weight lifting and dropping machine that is completely useless and incapable of generating the free energy that you falsely claim it does.
Quote

These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.
Oh really?  Many have asked for that.  Please point to the specific post where you laid out the official analysis of a ZED, including the part where the free energy supposedly comes from.  You can't, because you never issued such a post.  Your claim that you did is just another of your shameless lies.
Quote

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

It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.
It doesn't matter what you call your first state.  You declared your approval of Mondrasek's set-up as an "ideal ZED".  A real, non-ideal machine can never outperform the idealized model.  Since Mondrasek's model you approved is useless, you have admitted that your heap of junk is similarly useless as it is.
Quote

While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.

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

I hope you can see the difference

Wayne
There is lots to see.  Your shameless carnival barker routine is one of them.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 02:28:13 AM
Is that your version of a "triumph" ???

Sad.

That's not sad.

This is sad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:29:21 AM
God fearing, Jesus loving Wayne Travis told us he isn't seeking any new investors.

You honor me.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:29:39 AM
I do not need it both ways, it is only one way.

State 1 is a net zero condition of forces acting on the risers and pod, and so for a full analysis the end of state 3 MUST also be a net zero.

Allow your risers to lift far enough so that the sum of all forces acting on them is zero, then what do you get?
If there is zero net up force in State 1, then at the raised position of 1.4688mm of State 3 there is no net up force either.  If there is up force in State 3 at 1.4688mm lift then there is also up force in State 1 and you must reject Mondrasek's stipulation.  Choose one or the other.  It doesn't matter.  The machine is lossy in either case for the same reasons.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:30:32 AM
That's not sad.

This is sad:


Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.

Thanks
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 04, 2014, 02:30:53 AM
Webby:

I am not following the technical discussion in detail.  However, I have read MarkE's postings for more than a year and I know how to qualify people.  Mark is the real thing.  Likewise, you can sometimes determine that somebody is clueless with respect to electronics in five sentences or less.

It's really too bad that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Wayne:

Quote
Is that your version of a "triumph"

Astute people will know who the evil one is.  And it is sad indeed that in this day and age, with all the access to information and the ability to inform oneself, that this can happen.  You are preying on the human condition and exploiting it for your own personal gain.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:35:40 AM
Please point to the specific post where you laid out the official analysis of a ZED, including the part where the free energy supposedly comes from. 

Sure, can't believe you keep missing this....

 Conditions   At least three layers Each ZED:
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.

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

State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
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.

And if you can't understand - Larry makes a pretty decent spread sheet. that covers the whole process.

Hope that helps.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:35:45 AM
MarkE

I applaud due diligence, I ignore your comments and assumptions and bogus conclusions.

If you do you math right - I know the conclusion - will you have the honor to admit it - I know you have not finished - because the Math does not lie.
Math unlike you may not lie.  Your claims of free energy generation, violation of the conservative nature of gravity are complete bald-faced lies, knowingly or recklessly made to investors.  See the Acts 1933, and 1934.
Quote

It could turn out that you are smarter than the 40 plus engineers that have traveled this road - that would be fantastic - but then we would have to solve why it works in the physical???
If by "works in the physical" you mean a machine that delivers the free energy you claim, you have never built such a machine.
Quote

We will see if you do.

I know it will be hard for you - you have dished out so much fodder - it is going to be hard to swallow.

I tried very very hard to warn you. I find no pleasure in your errors.
Tell me again in simple, easy to understand terms just what it is you claim to be warning me about.  Kindly state the specific consequences and by what means they will come about.
Quote

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

Monderask can speak for himself - and has.

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

I presented the "operational states" so that you could make a true conclusion - nothing to do with Monderasks State 1 or any other.

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

Take care.

Wayne

 
In that video Tinsel Koala just posted you look real perty.  I asked Bubba about it and he agrees.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:37:25 AM
Sure, can't believe you keep missing this....

...Useless wall of text, free of any supporting math or diagrams...
Yes, all you do is wave those oh so perty hands of yours.  Don't wave them too much or Bubba may get overly excited.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:38:11 AM
Webby:

Wayne:

Astute people will know who the evil one is.  And it is sad indeed that in this day and age, with all the access to information and the ability to inform oneself, that this can happen.  You are preying on the human condition and exploiting it for your own personal gain.

MileHigh

How will you repent when you realize you were on the wrong side of truth...

You have wronged me, injusted me, slandered me, and acted the complete fodder spreader.

And many people have taken the time to realize I am telling the truth - and you have not.

Good day
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:40:46 AM
Yes, all you do is wave those oh so perty hands of yours.  Don't wave them too much or Bubba may get overly excited.

MarkE,

Slander is the tool of those that can not think for them self, don't give up.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:41:50 AM
How will you repent when you realize you were on the wrong side of truth...

You have wronged me, injusted me, slandered me, and acted the complete fodder spreader.

And many people have taken the time to realize I am telling the truth - and you have not.

Good day
The liar speaks with feigned indignation.  Wayne Travis your technology claims are lies.  Cyclically lifting and dropping weights does not yield net energy, period.  Your claims that such activity yields free energy is a lie.  Your pitch that giving you money to "develop" your nonexistent technology does nothing but cheat those who don't recognize your lies for what they are.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 02:42:39 AM
MarkE,

Slander is the tool of those that can not think for them self, don't give up.

Wayne
The kettle speaks of the pot's color.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:44:43 AM
Tell me again in simple, easy to understand terms just what it is you claim to be warning me about.  Kindly state the specific consequences and by what means they will come about.

Just simple "embarrassment" as I said before.

You can change your log in - but you will always know.

That's all.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 04, 2014, 02:45:52 AM
Quote
How will you repent when you realize you were on the wrong side of truth...

You have wronged me, injusted me, slandered me, and acted the complete fodder spreader.

And many people have taken the time to realize I am telling the truth - and you have not.

Good day

The sinister minister preaches as he circles the drain.

It will be a good day when you get busted and it's picked up by the mainstream media and you become the center of a media storm.  One can hope.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 02:48:26 AM
The liar speaks with feigned indignation.  Wayne Travis your technology claims are lies.  Cyclically lifting and dropping weights does not yield net energy, period.  Your claims that such activity yields free energy is a lie.  Your pitch that giving you money to "develop" your nonexistent technology does nothing but cheat those who don't recognize your lies for what they are.

Once again - if thats all you see - you missed it.

I spelled it out for you - maybe you think you are making points - but you have wasted two days of my time..

Count that as your victory... you can have it.

good night.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 03:17:18 AM
Just simple "embarrassment" as I said before.

You can change your log in - but you will always know.

That's all.

Wayne
You may one day be changing your outerwear for the color orange.  Whether you do or not, we already know what you are and who you are.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 03:18:59 AM
Once again - if thats all you see - you missed it.

I spelled it out for you - maybe you think you are making points - but you have wasted two days of my time..

Count that as your victory... you can have it.

good night.
Once again the liar who said he was done her a month ago speaks again.  You have done more than you can imagine.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 03:23:11 AM
That is a false assumption.
It is Mondrasek's stipulation.  It doesn't matter if it is false or not.  It is his required hypothetical starting point.  The results follow from that requirement.  If you want to set-up a somewhat similar problem with different stipulations, you are free to do so.
Quote

Your spreadsheet shows head differences between the inside and outside water columns for the risers and the pod.  This difference in height represents a positive force of buoyancy, your own work is showing that, and that is for all 3 risers and the pod.

Since that force is there by your own work then the analysis is not complete and the risers and pod must move further to bring those forces back to a net zero.

If I had presented this to you, you would be saying the same thing.  You would point out that all I allowed for was the volume change and that I have not accounted for all of the forces within the system.

Your own spreadsheet shows an increase in stored energy within the water,

3.412mj state 1
3.963mj end of state 3
You're not paying very good attention Webby.  In going from State 1 to State 3 we added 2.441cc of water and paid 2.011mJ to do so.  There would be a real problem if at the end of State 3 we had less energy than in State 1.  But since we don't there is no problem.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 03:35:11 AM
Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.

Thanks
Why? This thread is not about me, and I have made no claims within it, other than that you do not have what you said you have, years ago now.

And it would be trivial for you to put me in my place, if you did have it. All you would have to do is to show it. But you can't, and we both know why.

You do not have an actual, physical "self running machine" that requires no input, has no exhaust and produces excess energy over and above that Zero figure you claim it takes to run it.  You most especially cannot construct one that has 50 kW "net" output, with no input, that runs along happily and quietly so as not to disturb the choir practice over at TBC.... no matter how much money someone might be going to give you.

Again, it would be trivially simple to prove me wrong. Just show the tabletop selfrunning water pump. It doesn't even have to make any useful output, I will be happy to eat my  Heron's Fountain...er, chocolate Stetson based on seeing that. But it really should run longer than my self-running Heron's Fountain, to be fair, don't you think? So let's say four hours. Many of us have watched less interesting four hour live demonstrations on YouTube and Google Hangout. Set up your transparent selfpowered selfrunning tabletop waterpump and put a webcam on it, and let it drip....er, rip. 

But you and I both know that you won't be doing this, and we both know exactly why not.

By the way, did you happen to read, on the first page of this website, the "Welcome" banner? Here's what it says:
Quote
Welcome to OverUnity.com
[/size]
The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum[/c]
(emphasis mine)
Now, just what part of "Open Source" is unclear to you?
 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 04:22:15 AM
Item of interest:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 04, 2014, 04:30:15 AM
Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.

Thanks


Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed.  This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college.  Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs.  It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource.  If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming.  Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims.  Now it seems that the math is not on your side.  Nor is general laws of physics.  Now may be a good time to get into another racket.

Bill
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 04:32:07 AM
Item of interest:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/)

 ??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 04:41:49 AM

Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed.  This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college.  Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs.  It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource.  If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming.  Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims.  Now it seems that the math is not on your side.  Nor is general laws of physics.  Now may be a good time to get into another racket.

Bill

Hey Bill

Well, 'fossil fuels' is the term used in society. Until they change that, I think we all know what it means. ;) Not sure its something to make a fuss about. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 04:45:36 AM
There is no problem with the starting point being a net zero, no lift, no sink no nothing.
If you accept that stipulation then State 3 as shown follows.  So choose to accept the stipulation or reject it for say the fact that it still displaces a fluid with a higher density than the displacing volume.  In the latter case you have changed the problem definition and a different outcome will result.
Quote

It is your ending point that is a problem, there is lift left within the system and this means that it is not back to a net zero that it started from, in respect to the forces acting on the risers and pod.
No there is no problem with the end point.  It conforms to the physics from the state starting point.  All of the energy in and out, and lost is properly accounted for, as is the change in position of each of the constituent materials.  You are of course free to perform your own work up and show your work as I have shown mine.
Quote

Please explain how you can do an energy analysis where you do not have a full cycle, from a starting condition back to that very same condition, that would be no forces acting on the risers and pod that are not balanced and zero if that starting point was a balanced and zero condition.
Since we have the states, we can go between them all day long.  Which states would you like to define as a cycle?  A S2 => S3 => S2 cycle does no work but requires 1.5mJ external work each cycle.  An S1 => S2 => S3 => S2 => S1 cycle suffers the same loss per cycle.
Quote

You MUST let the risers and pod move a further distance to balance those existing forces back to zero.  You will find that AR7 goes below AR6 and then that negative buoyancy will counter the positive buoyancy from the other 2 risers and pod. 
You remain very, very confused.  Under the stipulation that Mondrasek set, the net up force is zero in State 3.  You must reject Mondrasek's stipulation of State 1 to reach a different set of conditions for State 3.  And here's the spoiler alert again:  That results in lost energy too.  Why?  Because the inane, insipidly stupid scheme causes there to be variable dense fluid column heights.  Get rid of the "air" and the whole buoyancy stupidity and the scheme gets much more efficient.  But then it would not be a ZED anymore, would it?  The best performing ZED is no ZED at all.
Quote

In YOUR spreadsheet there is still a buoyant force in place that has NO counter force to stop it, hence your analysis is not complete.
Kindly point to the cell where you find that.
Quote

If I have a cup sitting in water where the water level inside the cup is 19mm below the outside water level what is it, a sink or a float, which way will it move with nothing to stop it from moving.  All of the risers and the pod have an outside water level above the inside level, well the pod is sealed so that is just water up the outside of a weightless item,, which way will they move if there is nothing holding them still.
By your observation you must then object to the Wayne Travis approved State 1 stipulation by Mondrasek.  Again:  Choose a different set of starting stipulations and get a different result.
Quote

This is the condition you have left your setup in, with nothing to stop things from moving they will move.
Again, you are free to create your own model following the stated stipulations and see where you get.
Quote

Either let the risers and pod move a further distance or show what is stopping them from doing so.
I have explained it many times to you.  If you accept the State 1 stipulation then the system is stable with no unbalanced force in State 3 as shown.  If you reject the State 1 stipulation then we can work the problem to yield a result that you may find more satisfying.  But that will not be the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 04:47:50 AM
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.

Mags
In fact Wayne Travis has insisted here that he is fully funded and is not seeking additional investments.  That's good news for HER/Zydro, because if he were courting a new investor, one look at his behavior here would likely be very repellant.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 04, 2014, 05:17:05 AM
Hey Bill

Well, 'fossil fuels' is the term used in society. Until they change that, I think we all know what it means. ;) Not sure its something to make a fuss about. ;D

Mags

Mags:

Exactly correct.  It is a term used (incorrectly) in society and we, can change that using facts.  It is the global warming crowd that uses this term (your word "They") and ignorance can only be changed through education.  I cringe every time I hear this term and, I will bet that Wayne does not know the reality behind it.

Bill
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 05:34:57 AM

Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed.  This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college.  Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs.  It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource.  If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming.  Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims.  Now it seems that the math is not on your side.  Nor is general laws of physics.  Now may be a good time to get into another racket.

Bill

I used it as a blanket term - intended to mean - power that included emissions.

Thanks for the correction

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 05:42:39 AM
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.

Mags

I was originally invited to share our discovery.

Several members assumed - I must be this or that...

That's all there is to any of that.

I took time from my work to return because several men who built systems and tested our claims - asked to give O/U.com one more chance.

If I must have a motive other than respecting hard work and Due diligence - it is to let other inventors know - the oppression that a few here on this web site pour out daily - has no real value.

Keep researching, keep discovering, keep asking the questions.

That is what leads to the advancement of real discovery.

Wayne


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 05:43:39 AM
Mags:

Exactly correct.  It is a term used (incorrectly) in society and we, can change that using facts.  It is the global warming crowd that uses this term (your word "They") and ignorance can only be changed through education.  I cringe every time I hear this term and, I will bet that Wayne does not know the reality behind it.

Bill

Hey Bill

Even though oil is renewable, it is a problem in many ways. Not many talk about the gulf BP spill much anymore, but the HUGE issues of it are far from gone. Also, look up how harmful diesel fumes are. Seriously bad. 
But for now, it is what we use most. Sad.  Dont even get me started on Nuclear..   ;)

I just didnt quite understand your argument with his statement. Like most people here advocate ridding the use of oil for hopeful alternatives. Its this why 'most' of us are here?  ;)

Like TKs Ponzi link. If Wayne has an investor, and isnt asking for more, then where is the ponzi scheme?   ;) Has there been complaints from his investors presented here? ::)

Just seems like drawing a random card from the bowl to throw the next insult.

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 05:53:28 AM

Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed.  This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college.  Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs.  It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource.  If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming.  Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims.  Now it seems that the math is not on your side.  Nor is general laws of physics.  Now may be a good time to get into another racket.

Bill

Hello Pirate,

Don't fall for the "Math is not on our side claim" -

Mark E never presented our process - only a static evaluation and conclusions.

Larry has presented a mathematical representation of our whole process, he showed how one layer is less than 70% effecient - and that three layers in a dual recycling system - as designed to operate - provides Net energy.

He also provide the basis to understand that Buoyancy - in standard utilization is very inefficient.... but when layered - can rival a hydraulic cylinder action - and retain the Pv - which can be reused.

MarkE earned my thanks when he helped recognize and correct errors - awesome.

MarkE did not disprove our operation or system - only says he has.

I detailed the process - there is no excuse for the misleading - it has been common.

Thanks

Wayne
   
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 06:11:56 AM
I was originally invited to share our discovery.

Several members assumed - I must be this or that...

That's all there is to any of that.

I took time from my work to return because several men who built systems and tested our claims - asked to give O/U.com one more chance.

If I must have a motive other than respecting hard work and Due diligence - it is to let other inventors know - the oppression that a few here on this web site poor out daily - has no real value.

Keep researching, keep discovering, keep asking the questions.

That is what leads to the advancement of real discovery.

Wayne

Hey Wayne

Long time since we chatted last.

My post was a bit of sarcasm. ;)   I KNOW that you have not asked for any investments from anyone here. ;) I was just fishing for some clear reasons for the comments.

Webby and Larry and who ever else is doing work on this, its too bad there is more negative posts than they care to be bothered with. I would be very frustrated. Its not like they asked for help from these guys. I guess it just the way things are today. People dont like people doing their own thing and need to occupy their time with page after page of argument. No wonder nothing gets done around here. ::) ;)

I guess Mark was exclaiming that why give away the idea if there is an investor. Wouldnt the investor disapprove?  I cant answer that for him.

Anyway, hope things work out for the builders. its not a simple task.

Mags

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 04, 2014, 06:15:06 AM
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  - Edmund Burke

Those are very wise words that everyone should seriously contemplate.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 06:23:18 AM
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  - Edmund Burke

Those are very wise words that everyone should seriously contemplate.

 ::)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 06:27:58 AM
I was originally invited to share our discovery.

Several members assumed - I must be this or that...

That's all there is to any of that.

I took time from my work to return because several men who built systems and tested our claims - asked to give O/U.com one more chance.

If I must have a motive other than respecting hard work and Due diligence - it is to let other inventors know - the oppression that a few here on this web site pour out daily - has no real value.

Keep researching, keep discovering, keep asking the questions.

That is what leads to the advancement of real discovery.

Wayne
That's funny because you have no discovery.  You make claims to discoveries that do not exist.  You have not discovered a means to extract free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights.  Yet, you continue to insist that you do.  You have not discovered a way to make gravity behave non-conservatively.  Yet, you continue to insist that you do.  You have not discovered a "mechanical energy amplifying system".  Neither do have any means to produce "supply endless and abundant clean Energy".  Those are just blatant lies you tell in search of a buck.  Does Jesus approve of such behavior?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 06:32:01 AM
Hello Pirate,

Don't fall for the "Math is not on our side claim" -

Mark E never presented our process - only a static evaluation and conclusions.

Larry has presented a mathematical representation of our whole process, he showed how one layer is less than 70% effecient - and that three layers in a dual recycling system - as designed to operate - provides Net energy.

He also provide the basis to understand that Buoyancy - in standard utilization is very inefficient.... but when layered - can rival a hydraulic cylinder action - and retain the Pv - which can be reused.

MarkE earned my thanks when he helped recognize and correct errors - awesome.

MarkE did not disprove our operation or system - only says he has.

I detailed the process - there is no excuse for the misleading - it has been common.

Thanks

Wayne
 
Wayne Travis math and physics are not on your side.  A series of lossy processes only results in greater loss.  You have yet to identify that non-existent process that makes up for all the losses in your inane contraption and yields the net over unity result.  It's rather obvious why you don't identify it:  No such process exists.

Yes, there is no reason for you to continue in your attempts to mislead people.  Yet you continue to do that.  Why is that Wayne?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 06:35:16 AM
That's funny because you have no discovery.  You make claims to discoveries that do not exist.  You have not discovered a means to extract free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights.  Yet, you continue to insist that you do.  You have not discovered a way to make gravity behave non-conservatively.  Yet, you continue to insist that you do.  You have not discovered a "mechanical energy amplifying system".  Neither do have any means to produce "supply endless and abundant clean Energy".  Those are just blatant lies you tell in search of a buck.  Does Jesus approve of such behavior?

Again, saying he is asking for a buck.   ???    Please show me where he is asking anyone here for money!!!   You cannot.  So you are the liar.  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 04, 2014, 06:36:00 AM
Hey Wayne

Long time since we chatted last.

My post was a bit of sarcasm. ;)   I KNOW that you have not asked for any investments from anyone here. ;) I was just fishing for some clear reasons for the comments.

Webby and Larry and who ever else is doing work on this, its too bad there is more negative posts than they care to be bothered with. I would be very frustrated. Its not like they asked for help from these guys. I guess it just the way things are today. People dont like people doing their own thing and need to occupy their time with page after page of argument. No wonder nothing gets done around here. ::) ;)

I guess Mark was exclaiming that why give away the idea if there is an investor. Wouldnt the investor disapprove?  I cant answer that for him.

Anyway, hope things work out for the builders. its not a simple task.

Mags


Thanks, Mags,


So insightful, statements like yours help me to deal with the ignorance of those with less system comprehension ability.


Larry



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 06:40:22 AM

Thanks, Mags,


So insightful, statements like yours help me to deal with the ignorance of those with less system comprehension ability.


Larry
Have you built any working perpetual motion machines lately?  I didn't think so.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 04, 2014, 06:46:57 AM
Exactly.  Let's see a brazen person that's contributing to this thread post a clip of their own working over unity hydraulic bucket brigade unto itself.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 06:49:14 AM

Thanks, Mags,


So insightful, statements like yours help me to deal with the ignorance of those with less system comprehension ability.


Larry

No prob.  Heck, I get tired of trying to shuffle through that crap just to read any substance of a thread. There are many threads here that are beat to a pulp continuously, ALL DAY LONG.

Stefan NEEDS to make private threads for those that request them. Its being done on other forums. Sometimes there just needs to be some isolation from all the negativity in order to get things done. And if at the end of the day, the project doesnt work then so beit. These are the choices WE make to work on projects, only to have to explain ourselves day in and day out. Sick of it.

Anyway, good work you guys. And I hope it pans out for you. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 04, 2014, 06:51:25 AM
Exactly.  Let's see a brazen person that's contributing to this thread post a clip of their own working over unity hydraulic bucket brigade unto itself.

I vote for Mark E's brick.  So far, that is showing the most promise.  No investors needed either.

Bill
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 06:53:41 AM
Hey Wayne

Long time since we chatted last.

My post was a bit of sarcasm. ;)   I KNOW that you have not asked for any investments from anyone here. ;) I was just fishing for some clear reasons for the comments.

Webby and Larry and who ever else is doing work on this, its too bad there is more negative posts than they care to be bothered with. I would be very frustrated. Its not like they asked for help from these guys. I guess it just the way things are today. People dont like people doing their own thing and need to occupy their time with page after page of argument. No wonder nothing gets done around here. ::) ;)

I guess Mark was exclaiming that why give away the idea if there is an investor. Wouldnt the investor disapprove?  I cant answer that for him.

Anyway, hope things work out for the builders. its not a simple task.

Mags

Thanks Mag,

Wouldn't the investor Disapprove?

Yes - and every one of my family members  disapprove - because of the way people are treated here - by a few.

I owed it to the builders, inventors and the engineers that helped us since I first posted here.

We are a team.

We are very well protected.

Also, Our intention is to work together with like minded people - I just have to put up with - garbage out's - sometimes.

Again, Thank you.




Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 06:56:50 AM
No prob.  Heck, I get tired of trying to shuffle through that crap just to read any substance of a thread. There are many threads here that are beat to a pulp continuously, ALL DAY LONG.

Stefan NEEDS to make private threads for those that request them. Its being done on other forums. Sometimes there just needs to be some isolation from all the negativity in order to get things done. And if at the end of the day, the project doesnt work then so beit. These are the choices WE make to work on projects, only to have to explain ourselves day in and day out. Sick of it.

Anyway, good work you guys. And I hope it pans out for you. ;)

Mags
No amount of positive attitude will alter the way that nature works.  When it comes to the acceleration of masses towards one another known as gravity, that behavior is entirely conservative.

Go ahead and put aside the fact that the conservative nature of gravity doomed HER/Zydro's claims the moment they came up with them.  Investigate to your heart's content each of the things they say that they do that they claim are unusual and see how each of those things:  helps, hurts, or has no net effect on efficiency.  Please discuss any mechanism that you think offers a benefit compared to a brick.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 07:00:03 AM
Wayne Travis math and physics are not on your side.  A series of lossy processes only results in greater loss.  You have yet to identify that non-existent process that makes up for all the losses in your inane contraption and yields the net over unity result.  It's rather obvious why you don't identify it:  No such process exists.

Yes, there is no reason for you to continue in your attempts to mislead people.  Yet you continue to do that.  Why is that Wayne?

MarkE -

I have tried to be respectful even as you spew garbage continually - and I shared a NET Energy System with you.

Maybe looking for overunity limited your math - I never claimed Magical free energy - I accepted that a few puppets could not tell the difference and let it go.

All of our systems Energy input - reuses- and Net can be accounted for properly - that does not require Over unity.

........

Hence the term - Non conservative process.

MarkE I did not want you to miss it, sorry again.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 07:01:33 AM
Thanks Mag,

Wouldn't the investor Disapprove?
How do investors feel about you selling them a bunch of lies?
Quote

Yes - and every one of my family members  disapprove - because of the way people are treated here - by a few.
Are all your family members who originally invested still in?  Do they all want to stay invested?  Or are their a lot of prayers for a buyout investor in Chickasha these days?
Quote

I owed it to the builders, inventors and the engineers that helped us since I first posted here.

We are a team.
If the day comes you might be surprised how many might ask to sever any court action.
Quote

We are very well protected.

Also, Our intention is to work together with like minded people - I just have to put up with - garbage out's - sometimes.
'Tis the way of the cult.
Quote

Again, Thank you.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 07:06:56 AM
How do investors feel about you selling them a bunch of lies?Are all your family members who originally invested still in?  Do they all want to stay invested?  Or are their a lot of prayers for a buyout investor in Chickasha these days?If the day comes you might be surprised how many might ask to sever any court action.'Tis the way of the cult.

One other person went on a mad rampage like this last time he couldn't control the conversation, I was told that you and he were the same person.

MH backed up the other guy as well - the whole time....

I am now convinced you are one and the same. - if not - no distinction.

You have earned block.

Good bye.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 07:12:12 AM
I vote for Mark E's brick.  So far, that is showing the most promise.  No investors needed either.

Bill

Cmon Bill. Ive always seen you a impartial here. Whats the beef?  Did Wayne ask you for money? Does he give you grief?  Did he crash your party????? What then?  Delightment? ???

So go and make a brick thread if it shows so much promise. ;)   These guys are not running around this forum telling one and all to come see the glorious pump. Their are just doing their thing, and you guys have a problem with that.

Well if that just the way its going to be around here, maybe its not a good place for people to come to. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)   Im sure Stefan would like to have less people come here. ::) ::) ::) ::)

Lets just run everyone out of here so you all can be satisfied?????? ;)   I guess thats the goal. If not, its just to make everyone miserable then. Still no better.  Of all, I always considered you better than that. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 07:14:44 AM
MarkE -

I have tried to be respectful even as you spew garbage continually - and I shared a NET Energy System with you.

Maybe looking for overunity limited your math - I never claimed Magical free energy - I accepted that a few puppets could not tell the difference and let it go.
Yet you do in fact claim free energy.  And your claims are in fact false.
Quote

All of our systems Energy input - reuses- and Net can be accounted for properly - that does not require Over unity.
Oh I absolutely agree that all the energy can be accounted, and that is where your machinery fails to deliver on your false claims.
Quote

........

Hence the term - Non conservative process.
Hence your false claims.

MarkE I did not want you to miss it, sorry again.[/quote]Do you think I have missed your lies?  Why would you think that?
Quote

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 04, 2014, 07:17:12 AM
Cmon Bill. Ive always seen you a impartial here. Whats the beef?  Did Wayne ask you for money? Does he give you grief?  Did he crash your party? ??? ? What then?  Delightment? ???

So go and make a brick thread if it shows so much promise. ;)   These guys are not running around this forum telling one and all to come see the glorious pump. Their are just doing their thing, and you guys have a problem with that.

Well if that just the way its going to be around here, maybe its not a good place for people to come to. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)   Im sure Stefan would like to have less people come here. ::) ::) ::) ::)

Lets just run everyone out of here so you all can be satisfied? ??? ?? ;)   I guess thats the goal. If not, its just to make everyone miserable then. Still no better.  Of all, I always considered you better than that. ;)

Mags

Geeze Mags, lighten up a bit over there.  Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc.

Do YOU not see anything wrong with this?  If you don't, I don't know what to tell you.

Bill
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 07:21:39 AM
One other person went on a mad rampage like this last time he couldn't control the conversation, I was told that you and he were the same person.

MH backed up the other guy as well - the whole time....

I am now convinced you are one and the same. - if not - no distinction.

You have earned block.

Good bye.
You seem convinced of many things. For instance you might actually get away with selling lies to your investors.  Then again, maybe you will face consequences for your actions.  Only time will tell.  Who am I.  I am me and no one else.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 07:24:00 AM
No amount of positive attitude will alter the way that nature works.  When it comes to the acceleration of masses towards one another known as gravity, that behavior is entirely conservative.

Go ahead and put aside the fact that the conservative nature of gravity doomed HER/Zydro's claims the moment they came up with them.  Investigate to your heart's content each of the things they say that they do that they claim are unusual and see how each of those things:  helps, hurts, or has no net effect on efficiency.  Please discuss any mechanism that you think offers a benefit compared to a brick.

So what.  Why cant these guys figure things out on their own??? They did not ask for your help, but you give and give and give till the pages turn one after another like you are the forum police.

So youve said it all in this post. But you will be here again and again and again and again. FOR FREAKIN WHAT!!!!!!!  Again and again.  Like some concentration camp. 

Larry Wayne and Webby.  If you want, I can get you set up with a private thread in another forum if you wish. Cuz this is nothing but a brick in the face day in and day out.  Leme know. ;)   

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 07:24:35 AM
Again, saying he is asking for a buck.   ???    Please show me where he is asking anyone here for money!!!   You cannot.  So you are the liar.  ;)

Mags
"Our Mission at Z.E. is to build and license ..."

They are selling.  You can choose to see it or not.  Dennis Lee made great coin selling licenses and franchises in worthless junk himself.  Dennis has been shut down multiple times and even gone to jail.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 07:30:13 AM
Cmon Bill. Ive always seen you a impartial here. Whats the beef?  Did Wayne ask you for money? Does he give you grief?  Did he crash your party????? What then?  Delightment? ???

So go and make a brick thread if it shows so much promise. ;)   These guys are not running around this forum telling one and all to come see the glorious pump. Their are just doing their thing, and you guys have a problem with that.

Well if that just the way its going to be around here, maybe its not a good place for people to come to. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)   Im sure Stefan would like to have less people come here. ::) ::) ::) ::)

Lets just run everyone out of here so you all can be satisfied?????? ;)   I guess thats the goal. If not, its just to make everyone miserable then. Still no better.  Of all, I always considered you better than that. ;)

Mags
Since when have false claims done anything but harm research?  Every huckster who sells lies discourages investment in genuine research. 

Wayne and company have had years to come up with evidence to support their false claims.  They never have.  Please explain how their creating false hope in tipping buckets of water has contributed to your knowledge or anyone else's knowledge.  Are you happy about all the money that investors have given to Wayne for his false claims?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 07:33:48 AM
So what.  Why cant these guys figure things out on their own??? They did not ask for your help, but you give and give and give till the pages turn one after another like you are the forum police.

So youve said it all in this post. But you will be here again and again and again and again. FOR FREAKIN WHAT!!!!!!!  Again and again.  Like some concentration camp. 

Larry Wayne and Webby.  If you want, I can get you set up with a private thread in another forum if you wish. Cuz this is nothing but a brick in the face day in and day out.  Leme know. ;)   

Mags
Do you suffer under the delusion that Wayne believes what he claims?  Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims?  Do you think that he has ever demonstrated to himself or anyone else what he has claimed to have for years?

This thread was set up by Mondrasek to analyze his problem as he set it up.  So far it appears that I am the only one who has done that. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 07:46:36 AM
Geeze Mags, lighten up a bit over there.  Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc.

Do YOU not see anything wrong with this?  If you don't, I don't know what to tell you.

Bill

"Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc."

You have built it? And you have shown it does not work??? Has Mark? Has MH?  Bah, he never builds anything yet knows it all in 10 sec of looking at it, right? Well, I dont follow the 10 sec diagnosis bullony.  Just the mention of OU and the 'no it isnt' comes without the 'work' to prove it. Thats so easy. I wish I had that job. Boring but probably pays ok. ;)

You guys can talk all you want. But you never prove that it doesnt work, just state whats in the books, all in a tight little box.


So what if Wayne has an investor. As long as its not you or your Mom, what do you care? People get investments all the time.  Sure some people get ripped off. But man you better be able to back up your statements of lies, thievery, ponzi, criminality. Wayne is not making the argument, you are. He is giving only what he said he would give, and the 2 people that are interested are being persecuted for doing what they want to do, and you have a problem with that??? So put up your numbers and show your non working device, then I will listen.  Meanwhile, why cant these 3 guys hang out and discuss what they want in peace??? No?? They must pay for their deeds!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Mags

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 07:52:35 AM
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.

Mags

He is "fully funded". Money from new investors has been used to buy out or service interest obligations of older original investors. Check the WIKI for what that system is called.

Bu you might well ask yourself what he IS doing here, since we are an insignificant internet forum and every second he spends here is a second that he is not spending saving the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. Personally I think he is trying to build credibility and interest, just like in the old locked thread, and when he sees that he cannot meet the challenges from people here.... he will again ask Stefan to lock the thread, or perhaps he'll just go away. Mad. After all, when you have a self-running machine, even a "5 hp net" one.... people will find out and will come and take a look. People like DIA, CIA, Mossad, NKVD, you name it. Free energy from a device that can run itself has immediate and game-changing military applications, as I have pointed out before. The mere fact that Travis is posting his nonsense here and can't wait to get back on after his dinner, is very strong evidence that nobody, really, is interested in him except some people he's charmed the pants off...er, I mean charmed the wallets out of. They are paying for his "expectations" and his projected milestone dates, with the hope that Wayne will _someday_ be able to translate his fantasy into reality. This milestone day will never come. It will be next month, next week or even tomorrow... but tomorrow something else will prevent the current prototype from continuing to "run" once the Flow Assist stops being put in from outside.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 07:57:14 AM
Do you suffer under the delusion that Wayne believes what he claims?  Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims?  Do you think that he has ever demonstrated to himself or anyone else what he has claimed to have for years?

This thread was set up by Mondrasek to analyze his problem as he set it up.  So far it appears that I am the only one who has done that.

I suffer having to hop over your endless bickering posts to read real subject matter of what the thread is actually about.


"Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims?"

Show me proof of your statement..  You act like you are telling a truth here. Show me the paperwork on that Mark. Proof.  You cant.   What does that make you??? A guesser? ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 08:02:09 AM
One other person went on a mad rampage like this last time he couldn't control the conversation, I was told that you and he were the same person.

MH backed up the other guy as well - the whole time....

I am now convinced you are one and the same. - if not - no distinction.

You have earned block.

Good bye.

That little bit of paranoia and denial of reality earns a ROFL for sure.

Don't worry, MarkE, Travis's "Block" is transparent. I'm on his "block" list too. He will always peek around the block and he will always never answer the direct question that Minnie has so politely asked.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 08:02:51 AM
"Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc."

You have built it? And you have shown it does not work??? Has Mark? Has MH?  Bah, he never builds anything yet knows it all in 10 sec of looking at it, right? Well, I dont follow the 10 sec diagnosis bullony.  Just the mention of OU and the 'no it isnt' comes without the 'work' to prove it. Thats so easy. I wish I had that job. Boring but probably pays ok. ;)
When each of the constituent elements of a process is underunity, the entire process is underunity.  The Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek "ideal ZED" is quite lossy. 
Quote

You guys can talk all you want. But you never prove that it doesnt work, just state whats in the books, all in a tight little box.
Please tell me that you aren't going to argue from ignorance.
Quote


So what if Wayne has an investor. As long as its not you or your Mom, what do you care? People get investments all the time.  Sure some people get ripped off. But man you better be able to back up your statements of lies, thievery, ponzi, criminality.
I refer you to the Acts 1933 and 1934 for the required standard.  As to the science, see the analysis.
Quote

 Wayne is not making the argument, you are. He is giving only what he said he would give, and the 2 people that are interested are being persecuted for doing what they want to do, and you have a problem with that??? So put up your numbers and show your non working device, then I will listen.
I have put up my numbers.  Where are yours?
Quote
  Meanwhile, why cant these 3 guys hang out and discuss what they want in peace??? No?? They must pay for their deeds!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Mondrasek invited the analysis.  When I provided a sufficient one he objected and "insisted" on more, despite that the physics for the additional step was already established.  Even so, I provided that as well.  What have you provided?
Quote

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 08:09:27 AM
He is "fully funded". Money from new investors has been used to buy out or service interest obligations of older original investors. Check the WIKI for what that system is called.

Bu you might well ask yourself what he IS doing here, since we are an insignificant internet forum and every second he spends here is a second that he is not spending saving the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. Personally I think he is trying to build credibility and interest, just like in the old locked thread, and when he sees that he cannot meet the challenges from people here.... he will again ask Stefan to lock the thread, or perhaps he'll just go away. Mad. After all, when you have a self-running machine, even a "5 hp net" one.... people will find out and will come and take a look. People like DIA, CIA, Mossad, NKVD, you name it. Free energy from a device that can run itself has immediate and game-changing military applications, as I have pointed out before. The mere fact that Travis is posting his nonsense here and can't wait to get back on after his dinner, is very strong evidence that nobody, really, is interested in him except some people he's charmed the pants off...er, I mean charmed the wallets out of. They are paying for his "expectations" and his projected milestone dates, with the hope that Wayne will _someday_ be able to translate his fantasy into reality. This milestone day will never come. It will be next month, next week or even tomorrow... but tomorrow something else will prevent the current prototype from continuing to "run" once the Flow Assist stops being put in from outside.

Hey T

"Personally I think he is trying to build credibility and interest,"

But thats is only your opinion. Cmon T.  You have stated your ground on this many times. Why beat it into a pulp?  Cant we let them do their thing, at no cost to them(or you, except by your choice) except that they have interest in doing so, even beyond all the speculatory bashing?  Its not like they are being deterred by it all. So why all the constant pressure?? 

Its not like Wayne is Rose talking about your pickle or calling you Brian Little and all that jazz. lol 

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 08:10:00 AM
@Magluvin: 

Please take a careful look at the attached PowerPoint presentation. Be sure to check the "properties" so you can see who made it and when it was made.

Pay particular attention to little things like Slide 26. This PowerPoint was presented to a group of prospective investors that Travis was courting. As far as I can tell, NONE of them bought in at that time. I could be wrong but that is how I remember it. I'm sure Wayne ol boy will be happy to correct me about that if I am wrong and someone actually _did_ invest based on the info in the PowerPoint.

Yet they had the full faith and charm of Travis himself, the demonstration models, all the rest of it to look at. And now... to this day.... even though he is fully funded.... there is no self running 50 kW Zed plant at the Trinity Baptist Church.

Now ask yourself "why not?"

I know why not, and you do too.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 08:14:01 AM
I suffer having to hop over your endless bickering posts to read real subject matter of what the thread is actually about.


"Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims?"

Show me proof of your statement..  You act like you are telling a truth here. Show me the paperwork on that Mark. Proof.  You cant.   What does that make you??? A guesser? ;)

Mags
This is the second time that you have falsely accused me of being unable to back up my statements.  What does that make you other than wrong?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 08:15:29 AM
That little bit of paranoia and denial of reality earns a ROFL for sure.

Don't worry, MarkE, Travis's "Block" is transparent. I'm on his "block" list too. He will always peek around the block and he will always never answer the direct question that Minnie has so politely asked.
He has no facts on his side, so what else can he do than resort to theatrics?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 04, 2014, 08:19:43 AM
Alright, I gota get some sleep. What did we blow away, 2, 3 pages?? 

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 08:31:24 AM
Alright, I gota get some sleep. What did we blow away, 2, 3 pages?? 

Mags
It's hard to say.  But if you ever want to get back to the topic of the thread, I am happy to discuss the analysis.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 04, 2014, 09:26:38 AM



 Hi,
    my analysis says that you get out exactly what you put in if you don't
  have any losses. The word "equation" should give you a clue!
                                         John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 10:46:10 AM


 Hi,
    my analysis says that you get out exactly what you put in if you don't
  have any losses. The word "equation" should give you a clue!
                                         John.
All equations are equal.  Some are more equal than others.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 04, 2014, 02:27:43 PM
Mark, thanks for pointing out the contradictions in Wayne's claims.  It's almost sad that Wayne can get away with that verbage where he claims that he is "explaining" how his system allegedly works and almost nobody complains.  He doesn't get away with it completely though, some people can recognize it for the nonsense that it is.

I am certainly not you, that's for sure, I am my own person.  Nor am I being paid by anybody, that's ridiculous.

I make a thought experiment.  I think of some well-meaning couple that may have sunk their life's savings into Wayne's fake proposition.  Chances are they will never see that money again.  It may take away the funds that they wanted to use to finance their son's or daughter's college education and now that dream is lost.  It's lost because they fell hook, line, and sinker for Wayne's nonsense.  Their children get hurt because of this, and the confidence artist does not care.  I care.

Even though it's all purely a hypothetical, nothing more than a thought experiment, these things really do happen in real life.  It makes me mad.

Standing up to Wayne and others of his ilk in this thread or elsewhere can make a difference.  Let's assume that there are anonymous lurkers that read threads like this.  Reading here gives them valuable information that they might otherwise not get.  It's takes them out of their investment fantasy delusions and prevents them from handing their life savings over to some con artist.  That's worth a "battle" every now and then, and note that both parties contribute equally to the "battle."

MileHigh
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Marsing on March 04, 2014, 02:52:21 PM

 :o    seven pages in less than 24 hours.  :o
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 03:52:02 PM
He is "fully funded". Money from new investors has been used to buy out or service interest obligations of older original investors. Check the WIKI for what that system is called.

Bu you might well ask yourself what he IS doing here, since we are an insignificant internet forum and every second he spends here is a second that he is not spending saving the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. Personally I think he is trying to build credibility and interest, just like in the old locked thread, and when he sees that he cannot meet the challenges from people here.... he will again ask Stefan to lock the thread, or perhaps he'll just go away. Mad. After all, when you have a self-running machine, even a "5 hp net" one.... people will find out and will come and take a look. People like DIA, CIA, Mossad, NKVD, you name it. Free energy from a device that can run itself has immediate and game-changing military applications, as I have pointed out before. The mere fact that Travis is posting his nonsense here and can't wait to get back on after his dinner, is very strong evidence that nobody, really, is interested in him except some people he's charmed the pants off...er, I mean charmed the wallets out of. They are paying for his "expectations" and his projected milestone dates, with the hope that Wayne will _someday_ be able to translate his fantasy into reality. This milestone day will never come. It will be next month, next week or even tomorrow... but tomorrow something else will prevent the current prototype from continuing to "run" once the Flow Assist stops being put in from outside.

John,

Once again - that is a bull face lie -

First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.

None are disgruntled.

Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.

Third - they first rights ----

and fourh - I gave that power point and explained that the Grant committee sent me to a third Party - hence a new benefactor....

You omit and lie constantly - and have never backed up your objections.

So stop being a liar. Stop doctoring photo - to make more lies, just do the math right.

p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 03:52:53 PM
Mark, thanks for pointing out the contradictions in Wayne's claims.  It's almost sad that Wayne can get away with that verbage where he claims that he is "explaining" how his system allegedly works and almost nobody complains.  He doesn't get away with it completely though, some people can recognize it for the nonsense that it is.

I am certainly not you, that's for sure, I am my own person.  Nor am I being paid by anybody, that's ridiculous.

I make a thought experiment.  I think of some well-meaning couple that may have sunk their life's savings into Wayne's fake proposition.  Chances are they will never see that money again.  It may take away the funds that they wanted to use to finance their son's or daughter's college education and now that dream is lost.  It's lost because they fell hook, line, and sinker for Wayne's nonsense.  Their children get hurt because of this, and the confidence artist does not care.  I care.

Even though it's all purely a hypothetical, nothing more than a thought experiment, these things really do happen in real life.  It makes me mad.

Standing up to Wayne and others of his ilk in this thread or elsewhere can make a difference.  Let's assume that there are anonymous lurkers that read threads like this.  Reading here gives them valuable information that they might otherwise not get.  It's takes them out of their investment fantasy delusions and prevents them from handing their life savings over to some con artist.  That's worth a "battle" every now and then, and note that both parties contribute equally to the "battle."

MileHigh
It takes all kinds.  There are people who toll endlessly some of whom come up with useful inventions and many who do not.  Then there are people who realize that as long as one doesn't care about the consequences to others, there is money in selling dreams for cash.  It's pretty easy to separate the people who genuinely believe in what they are trying to do from the sharpies.  Those who believe in what they are doing are usually anxious to prove they are right, even if they are badly mistaken. 

Sharpies emphasize suggestion over substance.  They constantly reinforce the idea that there is magic behind a curtain.  They attempt to assert authority.  They attempt to make people want to join their secret society.  There is always some secret that only the specially anointed supposedly share.  Part of culling the herd is seeing who will bite on the idea of the cult secret.  If they do, a common technique is to tell them some useless thing and insist that they keep that 'great secret' to themselves.  Suggesting to someone that they hold a secret is a great way to play on people's ego and build loyalty.  Those who cannot be so co-opted aren't good prospects.  This is why we see special private groups and societies formed, be it the Scientologists, LDS, Steorn, or investment undertaker Wayne.

A really skillful sharpie will go to great pains to avoid promising anything direct or tangible.  The best sell senseless imagery like:  getting "clear", or "it".  A few tiers down we have those who make the mistake of promising something specific that they know they can't deliver.  Those are the Dennis Lee's and John Rohner's.  They have some smooth talking skills down well enough, but they just never quite learned the craft well enough to separate people from their cash without promising something identifiable.  These guys typically emulate John Worrell Keely's investor fan dance. They get investors all hot and bothered thinking that they are going to score big, and then it's time to stretch things out.  About the time investors pull out the pitch forks and torches, low and behold some new discovery even better than the last one surfaces and the delay game begins anew.  These second rate sharpies are the ones who get sued and prosecuted from time to time.  The first rate sharpies are rarely ever touched.  They do things like buy naming rights on stadiums.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 03:58:24 PM
John,

Once again - that is a bull face lie -

First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.

Non or disgruntled.

Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.

So stop being a liar.

p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.

Wayne
Nope, you have never been able to, and you never will be able to substantiate your patently false claims:
"First Mechanical Energy Amplifying System"
"the Zydro Energy Device, is... which is a breakthrough in the understandings of physics"
"Our technology produces clean energy Mechanically"
"Our technology ... by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity"
"allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy"

Each and every one of the above claims by you is completely false.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 04:00:17 PM
Nope, you have never been able to, and you never will be able to substantiate your patently false claims:
"First Mechanical Energy Amplifying System"
"the Zydro Energy Device, is... which is a breakthrough in the understandings of physics"
"Our technology produces clean energy Mechanically"
"Our technology ... by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity"
"allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy"

Each and every one of the above claims by you is completely false.

You missed it that's all.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 04:10:51 PM
You missed it that's all.
Nope:  Mechanical amplifiers that use external energy sources are old hat.  Passive energy amplifiers don't exist.  See the First Law of Energy.
There is no new physics that you or anyone in your organization has discovered.  You have gone to pains to misrepresent physics that has been around for over 2000 years.
Your "technology" is an energy sink.  It produces no energy on its own.
You have no means to alter the conservative nature of gravity.  We can set-up a real test for your faithful employees.  Climb on top of a church steeple and utilize your gravity altering technology to make a swan dive to the earth a safe and enjoyable experience.
You have no ability to supply any energy.  Your personal utility bills are testament to that.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 04, 2014, 04:17:21 PM



    Wayne,
              perhaps I missed it too!
                                      John.
      An honest man doesn't tell a lie.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 05:43:32 PM
That particular "honest man" avoids telling lies by not telling the TRUTH.

The current editions of his websites have toned down the free energy claims quite a bit. But the internet never forgets. Use the wayback machine to examine some of the older versions and you will really get an idea. Powercat has preserved many of the broken promises ...er, sorry, ..."expectations not met" that he was making in those old newsletters and on the site itself. Hydro Energy Revolution, I think it was called then.... the operation has even changed its name since then. Why? We know why.

I've never _altered_ any photograph from Travis and for him to accuse me of doing so is an offense. The most I've done is to take a frame from the video, not the same one MarkE showed by the way, and point out another set of elevated wires or cables that appear to me to be from the top of the machine somewhere, going through the air back over to the barn. No ALTERATION was performed by me, I just wanted to know what Travis's explanation was for those wires or cables. It was about then that he started getting really nasty towards me, he denied that what I indicated had anything to do with the (half sick, unbalanced) operation of that machine, but he never did say what they _were_ for, and he's dodged the issue again since MarkE pointed out similar things in another frame.

For him to believe that I am minnie, MarkE and MileHigh, etc, or that I have anything to do with their posts is an easily disprovable paranoid delusion, literally, on the part of Wayne Travis. Who is clearly posting here as LarryC and RedSunset-- right? No, because they at least know how to use spellcheckers and to speak in complete English sentences that make sense.

Give Professor Zaman a call and produce an endorsement from him. But you will not. You will never dare to let real academic engineers with reputations at stake, anywhere near your actual apparatus.

CONTACT INFORMATION : EMAIL: zaman(at)ou.edu PHONE : (405) 325-4536 FAX : (405) 325-7508
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 05:44:29 PM
John,

Once again - that is a bull face lie -

First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.

None are disgruntled.

Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.

Third - they first rights ----

and fourh - I gave that power point and explained that the Grant committee sent me to a third Party - hence a new benefactor....

You omit and lie constantly - and have never backed up your objections.

So stop being a liar. Stop doctoring photo - to make more lies, just do the math right.

p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.

Wayne
John,

Once again - that is a bull face lie -
Are you addressing me? Then I would appreciate it if you would say so.
Are you saying that none of your original investors have wanted out? Then you are lying to me, either now or in the video presentation I've shown a little clip from. Yes, I have the whole thing.

 Or more likely, both.
Quote

First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.

None are disgruntled.
Did I mention your family at all, ever? No, I do not think I have, so your statement there is irrelevant to what I said.
Quote

Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.
You mean that your lawyers have advised you that it is likely illegal for you to _sell him_ those shares.
Quote
Third - they first rights ----
they first rights ---- Is that an English sentence that conveys meaning?
Quote
and fourh - I gave that power point and explained that the Grant committee sent me to a third Party - hence a new benefactor....
And those little red squiggles under your words mean that even your spellchecker objects to your rantings. Hence a new benefactor: a benefactor does not expect return for his benificence. INVESTORS DO.
Quote
You omit and lie constantly - and have never backed up your objections.

So stop being a liar. Stop doctoring photo - to make more lies, just do the math right.

I am not doing math, Travis, and I have never ever "doctored" a photograph other than to provide indicator markings and notations to what is ALREADY THERE. Your accusations against me are false, especially that "never backed up" part, as the record shows.
Quote

p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.

Wayne
No you cannot. You can't even answer Minnie's question. You are lying by omission, you are lying outright, and I don't know how you sleep at night, since you apparently believe in a Higher Power who will eventually be judging us all with a rather final and unappealable judgement.

You have claimed to be able to make a self running machine that produces "net" energy output over and above the "no input energy" required to run it. No input, no exhaust, just "net production" output, your words. You cannot back up this claim with actual data. In fact you have NEVER EVER supplied any actual data, you just repost, what, three or four times now, the exact same non-descriptive logorrhea that you always spout.

Show us the sausages. But you cannot, o Honest, Open-Source Researcher Wayne Travis. Your whole story is the same as the Emperor's New Clothes. Your sycophants don't want to admit that they can't figure out what you are describing, so they  nod their heads and mutter to themselves, yah sure, he's a Christian how could he be lying, he has all these engineers (where, who, where's the paper in an IEEE journal) who agree with him and we'll make a bundle if he ever makes a sausage. So none of them is willing to point the finger and say that there is really nothing there but a naked fat old man prancing about at the head of a parade of blind mice and lemmings.

However, less than an hour's drive away from you, MISTER WAYNE, there is a world-class mechanical engineering school. Let's see an endorsement from someone who has some credibilty in the world of engineering, not some incompetent spreadsheeter that can't even do algebra properly.

The properly executed spreadsheet on a properly constructed theoretical model, which you endorsed, has been demonstrated to be incapable of performing better than a dropped stone.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 05:48:37 PM
Any one who cares, which does not seem to be the author of this spreadsheet, here are a few small numbers from the spreadsheet that "prove" there is still a buoyant lift acting on all the risers and the pod.

ST3AR1HEIGHT   30.005671   mm
ST3AR2AIRHEIGHT   49.650851   mm
ST3AR2HEIGHT   11.349149   mm
ST3AR3HEIGHT   49.365980   mm
STAR4AIRHEIGHT   41.182248   mm
ST3AR4HEIGHT   21.817752   mm
ST3AR5HEIGHT   40.637996   mm
ST3AR6AIRHEIGHT   35.652566   mm
ST3AR6HEIGHT   29.347434   mm
ST3AR7HEIGHT   33.968809   mm

The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance.

If you look at the details you will see that MarkE ONLY included the numbers to support his view,, he did NOT include a complete report nor any supporting numbers against his view.

edit to remove an un-needed inflammatory piece
Webby are you really unaware of the fact that force is not energy:  "The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance."  When the risers are restrained, they do not move.  That's what restrained means.  The spreadsheet fully accounts for the fluid movements during states when the risers are restrained.

You can choose to ignore Mondrasek's stipulation all you want.  Slay that man of straw.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 06:00:38 PM
While all this math analysis is interesting, let's not forget, shall we, where the burden of proof actually lies, and what kind of information is acceptable as proof of Travis's claims. Had he what he claims over and over, here on this Open Source website, he could prove it easily enough, since he has a self running tabletop perpetual water pump. Just show that.

Travis, since you have disclosed your invention publicly already (the patent applications, which by law must include sufficient information so that a person skilled in the art can make one and make it fulfil the claims of the patent application) your "benefactor" cannot prevent you from demonstrating the truth of your claim by showing what is in the patent actually running.

Remember, honest Wayne Travis, the discussions we had back in the old thread, when you repeatedly claimed to have a patent, when you didn't, and I had to show you that it is actually illegal to sell something claiming a patent when there is only an application, not even "patent pending" status? You finally stopped making the "have a patent" claim because of that pressure from me, didn't you. Again, you are following the Steorn (and Ainslie) script exactly on that one.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 06:11:35 PM
Does anyone have an issue with state 1 being a condition where all forces acting on the risers and pod equal zero.
As a matter of fact I do.  But it was a matter of stipulation by Mondrasek.  So, the analysis carries that requirement.
Quote

Does anyone have an issue with the end of state 2 having positive forces acting on the pod and risers, this caused by the addition of water into the pod chamber.
The spreadsheet model agrees that pumping in water while the risers are restrained builds excess head in AR7.
Quote

Does it not make sense then that the pod and risers will move up as the water columns move back to a lower energy state.
I am glad you mentioned that.  Yes, and yes:  The pod and risers do move in the spreadsheet, and that does cost energy taking the system to a lower energy state.  Thanks for acknowledging the loss.
Quote

Does it not make sense that the pod and risers will move until there is no more sum positive force of buoyancy acting on them.
Of course it does.  But how much force and how far depends on the LTI history of the machine.  If you would like to start with a different set of stipulations, such as filling each of the AR pairs to 22mm and then forcing the risers down with the vents open, then you will see a few things:  One of which is that you have to throw away a lot of energy to execute this pre charging step.  The second is that you will have to apply and maintain the restraints at this stage because the bottom of each riser is displacing water.  If you then carry that through State 2 and to State 3, then the equilibrium point occurs around 2.5906mm instead of 1.4688mm.  See: Different constraints yield different answers.  But the character of the answers does not change.  The energy loss going from State 2 to State 3 gets worse increasing from 28.1% to 34.6% of the stored energy at the end of State 2, and losing over 90% of the energy added in State 2.
Quote

Does it not make sense that the pod and risers must be restrained while going from state 1 to end of state 2.
The Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek stipulation removed any requirement to restrain at State 1.  Of course pumping in more fluid in State 2 requires restraint.
Quote

Does it not make sense that that is an applied force.
Energy gets added to the system and the system is restrained.  That's a good recipe to have some stress or strain show up somewhere.
Quote

Does it not make sense that when the pod and risers have stroked until there is no more sum positive force left acting on them that the force to restrain them will drop to zero.
Actually that is a bit backwards.  F=mA.  When the forces come into balance the masses, even the massless ones will stop accelerating.
Quote

Does that not make it then 0.5f*ds, which is the energy output from the pod and risers stroking upwards.
Do you still not understand the difference between linear multiplication and an integral?
Quote

MarkE has not included this restraining energy in his analysis.
How much energy is required to restrain a motionless object?  Please show your work.
Quote

MarkE has stopped the risers and pod lifting while there is still a positive buoyant force acting on them.
Again:  Under the Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek constraint the system reaches equilibrium at 1.4688mm lift.  Remove that constraint and the system comes to equilibrium at 2.5906mm.  Apples and oranges.
Quote

The volume that is needed to be added to the system for the continued movement of the risers and pod comes into the system via AR7, and that is air from the atmosphere which is where the fluid volume from AR7 is moved to when the fluid is added into the pod chamber to go from state 1 to end of state 2, ergo this is an allowed event.
It is a fluid model.  The stipulated incompressible fluids freely move within the confinement.
Quote

MarkE has not explained what is holding the pod and risers from any further movement even tho there is a positive buoyant force acting on them.
There you go again:  You ignore the Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek stipulation.  Why do you keep doing that when it has been clearly stated many times now? 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 06:15:01 PM
You are ignoring things MarkE.  Force and distance,, buoyant lift and all that, the resistance needed to be applied against the risers,, more things you are ignoring.

Since you have required me to include all such things then I am entitled to require the same from you.

Show what is holding the risers and pod from moving while they still have a positive buoyant force acting on them, you can not!
Kindly answer the question Webby:  When you said this:
Quote
The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance.

What did you mean?  Do you really think the restraints that prevent motion impart energy?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 06:26:31 PM
Webby won't don't you try to wrap your arms around this drawing.  See if you agree that given massless, incompressible "air" and massless risers that the risers will happily just rest right on top of the 22mm water columns.  Then let's see if you agree with the calculations of energy that is stored after, and consumed during the process of forcing the risers into the down position, while venting "air" out from under the risers to the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 07:26:36 PM
Here's more mathematical and graphical proof of OU than you will ever see from Wayne Travis.


Not only does the two units of fluid on the right support the entire 13 units on the left, when you remove the two units from the right.... the liquid level only goes down a fraction of that input starting head height. Therefore you have a "net" production that does not reduce the "input" by nearly the same amount.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 08:05:42 PM
Does anyone have an issue with state 1 being a condition where all forces acting on the risers and pod equal zero.

Does anyone have an issue with the end of state 2 having positive forces acting on the pod and risers, this caused by the addition of water into the pod chamber.

Does it not make sense then that the pod and risers will move up as the water columns move back to a lower energy state.

Does it not make sense that the pod and risers will move until there is no more sum positive force of buoyancy acting on them.

Does it not make sense that the pod and risers must be restrained while going from state 1 to end of state 2.

Does it not make sense that that is an applied force.

Does it not make sense that when the pod and risers have stroked until there is no more sum positive force left acting on them that the force to restrain them will drop to zero.

Does that not make it then 0.5f*ds, which is the energy output from the pod and risers stroking upwards.

MarkE has not included this restraining energy in his analysis.

MarkE has stopped the risers and pod lifting while there is still a positive buoyant force acting on them.

The volume that is needed to be added to the system for the continued movement of the risers and pod comes into the system via AR7, and that is air from the atmosphere which is where the fluid volume from AR7 is moved to when the fluid is added into the pod chamber to go from state 1 to end of state 2, ergo this is an allowed event.

MarkE has not explained what is holding the pod and risers from any further movement even tho there is a positive buoyant force acting on them.

Webby,

LOL I have the spam team on block - so I had to go three pages to find a valid post. Yours.

Do you know the original thread was over 200 pages - after several bashers were removed.

That is going to happen here to (the bashers).

Your making a great point - my opinion - the ignorance is on purpose.

Keep Up the actual "thinking".

Larry shows the state of remaining head in his spread sheets as well.

Onward

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
You working banker's hours now Wayne ol boy? Or is Tuesday your golf day?

Kind of cold today isn't it? Did your zeds freeze up yet? How are you keeping warm, I wonder. I've got my feet propped up on an old oscilloscope, for warmth. Of course you are probably using a Zed to warm up your ranchstyle home and your spiffy down town laboratory.

Aren't you?

How are they keeping that big church at TBC warm, I wonder. A nice 50kW electric furnace would probably fill the bill quite well, don't you think?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 08:11:08 PM
Here's a VALID post, Wayne ol boy.

You have claimed that which you do not have. You cannot show your own data or any physical evidence that show you now, or ever did, have what you claim.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 08:23:52 PM
Larry,

Can you show on from one of your Dual three layer ZEDS spreadsheets the:

Of the Hydro assist only - the "Pv in "

and using the work out "load lifted" - converted to the same P and show the new volume.

Thanks

 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 04, 2014, 10:17:54 PM



Hi,
    down on the farm we use plenty of telescopic hydraulic rams, which is essentially a ZED.
    Of course what happens is the pressure ALWAYS operates the largest diameter part
    of the ram first.
        The pod thingy must just act according to Archimedes, the ZED wouldn't do much for
     us as a useful ram because even a pathetic bit of pressure would cause the fluid to
     spill.
        When machines get old and you get slippage in the main pump, when the fluid gets
     warm the whole thing becomes a pain in the arse,dreadfully slow and weak as a kitten.
        Mondrasek probably knows more about ZED's than Wayne himself and his motley crew.
      I've tried hard to find a bit of excess energy,but I can't, so we still need someone to
      show us the way!
         Got to go and feed orphan lambs, hope to find the proof when I come back in.
      Thanks to Mond for starting this, I know you're fed up that it's wandering off topic
      most of the time. Iv'e really enjoyed the ride, especially mrwayne's waffling, he deserves
      an award for rambling on about absolutely nothing,
                                                                       John
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 04, 2014, 10:41:32 PM
Minnie, here is the ZED from MarkE's State 3.  But with only the outer riser represented.  Can it rest in this state?  Or does the Riser need to move up (the air inside is incompressible) until the water level inside and outside are equal height?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 11:33:10 PM
Apples to oranges MarkE.

Push the risers down and that pushes the water up.

What constraint is stopping the pod and risers from lifting further in your state 3 drawing?
Are you still rejecting the Wayne Travis approved stipulation by Mondaresk?
Quote

The water and air are free to move and the pod and risers are weightless.  AR7 allows for outside air to enter the system.

Are you actually saying that the actual total lift of the outside riser would be  2.5906mm if allowed to move freely.
That is what one set of calculations show.  You are free to show work that contends a different answer.
Quote

The lift of the pod and risers will happen even with a 99.9% resistance placed against them, they may move slow but rate has nothing to do with energy, remember.
Excuse me what is a 99.9% resistance and where was it stipulated?
Quote

Again MarkE, what is stopping the pod and risers from lifting, I have shown, and you have shown, that it is not a volume issue, so what is it.
Please answer my question about force.  Do you contend that the restraints that prevent movement impart energy or not?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 04, 2014, 11:33:16 PM



  Hi,
     Mond seeing that the air is incompressible and the riser has no weight it should
     equalise, that's what I think, it ought to move up!
                                               John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 11:37:30 PM
Minnie, here is the ZED from MarkE's State 3.  But with only the outer riser represented.  Can it rest in this state?  Or does the Riser need to move up (the air inside is incompressible) until the water level inside and outside are equal height?
Is the impossibly incompressible air inside also massless? Because the answer depends on that. And note that if the air were real air, compressible and obeying the combined Boyle-Charles law... it would behave completely differently, calling into question Wayne's claim that an incompressible fluid would work in lieu of air.

Also, some pages back mond, you once again said something about how the outside air pressure/volume needed to be considered. I don't think it does, as I said before, because the outside air pressure pushes on the top of the outer water layer with the same pressure no matter how high the level is up in the zed. The outer air, because of its huge volume, is like a "perfectly compressible" fluid: it stores no energy for you because you can "compress" it and its volume doesn't change, and vice versa, because the volume is so huge relative to the slight volume changes you can make with the outer layer of water in a Zed ringwall. I think.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 11:40:18 PM
Minnie, here is the ZED from MarkE's State 3.  But with only the outer riser represented.  Can it rest in this state?  Or does the Riser need to move up (the air inside is incompressible) until the water level inside and outside are equal height?
Let's start with your stipulation that in State 1 there is no uplift.  Is that or is that not your stipulation?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 04, 2014, 11:55:50 PM
Is the impossibly incompressible air inside also massless? Because the answer depends on that. And note that if the air were real air, compressible and obeying the combined Boyle-Charles law... it would behave completely differently, calling into question Wayne's claim that an incompressible fluid would work in lieu of air.

The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.

In fact, using a compressible fluid such as real air causes more losses due to the relationships described in the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT.  The change in V due to P does change the T, by creating heat when compressed.  It is a loss mechanism only and cannot be completely recovered.  So using two incompressible liquids leads to a better performance.  And the bigger the difference between those two fluid's Specific Gravity values, the better.

Also, some pages back mond, you once again said something about how the outside air pressure/volume needed to be considered. I don't think it does, as I said before, because the outside air pressure pushes on the top of the outer water layer with the same pressure no matter how high the level is up in the zed. The outer air, because of its huge volume, is like a "perfectly compressible" fluid: it stores no energy for you because you can "compress" it and its volume doesn't change, and vice versa, because the volume is so huge relative to the slight volume changes you can make with the outer layer of water in a Zed ringwall. I think.

I agree that the outside air pressure/volume does not need to be considered.  Except that the system is open to the outside air and so air can enter and exit the system freely as Pressure and Volume changes inside the system require to satisfy the Volume constraint of each internal fluid to remain constant.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 04, 2014, 11:59:47 PM
Let's start with your stipulation that in State 1 there is no uplift.  Is that or is that not your stipulation?

Of course.  There is no head difference between the ID and OD surface on any riser.  The pod has no water in contact with it at all.  So all risers and the pod are being acted on by zero buoyant Forces.  Also, the sum of the buoyant Forces on all the risers and the pod is exactly zero.  There are zero Forces acting on the system and therefore zero motion would occur.

BTW, this is not a "stipulation."  This is a physical fact derived from the geometry and the assumption of incompressible fluids.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MT on March 05, 2014, 12:04:53 AM
[size=78%]Not only does the two units of fluid on the right support the entire 13 units on the left, when you remove the two units from the right.... the liquid level only goes down a fraction of that input starting head height. Therefore you have a "net" production that does not reduce the "input" by nearly the same amount.[/size]
Hi TK,
I like your OU U-tube but where is OU? You compare force (input head) with work (net production). Recovering initial head will cost same energy you gained.
have a nice day,
MT
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 05, 2014, 12:28:26 AM
MarkE is referencing the surface area of the bottom of the risers being a place where force can be exerted, as well as the volume that the down-tube of the risers occupy.

Webby1, there is no resultant lift Force due to the water pressure on the bottom surface of the risers.  If you tried to push a riser upwards from the bottom surface of the risers you would be defeated by the requirement that the volume of one of the fluids in the system would have to change.  Since that is impossible, there is no resultant lift Force.  The system as drawn is in complete equilibrium.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 01:24:05 AM
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.



What air is being used that is 'incompressible?? ???

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 01:30:13 AM
What air is being used that is 'incompressible?? ???

Mags
The "air" that Mondrasek stipulated as an incompressible, massless fluid is being used in the model.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 05, 2014, 01:34:03 AM
What air is being used that is 'incompressible?? ???

Mags

Mags, we are working through an "Ideal case" Analysis.  So we are neglecting the normal losses dues to friction, compressibility, and surface tension, etc., for now. 

If the Analysis fails to show any possible gains under "Ideal" conditions, there is no way it can ever show gains once those losses are included.

If the Analysis DOES show possible gains under "Ideal" conditions, then we can move on to see if Engineering can minimize the "real world" (less than Ideal) losses to the extent that the gains are not completely lost.

M.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 01:34:06 AM
No movement no energy.
That's a relief.  So what energy were you referring to when you claimed that I did not account for energy of the restraints?
Quote

Do you contend that energy causes movement?
When did I say anything like that?
Quote

Where are your buoyant lift forces in your spreadsheet, where is the buoyant lift from the pod in your spreadsheet?
The water masses are all in the spreadsheet.
Quote

Do you contend that a partially sunk float will not move up?
Mondrasek stipulated as such.  See State 1.
Quote

It is looking to me that what you did in your analysis is a uniform spread of the water volume countered by the weight of the water columns.
Water countered itself???
Quote

Archimedes is dead in the water I think.
Then you aren't thinking very clearly.  Archimedes' Principle dictates the behavior of the always less efficient than a common brick ZED.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 01:35:30 AM
It was not, that was in response to you saying there is no energy to be had from the risers and pod lifting, but there can be if you apply the restraint at a 99.9% value required.  That is just common sense MarkE,, why just waste what you have when you do not need to.
A restraint prevents motion.  It does not create energy.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 01:39:50 AM
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.

In fact, using a compressible fluid such as real air causes more losses due to the relationships described in the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT.  The change in V due to P does change the T, by creating heat when compressed.  It is a loss mechanism only and cannot be completely recovered.  So using two incompressible liquids leads to a better performance. 
That's right, and that's part of the reason that your ZED is an "ideal ZED".  Using air as in a real ZED is less efficient.
Quote
And the bigger the difference between those two fluid's Specific Gravity values, the better.
Nope, the efficiency improves as the SG's converge.  When the SG's are the same, IE the "air" is replaced with water, the losses improve a lot.
Quote

I agree that the outside air pressure/volume does not need to be considered.  Except that the system is open to the outside air and so air can enter and exit the system freely as Pressure and Volume changes inside the system require to satisfy the Volume constraint of each internal fluid to remain constant.
Yes, the "air" is just a fluid that moves back and forth to fill out the volume changes.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 01:49:47 AM
Of course.  There is no head difference between the ID and OD surface on any riser.  The pod has no water in contact with it at all.  So all risers and the pod are being acted on by zero buoyant Forces.  Also, the sum of the buoyant Forces on all the risers and the pod is exactly zero.  There are zero Forces acting on the system and therefore zero motion would occur.

BTW, this is not a "stipulation."  This is a physical fact derived from the geometry and the assumption of incompressible fluids.
I withdraw my objection.  Yes, State 1 is in equilibrium naturally.  I will have to rework the problem on that basis.  It will not however materially change the outcome:  Preparing State 1 is lossy.  State 1 to State 2 is ideally conservative, and State 2 to State 3 is always lossy. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 02:54:37 AM
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.

In fact, using a compressible fluid such as real air causes more losses due to the relationships described in the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT.  The change in V due to P does change the T, by creating heat when compressed.  It is a loss mechanism only and cannot be completely recovered.  So using two incompressible liquids leads to a better performance.  And the bigger the difference between those two fluid's Specific Gravity values, the better.
Well, exactly. So why is Travis using air instead of kerosene or peanut oil? I know why.
Quote

I agree that the outside air pressure/volume does not need to be considered.  Except that the system is open to the outside air and so air can enter and exit the system freely as Pressure and Volume changes inside the system require to satisfy the Volume constraint of each internal fluid to remain constant.
In every drawing I have seen, the outside air does NOT enter the system. The "system boundary" is along the top edge of the outer air column. This boundary moves but is never penetrated unless you blow skirts or overflow the top. The only thing the outside air does is press down on the outer layer of water and it does this with the same force regardless of the column's height (within reason of course. Make a column a mile high and then pressures will change.) The outer air pressure works against your injection of fluid, I think. If it were vacuum out there you would be able to inject the same amount of fluid but with less resistance (less working against the pressure of the outside air.) I think.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 03:09:33 AM
Well, exactly. So why is Travis using air instead of kerosene or peanut oil? I know why.In every drawing I have seen, the outside air does NOT enter the system. The "system boundary" is along the top edge of the outer air column. This boundary moves but is never penetrated unless you blow skirts or overflow the top. The only thing the outside air does is press down on the outer layer of water and it does this with the same force regardless of the column's height (within reason of course. Make a column a mile high and then pressures will change.) The outer air pressure works against your injection of fluid, I think. If it were vacuum out there you would be able to inject the same amount of fluid but with less resistance (less working against the pressure of the outside air.) I think.
I look at things a little bit differently.  We are presented with a claim that by combining certain elements there is not only major advantage over well known and much simpler machines, there is actually a way to get free energy.  Those claims are both false.

For example take the ZED technique of polluting a hydraulic piston system with air bubbles.  Even in the ideal case where the air bubbles are made from an ideal material, the result is that work is constantly lost each cycle.  For anyone who doubts this, get or construct a "U".  A pair of plastic cups, some tubing and water proof glue will do.  Place the "U" on a level stand.  Pour in some water.  Note that the levels are even on both sides.  Now force fluid from one side to the other.  That required work.  Now, let go.  The water levels equalize.  The applied work is lost.  And so it is with this serpentine mechanism where the water levels go up and down.  50" of head in one column has twice the stored potential energy of 25" in two equalized columns.  What do you get when you remove all the "air"?  You get an ordinary hydraulic system.  Ordinary hydraulic systems are known to be under unity.  So, since we have established that the ZED with its "air" bubbles even in the idealized case is less efficient than known under unity systems, we must conclude that the ZED too is under unity.  QED.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 05, 2014, 03:28:05 AM
Hey!  Remember John Rohner claiming that he would show his extraordinary plasma motor at that _real_ Power-Gen trade show?  We mocked him well before the show and said that never in a million years would he show a running motor.  John claimed that he would.  I still smile thinking about the Team Rohner bumpkins standing around at that trade show while real power industry professionals walked by their booth.  Of course there was no motor in sight, and there has _never_ been a plasma motor in sight.  Yet there is still a web page out there fishing.  The same thing will happen with the prancing fluids free energy pumpitude machine.  You will never see it in your lifetime.  The only question is how the end game will play out.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 05, 2014, 03:29:11 AM
"Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc."

You have built it? And you have shown it does not work??? Has Mark? Has MH?  Bah, he never builds anything yet knows it all in 10 sec of looking at it, right? Well, I dont follow the 10 sec diagnosis bullony.  Just the mention of OU and the 'no it isnt' comes without the 'work' to prove it. Thats so easy. I wish I had that job. Boring but probably pays ok. ;)

You guys can talk all you want. But you never prove that it doesnt work, just state whats in the books, all in a tight little box.


So what if Wayne has an investor. As long as its not you or your Mom, what do you care? People get investments all the time.  Sure some people get ripped off. But man you better be able to back up your statements of lies, thievery, ponzi, criminality. Wayne is not making the argument, you are. He is giving only what he said he would give, and the 2 people that are interested are being persecuted for doing what they want to do, and you have a problem with that??? So put up your numbers and show your non working device, then I will listen.  Meanwhile, why cant these 3 guys hang out and discuss what they want in peace??? No?? They must pay for their deeds!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Mags

OK, so let me get this straight.  If I see a woman, whom I do not know, getting robbed on the street, I should just let that happen?  After all, I don't know her, she is not my Mom or a family member....right?  Is this the attitude you are suggesting that I take?  I really hope not.

As you mentioned, I am usually impartial on things but, I was NOT impartial during the Mylow saga.  Sometimes, a man just has to take a stand.  Now, Mylow was not selling anything to anyone but, many folks were spending a lot of money trying to replicate his "working" device.  This was still wrong.  I live in a world of right and wrong.

One last thing.  I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources.  Not at all.  If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine.  But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud.  Do you understand what I am saying here?

Now Wayne has said, he does not claim overunity but, he did.  I wonder what those investors were told?  Do you know?

That is all I have to say.

Bill
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 04:45:30 AM
Hey!  Remember John Rohner claiming that he would show his extraordinary plasma motor at that _real_ Power-Gen trade show?  We mocked him well before the show and said that never in a million years would he show a running motor.  John claimed that he would.  I still smile thinking about the Team Rohner bumpkins standing around at that trade show while real power industry professionals walked by their booth.  Of course there was no motor in sight, and there has _never_ been a plasma motor in sight.  Yet there is still a web page out there fishing.  The same thing will happen with the prancing fluids free energy pumpitude machine.  You will never see it in your lifetime.  The only question is how the end game will play out.
I remember the giant empty plastic display case.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 04:46:57 AM
OK, so let me get this straight.  If I see a woman, whom I do not know, getting robbed on the street, I should just let that happen?  After all, I don't know her, she is not my Mom or a family member....right?  Is this the attitude you are suggesting that I take?  I really hope not.

As you mentioned, I am usually impartial on things but, I was NOT impartial during the Mylow saga.  Sometimes, a man just has to take a stand.  Now, Mylow was not selling anything to anyone but, many folks were spending a lot of money trying to replicate his "working" device.  This was still wrong.  I live in a world of right and wrong.

One last thing.  I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources.  Not at all.  If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine.  But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud.  Do you understand what I am saying here?

Now Wayne has said, he does not claim overunity but, he did.  I wonder what those investors were told?  Do you know?

That is all I have to say.

Bill
Wayne Travis claims over unity.  Check out the mission statement on his web site.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 04:47:52 AM
never mind
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 04:50:24 AM
Wayne Travis claims over unity.  Check out the mission statement on his web site.

Mark - you missed it again,

Net Energy - do you know the difference?

I did not know the difference two years ago.

If you do - stop spreading lies about me.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 05:10:27 AM
OK, so let me get this straight.  If I see a woman, whom I do not know, getting robbed on the street, I should just let that happen?  After all, I don't know her, she is not my Mom or a family member....right?  Is this the attitude you are suggesting that I take?  I really hope not.

As you mentioned, I am usually impartial on things but, I was NOT impartial during the Mylow saga.  Sometimes, a man just has to take a stand.  Now, Mylow was not selling anything to anyone but, many folks were spending a lot of money trying to replicate his "working" device.  This was still wrong.  I live in a world of right and wrong.

One last thing.  I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources.  Not at all.  If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine.  But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud.  Do you understand what I am saying here?

Now Wayne has said, he does not claim overunity but, he did.  I wonder what those investors were told?  Do you know?

That is all I have to say.

Bill

"OK, so let me get this straight.  If I see a woman, whom I do not know, getting robbed on the street, I should just let that happen?  After all, I don't know her, she is not my Mom or a family member....right?  Is this the attitude you are suggesting that I take?  I really hope not."

Well, if I see Mark and you bitching and griping at Wayne on a street corner yelling "your a liar!", and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, could you show me proof that Wayne is a liar? Well, show me some of YOUR proofs. Show me your replication of his complex device that is built as prescribed doesnt work and I would question him also possibly, if I 'felt the need'.  He doesnt need to show me any proof as I dont believe you paid him anything, have you? ;) He gave some info, and if YOU choose to build upon that, then what does he owe you??? Show me a definitive replication that does not work!  Do you have that replication? Or are you just following others? ???

We can play that many different ways. You dont know his investors. You dont know exactly what they bargained for. If I remember correctly, Wayne clearly said from the start that he was only disclosing some things, not all. And he has that right. He owes YOU NOTHING!! ;) Just like anyone else here. And you are pissed. ::) Well thats your problem. ;)

"As you mentioned, I am usually impartial on things but, I was NOT impartial during the Mylow saga.  Sometimes, a man just has to take a stand.  Now, Mylow was not selling anything to anyone but, many folks were spending a lot of money trying to replicate his "working" device.  This was still wrong.  I live in a world of right and wrong."

Mylow is a completely different monster. Mylow was a true con man, even if he didnt ask for money. Mylow gets busted again and again and keeps on going with some new trick to show the same goal. And it was all tricks. The master of the shell game.  No comparison with Wayne.


"One last thing.  I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources.  Not at all.  If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine.  But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud.  Do you understand what I am saying here?"

Something that 'looked' like something promising, and you may have wanted to risk peoples kickstarter money to see if it works??????     ::)   Are you the one on the corner with the old woman??? ???

Well where is your single zed that does not work? Id love to see it. ;)

"Do you understand what I am saying here?"   You wont like my answer.



And finally....

"Now Wayne has said, he does not claim overunity but, he did.  I wonder what those investors were told?  Do you know?"

Do you????  Wayne has said from the beginning that he was only giving some of what he has. He has no obligation to 'give' any more than that. But your not satisfied with that? Then walk away, just like any other of the thousands of threads here. And he has charged not a single soul here 1 single penny, and never asked for any investments here. Yet the demands and slander continues every day this thread is alive. And with all the negativity, the real work is hindered by people that dont have the guts to build it and 'prove' their case. Tk is the only one I would imagine doing so, and I think he would do a great job at it.  ;) But he hasnt. Yet. ;D

Mags

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 05, 2014, 05:17:44 AM
Well I read Wayne's long posting before he deleted it.  It had the full cadence of the 'preacher.'  It's a regular occurrence.  His long 'explanation' posting was done in the preacher cadence.  The explanation posting was filled with 'technical' terms that only exist in Wayne's brain.  Seriously, when you use terms like 'exhaust' and all that mumbo-jumbo, it's all a farce.  I am sure that nobody knows what he is talking about.  Then you have him endorsing experimenters that barely have a clue.  There has never been a demonstration of a working system, surprise surprise.  Wayne refuses to even acknowledge direct straight-forward questions.  This has been going on for five years and nothing to show for it.  You can design and build a 2000 megawatt hydroelectric dam in five years.

Everything about Wayne adds up - on the dark side.

Don't be fooled.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 05:21:50 AM
Bill, I have had to learn that to some over unity means magical free energy - and that is not what we have.
You do not have what you claim.  Shall we review the list yet again?
Quote

If you read all my posts on the other thread - you will only need to read a few - and you will see where I shared the struggles our early engineers had with seperating that distinction.
The walls of blather showed nothing material.  They did demonstrate your behavior.
Quote

TK ALWAYS OMITS THE CONTENT _ IF IT DOES NOT FIT HIS LIES>
Kindly provide an example of a lie you claim that TK has told.
Quote

Bill,

We have mechanical amplification.
Mechanical amplification of force or power are trivial.  They do not produce energy ex nihilo as you falsely claim to do.
Quote

I am sorry you accept TKs tactics of creating scenrio's to call people liars - do you know hown many times he - not having a clue - and still does not - how our system operates insisted that a single ZED must be over unity - because - in his assumption - that two under unity systems  can not be combined to produce excess energy?
The efficiency of each constituent sub process in a composite process multiply.  Losses cannot be made up in volume.  If one ZED is underunity:  And it unquestionably is, then any number N ZEDs placed in series or parallel are similarly underunity.
Quote

I am sorry Smart guys like Mark E - fall for his crap.

And Many jumped in total ignorance agreeing....

The part of my answer that TK left ommited to share - was this - Yes you can have an excess with a single ZED - much more complicated and slower - you will have to configure a way to capture and reuse the exhuast - and re insert it at the next stroke.
Any single ZED is unquestionably under unity.  Were any ZED in any form OU, you could point to the specific subprocess that is OU.  You cannot do so, because there is no such OU subprocess.  All of the processes are under unity as is the composite contraption.
Quote

You still can altered heights for proper speed with a dual system- but is stupid.

Over unity or free energy or net energy of a "little" is pointless - our first single layer pod system was PE certified on the upstroke at 105% and that did not include reusing the exhuast. That engineer repeated, and repeated, called in others, repeated, and then prayed and then started over (white sheeted) three times again - and then accepted just 105%
If any PE has written a report that supports your false claims to an over unity / free energy device I would like to see a copy of the signed report.  I'm sure the certifying authority and his E&O insurer would like to see it as well.
Quote

Which is a total waste of time - since my goal was Net energy - I could care less about the covet claim - I am ashamed that men treat each other like TK and MH, it is sad that they are trash talkers.
Whereas you just emit a steady effluent stream of lies to investors.  That video TinselKoala got his hands on is quite enlightening.
Quote

p.s. After the PE's finished - I and independent engineering firm verify - prior to any investment form any of my family Except one.  Mark Dansie Came a year later when we were testing three layer system - much much better.
Yet, Mark Dansie never saw a working system:  Never.  You are free to attempt to extract a more favorable statement from him.  He has never witnessed the initial proof of concept demonstration that he has insisted would be a first step towards further consideration of your false claims.
Quote

He asked for a self runner to show/ help people like TK - maybe not him personally - but people who refused to understand the process.
Those people must include Mr. Dansie himself.  Feel free to avail yourself to the public comments he has placed on the record.
Quote

I did - not for me - not for our company - and not for fame or money.

MH, ME and Kanshi and all screamed foul - "adding to a system can not make it more efficient" --- really - they did not think that one out.
Ms. Kanshi is a university professor.  What are you?
Quote

Posted crap and doctored photos - called water hoses - extension cords - claimed we put hidden pumps.

TK called Mark a shill - he calls anyone a shill - I have the posts saved - where he worked tirelessly to defraud him. Pure shame.
You need a different dictionary.
Quote

I invited TK, I had him checked out, but before I could reply - he flipped out claiming he would steal it if he could???
Really?  Are you going to go with that story?  I'd sure like to see evidence that backs such a claim.
Quote

I have those notes as well.

Can you reduce losses by adding more layers - yes
Nope, each time you add layers you compound your losses.  Feel free to publish any analysis you rely upon to find differently.
Quote

It does if you are increasing the output at a proportional rate faster than the increases of losses.

Layering does that.
Nope.  Adding layers just exacerbates the losses of your less efficient than a brick scheme.
Quote

I am sorry if you do not get that - not my intent to confuse you.

Here is what I see you doing - you chiming in on three thugs - that do not know the Travis effect from Archimedes......
Oh, so now you claim that there is a 'Travis effect'.  That's terrific.  Kindly state directly and succinctly what you claim the "Travis effect" to be.  Kindly distinguish it from previously known fluid mechanics.
Quote

Archimedes is not wrong - when used in the context he presented it - our system alters that.
You system alters nothing to do with Archimedes' Principle.  But since you now personally claim that there is a 'Travis effect' do be so kind as to describe it.
Quote

The simple proof - 10,000 pounds buoyant force in the space that displaces 2000 pounds of water - I hope you do not miss that....and we only move less than one 2 cubic feet of water to go from sink to 10,000 pounds buoyancy.
I can buy a 5 ton jack at the auto parts store that can produce the same forces in a much more compact space for under $20.  Force is not energy.  Force is not conserved.  Energy is conserved.
Quote

P.s. look at the spread sheets - even Mark E - what is the actual space versus the total Buoyancy? He missed that one to.
I also missed the CIE index of flaming purple stratospheric flamingos.  Nested pistons are not news.
Quote

Just shows that Buoyancy can be used in a different arrangement than Archimedes ...
That is a completely meaningless statement.  Archimedes' Principle describes the behavior of buoyancy.  It's only requirement is a fluid and something to displace fluid.
Quote

Not that I have not tried to explain the diffirence twenty times - shown it and had four engineers post comparisons - now that was hard - every time I tried to explain - TK ME MH and other dud's demanded attention on anything from pink unicorns to psyco logical claims of superior understanding of a system they still can not explain -
It's funny how you keep claiming you have explained something when the only thing rational folks seem to observe is a lot of hand waving.
Quote

Any person trying to understand was spammed -

Bill - it has one simple part.................

No one Can disprove it - You stand behind the guys that won't actually analyze the process and against the ones that have learned something new.
If only could actually show something new.  But you haven't.  Every objective evaluation of the meager actual information you have produced shows no new behavior, and no conformance to your false claims.
Quote

You helped them - that is your right - but don't sit there and tell us that you did your own thinking and own homework - I know the fact about that - or else you would be defending us.
Why would anyone defend false claims unless they stood to personally benefit? I do not know of any vested interest that Bill has.
Quote

All they do is bash make lies up about me = twist and shout down,

A gang of thugs and you picked up your stick and helped.
We know the lies that you keep telling Wayne.  They all concern your false claims to machines that generate energy for free.
Quote

That is the mistake you are making.

You want to take a stand - I do not care about me here - but they do it to everyone that wont bow to them. I never will, and I will not help them.
That's great!  Take a stand for every red blooded, Bible thumping con artist who has the guts to reach for a brass ring paid for by cash traded for empty dreams.  "America the beautiful, land that I love ..."
Quote

To be clear - they are ignorant - or doing it on purpose - and a few good people get sucked into their lies - like you.

I am sorry to write this at all, the man is sick. I put him on ignore - to leave him be.
Yet you are unable to refute him.  What could anyone who objects to your false claims do were you to actually prove your false claims?  Oh, there's that sticky problem again:  You don't prove your claims because you can't prove your claims, because they are false.
Quote

I am more sorry that you think that our hard work and effort and good people deserves that crap.

I invite you to ask one of the men that do understand our system -
Yes, let's ask someone who 'understands'.  A registered PE would be best, because they have their professional livelihood at stake.
Quote

That bully - whose "lies about me" that you quoted as facts..... of course he likes other people to do his fight for him.

But he is just a punk, with puppets.

Wayne
But, you of course say that with love and respect, don't you Wayne?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 05:24:43 AM
Mark - you missed it again,

Net Energy - do you know the difference?

I did not know the difference two years ago.

If you do - stop spreading lies about me.
I know the highlighted passages that grace your mission statement are bald-faced lies.  Your claims are false.  If you want to see where this can end up call up Dr. Dr. John Rohner Ph.D.  Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of his special visit.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 05, 2014, 05:39:01 AM
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 05:54:03 AM
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.
The first highlight:  "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.

The second highlight is false because the Russian Dolls of Ignorance do nor present any new physics or insights on existing physics.

The third highlight contains multiple statements, all of which are false.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 05, 2014, 05:57:40 AM



"One last thing.  I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources.  Not at all.  If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine.  But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud.  Do you understand what I am saying here?"

Something that 'looked' like something promising, and you may have wanted to risk peoples kickstarter money to see if it works? ??? ??   

Mags

Wow, you really missed the point here.  IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.

This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF.  Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.

Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy.  The innocent need no defense.  Remember that.

Bill
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 05, 2014, 05:58:36 AM
The first highlight:  "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.

The second highlight is false because the Russian Dolls of Ignorance do nor present any new physics or insights on existing physics.

The third highlight contains multiple statements, all of which are false.


No, the first paragraph only outlines their 'visions'.



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 06:14:02 AM
OK so it is only their vision to do something that they have no reason to believe they ever could do and every reason to know that they cannot do.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 06:20:07 AM
The new site is considerably toned down in its rhetoric. For a truer picture of what Travis is actually claiming, look at the old site.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120411232750/http://mrwaynesbrain.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20120411232750/http://mrwaynesbrain.com/)   (April 11, 2012)

Interesting quote from Mark Dansie, and yes, it was at that time that I complained about Mark, asked him where his funding for the trip to see Travis was coming from, and when he told me that he had accepted money from Travis I called him a paid shill. We (Mark D. and I) have since become friends. I have a lot of respect for what Mark is doing and the only objection I have ever had towards him is that sometimes he does not disclose who is paying him to visit, even if it is "just" expenses, as in the Travis case.

And note that Kevan Riley puts his engineering reputation on the line as well.

Quote
Hello and Welcome,   My name is Wayne Travis, I am the inventor of the Hydro Energy Technology.
My invention is an apparatus utilizing buoyant forces and a method for doing the same.
Hydro Energy Revolution was originally formed by family, and merged into a community effort, 81 persons with a wide range of skills and support.
We are currently evolving into an international team of diverse and successful experts in the development, marketing distribution, manufacturing and maintenance, of new technology.  Mark Dansie has been key in vetting and inviting the new team members.
It is clearly a quest for a better and clean energy technology that is bringing these groups together for the common goal.
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.
We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.
Our Machine will be used to supply electricity, both commercially and through leases.
It has many applications, we look forward to supplying many needs.
Several generations of output will be scaled, 25, 50, and 100 kilo watts are planned to be Beta tested.
We are currently securing the team and then will secure the funding for those three models.
Five representatives from States in the USA have requested licenses early - and nine countries have requested meetings through Mark Dansie.
You may submit questions to me, Wayne Travis at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I will be glad to answer.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis

 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 06:29:28 AM
November 15, 2013:

Quote
Hello and Welcome,   Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
It has been my joy and purpose working together with so many of you.
 
We as a company currently have the cooperation of 160 members, and many people following our work who prefer to stay out of the light for now.
 
When I named the Company - HydroEnergy Revolution llc - I picked the "Hydro" to reflect the Buoyancy break through, "Energy" reflects the product, and "Revolution" reflects the change we are having on both understanding of Physics and Energy production.
 
Our System uses a special "Hydraulic, Pneumatic, Solid interaction - that is so complex and yet so simple - the design is summarily characterized as "Simply Brilliant".
 
Our system does not use fuel - instead we utilize the separate range of reactions that occur when Gravity effects the interaction within our Hydraulic, Pneumatic, and Solid system.
 
I was asked this week by a Brilliant Engineer - who had just reviewed our interactive system - he said “I have been reviewing your system......and I have to wonder ...... with the vast intelligence and educational resources ..... In this day and age.... All trying to solve the energy problem - did we overlook something so simple and yet so wonderfully complex?"
 
My answer - "Most of the "Education" that we esteem, fund and support - limits the students minds to the simple realm of conservative energy systems - how can you expect to find a non-conservative energy source when the parameters are already set to exclude them...
 
Our discovery is a paradigm shift in the understanding of mechanical energy production, we do not defy the Laws of Energy conversion, we do not contradict the Laws of Thermal dynamics - we leave those where they belong - very appropriately describing conservative energy systems.
 
To be clear - we have a non-conservative.... energy producing... evolution in technology:
 
One day soon, our education system will educate our engineers on "when and where to apply the limitations" understand the difference and reality of both conservative systems and non-conservative.
There is a great value to the old understanding - it is tried, true, and tested - the awakening comes when it is understood that the "Old Laws” did not encompass, test and try all future discovery.
 
I am thankful that our volunteers, engineers, scientists and support group have evolved beyond that self-inflicted and limited thinking of the conservation of energy.
 
Thank you all - you are on the leading and powerful edge of the future.
 
For those of you who are new to our work, I know and am sorry that our work upsets a lot of people - so did the earth being round and not the center of the universe - if it matters greatly to you - get involved.
 
We have a Revolution of Technology on our hands - like the Light bulb, the Airplane, the Microchip, and mapping DNA - we have "new tools" under our control - to move forward in our future.
 
We welcome those who would like to solve for them self and "see" what we are saying; it is the due diligence of people who "question" - that build our teams and group.
 
To all:
 
Billions have been spent on search for the a new energy source: the Super (atom) Collider, Cleaner Coal, Better fuel cells, better batteries, better Solar cells, better drilling methods, sustained Cold fusion, and much much more.
 
Billions in Taxes and limitations have been set on entropy energy production...of course passed onto the consumer - you and me.
 
The World is in desperation for energy - do you think they wanted to build the nuclear power plants around the ring of fire ... around earthquakes? Nuclear power is a band aid - to a wound - we have the technology to heal the wounds around the world.
 
We all know Energy "costs" have limited energy "availability" in most parts of the world, the band aid has caused countless loss of life, health and loss of freedom and cultural advancement........
 
We are on a mission of "change", expect resistance, expect challenges, expect ignorance.
 
What we have is a gift to mankind, one mankind desperately needs, We will Never give up, never surrender, until the responsibility that is our is met, our work fulfilled.
 
To say we have a special "Market Nitch" or that "we have an abundant fuel source" - As Steven advertised - "Gravity, Always ON!"
Gravity is a simple way to communicate with the academia with limited thinking - Gravity and its different effects on Gas - liquids, and solids - and is the reason our system works - it is key to our design - but we do not consume the gravity, saying it is a fuel source - is incorrect.
 
Gravity and Mechanics working together - to create the special conditions required for a non-conservative and "New" Energy source, for our future and our children’s children’s future.
 
We can say we have the most reliable and cleanest energy system ever invented by man - yet it is much more than that - it is a discovery that can usher in peace and prosperity.
 
To date, we have had the right people discover us and become involved, at the right time, at the right need -Such a blessing as to be beyond understanding.
 
Our Company is a "New" direction, bringing a "New" Energy source.... join us - pray for us, follow us - we will be true to our purpose.
 
Sincerely Grateful
 
Wayne Travis
 
405-574-2157


If you look carefully over the years, Travis has gone from claiming a working free energy machine that will save the world, and a patent, in the early days, all the way "forward" to claiming a business plan, objectives to be met, and patent applications, today.
 
Now _that's_ progress !
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 06:35:39 AM

More "expectations not met?" Hard doors closing? Awww.... my heart bleeds purple peanut butter for you.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 06:38:06 AM
Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off.  Someone read "Slapstick".
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 06:46:29 AM
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.

Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"

What do you base that off?

Wayne

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 06:48:08 AM
Wow, you really missed the point here.  IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.

This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF.  Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.

Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy.  The innocent need no defense.  Remember that.

Bill


"IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something."

Ok. But what if it doesnt work??  What if some people were to complain? What if some say they think you took the money???  Not possible?????  Would you work to pay them back to please them??? Or just say that they did it at their own risk??? its in the contract??????lol  Does that make you a better man that you used the words 'Might work'  or  Might be on to something??? ;) If some of those Kick investors were not so nicey nicey, and applied pressure, if they could, would you feel no remorse??? Screw them, they knew the risks??? ::)   Im not missing any points. Im just being real. ;) Just like this is all real. Maybe Wayne has proven things to his investors. Can you dispute that with any factual evidence 'at this time'???? No you cant. But you all 'act' as if you can.  ;)



"The innocent need no defense.  Remember that" 

Oh. Innocent until 'proven' guilty is just some fairytale rubbish. ;)   I see no valid proof of guilt so far. Yet the stones continue to be thrown.  Thats what I will always remember. :( Yee without sin cast the first stone.  Bunch of saints I suppose. ::) Hypocrisy at its best. ;) ;) ;)



I dont want a fight with you Bill. Never had any issues with you and I hope you feel the same. We are just talking here, ok?  ;) What I wrote is not so far fetched.

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 06:53:58 AM
Wow, you really missed the point here.  IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.

This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF.  Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.

Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy.  The innocent need no defense.  Remember that.

Bill

The innocent need no defense - really.

You have quoted lies that TK has spread at least twice now - please do your own research.

It was very clearly explained, by me to TK, and the rest of the forum, that The grant committee sent me to a third party - and did not give me the grant - and that plan was not funded.

But he suckered you into calling me a liar.

I am sorry for that.

You are backing the wrong guy.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 06:55:54 AM
Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off.  Someone read "Slapstick".

"Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. "

Now, you REALLY need to show me that quote from Wayne. Show me and everyone here that Wayne said that. Ill be here eagerly waiting on that one. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) I really hope you can produce that piece of evidence.  :o ;) But I bet Ill just get some whole page runaround instead. Bet on it. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 06:58:50 AM
One of the unique discoveries with the ZED Layered system - is the concentration of buoyancy.

Anyone want to discuss that? - it is really cool.

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 06:59:02 AM
Quote
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.

Are you falling behind, Mags? The full quote and the url reference are on the previous page.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:02:07 AM
The innocent need no defense - really.

You have quoted lies that TK has spread at least twice now - please do your own research.

It was very clearly explained, by me to TK, and thee rest of the forum, that The grant committee sent me to a third party - and did not give me the grant - and that plan was not funded.

But he suckered you into calling me a liar.

I am sorry for that.

You are backing the wrong guy.

Wayne
Either you are fully funded or you are not, Wayne Travis. How could "I" be lying when I have put up your entire powerpoint slide show, and then pointed out that TODAY, long since you have been "fully funded", there is still no 50 kW powerplant at the church? I did say, after all, that nobody in the group you gave the presentation to "bit". So just where and how did I lie.... but more importantly..... look at all the places YOU have lied!

The internet never forgets, Wayne Travis. Many of your old newsletters are still publicly viewable even though you have tried to suppress them. See the previous page.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 07:05:25 AM
November 15, 2013:


If you look carefully over the years, Travis has gone from claiming a working free energy machine that will save the world, and a patent, in the early days, all the way "forward" to claiming a business plan, objectives to be met, and patent applications, today.
 
Now _that's_ progress !

It takes near 5 years for many many many people to come up with a new playstation version. And each new model is only an improvement of the previous design. All just to play games and make money. ;)   

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:06:28 AM
The Zed has segregated surface area's - and we can control how much effect each is contributing to the lift during a production stroke, and how they contribute to the exhuast pressure on the down stroke.

It is a liquid piston technology,

The ability to change the size of the effective surface area at will.

The effective surface area - is directly responsible for the pressure required for lift, the production

And directly responsible for the pressure produced during the sink.

A big piston on the way up and a small piston on the way down -

NOW Here is the kicker - same volume and time both directions..

Any one want to discuss that?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:08:16 AM
Are you falling behind, Mags? The full quote and the url reference are on the previous page.

Really - lol did you think about that???

adding and removing displacement is turning gravity off and on... lol

You are so silly
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 07:10:53 AM
Are you falling behind, Mags? The full quote and the url reference are on the previous page.

Nope. Submarines been doing 'that' for a long time.  Mark specified 'gravity'. Is there no difference???

"Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off.  Someone read "Slapstick"."

No link necessary. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:13:32 AM
Either you are fully funded or you are not, Wayne Travis. How could "I" be lying when I have put up your entire powerpoint slide show, and then pointed out that TODAY, long since you have been "fully funded", there is still no 50 kW powerplant at the church? I did say, after all, that nobody in the group you gave the presentation to "bit". So just where and how did I lie.... but more importantly..... look at all the places YOU have lied!

The internet never forgets, Wayne Travis. Many of your old newsletters are still publicly viewable even though you have tried to suppress them. See the previous page.

TK,

That was so many years ago - I do not even know when lol

No - we did not get funding from that power point - we had a TK in the room claiming I must be a fraud - p.s. he was fired later.

TK every time you make your silly threats - who are you talking to, yourself?

I always tell it like it is , as it is, at the time it is....

Let me guess - you never wore diapers - well I did, and I said I did at one time - and things change.

I don't now - so why don't you look me up in thirty years and call me a liar when I put on a pair then.

So silly.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:15:19 AM
December 6, 2012:

Quote
5.    TAZ – The second Diamond:
 of this system is the Mass momentum of the system, it is captured during the end of the tilt - and that energy is returned to reverse the direction.
 The output is in pressure and volume - it can be removed in the form of air or water.
The system has a minimum pressure to maintain the proper internal orientation of the system currently 8 psi the output is varied by the pressure desired - if you were to output 13 psi you will have 4000 cubic inches of fluid or air - per tilt.In this set up - this give you 4000 cubic inches of volume with 5 psi usable force - In simple terms - that is 20,000 inch pounds output - per tilt.
We produce on both direction by offsetting two sets of "layers" 65 Degrees - On the TAZ - we call the "layers" - Loops. Currently - we are not yet "closed looped" with the TAZ - but the input and output is measurable........................The current undeveloped output of the system is Air and pressure or Water and pressure.
So in its most basic form - we have an New Energy pumping system.
 What you do with the pump or its output is limited to our ability to imagine purpose.
 As electrical production as its "use" "it will over come the cost of wind (electrical) generation, and solve the reliability issues with other sources of natural energy.....first.
It can be used for agricultural pumping, air moving such as mining, hooked to a standard pressure increaser - it could be used to provide hydraulic power - All fuel and emission free for as long as you desire.........................
 Our input Energy to our TAZ is currently hydraulic - we use 700 psi and between 2 and 4 cubic inches (depends on output desire)
 and we can currently safely run 3.5 dual tilts per minute -
providing a volume of 4000 cubic inches out put per 2 to 4 cubic inches input.
 3.5 spm x dual system x 4000ci = 28,000 cubic inches out put Water or 121gpm @t 5 psi = Output
 3.5spm x dual system x 4ci = 28ci or 12% of one gallon or .12gpm @ 700psi = input.

 A normal cycle is one set of the "loops" tilting from the 85 degree position to the 20 degree position =
while the reverse side is tilting from its the 20 degree position to its 85Degree position.
 The angles are relative the "loops" not to each other. When either loop is reaching the 20 degrees - it is lowering its pressure and the fluid or air output returns, when either set of loops is increasing its angle form 20 toward 85 - it is supplying output.
 Currently we do not have our output system completed - so when we cycle - we can pump the output "water" to a raised reservoir and then let it fall to a lower reservoir which is then fed back into the TAZ. We also have an air bag system to use the air output as a mechanical pump - we are working on it as a hydraulic production system to close loop the TAZ.
 Without the hydraulic out put system - our current system is not set up to accumulate the energy - it can provide the pumping continuously, or be started and stopped as needed.
 The most logical long term use will be Clean Energy production, remote Energy production - pumping will likely be the initial product.
 I am not sure what is all possible - what our devices both do - is make it economical to produce energy for consumption without pollution, and without consuming resources - beyond the capital costs.
 Our TAZ system has two distinct advantages beyond the clean and New - simple to build and operate, Cheaper to supply continuous energy than Fossil fuel.
 Disadvantage - we will never be as small as a fossil fuel system - but we could be used to compress hydrogen fuel - without the 80% loss.
 In short, we have two ground breaking discoveries utilizing two separate yet related methods to generate Net energy, we are a small company and gathering good guidance.
 We have both filed as patent applications the first is rolled over to the full application - the TAZ is a complete application in preparation yet we have it filed as a provisional for protection - giving us time to get thru development.
 We have several replications of both systems, and the physics do not require a PhD to understand - if instructed properly - I have instructed many "in person" - it makes sense when you can see and touch and have questions answered.
 I hope this is helping...Since we have had to invent names to call things - in order to communicate together here at the lab and world wide - I understand that it must be difficult trying to follow  - I prefer not to try to "explain" over the phone - or e-mail - but I will try if desired - a visit is best.
 Thank you for your time.
 Wayne Travis




Mags, where do you think buoyancy comes from? The only way to turn it on and off is if you turn gravity on and off. Submarines don't do that, they pump water into and out of ballast tanks, decreasing and increasing the effective volume of the boat. This takes a goodly amount of time and it isn't turning anything on and off.

Now read that last newsletter carefully. Note that he is talking about inputs and outputs of liquid water. You put a little in, and you get a lot out. 

Do we really have to say any more?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:18:25 AM
Great topic TK

Who wants to discuss why it takes 161 cubic feet of air to lift 10,000 pounds with good old regular buoyancy

and only 2 cubic feet with a ZED.....

Makes it quick to turn buoyancy on or off - - oh boy faster lol

Wayne
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:20:52 AM
Great topic TK

Who wants to discuss why it takes 161 cubic feet of air to lift 10,000 pounds with good old regular buoyancy

and only 2 cubic feet with a ZED.....

Makes it quick to turn buoyancy on or off - - oh boy faster lol

Wayne

I can lift my entire automobile with a lever, pushing down with only a few pounds of force. SO? My car doesn't run itself

... and neither do any of your many claimed test apparatuses. That's the only interesting issue here: what you have claimed, and what you DO NOT HAVE.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:22:45 AM
Who wants to discuss how we can lift and deliver a load - without consuming the inlet pressure??

OK that is too easy...

Lets do it without a spring or air....

A ZED can.....
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:25:12 AM
I can lift my entire automobile with a lever, pushing down with only a few pounds of force. SO? My car doesn't run itself

... and neither do any of your many claimed test apparatuses. That's the only interesting issue here: what you have claimed, and what you DO NOT HAVE.

A lever ok?

The question was "with buoyancy"

Stay on topic and save your insults.

Thanks
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:27:09 AM
TK,

That was so many years ago - I do not even know when lol
You made the power point show in November of 2010. I presume you presented it shortly thereafter.
Quote
No - we did not get funding from that power point - we had a TK in the room claiming I must be a fraud - p.s. he was fired later.
Of course he was. You have carefully selected those who surround you, as all cult leaders do.
Quote

TK every time you make your silly threats - who are you talking to, yourself?
I have never threatened you, Wayne Travis ol boy. You are threatening yourself, though, by engaging in very risky behaviour.

Quote
I always tell it like it is , as it is, at the time it is....

Do you or do you not have a 5 HP self running machine that produces that 5hp usable output, with no input no exhaust, just 5 HP "net" work output? Do you, or do you not? Tell it like it is, at this present time now.

Quote
Let me guess - you never wore diapers - well I did, and I said I did at one time - and things change.

I don't now - so why don't you look me up in thirty years and call me a liar when I put on a pair then.

So silly.

You are more likely to be wearing handcuffs than diapers, that's for sure. But you are selling a double pantload of crap, that is also for sure.


Eventually you will probably wind up being chased down the street by a gang of children, shouting at you NA NA NA, He said he could but he can't, NA NA NA.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
December 6, 2012:




Mags, where do you think buoyancy comes from? The only way to turn it on and off is if you turn gravity on and off. Submarines don't do that, they pump water into and out of ballast tanks, decreasing and increasing the effective volume of the boat. This takes a goodly amount of time and it isn't turning anything on and off.

Now read that last newsletter carefully. Note that he is talking about inputs and outputs of liquid water. You put a little in, and you get a lot out. 

Do we really have to say any more?

I love your collection - you should see mine.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:31:12 AM
A lever ok?

The question was "with buoyancy"

Stay on topic and save your insults.

Thanks

Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled, Wayne Travis. And it is YOU who are insulting me, as usual, over and over. I am not that stupid, to fall for your dodges and lies.

Do you or do you not have the device Minnie has asked you about? A self running, 5 hp "net" device that outputs more ENERGY than the zero amount it takes to run it? Yes, or no.... or weasel some mo'.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:32:34 AM
I love your collection - you should see mine.
Not my collection at all, Wayne ol boy. Your whole old website is saved on the internet for anyone to see, by the Wayback Machine. You can try to suppress information that you have posted, but you cannot actually do it.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:33:09 AM
It takes near 5 years for many many many people to come up with a new playstation version. And each new model is only an improvement of the previous design. All just to play games and make money. ;)   

Mags

Mags, you speak from experience... It has been a long wonderful journey, good friends, cool builds.


 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 07:37:06 AM
Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"

What do you base that off?

Wayne
Steorn made their big public splash with their absurd claims to free energy from arranging permanent magnets coming up on eight years ago.  They failed at all their demonstration attempts.  Their jury ruled unanimously that Steorn failed to ever show any evidence that they could produce energy.  And even one of their true believers eventually came out and decried their false claims of free energy as the result of measurement errors.  Maybe you would like to select a jury of 22.  It bought Steorn a good two and half years.  Now Steorn have some water heater contraption.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 07:38:48 AM
"Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. "

Now, you REALLY need to show me that quote from Wayne. Show me and everyone here that Wayne said that. Ill be here eagerly waiting on that one. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) I really hope you can produce that piece of evidence.  :o ;) But I bet Ill just get some whole page runaround instead. Bet on it. ;)

Mags
How much would you like to bet?

You do understand that buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity acting on a fluid displacement, don't you? 

Quote
Hello and Welcome,   My name is Wayne Travis, I am the inventor of the Hydro Energy Technology.
My invention is an apparatus utilizing buoyant forces and a method for doing the same.
Hydro Energy Revolution was originally formed by family, and merged into a community effort, 81 persons with a wide range of skills and support.
We are currently evolving into an international team of diverse and successful experts in the development, marketing distribution, manufacturing and maintenance, of new technology.  Mark Dansie has been key in vetting and inviting the new team members.
It is clearly a quest for a better and clean energy technology that is bringing these groups together for the common goal.
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.
We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.
Our Machine will be used to supply electricity, both commercially and through leases.
It has many applications, we look forward to supplying many needs.
Several generations of output will be scaled, 25, 50, and 100 kilo watts are planned to be Beta tested.
We are currently securing the team and then will secure the funding for those three models.
Five representatives from States in the USA have requested licenses early - and nine countries have requested meetings through Mark Dansie.
You may submit questions to me, Wayne Travis at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I will be glad to answer.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:40:57 AM
Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled, Wayne Travis. And it is YOU who are insulting me, as usual, over and over. I am not that stupid, to fall for your dodges and lies.

Do you or do you not have the device Minnie has asked you about? A self running, 5 hp "net" device that outputs more ENERGY than the zero amount it takes to run it? Yes, or no.... or weasel some mo'.

Discuss the topic - or I will boot you off. JK

So gravity is misspelled Buoyancy.... is that like alset alokin ???

Al

You talk in code - not me.



Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 07:45:01 AM
The Zed has segregated surface area's - and we can control how much effect each is contributing to the lift during a production stroke, and how they contribute to the exhuast pressure on the down stroke.

It is a liquid piston technology,

The ability to change the size of the effective surface area at will.

The effective surface area - is directly responsible for the pressure required for lift, the production

And directly responsible for the pressure produced during the sink.

A big piston on the way up and a small piston on the way down -

NOW Here is the kicker - same volume and time both directions..

Any one want to discuss that?
Why of course:  Let's discuss that.  Just post a diagram and your math.  Show your energy gain.  Force gain won't cut it.  We need to see you "turn buoyancy on and off at will", and/or gain energy at will.  Are you finally up to the task?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:45:06 AM
You can't "boot me off"... .and that sure sounded like a threat. DO this or else you will boot me. That's a clear threat, Travis. I talk in code? But Travis... you sound like you had a rough time in that tenth grade English class. When someone isn't ghost-writing for you you are barely articulate, hardly intelligible at all.

What's the matter, can't sleep? Don't you have a busy day ahead of you tomorrow, Wayne ol boy? Thinking up new reasons why your leaking groaning tub of water STILL won't run itself after all these years? Maybe your engineers are taking you for a ride, did you ever think about that? What other reason could there be for the failure to produce a self runner according to the ideas YOU know will work? I think you have someone working for you that is sabotaging you and pocketing a lot of cash along the way. How else to account for your continuing failure to "meet expectations" and keep doors open?

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:45:50 AM
Not my collection at all, Wayne ol boy. Your whole old website is saved on the internet for anyone to see, by the Wayback Machine. You can try to suppress information that you have posted, but you cannot actually do it.

Your fantasy -

You see TK, when you are telling the truth - it does not matter who has your records.

If all your posts were deleted - well - the world would be missing something.

As far as your fantasy about me supressing? get a life, If I want to back up my systems or add stuff - who cares what you think about that.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 07:46:35 AM
Nope. Submarines been doing 'that' for a long time.  Mark specified 'gravity'. Is there no difference???

"Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off.  Someone read "Slapstick"."

No link necessary. ;)

Mags
I think you should avail yourself to a physics primer.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 07:47:42 AM
Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled,

I really hate to argue with you T.  I respect your knowledge and intellect more than your cohorts. But..   Can you show me a reference to that statement, other than your own?   ??? ;)     Please?? You must have a copy ready for cut and paste. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:49:57 AM
Your fantasy -

You see TK, when you are telling the truth - it does not matter who has your records.

If all your posts were deleted - well - the world would be missing something.

As far as your fantasy about me supressing? get a life, If I want to back up my systems or add stuff - who cares what you think about that.

You removed all those old websites, all those old newsletters and you are still reeling, right now, to have learned that they are still available. I saw your face go white, from here. You are regretting ever having posted a link to that powerpoint and you are desperately trying to figure out how I got hold of that "expectations not met, we had a lawsuit, doors closing, funds not arriving" video clip. And your flailings about are becoming more and more ridiculous all the time.

You got one thing right though... "who cares what I think about that". So tell me.... why DO you care what I think, what this forum thinks? Why are you here at one AM instead of curled up in your cozy, ZED-heated home, safe in bed, gathering strength for your mission to Save the World?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 07:50:40 AM
Great topic TK

Who wants to discuss why it takes 161 cubic feet of air to lift 10,000 pounds with good old regular buoyancy

and only 2 cubic feet with a ZED.....

Makes it quick to turn buoyancy on or off - - oh boy faster lol

Wayne
Unless you are trying to float 10klbs in an air atmosphere, no air is required.  In water, we need to displace about 161 cubic feet of water.  But then a $20. jack from AutoZone will generate 10klbs of lift in about 1/4 of a cubic foot.

I would like a "wax on, wax off" demonstration of buoyancy on and buoyancy off.  Kindly demonstrate this buoyancy switch in action.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 07:52:21 AM
Who wants to discuss how we can lift and deliver a load - without consuming the inlet pressure??

OK that is too easy...

Lets do it without a spring or air....

A ZED can.....
Consuming pressure?  Surely you jest.  Pressure is not a conserved quantity.  Let's see you convey energy without consuming any energy.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 07:56:35 AM
I think you should avail yourself to a physics primer.

Quote from TK.... "Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled,"

Can you provide a reference to that statement, being that you concur with it? ;D Seemingly. ;)

It not up to me to prove your statements. ;) Only to question them. ;)   

Mags

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:57:26 AM
I really hate to argue with you T.  I respect your knowledge and intellect more than your cohorts. But..   Can you show me a reference to that statement, other than your own?   ??? ;)     Please?? You must have a copy ready for cut and paste. ;D

Mags

When you place a buoyant object in water, gravity causes it to sink. As it sinks it displaces water, that makes the level of the water in the outer container, or ocean, rise up a little bit. Gravity pulls down on this water. There are NO OTHER FORCES than gravity happening in buoyancy!  When you lighten the displacing object, gravity makes more water flow UNDER it and it is this increased water UNDER the object that makes it rise up to a new equilibrium point. The whole process is gravity-driven, gravity controlled, gravity is the only force involved. Buoyancy is simply gravity, shifting water around.
Now you can play around with gas pressures like in the Cartesian diver, to change the effective volume of the displacer, but make no mistake: it is gravity and the weight of the displaced water (not the mass this time, the weight) that float your boat or your Zed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 07:58:59 AM
Why of course:  Let's discuss that.  Just post a diagram and your math.  Show your energy gain.  Force gain won't cut it.  We need to see you "turn buoyancy on and off at will", and/or gain energy at will.  Are you finally up to the task?

My rule not yours - not your machine... sorry.

Since you have a tiny bit of understanding - I will jump ahead a bit.

P.s. don't tell me if you agree or not - you don't get it - I got that.

When a ZED is sinking - the heads are lower

When the ZED is rising - the heads are higher

RIght, right.

The lower heads result in a concentration of the forces to the middle of the ZED

The higher heads result in a greater distribution of heads.

The result ----the loaded ZED more effectively utilizes the total surfaces

The Sinking ZED uses less surface area

The benefit:

Less pressure needed per pound on the lift.......

Less load to create pressure on the sink........

And the difference between the two...........wait for it - not equal rocks......or Non conservative

RED and I explained this year ago.....

p.s. to save your MATH - if you leave the same load on up and down - it is a rock - or "brick" as you see it.

Not what we do buddy.



 

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 07:59:06 AM
I really hate to argue with you T.  I respect your knowledge and intellect more than your cohorts. But..   Can you show me a reference to that statement, other than your own?   ??? ;)     Please?? You must have a copy ready for cut and paste. ;D

Mags
http://physics.j3science.com/images/d/db/Buoyancy_Summary.pdf

Quote
Buoyancy Summary
Fb = p*V*g
•p is the density of the displaced fluid
•V is the volume of displaced fluid
g is the acceleration of gravity
•That is, Fb is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
...
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 08:02:46 AM
What I said, gravity is the only force involved.

(People are gonna see that "rho" for density and think it's a "p" for pressure, just watch.)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 08:03:01 AM
My rule not yours - not your machine... sorry.
So you can't demonstrate turning buoyancy on and off after all, can you?
Quote

Since you have a tiny bit of understanding - I will jump ahead a bit.

P.s. don't tell me if you agree or not - you don't get it - I got that.

When a ZED is sinking - the heads are lower

When the ZED is rising - the heads are higher

RIght, right.

The lower heads result in a concentration of the forces to the middle of the ZED

The higher heads result in a greater distribution of heads.

The result ----the loaded ZED more effectively utilizes the total surfaces

The Sinking ZED uses less surface area

The benefit:

Less pressure needed per pound on the lift.......

Less load to create pressure on the sink........

And the difference between the two...........wait for it - not equal rocks......or Non conservative

RED and I explained this year ago.....

p.s. to save your MATH - if you leave the same load on up and down - it is a rock - or "brick" as you see it.

Not what we do buddy.
So where have you turned buoyancy on or off?  Shifting weights around does not alter the principle of buoyancy.  Let's see you describe something that can be verified where buoyancy is active one moment, and is not active the next.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 05, 2014, 08:06:17 AM



  Hi,
      Wayne the most likely thing you'll ever do with gravity is to talk up a
    hot air balloon .
         Have you ever answered my yes/no question?
   I've no idea what you're supposed to be doing because you're not making
    any headway, after all this time you've shown nothing!
                John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 08:07:47 AM


  Hi,
      Wayne the most likely thing you'll ever do with gravity is to talk up a
    hot air balloon .
         Have you ever answered my yes/no question?
   I've no idea what you're supposed to be doing because you're not making
    any headway, after all this time you've shown nothing!
                John.

I am sorry minnie,

I am confused,

which of the topics I offered did you want to talk about?

Thanks

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 08:10:25 AM
How much would you like to bet?

You do understand that buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity acting on a fluid displacement, don't you?

You act as if there were no water or atmosphere, that gravity and buoyancy coexist still.  Buoyancy can be an effect due to gravity, but it is not gravity itself.  It is just a result of certain conditions  affected by gravity.

Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off. 

So far, I won that bet. Pay uP sucka!!!  lol    Classic dodging.  ;) And typical. ;D


Mags

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 08:10:42 AM
So you can't demonstrate turning buoyancy on and off after all, can you?So where have you turned buoyancy on or off?  Shifting weights around does not alter the principle of buoyancy.  Let's see you describe something that can be verified where buoyancy is active one moment, and is not active the next.

I am sorry Mark,

You must have me confused with TK,

I turn Buoyancy off and on the same way anyone does - just faster - so much faster..

Thanks
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 08:14:52 AM
What I said, gravity is the only force involved.

(People are gonna see that "rho" for density and think it's a "p" for pressure, just watch.)

Your talking to the Guru of buoyancy TK, Honestly - if you can not see the allocation of differential density in our system - and the ease at which we effect them.

Better stop lecturing me.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 08:14:53 AM
You act as if there were no water or atmosphere, that gravity and buoyancy coexist still.  Buoyancy can be an effect due to gravity, but it is not gravity itself.  It is just a result of certain conditions  affected by gravity.

Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off. 

So far, I won that bet. Pay uP sucka!!!  lol    Classic dodging.  ;) And typical. ;D


Mags
Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter.   Would you like to spin again?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 08:16:04 AM
Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter.   Would you like to spin again?

double dodge
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 08:16:58 AM
I am sorry Mark,

You must have me confused with TK,

I turn Buoyancy off and on the same way anyone does - just faster - so much faster..

Thanks
Oh so you are feigning ignorance.  I get it.  When you say you can switch buoyancy on and off what you really mean is that you can expend work to eject or take on ballast just like people have known how to do for 2000 years.  I was under the mistaken impression that you were claiming that you could actually do something unique.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 08:18:32 AM
double dodge
Add this to your reading list.  http://www.barnesandnoble.com/listing/2694149522639?r=1&cm_mmca2=pla&cm_mmc=GooglePLA-_-TextBook_NotInStock_75Up-_-Q000000633-_-2694149522639
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 08:19:44 AM
Your talking to the Guru of buoyancy TK,
I was not addressing you, Travis, and Mags knows my history and knows that if I say I can demonstrate something... I really can do it. You? Not so much.
Quote
Honestly - if you can not see the allocation of differential density in our system - and the ease at which we effect them.
HONESTLY? You have got to be kidding me. Thou hypocrite, I spew you from my mouth like the drink of lukewarm Zed leakage that you are.
Quote
Better stop lecturing me.
Or what, you big bully? Are you going to shoot a spitwad at me? Fail to mention me in your prayers? STOP THREATENING ME.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 08:25:57 AM
You act as if there were no water or atmosphere, that gravity and buoyancy coexist still.  Buoyancy can be an effect due to gravity, but it is not gravity itself.  It is just a result of certain conditions  affected by gravity.

Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off. 

So far, I won that bet. Pay uP sucka!!!  lol    Classic dodging.  ;) And typical. ;D


Mags

Mags.... show me some gravity, please.


No.... that is just an EFFECT of gravity you are showing me. I want to see some GRAVITY that you can show me.

Buoyancy is an EFFECT of gravity, because we know gravity ONLY by its effects. And there is no other force than Gravity involved in Buoyancy. Is there any force other than gravity involved in a teeter-totter? Wouldn't you say that a teetertotter's motion is just gravity in action? Well, think about it, the action of water floating a buoyant object is no different than the motion of a see-saw, it is GRAVITY in action, just gravity misspelled.
(And in case you didn't know, the phrase is also an allusion to the statement "love ain't nothing but s e x  misspelled".)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 08:29:22 AM
I was not addressing you, Travis, and Mags knows my history and knows that if I say I can demonstrate something... I really can do it. You? Not so much. HONESTLY? You have got to be kidding me. Thou hypocrite, I spew you from my mouth like the drink of lukewarm Zed leakage that you are.Or what, you big bully? Are you going to shoot a spitwad at me? Fail to mention me in your prayers? STOP THREATENING ME.

see how you twisted that comment

I do not threaten you - I am trying to save you from emberassing yourself more.

You missed the ability of the ZED - and all of your attacks are misguided.

I suggest rather than getting stuck on a "decimal point" you go back and look at what Larry shared.

or just stop wasting your own time.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 08:35:51 AM
There is an easy way to control buoyancy, and that is by controlling the volume of the thing that is displacing the water. As I have tried to get over several times, there is a component of the air-water Zed system that acts like the Cartesian diver. True, the OUTER atmosphere interface cannot affect the buoyancy except by its head elevation. But there is an INNER interface too, when liquid volume is injected into the center of the system. The volume of the _compressible air layers_ changes; this changes the volume of water that these "bubbles" of air displace and hence the buoyant forces in the system.... just like the Cartesian diver's bubble is changed by pressure changes to the exterior of the device, transmitted through the incompressible water to the bubble within the _unsealed_ diver.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOXFiJ4IDU

Think about it. Of course this effect cannot occur if the "bubble" is an incompressible fluid.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 08:36:42 AM
see how you twisted that comment

I do not threaten you - I am trying to save you from emberassing yourself more.

You missed the ability of the ZED - and all of your attacks are misguided.

I suggest rather than getting stuck on a "decimal point" you go back and look at what Larry shared.

or just stop wasting your own time.
The only ability the ZED has is as a vehicle to raise money from people who do not perform technical due diligence.  Contrary to your false claims, you cannot generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights.  You can only expend net energy doing such things.  When may we see a report from any professional engineer who supports your false claims?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 08:40:26 AM
see how you twisted that comment

I do not threaten you - I am trying to save you from emberassing yourself more.

You missed the ability of the ZED - and all of your attacks are misguided.

I suggest rather than getting stuck on a "decimal point" you go back and look at what Larry shared.

or just stop wasting your own time.
You've threatened me more than once, both veiled and overtly. I am not embarrassed about anything, but I think you are. You have been asked a simple question and you refuse to answer it with "NO" because that would expose you as a false claimant by your own admission, and you refuse to answer it with "YES" because of that silly 8th Commandment. You probably think it's the Ninth, but you know which one I mean. Deut. 5, verses 4 onward.

You are wasting time, Travis, ours and everybody else's. I'm just sitting here watching you flail about like a landed fish.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 08:42:20 AM
Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter.   Would you like to spin again?

Where is the acceleration in a boat floating on a flat lake? :o It must be really slow. Actually, Im not much interested in waiting for the boat to accelerate. ;)   I dont have time for that. ::)

Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off.  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o    ;D   

Master of the universe cant back up his own statements.  Was it just sarcasm???? ;)   Astigmatism?? :o ;D Maybe you can dig that quote up for tomorrow, just to give you some time to get it together. ;)   No pressure. lol

Ok, time to sleep.  Night

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 05, 2014, 08:45:03 AM
There is an easy way to control buoyancy, and that is by controlling the volume of the thing that is displacing the water.

Umm, like a submarine??   ;) ;D

Night T

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 08:49:51 AM
You have been shown the quote. Buoyancy is gravity underwater, buoyancy is gravity misspelled, the only way to turn buoyancy on and off is to turn gravity on and off since they are THE SAME FORCE. When we see it operating out in space or between dry objects we say oh, look that is an effect of gravity. When it happens underwater we say oh, look, buoyancy. But it is the same force. The presence of the water just partitions that same force so that it is acting on the displaced water, and the displacer itself.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 08:53:28 AM
Umm, like a submarine??   ;) ;D

Night T

Mags
A submarine has tanks that are opened from within the boat, and it takes time to fill those tanks. This does not result in a "volume change" as much as it results in a "weight change". The sealed volume of the boat remains the same, but its weight is increased so it sinks and guess what, it is GRAVITY that sinks it. The Cartesian diver is operated by Pressure Changes coming from Outside, and the Diver responds instantly to those changes because its Volume changes so that it displaces more or less water, but its weight remains the same. Again, it is Gravity that makes the diver descend AND rise.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 08:58:51 AM
Where is the acceleration in a boat floating on a flat lake? :o It must be really slow. Actually, Im not much interested in waiting for the boat to accelerate. ;)   I dont have time for that. ::)

Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off.  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o    ;D   

Master of the universe cant back up his own statements.  Was it just sarcasm???? ;)   Astigmatism?? :o ;D Maybe you can dig that quote up for tomorrow, just to give you some time to get it together. ;)   No pressure. lol

Ok, time to sleep.  Night

Mags
No Mags I am afraid that it is you who is a little slow.  Just as the mass of the boat is acted upon by the acceleration due to gravity so is the equivalent mass of displaced fluid.  Maybe you worry that the acceleration due to gravity is going to pull you through your bed as you sleep tonight.  Thankfully for you there is Newton's Third Law to keep you from vanishing from under your covers to a fiery doom at the earth's center.

I am glad that you happily celebrate your deliberate ignorance.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 09:00:43 AM
Oh don't go to bed yet, Magsy.

Say your submarine is way down deep, with full ballast tanks. Now you want to surface. How do you do it?

You have to pump water out of the ballast tanks against the pressure of the deep sea. Where do you get all the compressed air it takes to do that?


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: minnie on March 05, 2014, 09:14:30 AM



   mrwayne's confused! Most of the rest of us aren't though.
   Handy being confused when you're faced with tough questions!
                     John.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 05, 2014, 10:12:52 AM
We have the technology!  Muhahahah.....   (Oops!  She's breaking up!  She's breaking up!)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: powercat on March 05, 2014, 12:41:11 PM
If anyone reading this new threat had any doubts about Wayne travesties honesty, take a look at the list of quotes from the old thread, Wayne will accuse me of anything he can to divert attention from his failings and dishonesty, he will also come up with multiple excuses to try and justify his failings and deceit.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
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 June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review
Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.
Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world
Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.
Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit
Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released
Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it over and over
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
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 October 15 2012 on his web site
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.
Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 2012 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend
Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 2012 on his web site
Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation?
Me too.
Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.
Quote from: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
Yes,And thank you.Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.In Mark and mine's last conversation -
just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we
both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again. Will we be ready?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 01:03:03 PM
PowerCat you have chronicled an example "Fan Dance of the Sharpie" or "The Dance of the Never to be Unveiled".  Some nice smiling stranger shows up and starts offering people the opportunity to get something for nothing.  They extol the wonderful virtues of the gourmet free lunch that they will be providing and the opportunities in franchising lovely gift meals.  Somehow, free lunches always take an extra special long time to prepare.  Those extended preparation times have a silver lining:  They leave more time for people to exchange money for free lunch opportunities.

I went and looked at the old Hydro Differential thread from two years ago.  It's Deja-Vu all over again.  Back then Kan Shi among others went through the physics and showed that there is nothing about the ZED that is new or different, or particularly efficient.  And there is certainly nothing about the ZED that is over unity.  Wayne's back almost two years later and his rhetoric is unchanged:  There's something magic behind the curtain that only smart members of the cult can see.  Somehow for all of their vision, they still need to buy electricity from the local power utility.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: markdansie on March 05, 2014, 02:54:46 PM
I have been mentioned  in dispatches again !!!!!!!
Just to clear what ever has been said or assumed (most likely the latter) I offer the following.


1. I have visited Wayne, an met withmany members of his team on three occasions.
2. I also arranged introductions to other parties who have visited on several times advising on paths forward and assisting with advice on proof of concept requirements. (highly qualified engineers and scientists)
3. I have always maintained that on my first visit, I was impressed with the efforts, the team spirit and saw some results that were interesting. However it never passed my "two day test of self sustaining"
4. I have suggested as have  many of my friends I introduced, the the need for a POC device.
5. Wayne has many people, some very qualified working with him. I am not qualified to do analysis on:
a. Their calculations and assumptions.
b. Their methods of collecting and interpreting the data
c. Their overall theory
I have however on all three occasion suggested ways of obtaining data, and or suggesting what would be required to convince outside parties.


The engineering and building of prototypes have taken many paths over the years.


I have also been taken to task by many for not "debunking" this technology. Because of business negotiations that effect many of the people including volunteers and investors (which I am not involved in), I have refrained from setting a final time frame for a POC to be running.


On a personal note, this project has brought a lot of passion and interest from many people in Wayne s community and beyond. The real story is not always about the outcome but the journey. I look back at all my dozens of projects that never worked out, sometimes I got it very wrong.


So, I have not seen the data that convinces me, and I do hope to get to see and assist in evaluating a proof of concept one day. However until that day arrives I will continue my public stance as of interest but not supported by any data I have seen to date. Others who work with Wayne, many with engineering qualifications do believe in what they are doing and their calculations. I am a very simple person, and do not get involved in such matters until a working prototype is running run and data has been collected with acceptable methodologies.


This will be my only comment on this matter.


Kind Regards
Mark

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 02:59:12 PM
If anyone reading this new threat had any doubts about Wayne travesties honesty, take a look at the list of quotes from the old thread, Wayne will accuse me of anything he can to divert attention from his failings and dishonesty, he will also come up with multiple excuses to try and justify his failings and deceit.


Really - don't want me to refute your theory?? But you are allowed to pot shot mine....

TO all:

The ladder of a break thru technology is a hard climb - and change is hard for many people.

Navigating thru the resistance creates many set backs.

I stand behind every statement I have ever made - for the hope, the expectation, and the plan at that time.

But be real - Change happen's and people like these clowns - are forgotten.

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

Mark Dansie is a very good man, and he has busted his tail, been honest and firm in his trusted role as a real skeptic.

Times and events may change - But my loyalty to those that gave direction, guidance, and connections - will remain solid as a rock.

That may result in different expectations and plans - as proven by powercatt.

Powercatt - you have chronicled the birthing pains of free energy.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 05, 2014, 03:05:31 PM
Just trying to get focus back on topic here.  This is a drawing of the same ZED system MarkE and I have been Analyzing, but with only the inner riser.  And the pod is now a simple displacement block to minimize the input water needed to charge the system from State 1 to State 2.

Please note that in State 1, there are zero buoyant Forces on the riser.  However, buoyancy Forces are induced, or "turned on", as the 37 mm water charge is introduced to the inner annulus (what remains of the old pod chamber).

State 3 is shown after the single riser has been allowed to lift until the buoyancy Forces present in State 2 are completely resolved again to zero.  The riser in State 3 is again experiencing zero buoyancy Forces.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
Travis is here posting at 1 am, and now he's here posting at 8 am....

Maybe if you spent more time with the crescent wrench and the teflon tape, Wayne ol boy, and less time on insignificant internet websites trying to get help with your homework.... you'd be making more progress toward showing what you claimed you could, and would gladly, show to us two and three years ago.

But something always clogs, springs a leak, trickles away and the thing comes to a stop, more or less rapidly. So you make a design change or order a new part or fire one engineer and hire another one. After all, your _THEORY_ says it must work, so the reason why it doesn't must be in the hardware somewhere. Look at all the data from the data collection models! (Yes, we'd like to, but you've never presented any in a form that is interpretable by non-cult members.) Just like all divinely inspired free energy saviours -- there have been many -- you are so sure that your "theory" predicts a working device that you are willing to lie and cheat, make false promises, "expectations not met" in order to keep your operation going in the hope that someone, some day may actually make something that Runs Itself, with No Input, No Exhaust, just "net" energy output converted to electricity that you can run your home on. 

Yes, I'm here posting too. Problem is, I don't have a world to save, so my time is my own.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 03:13:44 PM
Really - don't want me to refute your theory?? But you are allowed to pot shot mine....

TO all:

The ladder of a break thru technology is a hard climb - and change is hard for many people.

Navigating thru the resistance creates many set backs.

I stand behind every statement I have ever made - for the hope, the expectation, and the plan at that time.

But be real - Change happen's and people like these clowns - are forgotten.

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

Mark Dansie is a very good man, and he has busted his tail, been honest and firm in his trusted role as a real skeptic.

Times and events may change - But my loyalty to those that gave direction, guidance, and connections - will remain solid as a rock.

That may result in different expectations and plans - as proven by powercatt.

Powercatt - you have chronicled the birthing pains of free energy.
In your hands, Travis, the "free energy" is stillborn. Where's the crying, wetting baby? No where but in your dreams.

And you, Travis, are finally coming closer and closer to telling the Truth. You do not have any "5hp net" device that truly runs itself, producing that 5 hp over and above the "zero input" cost of running it. You expected to have one at the time....so it was "true" then what you said, and now you no longer mention it nor will you answer the simple direct "yes or no" question about it that has been asked of you so many times.

You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 04:09:43 PM
Yes, I'm here posting too. Problem is, I don't have a world to save, so my time is my own.

Are you Going help Monderask - or the regular
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 04:13:39 PM
In your hands, Travis, the "free energy" is stillborn. Where's the crying, wetting baby? No where but in your dreams.

And you, Travis, are finally coming closer and closer to telling the Truth. You do not have any "5hp net" device that truly runs itself, producing that 5 hp over and above the "zero input" cost of running it. You expected to have one at the time....so it was "true" then what you said, and now you no longer mention it nor will you answer the simple direct "yes or no" question about it that has been asked of you so many times.

You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.

Not your thread - not your machine - and above your pay grade -if you learn the system or help Monderask - great
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:30:05 PM
Are you Going help Monderask - or the regular

Ignorant buffoon.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: TinselKoala on March 05, 2014, 07:31:31 PM
Not your thread - not your machine - and above your pay grade -if you learn the system or help Monderask - great

So you think this is YOUR thread, then? And you are right about one thing.... you cannot buy ME.

Why don't you AT LEAST learn to spell M. Ondrasek's name properly, you ignorant buffoon.

You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.

And every single post you make that DOES NOT provide real evidence for your claims, the more people reading here will be convinced you  cannot do it. So keep up the major work of making these posts here, Wayne Travis. Your employees are wondering why you spend so much time on internet forums promulgating your false claims instead of WORKING FOR A LIVING.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 05, 2014, 10:49:37 PM
So you think this is YOUR thread, then? And you are right about one thing.... you cannot buy ME.

Why don't you AT LEAST learn to spell M. Ondrasek's name properly, you ignorant buffoon.

You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.

And every single post you make that DOES NOT provide real evidence for your claims, the more people reading here will be convinced you  cannot do it. So keep up the major work of making these posts here, Wayne Travis. Your employees are wondering why you spend so much time on internet forums promulgating your false claims instead of WORKING FOR A LIVING.

I am sorry Tk,

I do not recall agreeing to explain the details of my life to you - nor asking your permission to share our technology.

You are welcome to Learn the system to help Mike, or Webby, or Larry.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 10:51:22 PM
Really - don't want me to refute your theory?? But you are allowed to pot shot mine....

TO all:

The ladder of a break thru technology is a hard climb - and change is hard for many people.
That may be true, but it is completely inapplicable to your situation, because you have no break through.  You have nothing of value.  And you certainly do not have anything that either alters the conservative nature of gravity or allows you to supply endless and abundant clean energy as you falsely claim.
Quote

Navigating thru the resistance creates many set backs.
Ah yes there it is, the Tinkerbell Theorem:  "We can't deliver on our false claims because people don't believe in our false claims."
Quote

I stand behind every statement I have ever made - for the hope, the expectation, and the plan at that time.
We may yet get to see you attempt to stand up for your lies before a judge.
Quote

But be real - Change happen's and people like these clowns - are forgotten.
Most scams are forgotten.  That's good for new scammers.  It's a little bit harder to burn people who have other similar scams fresh in their minds.
Quote

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

Mark Dansie is a very good man, and he has busted his tail, been honest and firm in his trusted role as a real skeptic.
Yes, he seems a good person.  Yet, you abuse that by attempting to appropriate his name with false suggestions of endorsement that he has never offered and does not offer now.
Quote

Times and events may change - But my loyalty to those that gave direction, guidance, and connections - will remain solid as a rock.
How nice that you will forgive people as on their own schedules they eventually recognize that you do not have and have never had what you claim.
Quote

That may result in different expectations and plans - as proven by powercatt.
There it is again:  You claiming that others are responsible for your failure to deliver.  Your failure to deliver is the direct result of your claims always having been false.
Quote

Powercatt - you have chronicled the birthing pains of free energy.
If that is true, then there will never be any free energy.  You certainly don't have any.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 10:56:09 PM
Just trying to get focus back on topic here.  This is a drawing of the same ZED system MarkE and I have been Analyzing, but with only the inner riser.  And the pod is now a simple displacement block to minimize the input water needed to charge the system from State 1 to State 2.

Please note that in State 1, there are zero buoyant Forces on the riser. 
I agree that State 1 is in equilibrium.
Quote
However, buoyancy Forces are induced, or "turned on", as the 37 mm water charge is introduced to the inner annulus (what remains of the old pod chamber).
I object to this improper claim that buoyancy forces are "turned on".  Force builds from zero linearly and incrementally as water pumped in is forced around the obstacles in its path.  There is no "on" state or contrary "off" state.
Quote

State 3 is shown after the single riser has been allowed to lift until the buoyancy Forces present in State 2 are completely resolved again to zero.  The riser in State 3 is again experiencing zero buoyancy Forces.
Forces don't resolve.  Acceleration stops when net force reaches zero.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 10:59:58 PM
Not your thread - not your machine - and above your pay grade -if you learn the system or help Monderask - great
Neither is this your thread.  You are a guest with no more authority here than anyone else.  Yet, you talk as though you carry authority you don't have.  If you really want to claim that after six years of failing to deliver even one proof of concept that you do not understand that contrary to your claims, gravity is always conservative, then you say a lot about what your pay grade should be.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 11:13:27 PM
I think I got these correct,, I took them out of MarkE's spreadsheet.
Deriving is not the same as taking.  Kindly do not misrepresent what I have published.
Quote

This is the virtual water displaced.

The first column is the inner surface area of the risers, the bottom surface area of the pod. 

The second column is the head, that is the difference in water column heights.

The last number is cubic mm,, all these numbers are in mm in the spreadsheet.


End of state 2
314.16  x   37              = 11623.92       pod
530.93  x  57.873        = 30726.51189  riser 1   
907.92  x   44.55          = 40447.836     riser 2
1385.44 x   36.218        = 50177.86592  riser 3

30726.51189+11623.92+40447.836+50177.86592 = 132976.13381

132.976cc <= virtual volume of water displaced


End of state 3
132.976 x  30.996   = 3990.077856  pod
530.93  x  37.97      = 20159.4121   riser 1
907.92  x  18.82      = 17087.0544   riser 2
1385.44 x  4.613      = 6391.03472   riser 3

6391.03472+17087.0544+20159.4121+3990.077856 = 47627.579076

47.627cc  <= virtual volume of water still displaced


But more interestingly, this was all made by the addition of  only 3.108cc of real water into the pod chamber.
Are you completely unfamiliar with Archimede's Paradox?  The reason that you refer to it as "virtual" water is that it is the equivalent volume of displaced water. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 05, 2014, 11:15:28 PM
When I talk about force, as in cause and effect, you tell me that force is not energy, so I found myself assuming that you were saying that energy causes motion,, so I asked.

I do not see in your spreadsheet where you are calculating the virtual water that is both created and displaced by the addition of water into the pod chamber.

The pod is the filler for the first riser.
The first riser is the filler for the second riser.
The second riser is the filler for the third riser.
The water levels are all calculated.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 05, 2014, 11:22:45 PM
I object to this improper claim that buoyancy forces are "turned on".  Force builds from zero linearly and incrementally as water pumped in is forced around the obstacles in its path.  There is no "on" state or contrary "off" state.

MarkE, you can object to this description of "turned on" as it is not an instantaneous change between a state of 0 or 1.  But it is the vernacular used by the majority of the population.  I was only trying to point this out.

Ever "turn on" a CRT device and wait for the picture to appear as the tube "warms up?"  Same thing.  "Turn on" does not have to mean instantaneously.  There is a delay in the on and off state of every device, no matter how high the switching frequency.

Forces don't resolve.  Acceleration stops when net force reaches zero.

Yes, acceleration stops in this single ZED system when all the buoyancy Forces sum to zero.  If they are left at any other value then those Forces are: a) unresolved (my term), or b) (please tell me how to properly express this condition here).
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 12:19:02 AM
MarkE, you can object to this description of "turned on" as it is not an instantaneous change between a state of 0 or 1.  But it is the vernacular used by the majority of the population.  I was only trying to point this out.
I challenge you to show where this idea of "turned on" is accepted in industry or academia.  It is a bull shit suggestion by our own HER/Zydro.  It is part of their misdirection.
Quote

Ever "turn on" a CRT device and wait for the picture to appear as the tube "warms up?"  Same thing.  "Turn on" does not have to mean instantaneously.  There is a delay in the on and off state of every device, no matter how high the switching frequency.
No it is not.   The buoyant force builds linearly from zero as water is pumped in.  It has no time dependency.  It has no state dependency.  More displacement = more force.
Quote

Yes, acceleration stops in this single ZED system when all the buoyancy Forces sum to zero.  If they are left at any other value then those Forces are: a) unresolved (my term), or b) (please tell me how to properly express this condition here).
Unbalanced forces mean net force.  Newton's Second Law still applies:  F = mA.  This example like your two riser and three riser before it is fundamentally lossy.  You start by supplying work to create State 1.  Then you add work, ideally without loss adding potential energy to get to State 2.  Then without extracting any useful work, you lose more than 2/3 of the potential energy you added to get to State 2 by going to State 3.   So, this scheme is less efficient than a brick.  And yet it is the "ideal ZED".  That means that real ZEDs with real friction can only underperform this machine that is already less efficient than a brick.  The best ZED is therefore no ZED at all.  HER/Zydro's claims to extra energy by using pods and risers are by your example of the ideal device: completely refuted. 

Now, what I want to know is that having last night looked back at the hydro differential thread and having seen that among others Kan Shi explained all of this almost two years ago while you were engaged, why do you still resist what you obviously have the capacity to understand?


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 12:30:11 AM
I tried not to misrepresent anything.

Actually MarkE,, you need to take that up with TK, he says he is the one to first use that term, and he demonstrated that the virtual water provided the same change in scale reading as the real water.

Still, it only took a small volume of real fluid to make that big change.
I highly doubt that TK being the learned person he is ever claimed to be the discoverer of Archimedes' paradox.  I am quite confident that he explained the paradox, which really isn't a paradox at all when one thinks about it carefully.  We covered this before when we discussed Grimer's cement volume derivations.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 06, 2014, 12:40:00 AM
Newton's Second Law still applies:  F = mA.

Yes it does.  And lets look at that relationship.

F = mA

m is mass.  Mass is a property of a physical material that does not change for the accepted IDEAL conditions of a constant temperature and obvious absence of a state of matter change.  Therefore m is a CONSTANT.

A is acceleration.  In this case it is the acceleration due to gravity.  It is also a CONSTANT.

So the Force (F) in F = mA is a mathematical fact which the calculation of cannot be disputed.  It is the product of two CONSTANTS (and yes, TK, one is a vector so the result is a vector).

So, what is Energy?  It is a resultant of the prior mathematical fact that is Force.  It is F*ds (where ds is distance).

F is Force which is the product of two constants.

ds is distance which is another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.

Ergo, you must solve for Force before you calculate the Energy.  And regardless of the outcome of that Energy value, it must be correct.

In your first attempt at this Analysis you solved first for Energy Balance.  This was erroneous and resulted in a physical State 3 that could not actually exist due to "unresolved" Forces in the system that did not sum to zero.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 12:43:45 AM
MarkE,

Why would you NOT extract the useful work that can be extracted, sure if I run my car and don't go anywhere I will get ZERO MPG.

Common sense would say that if you can extract with no other effects then maybe you should, what part of this is it that you do not understand.
Webby, you are stuck on the same potential transfer problem that seems will vex you forever. 

For each um of upward movement we can calculate the net force on the riser.  It goes from its maximum starting value to zero.  It does so as a linear function.  Therefore we can express the force as:  F = F0 - K2*Z.  (K2 because I do not wish to confuse this constant with the pi/4*pwater*G0 K1 I often use.)  In other words the system operates like a cocked spring.  And now comes the problem with the ZED:  It is the way that the spring is utilized that is fundamental to the energy loss.  The potential energy stored in this "spring" is transferred into other potential energy in a direct process.  As a result, the process always suffers from the tyranny that:  N*(X/N)2 = X/N.  The only way to break even is to restrict N to 1.0, which means that you cannot redistribute potential energy from one store to another by any direct transfer mechanism without loss.  Gears, levers, pulleys, or in this case the riser, IE anything that translates static force and distance to another static force and distance constitutes making N greater than zero, and you lose: period.  In the case of the ZED, the less upward movement of the riser, the better.  The optimum is zero.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 06, 2014, 12:49:33 AM
MarkE, regarding your note inserted in the graphic that states:

3) No work extracted going from State 2 to State 3

We have already gone over this?  There is an ASSUMED non-physical device that MUST restrain the ZED from rising unimpeded (and wasting all that Energy rather than collecting it) that would account for the Work/Energy you keep throwing away.

This is an IDEAL Analysis and so a physical device should not need to be presented.  But if you insist that one does, I will oblige.  Please let me know if you need to see a physical manifestation of a "Worked on Device" or if you can agree that the Energy "lost from the system" due to the lift could have been collected.  Obviously we have all the correct ingredients:  A Force (from buoyancy) and a ds (distance that the riser lifts)?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 12:53:35 AM
Yes it does.  And lets look at that relationship.

F = mA

m is mass.  Mass is a property of a physical material that does not change for the accepted IDEAL conditions of a constant temperature and obvious absence of a state of matter change.  Therefore m is a CONSTANT.

A is acceleration.  In this case it is the acceleration due to gravity.  It is also a CONSTANT.
Yes, in this case with your stipulations for the "ideal ZED" m of the riser and "air" is constantly zero.  Therefore the kinetic energy is constantly ... wait for it: zero.
Quote

So the Force (F) in F = mA is a mathematical fact which the calculation of cannot be disputed.  It is the product of two CONSTANTS (and yes, TK, one is a vector so the result is a vector).

So, what is Energy?  It is a resultant of the prior mathematical fact that is Force.  It is F*ds (where ds is distance).

F is Force which is the product of two constants.
No, F is whatever function defines it over the traversed distance S that it will be evaluated.  In the other thread I thought I read you saying that you work with CFD.  How could you work with CFD and misrepresent these fundamental concepts? Are you trolling?
Quote

ds is distance which another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.
I find it hard to believe that you flunked calculus.  But, if you want to represent that you did, who am I to argue?
Quote

Ergo, you must solve for Force before you calculate the Energy.  And regardless of the outcome of that Energy value, it must be correct.
You must solve for the force at each incremental point over a path in order to solve for the energy applied.  Drag a heavy object with a real coefficient of friction for a distance and you apply real work.  That work all converts to heat.  You end up with zero kinetic or potential energy in the thing you dragged.
Quote

In your first attempt at this Analysis you solved first for Energy Balance.  This was erroneous and resulted in a physical State 3 that could not actually exist due to "unresolved" Forces in the system that did not sum to zero.
No, I calculated the energy loss for the change in internal energy.  You may rightly contest that I did not correctly solve the equilibrium height, because I did not. But the energy loss calculated was correct for the calculated movement, and only gets worse going to the higher true equilibrium height.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 01:00:18 AM
MarkE, regarding your note inserted in the graphic that states:

3) No work extracted going from State 2 to State 3

We have already gone over this?  There is an ASSUMED non-physical device that MUST restrain the ZED from rising unimpeded (and wasting all that Energy rather than collecting it) that would account for the Work/Energy you keep throwing away.
Your assumption that some device can magically collect the lost energy is a fallacy.  Place any mechanism that you like in communication with the risers and show that you don't lose energy.  You cannot.  But go ahead and prove me wrong.  Every um of movement by the riser results in permanently lost energy.  I have shown the physical basis for this and the associated math.  If you want to argue differently, do more than exclaiming "No it isn't."
Quote

This is an IDEAL Analysis and so a physical device should not need to be presented.  But if you insist that one does, I will oblige.  Please let me know if you need to see a physical manifestation of a "Worked on Device" or if you can agree that the Energy "lost from the system" due to the lift could have been collected.  Obviously we have all the correct ingredients:  A Force (from buoyancy) and a ds (distance that the riser lifts)?
I do insist, because it is fundamental.  You cannot collect what you lose lifting, because the very act of lifting changes the N in N*X/N2 to a value greater than 1.0. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 06, 2014, 01:13:33 AM
In the other thread I thought I read you saying that you work with CFD.

Sorry, but you must be remembering someone else.  I do no work with CFD, and have not since the days when grad students waited for their time slots on a NASA supercomputer in the early morning hours to run their sims.  But I was not directly involved with their work.  I was an undergrad at the time.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mrwayne on March 06, 2014, 01:13:48 AM
Sometimes simple things get missed.

It doesn't help if the missed things are counter intuitive.

If you assume a system can only be 100%, you must conclude that any loss means no Net Energy.

If the assumption holds true - no Net Energy.

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

Yet what happens when the system is 105% then 160% or 340%

Can you as a designer choose to use components that have some losses and still have NET.

and more over - if a standard car engine is 33% efficient - and powering a 330% efficient ZED -

Pretty unlikley to have enough losses that result in no Net gain.

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

Just saying - you need to open the Box a bit.
















Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 06, 2014, 01:17:46 AM
Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"

What do you base that off?

Wayne


Wayne, good question, you're almost there. My observation is based on the following statement:
"Our Technology produces clean energy Mechanically, by altering the the once believed conservative field of gravity - allowing us to supply endless and abdundant clean Energy."


That statement is obviously wrong.


You should re-read the thread more carefully. User @MarkE has explained very well why your claim is at odds with reality.
Don't give up yet, you're almost there.


orbut


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 06, 2014, 01:24:31 AM
Your assumption that some device can magically collect the lost energy is a fallacy.  Place any mechanism that you like in communication with the risers and show that you don't lose energy.  You cannot.  But go ahead and prove me wrong.  Every um of movement by the riser results in permanently lost energy.  I have shown the physical basis for this and the associated math.  If you want to argue differently, do more than exclaiming "No it isn't."I do insist, because it is fundamental.  You cannot collect what you lose lifting, because the very act of lifting changes the N in N*X/N2 to a value greater than 1.0.

Disregarding any unexpected events, I will draw up the simplest physical device I can conceive of that shows the lift is performing Work and provide it to you tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I would still like to learn your method to find the final end of lift state that resolves the positive buoyant Forces in the current State 3.  Like I said before, I could only imagine to do that iteratively.  But I believe you could find a way to reduce the calculus to an equation that would give the final (net zero buoyant Forces) lift height.  You do have mad math skills.  Please understand that this is not a demand or requirement for our current analysis.  I am just eager to learn if there is a simple way to do what I currently find horrendously difficult.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 01:41:34 AM
Sometimes simple things get missed.

It doesn't help if the missed things are counter intuitive.

If you assume a system can only be 100%, you must conclude that any loss means no Net Energy.
You have offered no evidence that the First Law of Energy is wrong.
Quote

If the assumption holds true - no Net Energy.
It is not an assumption, it is a law developed from countless careful observations.  You have offered zero counter evidence.
Quote

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

Yet what happens when the system is 105% then 160% or 340%
What happens if Peter Pan and Godzilla get into a smack down?  What happens if Benjamin Netanyahu declares he is a Sunni muslim?  We can hypothecate fantasies all day long.  Perhaps someday you will understand that when it comes to energy efficiency, the only value greater than 100% is undefined.
Quote

Can you as a designer choose to use components that have some losses and still have NET.
No, energy is conserved.  Again, see the First Law of Energy.  You may want to practice that because paragraph 0008 of your patent application will trigger a rejection for lack of utility because of the claim to a First Law violation.
Quote

and more over - if a standard car engine is 33% efficient - and powering a 330% efficient ZED -
Don't forget to include Captain Hook pushing from behind ...
Quote

Pretty unlikley to have enough losses that result in no Net gain.
No, it is completely impossible that you have a First Law violation.
Quote

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

Just saying - you need to open the Box a bit.
The box that we can all hope opens once long enough for you to enter is 6' x 9'.  Then you can have plenty of time to explain your ideas to Bubba.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 01:56:00 AM
Disregarding any unexpected events, I will draw up the simplest physical device I can conceive of that shows the lift is performing Work and provide it to you tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I would still like to learn your method to find the final end of lift state that resolves the positive buoyant Forces in the current State 3.  Like I said before, I could only imagine to do that iteratively.  But I believe you could find a way to reduce the calculus to an equation that would give the final (net zero buoyant Forces) lift height.  You do have mad math skills.  Please understand that this is not a demand or requirement for our current analysis.  I am just eager to learn if there is a simple way to do what I currently find horrendously difficult.
The method should be easy to understand:  Determine the initial net up force.  Then determine the up force as a function of lifted distance.  Solve for a change in up force equal and opposite to the initial up force. 

Where you and I diverge is this:  I am concerned only with your original problem statement that concerns your stated belief that a two riser system loses energy, while a three riser system gains energy.  I have shown that any upward movement by the riser results in net total energy loss, as necessitated by the:  E = k*N*X/N2 relationship.  As demonstrated, there are enough details that must be accounted for in determining the equilibrium height that it is easy to make a mistake getting the value.  But whatever the value is, no energy is imparted to the massless, incompressible fluid, nor the massless riser(s) in changing their heights.  If you load the riser with a weight, you do three things:  You reduce the height of the new equilibrium state, you reduce the amount of lost internal energy, and you convert a fraction of that smaller lost energy into change in GPE of the raised mass.  The larger that you make the mass the smaller the net loss until you reach a limit at zero movement, zero energy imparted to the mass that then doesn't lift at all, and zero internal energy lost.  IOW, the best you can do is to never leave State 2 which means that the best that you can do is to emulate a brick.

The moment you allow the risers to lift by any amount, you lose net energy.  Since the ZED/Zydro scheme relies upon this lift to operate, it loses energy.  Adding a second, a third or M such assemblies only multiplies the loss.  The claims by HER/Zydro that they have realized any improvement in hydraulic or hydraulic / pneumatic or hydraulic / pneumatic / buoyancy schemes is false.  The claims that they have discovered any new physics is false.  The claim that they can switch buoyancy on and off is false.  The claim that they can generate energy ex nihilo is false.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 06, 2014, 02:10:21 AM

BTW, I did say:
ds is distance which is another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.

And you replied with:
I find it hard to believe that you flunked calculus.  But, if you want to represent that you did, who am I to argue?


Distance is an indisputable fact.  Calculus does not apply.  Distance is simply distance.   It is a measurement that has units of length.  In SI the unit of length is the meter.

Once a distance is calculated or measured it is a CONSTANT that can in no way be in dispute. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 06, 2014, 02:17:37 AM
E = k*N*X/N2

MarkE, could you please define the terms you are supplying in this relationship?  Ie. k = what?  etc.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Newton II on March 06, 2014, 02:35:23 AM
Why don't you go for vapourization?  Water in a container behaves as a single mass since the molecules are held by bonds keeping it in liquid state.  But when it is vapourized, molecules get separated, become lighter than air and move upwards to form clouds at some part of the atmosphere.  When water molecules in clouds  join making them heavier than air (due to lightening or any other reason) they again fall down to earth as rain developing enormous kinetic energy which we make use of indirectly in hydel power plants to generate megawatts of electricity.

Is it not possible to replicate the natural process of rain in laboratory?

While most portion of solar energy is used up in heating up of earth and oceans,  a very small portion only is used in evaporating water from oceans and ground.  But when evaporated water falls down to earth as rain,  it developes enormous kinetic energy.

Is not rainfall a natural case of overunity?

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 02:48:11 AM
BTW, I did say:
ds is distance which is another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.
X ds signifies the change in X per per infinitesimal change in S.  ds is not S, and cannot be substituted for or by S.
Quote

And you replied with:
I find it hard to believe that you flunked calculus.  But, if you want to represent that you did, who am I to argue?


Distance is an indisputable fact.  Calculus does not apply.  Distance is simply distance.   It is a measurement that has units of length.  In SI the unit of length is the meter.
ds is calculus notation. integral( F*ds ) only equals F*S for the unique condition that F is a constant, and the evaluation is from zero to S.  Under all conditions where F is a function of S, such as applies here, the integral(F*ds) must be solved.
Quote

Once a distance is calculated or measured it is a CONSTANT that can in no way be in dispute.
Distance can be constant.  That does not mean that force along a path is constant.  Here is a simple compression spring problem:  F = -kX, where k is the spring constant.  Let's make it simple and say that k = 10N/m.  How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 100cm?

a. 0.05J
b. 0.5J
c. 1J
d. 5J
e. none of the above

How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 1m?

a. 0.05J
b. 0.5J
c. 1J
d. 5J
e. none of the above
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 02:56:08 AM
So you think this is YOUR thread, then? And you are right about one thing.... you cannot buy ME.

Why don't you AT LEAST learn to spell M. Ondrasek's name properly, you ignorant buffoon.

You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.

And every single post you make that DOES NOT provide real evidence for your claims, the more people reading here will be convinced you  cannot do it. So keep up the major work of making these posts here, Wayne Travis. Your employees are wondering why you spend so much time on internet forums promulgating your false claims instead of WORKING FOR A LIVING.

Cmon T. You complain about a misspelled name, that was posted at 1am, as you stated earlier, then put a comma in your first sentence of your post here, which does'nt work there really.  ;) Did'nt work for me as soon as I read it. Does that make you an ignorant buffoon?  Why so much belching of insults? For the audience?  Making your case??  Cheap shot really. ::) I guess thats all that is left. ;)

"You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't."

Well I would say that statement is a claim. Can you prove your claim?  ??? ;) Put it on YT and lets see your proof of 'your' claim. You made numerous vids proving Rosemary wrong, but no due diligence as such here.  And you tell Wayne 'he' should work for a living. You are posting here in greater quantity than Wayne has, yet no proofs of 'your claim', just speculation. Oh the hypocrisy. ::)

Wayne said  "...and above your pay grade"  and you said   "you cannot buy ME" 

It seems to me that Wayne was implying that you are not worth the pay that he would expect to pay someone that he considered capable of doing the work he would expect to pay for. How is that him trying to buy you?  Is that something the readers should understand clearly??? As that is your target audience, right?  "the more people reading here will be convinced you  cannot do it." ::)

See this is the way the comma should have been used...

"As that is your target audience, right?"  not  "So you think this is YOUR thread, then?"  lol  Buffoonery with a bit of hypocrisy?  Any readers here??????  ;D

Mags ::)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 02:57:22 AM
MarkE, could you please define the terms you are supplying in this relationship?  Ie. k = what?  etc.
K is a constant appropriate to the problem.  X is a distance where the evaluated quantity is proportional to the square of X, and N is the number of elements that over which the distance is equally proportioned.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 03:00:30 AM
Why don't you go for vapourization?  Water in a container behaves as a single mass since the molecules are held by bonds keeping it in liquid state.  But when it is vapourized, molecules get separated, become lighter than air and move upwards to form clouds at some part of the atmosphere.  When water molecules in clouds  join making them heavier than air (due to lightening or any other reason) they again fall down to earth as rain developing enormous kinetic energy which we make use of indirectly in hydel power plants to generate megawatts of electricity.

Is it not possible to replicate the natural process of rain in laboratory?

While most portion of solar energy is used up in heating up of earth and oceans,  a very small portion only is used in evaporating water from oceans and ground.  But when evaporated water falls down to earth as rain,  it developes enormous kinetic energy.

Is not rainfall a natural case of overunity?
No it is not.  And the heat of vaporization of water is huge compared to the heat required to change its temperature from say room temperature to 100C.  The energy that we are able to reclaim from a hydroelectric dam is but a small percentage of the solar energy expended vaporizing the water that ultimately runs through the generator turbines.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 03:04:12 AM
Cmon T. You complain about a misspelled name, that was posted at 1am, as you stated earlier, then put a comma in your first sentence of your post here, which does'nt work there really.  ;) Did'nt work for me as soon as I read it. Does that make you an ignorant buffoon?  Why so much belching of insults? For the audience?  Making your case??  Cheap shot really. ::) I guess thats all that is left. ;)

"You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't."

Well I would say that statement is a claim. Can you prove your claim?  ??? ;) Put it on YT and lets see your proof of 'your' claim. You made numerous vids proving Rosemary wrong, but no due diligence as such here.  And you tell Wayne 'he' should work for a living. You are posting here in greater quantity than Wayne has, yet no proofs of 'your claim', just speculation. Oh the hypocrisy. ::)

Wayne said  "...and above your pay grade"  and you said   "you cannot buy ME" 

It seems to me that Wayne was implying that you are not worth the pay that he would expect to pay someone that he considered capable of doing the work he would expect to pay for. How is that him trying to buy you?  Is that something the readers should understand clearly??? As that is your target audience, right?  "the more people reading here will be convinced you  cannot do it." ::)

See this is the way the comma should have been used...

"As that is your target audience, right?"  not  "So you think this is YOUR thread, then?"  lol  Buffoonery with a bit of hypocrisy?  Any readers here??????  ;D

Mags ::)
The extraordinary claim is by Wayne Travis / HER / Zydro.  Extraordinary claims are false on their face until proven by the claimant.  How many years has it been and Wayne Travis has not offered a shred of evidence that:  He can alter the conservative nature of gravity, generate the endless energy, or any energy that he claims.  Each of those is an extraordinary claim.  Each is false on its face.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 06, 2014, 03:07:00 AM
Mark:

I can answer your pop quiz but I am not sure any of Wayne's replicators can.  I doubt that Wayne can answer it.  For me that illustrates the moral bankruptcy of Wayne (endorsing them and advising us to 'learn' from them) and the folly of the whole affair.

Also Wayne's "descriptions" of how the thing allegedly works are nothing more than a word salad.  It makes me absolutely cringe.  I challenge anybody reading this to state that they actually understand what Wayne is saying.  It's the well-practiced jumble-ese that is used to seduce little old ladies to part with their retirement money.

Wayne's world is a classic reality distortion zone.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 03:10:29 AM
Mark:

I can answer your pop quiz but I am not sure any of Wayne's replicators can.  I doubt that Wayne can answer it.  For me that illustrates the moral bankruptcy of Wayne (endorsing them and advising us to 'learn' from them) and the folly of the whole affair.

Also Wayne's "descriptions" of how the thing allegedly works are nothing more than a word salad.  It makes me absolutely cringe.  I challenge anybody reading this to state that they actually understand what Wayne is saying.  It's the well-practiced jumble-ese that is used to seduce little old ladies to part with their retirement money.

Wayne's world is a classic reality distortion zone.

MileHigh
In the past day, Wayne Travis has claimed that there is such thing as a "Travis effect".  This overcomes the objection two years ago that the term was just something Tom Miller referred to and no one should hold Wayne Travis to that term.  I have never seen anyone articulate a description of what the supposed "Travis effect" is, and how it behaves differently from the 2000 year old Archimedes' Principle.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 06, 2014, 03:15:46 AM

I think mrwayne is well on the way to understand why his claims are false.
He seems to be a fairly intelligent guy and with a little help he might be able to wrap his
head around the basic concepts.


Maybe larry or webby could post the link to the wikipedia article about gravitation to help
him to catch up.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: mondrasek on March 06, 2014, 03:19:08 AM
X ds signifies the change in X per per infinitesimal change in S.  ds is not S, and cannot be substituted for or by S.ds is calculus notation. integral( F*ds ) only equals F*S for the unique condition that F is a constant, and the evaluation is from zero to S.  Under all conditions where F is a function of S, such as applies here, the integral(F*ds) must be solved.Distance can be constant.  That does not mean that force along a path is constant.  Here is a simple compression spring problem:  F = -kX, where k is the spring constant.  Let's make it simple and say that k = 10N/m.  How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 100cm?

a. 0.05J
b. 0.5J
c. 1J
d. 5J
e. none of the above

How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 1m?

a. 0.05J
b. 0.5J
c. 1J
d. 5J
e. none of the above

MarkE, please respond to one reply at a time.  Try to not mix my replies into an amalgamation that I should have to decipher.

You have not defined yet what "X" represents.   Or what "S" represents.

And I suggest that we stay focused only on the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED for the purpose of clarity.  Discussing mechanical springs may be equivalent to the unique construction of a ZED for the purposes of the point you are trying to make, but that implied "analogy" is not focused solely on this device.  And so your introduction of the "springs" are a distraction from the Analysis at hand.


F*ds is the correct way to calculate the Energy that enters or leaves the single ideal ZED system being Analyzed, do you agree?


To be 100% clear, are we now only discussing the Analysis of the single riser (semi) ZED system that I presented earlier today?  Is that the one I should prepare the physical resistance to lift (work accumulator) for in the morning?  Or did you want to try this on the 3-layer one?

BTW, I know that a negative or even condescending "tone" can be implied when reading this post.  But please understand that it is not meant that way and accept my apologies for any offense I may have implied.  I did not mean any offense, and I have great respect for your talent and skills.  I am only trying to correspond in a "tone neutral" way, which to me at least, comes off kind of like an ass.

Sorry if I offended you in any way.  It was not my intention.

M.

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 03:35:36 AM

And I suggest that we stay focused only on the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED for the purpose of clarity.  Discussing mechanical springs may be equivalent to the unique construction of a ZED for the purposes of the point you are trying to make, but that implied "analogy" is not focused solely on this device.  And so your introduction of the "springs" are a distraction from the Analysis at hand.



 ;)
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 03:39:33 AM
MarkE, please respond to one reply at a time.  Try to not mix my replies into an amalgamation that I should have to decipher.

You have not defined yet what "X" represents.   Or what "S" represents.

And I suggest that we stay focused only on the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED for the purpose of clarity.  Discussing mechanical springs may be equivalent to the unique construction of a ZED for the purposes of the point you are trying to make, but that implied "analogy" is not focused solely on this device.  And so your introduction of the "springs" are a distraction from the Analysis at hand.


F*ds is the correct way to calculate the Energy that enters or leaves the single ideal ZED system being Analyzed, do you agree?
No, I do not agree.
Quote


To be 100% clear, are we now only discussing the Analysis of the single riser (semi) ZED system that I presented earlier today?  Is that the one I should prepare the physical resistance to lift (work accumulator) for in the morning?  Or did you want to try this on the 3-layer one?
The single layer device is what we are discussing.
Quote

BTW, I know that a negative or even condescending "tone" can be implied when reading this post.  But please understand that it is not meant that way and accept my apologies for any offense I may have implied.  I did not mean any offense, and I have great respect for your talent and skills.  I am only trying to correspond in a "tone neutral" way, which to me at least, comes off kind of like an ass.

Sorry if I offended you in any way.  It was not my intention.

M.
I have responded to each of your questions one by one.  X is a quantity that relates to the quantity we are evaluating as a square function.  It is not specific to a particular problem.  X could for example be voltage on a capacitor, deflection of a spring, or the head of water in some column, where the quantity that we are interested in is energy.  In each case the energy is a linear function of X2

S is a distance.  Do not confuse S for ds  They are not the same.

I keep explaining the math.  I have used analogies where the math is the same.

No, F*ds is the quantity that you must integrate over the path S to obtain the energy expended doing so.  Where F is not a constant, the integral will be more complicated than F*S.

Some simple cheats for you:

integral( K1*ds ) = K1*(SEND - SSTART)
integral( K2*Sds ) = 0.5*K2*(SEND2 - SSTART2)

Filling or emptying a single column of water is described by:

F = pWater * G0 * Area * Height
P = F/Area = pWater * G0 * Height
E = integral( F*ds ) = integral( pWater * G0 * Area * Height dh) = 0.5 * pWater * G0 * Area * (HeightEND2 - HeightStart2)

Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 04:18:43 AM
The extraordinary claim is by Wayne Travis / HER / Zydro.  Extraordinary claims are false on their face until proven by the claimant.  How many years has it been and Wayne Travis has not offered a shred of evidence that:  He can alter the conservative nature of gravity, generate the endless energy, or any energy that he claims.  Each of those is an extraordinary claim.  Each is false on its face.

Well, if it is soo extra ordinary and 'predetermined' that the claim is false because of its extraordinary status, then why all the fuss??  There must be better reasons than just trying to get him to admit defeat for the sole purpose of getting him to concede.   ???

Like why not go after the guys that put out the "build a magnet motor to run your home" info for just $49.95 Guarantied Money Back If Not Satisfied.  No real problems with those claims, huh? Nobody getting ripped off there, huh?  Did you see the comma placements there?  lol

I know why none of you go after those guys. Its being 'allowed'. ;) Allowed because it is a ripoff that discourages people from believing in the possibility of free energy or OU by cheating the ones that like the idea of it when they read the ads. Thats why the ads persist.  No big raids, nothing. Its funny how they can keep 'advertizing' without being shut down, isnt it? These ads are EVERYWHERE!!. Not challenging enough for you?? Screw the fools that purchase these false hopes??? I thought that was what your goals were, to rid the world of OU ripoffs.  ??? ;)

Best to attack the little guy in a little thread on some forum, who is just trying to help a few guys understand something they never knew? ??? ? ::)

All considered, it makes me think you guys are trying to shut Wayne down for more sinister reasons. 8) 8) 8) 8)      ;)   

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 04:28:35 AM
Well, if it is soo extra ordinary and 'predetermined' that the claim is false because of its extraordinary status, then why all the fuss??  There must be better reasons than just trying to get him to admit defeat for the sole purpose of getting him to concede.   ???

Like why not go after the guys that put out the "build a magnet motor to run your home" info for just $49.95 Guarantied Money Back If Not Satisfied.  No real problems with those claims, huh? Nobody getting ripped off there, huh?  Did you see the comma placements there?  lol

I know why none of you go after those guys. Its being 'allowed'. ;) Allowed because being it is a ripoff that discourages people from believing in the possibility of free energy or OU by cheating the ones that like the idea of it when they read the ads. Thats why the ads persist.  No big raids, nothing. Its funny how they can keep 'advertizing' without being shut down, isnt it? These ads are EVERYWHERE!!. Not challenging enough for you?? Screw the fools that purchase these false hopes??? I thought that was what your goals were, to rid the world of OU ripoffs.  ??? ;)

Best to attack the little guy in a little thread on some forum, who is just trying to help a few guys understand something they never knew? ??? ? ::)

All considered, it makes me think you guys are trying to shut Wayne down for more sinister reasons. 8) 8) 8) 8)      ;)   

Mags
Wayne Travis is unlikely to come out and admit his lies until there is an advantage for him to do so.  Mondrasek asked for help analyzing a the physics.  I offered to help and have done so.  Wayne came here  spewing his usual lies.  He injected himself with those lies here, and like others I have objected.  If you are unhappy about the people selling those bogus free energy plans, then you are free to try and do something about it.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 06, 2014, 04:45:59 AM
If a fake YouTube clip flooder came on here to pitch his magnetic pyramid or some fifty buck circuit to "say goodbye to the power company" I would eat the guy alive.  However, those scammers would never come here because they know that's exactly what would happen.  They are the equivalent of a junk emailer that buys 10 million email addresses for $1000, concocts a pitch, does his email blast, and hopes that he can rake in $5000 or more.  That type of criminal has no desire to interact with anybody.  They are not looking for investment dollars, they don't want to speak to anybody.  It's a totally different type of con.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 04:51:55 AM
Wasif Kahloon  has seen his fake shredded.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 05:01:58 AM
If a fake YouTube clip flooder came on here to pitch his magnetic pyramid or some fifty buck circuit to "say goodbye to the power company" I would eat the guy alive.  However, those scammers would never come here because they know that's exactly what would happen.  They are the equivalent of a junk emailer that buys 10 million email addresses for $1000, concocts a pitch, does his email blast, and hopes that he can rake in $5000 or more.  That type of criminal has no desire to interact with anybody.  They are not looking for investment dollars, they don't want to speak to anybody.  It's a totally different type of con.

Oh, so 10,000 little ripoffs are ok.  ::) Dont worry about the big investor pitching a chunk of his cash stash towards an investment(they know the risks).  But the little guy hoping to cut his heating bill down from $150 a month blows $50 bucks he may not really be able to afford, he is not worth helping, even if there are thousands of them in the same position. ??? ::)   Save the big guy, step on the little guy because he is insignificant. ::)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 05:09:04 AM
Wayne Travis is unlikely to come out and admit his lies until there is an advantage for him to do so.  Mondrasek asked for help analyzing a the physics.  I offered to help and have done so.  Wayne came here  spewing his usual lies.  He injected himself with those lies here, and like others I have objected.  If you are unhappy about the people selling those bogus free energy plans, then you are free to try and do something about it.

Oh, its about the supposed lies. Hmm.  So the ads are providing truths, so its ok. ;) And these ads are not 'spewed' far beyond this little thread, in fact around the world?   ::) ::) ::) ::)

Where is that quote of Waynes where he "claims to be able to turn gravity on and off" ?? Liar. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MileHigh on March 06, 2014, 05:15:54 AM
I told you to never interact with me on this forum again.  The worst behaviour that I have ever seen on this forum was from you bashing me repeatedly and relentlessly.

Do not engage with me on the forum.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 05:26:52 AM
Oh, its about the supposed lies. Hmm.  So the ads are providing truths, so its ok. ;) And these ads are not 'spewed' far beyond this little thread, in fact around the world?   ::) ::) ::) ::)

Where is that quote of Waynes where he "claims to be able to turn gravity on and off" ?? Liar. ;)

Mags
Mags your posts say a lot about you.  It is not complimentary.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 05:27:20 AM
I told you to never interact with me on this forum again.  The worst behaviour that I have ever seen on this forum was from you bashing me repeatedly and relentlessly.

Do not engage with me on the forum.

These are your words....

http://www.overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg388214/#msg388214

" At the same time there is freedom to comment in both senses "


http://www.overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg388214/#msg388214

"It's a good thing that people can comment."


http://www.overunity.com/14128/an-interesting-phenomenon-i-found/msg388223/#msg388223

"People can try whatever they want, and also get comments from people with differing views"


So dont give me the 'I told you this and I told you that.' 

You either stand buy your own words or YOU can stop commenting on my posts, like you just did before this one.  :P   Go ahead. Tell Stefan.  You have no rights to restrict me from posting as I please. I called you no names.  I have as much posting "freedom" as YOU.  So if you want to make a complaint, Ill meet you in pm and we can discuss this with Stefan. I have no problem with that. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 05:30:41 AM
Mags your posts say a lot about you.  It is not complimentary.

Lol. Still no quote to back up your statement?  Just dodging and insults. Again. Typical. Yet you demand Wayne backs up his claims. Hypocrite.

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 05:32:41 AM
Lol. Still no quote to back up your statement?  Just dodging and insults. Again. Typical. Yet you demand Wayne backs up his claims. Hypocrite.

Mags
You choose to ignore facts and attack with false claims repeatedly.  That's your choice.  Present yourself as badly as you like.
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 05:49:29 AM
You choose to ignore facts and attack with false claims repeatedly.  That's your choice.  Present yourself as badly as you like.


You stated this....

"Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off.  Someone read "Slapstick"."

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg390997/#msg390997


And I asked you to provide a quote from Wayne on that, 7 pages back, and you cannot. Have not, and just keep saying stuff like "You choose to ignore facts and attack with false claims repeatedly." and "Present yourself as badly as you like."  But you wont back up your statement that Wayne stated that he can turn gravity on and off.  Because you cannot.  Theres a fact for ya.  ;D
The readers know whats up. ;) What a joke.

So. When will YOU prove your libelous claim of Waynes statement?  Hmm?  And yet there will be another dodge.  ;) Watch for the next dodge dear readers.  ;D Its coming.  ;) I can smell it.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: LarryC on March 06, 2014, 05:58:54 AM
M., Webby, Mags, Wayne,


MarkE is very good with math, but he was unable to explain the 33.55% excess output of the Zed over the Archimedes, backed up by his math, and tried to squirm out of it with a pathetic unrelated brake example. Do any of you understand why he can't comprehend?


Thanks, Larry
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 05:59:59 AM
Quote
You stated this....

"Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off.  Someone read "Slapstick"."

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg390997/#msg390997

I have shown you that buoyancy is gravity as applied to fluids.  Therefore any claim to turning buoyancy on and off is a claim of turning gravity on and off as it applies to fluids.  I provided you with a nice academic reference and quoted that reference.  Still you insist that it isn't so.  Maybe you don't remember.  Maybe this is all just beyond your comprehension.  Maybe you are just trolling.  Whatever the reason, you are not presenting yourself well.

Do you need to see the reference again?
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 06:01:49 AM
M., Webby, Mags,


MarkE is very good with math, but he was unable to explain the 33.55% excess output of the Zed over the Archimedes and tried to squirm out of it with a pathetic unrelated brake example. Do any of you understand why he can't understand?


Thanks, Larry
LarryC really?  Please cite any such posts of mine. 
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 06:17:15 AM
LarryC really?  Please cite any such posts of mine.

Oh really?????  More demands of others claims, but you CANNOT back up your own statements?????

Show me where Wayne states that he can turn gravity on and off!!!!  If you do not, then you do not deserve to demand the same of others.   ;)

See readers what we are dealing with here??? ;)   Yes you do.  ;D

Magluvin
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 06:25:54 AM
I have shown you that buoyancy is gravity as applied to fluids.  Therefore any claim to turning buoyancy on and off is a claim of turning gravity on and off as it applies to fluids.  I provided you with a nice academic reference and quoted that reference.  Still you insist that it isn't so.  Maybe you don't remember.  Maybe this is all just beyond your comprehension.  Maybe you are just trolling.  Whatever the reason, you are not presenting yourself well.

Do you need to see the reference again?

Well then, you should have stated that Wayne claims to be able to turn buoyancy on and off, instead of the words "turn gravity on and off. Correct????   But saying that he said that he claims to be able to turn buoyancy on and off, just doesnt sound so bad, does it? ;) You said he claimed to turn 'gravity' on and off, period. And now you twist it to be that you were saying other words instead. 

Here is your words.... "Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off"   

Show me the quote that Wayne said it!!!!!!!  ;)

Magluvin
Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: Magluvin on March 06, 2014, 06:34:40 AM
M., Webby, Mags, Wayne,


MarkE is very good with math, but he was unable to explain the 33.55% excess output of the Zed over the Archimedes, backed up by his math, and tried to squirm out of it with a pathetic unrelated brake example. Do any of you understand why he can't comprehend?


Thanks, Larry

"Do any of you understand why he can't comprehend?"

Oh he does comprehend.  ;)   He is doing his best to discredit the claim by twisting the truth. 8) Thats why.    ;)

Why do you think they are pounding on this so hard?  To try and get the readers to think its a fraud, by any means. Why would they want to do that with such aggression?  8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Suits. ;)     8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)   

Magluvin


Title: Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
Post by: MarkE on March 06, 2014, 06:36:07 AM
Well then, you should have stated that Wayne claims to be able to turn buoyancy on and off, instead of the words "turn gravity on and off. Correct????   But saying that he said that he claims to be able to turn buoyancy on and off, just doesnt sound so bad, does it? ;) You said he claimed to turn 'gravity' on and off, period. And now you twist it to be that you were saying other words instead. 

Here is your words.... "Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off"   

Show me the quote that Wayne said it!!!!!!!  ;)

Magluvin
You claimed that I lied.  I did not.  I have shown that I did not