Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

Please think hard about this. If one ZED has "excess exhaust energy" that can be fed to either another ZED (or an accumulator as you describe), then that SINGLE Zed must be OU in and of itself if the cycle is to be self running.  It is a complete falsification to say that this exhaust can be fed from one ZED that is not OU of itself  to another ZED that is not OU of itself and end up with an OU result.

Seamus,

Please think again hard about this.  You approach the whole process in a too general sense, with too generalized conclusions, you missing the details. There is a catch 22.
Similar to the layered ratio of some posting ago, it is all in  the nondescript details, I am sure you are still studying that one,
Talk your time, I will be only a post away

Regards, Michel

[mrwayne]

Please think hard about this. If one ZED has "excess exhaust energy" that can be fed to either another ZED (or an accumulator as you describe), then that SINGLE Zed must be OU in and of itself if the cycle is to be self running.  It is a complete falsification to say that this exhaust can be fed from one ZED that is not OU of itself  to another ZED that is not OU of itself and end up with an OU result.

MR Wayne hinges part of his working principle on this falsehood.

I firmly believe ALL of this 'exhaust' needs to be fed back to the ZED just to reset the state of it back to the begining of the cycle. This results in NO increase in NET energy.

The same is true of the layering effect. This acts to reduce efficiency, not increase it as there are more losses involved with more moving parts. Note that layering WILL increase the leverage , but not the energy in the system.

OK........
Well, I think you need to think that out a bit more.
Wayne

[Red_Sunset]

Naah Michel .. the currency I deal in is facts - I don't like them sugar coated & wrapped up - patent applications protect your rights.
We will have to agree to disagree about your 'delivery strategy' & the motivations will remain unknown till the end.
Right now this saga is following a pattern - a few good men are trying to get to the bottom of this.

Hi Fletcher,
When it comes to the Zed OU concept,
No problem that 'you disagree' ,  you need to do your diligent verification process as any wise man will do.
I will not qualify for you what should be sufficient or not. We all went through the same process, so take all the time you need.

When it comes to what is shared
I still believe that it is the prerogative of the topic owner to release what he wants to release. In the same way the reader can accept or reject, investigate and learn from what has been presented.  What happened on the forum site was something way beyond common respect and should not be tolerated (because certain people could NOT get exactly what they wanted)

Time will tell us the good news,  Michel

[parisd]

See3d, Tks for the link.

In your ZED there are no surface 1 surface 2, ... which exist in Wayne Zed, I initialy thought that the vertical force on these surfaces were helping to lift the riser.

These surfaces are quite large (a disk of larger diameter than the pod itself in Wayne drawing, a small annulus in yours). Is your drawing according Wayne latest drawings?

I discover riser legs in your drawing, interesting.

parsid, you must have missed my posted link to my public ZED folder with a PDF description of the ZED drawings used in my sim.  Here it is again.  This is where I will post my updates to the PDF and animations.  These are about to be updated, as the current ones are wrong in the details, but it will give you an idea of what it all means.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P

[neptune]

@Fletcher.I do not blame you or anyone else to take the attitude of leaving no stone unturned-that is what I understand by"due dilligence". However if someone proposes a theory, and I have seen evidence to the contrary, I feel the need to point it out.


You know, there is something else bugging me. The current consensus of opinion seems to be, one zed alone is or can be 100% efficient, but we need two zeds working together to achieve OU. We gain OU by using the "exhaust" of one zed to partly charge a second Zed. I see the logic of that.
       However, from that we can see that when the zed has completed its upstroke, and done work, the contents of the zed are still under pressure. So in a one Zed machine, instead of just releasing that pressure and wasting its energy,we could store at least some of that energy, and use it to partly recharge the same Zed.It could be stored in a "poor man`s hydraulic accumulator", that is a balloon, or even a vertical water column.
     So suppose that at the start of the downstroke , the exhaust pressure of the zed is 10psi. WE connect it to the said accumulator. The accumulator fills until the pressure equalises at say 6 psi. We then release and waste some more pressure from the zed until its pressure falls to precharge pressure at say 2 psi.
   Then , at the start of the upstroke we connect the accumulator to the Zed to partly recharge it. Thus saving part of the energy needed to recharge it.
     Owing to the complexity of valves etc, it would probably be easier to use two zeds. But nevertheless, this would be a way to gain OU with a single Zed. Does this make sense to anyone, or am  losing the plot?

In the above quote I described a "thought experiment" of a way to improve the efficiency of a single Zed. I now realise that whilst the theory is valid, there is way to achieve the same thing in a far more simple way.
Consider a single Zed, used to lift a load . The input water is supplied by a simple plunger type pump, and the plunger is depressed by putting a weight on it . Suppose force x distance on the input = force times distance on the output. 100% efficiency[disregard losses.] Now when we come to raise the weight on the plunger to cause the risers to fall, we find that the work necessary to do this is less than expected. Why? because as the pressurised water goes from Zed to input pump, it is helping to lift the weight. [Wayne previously told us this in a cryptic sort of way, by saying something like "look at the cost of lifting this weight" .] So in effect, the input pump takes on a secondary function by acting as a hydraulic accumulator. When we lift the plunger weight, we are inputting energy for the next upstroke of the risers, pod and load.
But we are doing this at REDUCED COST. Is this making sense to anyone, or am I talking garbage?