Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[fletcher]

Well Michel .. what I've been thinking for quite a while is this.

Given that the inventor has made 3 prototypes with lots of professional support & is in the external validation process, I have no doubt that he is sincere in his beliefs & that he has a very supportive family, friends & team.

That aside, & I'm not in the business of crushing dreams, but I am interested in the truth.

The truth will be revealed whether his beliefs were well founded or not by the process underway at the moment - if he has an OU device that uses buoyancy & a unique combination of channels etc then this will unfold, one way or another.

My learning says that gravity is the cause of buoyancy - heavy things fall down & IMO pressure doesn't change the buoyancy or relative density environment unless you are talking about the cartesian diver example already mentioned previously - I accept that the inventor says that buoyancy force isn't increased by a ZED but I do have trouble with the concept of reduced energy input or that gravity is not conservative.

The reason is that you use a pressurized system - it is very easy to hide true energy use, at least for a while, & even if unwittingly - I have been aware IINM that for the two ZED system that Mark Dansie came to inspect, that one ZED wasn't behaving properly, which was subsequently sorted out after the event - but with two ZED's of not equal performance & capability in a symbiotic pressure trading relationship the possibility exists for ambiguous results which might not be self evident - added to that that the engineers on board hadn't anticipated or adequately addressed good input & output gathering methods in three prototypes when the technology touted as game & world changing would go under the microscope with just these questions first & foremost on investigating minds.

The upshot is that the two ZEDs in question were 'equalized' IIRC & this is how it should be for another test of any duration - the dual ZED testing relies on machines of equal ability & capacity sharing a resource to give this reduced energy input that is touted - there should be no delay to this test that I can see.

Having said that whilst a one layer purportedly doesn't show OU [I think that was said by Wayne] multiple layers do - two multilayer systems do not have to interconnected so the builders, whether publicly here, or in private, will be able to determine the input & output energies required.

When that information is in I will reflect on what my beliefs are, or were, & how appropriate they were in hindsight - in the mean time I await real world empirical results that unambiguously answer relevant & important questions about multi layered ZEDs.

[MT]

Hi all,

I noticed error in calculation of work out from my 2D model. I said you should get 100% efficiency while it is 50% and something, far from ideal. My apologies.

This error leads me to think whether is COP of 100% achievable in single ZED in reality. I remember Michel saying 98% is max pls correct me if I'm wrong. With how many layers we get 98% A 1000, 10000? It is interesting question at least for me.

It seems like adding more layers increases ZED EnergyOUT/EnergyIN efficiency and OU is got via recycling the exhaust. This theory is supported by recommendations that we should go at least 3, 5 or even 8 layers.

I tried to model different dimensions for pod, gaps and got different EnergyOUT/EnergyIN numbers. I'm just starting to see the complexities of cooking in the pans and it is even more interesting...

thank you,
Marcel

[neptune]

So the Zeds aren't "transitive" then? Are the two Zeds different, so you couldn't take the one on the right and put it where the one on the left is?

Because if A=B in the first Zed,  and D is cycled around between the Zeds..... then why doesn't C =B as well...... that is, C must equal A. So if C+D = A.... then therefore.... D = 0.
If the two Zeds are the same, and a cycle is being performed, it seems to me that this must be true.

@TK.I see the logic of your thinking,.However, have you taken into account that A is part of the set-up[never to be repeated ] cost? I can not express this mathematically, but if you think about it, you will understand what I mean
C on the diagram is the input to Zed two. It is less than A, because it is supplemented by D.

[Red_Sunset]

Gents,

It appears to me that this discussion can not achieve anything near over-unity

Fletcher, Seamus, MT,
It looks to me looks that this discussion can never lead to anywhere good, the least over-unity,  because you guys appear so preconceived, by needing everything into the latest details presented to you and then you will dispute and be unbelieving without giving any serious counter argument.

I can appreciate a logical counter argument,  I have been trying to steer towards it but I am not getting it here.

I presented some overview and flow figures in previous postings that played out a theoretical positive over-unity scenario.  You have been given the HW measurements, flow volumes, pressures, working details and processes, these have been described all over these pages but there is nowhere any counter analysis with  figures that contradict or show the flaw that is presented.

The only thing that I see is " can never work, why who knows...."  or there are generalized arguments referring to the conservation laws and water can not flow uphill or we wait for the validation.  You starting to look naked on these pages, poor I say...

Lets advance and say that the validation reports "all is legitimate & OK & OU". What will you have then, you still wouldn't know more than you have today.  Or am I missing something ?, please enlighten me

I could finish the cycle with putting everything on the table, but this is not my place to do that, I leave that to the master of this invention

Regards, Michel

[mrwayne]

To All,

Several times now I have seen a accidental aversion to the replication mission here - unintentional - but will confuse people later.

The single ZED's purpose is not to make a running machine, that is the use of a dual system.

It is possible to take a single ZED and have a recapture method of the system (instead of another Zed) and reuse that energy to supplement the next stroke - be very clear - this is not the best use of the ZED.

(A single Zed leaves out one of the four principal operations of the system - this group has yet to uncover one of the "Diamonds" - the shifting of the center of gravity during the Free Flow process. - This is for a later lesson).

On my instructions concerning the current replications: The point of using a three or four layer ZED - is to reach a point that Buoyancy/gravity - is as effective as a standard hydraulic cylinder - for the pV and - on a second note...to simplify the control of the air and water.

More layers adds complexity to the design - we have overcome these issues - we had to invent multiple ways to control the water and air (differential in layers larger than four).

At this stage of the learning process - being the person with the most experience - it is my opinion and our engineers' - to hold that issue off - or it will add complexity and slow the learning of the ZED system.

The Replication Challenge for a single ZED - was to show and report your findings - Just as Webby did - with a more stable and measurable set up.

Since I do not wish to be the director of "observation" - I leave that method and value up to the replicators.
A single system (105%) has only a paper value - you have nothing to give - but a dual system (160%-190%) leaves you room to make mistakes - have losses - and to feel confident in your construction.

Important Note: I have told no one "What" to expect to see - this is the Joy of discovery - not to be stolen- do not make the implications of an expectation - other than physical reporting of personal findings.

The single system only demonstrates half our system and it is much harder to utilize - can it be OU, yes - the right direction to head - no, good for measurement - and understanding - yes.

See3d is designing a single Zed "a teaching model" - perfectly fine - Now... if you want to blow Overunity .... with a practical application ..... you better use a dual system.

Next Note:  The replication challenge for the DUAL system - is for a running system - reason is simple you have a lot more extra to play with - I want our teams to win - duh.

Good luck Teams - Thank you for the private progress reports - sharing here is encouraged - but up to you.

Wayne Travis