Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

When the risers are at top of lift they are held in place by a full stop, they can not rise any further, thus removing the load does not change the internal charge value of the ZED, this pressure with fluid volume MUST exit the ZED to allow the risers to sink.

Right, no problem, except "removing the load". When the risers hit the top stop... is that what is meant by "removing the load?" Because if the pressure is enough to hold them against the top stop they can't "feel" the load at that point, can they? I mean you could physically remove the load and the riser couldn't tell the difference, as long as the riser doesn't itself move, right?
Anyway, I'm not clear on just what is meant by "removing the load". At first I thought you meant actually reaching out and taking it off physically and moving it somewhere else until the riser is back down, then replacing it. But that can't be the case, because that involves work that has to be accounted for somehow. But now I realise that when the riser is against the top stop it no longer "feels" the load, it's now feeling the stop, so you could think of the load as being removed, even though the equivalent pressure is retained by the stop restricting the riser's motion.
Anyhow, do you mean just taking the load off physically once the riser is at the top stop?

Why waste the force that was put into the system?

To make the lift energy must be input to the system, I think we agree on this.

When the system is at full lift and the risers are held from rising any further there is still pressure and fluid in the system that was added.

I think this is where things are NOT in agreement.

To not have the pressure and fluid volume trapped within the ZED would mean that it has somehow disappeared into nothing, a clear violation of the laws as we understand them so it must still be there, and it is.

And yet you apparently believe it can be used somewhere else without disappearing or being used up somehow... but ok for now.

With this left over piece of the input the system can release it and have it do work, that is what is happening but the force left over is not by itself able to make a lift happen on the second ZED, so force is added to that force so that a lift can happen, but the force needed to be added to make the lift is the lift force minus the left over part, less than the initial input.

The first lift, the very first one, is at a total cost of input, then when using the left over force from the lift cycle it reduces the cost to ME but not the cost of lift, it still takes the same amount of force to make the lift, but since some of the force is coming from the first ZED that is a savings to ME.

You cannot actually _use_ that trapped pressure anywhere without discharging it. Think of a compressed spring. You can compress it, let it expand, recompress it, and so on, recycling the same energy back and forth, losing just a tiny bit to heat each time. But to actually USE that stored energy in compression to do something else... like compress a different spring.... some of the compression of the first spring must be "bled off". Transferring it to the other spring gets you nothing though, it just partitions it so that neither spring compresses as far as before.  To use this trapped compression energy for anything other than bouncing back and forth, it has to decrease the energy that is bouncing back and forth.  And your trapped pressure at the top is just like this spring system, only complicated enough to make it unclear.
You can substitute two springs for the zeds in every explanation I've seen so far, springs and levers.  You start with two compression springs, side by side vertically, relaxed and extended. You plop an input weight down on one of them and the spring compresses. When it hits bottom you lock it there with a stop, so it now feels the stop and not the input weight. You then "drop the bottom" out of the first spring with a see-saw lever that is linked to the second spring bottom, which pushes it upwards. So now you have half the compression of the first spring gone over to compress the second spring up half-way. Now it only takes half as much work on top of the second spring to compress it fully. Right? So you do this "assist" and now you "drop the bottom" of the second spring halfway and your lever compresses the bottom of the first spring back up, and now your first spring is fully compressed again.... for free. So now you've removed your first input weight and so when you unlatch the first spring's top it jumps back up to the fully extended position, and you are ready to start the cycle over again... the first spring is reset to start, but the second spring is still half-compressed. So you remove the weight, unlatch it at the top and let it spring up, and you can siphon off the energy from this springing up to turn your generator or better yet, to provide the "assist" to the first spring when it needs it.  And you don't even have to get your hands wet.

[TinselKoala]

@wildew
I think what you are describing is good.

- The big question: How far BELOW the starting point does that container need to go before the risers sink...
And how much of the potential of the lifted load will it take to get the input back up to the starting point ?

Yes. Could that amount _below_ be considered the "assist" input that's needed to get the risers to sink all the way? Sort of a negative work "input" to the output side?

[Red_Sunset]

Dear Tinselkoala,

Your private mail can make a positive contribution to this forum. The reason for posting is that I like the latter part of your mail, way better than the beginning part. That is the positive outlook we need on this forum to take it to the next level.
It is not really different to the math teaser your wrote (the motel with the 3x$10 and the 3x9=27),  post #2029, I enjoyed that one) and that highlites how a reference perspective is so important to understanding. And validation must be done from different angles to confirm the reality or point out the parallax.

Your reference, your viewing angle >> your understanding.
I have been living for a while in the middle of the Middle East, due to the difference of culture and religion, the world is seen here from a totally different angle than when using the reference of culture and religion from the west. From a viewpoint of understanding (different to agreeing), you can not understand the middle east using the West reference or visa versa.

The discussion about the Zed come pretty close to the same, certain members believe very strongly in the gospel laws of thermodynamics, and that is good, because these laws are true. Are they true to the exclusion of everything else is the question here?, in the same way, is one religious exclusively true to the exclusion of all other beliefs or do they all conspire to the same objective and have much more in common than in difference ?  The same can be applied to the political parties, shouldn't both democrats and republicans have the same good well being interests for all citizens at heart. "Belief" has an absoluteness that is polarizing because it encompasses all human feeling, emotions, survival drive, existence ...ect.  in the strongest possible way.

Beliefs instilled at youth (growing/forming time) will influence your views until death, they will always follow you in stronger or weaker forms. By teaching thermodynamics as an absolute doctrine, we do pre-empt unconsciously the possibility of the discovery of solutions,  exceptions or work-arounds that can overcome the conservation laws. That we have not observed exceptions doesn't mean they exist, by believing they CAN NOT exist, we will never observe them. That is pretty much the reaction to Wayne's Zed invention.

The most important teaching of Einstein is the "dimension of perception on how you see things" depends on "the reference position you have/take".  The simple simple Zed has a lot in common with that definition, although you would never say so on face value and by keeping a fixed earthly position you will never see it.

Lets now hypothetically assume that Wayne's invention does not work, no OU. What did we loose by refusing to explore and understand his invention. Quite a lot !,
There is no denying that he came up with some brilliant idea's on how to utilize buoyancy.  The road to the ultimate invention is paved with stepping stones, only the persons how step the steps will reach the gate of revelation. There is no elevator or magic jump you can take to bridge the divide to the solution. You need to master each step to be able to master the next one. Progress takes logical thinking, analysing ..ect this includes building prototypes for verification of correct understanding, there is a reverse path that is harder, longer and more costly, let the prototype teach me the understanding.

My message: 
YOU HAVE NOTHING TOO LOOSE BY POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT.
YOU HAVE EVERYTHING TO GAIN BY POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT.
YOU HAVE MORE TO LOOSE WITH OBJECTIONS "OU CAN NEVER BE", BEFORE ANALYSING AND PRODUCING A STRUCTURED REBUTTAL.
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, TAKE YOUR TIME TO THINK HARDER AND LONGER. (you will be rewarded)

And I think TK, the last part 'yr objective' in your mail confirms the above, do the analysis and you will see. You will not be disappointed even if you disagree

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com <harti@harti.com> wrote:
    You have just been sent a personal message by TinselKoala on Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com.
    IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.
    The message they sent you was:

    I'd mention, for comparison, not just Steorn, but also the Magnacoaster setup, and the Witts ministry's claims of devices, Michael Brady (Perendev), Szabo's EBM, Joseph Newman, for just a few examples of what MH is talking about. All these people have actual hardware of some kind, they've all been in the "business" for years, some of them have the same kind of testimonials from engineers, the same videos showing working devices, the same kinds of patent applications, or even granted patents. (Of course Brady also has his jail term for his trouble.)  The SKDB "developer's club" of Steorn is mirrored perfectly in MrWayne's case in the groups of people working behind the scenes with extra "knowledge" and promised rewards.
    There is one thing that does distinguish MrWayne's case and that is that he is awarding some money for various tasks. I hate to seem so hard headed, but I really do hope that Webby got the promised money, the check cleared and all that. I don't remember any big announcement or celebration when he received it. And I still think that the offer of ten thousand dollars, for a tabletop demonstrator of completely new physics and the first known large-scale violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, and maybe Newtonian mechanics too..... is a short-sighted and cynical attempt to get something that actually works, nearly for free... because MrWayne doesn't actually have anything that does what it says on the box, yet. Does he?

    What's my objective? I really REALLY want to see something different, that does work, that does solve energy problems, that does advance science and our understanding of reality. Wasting time and creativity on projects that have no hope of working, that may be the product of an idee fixe or a shared delusion -- or worse -- is contrary to that objective, and I hate to see intelligent and creative people doing it. Meanwhile, I keep looking, and I'm astounded by the patterns I see.
    Cheers--- and thanks MH for staying interested enough to keep in the mix.
    --TK

[Red_Sunset]

@Webby: Now, "lift efficiency" is one thing... but is there any other usable output where excess energy could make an appearance? How about some extra pressure, that could be bled off to a second Zed somehow, like by compressing a bag or helping with a hydraulic assist? It seems to me that this is what the "extra" work claims boil down to, as in the sketches and drawings above.

Webby, Tinselkoala,

I shouldn't any longer be here, but seeing what is unfolding is too frustrating to watch and to let it go on unchecked.
If you carry on this way, you will be building, discovering something totally new, that could be better than the Zed, quite possible.

But if you want to discover the Zed ?
Follow the telltales that Wayne left on this forum, you will discover all the detail.
Wayne NEVER lied or tried to deceive, he was truthful in what he disclosed. It might initially appear like Nostradamus writing but answers to emailed questions always made me say, oooh yes, I remember you mentioned this before in the forum.
For understanding, question everything what is disclosed with, "why" "where" "how" "what for"

Michel

[Red_Sunset]

........................................... I'm bit stuck in calculating work done for injection of water from bottom.
Marcel

Marcel,
It purely depends in what units you want to work.  I like simplicity,
I see metric as the easiest water since water was the reference unit for the weight system/volume system.

Weight and volume units,  1000cm3=1dcm3=1ltr=1kg
Distance expressed in "meters"
Pressure expressed in height 1psi= 70cm = 0.7 Mtrs   (example 8psi = head of 5.6 mtrs)
Energy expressed in "KgMtrs"

The energy required to deliver 10ltrs (10kg) water @ 5psi = 10 x (5 x .7)= 35KgMtrs,  The pressure injection of these 10ltrs of water @ 5psi, is the same as taking these 10ltrs of water to a height of 3.5 mtrs.  Visualize it like what Webby did by using a long vertical tube to generate pressure instead of using a pump.

Michel