Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

@webby: So how come when I ran your last set of numbers I got a perfectly ordinary COP of around 85 percent or so? Is there enough "extra" there to assist another Zed, also 85 percent itself, and wind up with OU?  You are robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and vice versa, and there is still no mechanism for gain evident to me, and the actual numbers I'm seeing sure don't support Red_Sunset's embarrassingly large OU... in fact they seem perfectly ordinary, as I've said.

I'd still like to see data from the simple, three layer system that, according to MrWayne, is clearly overunity by itself, no second Zed needed apparently. We've never had a full description of this "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself" (MrWayne's exact words).... so I'm guessing "simple" and "by itself" mean that it's a single Zed, like yours, but with only three layers. If this is clearly OU by itself.... then why isn't yours? And.... how was the clear overunity determined for that simple system that is clearly overunity by itself? What is the ratio of input work to output work for that simple system, clearly OU by itself?
Knowing that would be helpful, don't you think?

Look... it's been weeks now since we've been discussing this. I am absolutely certain that I myself could have ordered plastic tubes, received them, cut, polished, plumbed and assembled them into a double Zed system by now, with bags and levers and everything, and made measurements on it, in that time. I mean, in that same time I've built the several different versions of the self-powered tabletop waterpump incorporating the TinselZed in a functional way; I've done underwater wireless electrolysis for buoyancy control; and I've debunked a couple of electromagnetic hoax demonstrations, in addition to doing several other demonstrations, as well as monitoring this thread and fielding time-consuming questions and proposals from mysterious lurkers who are watching this thread without ever posting in it. The only reason I haven't done the "full Monty" on this system myself in that time is because I'm flat broke, and I don't believe that accuracy and repeatability can be obtained with free garbage materials, although I am impressed with your results and Mondrasek's build. (And I know that my results, if negative, likely would not be accepted anyway.)

The point I am trying to make here is this: if it's so easy, and the math sims indicate such large OU results, like the (corrected) value from Red_Sunset's last model..... and the actual device is so simple to construct, compared to something like, say, a double Scotch Yoke air motor that runs on 2 psi or even a Mondrasek wheel .....  where are the sausages? By now there should be a few complete systems returning real data that show positive OU results. But yours is the only and best one so far.... and the results are ordinary, not earthshaking, and the better the measurements get (over the two sets... heh....please do more) the less efficiency is indicated (from 102 percent or so the first set, to 85 percent or so for the latest set.)

My hypothetical spring model used, as far as I could make it, the same sequence of events and the same partitioning of "output" and "assist" as the explanations I have been given for the Zed system. Even a see-saw lever. So why isn't it expected to be OU too?

I expect to hear about results from the builders.... soon. In fact I am wondering why we haven't been hearing more results. How long does it take for glue to dry, anyway? Perhaps there are results..... but perhaps they are not "good" enough to share publicly, although I'm sure that PMs have been flying in the back-channel.

[TinselKoala]

By claim of this invention it does not fit within the standard model, and your spring analogy is standard model so either it does not work as an analogy or is not complete, and it is the not complete part that we are all trying to fill in.

Many people believe in what is sometimes called "Ibison's Principle"... which is that a "standard model", like circuit sims, physics sims, analyses using conventional assumptions about CofE and CofMomentum, magnetic field software,  and so on, can _never_ actually model or validate a true "overunity" or free energy system... because they are based, from the beginning, on the assumption that the fundamental laws can't be violated.

I think I am one of these people, and that is why I don't trust spreadsheets or mathematical models, or even traditional engineering statics-dynamics modelling based on Newtonian mechanics, when applied to alleged OU systems.  Invariably, when such models or sims report OU or some such anomalous results, it is found that there are errors in assumptions, input data or the sim's own internal calculations. Conversely, the sim might report ordinary behaviour when a real system could be "in fact" OU.  Since the numbers, run on ordinary methodology for finding work and energy, seem to indicate no OU in your small model, yet OU is claimed for the overall system... clearly something is wrong somewhere. So... show me the sausages. Where is the self-running, tabletop demonstrator? Is it that the skills of the replicator teams just aren't up to the task of gluing a bunch of plastic tubes together? Too busy with family and household chores to work on Water 2.0, which might even solve the riddle of how the Pyramids were built? Maybe mondrasek can give them some tips when he returns from vacation.

[Ghost]

TinselKoala,
because it's clearly bullshit and does not work, that's why.
its been weeks, lol expect months, possibles years if they don't disappear by then like the others...
this is why non-open source free energy technologies should not be considered if you want to replicate or even just know how it works inside and out.
because 99% of the time you will end up with something like this thread, pure shit!
sorry i've just seen this way too many times. i have zero tolerance and patience for non-open source free energy technologies claims.
look we are not getting any younger and time is just flying by, i hope at least one open source free energy technology will make it to the general public before i die, all we need is one anyway, one that is not so expensive or complex to make, one that can at least power a small home. until that happens we are left with this kind of crap.
and if i ever discover a way to produce true free energy i will post here and all over the internet immediately!
free energy technologies will never commercialized, at least not under current corrupt governments ruining the world.
the zed will never go commercial, remember this!
man this is frustrating...
going to sleep now. try to anyway.

have a day day people!

[see3d]

Many people believe in what is sometimes called "Ibison's Principle"... which is that a "standard model", like circuit sims, physics sims, analyses using conventional assumptions about CofE and CofMomentum, magnetic field software,  and so on, can _never_ actually model or validate a true "overunity" or free energy system... because they are based, from the beginning, on the assumption that the fundamental laws can't be violated.

I think I am one of these people, and that is why I don't trust spreadsheets or mathematical models, or even traditional engineering statics-dynamics modelling based on Newtonian mechanics, when applied to alleged OU systems.  Invariably, when such models or sims report OU or some such anomalous results, it is found that there are errors in assumptions, input data or the sim's own internal calculations. Conversely, the sim might report ordinary behaviour when a real system could be "in fact" OU...

TK,

The beauty of a sim, once verified against a model or three, is that dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of combinations can be explored in the build space.  This can be done at a tiny fraction of the time and expense of actual models.  The best case scenarios can be found which allow a targeted build with the best chance of success.  A sim can also be replicated at a fraction of the cost of a good model, so many parallel explorations can take place by different people.  The downside of a sim (as I well know), is that it can take an order of magnitude more time to initially create than building one model.

What a shame if it were falsely proven to not work because of a bad design point in the model.  And what a shame if it were pursued after a model failure, because there were doubts about having picked the right dimensional ratios.  I believe a sim is the shortcut to discovering the truth of the matter. 

I have put considerable time into this sim direction because I believe it is the best course, but it has to be augmented by a few real models being built to verify it.

This is where we can all be in agreement:  We all want the indisputable truth, so that our future efforts will be in a fruitful direction.  Working constructively together is the best way to get there.  Even if this particular device is a failure, the collaborative working relationships and learning can be worth the efforts that went into the discovery of the truth.  A lot of efforts and millions of dollars are put into college projects around the world that find nothing new, but hone the skills of the student.  They are not considered a waste of time.

It is the negative attitudes of some who think it is their misson to save the world from bad ideas that would shut down this dream that motivates many to learn new skills.  The road to success is often strewn with many failures, correction, "learning experiences". 

~Dennis

[fletcher]

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

Marcel .. what Red proposes is technically correct, @ 5 PSI.

Basically it can be analysed two ways.

1. what is the energy of 10 kgs dropped free fall for 3.5 meters i.e. mgh, which equals the PE of 10 kgs at 3.5 meters.

In this instance we imagine the water entering the bottom of the ZED chamber - then all we have to know is that the water content will rise height 'h' by area 'A' - so without losses the PE of 10 kgs will exactly equal the raised PE of the vessel.

2. the second way is to use Bernoulli's fluid equations - what these say, paraphrased, is that the same packet/volume of water dropped from the same height of 3.5 meters will have kinetic energy of 1/2mv^2 = mgh or 1/2pVv^2 = pVgh.

The thought experiment that goes with this is a packet of water dropping from a height of 3.5 meters will have so much KE & that is the same energy as required for it to enter the chamber against the water pressure & 5 PSI - this is why you can calculate the horizontal distance a jet of water shoots from a ruptured tank if you have a large surface area & know the height, because both have the same KE & you can calculate the velocity by reducing mgh = 1/2mv^2 to v = sqrt2gh.

What does all this mean in the context of the ZED & Red's helpful hints ?

That the ZED by design requires a volume of water to be squeezed up the sides of the Pod/Riser so a lot less volume creates a larger pressure head [ P =pgh ] - that means our normal mgh calcs aren't so useful - what you have to consider is that as you raise the 'h' by injecting fluid you increase pgh = P which also has to be overcome with force x distance - so you chase your tail - you inject fluid & the PSI increases, you inject some more & the PSI increases some more - and because you are squeezing it around the Pod/Riser [less volume for more head] the PSI at entry point increases rapidly - this has to be overcome.

The upshot IINM is that you have to keep lifting the input height of the 10 liters of water higher & higher than the 3.5 meters to get a stroke completed [ i.e. more energy required ] - IMO, the only way to determine the input energy is f x d taken by experiments to see the true relationship - this will also account for any viscous & drag losses without complex equations.

Just my opinions.